From: mung_me@att.net   
      
   On 12/18/2011 9:00 AM, News wrote:   
   >   
   > "vaughn"  wrote in message   
   > news:j9rg4b$61q$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   >> True, but the Stirling has a low power density, which means it gets   
   >> very big to produce significant amounts of power. This is especially   
   >> true is a low-grade heat source is used because the heat transfer   
   >> surfaces must become very large. The Stirling engine is almost 200   
   >> years old, yet I have never seen one. There are multiple reason why   
   >> they have neve become common. .   
   >   
   > Philips used a small one (an air engine) for running a radio in Africa   
   > in the 1950s. The prime reason they have never caught on is that large   
   > auto makers do not want to take the plunge. They had the ICE piston   
   > engines and cheap oil and made money - to them, they did not want   
   > change. The self-serving corporateocracy advances like a snail.   
      
   I think the main reason Stirlings have found no automotive use is that   
   they don't change speeds readily. Zero to Sixty measured in minutes, not   
   seconds. They want to run at one power level.   
      
   They may work in hybrids, but I'm not so sure that the efficiency would   
   be better than a diesel, for a reasonably sized stirling.   
      
   It seems to me that stirlings own into their own using heat that   
   otherwise would be discarded. There is some oncoming use in concentrated   
   solar.   
      
      Jeff   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)