On Wednesday 2004-03-03 09:58, Robert J. Chassell wrote: > Could Stirling engines have been developed for airship or hybrid car > use in the 1910 - 1920 period, or was the technology of the time too > primitive? > > Could such engines have been developed 20 years later? >
I think that internal combustion gasoline and diesel engines would have been much more attractive in the 1930's and 1940's. They were more efficient and had better power to weight ratios. Pollution and depletion of fossil fuels were not major concerns. Even the quiet of a stirling wasn't much of an appeal to submariners who were just developing sonic warfare. *** > Another thought: the use of a Stirling engine for a car or airship is > not so much an `invention' as a `development'. > > Is it more fair to ask whether the lack of Stirling engined cars and > airships is the result of other technologies gaining a sufficient > functionality first, and then the cost of switching becoming too > high? I think that is exactly it. Gasoline internal combustion engines just offered *much* better power to weight ratios. *** > Another query: > > Would a Stirling engine work well in a hybrid vehicle? Would its > efficiency be much better than the efficiency of a vehicle using an > internal combustion engine? I expect the efficiency would approach the efficiency of a disiel-hybrid engine, but it would pollute less and be easy to multi-fuel. > What would be the cost to the various auto manufacturers of > replacing the skills and equipment they use now to manufacture > internal combustion engines with the the skills and equipment > necessary to manufacture Stirling engines for a hybrid? Expensive, but not prohibitive. http://www.sesusa.org/ http://www.stirlingsouth.com/ http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~khirata/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
