Posted by News on May 15, 2012, 2:33 am
harry k wrote:
In 1985-86 NASA did a Stirling engine project with two projects MOD I and
later MOD II. MOD II was equal to weight & power output of an IC engine but
with far less fuel consumption. The start-up lag was overcome as well. The
Stirling means no transmission, or two step epicyclical if needed, meaning
greater fuel efficiency in a car. The external combustion means the engine
was very clean to IC engines. The engine is super quiet. Manufacturing
costs were assessed no more than IC engines. The reports are on the web. The
Stirling was now ready for auto use.
I see no Stirlings in cars or trucks. I wonder why. MMMMMMMMMMMM
Posted by harry k on May 15, 2012, 3:17 am
Same reason you don't see any "air cars" on the road.
Posted by News on May 15, 2012, 3:35 am
harry k wrote:
Thank you oh senile one.
Posted by Jim Wilkins on May 15, 2012, 10:59 am
I see no Stirlings in anything else either.
Build a small Stirling generator and post the plans; make practical
use of all your wasted hot air.
Or confirm that you aren't qualified to preach about engines and
Posted by News on May 15, 2012, 12:49 pm
Jim Wilkins wrote:
Stirlings are used in Swedish and Japanese submarines. One small Stirling
Swedish sub "sunk" the USS Ronald Reagan in war games. The USN could not
detect the quiet sub. The crew love the silence of the Stirling operation
reducing stress on-board. It can stay submerged for weeks using diesel and
liquid oxygen when only nuclear powered subs could do that. Stirlings are
not things of yesterday, despite predating the internal combustion engine by
nearly 100 years.
I wonder why they are not in autos?
You are an idiot.