Posted by Gordon on April 6, 2009, 8:11 pm
> Thermopiles are by their nature incredibly inefficient. Handy when
> you've got masses of temperature difference hanging around doing nothing
> want a tiny amount of power, and don't have any other source handy. You
> might use one to run a radio receiver off a camp fire, just maybe,
Or run a deep space probe.
The Voyager spacecraft were run with a thermo-pile heated by a
nuclear core.
Posted by Eeyore on April 7, 2009, 2:16 am
Gordon wrote:
> > Thermopiles are by their nature incredibly inefficient. Handy when
> > you've got masses of temperature difference hanging around doing nothing
> > want a tiny amount of power, and don't have any other source handy. You
> > might use one to run a radio receiver off a camp fire, just maybe,
> Or run a deep space probe.
> The Voyager spacecraft were run with a thermo-pile heated by a
> nuclear core.
Fortunately the cost is largely immaterial.
Graham
Posted by Eeyore on April 7, 2009, 2:10 am
harry wrote:
> At least the thermopile has no moving parts & hence presumably would
> be more reliable (and silent)... Could it run off, say a wood fire?
They are hopelessly inefficient.
Graham
Posted by Ken Maltby on April 7, 2009, 5:00 am
> harry wrote:
>> At least the thermopile has no moving parts & hence presumably would
>> be more reliable (and silent)... Could it run off, say a wood fire?
> They are hopelessly inefficient.
> Graham
You can increase a wood fire's efficiency dramaticly, by
enclosing it on three sides, with large stones. Even more
so with a chimney.
Luck;
Ken
Posted by Eeyore on April 7, 2009, 10:35 am
Ken Maltby wrote:
> > harry wrote:
> >
> >> At least the thermopile has no moving parts & hence presumably would
> >> be more reliable (and silent)... Could it run off, say a wood fire?
> >
> > They are hopelessly inefficient.
> You can increase a wood fire's efficiency dramaticly, by
> enclosing it on three sides, with large stones. Even more
> so with a chimney.
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
Look, just forget it. It ISN'T going to happen commercially. End of story. A
high pressure steam generator driving a turbine like they use in coal fired
power stations is vastly more efficient. Gas Turbines running from natural
gas, better still too. GE hold the record with about 60% thermal efficiency
on those.
Graham
> you've got masses of temperature difference hanging around doing nothing
> want a tiny amount of power, and don't have any other source handy. You
> might use one to run a radio receiver off a camp fire, just maybe,