> 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
Still no sense of humor there Graham? I gave a link to the
listing for a book I have that includes the actuall numbers for
most of the "Direct Energy Conversion" consepts that have
made it into practical operation. A few, like this, are only
practical in exotic or special circumstances.
Luck;
Ken
> 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
They "thermopiles" do have there place in the Power World... They are
very good for Remote Site Power, where maintainance is minimal, and
power levels required are not more than about 1500 Watts. I have a Global
Unit, that uses 1 USG of Propane/Day and produces 5760 Watt/hours
for that 1 USG. All this with NO MOVING Parts. It came from a USCG
MountainTop Radio Site, that only gets serviced once a year, via Helo.
They lifted 700 USG of Propane up there every summer, and that ran two
of these units 24/7/365, with two redundant units as backup. Solar isn't
practical up here in Alaska, and wind doesn't provide reliability
required for this type of installation,where ICE, Snow,-40F Temps, and
wind velocities vary from 20 Knots to 150 Knots, and can change
directions at any given moment.
--
Bruce in alaska
add <path> after <fast> to reply
>> > 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