Stirlingengineforum.com

For sure! It seems to open a hole new window for cheap easy build compact engines that you can actually use have you seen my Thermoacoustic generator?

Tristan kearney wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:15 pm For sure! It seems to open a hole new window for cheap easy build compact engines that you can actually use have you seen my Thermoacoustic generator?

Yup. Don't tell anyone, but I'm that "Skoda130" youtube guy that responded under some of your vids. :-) ;-)

I'm really wondering how the thing with the giant flywheel will do though. :-)

If I could make a slide valve without any fancy tools (still thinking about how to do that), it might even be suitable for a Manson type engine.
Would make a nice chugging sound for a "diesel" boat.

I was thinking fine platinum wire to burn hydrogen inside the engine

Hydrogen is a REALLY rubbish fuel, unless you are building a rocket - and even then its not nearly as nice as you might think.

Yeah, I'd be careful with that stuff too.

I think platinum burns any hydrocarbon wouldn’t have to be hydrogen but at maybe a higher temp

I always recommend people look at using Methanol as a fuel - carbon-neutral if made the right way; pretty easy to handle; pretty easy to burn; very clean to burn - probably the cleanest hydro-carbon around, and even capable of being used with fuel-cells, if I may digress a little!

MikeB wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:26 am Hydrogen is a REALLY rubbish fuel,...

How so?

The most abundant element in the universe. Derived from water through electrolysis. Burned produces - water.

What's the downside?

Tom - the downsides to Hydrogen include:
It has a very low energy density.
It is incredibly difficult to store.
It is currently very difficult to produce economically - hydrolysis is easy, but not efficient.
It is very dangerous when a leak occurs.
Leaks always occur, because gaseous hydrogen can pass right through ANY solid.

I’m thinking of burning hydrocarbons like a catalytic converter using platinum wire as the internal heat exchanger which would make it an internal combustion engine

“The burning of hydrocarbons, the resulting CO2 emissions, is fueling global-overheating that is rapidly bringing us to the Anthropic Mass Extinction, which has already begun. Humanity is unlikely to survive that mass-extinction.”

I’m not some leftist who feels it necessary to censor opposing speech, but I would humbly submit that this likely isn’t the right forum for vapid juvenile doomsday politics. We've all got our own reasons for interest in these engines and the alternate energy sources they open up, but ...sheesh.

Bumpkin

Bumpkin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:12 pm “The burning of hydrocarbons, the resulting CO2 emissions, is fueling global-overheating that is rapidly bringing us to the Anthropic Mass Extinction, which has already begun. Humanity is unlikely to survive that mass-extinction.”

I’m not some leftist who feels it necessary to censor opposing speech, but I would humbly submit that this likely isn’t the right forum for vapid juvenile doomsday politics. We've all got our own reasons for interest in these engines and the alternate energy sources they open up, but ...sheesh.

Bumpkin

He has a "history" on the forums of being "a agitator" and has really offered no import worth the aggravation. So his account has been deactivated. If you are him, email me.

Darryl Boyd

MikeB wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:44 am Tom - the downsides to Hydrogen include:
It has a very low energy density.
It is incredibly difficult to store.
It is currently very difficult to produce economically - hydrolysis is easy, but not efficient.
It is very dangerous when a leak occurs.
Leaks always occur, because gaseous hydrogen can pass right through ANY solid.

I'm not any kind of Hydrogen economy advocate. Don't know a whole lot about it really, but with a little research on the internet I find that the bulk of such concerns about Hydrogen safety etc.are debatable.

This link covers most of the controversial aspects of the fuel: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so- ... ogen-fuel/

My niche area of interest is heat energy from compressed air, which is no-fuel or fuel agnostic. Trying to be objective, however, there seems to be in general, many advantages of hydrogen over other fuels and I tend to wince and wonder when someone comes along trying to blanketly discourage ongoing research in any area of alternative energy development.

I can't say that I fully understand what Tristan kearney may be attempting to do but I applaud and encourage his efforts. He seems to me to be a very gifted and insightful inventor. Hydrogen appears to me, given my limited knowledge on the subject, a nearly "Ideal" fuel in many ways.

@Tom - I'm not intending to discourage research into Hydrogen (or any research at all!), rather I am trying to encourage research into other options. For me, both methane and methanol are "clean enough" when burned, though methanol also seems to be usable in fuel-cells, where again it appears to be 'better all-round' than Hydrogen, and many other fuels.

Part of the point of forums like this is to save people the effort of repeating other people's 'mistakes' (I use the term loosely), so I take no offence if your opinion still differs from mine!