Stirlingengineforum.com

Hi Lucien01, thanks for the pics.

So far, they have not helped me much. What is the difference between the flows in C1, C2 & C3? Is the distributor timed?

What do you mean by "the surrounding"? The ambient atmosphere? I did not understand your earlier reference of connecting to it.

I seem to be slow catching on to all this!

The system is simple to make. Have you made any practical performance measurements?

It appears that you are from Auroville. Are you Remy Mercier?

Jester.

The International Conference on Renewable Energy Utilization (ICREU 2012) have seen the publication of this paper:
http://www.monotherme.com/pdf/research_ ... t_pump.pdf
This is now a peer reviewed and published "Maxwell's demon" !

Lucien01, I fear you are waisting your time on theory, if you do not prove the theory by building a prototype, then proving its performance by instrument readings. Theory is useless without practical aplication, look at all the perpetual motion attempts, you haven't seen one of them work, even though the proposer of the idea might spend years theorising over it! Ian S C

Ian S C wrote:Lucien01, I fear you are waisting your time on theory, if you do not prove the theory by building a prototype, then proving its performance by instrument readings. Theory is useless without practical aplication, look at all the perpetual motion attempts, you haven'ke t seen one of them work, even though the proposer of the idea might spend years theorising over it! Ian S C

There is no "theory" here. The question you have to try to answer (if you can) is only that one: if you reduce the volume of a gaseous fluid (adiabatically)... then, what about the temperature ?

If you don't know that the temperature will increase... then... how can you mean that the scientists who have "peer reviewed" our paper are wrong ?

Do you know a peer reviewed "perpetual motion attempts" ?

Try this one (it is easier to understand):

http://www.monotherme.com/pdf/research_ ... rocess.pdf

By what you say has a prototype been built to prove the results of the research. Ian S C

In Italy we say: the mother of fools is always pregnant.
Who makes claims about perpetual motion has at least limited knowledge of thermodynamics, which is like talking about motorcycles without knowing what are the wheels.
If someone have knowledge of good reasons to oppose established laws of physics, not to salt the cock in a forum of a Stirling engine, must apply directly to the Nobel Prize, if it is able not to die laughing the rest of the world.

Can't you read: "peer reviewed"
Can't you understand what this mean?

People with a brain can read this paper:
http://www.monotherme.com/pdf/research_ ... rocess.pdf

It depends on who your peers are. Ian S C

Lucien01 wrote:Can't you read: "peer reviewed"
Can't you understand what this mean?

People with a brain can read this paper:
http://www.monotherme.com/pdf/research_ ... rocess.pdf

By now you should give the "new Stirling concept" a rest on this forum as your reviewed paper doesn't apply to our subject matter here.

Hi, I'm new to this but I'd like to know if I could use a air compressor as a stirling engine. And if so could any body help me on how to build my project. Actually I want to use a electric motor. The idea is to build a solar renovable energy source for house use.

Alen, I take it that you wish to run the stirling engine as a cryocooler/refrigerator, thats fair enough, it proberbly won't be too efficient. There is a thread on this site about such an engine.
Go to page 3, 14 down, V-twin compressor pump.... by davesisk, it might not tell you everything, but worth looking at any way. Ian S C

Ian S C wrote:It depends on who your peers are. Ian S C

SECRETARIES, ADVISORY COMMITTEE and TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
http://www.icreu2012.com/upload/files/I ... OCHURE.pdf

Longboy wrote:By now you should give the "new Stirling concept" a rest on this forum as your reviewed paper doesn't apply to our subject matter here.

jesterthought wrote:What he is describing is a phenomenon that is an incidental by-product of regeneration that is going on in our engines anyway. (...)
So Mercier is correct in stating that no mechanical power is required to produce temperatures (in some of the air) above the source temperature, Th, and below the sink temperature, Tc. That is surprising, but I believe it now. What he doesn’t point out is that this will also be happening in all our regenerating engines. (...)

We can replace the regenerator by a double counter flow heat exchanger.
I think that this is a new Stirling engine concept.
Have a look to fig 7 (the comments are a little outdated...)
http://monotherme.com/index1.php?c=diathermane1

More to come about stirling engines.
Regards

You say replace the regenerator with the heat exchanger, you are not replacing the regenerator, you are just introducing a less efficient one, maybe you do not understand what the regenerator is, sorry i'm not much at explaning things in writing. Maybe some things have got a bit mixed up in the translations, am I right in thinking this was translated from Indian, to French, then to English, plenty of room for missunderstanding. Ian S C

Ian S C wrote: you are just introducing a less efficient one,,

the counterflow heat exchanger is THE most efficient heat exchanger.

Ian S C wrote:You say replace the regenerator with the heat exchanger, you are not replacing the regenerator,

Stirling engines need two heat exchangers: one connected to the hot source and one connected to the cold sink.
In our design, the two counterflow heat exchangers replace the regenerator and they allow the two heat exchangers to be very big and far from the engine itself.
And there are many more advantages to replace the regenerator by two counterlow heat exchangers.

An interesting concept, but I am not so sure it is original. I may have seen it before in a paper years ago. In their design, they didn't pay attention to dead space and displacement in the engine, and it performed poorly as a result. But the concept and math was right. Just not the application of the math. They failed to win over financial backers, and the project was scrapped.
My math is horrible, by the way. It looks like you have done all the math you need to do.......so now, you are ready to build your prototype. I suggest building one with a regenerator, and one without a regenerator to prove the concept to everyone in and out of this field. Financial backers want to see proof, not theory. Funding will be your greatest challenge, now. Keep the stroke under 40mm, and use the largest practical pistons you can. The phase angle is up to you. Start at 90 degrees, use less for a higher compression ratio, more for a lower compression ratio.