Has anyone here tried working with a Stirling engine for power generation? From what I’ve read, it can actually outperform solar panels in certain setups, especially when it comes to consistent output and built-in thermal storage. It runs on temperature differences, so it’s pretty versatile, you can use solar heat, gas burners, or even waste heat.
There are some interesting DIY builds online where people manage to power small devices using custom Stirling engines.
We could use the power to split hydrogen from water for a battery use.
>>509023703 (OP)yes its called generator with fuel
>>509023703 (OP)Good question, likely depends how well it scales as well as local conditions. But the idea of simply putting a nat gas burner into the loop on cloudy days does have its merit. I am assuming btw we do not wanna use steam as a thermal storage element here, just too much of a headache ...
Nuclear stirling engines will be used on Mars.
>>509023861Dumb nigger. It runs on solar power.
>>509024014NASA has developed it good.
>>509023703 (OP)They built those setups in the 1800s, the very first commercial solar plants used that exact setup. The thing is it doesnt matter how efficient it is since sunlight is inexhaustible and free. PVs are so cheap now that nothing else can compete. The old stirling systems got shut down recently because they needed a lot more maintenance than pvs.
>>509024014You are never ever leaving this enclosed plane alive you retarded golem. CGI is all you get in this life, which is more than you deserve anyway.
>>509023703 (OP)Realistically we need batteries that don't fucking suck then the power generation can be whatever.
>>509023703 (OP)Oh boy time to listen to a bunch of morons who can't even explain the difference between star and delta wiring trying to explain why a heat exchanger is a better drive source than chemical potential.
>>509024087Just keep it short. The work put in maintenance costs more than the energy it produces.
>>509024087I saw some of these from youtube and liked how it worked.
https://youtu.be/A_AFnW1bZL8
https://youtu.be/CDCTANU8Tfk
>>509024238Chemicals are great. But Stirling works without a water steam and only works on heat alone.
>>509024256Yes the maintenance is heavy and it's loud.
>>509024238We could theoretically heat up water to steam by sunlight too so there's that.
>>509023703 (OP)From my limited understanding Stirling engines are mechanical, meaning they require more maintenance, take up more space and can't be scaled up easily.
>>509024620True. It needs maintenance, lubrication and it's loud.
>>509024763stirling engines are whisper quiet actually. Its the low power density and inability to throttle that makes them unsuitable for anything other than submarines and radiothermal generators.
>>509025519Steam engines are actually on low efficiency and Stirling has the edge over steam engines by 20 percent. Stirling operates on high efficiency and steam ruled a century.
OP is a moron who never actually built anything in his life
>>509025738The problem is a stirling engine makes a lot less power for its size than a steam engine does and has much worse performance characteristics than steam.
