The Stirling Engine: A Wave of the Future
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2012
- This video describes the Stirling engine, an external combustion engine which creates heat energy to power the motor, and can use many types of fuel. It can be used for both stationary and propulsion purposes and has advantages of better fuel economy and cleaner exhaust than internal combustion engines. The engine is shown being road tested at Langley Air Force Base. Released Jan. 1992.
- Наука та технологія
the vhs quality and 80s feel of this vid is worth watching by itself
well said
It's from the early 1990s.
You had me at no oil changes....
No misfires either
And that's at least part of why it never went to market.
@@EuropiumGadolinium Can you explain more of why it never went to market?
@@meginna8354 most likely lobbying from automotive giants like Ford, Chevy, etc.
Too costly, underpowered and required complex construction. Maybe today with an hybrid system and modern technology it might be competitive
I'm so glad one of these "wave of the future" videos actually turned out to be accurate, as these clean burning, powerful and long lasting engines are everywhere.
uhmm... where?
Please take me to the alternate dimension where you're from.
I believe this is a sarcastic comment, though it's incredibly hard to tell online.
But damn, I wish they were real.
@@ZeraphZen you would be correct Salty, I wish they were real too, and I've done a bit of study since my sarcastic comment. The biggest problem is weight, and size compared to ICEs, the one featured is as big as a truck engine, but 1/3rd as powerful. (being most pickups average 270-300hp, this one was 70.)
@@michaelwescott8064 while yes, they do not output the most power for their size and weight, they are more than suitable for everyday use honestly. The truck featured in the video originally had a 150hp engine replaced by a 75hp stirling engine which doesn't seem to have caused too many issues as none are stated. The pickup truck had a 95hp engine replaced with a 75hp stirling engine and similarly there no issues stated. They functioned just fine even if they're a bit underpowered, so I can't come up with any issues in everyday use of said vehicles.
Named after the designer Rev.Robert Stirling from Scotland.Designed by him at the beginning of the last century.During the 1960,s the Phillips electrical company of Eindhoven improved the design and the engine was tested in a fleet of commercial buses.Results were good.NASA had an interest in the engine to provide electrical power in space as the engine could be run on any heat source including nuclear.
Not just heat, cold too as it only needs a temperature difference, which if you stick a cooler on the outside of the station in -270 degrees C and the other inside the 20 degrees C station, you have power without taking up extra fuel and in space they don't actually rely on heaters they actually rely on coolers because all the electronics and body heat, heat up the station as heat cannot transfer in space due the spacing of particles and as such the sterling engine would help provide power and cool the station down as it's taking heat out.
Again I watch this video!!! and look for any updates!!! this engine might not have been perfection, but it is better than what the majority of the world operates under.
the death of the stirling engine was one of materials used at the time. High pressure hydrogen was the circulating heat transfer medium, and under high pressures used in this engine, caused hydrogen embrittlement of the engine parts, and then the seals required for efficiency were expensive and short-lived. Politics also weighed in, as petroleum interests felt threatened. At one time, Sears and Roebuck had a portable generator powered with a stirling engine. Also, the US Army experimented with a stirling engine for powering a mobile power plant...multi-fuel capabilities and extremely low noise signature made it attractive.
@Azathoth Hastur your reply is unresponsive to my remarks about hydrogen embrittlement and short-lived seals in this automotive test of the stirling engine. High pressure hydrogen was the heat transfer medium, and was difficult to seal and damaged the steels used in the engine, by making the metal brittle.
agreed...my response was directed at another person and I flubbed the dub...my bad
WEIRD NASA RAN ONE UNDER FULL LOAD FOR FOURTEEN YEARS STRAIGHT.
What do you mean ? It is an external combustion engine it was replace by internal combustion engines since they output much more power.
you have completely failed to understand what you read. These engines can be powerful and have advantages the internal combustion engine does not have, but they are expensive. The ICE engine is popular because it is cheaper, that's it. @@sierraecho884
who killed the stirling car?
the lobby of the oil and gasoline compagnies
Amen to that
livingspringsfarms25 i wouldn’t say that if I was you... The Stirling engine would have been more successful to make people save tons of money on both oil and gasoline, but the companies of both subjects mentioned don’t want us to save money on neither both, which is a really unfair thing, but anyways, America will stay behind while other countries are progressing better.
Gas engines are more powerful for the size.
@@user-zd8tn4bu2f don't think so, since they run on gasoline just as well. :-P
Where in the hell were these videos back in 2012?
I'd have loved to have seen stuff like this in school.
school is for indocrination not for learning or any constructive interest
@@manipulativer Awww. Did your mommy tell you that?
@@protoborg No, i learned that the hard way. You people are so washed up that you believe you are correct. It pretty funny but i try my best to help.
@@manipulativer You don't even know what "washed up" means. That is funny, but very sad.
The word you are looking for is "brainwashed". Then again, your mommy must not have taught you that word.
BTW, you are sooooo very wrong.
@@protoborg Well you are already borged by the ai and using momy as an insults is showing me that you were not loved enough and this is your EGO problem.
wake up washed up borg, listen to your intuition, go in Nature away from electro smog and i promise you will feel better.
cheers
Could you imagine using solar, hydrogen cells and sugarcane moonshine to run the Sterling generator to power an electric car hybrid? You could even use compost and bacteria or yeast to power the car. Even farts can charge the battery.
solar and HHO wouldn't make sense, nor would compost or bacteria. you'd need a methane biogenerator and specialized subsystem to feed this into the engine for a lower power & little range due to the nature of methane being a gas, however it's quite practical to heat your house and for cooking.
@@s.sradon9782 sterling engines run on heat
@@foresttaniguchi3168 you have to take the fuel with you wherever you go, this raises the importance of energy and power density and safety too. some fuels are really bad at these. You can run a car on methane but it won't run well.
@@s.sradon9782 A sterling engine can run off of any heat source.
@@foresttaniguchi3168 My point is it would be really impractical to carry a fuel with such insalnely low energy density and a bulky, heavy engine in a car. you could probably extract methane and run a car with it but not well since it's a gas, other fuel types are just ridiculous.
Ready for market!
This should have been the today's diesel engine.
We should of have lost oil and batteries more than 100 years ago, but they shelved Nikola Tesla true wireless cause they needed the oil monopoly
@@manipulativer Wrong. The use of wireless transmission of electricity is wildly inefficient, grossly expensive, and amazingly impractical.
@@protoborg Yes wireless through air is pretty bad as explained by Nikola Tesla as it loses energy squared by distance.
By Earth however there are minimal loses where he claimed around 5% and later around 1%
You people are indocrinated by the school system, wake up
@@manipulativer No, fool. In order to get any kind of useful power to be transmitted over a distance of more than a few centimeters, you have to be at very high altitude. Somewhere in the neighborhood of half a mile up, near the lower boundary of the ionosphere.
@@protoborg that guy was trying to be somthing you dont find now days a true friend and you called him a fool not my bizz just saying
This is amazing
I would also be interested in seeing this in a domestic application, used alongside central heating systems.
They are very popular in coogenertion, generating both power and heat
hit the nail a little to well lets hear what you know about 1 watt for 8 or more btu free stuff people lose there mind and or want you sleeping with fish about but we will hear nothing less becuase of sleeping arangments more about never ending onslot of highly in doctor nated parrots them with out eyes to see or ears to hear test all things for themselfs if they did all men would be liars and they would be as wise as serpents and dicile as doves look up much to see
the globalist regime is preventing this engine design to keep the peasants dependent on them
You can buy them they exist exactly fo that purpose.
Study history. It was. Stirling engine was used as a portable generators. Largely used 19th century to pump water out of mines and primitive low economy engines, since they didn't use steam, they didn't need a boiler, thus no complicated boiler man or risk of steam explosions. All you needed was a fire man to put wood/coal in it.
But the power to weight ratio of steam engines improved between 1840s to 1870s. By 1870s triple expansion steam engine rendered them obsolete in large setups.
Small stirling engines were used in remote domestic houses before connected to electricity..pumping water up hill, or even novel idea powering home appliances like washing machines, etc.
I’d love a Stirling engine powered car just for the fact I can burn any fuel that’s cheap.
Justin Topp Like moonshine
@@foresttaniguchi3168 exactly
@@JustinTopp Why moonshine. Certainly, It would be more expensive to produce than what you could buy fuel for. If you're thinking that ethanol based fuels are good for the planet, think again. Not that I believe this whole CO2 thing, but the sheer impact that just planting the crops to produce ethanol produces lots of CO2. Then you have the very act of fermentation that produces massive amounts of CO2 alone. Then you need to take the wine/beer you produced fermenting your crops and turn it all into high proof alcohol. Not worth it from any standpoint.
@Will Swift you going to run in on people?
That's the problem, tax free fuels
Man the old days looked way better and simpler
I just thought the concept of the sterling engine was so simple and effective. I feel if we improved on this technology we can make strides in reducing emissions and energy use in homes and buildings as heat pumps or in some kind of practical application
that would be the sterling engine.
this is about the Stirling engine.
@@DrWhom yeah I mispelt stirling but you still understood me.
Gas turbine is more efficient.
ua-cam.com/video/uXuIQu5DaUQ/v-deo.html
I wonder if these engines can be available. Would be nice to implement it on a vehicle rebuild.
They are but not for cars. They are terriblwe at this apllication. They are great to provide electricity from waste heat though. So they could make a comeback for electric cars.
@@user-eq7ie4tc9e NASA already solved the problem with mod II, it was turned down, because the automakers didn't want to switch to a new engine type. especially one with no oil changes and piston seal life with 90 percent reliability after 3500 hours of constant use.
What happened?
Doesn't fit in a consumption society. Probably locked up inside Area 51 or in that indiana jones storage.
@@Bylga Nope. It is simply impractical as a power source for anything larger than a bicycle frame.
@@protoborg We're literally watching them drive around full sized vehicles for 1000's of miles and several years in this video and getting better than average gas mileage.
@@LordElfa No we aren't. All we see here is the 10 or so seconds of onscreen movement. This is like a movie promo in that we see only the good parts of this experiment.
@@protoborg you got him on the argument technically speaking, but my hunch tells me the video isn't lying.
Power ratios, lack of torque/acceleration, poor adoption barriers to entry, and difficulty with starting the heat to the engine from ignition to drive seem like some good reasons it didn't work.
But it doesn't mean you can't power a large vehicle for long distances. A sedan only needs 25 hp for constant speed on the highway.
What happened to the engine after the tests. I never saw its commercial use.
What company made the Engine on the video tested by NASA ?
I invented the thermal window generator... and the Brisbine drive. But I still love the Stirling engine. It's adorable. You have to compare it to the Tesla turbine though...
@Azathoth Hastur That makes me think of fuel evaporators that made the gas guzzlers into 100+mpg cars!
We need this engine to go into production. Imagine a Prius being powered by it.
Cross the continental united states on 1 gallon of gas.
the globalist regime is preventing this engine design to keep the peasants dependent on them
The Postal Delivery Trucks in the 80’s are still in use today lol
Pros: can run on any fuels.
Cons: no road taxes for the economy
Can you use enduction heaters to power it and can you get the electricity for the induction heaters from alternators that the engine powers.
maybe as a way to recycle the energy at some loss, but it won't generate more energy than put in if that is what you're thinking. It could be a really efficient engine, but not necessarily a powerful engine considering the power to weight ratio which is important in a moving vehicle.
@@entritur I am thinking you could hook up 2 alternators plus a solar panel to get electricity for the induction coils. You could use 4 500watt flat coils. That's 2kw you can get that very easily with couple of alternators. NASA should try that.
@@spaceman4294 a heat pump is what you would like to read up about my freind
Great fuel efficiency, but can it go fast?
Where are these engines now ?
How much power in KW to drive a car say in 20 mile per hour?
2020 called so what happened??
Bad power to weight ratio and too large. That 75HP they got out of one back then is about as much power you would get out of one nowadays.
The big drawback to a Stirling is that they do not change operating speeds quickly. They are good for electrical generation, I am surprised they are not used on the hybrid cars. NASA teams a Stirling with a chunk of plutonium as a heat source to generate electricity for deep space probes.
@@brandontrueblood9798 Combine it with the regenerative braking flywheel torque multipliers and a mechanical CVT...
badda bing badda boom
this type of engine can't change it's power/RPM fast, also requires heating up to start
good for electricity generation, horrible as car engine
2020 we have EVs
Potential to hybridize this? With fuel cell, couldn’t this run on literally any fuel or electricity?
Yes some people just make diy engine with a few lesens focosing light
Anything that produces heat can run this, even a person can run small engines
Yes there's a possibility to use it as an electric charger for electric vehicles.
You could use electricity to provide the heat but it would be extremely inefficient. It would be better just to use the electricity to power a motor. But this engine platform can use any type of heat so even focused solar light through a Fresnel lens for example could provide sufficient heat to run the engine in theory.
@@kevandthat3574 I think he means using dc hub motors on the wheels and this engine as a secondary system
just an idea, but in the same way that there are companies making prototype heavy duty trucks using a turbine to drive an electric generator for increased mpg, could the stirling engine be used in place of a turbine?
they can easily reach efficiencies of up to 60%
No one is putting a turbine in a ground vehicle. For one thing, jet fuel is fucking expensive. That's why a bus is sooooo much cheaper than an airplane. Second, turbines are only really efficient at high altitudes and high speeds. That's why turboprops are a thing. Third, turbines are VERY dangerous. They have MANY fast moving parts that are exposed to the air. That's how they work. Those parts can kill people. Fourth, turbines require a great deal of machinery to make them function. All of that machinery would make the vehicle VERY heavy. Fifth, turbines do NOT self-start. They require an electric motor to spin them up to operational speed. In a ground vehicle you might as well just use THAT electricity to power the wheels directly.
@@protoborg It takes a lot more electricity to move a vehicle than it does to merely start a motor, and combustion turbines are already used in trains and power stations. The issue is that they're built to run at a constant speed and don't work as a replacement for a reciprocating piston engine if you're using a mechanical transmission, but for electric transmissions there's no reason it couldn't work for a car.
@@handles_are_a_bit_rubbish You are a fucking moron. If anything it would take more energy to START a motor than to run it. No they aren't. Trains use electric motors, not turbines. The only power plants that use turbines are hydroelectric plants. Everything else uses steam; coal, nuclear, oil. They all use steam heated by the fuel. The issue is turbines are only efficient at very high speed. Actually, there are several reasons why it wouldn't work for a car.
@@protoborg Well you're wrong because there have been several non-aircraft vehicles powered by gas turbines, the obvious example being the turbine power plant of the M1 Abrams tank used by the US Army, or for the gas turbines used by naval vessels for high speed cruising, or the Union Pacific GTELs using turbine-electric power transmissions.
Sure, a mechanical transmission turbine wouldn't work for a car but an electric transmission probably would since it means the turbine can run at it's most efficient power band at all times since the electric motors are the ones actually moving the car.
Also, it would take more energy to keep an motor running than it would to start it since energy=power*time, so even if the motor needed something insane like 140kJ of energy to start it and it then runs for about 2 minutes at a power of 20kW, the running engine will have generated 120s*20kW=2400kJ of energy, which is quite a lot more than the energy needed to start it.
Pretty amazing stuff this was the eighties and the sterling engine exceeded expectations. They are making a big comeback with the Chinese leading the way in sterling development.
😎👍
what happens if you use an induction heater and lithium ion batteries or a lead acid induction heater requires less energy and compare with an electric car which of them spends more energy
What were the complications???
1) Its power output can’t be throttled easily because output depends on temperature of an expansion chamber
2) long startup time to heat up expansion chamber and get engine started
Interestingly, super stealth Swedish Gotland class submarines do use a Stirling engine.
What's the gas mileage in that van compared to the diesel engine
what was the power to weight ratio of the engine
About 0.00005.
On the Mod I engine that the vehicles in this video were using, it was about 8.1 lbs/HP. The Mod 2 was much improved, and got down to 5.5 lbs/HP. For reference, the "Iron Duke" engine they were replacing in the Chevy Celebrity they put the Mod 2 into, it got about 4.1 lbs/HP.
So why did the Sterling engine not catch on where fuel efficiency was important? Like small city cars or scooters?
It was too good. The government could not make enough money off it. They would have to sell gasoline to you at $150/gallon or something stupid. Can't have something hit the market where the government isn't constantly reaching into your wallet and stealing from you.
That was the coolest intro ever!
What I want to know is how many MPG can this engine get? As of now, 11 years later, they are not on the market. There must be a reason. Can anyone help me here? Thanks.
This video was first released in 1992... that was 32 years ago (from current year 2024)... ;)
id love to drive the stirling in mt sterling ky
these could be used wherever electrics fail, particurarly in canada, alaska and especially russia and poland. due to the nature of the stirling engine it would be PERFECT for colder environments, this makes you think why these arent in cars as of now. If only i had a workshop...
I love how you put Poland alongside Canada, Alaska and Russia xD Cheers
the globalist regime is preventing this engine design to keep the peasants dependent on them
@@Mgoblagulkablong Have you found any other similar tech like this or anything recent regarding a Stirling engine?
the swedish nayv uses it for submarines, most quiet and most difficult to detect submarines on the world
also the excuse they had to not use it in car after the test shown in this video was the power modulation, that would not be an issues if it was used as a power generator in a serial hybrid drivetrain @@AIuminum
I think they will be using thermoacoustic engines for range extender’s on electrical vehicles now or should be. would be more officiant and the power to weight ratio much better and compact something I’ve been working on lately check it out might spark some ideas
can I buy a conversion kit?
Fordman lmao
Yes
how come this never took off?
Is google listening to our conversations? I was just talking with a buddy the other day about how to combine Sterling engine
as an on board generator to charge EV batteries to propel a converted School Bus Camper (or any vehicle) via electric motor.
75 HP is no slouch when it comes to charging, but if I've thought of it, I know I'm not the first...
Imagine the weight savings. And at 75 hp and high torque... oooof
From the Peshawar Lancers
NASA you really need to revisit this transportation technology to incorporate hybrid electric drive.
It's my understanding that it used next to no fuel to operate. In other words it was too good. The government could not make enough money off it. They would have to sell gasoline to you at $150/gallon or something stupid. Can't have something hit the market where the government isn't constantly reaching into your wallet and stealing from you.
Very nice presentation! I belive this engine is the MOD-II correct? I always confude the MOD I and II because of the veichles on wich they were used that were a chevrolet and a ford respectively... I belive... correct? XD
I guess that the advantage of gettilg high torque at low speed is one of the greatest of the stirling technology as refered in this video, wath can be comparable to diesel nowadays. This proves that this engine may, some day, operate trucks and heavy machines... lol
These were actually using the Mod I.
....So why are there Non in use on the roads and streets of the US today??
Because of oil companies 🙄
America is thrash when it comes to innovation, feel ahamed to call myself an US citizen...
@@beamishlotus7269 it's not because of oil companies its bc these engines suck for vehicle use.
I miss 1992 in some ways. this video is 31 years old. yea. not the 1970s! i know i know , crazy!
Look for info on car steam engines with close cycle. They were more efficient than gas or diesel or Stirling.
Where were the MPG figures? And sure, maybe ICE engines both then and now are more efficient/practical than that Sterling from '92 in the video but surely it could be improved just as much, at least.
stirling engines can reach efficiencies of up to 60% easily
@Alex G. use an online efficiency calculator
So the Mod 2 was able to get around 58 mpg highway, and 33 city.
All you need is a magnifying glass during the day to run this engine
Where can I buy 1 $$$$$
If we had these in a hybrid to get something out of the wasted heat that makes up >60% of the energy loss in car engines, then we'd have cars more efficient than any non hybrid can be.
Even the Beta-Stirling is useful and could get important for very low dT.
So why aren't these used today?
Short answer: too expensive for the necessary power-to-weight ratio to use as a direct replacement for an internal combustion engine. They might become suitable as a range-extender for an electric hybrid vehicle in the future however.
@@raelik777 yeah I'd like too see this attempted. It seems like a good match. The Stirling engine works more efficiently with higher temperatures and the exhaust of an ice is about 700 degrees.
Aha!
Thanks for the video(*_*)
Well if the Elon would get on this, we'd have a useable one in no time
What about you?
Elon is too greedy, we need real innovators to get on this right now, and you can be one of them!
It's not possible to make a practical striling powered car you don't have enough torque and aclerating is hard Stirling engine cannot handle sudden acleration you can make a car for project but it is not practical
@@hmm3493 ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880002196/downloads/19880002196.pdf
read this, acceleration was basically identical to the performance of the vehicles original gasoline engine.
Chip not needed 😊👌
EXCUSE ME THE COMMENT ABOUT STIRLINGS NOT LASTING IS FALSE.
THEY HAVE RAN ONE UNDER FULL LOAD FOR FOURTEEN YEARS NO DOWN TIME OTHER THAN TO CHECK FOR ISSUES NO REPAIRS
What's under the hood?
A crock pot.
The major issue of this engine is power density
What do you mean by power density?
@@Z0Il The amount of power produced by a determined volume.
The MOD II engine compensated for this particular problem by using pressurized hydrogen as the working gas. Two different tanks were used, one at 2900 psi, the other at 1450 psi. A digitally controlled mean pressure system switched between the two tanks as necessary during acceleration and deceleration, which helped keep the tank pressure as close to engine cylinder pressure to allow for a single-stage compressor to be used. These tanks were used in combination with a "short-circuit" system that allowed hydrogen to be shunted between the maximum and minimum pressure regions of the cylinders to immediately bleed power during deceleration. The hydrogen pressure control system is probably the true genius of this engine, and its cost and complexity may have been the real reason that it didn't get more serious consideration. It required digital engine control and was by design a drive-by-wire accelerator.
@@raelik777 but those problems can be worked around easily
@@felixbeutin9530 Well, I think the timing was just poor. We have much better, faster and cheaper computer systems today, so the mean pressure system in the MOD II engine wouldn't be all that expensive these days. Still complex though, and it still takes advanced materials and very tight tolerances to use pressurized hydrogen as the working fluid in a Stirling. Will we someday see advanced hybrids that are basically plug-in EVs with a stirling range extender? Probably, but I'm guessing it'll be another 10-20 years.
It's true that a stirling engine is super economic, clean and quiet. The only problem is, it's fairly large. So it's unsuitable for vehicles, but it can be used for submarines and space probes. (especially for not necessarily using oxygen)
it should be fine in large American SUVs
Where are all the engines on the parabolic dishes?
I feel like this could be combined with electric cars. Imagine using electricity to heat up something to power the stirling rather than gas.
You can use a fuel cell to power it!
You might as well use the electricity to run an electric motor. Take a gas powered Stirling and have it run a generator to run an electric motor and small battery pack. Refueling is just like a regular car.
No it would be better for gas. It takes an enormous amount of electricity to create heat. It would be highly inefficient
@@gime5323 it doesn't. Literally 1 watt makes heat. Almost every space heater in existence is only 1500 watts. They make Sterling engine toys that run on 5v ac and work off of a single wire coiled around the air chamber. All it requires is a difference in temperature from one end of the chamber to the other, this can actually be achieved with no fuel at all by simply cooling the opposite end below ambient temp.
Wtf why aren’t we using this???
Nebraska is in the North? I'll bet I can order grits and hear "y'all" in Nebraska. Duluth AFB, that would be North.
I think it would be handy if the heat source was from a trash furnace which could burn old plastic, tyres, anything that burns.
yeah but the power density from those are pretty bad, also would smell really really bad for anyone near it. You could turn the old plastic into gasoline instead if you wanted, it's not super complex actually, and you won't have to have an asthma attack whenever you run the engine
This video was released in 1992. Where are these futuristic engine? May be petrol companies found out about this and decided to shut that sh*t down.
Why aren't we using it then
Am from the future... There is no Stirling engine here... We are facing corona here in 2020 ...guys you are lucky in the past.
Where is Stirling engine in 2021?
Eu não entendo por que a indústria automobilística não produz carros com esse tipo de motor?Esses motores são ideias pra pessoas que vivem em regiões isoladas do mundo!Um motor que pode ser usado qualquer combustível.Nao esses motores de combustao interna que usam um tipo específico de combustível.Esse maldita elite financeira mundial não querem que a maioria das pessoas sejam independentes de seus lucros.
D
Scientist: it can run off solar and nuclear
GOV: petroleum?
magnetic couplings do exist, remove the oil all together
70 лет прошло... а у стирлинга только на бумаге КПД есть....
Hope is but a mirage in the dessert of disappointment.
Until you can actually make it happen... ;)
I come back to watch this video, every so often because I love it so!!! knowing that it only had one spark plug was great to me, the application of solar works for me as well!!! and the sooner everyone can reduce their carbon footprint the better for everyone lung power ability. I think the big "3" never wanted to see this engine go into mass production. You don't have to tell me world is terrible shape, and this engine is better than nothing the ice engine. I would vote for zero pollution, but I'm a minority, and at least with this engine a reduction in pollution is better than what is in use now.
ماتزال هناك مشاكل تقنية متعلقة بتطبيقات محرك ستيرلينج, منها طريقة الاشعال الخارجى ووسائل الأمان و كذلك التحكم فى السرعات
you, read your Quran
If stirling engines could make more power they could be better than EVs
❤SPEED IF THE CAR ???
The truck was driving on the highways... so fast enough... ;)
Wouldn't this be a great alternative for electric, without the range anxiety and charging time trouble. You just fill up in 3 minutes, this is way more convenient for people that can not charge at home. Lets promote this instead of Tesla!
globalists and Elon Musk will not consult with people on this
For people saying this future....answer this how is the engine being heated????? Cmon yall you gotta burn something smh yall not dumb
Валериан Иванович
And... ? Why not?
So why isn't it available in modern vehicles, did greed killed it?
Исходный текст
You are stopped this project, but we can build this type of engine more cheaper, more easily construction, more lightly, and list to enertion. What was tryid by Chrysler with Gas Turbine Engine, we'll do it with Stirling. Turbine Stirling is the future of energetic. Turbine Stirling can be used with thermal battery. And we get power plant, with calculation energy losses during conversion, more bigger volume if we compere it with Li-Ion batteris. But this sistem has lurge work resource. At this sistem only with engine will probably break becaus engine has slightly wearing, but battery does not grow old at all and does not wearing at all. It's technology can killed electric madness, displacing electric and hydrogen cars from roads.
this must be big big business rules and technology drools. at least this transportation does not lug around a ton of batteries. where can i buy a hot air Stirling car? :) china maybe?
they cut the power in half and then reported improved fuel economy lol
The data was obviously normalised to compensate for this difference.
The Stirling engine is heavy, but it can run on energy-dense gasoline. The electric motor is light, but it works with low energy density batteries. I guess the electric is better for its superior acceleration.
Wow the future is amazing…. Oh wait…
My understanding( or lack thereof) is that the smaller the difference in temperature between the heat source and the heat sink is the less efficient that engine is. I think this is Carnot's idea and it works for all heat engines.
I know the model stirling engines that are popular now don't require a large difference in temperature at all. Because of this, I always thought that wouldn't be nearly as efficient as modern ICEs.
The Stirling engine is too heavy and expensive. It requires helium or hydrogen at very high pressures, above 100 bars and it is very difficult to guarantee the seal. Cars need light and powerful engines to avoid wasting as much energy accelerating and driving up hills. But these engines are very quiet and clean.
They are better suited for other things, all tools have their own strengths and weakness, you can chop a tree with an axe but can't cut fine salmon slices like you can with a knife, while with the knife you can't cut a thick tree but you can cut fine salmon slices in the kitchen, everything has it's use
What's the 0 - 60 😂
The sterling engine would be the perfect replacement for the internal combustion engine and the dodge ram in the video was a perfect example of how easy it was to incorperate into any civilian motor vehicles at the time and could easily be incorperated in basicly any motor vehicle today. If we want a clean alternative to have the environment and not have to rely on pain in the ass evs that cost more to keep maintained then they are worth then this is the way to go. Hell i.m.a hybrid could even uses sterling engines and would be cheaper then full electric cars, sure they would have to be placed linear but o well. I mean no one needs a basic passenger car any more. I mean trucks, suvs and cuv are the only thing that we should bother making anymore. Cuv are litterally cars that are 4wd or awd so it would be easy to incorperate. But unfortunately this will never happen thanks to greedy corperate america.
I don't know about greedy corperate america stuff as i Live in Europe, but there are some simple reasons why stirling engines aren't used in automotive vehicles.
1. The engine is generally harder to start, it needs to heat up first and then it can run, while electric motors, diesel and gasoline engines are start and go
2. They produce less power which can be an offset to a lot of people, also produces less torque which might make climbing hills hard, also the engine can't really accelerate as fast as a gasoline engine, because the engine has to heat up so if you see a hill you literally have to press the throttle before you even encounter it as the engine might not have enough momentum to drive the car which can lead to the engine stalling, the major thing with internal combustion engines is that internal combustion happens a lot faster than the heat transfer from the external combustion. also stopping the engine can be more difficult because the engine will still keep running even if you shut the engine off completely, while internal combustion will stop the moment gas and air stop flowing in the engine.
3. The engines are generally bigger and also can be heavier so putting it in smaller vehicles can be a bit tricky, kind of why diesel engines aren't used in motorcycles because of their size, which it needs to be big because of the high compression ratio they have compared to petrol engines.
4. Also it's not really clean to the environment, because you are still burning fuel to drive the engine, it's just external combustion. Sure the engine doesn't use as much fuel for the same amount of time but it still uses fuel, although it depends on what kind of fuel you are using, you can run a stirling engine off of hot water, burning wood, coal, hell even your old high school books you have in your attic, but anything that creates a flame produces CO2 so not really green in reality, the engine has to run off heat, and if your using fuel to run the engine it really isn't that different from using an efficient petrol engine, it can be more efficient but has a few drawbacks as i mentioned.
If you really want to be "green" public transit, and walkable and bikeable roads are the way to go, as they are way more space efficient, reduce polution to the atmosphere to the environment and to add they aren't as loud as thousands of cars, it's not really cities that are loud, cars are, and noise pollution has shown to have a negative impact to people's physical and mental health which has been found in a few studies.
At the end of the day, the Stirling engine is best suited to use heat lost to the environment or using heat that is gone unused to drive the engine and serve purposes like being a heat pump, or being used as a generator for electricity, the engine isn't suited for driving vehicles though and i don't think it will ever make it to the automotive market, as people aren't really familiar with stirling engines, so no one would buy it.
I mean people stick to what they know, they are uncomfortable to leave their comfort zone, and also stirling engines haven't had as much development as internal combustion engines have, so we don't know which variation of stirling engine would be best for each task or what heat source would be the best etc etc, it has been developing though over the years and can show some different use in the later future.
If the engine would ever to go in the market though it might be in hybrid vehicles, but who knows, only time will tell.
@@call_me_mado5987 I'd sooner drive a Stirling engine powered car than the giant computer on wheels known as an EV. Of course, ill just stick with my Gasoline engine powered vehicles. Hopefully I'll be able to get an older car without all the microchips that the more modern ones are absolutely dependent on.
@@jds1275 Agreed.
@@jds1275 if you want something without microchips, you basically need a car from early sixties, or for some manufacturers, from the seventies.
Why weren't these built, well they are cheap in the long run, companies don't like cheap in the long run.
it sounds awesome. what the hell/fuck happened???
Diesel engines, and u could make it lighter and it be better, but big oil wants u to use diesel
@@shaggyboombastic1058 you could've used diesel
Stirling engines are quite a bit heavier and larger for the power they put compared to combustion engines.
They're also more expensive
what the hell happened to this tech? the prtrodollar probably killed it
Simply it wasn't cheaper, nor more efficient or simplier than internal combustion engines by 1992. By the way Stirling engines would burn classical oil products, so no lobbying to kill it.
Stirling engines can literally run on anything that produces heat. You COULD run it on petroleum, but you wouldnt have to. So big oil most likely did play a hand in killing it. The good news is that stirling engines can be made very simply by an individual out of junk you have lying around.
Ron Armstrong although not as powerful or well usually
well why are we driving Tesla instead?
Because it's better