|
Re: Sterling Engine
Posted by Patrick Dingle at 03/08/2001 9:27 PM EST
Coach on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.
In Reply to: Re: Sterling Engine
Posted by ChrisH on 03/08/2001 8:13 PM EST:
Thanks for your response. I have done a lot of study in this field and would like to reply to your comments. I will respond tomorrow in depth after I finish my Calc homework (argh).
Patrick
: Patrick,
: You raised many debatable points that are obviously products of the pseudoscience popular in the press. I will address them one at a time.
: : Some say the combustable engine was one of the greatest inventions of all time. It was an important an necessary step in the progression of technology, but I will be more than happy to see it go.
: Never heard of a combustable engine. Since most engines work by converting thermal energy into mechanical energy I don't think it would work very well. I think you were refering to the internal combustion engine. I don't necessarily think it was the greatest invention nor would I be sad to see it disappear if replaced by something better. You opening sentence merely points out that this is a debatable point. The debatability I agree with.
: : Some of the biproducts in gasoline can give us lung cancer. I feel bad for the people in big cities that breath it in every day. Combustion engines spew CO2 into the atmosphere in huge quantities, far more than forests and the ocean can absorb. This has caused global warming, and will quickly get worse until these engines are eliminated. Gasoline supplies will eventually run out.
: Actually I belive it is unburned or incompletely burned gasoline components that are the problem. Complete combustion releases H2O, CO, CO2 none of which are known carcinogens. If the fuel/air ratio isn't perfect or the temperature is wrong you'll get some NO or NOx. These aren't carcinogens either.
: The case for global warming is certainly not proved. While there does seem to be an increase in temperature readings over a fairly short period (climactically), whether or not this is evidence of a significant climactic change is unknowable at this point as data has not been collected long enough to establish a baseline.
: Finally there is no way to pin so-called global warming on CO2 emmisions other than a computer model that seems to indicate this. There may be other factors involved, slight changes in Earth's orbit or a fluctuation in solar energy output for example. Or a different chemical species (freon anyone?) Or merely putting all the temperature measuring stations on the top of a tall building with an asphalt roof, instead of the middle of a field where they used to be. I would be surprised to find even a single location where you could find temperature measurements had been taken for a century in the exact same location with the same instrument or instruments that could be calibrated to a common standard.
: : What really irritates me is how politicians don't care about this problem (they all say they do, but they're all hypocrites). With the high gasoline prices, they did not talk about exploring alternatives to gasoline, but opening up parts of Alaska for drilling.
: Politics will never be the answer to technical issues. Politics is a product of government. Government's
: purpose is to help us all get along together and resolve people issues, not technical ones. Don't blame them for not solving a problem (if it is one) they didn't create nor are they equiped to solve.
: : THANK YOU Dean Kamen and DEKA for addressing this important problem. If a car comes out that runs on a modification of the Sterling Engine, I will be among the first to buy it. Hopefully costs will be low enough that combustion engines will forever disappear. Next, let's get rid of all the power plants that use combustion as a means to produce power. Unfortanutely this invention will cause a HUGE shift in the world economy, and many countries will lose their one and only primary export -- gasoline. However, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.
: So you would maybe prefer Nuclear plants? Even Sterling engines need a temperature differential to run. If you light a wood fire to heat your coffee to run your sterling engine you're using combustion and if you used it to generate electricity the efficiency
: would be very low. Far lower than a modern coal fired
: power plant. Since you posted this on a computer network I don't suppose you object to having electricity, just how it's made.
: : Dean Kamen is eliminating all the negative sides of technology.
: I don't think even he would claim that. Besides you never solve a problem, you merely change the old problems for a new set. The only question is whether the new or old set is easier to live with. I'm sure that any revolutionary invention will create a new set of problems that at the outset are quite unanticipated. For example automobiles were often praised in the early days for eliminating the fly problems in large cities. (where you have horses there will be flies) Which problem would you rather deal with flies or smog?
: This is too long already but things are rarely as simple as they seem. Nothing personal Patrick, the media rarely publishes the criticisms of theories they think are "right" (as in they fit with thier agenda, no relation to factuality). Consequently you are probably unaware of the controversy around some of these issues.
: Christopher H Husmann, PE
: team 330 The Beach'Bots
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
|