Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nickhalfasleep 3114 days ago
Thermo-acoustic stirling engines have long been a niche product. Seems like a great environment for them to shine, and far better efficiency than RTG's.
3 comments

Huh, interesting device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoacoustic_heat_engine

Is this actually a thermo-acoustic engine, or some other kind of sterling engine? Or are they equivalent? The article doesn't seem to mention "acoustic" (or an equivalent).

Another thing to mention is sodium/lithium salt thermochemical generators that run at 15 percent efficiency with liquid salt being the only moving part
What's the advantage over direct thermoelectric conversion?
> What's the advantage over direct thermoelectric conversion?

Stirling engines can approach 50% efficiency [1], whereas thermocouples are usually less than 10% [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator#Effic...

Cool, thanks! It's really surprising to me that inserting a mechanical intermediary has such a large efficiency advantage.
Why does mechanical stuff suck? Because of friction of moving parts. Too much energy is lost to heat. For a thermal engine, if you can arrange to put the moving parts mostly on the hot side, that’s no longer loss.
An RTG uses the Seebeck effect, which gets you microvolts per degree kelvin. A Stirling engine can theoretically extract many times more energy from the same temperature differential, but with a larger complexity.
Actually, when I mentioned thermoelectric conversion I wasn't referring to an RTG (which is just nuclear decay) but rather to the true nuclear reactors that the Soviets put in space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romashka_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor

They used thermoelectric conversion rather than a Sterling engine with moving parts (although I guess TOPAZ is technically "thermionc coversion").