When the steam is simply exhausted to atmosphere while running a
generator, for example, efficiency is relatively low; in the area of
15%. When the exhaust is condensed and recycled back to the boiler,
the efficiency is around 24% to 30%. When the exhaust is condensed
through a heat exchanger whereby the condensation process is used
fully by heating water, space and distilling water, for example, the
efficiency can be in the 70% range.
In addition to the potential for efficient energy use and production,
the designs' simplicity, economy and weight more than justifies its
utilization. It is important to note that utilizing free or cheap fuel
makes efficiency less important. There are numerous reasons that this
design is considerably more efficient than standard historical steam
engines.
Somehow, I disbelieve.
The best combined cycle turbines run in the 60% region. Boilers are
never 100% efficient, nor are burners. Feedwater recovery systems are
never 100% efficient.
Given there appears to be no way to prevent heat losses to the
atmosphere in the units shown, that loss must also exist. Even the best
bearing assemblies have some loss. It looks like the SYSTEM losses will
greatly exceed the ENGINE losses. Overall efficiency will not be in the
70% range, but closer to 10% of that.
Can anyone with the necessary background confirm my fears?
Dave 8{)
--
"A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the
advice."
Bill Cosby
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
