On JWST web site, you see that the hot side of that thing is about +60 °C, but the cold one is about -190 °C.
All a Stirling engine does is converting a temperature difference into motion, which in turn could drive a generator.
Apart from introducing more movable parts (and thus more failure modes) into the spacecraft, would a Stirling engine make any sense?
Or would it fail because the vacuum does not conduct heat very well - the Stirling engine would equalize the temperature difference between the hot and the cold side of the spacecraft too fast, with no coolant that keeps the dark side of JWST cool?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Stirling engines in space
How about comparing efficiency of stirling engine with thermalelectric metals?
The thing is, even though you do have high temperature difference, is there enough power density to make it work?
bt
The thing is, even though you do have high temperature difference, is there enough power density to make it work?
bt
Re: Stirling engines in space
It would make as much sense as a perpetual motion engine. They're cooling that thing for a reason, and pumping heat back into the cold side to power a Sterling wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Re: Stirling engines in space
There are some links here which might lead to other NASA research efforts with Stirling in the name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_ ... _generator
I didn't actually realize that the ASRG effort had been mothballed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_ ... _generator
I didn't actually realize that the ASRG effort had been mothballed.
-
- flyingturtle
- Posts: 6590
- Joined:
Re: Stirling engines in space
Nomadd wrote:It would make as much sense as a perpetual motion engine. They're cooling that thing for a reason, and pumping heat back into the cold side to power a Sterling wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Oooof. Nooooo! There goes my idea...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests