Slashdot Mirror


Dean Kamen Combines Stirling Engine With Electric Car

Colin Smith writes "Dean Kamen, (inventor of the Segway) has combined a Stirling engine with a battery-powered electric vehicle based on the Ford Think to provide a fully decoupled electric hybrid car which can run on any fuel which can provide enough heat to run the Stirling generator. Think are also producing a purely battery 'Think City' car which is capable of 62mph and with a range of 126miles." Some stats on the Ford Think: Top speed, 55mph; 0-30, 6.5 seconds; Range, 60 miles on battery.

24 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. stirling engine is a no-go by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been refined for 160 years plus change. So it ought to be really spiffy, right? Well, no. There are definite upper limits to the efficiency of such a device. Most Stirling sites are very cagey when it comes to mentioning the efficiency of what they're selling. For good reason, it's terrible. Like 3 to 6 percent. That kinda explains why it's not in use everywhere, more like nowhere.

    1. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen simple steam boiler engines that are more efficient and more versatile than a stirling engine. And something like the Green Steam engine can be small, compact and cheap and operate in a closed loop system. (I've only seen the Green built up to 10hp, but I think theoretically it should scale to a fairly large size due to the short stroke)

      I think the important thing to realize is that people are out there trying new ideas and experimenting with old ideas.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by raynet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually stirling engine in theory has almost perfect efficiency, unfortunately in practice this is difficult to do. A large, as in huge compared to car engine, stirling engine is easier to make efficient and there are several applications where these are used. And if you run it in reverse you have a great heat pump, often used in cryocooling etc.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    3. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by shbazjinkens · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's been refined for 160 years plus change. So it ought to be really spiffy, right? Well, no. There are definite upper limits to the efficiency of such a device. Most Stirling sites are very cagey when it comes to mentioning the efficiency of what they're selling. For good reason, it's terrible. Like 3 to 6 percent. That kinda explains why it's not in use everywhere, more like nowhere.

      Citation Needed

      20 years ago NASA had an automotive Stirling program. Read it and stuff it.

      They converted a Chevy Celebrity and the results show that the highway gas mileage was increased from 40 to 58 mpg and the urban mileage from 26 to 33 mpg with no change in gross weight of the vehicle. This is NOT a hybrid - it is Stirling only.

      By combining the efficiency of the Stirling with the get-up-and go of an electric this is a pretty good thing coming, and I've been waiting a while to see someone to produce it.

    4. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm no engines expert, but I thought the good part of a stirling engine was that they often are just a few percentage points from theoretical maximum efficiency of a heat engine, about 50%???

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

      I thought the downside is that they take a while to get up to speed. Ford in the 1970s tested a small vehicle with such an engine and they could get it up to speed after 13 seconds. So it should be a natural fit as a battery charger in an electrical car...

      At least, that's what I thought when I looked into this a few years back (just as a curiosity, nothing professional mind you).

    5. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The efficiency of a stirling cycle engine is a complete NON-ISSUE! for one simple reason.

      most stirling engine setups use WASTE heat. And that is the most intelligent use of the stirling cycle. turning waste into power.

      so efficient or not. you're getting energy for FREE from something that is complete waste.

      even 3% efficient is still 3% you got for FREE and worth it.

    6. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by MechaStreisand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing is free. There is a cost in weight and a dollar cost to the vehicle itself. 3% efficient doesn't look very good when it's not free at all.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    7. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad that it's being produced by someone who thinks a $20K wheelchair and a $5K scooter are "practical." Maybe he's learned his lesson, but I bet this econobox will come in over $30K to the public.

    8. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is indeed the most efficient thermal engine we know of. Whoever said they're terrible in terms of efficiency is, for the most part, incorrect. They're difficult to implement because of the extremely tight tolerances needed to maintain such high efficiency, but you can achieve efficiencies at least as good as or better than a typical car engine (28% is usual for the car, 35-40% is easily achieved with a stirling engine, depending on the operating points).

      The problem isn't that they're difficult to get up tospeed, but rather that they tend to operate at a constant speed. This is related to the pressure inside the engine, so the only way to vary its natural operating speed is to add or remove pressure from the chamber. It was this added system that drove the Ford's engine to failure because of the extreme complexity needed to control the speed.

      This engine does make an ideal charger. I'm excited to see the results in production.

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    9. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by shbazjinkens · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to wikipedia, Stirlings have efficiency equivalent to conventional auto engines, but for the same power they're more expensive and heavier.

      According to NASA, there was no weight change. Read it. More expensive is a matter of mass production, no auto engine is exactly simple nowadays anyway.

    10. Re:stirling engine is a no-go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if you run it in reverse you have a great heat pump, often used in cryocooling etc.

      So instead of backing into a parking space you freeze solid in the middle of the road??? No thanks!!!

  2. Disruptive technology by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    When he mentions it being 'disruptive', he's referring to the concept of disruptive technology as written about in The Innovator's Dilemma by Christensen:
    http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-National-Bestseller/dp/0066620694

    Great read, and the concepts are laid out here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

    If you're not familiar with the concept, it's worth checking out.

  3. Wondering what a Stirling engine is? by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wonder no more

    "A Stirling engine is a closed-cycle regenerative heat engine with a gaseous working fluid."

    As with many of these hybrid and electric car announcements, it'd be great if I could really go buy one, and have it be inexpensive. We're always just "2-3 years" away from these things reaching market, and "eventually" being affordable by regular folks.

    Perhaps some Indian or Chinese company will make these and sell them here for under $10k. That would spark a huge revolution. Hybrids at $24k don't change people's buying habits enough to cause a huge shift in demand.

    For better or worse, I think we'll see an alt-energy evolution in the US, rather than a revolution.

  4. Diagram by russoc4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those of you who do not know what a Stirling engine looks like, Wikipedia has a very detailed diagram.

    1. Re:Diagram by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't find the vas deferens, is there another diagram?

      Well, there is a vas deferens between a Stirling Cycle engine and a conventional internal combustion engine.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. Re:Think CITY?? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I seriously don't know how Th!nk plans to stay in business with the City versus some of its competitors. Say, the Aptera, for example.

    Seating: 2 or 2+2 (Th!nk City); 2+1 (Aptera)
    Trunk: 6 cubic feet (Th!nk City); 15.9 cubic feet (Aptera)
    Top speed: 60-65mph (Th!nk City); 85-90mph (Aptera)
    Accel: 0-30 in 6.5 seconds (Th!nk City); 0-60 in less than 10 seconds (Aptera)
    Range: 110 miles (Th!nk City); 120 miles (Aptera)
    Charge time: 10 hours at 230V/14A (Th!nk City); 8-10 hours at 120V/15A or 2-3 hours at 240V/30A (Aptera)
    Construction: Plastic, aluminum, steel (Th!nk City); Layered composite monocoque (Aptera)
    Insurance category: Car (Th!nk City); Motorcycle (Aptera)
    Purchase price: $20-25k + $150-$200 per month battery rental (Th!nk City); $27k (Aptera)

    Seems a no-brainer to me unless you're one of those people who don't like the Aptera's looks (I think it's one of the most beautiful cars I've ever seen). I'm getting an Aptera :)

    --
    Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
  6. Thermodynamics 101 by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't the inventors of these various electric cars do some basic sums? If you're going to have any sort of hydrocarbon fuel involved then use the most efficient conversion possible to electric power given the space constraint of a practical vehicle. Right now that's a fixed-speed diesel engine at approaching 50%. All these 'exotic' heat engines like Stirling etc. are dead in the water when it comes to basic thermodynamic efficiency. If you don't start with a reasonably efficient conversion you are not going to end up with a vehicle that is even slightly practical.

  7. Stirling not connected, not enough to power car. by guidryp · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/27/sv_deankamen.xml

    I read several articles on this when news first broke. The above indicates the Stirlin isn't even connected. When it is, it doesn't produce enough power to actually move the car. Kamen has a 1KW Stirling that is about the same size as what is pictured and other articles mentioned it as a "trickle charger".

    In this case the Stirling is essentially a novelty, it doesn't drive the car when the battery is run down.

  8. Re:Couple of things bother me... by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    60 miles for some is less than their daily commute to work.

    Ah, yes, the horrors of a car that won't fulfill EVERYONES needs. How about this - the people who drive more than 60 miles in a day can get another car. Maybe one with a bigger range.

    People who need to drive 150 mph can get a powerfull sportscar - maybe even one that'll only do 2 mpg flat out.

    People who need to haul a ton of stuff could get a different kind of car. Maybe one with a nice big flat section where you'd have the rear seats. Maybe a "flat bed" of sorts.

    The people who have a need to drive 6 kids and their dogs every day could get something like a bus, but smaller. Miniature bus of sorts.

    And maybe people like you could start to consider that there is no car in the world, that fulfills EVERYONES needs at once.

  9. Re:The Uri Geller of industry by abigor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, I'd say his inventions such as the portable dialysis machine, the auto-syringe technology for people who require round the clock injections, and the wheelchair that can climb stairs made a tremendous difference. These medical inventions restored a reasonable standard of living to a great number of people, and are the foundation of his current fortune.

  10. Re:Couple of things bother me... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. On the one or two times per year that I need a truck, *I Rent One*. I don't keep a truck around at all times for the offchance that I might perchance need one. Why do people feel the need that they must have a vehicle that can do everything when they'll mainly just use it for their daily commute?

    --
    Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
  11. Re:Too Slow by Miseph · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just by looking around on the road you can tell people are chomping at the bit to drive a tiny tin can looking car, especially if that car is also slow as hell. In fact, the less likely (real or perceived) someone with boobs *and shaved armpits* will give it a second look, the better.

    Fixed that for you.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  12. Re:The Uri Geller of industry by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't forget the water purifier. Kamen went on Colbert and showed off a system that can extract pure water out of essentially any stew, and is robust and cheap enough to use reliably and distribute throughout the the third world. His demonstration was pulling good water out of, I don't know, raw sewage or something, and he was drinking it.

    When Colbert made his characteristic sarcastic remarks about not being able to see the point, Kamen responded that 50% of the deaths in the third world could be traced back to water-borne diseases. With this machine, he said, we could save the lives of millions of people per day.

    Until that moment, I had thought that he was the self-promoter-yadda-yadda of the GP poster, but his concern and contemplation of the possibilities seemed genuine and sincere. I'm not going to buy a Segway any time soon, but man, but hats off to him if his inventions really do save lives.

    FWIW, Colbert had a sip, too.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  13. Re:Air Submarines And The Hunky Men Who Love Them by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    space has a cold side? what would that be - the vacuum? like what you have for a fucking brain?

    Ignoring your manners for a moment, yes it can be said that space has a cold side. If you have an object facing a source of heat (the Sun, for example) then you will have roughly half the object in shadow. The shadow-side surface will be receiving no incident heat from radiation, yet will be able to exhibit cooling by thermal radiation. Thus, a "cold side".

    Now, go back to your day job, which no doubt involves waiting under a bridge and shaking down travellers for coins.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear