←back to thread

112 points curl-up | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
ggm ◴[] No.42742157[source]
less moving parts means it could work in contexts where moving parts demand lubrication, maintenance.

I felt it was a bit light on putting the system energy efficiency/losses up front. I am sure they're stated but it was hard to work out how it compared to normal PV efficiency, or steam turbine efficiency.

Heat exchangers are applicable to lots of things. I am skeptical that this is significant because almost any heat energy process does reclaim and preheat, and so the size of the thermal mass and efficiency here would be exceptionally well studied and if they have made improvements, they may be as, or more valuable as IPR overall. So while it looks amazing, unless they are spinning it out into wider industry it will be a small increment over things in deployment.

replies(3): >>42742196 #>>42742711 #>>42744389 #
skykooler ◴[] No.42744389[source]
I suspect this needs some moving parts to function - without a turbine's suction, you need some sort of a fan to pump air into the thing, and also a fuel pump. Most things with internal combustion require some kind of active cooling as well.
replies(2): >>42744410 #>>42745116 #
1. cryptonector ◴[] No.42744410[source]
If using compressed natural gas you might not need a fuel pump at all.