I’ve so far given you three ways to evaluate my rather bold statement:
The fact that an internal combustion piston system ONLY has to part cycle fuel and uses the FAST temperature-pressure rise of that contained combustion for the actual power. Inside TP pulse to outside shaft power. Not the reverse energy-loser of any external combustion Shaft Power system.
The second reason Because the T-P does initiate internally contained Less system masses needed to get up-to, and be maintained at temperature, for best fuel-air ionization. External combustion system to approach the current best practices IC Piston have to get very, very complex in stepped pressure untilizers; heat regenerators; cycle loss energy closers. Complex takes more engineering/manufacture efforts/works. Complex takes More maintenance dependencies to keep functioning. Complex adds many more failure points. And all of the automation fine controls to make this Complex function seamlessly just adds more Tech-dependencies. More failures points.
My third point is a direct refutation of “we only still use IC Piston engines because of easy-way known technology . . . because of short sighted-profit”. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
All of these named commercial shaft power engine system suppliers are extremely competitive against each other. We are long past the days of “What is good for GM, is good for America”. Long past the days of British engineering pride versus German engineering pride.
The market game now is provable results to the users. As it should be.
I have a b-i-l who will never buy a Samsung branded product ever again. Their better energy effiency duel-compressor refrigerator proved to have 2x more reasons to fail him.
IF a Wankel motorcycle was such a good thing Suzuki would still be making them further developed. Nope. Long distance motorcycle tourers voted for as simple and durable IC piston engine as they could get. Fuel economy. fewest break-down incidences. Lowest maintenance requirements.
IF Stirling cyle engines were oh-so-great, why not in working over the road trucks, eh? Be a great hit in cross-continental Canada, US, Australia, Russia. Fuel with whatever was cheapest available as you travel. Nope. IC piston engines in trucking rule for durability, fuel-use economy, and least maintenance’s. And even here, by-by, to 2-cycle oil burner/leakers. By-by, to ooh-rah big displacement V engines. Inline sixes rule because they proved the right balance for that usage-needs. Rail, actually needing more traction weight, then could scale up to the big V multicylinders.
Again. In our current world situations any multi-fuel-use external combustion shaft power engine system was even competitive with IC pistons, and one of the very prideful national governments would have pushed it (subsidized) into useage! You really think that the president-for-life now in Russia and China are beholding to a GM? A Toyota? A VW/Audi Group? No, they are not.
You really think that the clever Saudi’s, or Iran regimes would not invest into a keep-in-power oil fuel stretching system?
Then, always been fuel-starved Japan. ANY system that would stretch out their 100% fuel imports would get pushed into usages. They really do the best possible, for very real to them, reasons. Can’t fuel use afford anymore any free-cheap-energy spin-spins.
This belief in a Designer Hero, out there . . .someday. The belief in an undiscovered energy-law, killer-app-battery, magic energy stone. This is all just fantasy-football. Low brow cheap entertainment by those not really willing to sweat-out real results. Results broadly applicable to enrich real lives. Not enslave lives on even more designer-tech-dependencies.
A new fourth way to evaluate and compare IC piston to any external combustion engine power system.
TP power cycling time. Recycling time from combustion push, to next push.
An IC piston engine has the time-cycle that you design in, and a range the operator operates it in.
A four cycle IC piston engine has always beat out efficiency-wise a two cycle IC piston engine because it simply has more time (crankshaft angles of degrees) to fully harvest the TP pulse into shaft power. More time to fully cleanse out the cylinder/combustion chamber of energy spent gases. More time to recharge the cylinder/combustion chamber with a new air/fuel charge for the next power making cycle.
I do like 2-cycle IC piston engines and use them exclusively on all of my carry-about hand-held stuff. Power to weight there rules. My arms. My back. Stihl for a rime offered an intake? exhaust? poppet valved 2-stroke engine. Less emissions they said. More weight. More complexity. I passed easy, no-brainer on that one. Now no longer available.
Every motorcycle I’ve owned was a 2-stroke. 100cc through 500cc. Just me. I valued simplicity and lightest weight in this application above four-cycle better fuel economy.
My actual owned IC piston working engines power-pulse recycle at a rate of 600 to 7000 time in a minute.
Stirling? Any Stirling piston type must power-cycle at a much slower rate to be able to cool and reheat for it’s power stokes. Not in power cycle is not making shaft power. Period.
And ALL of the time the hot end burner is fuel consuming.
Same for your turbines. All of the time you are fuels burning consuming. Turbines scale down to any personal usages terribly.
I am all about personal use systems. Period. Not an energy prophet/profit. Not a to-the-masses energy supplier.
Just the facts-of-it-man.
I am at the public library. On hand they supply wooden graphite pencils for notes taking. I’ve owned some pretty fancy ink pens including a couple of pressurized Fishers, a couple of guaranteed to Writ-In-the-Rain’s. They all failed me at some point. Of course; only when I needed them.
A wooden pencil, 130 year old tech, still works and is used because it does works. Wet, underwater, in-space. And a pencil when not working, is easy-see, restore-able to working.
Woodgas is to self-made fuel IC Engines for useful purposes.
All of your better ideas and better-living techs to “improve this” just get in the direct-usages way. Fantasy-footballers . . . again.