I was wondering how small a Stirling engine can be made? With the
move to nano technology, is it realistic to suppose that a Nano
Stirling engine could be built? Maybe even thousands of connected
Nano-sized Solar Thermal Stirling engines working together to power
Fuel Cells?
With modern (CAD)Computer Aided Design & Build technologies scaling
down machinery to nano size is probably possible!
I understand that once "one" nano machine is constructed, nanobots can
even be programmed to replicate other nano machines.
What do you think? Do you think this is a way to go?
Stirling Engines and Nano Technology
Moderator: stan.hornbaker
Forum rules
Be nice!
Be nice!
Response to Stirling Engines and Nano Technology
I think that Stirling engines can probably be built with chip fabricating machinery and probably with other methods for building mechanical devices on an extremely small scale.
I've sold model engines to at least one researcher at a major government lab who was going to try to get funding for such a project. I think it is worth persuing because as the engines get smaller the ratio of surface area to volume improves.
In short I think that micro or nano Stirling engines are a great idea.
I've sold model engines to at least one researcher at a major government lab who was going to try to get funding for such a project. I think it is worth persuing because as the engines get smaller the ratio of surface area to volume improves.
In short I think that micro or nano Stirling engines are a great idea.
-
privacy.lover
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:29 pm
- First Name: Inventus
- Last Name: Privaticus
Response to Stirling Engines and Nano Technology
Hi Wayne,
I concur with Brents opinion that the idea of a Nano-tech Stirling engine is a very good idea, although I doubt if current technology will allow a true nano-scale engine to be realised. However, a small (milli-scale), or even microsopic (micro-scale) Stirling engine should certainly be possible (if, that is, one has access to the necessary production facilities).
I have been working on various Stirling engine designs in my spare time, some of which are intended to be quite small, although not quite nano-scale. I guess at least one of these designs could quite easily be modified to milli-scale, possibly even micro-scale.
The design I have in mind involves no rotating or reciprocating parts, but instead utilises flexible "membranes" as its "pistons". This should make it ideal for extemely small scales, and also much easier to do with existing technology.
I've also been looking into the posibility of making a "Stirling pump", with NO moving parts at all (aside from the pumped fluid, that is). If such a pump can be designed (I'm not quite there yet, but it looks quite feasible so far), it should be even easier to do with current chip-manufacturing facilities, which are not usually involved with making moving parts.
All this having been said, I hope you realise that very few actual attempts at true nano-scale "machinery" have been made so far. So as for the "nanobots" you mention, they remain firmly in the realm of science fiction (at least for now). You should also know that a lot of experts are of the opinion that such things will never be possible, due to various limits imposed by the laws of physics. For one, a nano-machine will be up against the the "binding-force" between individual atoms (they themselves being little larger than a big molecule), which some people think will cause the nano-machine to fall apart if/when it tries to interact with anything in its surroundings.
I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic about the possibilities of nano-technology, keeping to the saying by Artur C. Clarke: "If a wise man tells you something cannot be done, he will almost invariably be proven wrong. If he tells you something can be done, he will most likely be proven right" (to which one should add: "Sooner or later..."). One way to get around the argument above, other experts argue, would be to use chemical reactions to manipulate the surroundings, rather than relying (exclusively at least) on mechanical forces.
Even without access to nano-tech production-facilities, I should think that some of the advantages to be had by scaling-down can be realised, simply by keeping things as small as possible with whatever technology one has at hand.
Thus, if one could make a "small-as-possible" Stirling engine (say on the order of 1 centimeter ~ 1/2 inch), capable of operating in "parallel" with a number of like engines, I should think such a "Stirling array" would provide a much better efficiency than a single, large Stirling engine taking up the same space. For starters, my idea of using "membranes" instead of pistons, should become more efficient the smaller the engine gets (since the membrane will move a smaller distance and can be made thinner, and thus be subject to fewer losses due to internal friction in the membrane-material and work in a more spring-like manner). I can only assume that there will be several other advantages to be had, providing one is able come up with novel engine-designs, which are able to exploit the, rather different, circumstances of working on such small scales.
One thing is for sure: You will likely NOT see an efficient, small-scale Stirling engine that looks anything remotely like the large ones built so far (be it actual, power-producing engines or the small table-top models available on this site).
Regards,
Inventus.
I concur with Brents opinion that the idea of a Nano-tech Stirling engine is a very good idea, although I doubt if current technology will allow a true nano-scale engine to be realised. However, a small (milli-scale), or even microsopic (micro-scale) Stirling engine should certainly be possible (if, that is, one has access to the necessary production facilities).
I have been working on various Stirling engine designs in my spare time, some of which are intended to be quite small, although not quite nano-scale. I guess at least one of these designs could quite easily be modified to milli-scale, possibly even micro-scale.
The design I have in mind involves no rotating or reciprocating parts, but instead utilises flexible "membranes" as its "pistons". This should make it ideal for extemely small scales, and also much easier to do with existing technology.
I've also been looking into the posibility of making a "Stirling pump", with NO moving parts at all (aside from the pumped fluid, that is). If such a pump can be designed (I'm not quite there yet, but it looks quite feasible so far), it should be even easier to do with current chip-manufacturing facilities, which are not usually involved with making moving parts.
All this having been said, I hope you realise that very few actual attempts at true nano-scale "machinery" have been made so far. So as for the "nanobots" you mention, they remain firmly in the realm of science fiction (at least for now). You should also know that a lot of experts are of the opinion that such things will never be possible, due to various limits imposed by the laws of physics. For one, a nano-machine will be up against the the "binding-force" between individual atoms (they themselves being little larger than a big molecule), which some people think will cause the nano-machine to fall apart if/when it tries to interact with anything in its surroundings.
I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic about the possibilities of nano-technology, keeping to the saying by Artur C. Clarke: "If a wise man tells you something cannot be done, he will almost invariably be proven wrong. If he tells you something can be done, he will most likely be proven right" (to which one should add: "Sooner or later..."). One way to get around the argument above, other experts argue, would be to use chemical reactions to manipulate the surroundings, rather than relying (exclusively at least) on mechanical forces.
Even without access to nano-tech production-facilities, I should think that some of the advantages to be had by scaling-down can be realised, simply by keeping things as small as possible with whatever technology one has at hand.
Thus, if one could make a "small-as-possible" Stirling engine (say on the order of 1 centimeter ~ 1/2 inch), capable of operating in "parallel" with a number of like engines, I should think such a "Stirling array" would provide a much better efficiency than a single, large Stirling engine taking up the same space. For starters, my idea of using "membranes" instead of pistons, should become more efficient the smaller the engine gets (since the membrane will move a smaller distance and can be made thinner, and thus be subject to fewer losses due to internal friction in the membrane-material and work in a more spring-like manner). I can only assume that there will be several other advantages to be had, providing one is able come up with novel engine-designs, which are able to exploit the, rather different, circumstances of working on such small scales.
One thing is for sure: You will likely NOT see an efficient, small-scale Stirling engine that looks anything remotely like the large ones built so far (be it actual, power-producing engines or the small table-top models available on this site).
Regards,
Inventus.