Talk:Ericsson cycle: Difference between revisions
Eric Norby (talk | contribs) Gripes |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Needs editing for inappropriate tone== |
==Needs editing for inappropriate tone== |
||
Tag added because the article is written in a "my thermodynamic cycle is better than yours" manner - it could be more neutral and informative like the articles on the [[Brayton cycle]], [[stirling cycle]] etc. [[User:Knotnic|Knotnic]] 21:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC) |
Tag added because the article is written in a "my thermodynamic cycle is better than yours" manner - it could be more neutral and informative like the articles on the [[Brayton cycle]], [[stirling cycle]] etc. [[User:Knotnic|Knotnic]] 21:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
Work ratio? What do you mean, "work ratio"? What work to what work, ratio? W1/W2? Win/Wout? |
|||
I'm quite upset that someone added the word "recuperator" to the page. The recuperator has nothing to do with the Ericsson or Stirling cycles. The recuperator is a counter flow non-mix heat exchanger, and is similar to the economiser but the recuperator is a reversible mixed counter flow heat exchanger. |
|||
In addition, the page describing the regenerator has been redirected to the economiser, where the current economiser but erroneous definition for the regenerator is given. |
|||
Stirling never called the device a recuperator. He called his identical, to Ericsson's, device an economiser, or economizer I don't know which spelling. The name now means something completely different, and the original meanings for all terms have been left to history. |
|||
I consider the damage done by placing the erroneous term recuperator in this article vandalism, and if no one minds or gets to it before me, I will correct it, eventually. Correcting the redirection of regeneration to economiser is beyond my current knowledge. Can someone please remove that redirection? If not, I may get to that too. |
|||
And if anyone complains of the cycle looking as if it is better than another, I'd suggest that they start dealing with the truth aspects of facts, rather than complaining that a damn fine invention sounds better than another. Tough! I will remove that ridiculous tag from the discussion also. |
|||
Explaining that the Stirling and Ericsson cycles equal the Carnot is an important engineering fact and if that seems to be "a tone", go get a life. |
|||
[[User:Eric Norby|Eric Norby]] 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:21, 8 March 2007
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The ericsson cycle has a thermal afficiency equal to that of the carnot cycle. But what about its work ratio? I am looking for the proper formula of its work ratio.
Need diagrams
We need to add some diagrams to make this clear.
Has anyone built a workable engine using this cycle we can get a picture of?
RJFJR 17:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 | It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
Needs editing for inappropriate tone
Tag added because the article is written in a "my thermodynamic cycle is better than yours" manner - it could be more neutral and informative like the articles on the Brayton cycle, stirling cycle etc. Knotnic 21:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Work ratio? What do you mean, "work ratio"? What work to what work, ratio? W1/W2? Win/Wout?
I'm quite upset that someone added the word "recuperator" to the page. The recuperator has nothing to do with the Ericsson or Stirling cycles. The recuperator is a counter flow non-mix heat exchanger, and is similar to the economiser but the recuperator is a reversible mixed counter flow heat exchanger.
In addition, the page describing the regenerator has been redirected to the economiser, where the current economiser but erroneous definition for the regenerator is given.
Stirling never called the device a recuperator. He called his identical, to Ericsson's, device an economiser, or economizer I don't know which spelling. The name now means something completely different, and the original meanings for all terms have been left to history.
I consider the damage done by placing the erroneous term recuperator in this article vandalism, and if no one minds or gets to it before me, I will correct it, eventually. Correcting the redirection of regeneration to economiser is beyond my current knowledge. Can someone please remove that redirection? If not, I may get to that too.
And if anyone complains of the cycle looking as if it is better than another, I'd suggest that they start dealing with the truth aspects of facts, rather than complaining that a damn fine invention sounds better than another. Tough! I will remove that ridiculous tag from the discussion also.
Explaining that the Stirling and Ericsson cycles equal the Carnot is an important engineering fact and if that seems to be "a tone", go get a life.