Talk:Ericsson cycle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:41, 31 January 2008

Physics Unassessed

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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?

     - there is some generator -> http://www.johnsonems.com/jhtec.html

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)[reply]

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.

Eric Norby 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax Eric. I agree with you. Now on 4 January 2008, I just checked the article, and either you never made the changes you suggested, or more likely, someone reverted them. I just made some significant edits, hopefully to fix this, and I believe they are consistent with with the historical accounts I've read, and with what you wrote above.

I don't think it was intentional vandalism. When I see an adjacent topic show up in the article, such as the "recuperator", I take it as a sign that this needs to be explained and clarified. The difference between regenerator and recuperator is a common source of confusion. The difference is subtle, and the subject is technical, so it's not exactly easy to explain and clarify. Nevertheless it's important, so we can keep the terminology straight and know what the heck the other guy is talking about. In my opinion, it's better to dispel the myths on the spot, lest they pop up again, when future reverts or edits are made. Even if it is a bit of a side-track, better to quickly resolve it then and there, and get back on track, rather than let the confusion go unresolved and perhaps derail the train. It's possible that these words have slightly different colloquial meanings in the USA versus the UK. I happen to be in the USA. Another potential source of confusion and possible pitfall is the difference between Ericsson's 1st and 2nd engines. I tried to keep this straight too. Better to mention it or allude to it too many times in the article rather than not enough.

I didn't notice a problem with the tone, but then again I didn't read the whole article. Is there a specific section that has a problem? Looks like it's been tagged for years. Might be good to resolve that. Mikiemike (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)--[reply]