Talk:Ericsson cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
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.
[edit] 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. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
[edit] 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.
Eric Norby 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
