150W Stirling Engine?

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-7, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> > > [...]
> >>Stirlings are lousy efficiency 
> 
> > > "Compared to an internal combustion engine of the same power rating, 
> > > Stirling engines currently have a higher capital cost and are usually 
> > > larger and heavier. However, they are more efficient than most internal 
> > > combustion engines.[" 
> > > 
> > > "In contrast to internal combustion engines, Stirling engines have the 
> > > potential to use renewable heat sources more easily, and to be quieter 
> > > and more reliable with lower maintenance." 
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine 
> > 
> > Stirling engines are more efficient than internal combustion engines: 
> > https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article/11/2/141/2198425
> Philips achieved some astonishingly high efficiencies with their 
> Stirling engines, as vehicle engines and as heat pumps. 

Stirling engines are not space efficient, but fuel efficient (40% vs. 35% for diesel).  Direct drive engine would not be practical.  However, it would be ideal for battery charger.