Re: Sr-90 RTG power

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

30% conversion would be ridiculous!  If that were so then generators

would be better made from fuel heated thermopiles - as max Carnot Cycle

efficiency is something like 15% and that is just the engine - there are

losses in the generator too.  Even Sterling Cycle is less than 30% - 25%

I think.  I believe that would also be an improvement for nuke

propulsion too - and fewer moving parts!!!



The hard numbers Paul sent say 4%.  higher than I would have thought -

but believable



Jack_Earley@RL.GOV wrote:

> 

> One other comment was that the "watts" being talked about here relate to

> thermal energy,

> rather than electrical. His guess would be that you could assume (on the

> liberal side) 30% conversion to electrical wattage.

> 

> Jack Earley

> Radiological Engineer

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Brian Rees [mailto:brees@lanl.gov]

> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:54 PM

> To: Phil Hypes; Jack_Earley@rl.gov; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: Re: Sr-90 RTG power

> 

> Nuclides and Isotopes (GE, 14th ed.) gives 0.916 W/g.  Specific Activity of

> 136.5 Ci/g (RHH 3rd ed.) => 268 W - looks good enough!

> 

> Brian Rees

> 

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/