

s Hack)
        id AA27644; Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:22:15 -0500
Received: from wolf.ces.ncsu.edu (wolf.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.18]) by amani.ces
.ncsu.edu (8.6.9/RK-931108.0) with SMTP id LAA26706 for <[email-masked]
.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:17:55 -0500
Received: from bigblue.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.21.9]) by wolf.ces.ncsu.edu with SMT
P (5.59/25-eef)
        id AA10664; Tue, 21 Feb 95 11:12:37 EST
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:29:11 GMT
From: [email-masked] (DaveHatunen)
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere
Sender: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Thermocouples
content-length: 1457
Status: RO

In article <[email-masked]>,
PFEIFFER  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Dave Hatunen says:
>> Again: thermocouples require two junctions, and the emf is a function
>> of the temperature differential between them. So if you already have a
>> source of higher temperature, then, with the other junction at ambient,
>> you can produce a small amount of energy. But if you do not have a
>> temperature differential, then thermocouples are useless.
>>
>In many cases you have already temperature differentials.
>This is the nice thing with thermocouples
>Sources of surplus high temperatures you have for example in  the case of
>power stations or even by some solar applications let alone some
>industries as the steel industry. The question is the efficiency and especiall
y
>the costs per kWh.

Quite true. But I believe the original poster was under the impression
that somehow they generated an emf from only the one temperature.

Once you have a temperature differential there are all sorts of ways to
derive a little power; thermocouples are probably the worst choice
except under very singular circumstances.

--

    ********** DAVE HATUNEN ([email-masked]) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************