Thermoacoustic Stirling Engine Is Now Fully 3D Printable

Would you like to make your own energy? Why, who doesn’t in this era of rising costs! A Stirling engine always looks like a good fit for that: highly efficient, with no risk of a boiler explosion. A thermoacoustic Stirling engine looks even better, since it has only one moving part at the output end. A thermoacoustic Stirling engine you can 3D print yourself looks best of all, and that’s what [my engines] has on offer, now that even the burner and hot end of his thermoacoustic engine are designed for SLA metal printing.

We previously reported on the open-source engine, but there’ve been some improvements worth talking about. For one thing, he’s integrated a biogas/methane burner directly inside the 3D-printable hotend. For another, that 3D-printed design allows for an excellent heat exchange geometry that would be very hard to get any other way. The whole thing is open source with plans available at OwnEnergy.org, where you can find links to the apparently mandatory Discord channel and now an old-style forum to actually collaborate on the design, which is open-source. The site is also now the home of all data and discussion about [my engines]’s homescale biogas plant, which is the power source for this little engine.

If you’d rather print a combustion engine, you can do that, too, but you’ll need more “vitamins” than this unit requires.

25 thoughts on “Thermoacoustic Stirling Engine Is Now Fully 3D Printable

      1. And all the starlings in North America are descended from a group released by the New York Shakespeare Society in Central Park in the 19th Century after the death of Robert Stirling.

  1. It is very reminiscent of modern condensing gas boilers. Extracting current using a simple coil seems archaic, considering that electronics can be used—much like with solar cells—to extract the maximum energy

  2. If all you have is a stainless steel metal 3D printer (for sponsoring reasons) then you end up with a design like this.. Although the design is open, this makes it rather inaccessible to anybody else.

    But certainly, an efficient design might be hard to build from off-the-shelf or self welded stainless steel parts. My guess: Striving for efficiency makes this setup rather expensive per Watt of electricity generated.

    Once this is built, how long would it need to run to offset the cost of building by the energy it generates?

    1. There are very good reasons why it should be made out of stainless steel or other temperature and corrosion resistant materials throughout. 3D printing services make it at least practically feasible, if not cheap.

      It’s not really about efficiency, it’s about building something that has a chance to work for longer than a hot minute.

    1. Probably, but aluminum doesn’t hold well to the temperatures inside the burner. You need at least 800 C on the surface to burn off soot deposits and keep the burner clean, but aluminum melts at around 600 C. The burner and heat exchanger must be made of stainless steel so it doesn’t rust through.

      1. Besides, aluminum would conduct heat extremely well and get hot all over, melting the plastic connections at the ends of the tube, while stainless steel is a very poor heat conductor so the heat becomes localized to the burner.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.