A version that uses a sterling engine instead of a wind turbine might actually be practical.
I doubt. Smaller Stirling engines have a efficiency factor of 0.1or less which is terrible.
And in bigger size they are getting very expensive.
Not something you want to sell to the 3rd world population.
The efficiency of wind on a hot day with no wind is zero.
Bonus video:
Pop can Stirling engine, 0-900 rpm in 3 seconds!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFxNEBhS1AM
Well if your energy source is wind and you have no wind....
I guess you wanted to use a sterling motor with gasoline? ^^
Btw. Do you understand what the youtuber did there?
We're discussing the use of the temperature differential between the Earth and the air & surface to not only to condense the water vapor into a liquid but also to power the device on days with no wind. The argument that my solution was too inefficient to work was countered by a simple demonstration of an inexpensive sterling engine powered by some ice water.
That is exactly the point.
In your case you need additional energy to create and maintain the ice. But this is exactly not wanted. No additional energy source needed.
The stirling engine works like a heat pump so a greater temperature difference is more effective but that becomes harder to archieve if you have more then a cola can to cool down especially in 3rd world countries with unreliable electricity.
