Talk:Binary cycle

just for the format

I don't know if it is strictly necessary the bold in the statement "hence, binary cycle". In general congratulations for the article. --Fabio.quaglieri (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Binary cycle power plant → Binary cycle — Binary cycle refers to the technology, not a specific power station. The original title of this article was "Binary cycle technology", and was later moved to the current title with the comment "better name".

My move in renaming this article was reverted, so I would consider this somewhat controversial; hence the RM request. Rehman 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, isn't the article actually about a "Binary cycle power plant", define "Binary cycle", the lead says:

  A binary cycle power plant is a type of geothermal power plant that allows cooler geothermal reservoirs to be used than with dry steam and flash steam plants.

  How would you describe a "Binary cycle". Pahari Sahib 19:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For instance, the simplest example would be combined cycle (instead of combined cycle power plant); even though combined cycle is commonly used as a "type of power plant". As per the lead, one would describe it as something like this. Rehman 02:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Pahari Sahib 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I've changed my mind on this, taking into account the above the comparison with the combined cycle article etc. Pahari Sahib 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support to comply with WP:precision. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Achievable efficiency

The article claims that Studies have shown that the thermal efficiencies of 50 or more percent are achievable with the use of binary vapor cycles. This appears to violate Carnot's rule (that is, it is thermodynamically impossible). If the wording is intended to mean something different, it should be more accurately phrased. Otherwise, it should be removed. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Binary cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719031945/http://www.geothermie.de/fileadmin/useruploads/wissenswelt/glossar/Binary_cycle_0866.PDF to http://www.geothermie.de/fileadmin/useruploads/wissenswelt/glossar/Binary_cycle_0866.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Review by Marcofici - Wikipedia course PoliMi

In general a good article, both from the structural and contents point of view. I'm an energy engineer ;)

I would leave a couple of suggestions:

• The comparison of the different ways to define efficiency was very well appreciated. Since you said that the first law efficiency is low because of the low maximum temperature of the cycle, I would add at the end of the paragraph about the second law efficiency that in fact the II law efficiency is the best way to characterize the performances of the cycle, because it doesn't give much weight to the values of temperature (which are given by nature!)
• Maybe I would add an image about the "inverse U" dome shape, so that it is more clear what do you mean (I know what it is, but maybe others don't). Maybe it could be interesting to draw an example of a cycle in the Ts chart, and describe it.

Good job overall! Marcofici (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Review by Niranjan - Wikipedia course PoliMi

your article really made me curious, well done. And embedding the wiki link in right place is very helpful

Here my suggestions

• I would prefer moving History as the first heading and the second one as a working principle (Introduction)
• if you provide the temperature range of Primary cycles, temperature and vapor pressure in secondary cycles would be more informative
• Duel pressure, I'm not clearly got where the two pressure and two temperature are located in the cycle

Well done! Niranjan (Niranjan) 14:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2022.

The Wiki page is well organized and not too long. Of course any section can be largely expanded but maybe it is out of the scope for this task. I have just a couple of considerations: - in plant scheme and equations where is point b gone? (I think it is the temperature of the geofluid at pinch point in the PHE but I suggest to change c in b.) - carnot efficiency is not a proper term of comperison for a geothermal power plant. In fact the heat source is not isothermal and it would be better to refer to trinagular cycle lorenz efficiency. This allows to also express second law efficiency as etaII=etacycle/etaideal (while using carnot efficiency you get a result different from W/Dex) - regarding history of ORC I suggest this reference: 2 - History of Organic Rankine Cycle systems, L.Y. Bronicki in book Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Power Systems, Technologies and Applications - reagrding market of ORC you can find info here: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1636584/1636584.pdf

--BarettoDiArchitettura (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)