Question:
>>> For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd >>is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ >>condenser and associated weight. >That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, >the state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be >in a major drought. > No, that’s not the problem. You could probably do a day’s drive on a > toilet-flush’s worth of water. > It’d have to be distilled, though, and perhaps even chemically treated. That > means you’d have to buy it at the store or at the gas station, and that means > you’d have TWO fluids to replenish periodically. That, and distilled water > is $.60/gal.
I’m not convinced it would need to be distilled. If it was reasonably clean (i.e., no 200 ppm dissolved solids!), couldn’t you get away with flushing the system occasionally? I don’t use distilled water in my radiator, though I admit that is not a good comparison. >It’s the same thing with the electric heater for wintertime. Maybe the real >men in the Tater State don’t mind, but little inconviniences like that (ec. the >Stanley Steamer’s pilot light) doom a design.
I don’t see this as any different from the radiator system. If my radiator can be kept from freezing, so can the rest of my block. — N5WVR | "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I’d rent out Texas and live | in Hell." -General Sheridan |
Response:
>Personally, I can’t >imagine very many situations in which having to wait 30 seconds between the >time you turn on the ignition and the time you can start the car moving would >be a serious problem. The police might not agree 
(yeah, I know emergency vehicles are a small part of the problem, but they’re going to get pretty expensive if they’re going to have to be made or operated differently from ordinary vehicles…)
Response:
: >> 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than : >> water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.) : > : > For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd : >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ : >condenser and associated weight. : : That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, the : state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a : major drought. Wait a minute. Suppose the 10 mi/gal water is accurate. That would mean that water consumption would be on the order of three times gas consumption. Just how much gas do you guys burn in california compared to your water use? Remember too that water dispersed into the air is likely to recondense as dew or rain, unlike water that goes down the drain. Finally a compromise may be valid. Put a condenser on it, but don’t worry about it if it is only partially successful. E.g. On 70 degree days, it all recovered, on 90 degree days, only 3/4 of it is recovered. — => University of Alberta Lab Manager, Space Physics Group <= => tel:403 492-3713 fax: 403 492-4256 <=
Response:
> Given the large mass, slow acceleration, high torque, low noise, etc… >I would say that the initial version should be a replacement for large diesel >trucks (everything from small Macks to 18-wheelers). This looks like a >near-perfect solution, provided that the efficiency is high enough. >And I HATE getting behind trucks belching choking black smoke!!!
The Stanley was not a high mass car. It weighed less than a Model T. Remember it uses a flash boiler that’s no bigger than a juice can and a direct drive piston engine that doesn’t require a gearbox. Steam engines run as happily backwards as they do forwards, all it requires is switching a couple of valves, so they don’t even need a gearbox for reverse. It was not slow either. It held the land speed record on Daytona beach during the teens and topped out at over 120 MPH. Other "steam wagons", built on the locomotive principle, were big and slow, but not the Stanley. For truck use, however, the flash boiler doesn’t generate enough steam. You’d have to go to a fire tube boiler that *is* big and heavy. It takes about an hour to bring one of these up to temperature, and it’s a nasty steam explosion risk in a collision. I had to stand by and watch an engineer be cooked alive by steam after a railway accident. It’s not a pretty sight, he screamed for several minutes. > For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ >condenser and associated weight.
The condenser isn’t small, but needn’t be terribly heavy since it operates under partial vacuum rather than pressure. That vacuum increases engine efficiency markedly, and eliminates the need to carry makeup water. At 10 MPG of water, the Stanley had to carry a rather heavy makeup water tank. Gary
Response:
>> 3. As long as the lubricant is immiscable with water, I don’t see a problem. > A sump, a centrifugal filter, a final separation filter. >AHA! So all those devices are availalbe off-the-shelf, eh?
But wet steam is it’s own lubricant. > 5. Good insulation around the engine would help efficiency. The closer the > engine is to the temperature of the working fluid, the less energy you lose > to heating metal. >I’d worry of hurting the engine. What if the condensed water was used to >"cool" the engine? That way, you’d recover a lot of the heat used to heat >the metal.
And give it right back on the next pass. Keeping the engine hot is an efficiency improver. >I’m looking at diagrams and theorizing how the rotary engine could be adapted >to steam use. It would mean a having a gear train, in the form of two exhaust >and two intake valves per rotor. >The advantages of a rotary would be: > small size (more room for boiler)
The piston isn’t that large either, and the boiler is tiny. > simplicity (albiet offset by the geartrain)
Not as simple as the piston. > having one power stroke for every rotation
The piston has *two* power strokes per revolution, it’s double acting. Gary
Response:
=: >> 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than =: >> water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.) =: > =: > For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd =: >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ =: >condenser and associated weight. =: =: That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, the =: state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a =: major drought. = =Wait a minute. Suppose the 10 mi/gal water is accurate. That would mean that =water consumption would be on the order of three times gas consumption. =Just how much gas do you guys burn in california compared to your water use? The question is irrelevent, as you would’ve realized had you taken even a moment to think about it before posting. The question is whether we can really afford the ADDITIONAL water that would be required by open loop steam engines. California has had two severe droughts in the 19 years I’ve lived here. We’re currently entering the 7th year of the drought. Last year water was RATIONED in a number of cities. An additional water sink is something that looks like REALLY bad idea. =Remember too that water dispersed into the air is likely to recondense as dew =or rain, unlike water that goes down the drain. So? Given that it does condense as dew (not all that likely actually, in Southern California for much of the year, considering that 70% relative humidity is considered high in these parts), that dew is going to be largely in places that: 1) It can’t be recovered from; and 2) That aren’t normally irrigated. I.e., it’s not going to reduce the amount of water demanded for other uses, and it’s not going to go back into the water distribution system. For all practical purposes, that water will be GONE. Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That’s what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Response:
>Personally, I can’t >imagine very many situations in which having to wait 30 seconds between the >time you turn on the ignition and the time you can start the car moving would >be a serious problem.
One can make a case that gasolene-based cars should have a 30-second warm-up cycle as well. Catalytic converters do not function effectively until they get up to operating temperature, so a rather large contribution to emissions is made in the first few minutes of operation. We can imagine either an electric or gasolene-based heater that brings the converter up to temperature. Similarly, one could use a pump to pressurize the lubrication system and get oil distributed throughout the engine ~before~ starting, which would considerably reduce wear. —
Response:
> Steam engines normally use the wet steam as a cylinder lubricant. > No additional oils are required. The "rings" are normally leather > wetted by the steam. In old locomotives, they lasted 6 months of > *continous* hard pulling between servicing. Remember that a piston > steam engine develops maximum torque at stall and is a low RPM > device. Bearing lubrication can be a simple drip oiler.
All I know is that the passage about the GM SE 101 steam car (in an industrical-arts textbook) said that they had to mix the lubricants with the steam at "elevated temperatures and pressures" and then separate it from the steam before heating. And that thing ran at just 370C (My mistake saying it was 700C) This may be good news, though, in that they WERE able to deal with it. It may have been tricky, but they were SUCCESSFUL in lubricating the engine, albeit further development could perfect the system. Does this offset one of the big problems of 800C steam–lubrication? Could corrosion be successfully fought with newer corrosion-resistant materials? > That’s hard to say. The very best superheat compound cycle steam plants > have an efficiency of around 50% while the best IC engines have an > efficiency around 28%. To approach a big compound plant in a car though, > that would be really tough. I’d *guess* from what I’ve read that the > steam plant would be about 30% worse than the IC plant for the same > peak horsepower. One thing should be noted, however, the characteristics > of the two engines are wildly different and a lower peak horsepower steam > plant should offer the same driving characteristics as a bigger IC plant.
That looks like a prescription for delivery vehicles & buses. Big-rigs would be big business, though. I know the Carnot equasion and all, but practically, would raising the working temperature from 370C to 800C have a drastic effect on efficiency. Carnot ideal for 370C: 36.7% Carnot ideal for 800C: 65.2%. (But if even the stationary plants have trouble cracking 50%, why should we do any better, eh?) >3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than >water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.) > Higher molecular weight fluids wouldn’t > develop as much pressure at the same temperature in a dynamic system.
News flash, folks: Was leafing through a different book, trying to learn more about steam engines, and there was a little paragraph about a automotive plant that used "an organic fluid several times heavier than water" as a working fluid, which made for "a smaller power plant." I wonder just what it was! CM — Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy.
Response:
>Some observations: >1. My diesel pickup requires that I turn the key, and wait 17 seconds for >the glowplugs to heat up. In winter I may have to do this three times before >the engine will start. 30 seconds is no big deal. But then, I don’t use my >truck to go 6 blocks to the corner store. I can see where it wouldn’t >be popular with some people. >2. Some of these 30 second boilers work as ‘flash boilers’ Flame heats >a plate, and the water is sprayed on. With some work, I bet that you could >trade increased fuel consumption for faster heating.
I don’t see the 30 second startup as a problem. Some mornings I have to *crank* my truck that long. 
The owner’s manual says you should do a minute’s warmup before driving off in a gasoline engined vehicle. I think this is a false concern. >3. As long as the lubricant is immiscable with water, I don’t see a problem. >A sump, a centrifugal filter, a final separation filter. Bush pilots used to >filter water from their fuel by wetting a piece of thin fine weave cloth with >gasoline. The gas could go through, the water wouldn’t.
Steam engines normally use the wet steam as a cylinder lubricant. No additional oils are required. The "rings" are normally leather wetted by the steam. In old locomotives, they lasted 6 months of *continous* hard pulling between servicing. Remember that a piston steam engine develops maximum torque at stall and is a low RPM device. Bearing lubrication can be a simple drip oiler. >4. I think that the original reason Stanley’s had pilot lights was to keep >the boiler from freezing in winter. Some clever design is called for here, >with either pilot light and/or systems that self drain into a holding tank >won’t get bent out of shape by freezing, and could be warmed easily with >either a plug or a torch. >5. Good insulation around the engine would help efficiency. The closer the >engine is to the temperature of the working fluid, the less energy you lose >to heating metal.
Very true. Only a small pilot light need be maintained in most climates to prevent a well insulated engine from freezing. And, you can always add alcohol to the water as an anti-freeze. It lowers the efficiency of the engine a little, but it’s no big deal. Glycol is right out though. >6. One of the claimed advantages of the Stanley Steamers was their noise. >They were very quiet. This would be a big selling point with me. They >were also very simple mechanically, although messy in terms of plumbing. >I think the entire drive train had 24 moving parts.
They were open loop steam. They made a "chuffing" noise under load. They were quiet compared to the gasoline engined autos of their day, but mufflers have gotten a lot better over the years. Open loop steam had another problem, they got about 10 miles to the gallon of *water*. A closed loop system should be very quiet with no water losses. >7. One of the big advantages of steam is the idling efficiency. You >use very little fuel sitting still. This could be significant for trucks, >busses, and city delivery vehicles.
This is a *major* advantage. >Questions: >1. What kind of gas mileage did the Stanley’s get compared to other >vehicles of the time?
They got between 8 and 15 MPG of fuel and about 10 MPG of water. >2. Given reasonable engineering assumptions about the change in the art, >what would the comparison be now?
That’s hard to say. The very best superheat compound cycle steam plants have an efficiency of around 50% while the best IC engines have an efficiency around 28%. To approach a big compound plant in a car though, that would be really tough. I’d *guess* from what I’ve read that the steam plant would be about 30% worse than the IC plant for the same peak horsepower. One thing should be noted, however, the characteristics of the two engines are wildly different and a lower peak horsepower steam plant should offer the same driving characteristics as a bigger IC plant. >3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than >water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
Steam is a really good working fluid. It’s thermal characteristics are ideal for automotive temperatures. And it acts as it’s own lubricant at the piston speeds required. In a closed system, vapor/liquid transistion is important to develop the necessary condenser vacuum. The freezing problem is easily dealt with in the areas where it’s an issue by using good insulation and a pilot flame. Higher molecular weight fluids wouldn’t develop as much pressure at the same temperature in a dynamic system. Gary
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd >>is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ >>condenser and associated weight. > That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, the > state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a > major drought. >No, that’s not the problem. You could probably do a day’s drive on a >toilet-flush’s worth of water. >It’d have to be distilled, though, and perhaps even chemically treated. That >means you’d have to buy it at the store or at the gas station, and that means >you’d have TWO fluids to replenish periodically. That, and distilled water >is $.60/gal. >Inconvinience. That’s all.
Hmmm. Multiply that toilet flush’s worth of water by millions of commuters and you’re talking about a substantial amount of water. >Furthermore, you can’t plug your car in at a parking lot.
Never been to northern Idaho, have you? If you had, you’d realize just how flat-out wrong the above claim is. Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That’s what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Response:
>> For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ >condenser and associated weight. > That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, the > state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a > major drought.
No, that’s not the problem. You could probably do a day’s drive on a toilet-flush’s worth of water. It’d have to be distilled, though, and perhaps even chemically treated. That means you’d have to buy it at the store or at the gas station, and that means you’d have TWO fluids to replenish periodically. That, and distilled water is $.60/gal. Inconvinience. That’s all. It’s the same thing with the electric heater for wintertime. Maybe the real men in the Tater State don’t mind, but little inconviniences like that (ec. the Stanley Steamer’s pilot light) doom a design. Furthermore, you can’t plug your car in at a parking lot. And a solar panel wouldn’t work at night. They key to this thing seems to be using the least amount of working fluid: Reducing the amound of water used: Reduces condneser size. Speeds startup. Leaves us with less water to keep from freezing–less energy to keep warm. Makes for a more efficient, low-volume, high-temp, high-pressure system. "Knee-jerk engineering" tells me that we could create an even lower volume system that those today by utilizing: Super-skinny tubing (pencil-diameter) with lots of fins. Extreamy meticulus computer control of the feedwater pump. Very high compression-ratio engines with precision geartrains. Comments? CM >–
Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy.
Response:
>> 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than > water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.) > For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ >condenser and associated weight.
That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, the state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a major drought. Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That’s what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Response:
>>> 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than >> water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.) > For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd >is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ >condenser and associated weight. >That’s fine if you have LOTS of water to waste. In case you haven’t heard, the >state that’s pushing hardest for reduced emissions happens still to be in a >major drought.
True enough. I live in Southeast Texas, which normally has an embarassing surplus of water. We worry far more about flooding than droughts. Not so long ago, local rivers were 30 feet over their banks… Does anyone think it’s practical to design a boiler that can use salt water directly? You’d have to flush the tank of accumulated sediment every so often, and there might well be other contamination problems. But could this be a reasonable solution? — N5WVR | "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I’d rent out Texas and live | in Hell." -General Sheridan |
Response:
>4. I think that the original reason Stanley’s had pilot lights was to keep >the boiler from freezing in winter. Some clever design is called for here, >with either pilot light and/or systems that self drain into a holding tank >won’t get bent out of shape by freezing, and could be warmed easily with >either a plug or a torch.
Or, of course, you could do what they do in Idaho: Have a resistance heater, and plug your car into an electrical to prevent freezing at night. Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That’s what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Response:
> 3. As long as the lubricant is immiscable with water, I don’t see a problem. > A sump, a centrifugal filter, a final separation filter.
AHA! So all those devices are availalbe off-the-shelf, eh? > 5. Good insulation around the engine would help efficiency. The closer the > engine is to the temperature of the working fluid, the less energy you lose > to heating metal.
I’d worry of hurting the engine. What if the condensed water was used to "cool" the engine? That way, you’d recover a lot of the heat used to heat the metal. > 6. One of the claimed advantages of the Stanley Steamers was their noise. > They were very quiet. This would be a big selling point with me. They > were also very simple mechanically, although messy in terms of plumbing. > I think the entire drive train had 24 moving parts.
I’m looking at diagrams and theorizing how the rotary engine could be adapted to steam use. It would mean a having a gear train, in the form of two exhaust and two intake valves per rotor. The advantages of a rotary would be: small size (more room for boiler) simplicity (albiet offset by the geartrain) having one power stroke for every rotation (it’s essentially a two-stroke, but has two power cycles going at any one time) > 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than > water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
Some kind of oil, maybe? The Saturn V lubricated its fuel pumps with kerosine. I’d be afraid of 1000C flammable gas shooting out of my car if it sprung a leak, though. A CFC? — Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy.
Response:
> 2. Some of these 30 second boilers work as ‘flash boilers’ Flame heats > a plate, and the water is sprayed on. With some work, I bet that you could > trade increased fuel consumption for faster heating.
Sure, just have two heating systems.. The "pilot" system heats it quickly and inefficiently, then the efficient system takes over. > 4. I think that the original reason Stanley’s had pilot lights was to keep > the boiler from freezing in winter. Some clever design is called for here, > with either pilot light and/or systems that self drain into a holding tank > won’t get bent out of shape by freezing, and could be warmed easily with > either a plug or a torch.
I can’t believe this is a big problem, but only a chemist/chemical engineer could say for sure. We solved this problem in gasoline recips by creating antifreeze; although existing antifreezes may interfere with the steam cycle, can’t we develop some other chemical additive? > 6. One of the claimed advantages of the Stanley Steamers was their noise. > They were very quiet. This would be a big selling point with me. They > were also very simple mechanically, although messy in terms of plumbing. > I think the entire drive train had 24 moving parts. > 7. One of the big advantages of steam is the idling efficiency. You > use very little fuel sitting still. This could be significant for trucks, > busses, and city delivery vehicles.
Given the large mass, slow acceleration, high torque, low noise, etc… I would say that the initial version should be a replacement for large diesel trucks (everything from small Macks to 18-wheelers). This looks like a near-perfect solution, provided that the efficiency is high enough. And I HATE getting behind trucks belching choking black smoke!!! > Questions: > 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than > water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.)
For some applications, like these "commuter" cars that the electric crowd is pushing, you might want to keep the loop open and eliminate the radiator/ condenser and associated weight. > => University of Alberta Lab Manager, Space Physics Group <= > => tel:403 492-3713 fax: 403 492-4256 <=
– N5WVR | "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I’d rent out Texas and live | in Hell." -General Sheridan |
Response:
=|> =|> =|> [....] =|> > It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds. =|> =|> But is that just too long? With an IC, it’s a fraction of that. =|> What can make from quiker startup? How about an electric heating element? =|> Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key. Wouldn’t a low-volume, =|> high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) =|> start up faster? =|> [....] = =Could always run off electric motor/battery for 1st 30 secs How does the question of whether you’re using electricity or fuel for heat make any difference to the question of how long you get that part of the system in which you produce steam up to operating temperature? Personally, I can’t imagine very many situations in which having to wait 30 seconds between the time you turn on the ignition and the time you can start the car moving would be a serious problem. Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That’s what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Response:
|> =|> |> =|> |> =|> [....] |> =|> > It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds. |> =|> |> =|> But is that just too long? With an IC, it’s a fraction of that. |> =|> What can make from quiker startup? How about an electric heating element? |> =|> Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key. Wouldn’t a low-volume, |> =|> high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) |> =|> start up faster? |> =|> [....] |> = |> =Could always run off electric motor/battery for 1st 30 secs |> |> How does the question of whether you’re using electricity or fuel for heat |> make any difference to the question of how long you get that part of the system |> in which you produce steam up to operating temperature? |> [....] It doesn’t … I didn’t say it did. I was just suggesting using an electric motor to *move* the car (not generate heat) until the steam engine could take over — i.e. steam/electric hybrid. Since apparently the electric motor would only be needed for 30 secs I would think the battery requirements would be pretty small. Larry Edwards
Response:
Some observations: 1. My diesel pickup requires that I turn the key, and wait 17 seconds for the glowplugs to heat up. In winter I may have to do this three times before the engine will start. 30 seconds is no big deal. But then, I don’t use my truck to go 6 blocks to the corner store. I can see where it wouldn’t be popular with some people. 2. Some of these 30 second boilers work as ‘flash boilers’ Flame heats a plate, and the water is sprayed on. With some work, I bet that you could trade increased fuel consumption for faster heating. 3. As long as the lubricant is immiscable with water, I don’t see a problem. A sump, a centrifugal filter, a final separation filter. Bush pilots used to filter water from their fuel by wetting a piece of thin fine weave cloth with gasoline. The gas could go through, the water wouldn’t. 4. I think that the original reason Stanley’s had pilot lights was to keep the boiler from freezing in winter. Some clever design is called for here, with either pilot light and/or systems that self drain into a holding tank won’t get bent out of shape by freezing, and could be warmed easily with either a plug or a torch. 5. Good insulation around the engine would help efficiency. The closer the engine is to the temperature of the working fluid, the less energy you lose to heating metal. 6. One of the claimed advantages of the Stanley Steamers was their noise. They were very quiet. This would be a big selling point with me. They were also very simple mechanically, although messy in terms of plumbing. I think the entire drive train had 24 moving parts. 7. One of the big advantages of steam is the idling efficiency. You use very little fuel sitting still. This could be significant for trucks, busses, and city delivery vehicles. Questions: 1. What kind of gas mileage did the Stanley’s get compared to other vehicles of the time? 2. Given reasonable engineering assumptions about the change in the art, what would the comparison be now? 3. Given a closed system is there a better choice of working fluid than water (Something that wouldn’t freeze, and could act as a lubricant.) — => University of Alberta Lab Manager, Space Physics Group <= => tel:403 492-3713 fax: 403 492-4256 <=
Response:
> But the steam car is now again on its way. The engine will probably > be hermetically sealed,
I expose my greenness when I admit that I don’t know what "hermetically sealed" means. Wuzzit mean? > requiring no lubrication, no makeup water. > Its condenser will operate with vacuum.
With vacuum? Hmmmm. As a side note, blowing air over the condenser would reduce its necessary size. > It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds.
But is that just too long? With an IC, it’s a fraction of that. What can make from quiker startup? How about an electric heating element? Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key. Wouldn’t a low-volume, high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) start up faster? > The engine itself > will be so light that one mechanic can pick it up in his arms.
Whoa, now! That would be a very high-temp and high-pressure system, indeed. In the GM Steam Car, the boiler was half the engine, and it weighed hundreds of pounds. The whole 160hp system wieghed 450 pounds more than the 300hp IC engine it replaced. ’Gonna take some work. Need input, need input! CM — Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy.
Response:
|> |> |> [....] |> > It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds. |> |> But is that just too long? With an IC, it’s a fraction of that. |> What can make from quiker startup? How about an electric heating element? |> Good insulation? Very low water volume might me the key. Wouldn’t a low-volume, |> high-temperature, high-pressure system (with less water to boil) |> start up faster? |> [....] Could always run off electric motor/battery for 1st 30 secs Larry Edwards
Response:
> Then you lose all the advantages you get out of the phase change of your > working fluid. If you’re going to use a hot gas, why not use the combustion > products? Wow, we’ve just invented the combustion turbine engine!
Now, lets not get smart, here… But does Mr. Lydick have it right? Would there be any advantages at all of an external-combustion gas turbine over an internal-combustion model? Emmisions is the only possiblity I can come up with… but if the gas temperatures were the same in both systems, it wouldn’t really make a difference, would it? That settles it. ’Looks like we’ll have to use a liquid. Damn. Becuase a liquid working fluid means: A condenser A bigger boiler Lubricant separation before condensation Can anyone explain the nessecity of this? Why does lubricant have to be mixed with the steam, like the book on the GM Steam Car said? I suppose that just like the best IC engines burn a _little_ oil, a _little_ lubricant would leak into the fluid system of a steam car. The book said that if the lubricant stayed in the water after condensation, the boiler would be damaged. How’s that? Would the oil break down in the 1000 degree + boiler? Could the lubricant be separated AFTER condensation, BEFORE boiling? HELP!!! CM — Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy.
Response:
Quoting from Vannevar Bush’s autobiography _Pieces_of_the_Action_ (Morrow, 1970) page 213: But I was convinced then, and still am, that the steam engine is a better automobile engine than the things we now use. One reason, which we are just now beginning to take seriously, and which the automobile industry ignored for two generations, is that a steam car does not pollute the air the way an internal combustion engine does. With a properly adjusted flame it does not create carbon monoxide to leak into the car and asphyxiate the passengers. Moreover, it has natural characteristics that fit. It is inherently a variable-speed engine and the automobile certainly provides a variable-speed load. The internal combustion engine is inherently a constant-speed engine, and all sorts of gadgetry have hence been necessary to fit engine and car together. The steam engine went out for a number of reasons. The Stanleys, who held important patents, became old and quit vigorous development Perhaps there is a lesson here–that old men should not hold controlling patents. A second factor was this: The gasoline engine developers got legislation enacted in various places which prohibited an open flame in a garage, and the steamer had a pilot flame that generally was kept alight. To keep steam cars, with their pilots burning, out of garages was fairly easy to do because of course town fathers generally were afraid of fire. But so far as the technical aspects went, it would have been possible to prevent flame hazards. One could have enclosed the flame, electric ignition was possible, and in some cases one did not need to have a flame in the garage at all. As I have said, after the fire went out on a steam automobile, you could run it for many miles on the steam still in the boilers. In fact, I used to leave my car in the garage overnight, come out in the morning, run out of the garage on the steam that was still in the boiler, and fire up after I was on the road. Hence though it was possible for a steam car to be developed that would not have any open flame in the garage, this legislation was one thing that finally killed off the steam automobile. Quoting from page 215: But the steam car is now again on its way. The engine will probably be hermetically sealed, requiring no lubrication, no makeup water. Its condenser will operate with vacuum. It will use diesel oil as fuel and will cause very little pollution. It will be quiet, flexible, powerful. It will get off from a cold start in thirty seconds. It will contain so little water that the danger of explosion will be made negligable. It will have a fire, in a furnace instead of inside cylinders, but this will be so shielded, in the manner of a miner’s lamp, that it will not present a fire hazard in a garage. The engine itself will be so light that one mechanic can pick it up in his arms. It will last for years without attention. When in full production it will be cheaper to build, and to operate, than present cars. The steam car will not be built by the present automobile industry unless some unit of that industry suddenly sees a great light, or government orders subsidize a new unit in the industry. It will have competition, as I will discuss below. But in fact, if I were disinterested, and had to bet, I might bet on steam. [There reasons why Bush believed all this are discussed at length in this chapter, which also covers electric cars, fuel cells, etc.]
Response:
>The problems with size and wieght experienced with the GM Steam Car, and steam >engines in general, make me consider using a gas as the working fluid.
Then you lose all the advantages you get out of the phase change of your working fluid. If you’re going to use a hot gas, why not use the combustion products? Wow, we’ve just invented the combustion turbine engine! Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That’s what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I’m saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don’t hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Response:
The problems with size and wieght experienced with the GM Steam Car, and steam engines in general, make me consider using a gas as the working fluid. Here are some important stats on certain gases available to us: Gas Specific heat (cal/g) Viscosity(micropoises) Hydrogen 3.41 108 at 130 deg Helium 1.24 228 at 100 deg Nitrogen (air) .249 219 at 130 deg steam <1 125 at 100 deg I reason that a gas’s viscosity is important, becuase we’ll have to pump it back through the heater without condensing it), and that will be a significant power drain. (then again, we don’t have to overcome any latent heat in boiling) Any comments on pumping gases to very high pressures (c200+ psi)? Exacly how is that done, anyway? Some variety of positive-displacement pump, I’d guess. And what kind of engine would be best? Could turbocharger-like turbines be easily adapted to this use, since they are used to handling high temperature (1000 deg F) gases? Or would we resort to the old-reliable piston engine, complicated as it is? What about gas leakage? Hope to hear from you all, and thanks again for your help! CM — Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities. Muncie, IN 47306 317-285-7433 Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily shared by the Indiana Academy.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.