There’s IIRC, 1.5 cars for every American. And this wouldn’t be an overnight transformation, either. IIRC, the average age of cars on the road is 10 years. You’d also need time to design vehicles, train service personnel, and set up production lines (plus advertise). In that period of time, aluminum production can be ramped up, as well as smart folks will begin stockpiling scrap aluminum so that they don’t have to shell out money for a tank of aluminum. Wonder how many aluminum soft drink cans are thrown away every day?
Absolutely. I fully intend on keeping everyone updated as the project progresses. (Heck, if The Reader was willing to kick a little money in my direction, I’d be willing to slap a magnetic sign on the car advertising The Dope/SDMB/The Reader.)
The 50’s seem as if that would have been a proper timeframe for a nuclear powered steam automobile - tailfins, Elvis, etc. I don’t know what the expense of a small reactor would be, but technically possible? How tough is a 1/48th scale fission reactor?
From the people who brought you the Pinto and the Explorer comes the Ford Nucleon! :eek:
Is there something they’re not telling us?
http://www.race2win.net/images/cars/05/fusion06.jpg
It’s powered by razors?
I’d WAG that it’s tough-ish, 'cos that penetrating radiation is just as penetrating even when it’s from a small reactor, so you can’t skimp too much on the shielding.
I like the way that Wikipedia talks about amateur thermite users. :eek:
Whenever you burn something, carbon, Al, hydrogen whatever you loose energy, you always have waste heat you can never get anywhere near 100% efficiency - on a small scale I’d say you are lucky if you get 30%. It would be far better to use that Al to run a battery (yes it can be done, no I don’t remember what the other side is, but the Al can be restored by reversing it), this way you convert chemical>electrical>mechanical, eliminating the dreaded heat part, which could approach 100%.
That’s what is so nice about fuel cells, then go from chemical to electrical, no heat stage.
Other problems I don’t know how you plan to heat up water so quickly that not only will the car run from a dead start, but also melt the snow and ice away from the tires, far better to drop Al powder for traction IMHO.
If we really have to go carbon neutral, or even carbon negative, it’s going to be a combo of things including carbon sinks to offset carbon sources.
That dull ponderous thudding sound is the sound of my head, hitting the monitor over and over again. It doesn’t matter how many times we do this subject. It doesn’t matter *what * you put in your OP. It doesn’t matter what you link to or what suggestions you make about reading previous threads. It doesn’t matter how long the poster in question has been a member (coming up to six years in your case). If you mention steam cars, *someone * will always raise this “problem”. It is a meme that will not die, no matter how often and thoroughly debunked.
Look, it’s not just “the problem”…it’s more than that. It’s a matter of fuel. Tuckerfan proposes hydrogen derived from an aluminum reaction process. Well and good, except that has the same issues with public acceptance that LPG or any other pressurized gas has. The public likes gasoline, kerosene, and diesel because they are (mostly) stable in a liquid state and not under pressure until introduced to the engine.
And as an aside, the “problem” doesn’t just exist with steam. With a few glaring exceptions (Volkswagen, for instance), diesel engines weren’t accepted by the public for passenger cars because of the “glow plug” startup procedure required. The public wants to be able to crank it and go, no waiting, even for 20 or 30 seconds.
Now, if you want to talk about hybrid solution, that might make some sense…maybe steam turbines driving generators or something. However, even at that, there are efficiencies lost. If it were truly cheap and practical, that is what we’d be using in locomotives, rather than diesel turbines powering electric generators. As it is, it is apparently cheaper and more efficient to fuel turbines with diesel than to power them up with steam.
So, you are fighting several issues with the public:
1 - acceptance of pressurized hydrogen gas
2 - accepting even a minimal lag at startup
3 - increased cost in either fuel or hardware
4 - learning curve for mechanics
Now, I’m actually all for a steam-powered car. I personally love the idea, especially a small turbine-generator hybrid setup. I’d love that…but the general public is slothful, and a bit of a dullard, and they aren’t willing to accept the changes (yet).
Nice attempt at a save, but pretty transparent.
“a save”? The hell…?
I merely pointed out all of the challenges that face practical steam power. My dad and I used to discuss late into the evening when I was growing up, about what a great idea steam was…usually after we had built another steam-engine model together (those were great times). The issues I brought up always stumped us because we realized the problem wasn’t technology - it was perception.
Aren’t there gasses that expand with more energy delivery than steam? Freon or CFC’s? 
My beef isn’t with bringing up "real"problems with steam cars. Whether they are “real” is a moot point which we could debate at length no doubt. My beef is that in your initial post you brought up a complete furphy (20-30 minute start up time) despite plenty of hints (not least in the OP) that that is what it was.
The energy you can get out of a gas is related to the energy that you put in. Freon and CFC’s are used in certain situations (particularly refrigeration situations) because of their useful boiling points. They may have some highly marginal efficiency benefits over steam: I don’t know. But nothing very significant and I suspect that the practical benefits of using a gas as easily and cheaply obtained as steam would outweigh such marginal benefits, if any.
Freon and CFCs do not have the expansion ratios that water does. That’s what makes steam so much better, otherwise we’d be using them in powerplants instead of water.
kanicbird, I am somewhat familiar with what you’re talking about, however, there’s limitations to what they can do, otherwise they’d be used in laptops and cellphones. IIRC, the batteries have a relatively short lifespan. Longer than your standard dry cell batteries, but shorter than that of LioN.
DirkGntly, the Doble steamer had 15 moving parts, compare that to an engine of the same era which had hundreds (and one today which has thousands as well as computer controls). There’s also ways to shorten the warm up time to less than 30 seconds. One can use a heat battery (I can’t find the GQ thread about them at the moment) to preheat the water, given that the heat battery can store heat for 24 hours, it shouldn’t be a problem. Also, at the time diesel locomotives became dominant, they had a slightly higher operating cost than steamers and in recent years many countries have started looking at switching back to steamers because they think they can get better efficiencies out of them.
You could use the blow off at the end of the trip to charge some sort of storage device, a battery possibly? This way trips could be (initially) primarily electric until the boiler heats up.
That’s true, although there’s still going to be unusable waste heat after you’ve used the surplus pressure.
I can see that smaller boilers will reduce startup lag, but won’t they also reduce fuel efficiency?
There’s plenty of waste heat in an IC engine. Hell, you need a radiator and fan just to shed all that extra heat, and you shed it constantly while it’s running, not just when it’s been turned off.
I like the hybrid idea. Steam is a good technology for electricity generation, maybe the best bet is a hybrid battery/steam generator system.
Why flog this long-dead horse? You can buy a useable electric car NOW (TESLA)-it has a decent range acceptable recharge time, and good performance. it just costs 100K$. Really, we are not going to see any radical technologies in cars, until gasoline hits >5$/gallon. Gasoline engines are cheap and reliable, and work well.