Steam-Powered Cars-Why Not?

Factual Questions
41

>> “Fred’s record was beaten by more powerful petrol driven vehicles, but his Steam Land Speed Record (SLSR) lived on for almost 80 years. It was only bettered in 1985 when Bob Barber, another American, raised the record to 145.607 MPH in a modern steam turbine car.”

So what’s your point? What does that prove exactly? That is strictly steam. ICE cars have done better than that for a long time. That page does not say it is more efficient or anything. I am sure you can find a page about wheelchair speed records. So what? Why is that relevant here. We are trying to compare steam vs internal combustion.

The idea that car makers only think in terms if ICE because that is what they know is just ludicrous. They are spending countless millions in investigating alternatives including electric, fuel cells, etc. If they saw any promise in steam they would jump at it because it is a much simpler and older technology than what they are investigating.

Racing cars are developed from scratch. Whatever works is what goes into them.

Saying car makers do not change, do not innovate, because they are too lazy to do it and they stick to what they know is ludicrous. It is a very competitive market and if any car maker saw any promise in steam they’d be looking into it before the competitors did.

42

Fuel has a given amount of energy and the more directly it can be converted into mechanical energy, the lower the losses. Gases can be burnt and have their energy push directly against a piston head or against the blades of a turbine. If you use the energy of the combustion to boil water and have the steam produce the mechanical energy, I would expect lower efficiency just because you have one more transformation in the chain. When you burn solids you have no choice but to have that intermediate step but when your fuel is gas you can skip it. Steam may be suitable for nuclear of coal fired plants but burning gasoline to produce steam to later produce mechanical energy makes no sense as you can produce the mechanical energy directly with fewer losses.

How anyone can think that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy to keep more efficient engines from being produced is beyond me. Anyone who can build a better motor is assured success in the market. The market for automotive and marine engines is extremely competitive. Marine engines would be even more suited to steam because they are much more uniformly loaded (no accelerate now to break at the next light) and weight is not such a concern. A marine steam engine which was comparable in efficiency to an ICE would compete favorably even if it lagged in other respects. The fact is there is none.

To think every single last engineer in the industry is sworn to protect the statu quo is plainly silly. Someone would start competing. When big firms overlook things, little guys start up and get rich. When IBM and Univac underestimated the PC market, guys like Bill Gates, Compaq, Dell, Apple and many others got very rich. What did not happen was that the PC was never invented or marketed.

43

sailor, who said anything about conspiracies? I certainly didn’t. I said that fuel cells were the “flavor of the month” as far as automotive research. That doesn’t mean that there’s a conspiracy against 'em. At one time, when nuclear power was thought to be the be all and end all, Ford designed a nuclear powered car. The idea was wisely dropped. (Can you imagine what would have happened if one of those got smacked by a semi at high speed? :eek: )

Steam powered cars fell out of favor for the reasons that yabob mentioned, plus because of the work of man by the name of Henry Ford. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? He introduced a car by the name of the Model-T. Unlike the steam cars of the day (mainly Stanely Steamers which were priced about like Cadillacs), the Model-T was extremely cheap to buy, plus Stanley was designing rather drab looking cars compared to others in its price range. People quickly lost interest in steam powered cars as they were no longer fashionable. There has been research off and on in the years since by the major car companies into steam powered cars (the linked article above on the Skoda is from last year), but so far, none of them have decided to mass-produce one. (I’ll be more than happy to e-mail you scans I have of an article on GM’s steam powered Camero, the files total about 8 megs. Can your hotmail account handle a series of files that large, sailor?)

Which is really not surprising since its a hellishly expensive operation to convert an entire industry over to a new manufacturing process (new machinery must be bought, workers have to be trained, plus you’ve got to keep all your old equipment so that you can manufacture parts for the cars that have already been produced). Hybrid cars do perform better than regular cars, but you’ll notice that no one’s converted all their product lines over to that. Too damn expensive, especially when the car makers are most likely selling the cars at a loss. That’s one of the reasons why car makers are pinning their hopes on fuel cells. Unlike a steam powered car, a fuel cell vehicle produces almost zero pollution (I say “almost” because a FC is going to need lubrication, tires, etc., and there’s going to be pollution released when the car’s made.), so if the manufacturers can get the cost of FC’s down, then they win over every other car currently on the road today, hands down.

I don’t blame the car manufacturers for looking at FCs at the expensive of steamers or other kinds of designs. Imagine if you will GM spends billions (and it would take billions) of dollars to produce a steam powered car that performs better than an ICE powered car and Ford comes out with a FC car that performs as well as the steamer? I’m betting people will go for the FC. Why? Well, for one thing, FC’s have been getting all the media hype, plus a FC is going to have lower air-pollution levels so places like California are most likely going to pass legislation encouraging the production and sale of FC cars. GM’s going to be screwed. They’re going to have to play catch up or buy Ford’s technology (assuming that Ford wants to sell it to them). That’s not a conspiracy, that’s just the way the world works. California has a massive air pollution problem as we all know, and they’re going to want to ensure that FC cars are widely available in the state to get the air cleaned up faster.

All of this, of course, is assuming that FCs don’t turn out to be like cheap fusion power which has been “just around the corner” for the past 50 years or so.

44

I don’t buy it. I’ll tell you what is the flavor of the month every month: It’s making money.

I love it when the same people blame big industry for “planned obsolescence”, for making unneeded new products just to sell stuff and then blame the same big industry for stiffling innovation and selling the same old stuff.

The fact is that any company who saw a promise in steam would jump at the opportunity of getting a head start. Steam is not so different from ICE in manufacture. They have tried Wankel and other experiments. It is not like they are not willing to try.

The fact remains: use gasoline to heat water into steam and you have added one more transformation which necessarily introiduces losses. I do not see how you can get around that.

I’ll tell you what will make steam cars very attractive: when we have no liquid or gaseous fuels and cars must run on coal. That day steam cars will rule. We’ll just love stoking the boilers.

45

I don’t want to be a bitch, but I want to make a factual point here. One must always remember that CO[sub]2[/sub] is a pollutant, just not a noxious one (no pun intended). And California, just last week, signed a law requiring reduction of it from automobiles as a pollutant.

Fuel cells are somewhat more efficient than IC, but they still produce lots of CO[sub]2[/sub].

46

Not me - I’ll use Anthracite[sup]TM[/sup]-brand pre-micronized coal slurry. :stuck_out_tongue:

47

Really? I thought that fuel cells produced only water and power (Or are you talking about the fuel cells which use a hydrocarbon fuel? I was intending a LOX and hydrogen FC, not the hydrocarbon based ones). Where’s the CO[sub]2[/sub] come from (if you’re talking about the LOX/hydrogen ones)?

48

>> I was intending a LOX and hydrogen FC

By chance I just finished watching a documentary about the Hindenburg. I’m telling ya, nobody is getting me to test a LOX and hydrogen FC.

49

Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline. Both are explosive substances. Did the documentary mention that it was most likely not the fault of hydrogen but the fault of the paint used on the zepplin?

According to the book ***Fuel From Water*** most people on the Hindenburg died when they jumped. Those that rode the airframe down tended to survive.

50

sailor, ever heard of “Return on Investment”? It took GM five billion dollars to start Saturn. This is a car that’s based on conventional technology, not the product of starting from scratch R&D which is pretty much what a steam powered car would be. If it cost GM merely 1 million dollars (an absurdly low figure as most concept cars using conventional technology cost at least that much) to develop a Proof Of Concept steamer that was able to outperfom an ICE car, they’re still going to have to shell out five billion just to get the cars into production.

Then, they’re going to have to convince people that steam cars are a better idea. As this thread demonstrates, not an easy idea.

I’m not blaming the industry for anything, it’s expensive to start up a car company these days. There’s federal regulations dictating product safety that have to be met (crash testing), there’s equipment that has to be designed and built (somebody’ll have to design the assembly line from scratch), employees that have to be trained (mechanics and assembly-line workers) all this costs money. Lots of money, for a product that people may not want. In the end, it’ll all be for naught. Why? Because someone, somewhere, will come up with a workable FC and steam powered cars will be as dead as they are now.

As for the effiencies of steamers, have you looked at [this[/url site at all, sailor? Its got math formulas and everything. Discusses the rankine cycle and the otto cycle engines in comparison to steamers.

[url=“http://prsteam.inventdata.com.au/steamcar3.html”]Here’s](http://www.greenhills.net/~apatter/Sitetoc.html) a page that discusses some of the factors that killed steamers.

Here’s an ad for a book (which I’ve only made it partway through) on steam locomotive designs which were able to out perform diesels in all areas. (The book’s a $100, no one’s borrowing my copy!)

As for why no one’s looked at stirling engines other than a few hobbiests is that stirlings have some drawbacks that could possibly be overcome, but you’ve got to find someone willing to spend the money to do so. (And try to find someone who knows about the engines.) Why spend the money to develop a totally new and untested technology that’s almost certainly going to be obsolete in a few years, when you can spend that money on developing FCs which will most likely be around as long as the ICE powered car has?

51

>> Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline.

I am not so sure of that.

>> Both are explosive substances

There are degrees of explosiveness. Coal is explosive, gasoline is explosive, dynamite is explosive and uranium is explosive, just in different degrees.

>> Did the documentary mention that it was most likely not the fault of hydrogen but the fault of the paint used on the zepplin

Yes, that was the gist of the documentary that sparks of lightning or static started the fire. Whatever was at fault doesn’t matter. The fact is the whole thing ended in a ball of fire and, since then, nobody has thought making dirigibles and filling them with hydrogen was a good idea even if using other materials. Now they use helium.

For now I prefer having a tank full of gasoline in my car than a tank full of hydrogen. If and when Hydrogen cars show to be as safe as gasoline cars, then I’ll be happy to jump on the bandwagon.

A simple experiment I did when I was about 13 to see if my science book told the truth or just made things up: Took some iron filings and put them in a small bottle and poured some vinegar. The cork stopper had a plastic tube for the gas to come out/ I had read an acid (acetic) would react with a metal (iron) and produce hydrogen. Well, nothing much was very obviuosly happening and I was trying to detect any traces of Hydrogen. The obvious way (for a 13 year old at least) is to bring a flame and see if any gas burns, which would indicated hydrogen. As I lit the match, the bottle blew up in front of my face with such violence I am lucky I did not lose my eyes. Do not try this at home.

I do not think my parents ever found out about that incident but for many years they embarrased me by telling the story of how I was playing with gasoline and set the toilet tank on fire. ( I believe the experiment was to see if gasoline did indeed float over water).

Believe me, Hydrogen is much more dangerous and dificult to handle. At least for a 13 year old.

52

Well, sure, if you are talking about hydrogen fuel cells, you are quite correct. Since the thread was mainly dealing with gasoline heat sources, I assumed a hydrocarbon fuel for the FC. My mistake.

I don’t really have too much a problem personally with hydrogen safety - given the way that the tort system works, I assume that any manufacturer is going to have an enormous aount of research into safety - so much so, that it may kill hydrogen altogether. This is a already a concern in hydrogen-car entusiast circles - the public perception issue, and the insane product liability laws that we have in the US. Can you just imagine a civil suit against Ford, after a drunk slams his car into a light pole and it catches on fire, where his attorney starts the trial off with footage of the Hindenburg crash?

Oh, the humanity!

Personally, I think that the American civil liability system will prevent hydrogen cars from being a reality in the US. We may see them in Europe, but not here. IMO.

However…where is the hydrogen coming from? And how energy intensive is that process? Many people say that we will just use solar cells to electrolyze seawater…but if we had the energy to do that, we would have the energy to supply all of our electric needs anyway, and wouldn’t have to worry about hydrogen in the first place! No, in practical terms, I think fuel cells are going to be used with either methane, ethanol, methanol, or gasoline if they are going to find mass usage. And if so, they will still be greenhouse gas emitters.

53

Quote Sailor
"Marine engines would be even more suited to steam because they are much more uniformly loaded (no accelerate now to break at the next light) and weight is not such a concern. A marine steam engine which was comparable in efficiency to an ICE would compete favorably even if it lagged in other respects. The fact is there is none. "

Are you sure about that statement?
There are no steam powered marine engines?
I think you’d better look that one up.
I know I am.

54

Of course I am talking of marine engines under (say) 350 HP, of the size that could be used in a car. I am not talking about humongous powerplants for ships or about humongous electric powerplants on land. We are discussing the small motors which could be used in cars. That same size is used in small boats and, if steam were practical, a boat has fewer requirements with respect to volume, weight, refrigeration, elasticity, etc. I know of no small marine steam engines.

55

Ah, yes, the Hindenburg factor. Of course, saying that one wouldn’t drive a hydrogen powered car because of the Hindenburg is akin to saying that you won’t go on a cruise because of the Titanic or fly in a plane because of the crash of TWA 800.

sailor your little story about your experience making hydrogen is a classic example of misconceptions people have about all kinds of things. Let me ask you this: At the age of thirteen, if someone told you to take a bottle with some gasoline in the bottom of it and hold a match to it, do you think you would have done it? Because that’s essentially what you did in your experiment. You had no idea how volatile hydrogen was because you’d never been exposed to it until you nearly blew yourself up.

And how safe would one of those cars have to be? And how would you determine this? Remember, crash testing didn’t reveal the problems with Ford Explorers and their tires. How many people out there have had similar experiences to yours? (I didn’t start playing with hydrogen until about 10 years ago, I did play with gasoline and black powder as a teen. Nearly set myself on fire on more than one occassion.) Steam cars are the same way. If one were to be mass produced, the moment anyone died in one of them for any reason, you can bet that the survivors would be filing a lawsuit, claiming that the car was a defective design. Why do you think the car companies are spending millions of dollars hyping fuel cell cars now? To get people used to the concept, so that they they can mitigate the costs of lawsuits later. (Even if the car company wins, its still expensive to be sued.)

As for how hydrogen and gasoline stack up, let me run these numbers past ya:
Energy per Unit Volume (in BTU/ft[sup]3[/sup]):

Liquid Hydrogen: 237,690
Gasoline: 858,190

Autoignition temp (in F because I’m an American, damn it!):
Hydrogen: 1,076 deg.
Gasoline: 563 deg.

Flame temp:
Hydrogen: 3,713 deg.
Gasoline: 3,987 deg.

(Source: Fuel From Water)

As you can see, you get more “bang” for your buck from gasoline. Based on that data alone, I’d say that hydrogen was safer than gasoline. Hindenburg or not.

Frankly, I’m surprised that no one’s brought this argument up against steam cars: “Won’t the water freeze in the winter?” Yup. Unless, of course, your car has a pilot light, block heater, kept running, in a heated garage, or is well insulated.

56

Quote sailor
I know of no small marine steam engines.
Boy these guys are sure wasting their time then
http://www.pcez.com/~artemis/NASAlinks.htm

I particularly like the link selling plans to build your own steam engines capable of powering anything from RC models to ???

Here it is http://hasbrouck.8m.com/

57

I did mean torque converter. In practice it uses a fluid medium and the spacing between two opposing disks to change the rpm/torque from one shaft to the other. If you remove a transmission, and apply a variable spacing between these plates, or a variable pitch rotor inside the fluid medium controlling the drive shaft you have a device which could replace a transmission with a throttle as a stand alone device. My only qualm would be vescosity of the fluid medium and if you could get enough torque to the drive wheels with such a configuration.

To allow it to continue rotating while idle, the pitch of the internal rotor, or space between plates could be adjusted at to provide no or next to no friction within the fluid.

58

Tuckerfan: The frozen power supply argument does not hold much (can you see it coming?) water. Antifreeze is regularly added to water to keep ot from freezin in your water pump.

Certainly better anti freeze could and would be developed if there was a market for it. Finally, much of the world lives in places where it just plain don’t get all that cold.

59

justwannano, you have to be joking when you link to pages of hobbyists who are just having fun and have no concern about cost or efficiency. If that doesn’t prove my point I do not know what does.

Let’s get specific.
A marine diesel has a specific consumption in the order of 180 - 200 g/kwh. That is in line with Scanía’s 187 g/kWh for a 420-hp diesel

Let’s stop the generalities and please show me a steam engine of similar power with similar or lower specific consumption. Or answer this question: what is the best specific consumption a steam engine under 500 HP can achieve?

60

zen101, you realise we are talking about the water in the boiler circuit? I am not sure it is so easy to just add antifreeze. What happens to the antifreeze when you turn the water into superheated steam? I am not saying it can’t be done. I have no idea. Just that we are talking about the boiler circuit.