Steam-Powered Cars-Why Not?

[Una_Persson]

Oh yes…to compare with my numbers above for an ideal situation net efficiency of 40.6% with a steam engine, I present the following numbers:

According to Chevron:

Diesel IC engine net efficiency:

Diesel engines can achieve thermal efficiencies in excess of 50%. The best gasoline engines are only about 30% to 33% efficient, and then only at wide throttle openings. As a result, diesel engines have better fuel economy than gasoline engines.

An interesting note is what they say about marine engines:

MARINE DIESEL ENGINES
Large marine diesels operate on the same principles as automotive DI diesels, but on a much larger scale. The pistons can be three feet (one meter) in diameter with a six-foot (two-meter) stroke. Because of the high mechanical stress involved with moving the large pistons, they operate at lower speeds, 70-100 rpm. Due to the slow speeds, these engines do not usually employ methods such as swirl to enhance mixing of fuel and air, as they are not necessary. These engines typically have compression ratios of 10:1 to 12:1 and can have thermal efficiencies of up to 55%.

Considering that the most efficient large-scale steam power plant I know of produces at a maximum net thermal efficiency of about 39-42% (depending on condenser backpressure and ambient conditions at that time of the year), I would be very, very surprised to see marine steam engines beat that.

Also, we have from NETL, when discussing fuel cell efficiencies:

Metric DoE 2000 Targets
System Efficiency at Peak Power (50kW-Net) 44%
System Efficiency at Nominal Power (12.5kW-Net) 55%
Net Power Density 350 W/liter
Net Specific Power 350 W/kg
System Cost (500,000 units/year) $100/kW

Also, in Table 12.1 from Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, John B. Heywood, 1988, McGraw-Hill, I can find:

                                  SI Engine        Diesel                        
Power Delivered:                      25-28         34-38
Cooling Water Loss:                   17-26         16-35
Misc. Heat Losses:                     3-10           2-6
Incomplete Combustion:                  2-5           1-2
Exhaust Heat Loss:                    34-45         22-35
Total:                                 100%          100%

So, Heywood does report much lower figures than the sources above, but then, he is limiting his table to average, actual numbers on the road, not optimally tuned engines or single-speed tuned engines. Heywood’s figures might be more accurate.

Also, these are for naturally aspirated engines only - a turbo engine ends up with a higher thermal efficiency overall (above 30% for IC, and above 40% for diesel), and that is not reflected here.

[Cerowyn]

*Originally posted by heavysteamer *
**There is a vast difference in a gas car between the advertized horsepower and the measurable horsepower to the road. A Stanley steam car of 20 horsepower will put 20 or more horsepower directly to the road. **

When you say “advertised” horsepower, are you referring to the CAE rating, or BHP? Detroit was certainly guilty of measuring HP at the crank at one time, but that hasn’t been true for 30 years.

[Tuckerfan]

Okay, I’ve found my October 1974 issue of Popular Science which details an experimental steam powered car built by Jay Carter Sr. and his son Jay Carter, Jr. Interestingly enough, the article also contains reviews of the 1975 model cars by Detroit being introduced.

The steam engine was stuffed into a VW wagon and the car with engine weighed 2500 lbs. The Carters stated that they’d be able to cut the weight down by switching out some of the components with lighter ones.

The car averaged 23 MPG in testing and met 1977 emission standards.

According to the report on the 1975 models being introduced, the gas milage winner was a 1975 AMC Gremlin with a 232 6 cylinder engine that had an average of 18.4 MPG.

[Tuckerfan]

Oh, and I should point out that the steamer built by the Carters was burning a mix of kerosene and gasoline at the time.

[DougC]

• • • Steam and Stirling engines don’t produce much power-per-pound, and the things they conserve the most are ordinary air and water, two things not in short supply.
• Hybrid vehicles have two engines, and two engines are less efficient overall than one, because either you’re using both and experiencing energy losses in both, or one is carrying the other around when it’s not needed. You’d probably do better just building a car small and very light, and just using a long-stroke/low-RPM piston engine burning regular old gasoline.
• What California has in short supply is a matter of debate. - DougC

[heavysteamer]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**The questions were directed to justwannano and heavysteamer (quite obviously I would think, since they are the ones defending the point of view I address) and not to Anthracite.

In any case, I have made my point here and feel I have nothing further to contribute unless and until the other side provides some tangible proof and support rather than the general “the only reason it can’t be done is because Detroit opposes it”.

If and when any solid evidence is presented in this thread showing a steam engine (<500 HP) with a specific fuel consumption below 200 g/kwh is possible, then I will address it. In the meanwhile I have said all I had to say. **

>>I see you didn’t do the simple calculation using the figures I gave you. If you did you would know that your figure of 200 g/kwh for an automobile on the highway is wrong.by more than a factor of 2. So it seems unreasonable to me for you to require us to come up with a steam car that can better what a gas car cannot approach. Would you agree?<<

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by heavysteamer *
**

>>I see you didn’t do the simple calculation using the figures I gave you. If you did you would know that your figure of 200 g/kwh for an automobile on the highway is wrong.by more than a factor of 2. So it seems unreasonable to me for you to require us to come up with a steam car that can better what a gas car cannot approach. Would you agree?<< **

If you have the answers, then why not post them? I understand that you’re trying to make a point, but after two posts and not giving the answers yourself, you’re coming off as sounding taunting and rude.

Here’s the answer, since you will not supply it:

First, you made an assumption that your Tempo would require about 11.2 kW to go 50 mph on a level road (a Honda CRX HF required only 7.8 kW to go 60 mph, BTW). Then you said that your car requires about 32 mph(sic) at that speed - meaning, of course, 32 mpg.

Over 1 hour, that is 1.5625 gal/hour

Gasoline is 0.72-0.78 kg/dm[sup]3[/sup]. That is (assuming 0.75 kg/dm[sup]3[/sup] average) about 2.84 kg/gal. Or 2840 g/gal.

Thus, this car uses about 4438 g gasoline/hr.

If it takes 11.2 kW to operate, steady-state, then we have 396.3 g/kW*hr.

Mystery solved.

[sailor]

heavysteamer, no, I am not going to spend any more time on this. If you believe the figures I have supplied are wrong you can take it up with all the manufacturers who mention them in the websites I cited and with the sources Anthracite cited. You have not provided any evidence that those figures are not correct and they jibe with everything I know. They definitely jibe with the motor of my own boat so you are going to have a hard time convincing me it is all a huge conspiracy and a lie.

Anthracite, thanks for taking the trouble to collect all that information as I know it takes time. Just to confirm I did a rough calculation: Diesel fuel has about 130,000 BTU/gallon and specific density 0.84 which works out to about 12 Kwh/kg. An engine with a 40% shaft efficiency would have a specific fuel consumption of 208 g/Kwh which matches what we are saying all along.

[heavysteamer]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**
If you have the answers, then why not post them? I understand that you’re trying to make a point, but after two posts and not giving the answers yourself, you’re coming off as sounding taunting and rude.

Here’s the answer, since you will not supply it:

First, you made an assumption that your Tempo would require about 11.2 kW to go 50 mph on a level road (a Honda CRX HF required only 7.8 kW to go 60 mph, BTW). Then you said that your car requires about 32 mph(sic) at that speed - meaning, of course, 32 mpg.

Over 1 hour, that is 1.5625 gal/hour

Gasoline is 0.72-0.78 kg/dm[sup]3[/sup]. That is (assuming 0.75 kg/dm[sup]3[/sup] average) about 2.84 kg/gal. Or 2840 g/gal.

Thus, this car uses about 4438 g gasoline/hr.

If it takes 11.2 kW to operate, steady-state, then we have 396.3 g/kW*hr.

Mystery solved. **

You are right, I may have been a little bit taunting to sailor as he kept repeating his figure of 200 g/kwh. I have been a little short of time, steamboating all weekend in the hot sun, giving free rides and explaining the operation of a steam plant.

The 11.2 kw was a measured figure for a loaded Ford Falcon, not my Tempo, which probably requires less. If we do the calculation for your example of the Honda CRX what would we get? What kind of mileage does a CRX get at 60 mph? Perhaps 40 mpg?

Resulting in 546 g/kwh?

If we are going to look at a steam car shouldn’t we be looking at this type of figure rather than 200 g/kwh?

But, I still like considering fuel cost per unit output, since steam power can use fuels that gasoline engines cannot. I have a 10 KW steam powered electric plant that generates electricity at 1/5 the fuel cost of the same amount of electricity of my Onan 6 KW diesel generator.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by heavysteamer *
**If we do the calculation for your example of the Honda CRX what would we get? What kind of mileage does a CRX get at 60 mph? Perhaps 40 mpg?

Resulting in 546 g/kwh?**

The HF got about 55-58 mpg (at 60 mph), which puts it close to your figures of 400 g/kW*hr.

[heavysteamer]

Originally posted by Anthracite *
**
The HF got about 55-58 mpg (at 60 mph), which puts it close to your figures of 400 g/kWhr. **

Now we are entering the real world with respect to actual road performance of available autos. I presume the HF is a pretty special model. I don’t have one or know anybody who does. Now we get to the question: Why no steam cars? Because it would take a lot of money to develop to an adequate level of efficiency, meaning it would have to be a good jump ahead of ic cars. Even if the money was available, I don’t think Detroit has the engineers to do the job. GM tried to build a steam car around 1970. Pontiac Div. built one and Besler Corp. built one. The Besler car was pretty good (It used Doble technology 50 years old at the time), the GM car was a piece of junk.

[sailor]

I keep repeating the figure because it is a fact and I have shown plenty of supporting evidence. You OTOH have not shown one single cite in support of your claims as to the efficiency of steam engines.

Diesel is more efficient than gasoline but most people prefer gasoline because it is lighter and more responsive. There is just no way under the sun you can build a steam engine which is lighter and more responsive than gasoline. If you are looking for efficiency then you have to compare with diesel.

By allowing a steam engine to be mounted on a boat I am removing most of the obstacles which would prevent its use in a car (weight, volume, responsivess, etc). I am making it easier for the steam engine to compete because gawd knows it’s not going to be suitable for cars. I don’t care where you put it, the comparison is very simple:

Fact: Diesels have shaft efficiencies in the order of 40% and higher which represents specific fuel consumption of 200 g/Kwh and lower. I can go to the dealer and buy an engine with these specs tomorrow. It is therefore a fair model to judge other engines for efficiency. I have supported these figures with plenty of cites.

Fact: You have not supplied one single cite, one single figure, showing reliably what the efficiency of a steam engine is. You just pull figures about cars off the top of your head. In any case, they are irrelevant. What you need to show is a steam engine which can do better than a diesel in efficiency and I don’t care if your car gets five MPG. Sell it and get a diesel if you are concerned with efficiency.

[heavysteamer]

Originally posted by Anthracite *
**
The HF got about 55-58 mpg (at 60 mph), which puts it close to your figures of 400 g/kWhr. **

Now we are entering the real world with respect to actual road performance of available autos. I presume the HF is a pretty special model. I don’t have one or know anybody who does. Now we get to the question: Why no steam cars? Because it would take a lot of money to develop to an adequate level of efficiency, meaning it would have to be a good jump ahead of ic cars. Even if the money was available, I don’t think Detroit has the engineers to do the job. GM tried to build a steam car around 1970. Pontiac Div. built one and Besler Corp. built one. The Besler car was pretty good (It used Doble technology 50 years old at the time), the GM car was a piece of junk. When you get the efficiency (which will require pretty high maximum cycle temperatures) you are still left with the freezing problem.

[sailor]

heavysteamer, I keep repeating the 200 g/kwh figure because it is a fact and I have shown plenty of supporting evidence. You OTOH have not shown one single cite in support of your claims as to the efficiency of steam engines. Zero. Nada. Zilch. You just make vague claims with no figures, no support.

Diesel is more efficient than gasoline but most people prefer gasoline because it is lighter and more responsive. There is just no way under the sun you can build a steam engine which is lighter and more responsive than gasoline. If you are looking for efficiency then you have to compare with diesel.

By allowing a steam engine to be mounted on a boat I am removing most of the obstacles which would prevent its use in a car (weight, volume, responsivess, etc). I am making it easier for the steam engine to compete because gawd knows it’s not going to be suitable for cars. I don’t care where you put it, the comparison is very simple:

Fact: Diesels have shaft efficiencies in the order of 40% and higher which represents specific fuel consumption of 200 g/Kwh and lower. I can go to the dealer and buy an engine with these specs tomorrow. It is therefore a fair model to judge other engines for efficiency. I have supported these figures with plenty of cites.

Fact: You have not supplied one single cite, one single figure, showing reliably what the efficiency of a steam engine is. You just pull figures about cars off the top of your head which, in any case, are irrelevant. What you need to show is a steam engine which can do better than a diesel in efficiency and I don’t care if your car gets five MPG. Sell it and get a diesel if you are concerned with efficiency.

I continue to wait for reliable figures of the efficiency of a steam engine. I don’t care if they are high or low. You are supposed to know about them and you are defending them. Just give us some efficiency figures. Numbers. I want numbers. The rest is hand waving and time wasting. Give us numbers which are verifiable. Don’t compare with anything. Just give us numbers.

[sailor]

heavysteamer, I keep repeating the 200 g/kwh figure because it is a fact and I have shown plenty of supporting evidence. You OTOH have not shown one single cite in support of your claims as to the efficiency of steam engines. Zero. Nada. Zilch. You just make vague claims with no figures, no support.

Diesel is more efficient than gasoline but most people prefer gasoline because it is lighter and more responsive. There is just no way under the sun you can build a steam engine which is lighter and more responsive than gasoline. If you are looking for efficiency then you have to compare with diesel. Your Honda example is a straw man. people already have a more efficient option and it is called diesel. I do not care to argue your straw man. It is utterly irrelevant.

By allowing a steam engine to be mounted on a boat I am removing most of the obstacles which would prevent its use in a car (weight, volume, responsivess, etc). I am making it easier for the steam engine to compete because gawd knows it’s not going to be suitable for cars. I don’t care where you put it, the comparison is very simple:

Fact: Diesels have shaft efficiencies in the order of 40% and higher which represents specific fuel consumption of 200 g/Kwh and lower. I can go to the dealer and buy an engine with these specs tomorrow. It is therefore a fair model to judge other engines for efficiency. I have supported these figures with plenty of cites.

Fact: You have not supplied one single cite, one single figure, showing reliably what the efficiency of a steam engine is. You just pull figures about cars off the top of your head which, in any case, are irrelevant. What you need to show is a steam engine which can do better than a diesel in efficiency and I don’t care if your car gets five MPG. Sell it and get a diesel if you are concerned with efficiency.

I continue to wait for reliable figures of the efficiency of a steam engine. I don’t care if they are high or low. You are supposed to know about them and you are defending them. Just give us some efficiency figures. Numbers. I want numbers. The rest is hand waving and time wasting. Give us numbers which are verifiable. Don’t compare with anything. Just give us numbers.

[heavysteamer]

*Originally posted by sailor *
**I keep repeating the figure because it is a fact and I have shown plenty of supporting evidence. You OTOH have not shown one single cite in support of your claims as to the efficiency of steam engines.

>Note the calculations on the Honda which is a very special high efficiency model that few people have.

Diesel is more efficient than gasoline but most people prefer gasoline because it is lighter and more responsive. There is just no way under the sun you can build a steam engine which is lighter and more responsive than gasoline. If you are looking for efficiency then you have to compare with diesel.

>I agree that is not easy to build a steam plant as light as a lightweight gasoline plant. Note I daid not easy, not impossible. In 1933 Wm. Besler flew a steam powered airplane. The steam plane used had a power to weight ratio of 4.5 lb/shaft horsepower. As far as a steam engine not being responsive, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Have you ever ridden in or driven a Stanley or doble?<

By allowing a steam engine to be mounted on a boat I am removing most of the obstacles which would prevent its use in a car (weight, volume, responsivess, etc). I am making it easier for the steam engine to compete because gawd knows it’s not going to be suitable for cars. I don’t care where you put it, the comparison is very simple:

>Perhaps you could expound on the very simple comparison?<

Fact: Diesels have shaft efficiencies in the order of 40% and higher which represents specific fuel consumption of 200 g/Kwh and lower. I can go to the dealer and buy an engine with these specs tomorrow. It is therefore a fair model to judge other engines for efficiency. I have supported these figures with plenty of cites.

>Yes diesels are quite efficient. I spent years at sea with them.<

Fact: You have not supplied one single cite, one single figure, showing reliably what the efficiency of a steam engine is. You just pull figures about cars off the top of your head. In any case, they are irrelevant. What you need to show is a steam engine which can do better than a diesel in efficiency and I don’t care if your car gets five MPG. Sell it and get a diesel if you are concerned with efficiency. **

>It’s interesting that my observations, with over 45 years of engineering experience are irrelvant but yours are not. What I need to do is show a steam engine that is more efficient than a diesel? Why is that? Few cars are diesel powered. If you had any experience of a good steam car, you would know that there is more to an automotive powerplant than sheer efficiency. I thought YOU were the one so interested in efficiency.<

[sailor]

More handwaving and no facts or figures.

>> It’s interesting that my observations, with over 45 years of engineering experience are irrelvant but yours are not.

heavysteamer, my observations are supported by solid figures from the real world. Yours are supported by a lot of handwaving and no figures. If you have so much knowledge I would expect you to furnish us with a load of information about steam engines like efficiency figures, weight per HP, volume, etc. Do you have the vaguest knowledge about these things? If so why don’t you tell us? Around here we expect people to support what they say not just say “trust me; I’m an engineer”. For being a self proclaimed expert on the topic you have provided very little. Since you haven’t told us by now my feeling is that you do not know these things and you are too lazy to look them up but the burden of proving your point is on you. That’s the way we do things around here. I do my homework and you do yours.

>> What I need to do is show a steam engine that is more efficient than a diesel?

Yes because diesel is an option for those concerned with efficiency.

>> Why is that? Few cars are diesel powered.

Because people prefer a lighter and more responsive engine. Since that is their highest priority and steam engines would show even worse than diesels in this section, they are a non starter.

>> If you had any experience of a good steam car, you would know that there is more to an automotive powerplant than sheer efficiency.

You keep hinting at all these hidden reasons. Look, you came in here to prove steam engines are great. Now the burden is on you to prove it. You have done nothing to prove it. Nothing. A lot of generalities, straw men and handwaving do nothing to convince me (or anyone else here I would say).

The fact is steam engines have been around forever. They are well known and well studied and they have been replaced in more and more places. Why would this be? Why were railroad locomotives replaced by diesel?

The fact is a steam engine cannot compete with an ICE in efficiency, in weight to power ratio, in volume to weight ratio, in responsivenes. In fact, it cannot compete in anything. If you say otherwise it is up to you to prove it. Quit talking generalities and give us some concrete information we can dissect. So far you have given us nothing.

I know I am wasting my time but I will ask again. Can you give us some solid figures? Efficiency? Weight? Volume? Responsiveness? Can we have that? Please?

As I said in the beginning, the one advantage of steam engines is you can burn solid fuel. Somehow I do not think the possibility of burning wood in their cars is going to make people get cars with steam engines. It would be fun for the kids though to stoke the car with a pile of wood an hour before they had to leave the house. And later to refuel just send the kids for some firewood. Lovely. But I don’t think it is going to happen.

BTW, heavysteamer, you say you spent the weekend steaming. Do you belong to some club or organization or this your own boat and your own hobby?

And how did you happen to learn about this board and this thread and register just in time to participate?

[Tuckerfan]

sailor, again, you’re the only one talking about conspiracies here.

Sam Stone mentioned CANDU reactors, there’s also IFR reactors (note link is to a PDF file) which are so safe that a person can stand unprotected inside the core while the reactor’s in operation and not be harmed by the radiation! Yet funding to that has been cut.

There’s been some very promising research into solar power, but it’s funding has been cut. (Note last link is a Real Audio file.) Conspiracy? No. Politics? Most definately yes.

I offered to e-mail you the documentation I have, you failed to respond to that offer. I posted results which showed that a steamer built in the 1970s could exceed the performance of Detroit built cars at that time. You’ve failed to respond to that as well. You’ve ignored my post where I point out (with links) that the US, Britain, and Germany are all looking into reviving steam powered locomotives. Anthracite (an engineer, BTW), posted that gasoline and hydrogen are about equal in risk, yet you said nothing, other than suggesting we drop the subject of alternative fuels, even though the OP specifically mentioned a steam car’s ability to use alcohol and propane, which are alternative fuels.

There’s been billions of dollars poured into ICE research since World War II, the research that’s been done has primarily been by private individuals using whatever spare money they have at hand. What little government dollars that have been spent on steam car research since WW II have been wasted on shoddy methods according to one of the consultants involved in the project.

As a consultant on the steam bus project, I had good contact with almost all the developers that were active in the 1958-85 period. I still have boxes of their reports from that era. The DOT and EPA numbers were more often than not extrapolated from steady state dyno runs, and in the real world, phony as hell. Assumptions were made by people who knew nothing about steam cars and didn’t want to be told what worked and what didn’t in a steam car. And the government politicians that ran the programs knew even less.

There’s a lot of promising information about pumps based on a design by Tesla, yet a google search turned up only ONE company that’s producing them! Does that mean its a bad design and totally worthless? Possibly, but also don’t forget that Tesla was his own worst enemy and often alienated people who could have helped fund his research and since he’s seen (and rightfully so, IMHO) as a bit of a crank, it’s not surprising that people would be hesitant to spend money to develop one of his ideas, no matter how promising it might seem.

History is full of examples where a scientific truth has been surpressed because people were unwilling to believe something. Galileo is a prime example of this. The book** Connections** by James Burke details things like that over and over again. Yet you refuse to accept the possibility that such a thing might have occured again.

As for heavysteamer’s presence here on the Boards, I’ll take credit for that. I posted a request on this message board for someone to provide documentation of the steam cars along with a link to this thread. heavysteamer was the first person to respond on that message board and has apparently decided to join this one as well. Have a mod check him out, you’ll find he’s no sock. You might also want to check his e-mail address out.

[Tuckerfan]

There’s been billions of dollars poured into ICE research since World War II, the research that’s been done has primarily been by private individuals using whatever spare money they have at hand. What little government dollars that have been spent on steam car research since WW II have been wasted on shoddy methods according to one of the consultants involved in the project.

This should read:
There’s been billions of dollars poured into ICE research since World War II, the research that’s been done on steam cars has primarily been by private individuals using whatever spare money they have at hand. What little government dollars that have been spent on steam car research since WW II have been wasted on shoddy methods according to one of the consultants involved in the project.

Forgot to type the words in bold.

[Tuckerfan]

Oh yeah, thumbing through the same issue of Popular Science I mentioned before, I just stumbled across this little gem of an article:

Automatic On/Off Switch Gives 10-Percent Gas Saving
Sure, nothing kills good gas mileage like full-throttle acceleration and sustained high-speed running. But it’s easy for drivers to avoid that. What’s not so easy to avoid is sitting in traffic with the engine idling. A lot of fuel is wasted that way. That’s just as true in Japan as in the U.S., and Toyota has developed and automatic engine stop-start system that is likely to become available if fuel shortages continue.

<snip>

I tested this Toyota Crown in Tokyo, with and without the system (five hours of each), and got 15.1 MPG without, and 16.6 with the system. That’s 10-percent better fuel economy – and a drop in CO emissions.

Know of many cars with that system installed? I can’t think of any other than the hybrid cars recently introduced. One would think that with all the crazy fuel saving ideas Detroit has introduced over the years (Anyone remember Cadillac’s 8-6-4 engine which was a disasterous failure?) this one would have been tried as well.