Steam-Powered Cars-Why Not?

Factual Questions
101

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

Tuckerfan, if all the industries agree to not investigate something promising in order to protect their interests, that’s a conspiracy. You are not using the word but the concept is there. At the same time you admit they have investigated steam and abandoned it. I say they had their reasons.

>> Sam Stone mentioned CANDU reactors,

What he said is possibly entirely true and yet it does not in the least degree support the notion that a steam vehicle looks like a promising thing. You keep bringing up loose things with absolutely no connection. You can now tell me green paint is very promising as people like green and you can paint steam engines green. Totally irrelevant because ICEs can also be painted green.
>> 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.

The link does not work for me but, in any case, I fail to see how this in the least relevant to the topic at hand. Can you explain why this shows any promise of evolving into a steam engine with better efficiency, weight/power, volume/power ratios?

You have to make the connection: "… and this shows steam engines in cars are a promising alternative because. . . " or the whole thing is moot.

>> There’s been some very promising research into solar power, but it’s funding has been cut.

Oh my gawd, not that again. Look, I already discussed solar power with our friend here justwannano in an old thread. I do not wish to go into that again. You keep throwing things around. What does solar power have to do with building a steam vehicle? Can’t you see how you are just throwing things around which have no bearing on the topic at hand?

>> I offered to e-mail you the documentation I have, you failed to respond to that offer.

My email account cannot take large files. I would think you could present a summary here for all to see, not just me. I am not going to read megabytes of stuff unless you can tell me beforehand why exactly it supports the notion that a steam engine can be built which can be more efficient than an ICE. I am not going to waste my time to prove you have sent me something very interesting about green paint but which bears no connection with steam engines.

>>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.

No I have not. My response is that a steam engine does not have to compete in efficiency with a gas guzzler but with an efficient engine which already exists such as a diesel (unless the steam engine is a great deal better in other areas like weight, responsiveness, etc, which it is not). Furthermore, I consider Popular Mechanics good entertainment but hardly a solid scientific journal.

>> 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.

I’ll believe when I see it. In any case, again, irrelevant. A car is not a locomotive and large steam engines do not scale down well. I said an engine under 500 HP which is what you need for a car and which will not move a train. Electric power plants use steam and it does not mean your lawnmower would benefit from a steam motor.

>> 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.

As you know, we all have great respect for Anthracite around here. Indeed her posts in this thread have been chock full of useful information unlike those from some other posters which are filled with empty generalities. Her posts pretty much confirm what I am saying that (a) a diesel does indeed have an efficiency of about 40 % and (b) it is doubtful a steam engine can achieve that efficiency. The fuel used has little to do in this respect and I said I was willing to discuss alternative fuels in another thread but wanted to keep this one focused. As far as I can see Anthracite’s posts do not support your position. Rather, they support mine. If and when she says steam engines for cars look very promising I fully expect her to provide some valid data supporting it. If the day comes when Anthracite says “I am not providing any data and you just have to take my word because I am a goddess”, that day I know the end of the world is very near because that is one of the signs mentioned in the Apocalypse Now.

>> 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.

I trust corporations to know where to put their money. They may follow paths that lead to dead ends but, on the whole, they do a pretty good job of getting something out of their R&D. If they do not spend on what you like it is because they probably do not see it promising. I will also point out Steam is the oldest technology and it is not like it has not been studied. 75 years ago they knew pretty much everything you can know about the basic foundations of steam engines both piston and turbine. Technology has improved the design and materials but the basic concept was well understood before we were born.

>> 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.

Oh, it had to happen. It had to happen that someone who cannot prove anything concrete compares himself to Galileo. I am sorry to tell you I am not the Pope and you are no Galileo.

>> Automatic On/Off Switch Gives 10-Percent Gas Saving

Again, you just keep throwing things around which are totally irrelevant. Please tell me why this makes a steam engine look more promising. I say green paint makes more sense.

Maybe if investors are not investing in steam engines it is because those looking for capital are doing a poor job of convincing anyone that it will pay. There is plenty of venture capital out there to be invested. If you fail to get some I would say you have not presented your case well or you have a bad case. You are certainly not convincin me yet.

As usual I will ask once more for figures of specific fuel consumption, weight, volume, (you know the drill) .

102

>>>One of your members posted on a steam board I was on. This looks to be an interesting board. I will leave if you like.

103

>> you have referenced one web site (Scania) for your figures.

heavysteamer, if that were true it would still be one more than you have referenced since you have cited exactly zero. The fact is I referenced quite a few more of different types.

>> I’ll bet you can’t show me a single automobile with a 420 horsepower Scania diesel engine in it.

Whatever I show I am showing more than you are. I have shown ample support for the fact that diesels routinely achieve specific consumptions below 200 g/kwh. This is true in sizes ranging from small to large.

Scania is a an example of a bus which uses a diesel engine and gets that efficiency. I am not seeing any similar buses using steam.

I first tried to find online specs for the diesel in my own boat which is a 30 HP Yanmar 30GM but I could not find them online. Guess what. It has a specific fuel consumption of a bit over 200 g/Kwh. I just can’t find the specs online and I am a few thousand miles away from the boat and the manual right now. Anthracite’s cites confirm that figure for diesels. What else do you want? You are just playing silly games ignoring the facts which we are placing in front of you.

>> I am the consulting engineer, for thermal engines, for a venture capital group.

It doesn’t show. I hope your professional presentations are better or I would understand why you cannot raise venture capital for the production of steam engines. You are not very convincing. At lest not to me.

>> On the accustion of laziness, I’m afraid you have me there.

Well, you can be as lazy as you want but if you come here and make assertions, expect to be asked to support them. I have learnt to not post in threads which might lead me to have to do some homework. Come to think about it I might have bbeen better off if I never started posting in this one.

>> Where is your reference that steam engines are even less responsive than diesel engines?

Well, you see, if you would give me some specs, some numbers, something I can sink my teeth into, then I could do something. Since you choose to wave your hands a lot and talk in generalities I can only do the same. The conversion from combustion to shaft output in a steam engine is quite delayed so, as you say, the ionly way to get better response is to have a reserve of steam in the boiler. While this improves response it also means you have to carry a bigger and heavier boiler, with extra weight and it will take more time to start up and get ready to go. All these factors affect efficiency negatively. Again. if you would supply some numbers we could talk in more concrete terms but you refuse to get down to anything concrete.

>>Well, I know steam engines are pretty good. I guess I’ll just have to work a little more to show it. You have said they are not with what I suspect little or no knowledge of them

Define “good”. I define “good” in terms of efficiency, cost, etc. All this things can be measured in numbers of our decimal system. Your concept of “good” seems to be very vague and undefineable.

>> Many steam engines were replaced because in many cases other types of prime movers were more cost effective.

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you.

>>Some were replaced in order to be more “modern”.

Oh come on. Companies do not change to a solution which is less cost effective in order to be more modern. Losing money is not a sign of being “modern”.

>> There are many facets to the story and I don’t know them all.

That I do believe.

>> So far you have only presented one figure in one area to support this.

I have presented quite a few cites in support of the efficiency of diesels. Anthracite has presented some more cites and they jibe with mine. Now, let’s see what you have shown so far. . . Hmmm, zero. Nothing concrete. Just generalities.

Regarding the use of solid fuel it may be acceptable in industrial settings and large volume operations but your average Joe is not going to accept the inconvenience of solid fuel.

>> I belong to several steam organizations.
>> And yes, this is my own boat and my own hobby.
>> One of your members posted on a steam board I was on.
>> This looks to be an interesting board. I will leave if you like.

Quick! Someone lock the gate! He’s trying to get away!
I said welcome and I meant it. I may be demanding when we discuss this issue but it is nothing personal and anyone who owns a steam boat as a hobby has my respect. I know what it is like to maintain boats. I am sure you get a lot of satisfaction (and a few headaches) from your boat just like I do from mine. I share your interest in things mechanical and technical and, believe it or not, I think owning a steam boat has to be extremely cool. if I were rich, I would have one myself.

104

sailor,

Let’s try fewer items at a time. You neatly ignore what figures I have given, such as the power to weight ratio of the Besler airplane steam plant. Can you give the same for a diesel engine?

I can tell from your arguements that you have little practical experience, but you have read quite a bit. Can you tell me how much you have? What is your background?

105

sailor said "Whatever I show I am showing more than you are. I have shown ample support for the fact that diesels routinely achieve specific consumptions below 200 g/kwh. This is true in sizes ranging from small to large. "

This is not true. If it were, diesel autos would be getting over 100 mpg.

106

sailor said "It doesn’t show. I hope your professional presentations are better or I would understand why you cannot raise venture capital for the production of steam engines. You are not very convincing. At lest not to me. "

Oh, my professional presentations are fine. I do not look to raise venture capital. People come to us looking for venture capital. I evaluate the ones dealing with heat engines.

107

"Regarding the use of solid fuel it may be acceptable in industrial settings and large volume operations but your average Joe is not going to accept the inconvenience of solid fuel. "

I expect he will if solid is greatly cheaper than liquiid fuel or if liquid fuel is not available at all. I’m twisting your tail here a little since it is more likely that liquid fuel would be synthesized before we would commonly use solid fuel in passenger cars.

108

I have spent some time looking for scientific tests of steam engine efficiency, trying to find numbers that are close to IC engines.

I have failed. Either because I am not looking in the proper places, or because the information is not web-available.

I have tried looking for information on the Besler aircraft engine. And while I found lots of info on its wonderful power to weight ratio (although more than a few sources neglect the steam generator and water weight), I have not found any heat rate or efficiency numbers as the result of testing. I only found “conceptual estimates” of numbers, for engines not yet built.

I have tried looking for estimates of actual motoring efficiency of steam cars, and the information available is poor. I can find lots of enthusiast sites that claim numbers, with no references, no citations, and no indication of how the figures were arrived at.

I think my example of the light-oil power plant efficiency on Page 2 is telling. Large oil power stations have efficiency as a key element in their design, since fuel cost is between 70-90% of the total annual O&M costs. And because they are stationary, immense-capital projects, they have a lot of advantages and optimizations that they can make that an automobile application cannot. And you have things such as supercritical cycles, which you would not likely have on an automobile - in fact, I sincerely doubt the standard steam power plant “2600 psia” cycle would pass safety muster on an automobile.

And, I posted my calculations using real world, best possible figures. To come up with a thermal efficiency.

All I want is to see the same figures posted for an actual, operating, steam automobile. I want to see the heat rate, bsfc (brake specific fuel consumption), or thermal efficiency. I do not care if it is shaft-measured or road-measured, so long as you all tell me which it is.

That’s all I ask - show me the figures.

But since my steam power plant example shows, at best, one can expect about a 40.6% thermal efficiency at the shaft, and this shaft efficiency is about comperable to diesel, if not lower, then I wonder how steam as a source of propulsion in automobiles is feasible.

I’m not going to diss’ steam and steam cars, I’m not calling people names, I’m not calling credentials into question - but I simply want to see some hard facts and figures. I can back up every single value I used in my stationary steam plant analysis, with multiple sources. And I have a decent history of knowing just a wee bit about power plants.

Just…show me the numbers, and where they were gathered from, and who did the testing. That’s all.

Una

109

Quote Anthracite

(quote) I have spent some time looking for scientific tests of steam engine efficiency, trying to find numbers that are close to IC engines.

I have failed. Either because I am not looking in the proper places, or because the information is not web-available. (quote)

Did you find any sites that compared the two engines???
Were these tests current?

This is why sailor’s demands are so silly. Demanding numbers when they are not available is either an exercise in futility or the rantings of someone playing a silly game .

I for one would love to see Real numbers. I think the reason there are no numbers is that those who would lose money if such an engine were developed are so entrenched It’ll not happen until they are unentrenched.

Side note

Back in the 70’s Andy Granitelli brought a turbine engine to Indi.
IIRC he led the race until an equipment failure. A turbine engine finally won the race two years later.
Not too bad a showing. Anyone hear of turbine engines at Indi after that??? Why??? $$$$$$$$$$$$
Too much money was being spent developing ICE to let a new racing engine spoil things.

Sound like something someone has been trying to explain to sailor ???

110

sailor, so long as you claim that a conspiracy is the only way in which steam power could have been neglected in research studies, then I’ll continue to provide examples where technology languished on the shelf for years before being adopted. Unless you can prove that there’s a conspiracy afoot, I’ll continue to assume that the reason steam cars haven’t been seriously researched is because that they’ve been dismissed out of hand almost every time the subject’s brought up. (The Skoda prototype and the GM Camaro being the only exceptions I’m aware of, and the Camaro doesn’t really count because most of the work was done by people who weren’t GM employees.)

Admittedly, Popular Science isn’t Scientific American in stature (and its certainly gotten worse in recent years), but it’s not the National Enquirer either. According to the article, the car was part of an EPA study, however, a quickie search of the EPA’s website brings nothing. There’s obviously documentation on this (it’s the government, for goddess’s sake, they can’t take a shit without filling out a form in triplicate), but finding it is going to take time.

sailor, who do you work for? I’m curious, because in my experience, damn near every one of my employers (K-Mart, Sprint PCS, and The Gap to name but a few.) have proven themselves to be boobs of the highest order. I’d like to work for an employer that I can trust to do exactly the right thing and invest their money in the right places. You obviously work for such a company, and I’d like to have a job where I didn’t have to worry that I was going to be out on the street because the folks running it didn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.

111

>> Quote justwanno:
>> I think the reason there are no numbers is that those
>> who would lose money if such an engine were developed are
>> so entrenched It’ll not happen until they are unentrenched.

That’s what you said in the Solar Power thread. You view the world as a huge successful conspiracy of the “entrenched” to stiffle innovation and progress. With that perception of the world I can understand your opinion in this matter but such view does not match my perception of the world where what I see is competition and innovation and better products displacing older products. That’s what I see. We shall just have to let the readers make up their own minds depending on their own perception of the world around them.

Tuckerfan, you might think all the CEOs of big companies are boobs but it would seem to me they have been more successful than you have (unless you are one of them) which would indicate a pretty good grasp on how things work in the real world.

heavysteamer, you keep saying 200 g/kwh are “not true” in spite of the fact that they are supported by all the cites I and Anthracite have given you. Since you offer no support other than your word for that statement, there is nothing more I can say. Readers of this thread can make up their own minds on whose information is more reliable.

At any rate, I think I have contributed what I had to contribute here and there’s not much else I can add. Just so no one may think I am ignoring any posts I’ll say I will be traveling for the next few days and probably cannot post.

112

And to categorically state that because a person is a CEO he/she must know what they’re doing in the wake of the savings and loan, Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, and now Qwest fiascos is plain foolish. In a perfect world, people would be placed in positions of power based on their abilities. Sadly, this isn’t a perfect world and politics and connections play an equal or greater role in achieving power as does ability.

113
114
115

OK, let’s work with those numbers, and the others you have.

The conversion between Btu/hphr and Btu/kWhr is essentially the conversion from hp to kW, since the Btu and hr cancel out. So:



23,000 Btu             1 hp
--------------   *  ---------------   = 30,872 Btu/kW*hr
hp*hr                 0.7457 kW

(or, 1 Btu/hphr = 1.34 Btu/kWhr)

Since perfect thermal efficiency is 3413 Btu/kW*hr, we have an efficiency for this engine of:

(3413/30,872) * 100 = 11.06%

24,000 Btu/hphr = 32,214 Btu/kWhr = 10.6% efficiency
17,000 Btu/hphr = 22,818 Btu/kWhr = 15.0% efficiency

Well, there are two reasons for the high pressures being prohibitive, and three for supercritical.

I have before me a few sections of boiler wall tubing from 2600 psia boilers. The wall thickness varies from about 0.25-0.3 inches for the economizer tubes (the highest pressure ones) to a low of about 0.17 inches (reheater tubes), with superheater being 0.202 to 0.225 inch thickness. They are very heavy-gauge metal, and I wonder if the weight would not be prohibitive in an automotive use. Plus, they are quite expensive.

Supercritical cycles have a very touchy startup and warmup phase that is almost an art to master. And they are at 3600 psia or so, or greater. I would imagine that startup/warmup difficulties and the very high pressures would prevent easy use in any motive application, including ship, but I am not certain about ships…

I’m not certain if I understand your query. From what I posted earlier, I am seeing real-World IC engine efficiencies ranging from 25% to 38% with Heywood giving non-turbo values. Those appear quite larger than the values you presented. Now, the values you’ve presented may be historically skewed, that is, they may be all from older engines and/or older engine designs that have not benefited from some serious technological advances. But even under the best case with steam turbines (in my power plant example), I think we would only see an efficiency that barely exceeds a common diesel car efficiency.

So, there are several issues here when comparing the two:

  1. Are IC engines more efficienct, in-practice? Thus far, with the evidence available, it seems a clear “yes”.

  2. Could steam engines match or exceed IC engine efficiency in-practice? Thus far, my guess is no, it could not, unless it was able to benefit from the advances of a stationary steam plant - which it likely could not, in an automotive application.

  3. Do steam engines have advantages over IC? Yes, especially in terms of fuel flexibility. They also have an aesthetic attractiveness (but, then again, so do IC engines to those who love them. Or coal power plants, to the women who love them, like me. :slight_smile: )

  4. What seems to be more suited for automobile use, weighing only efficiency, fuel flexibility, and aesthetics?

Well - that’s a sweeping question. It may need further discussion of pros and cons to properly decide that. I would say that the evidence appears to point to IC at this time.

116

Anth, did you look at the pictures of the Doble boiler? I’m asking because it’s of the “flash” type and I don’t know if those are common in use today or not. They have the advantage of a fast warm up time and little danger of exploding.

The PopSci article states that the Carter steamer’s boiler, two gallons of water, burner, engine, controls and two condensers weighs 120 lbs more than the original VW engine (don’t know what that is). (The condensers are copper and brass, the second version of the car was supposed to replace them with aluminum ones.) The engine used steam at 1000F and handled pressures up to (and possibly higher) 2000 psi. One of the things the article mentions that the second version was going to make use of, is finned tubing in the boiler. I don’t know how much of a difference that would make in the ability of the water in the boiler to absorb heat and if it would be enough of a gain to justify the added expense in using such tubing. More later.

117
118

The Williams steam car.

The Williams brothers of Ambler PA developed small steam systems over a period of years. Calvin C. Williams was issued U. S. patent #2,402,699 in 1946. Several engines, a bus and 2 cars were built. I have talked to 2 people who inspected and rode in the second version of the car. Both were extremely impressed with the demonstration. At one point they were driven up a hill at 100 mph, the fire still cycling on and off. Mobil tested this car for emissions and it passed all current (1969) and projected standards with room to spare. No pollution controls were installed or necessary.

Some claims were made of a BSFC of 0.3 lbs/hp-hr, but this is almost certainly for the ideal cycle at the temperatures involved. The actual figure is most likely closer to 0.55 lb/hp-hr.

A debate was held on the pages of the “Steam Power Quarterly” beginning in volume 3,number 4, 1969, and continuing for about a year. the main detractor was Art Underwood, head of GM research. It was under the direction of Mr. Underwood that one of the GM sponsered cars was built, the one that didn’t work very well.

119

Thanks, heavysteamer. That gives me another reference to look up, since I’ve started to gather some info on steam cars for my little “electronic sourcebook.”

Perhaps I’ll ask about this on my own Board - there are a few Irish engineers on there who might have some other info as well…

120

Mechanical engineer Jay Carter Sr., with the help of his son Jay Carter Jr., developed a steam car in the early 1970’s. The steam plants were of competent design and data carefully taken and recorded. They used two versions, the first engine 4 cylinders and the second 2 cylinders, both single acting uniflow with piston operated valves. (This means that they run much the same as internal combusiotn engines do, requiring a transmission). The first powerplant was fitted into a squareback VW car, the second in a VW Dasher. High steam pressure was used, 2000 psig in the first generation and 2500 psig in the second. The plants used steam at 1000 and 1050 degrees F. respectively. The first unit was 70 shaft horsepower weighing 400.5 lbs. and the second was 90 Shp. weighing 295 lbs. Peak fuel economy was tested at 24.7 mpg on the first car and higher fuel economy was predicted for the second because of the higher pressure and temperature used, lower wieght, lower accessory drive requirements and radial tires replacing the bias ply tires of the first car. I’ll report on the second unit when I run across the data. This was published in SAE paper #750071 and reprinted in the “Steam Automobile” magazine Vol. 17, No. 3, 1975.

I will still look for information on the SES, Pritchard and Paxton cars as time permits.