Except I didn’t state that the losses were purely in the transmission. Remember, I said
Indeed, the forefront of automotive research is in finding a way to eliminate these losses. Interestingly enough, one of the reasons they cite for doing this
Which are reasons why car makers have been developing hybrid cars, and is a standard feature in steamers, but the article only references one hybrid car in development with that technology.
A Monkey With a Gun, weight may not be the issue that you believe it to be. A 1920 Stanley Steamer weighed in at 3850 pounds, which is less than a 1971 Chrysler Newport, which ranged from 4,121 lbs. to 4,355 lbs. in weight, depending upon options and engine configuration. The Stanley carried approximately 24 gallons of water and had a 20 gallon fuel tank. But the Stanley isn’t really a good example, since it used a less efficient boiler than the later Dobles, which had a condensor, unlike the Stanley.
(Leno’s an ex-Mercedes mechanic, BTW.) Given that the Stanley was built with 1920s materials, a model constructed using today’s materials (common plastics, lighter, stronger steels and/or aluminum, and not exotics like carbon fiber) would probably be able to shave at least 100 lbs. off the weight of the car (assuming everything was kept identical and modern enhancements such as air bags, etc. weren’t added). Oh, and Leno’s got no complaints about his Doble’s performance
You’ll note that Leno was driving his car when it had mechanical problems and not after it had undergone a total restoration.
Since we’ve discussed lots of different engineshere: what about the famous TESLA TURBINE? This is an extremely fast-running , efficient turbine, ehich replaces the blades with discs. According to what I read, it is much more efficient than standard turbines, but is a bear to manufacture! Even the great Tesla couldnot perfect this one!
As for turbine engines in cars, both Chrysler and Rover (UK) made prptotype gas-turbine cars. I don’t remmeber what the reduction gearing looked like…how the heck to you gear down a 10,000 RPM turbine to a 100 RPM final drive?
With pleasure but it is the last I am posting here as my cites serve for nothing. This type of information is common knowledge among people who know anything about mechanics and I am not going to waste any more time.
I recommend you read it an you might decide for yourself who knows what he is talking about. Frankly, we have already gone around the same block a few times and I am tired of this so I am going to bow out again. You can see a lot of handwaving and few solid figures. You can see claims that “transmission losses are 40% for ICE” and then say it includes alternator, wheels and a bunch of things which a steam car would have also. A lot of equivocating and lack of rigor going on here.
I have posted plenty of cites supporting my figures for specific consumption, losses, etc. and no cites contradicting them have been posted. You can see in the post I linked above that justwannano does not even understand the basic concepts and their units. Check very especially Anthracite’s posts as she is quite an expert in these matters.
Diesels are not only internal combustion engines, but a diesel is typically a four-stroke engine as well. The cycles (intake, compression, power, exhaust) have nothing to do with whether or not it’s a Diesel cycle or Otto cycle.
I do not think that is correct, and you’re separating “four stroke” from “Diesel” again. Gasoline Otto cycle engines are suited to passenger cars for very specific reasons, and Diesel cycle engines to trains and generators for other reasons. One of them is cost of fuel. Another is the efficiency of the engine. Another is suitability to scaling. There’s nothing really magical about a Diesel engine that makes it produce more torque. You can design an Otto cycle engine to produce just as much torque.
That’s not completely correct. Even if they needed more torque, the problems of designing a transmission and clutch/transfer system which can handle 3000 ft-lbf of torque is somewhat challenging. This is one reason modern locomotives are Diesel-electric - try designing a reliable clutch and transmission for something with 6000 ft-lbf of torque…
Well, the problem with Tesla’s turbine is that Tesla alienated everyone who might have helped him develop the thing. Additionally, many of Tesla’s prototypes were built out of inferior materials (one prototype had runners made out of nickel) and suffered from “stretching” in the few tests which were ran of the units. There’s twomain groups of hobbiests working on them and one company building pumps based on his design.
Oh shut up. I agreed with you about the transmision loss. Did you read what I wrote, or are you just being ornery?
Anthracite, and everybody else, in regards to diesels I’m a wee bit outside of my expertise. Hell, the same thing applies to torque. I can make damn good educated guesses, but I am by no means an expert on the subject. Anthracite’s quibbles with my earlier post are no-doubt valid, even if a wee bit picky :).
At the local steam show the old boys are constantly running tests to check the horse power of their steam engines.
Its just a big ass fan that they operate from their belt pulleys. They hook a belt from their belt pulley to the big fan like thing and start braking the fan. When the engine begins to slow they announce the HP.
Even an amature that, Quote sailor,"… does not even understand the basic concepts and their units."can see that its a clumbsy method but thats the way it was done.
Today they have dynamometers that check hp at the road surface.
I’ve never had the need to operate either but have seen it done and if the need was there I would have been given the oportunity.
Sorry about the double post
The show is about threshing but gas engines are also a big part of it.
The old hit and miss gas engines are everywhere.
If sailor was to ever visit one of these shows even he would probably wonder what technology could have done with the steam engine if it were turned loose as it has with the ice.
A Monkey With a Gun, I am sorry and quite confused. I do not know how or why you found my post offensive and I can assure you it was not meant that way at all. Even now, on re-reading it, I cannot see what I said which might offend you. If you tell me I will gladly explain but I can assure you no offense was meant. My only point was that we were rehashing what had already been discussed in this thread and since you said you had not read it I suggested you could see what had already been said and by who. Again, I assure you no offense was meant.
Don’t sweat it, it takes more than that to offend me. I’m mildly suprised that you need me to explain this, but you quoted me and then followed that quote with crititicisms of points I never put forward. I had to comment, as it was a gross mischaracterization of what I was saying.
It’s always a very hard thing - to nitpick or not to nitpick. I always feel bad about doing it, because it may not be really relevent to the overall topic at hand. Overall, I guess I should not bother most times. Perhaps it’s difficult for me to find topics I can post on before they are answered from a general standpoint by 20 other people, so I must then focus on very fine points few care about. I’m not certain.
And it makes a person look like a bitch for doing it. I try to just point things out from time to time, if it’s something I know about (or think I’m pretty sure about). Lots of people can nitpick generalizations I make, and do so on other topics.
Anthracite, the only reason I said you were picky is that otherwise I would have to admit that … I’d have to admit that… jeez, I can’t even type this … I’d have to admit that … come on, monkey, be a man and just own up to it… I’d have to admit that …
I was wrong.
ouch.
But only about that one post, though. Otherwise, I’m infallible. Honest.
I think you felt I was referring to you when I wasn’t. If you hadn’t put forward those points, why do you feel I was implying you did? If you can show me how my post cannot be understood any other way, I will plead guilty to not being clear, because it was definitely not my intention to misrepresent what you posted. But I think it is a case of your misunderstanding what I meant. I have just re-read my post again and I still cannot see in any way how you could think I was misrepresenting anything. You said you had just arrived at this thread and did not know what the history was and I was just saying it would be good for you to read it because everything had been said and explained several times and I was explaining why I did not want to continue the discussion (which had nothing to do with you). I think you misconstrued my post. If you believe I was trying to imply something else I’d like you to explain the reasoning by which you arrive at that conclusion. And, if you think you might have misinterpreted my post, it would be nice if you admitted it because I don’t think I deserved your rebuke.
I have read this entire thread, and I have a few comments.
First off no technology will displace the gasoline ICE unless that technology offers a clear advantage in the terms of emissions, performance, or fuel mileage. In the case of emissions if an alternate technology can meet an emissions standard and the gasoline ICE cannot then the new technology would go into production ASAP. In the case of performance or fuel mileage the advantage would have to large enough that increased sales would overcome the development costs.
Secondly, comparisons to diesel engines is not entirely a good one. For many years, only Mercedes and Peugeot sold diesel cars in the US. This was due in part to the fact that gas was dirt cheap, and very plentiful. Diesel car owners were kind of weird sub culture. After the gas crisis the availability of diesel went up, but due to poor marketing, and bad engineering their popularity fell off again. Then came emission controls. Here in California diesel cars came and went a couple of times since the 80’s. Manufacturers had to deal with increasingly stringent emission requirements. Finally electronic controls for diesels came into reality and both VW and MBZ sell a large percentage of their cars in the diesel version. I know for a fact that other carmakers are looking at marketing diesels in 05-06 model years. Part of that decision will be based on what gas prices do over the next 6 months or so. If the price goes up, diesels start to look attractive. If the price of gas goes down, then the perceived advantage gets smaller.
Heavysteamer mentions a 400 lb engine that produced 70 HP. I’m sorry this is not a car engine this is a boat anchor. Then he mentions a 295 Lbs 90 HP motor, this is almost in the range of what maybe could fly in a car. He does the math and give 3.28lbs/ hp. Compare that for a moment to the car I shuttled through California, Oregon and Washington over the last couple of weeks. The engine is 438 lbs complete with accessories generating 300 HP. What is that about 1.1 lb/ hp? No advantage for steam here.
Next what about fuel? Unless you can get someone to underwrite Hydrogen fuel at the same time they underwrite the steam project, you will be stuck with good old gas and diesel. You would have to have a real performance or fuel mileage advantage to be able to go ahead then. Also the comments about solid fuel are really funny. I barbeque with hardwood lump charcoal, and I consider myself an expert on just how dirty and messy this stuff is. Here in the real world a solid fuel car would go over like a lead balloon in a hurricane. Heavysteamer might like it, but this is his hobby. How well do you think Aunt Mabel will like stoking the boiler and cleaning out the ash before she drives to church on Sunday?
I do have one question for Anthracite on your comment
I was always under the belief that for a given bore and stroke a diesel would produce more torque than an Otto cycle engine do to the increased cylinder pressure of the diesel. I mean 22:1 sure seems like it would push on a piston harder than a 10:1 Otto cycle engine. Or am I all wet here?
I don’t have my IC engine textbooks here, but generally what you need to consider is a couple of things. First, you have to think of the mean effective pressure of the cylinder, which is more closely tied to what the actual torque of the engine is. This can mean that a cylinder cycle which has a lower peak, but higher mean pressure, will produce more torque than one with a higher peak pressure, but lower overall mean pressure. That is, if all other things are equal. IIRC, the bmep of diesel engines of exact, same construction is lower than that of Otto engines. However, there is another aspect - efficiency. This may not hold true if the fuel energy flow is the same in both engines, due to the higher efficiency of the diesel cycle.
The efficiency is tied in large part to that high compression. Now, one thought is that high-compression pistons yield more torque than low compression pistons due to the mechanical “spring-back”. People often visualize it as being akin to a spring compressed tighter, and thus springing back with more force. However, considerable effort has to be applied in order to make the compression happen in the first place, and that energy ends up more than equaling out any spring-back energy. Conservation of energy and entropy, in fact, mandate that the compression process is an energy-losing one, as there is friction and heat produced from the compression. However, the high compression of the cylinder results in a much higher cylinder temperature, which the diesel oil is suited for (due to its properties, including cetane index), and this higher cylinder temperature can be leveraged towards a higher thermal efficiency.
Thus, it’s time for me to nitpick myself and say that if you can keep all other aspects of the operation equal, one would expect the bmep (brake mean effective pressure) of an engine with a higher thermal efficiency to be higher, in fact. Mea culpa.
I really wasn’t trying to pick nits, and I would never try to hold my knowledge base up to yours. I was just trying to make sure I understood what I thought I understood.
Thank you for giving me the details.
From what I’ve heard, Telsa “turbines” make decent centrifugal pumps, but lousy turbines when you try to actually drive a lod with them. And it seems they’d be a lot easier to manufacture - there’s no blades, just disks, right?
