My point was not to damn steam engines, I was just pointing out something I had found in my collection.
Cool as it is, it’s actually a safety hazard because pedestrians then cannot hear the maniac barrelling down the street. Considering there is already a slight issue with people who listen to their music too loud to hear traffic and get run over…
The “silent running” issue is no joke - I nearly stepped in front of a moving hybrid in a parking lot. Best suggestion I’ve seen is to build an external sound system in the car and have it play warning sounds. Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post suggested this after writing about the Chevy Volt, with the additional suggestion of custom “ringtones”.
What’s the fuel energy density of steam engines, though? Gasoline is incredibly dense.
Hm. I’m not seeing any reason you couldn’t use gasoline.
On this point I have to disagree. Lack of noise in a car is not cool. The coolness of a car is directly proportional to the amount of noise it makes. The deep rumble of a high torquing engine is cooler than the whine of a high rpm ‘twister’. The screech of burning rubber is much cooler than the lack of noise in a smooth rollout. A blaring stereo and high power kicker are much cooler than a stock radio playing mood music. The only cool thing about a silent car is the ability to run over people without their having a chance to jump out of the way.
The Nissan Leaf generates a sound that is supposedly designed so that blind people would know they are coming, I think it kicks off over a certain speed because at high enough speeds the car’s passage over the roadway is going to cause it to make some noticeable sound even though the engine is essentially silent.
A propos of nothing, it this actually became a thing, I would get around to passing my driving test and buy a car just to be able to zoom around town making that TIE Fighter doppler “neeEOOONnnw” sound. It would be the most badassest thing.
Huh…I didn’t know that the silent running thingy was such an issue. I assume they could simply use the same technology they are planning for all electric vehicles, though…some sort of noise generator.
I’m not seeing a whole lot of things to shoot down the general concept here, though. It sounds pretty viable…which leads me to wonder what I’m missing here, since it doesn’t seem that many companies are really pursuing this technology, and instead they seem to be focused on electric power. Perhaps it’s the image of steam as old school?
-XT
I’m picturing the “Jericho Trumpet” siren that the Stuka used when dive-bombing.
I think we should become a nation that requires cars in full electric mode to play “turkey in the straw”! Can you imagine stop and go traffic on a freeway!
The real issue with steam cars IMO is that steam engines are heat engines that recirculate the same working fluid (water). They transfer heat to-and-from the water by conduction through thin metal walls - the tubes of the boiler and condenser.
Internal combustion engines by contrast are heat engines that use air as a working fluid. Heat does not have to be transferred to and from the air through metal walls - it is generated within the air by combustion with well-mixed fuel that is combined with the air itself in the engine’s cylinders. Heat is dumped by ejecting the hot working fluid right out of the exhaust pipe and taking in fresh working fluid through the engine’s air intake.
The lack of heat-transfer surfaces is an intrinic simplifying element of internal combustion engines. It also saves a lot of weight and removes a power-limiting factor from the engine design. The rather tricky material requirements of boiler tubes that are as thin as possible while supporting a high temperature and pressure differential. don’t have to be dealt with. OTOH, IC engines have fairly limiting fuel property requirements while steam engines can burn almost anything and can be made very fuel flexible.
I want my electric car to sound like the Jetsons’ car.
Seriously, isn’t there an issue regarding thermal or mechanical efficiency that gives IC engines a leg up on steam?
What particular problem are you trying to solve with steam?
Steam would require two streams of commodities.
Fuel to heat up the fluid to make the steam
A fluid to be heated up into steam
The fuel would, at the moment, be a hydrocarbon such as natural gas or gasoline/condensate. So we would be burning those anyway. The key energy delta would be what additional energy could be extracted from burning hydrocarbon vs combusting it, and do they offset the inefficiencies of the additional hardware? So from a carbon foot print you really don’t avoid putting carbon into the atmosphere, unless you have the magical non polluting heat source. If the reason is HCs are unavailable, then certainly the "any fuel will do " option would be great.
If there is a significant energy benefit of capturing the heat of burning the HC vs Combusting them, then you have to look at the cost of lugging around the mass of the liquid you want to make into steam, the mass of the steam vessels ,and the infrastructure required to manufacture and distribute said liquid. If water is the steam making liquid, then you will have to deal with significant resource restraints with respect o fresh water, and if you have some freon type fluid in mind , how will you make it and will the emissions be any less bad for the environment that HC burning?
Do the energy cost of all those offset the gain between burning and combusting hydrocarbons?
If you want to be efficient make the object being accelerated and decelerated be as light as possible, make the fuel you are carrying as high in energy density as possible and make your energy conversion system as efficient and as lightweight as possible.
If you’re interested, you really should watch Jay Leno’s video about the Doble Series E steam car. Jay has been doing fantastic work on steam cars. The link has a 21 minute video discussing the technical issues of steam. He’s actually been using modern ceramics to improve the boiler design on the Doble. It’s definitely interesting.
I think that steam has basically been the victim of the devil in the details. The concepts are all fine, but in application there are just a lot of issues that are not easy to solve. Saab’s design also worked in general, but there were just too many problems when you delved into the details. Jay says the Doble is the most complex machine his garage - more complex than a McLaren F1. So there may be cost factors as well.
hmmmm. If the boiler explodes wouldn’t it kill the person who would be asking for a replacement? Talk about a worthless warrant and the concept of buyer beware.
The constant power curve would make it ideal as a hybrid. It would also allow for virtually any fuel source simultaneously. There could be gas jets for propane and natural gas as well as diesel, gasoline, and a hopper for garbage. A person could pull over to the side of the road and pick up enough fuel to get home.
There have been a number of references to the supposed complexity of a steam car, including Sam’s “devil in the details” comment, but all seem to overlook the simple fact that steam was a mature and common technology by the 19th century. Certainly it still had enormous room for improvement, and vehicles like the Stanley were by no means as simple to operate as cars made 50 or even 100 years later. But then, much the same could be said for Henry Ford’s early IC models too.
Nevertheless, the engine / power train is quite simple and robust, while most of the complexity was found in the systems needed to control power output, including boiler feed and throttle opening. These were accomplished with levers, cams, and other mechanical systems mostly with direct operator control, as they were in equivalent IC vehicles of the era. Today’s IC cars benefit greatly from computerized, electronic control systems and I believe that similar controls could easily be developed from off-the-shelf components to modernize a steam vehicle. Also, many of the IC’s most complex parts (carburetor or fuel injection, transmission, radiator and cooling system, catalytic exhaust etc.) are not present on steam cars. I think the overall complexity of a steam vehicle, in sum total, is actually less than that of a modern IC automobile.
Finally, as I’ve suggested upthread, there is no reason to assume a water based system, so problems like corrosion that are directly attributable to water are moot. And the problem of having to fill up with two different things, fuel and the heat exchange medium (water or its replacement), is also moot if a recirculating system is employed.
I am not suggesting that a steam car would be a perfect replacement for today’s IC fleet and would solve all of our transport issues overnight by itself. I do though think that a modern external combustion “steam car” using recirculating Freon and a built in ability to accept a variety of fuels could provide enormous fuel flexibility. These vehicles could provide both performance and towing capabilities that would appeal to US motorists, an area in which electrics and electric hybrids are severely lacking. These retro-with-improvements cars could be an effective and easily attainable part of the mix of 21st century vehicles.
Sort of. Driver Fred Marriott, who was also in charge of the program, was severely injured at Daytona the year after setting the record, and more or less called it quits.
The record only lasted until 1909, anyway, when internal combustion took over. It did hold up as the steam-powered LSR until a couple of years ago, though.
Steam locomotives required a crew of two men working together to make them go. They required round houses to house them at night so they could be serviced and ready to roll the next day. They required frequent and extensive rebuilds. They required frequent water sources that didn’t freeze in winter. They pounded the hell out of the track and roadbeds, dramatically increasing track maintenance. They threw embers and started lots of fires.
Thems a lot of details that turn into deal breakers at today’s labor rates. It is no accident that the age of the steam locomotive lasted many decades longer in India and China where labor is very cheap.
Nobody is saying steam power isn’t possible in this day and age. We are saying it is a royal pain in the ass. (And I would still love to have a steam powered car)
The problem appears to be that the “mature and common technology” had essentially peaked by the 19th century. The reason that Mariott’s record lasted so long seems to be that steam powered vehicles just can’t go that fast. Even the 2009 record-breaking vehicle barely broke 150 miles per hour. That means that steam-powered vehicles have gained 13 mph in a little over 100 years.
By comparison, internal combustion vehicles are now capable of over 400 mph, and the jet-powered “cars” which dominate the LSR landscape now are capable over speeds over 1,000 mph.
All-electric vehicles have the advantage of moving the actual fuel-burning engine out of the vehicle, and at least making it possible for the requisite energy to be generated sustainably. Steam engines in general may be very flexibly fueled, but I expect that any particular practical steam vehicle would have to be designed to work with a small range of burnables, any of which it would have to carry along with and burn for itself.
What would be the point of developing new steam designs?