Can we make case for steam driven car after passing 80 years? 1

[MKimagin]

I just read two article about steam car developments in pass and in there both authors getting to very similar conclusion: steam car can be good option for future car if today advance technology can be used. I believe at list one author read the other paper. However, the case is pretty strong that car with advance steam driven engine (possibly rotary Wankle or turbine) can be very tractive option.

Here are the two papers (pretty long one).

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_2571/article.html

http://www.stanleysteamers.com/modern_steam.htm

What I will add that configuration with turbine will be specially attractive for hybrid vehicle. Electrical generator that operate at very high speed can be very small and light. That configuration will be perfect for serial hybrid.

 

[tbuelna]

BMW's Turbosteamer from 2 years ago:

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.d...egory=FREE&ArtNo=60213002&Ref=AR&Profile=1024

 

[MKimagin]

BMW use steam turbine as a secondary mean of power.
The system add only 13Hp.
80 years ego the 5000 lb steam cars with 20-30Hp could accelerate to 60 mph in 10s. That shocking eve today. The enormous toque (1000lbft) from 0 rpm was the key. Only electric motors can compare to that.

 

[GregLocock]

So what advantage do you think they possess over the current solutions?

I strongly urge anybody who wants to publicise them to heavily edit the first of those articles, starting with a long paranoid whinge is NOT the path to success.

The other article, by the famous Julian Edgar, whose other publications include How to hold a Garage Sale (with photos), is a bit more like it.

Why did diesels kill steam on the railways? (maintenance, efficiency). Why would that not apply today?





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Ataloss]

Do you have a reference for this 5000lb vehicle accelerating to 60mph in 10 seconds with only 30hp?

5000lb = 2268kg
60mpg = 26.82m/s

KE=1/2*(2268kg)*(26.82m/s)^2=815KJ

815KJ/10s=81.5KW=110hp

Either I've screwed up my calculations, or those steam cars were breaking the laws of physics.

Also keep in mind that the 110hp would be the average power over the 10 seconds. At 0.1s when the steam engine is cranking out 1000lb-ft of torque at 1RPM, it's only making 0.2hp. Assuming it makes a constant torque across its entire operating range, you'd need a 220hp engine to meet the acceleration specs you're talking about, assuming you're not using a CVT holding the steam engine at its max HP. That's also neglecting any friction in the system, aerodynamic drag, etc.

Bob

 

[thundair]

I had some involvement in a vapor recovery engine that produced 300HP, but it was for aircraft. Never new what happened to it.
It would solve some of the problem of carrying around hundreds of gallons of water. Also it would burn most liquid fuels as it was just a burner.

Cheers

I don't know anything but the people that do.

 

[MechanicalChef]

I'm ready to convert my truck. I'll store the coal in the bed, and get a small tanker-trailer to haul the water.

 

[MKimagin]

GregLocock -"So what advantage do you think they possess over the current solutions?"

Extremely clean exhaust as compare to Otto and Diesel due to low pressure combustion.
1. no catalytic converter necessary
2. no muffler
3. no transmission
4. no starter (to that may be exaction, it have electric burner)
5. no fuel consumption at stop (no idle cycle)
6. up to 3 Hp/lb of engine power weight ratio
7. no visible exhaust (steam, smock..)
8. very quiet operation
9. water last up to 1500miles
10. millage around 15-16MPG
This are list of advantage for car that was design in 1920's
According to Doule the efficiency of used engine was only 16% (in 1916). The only explanation for so good millage is lack of transmission (direct drive).
See what Jay Leno said about that car:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/1302916.html

Atalos - your calculation are absolutely correct.
Here is some answer for the acceleration:

"Unlike the internal combustion powered car where the engine provided the horsepower rating for the vehicle, a steam car was rated by it's boiler's steaming capacity. Thus Stanley cars were rated as 10, 20, and 30 horsepower even though a typical 20-horsepower car's steam engine was capable of developing nearly 125 horsepower."
It from:

http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/SteamEngine/SteamEngineGeneral.htm

Here is what Abner Double said in 1916 about the design in discussion:

"E. G. THOMAS:—This paper recalls a conversation with Mr. Doble, in which he contended that multicylinder engines are unnecessary when if steam is used a two-cylinder engine is sufficient. We then rode in his car at speeds varying from 1 to 60 m.p.h. It was a most pleasing sensation. There was absolutely no noise. The car attained any speed desired at any time.

MR. UTICH :—What does the seven-passenger car weigh?

ABNER DOBLE:—A seven-passenger car of 128-in. wheelbase, 56-in. tread front, 57-in. tread rear, equipped with a rather heavy body and 33 by 5-in. wheels weighs 3100 lb., with tank filled ready for the road.

CHAIRMAN ARTHUR J. SCAIFE:—What is the greatest horsepower obtainable with this type of powerplant?

ABNER DOBLE:—The highest normal horsepower that we have used so far is 25, but a 25 hp. steam powerplant at the standard pressure of 600 lb. per sq. in. will exert about 132 hp. for about eight minutes.

S. L. BLACKBURN:—What is the maximum pressure capacity of the boiler?

ABNER DOBLE:—The boiler is designed for a working pressure of 600 lb. The safety valve is set for 1000 lb. The boilers are all tested to 5000 lb. They will rupture at about 8500 to 9000 lb. At this pressure the tubing ruptures at a place remote from the welds. My own car has been in service since December, 1913. The safety valve has never blown. This means that the maximum pressure has never reached 1000 lb."

The link:

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/automo.Html

There is definitely something to look for in steam power cars. With current technology we definitely can go well beyond 16% of efficiency.

 

[GregLocock]

Sure. Can you reach 37% efficiency (peak)? Can you exceed 30% for all the time the engine is on, including warmup? That's current technology.

Look, I like steam engines. I'd be more than happy to build one for fun.

But you can't mix and match your solutions - if you want no gearbox, then you need pistons, not a Lysholm or a turbine. If you want mechanical efficiency you probably want a Lysholm. If you want thermodynamic efficiency you will need something more complex than a single stage expansion. Does your power to weight figure apply to an efficient system, or just to a rocket motor?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[MKimagin]

GregLocock you are right, some type of engines are better in one function then others, so when choose, the deficiency have to be overcome or minimize.

Look on web page of Robert Bourque and his development:

http://www.newsteamengine.com/performance.html

That a piston steam engine have pretty good efficiency (around 30%). Not bad a all.

One approach could be steam series hybrid.
We could combine best of all.
The expander could be the Lysholm, possible multi stage (if it can be configure in such way) for improve thermodynamic efficiency.
Instead of transmission, generator (it should be relatively small at high rpm), that will act as torque conversion for electric motor as a drive train (possibly hub motors).

 

[NickE]

"1. no catalytic converter necessary
2. no muffler "

how are you going to heat the water?

Even Indoor home woodstoves require catalytic converters in the US now. I guess since there is no explosive combustion event you wouldnt need to damp and reduce the noise of an exhaust pulse. But where are you going to put the smoke? so a stack woudl be teh steam engine equivalent to a muffler.

"6. up to 3 Hp/lb of engine power weight ratio"

HOW?

I drive a turbocharged light weight sub-compact sedan. It has a relatively high Hp/weight ratio.... However it is no where near 3hp/lb.

That means that every pint of water has to produce much more than 3hp. IE: fuel is required to turn water into steam. And you need something to contain that steam, and then you need something to turn the steam into mechanical work, then there's passengers, cargo, comfort, saftey, etc... Really I just dont see how you are going to get enough efficiency to go from a performance statistic rated at lbs/hp, and give it a value greater than 1 at hp/lb.


Ok so you say that 1500mile range is expected, and give a figure of 15-16MPG. so that means the vehicle would have to hold 93.75gallons of water, wich would weigh ~750lbs... holy mass batman, where are we going to put the fuel?

 

[MKimagin]

NickE, I see that your idea about steam cars is closer to steam locomotive than contemporary power plant.
I will recommended to read the articles in the links that I provided, there some detail information of that 1920's design and new design.

1. You do not need catalytic converter if the propel ratio of fuel to air is maintain at atmospheric pressure.
2. You do not need muffler because there is no explosive combustion. Ask your self question, is there muffler in you home heating system?
3. Any noise from steam engine itself is attenuated because it work in louse system. The expansion of steam is in the cylinder, and whatever pressure remain it go to condenser, not out side like it is in conventional steam locomotive. So no noise from leaking steam to atmosphere.
The water is in louse circle so you do not need 93 gallons of water , only few gallons.
4. It should not be any surprise that the steam engine can deliver up to 3hp/lb. 4 struck engine make one power struck per 4 struck, two struck engine make 2 power struck per 4 struck, and piston steam engine make 4 power struck per 4 struck. Four cylinder steam will work like 16 cylinder 4 struck IC. Very smooth.

 

[pontiacjack]

I don't know what the answer will be, and I'll stay on the sidelines of discussing the details. But it seems to me that mention needs to be made of the fuel-flexibility of an external combustion engined vehicle, versus our beloved internal combustion machines. Two possibilities:

1) Reduction of the world's petroleum dependency.
2) Cost-effective vehicle fuel.
3) Safe, non-hazardous fuel.

These aren't assured outcomes, but merely reasons to exhaustively examine motive steam power. Just my opinion.

 

[MKimagin]

pontiacjack ,
Excellent points. The fuel flexibility was the key advantage when steam power machines were used. It become even more important right now

Ability to used any thing that can be combusted specially renewal fuels and “green” fuels (dry plants, grasses so on) should be attractive for develop, developing and under develop countries.

 

[cibachrome]

Sorry, must have missed it. Who mentioned air conditioning, defrosting, Death Valley, Buffalo snow, boiler explosions, 60 mph head-on collision, rollover, trailer towing, power steering, and where is the coal station?

Sorry, I'll be planting corn, or sugar cane, or dandeline shoots to brew my own. Gimme an electric driven, battery capacitance, low hp juice supply, grid plug in 50 mile range rover. There's a pile of them coming...

The Euro model of rail interCity transport appeals to me, too.

My grandfather was killed when the boiler blew up on his NY Central locomotive. I've been in the cab of a 1940's engine. Steam at 350 psi is pretty impressive. At 500+ psi it ought to really raise the roof...

 

[MKimagin]

cibachrome

Look like you mess a lot...not miss a lot

If you have in mind the bracket of water that been call in past a boiler that you pressurized to 500+psi that may be consider weapon of mas destruction. Modern steam boiler is a single small diameter steam pipe, so in the event of rapture there is no danger of major disaster, specially if the whole thing is enclose.

Yes I will like to have electric car for $10 000, the only problem: come from I have to get the cheap battery for next 20 years?
The 50 miles get you to work.. I can get there by subway, that fare more economical. Any car can be retrofitted with hybrid system (and it should be) including steam cars, that no brainier.

Total electric car is best solution for future. Right now the electric car is good solution for luxury cars , where the reach clients can spare the change - Tesla Car -> $80 000. However that not for average family.

 

[BrianPetersen]

You can figure out the theoretical efficiency of a steam engine using the thermodynamic properties of steam (in any decent thermodynamics textbook). If you pick reasonable boiler pressures and temperatues, and reasonable condenser pressures and temperatures, the theoretical efficiency is depressingly low. The efficiency of the boiler and the expander will detract from that even further. Load control ("throttle response") is problematic. If you want decently low condenser temperature/pressure, you need to move lots of air through the condenser (parasitic power consumption at low speed due to high volume fans, aerodynamic drag issue at high speed). Freeze-up conditions in winter are another thing to deal with if you use water as the working fluid.

You can substitute other working fluids, but from anything I've seen, the efficiency situation isn't any better.

Utility power generation gets high thermal efficiency out of steam by using multiple stages of re-heat, feed water pre-heating, boiler air pre-heating (regeneration using the boiler exhaust to pre-heat the intake air), but good luck doing that in a package that will fit in a vehicle and good luck taking less than minutes to respond to changing load conditions.

Diesel + particulate filter / de-NOx catalyst remains the most efficient automotive-scale engine we know how to build, and it doesn't have transient-load-condition issues.

 

[Snork]

You are all missing the obvious solution - a small radioactive mass to boil the water. That solves all the emissions problems; at least for a while.

 

[crysta1c1ear]

Look on web page of Robert Bourque and his development:

http://www.newsteamengine.com/performance.html

That a piston steam engine have pretty good efficiency (around 30%). Not bad a all.

http://www.newsteamengine.com/summary.html

While a lot of work needs to be done, so much has been done already that [highlight]there is great incentive to develop a detailed design and build a prototype[/highlight].

So it seems it isn't a piston steam engine after all, but just somebody's idea.

I think you'll find the efficiency when built isn't quite what was expected. The latent heat of vaporization of water is pretty high and tends to be completely ignored by people working out steam engine efficiency by doing Carnot style calculations.

I haven't checked all your other links - I just check the one that you claimed was an efficient steam engine to see if it actually existed, and it appears it doesn't.

 

[thruthefence]

It seems like I read, or saw a movie where Howard Hughes' engineers had developed a revolutionary steam automobile and reviewing the prototype, Hughes asked the question " ...and where did you locate the condensers? " the engineers replied
"why right here in the doors!" (or wherever) Hughes simply frowned , nodded to his assistant & said "scrap the whole program" turned & walked away.