Algae oil.

[Beware of the Leopard]

Deacon, he is not saying it is powered by steam, he is saying that the steam using engine is somehow a more efficient use of fuel.

Also, mechanical middle men do not necessarily lower efficiency.

fig 1: simple heat engine


fig 2: heat engine with feedwater heating

fig 2 is the more efficient engine. However, this does not prove that a heat engines is better for a car. I'd like to see the efficiency of a modern internal combusion vehicle compared to a modern steam vehicle as I'm sure the former has improved and that the later can be improved similarly. The Doble car got 16% total thermal efficiency, and the internal combustion vehicle (from 1916!) they compared it to got 14%. Someone is going to throw out the efficiency that was listed above 90%, so I'm going to ninja that by saying this was the efficiency from the boiler to the turbine, not the total if you read it closely.

A 1 minute start is too slow for the Hummer generation who honk if your car doesn't start rolling 0.1 second before the light turns green.

Buy an Aptera if you really want efficiency.

[naval_aviator_2040]

the one minute start is the time from the first lighting of the boiler to movement, not the time from the first application of steam to the drive wheels to first movement. and for those of us who live up north one minute would be quicker than the 3-5 minute warm-up that is not uncommon during the winter months

[Beware of the Leopard]

I was comparing impatience levels as opposed to the actual driving event in question. Maybe people are more patient in cold weather out of necessity, but a soccer mom in a temperate zone would have none of it. The gas is hit almost before the key is turned.

I'm just saying a 2% gain in efficiency is not stopping any gaps and will not be sellable with a 1 minute warm up to boot. This percentage is based off of 1916 numbers, what's the thermal efficiency of a good moderately priced and efficient car of today? Perhaps some research team should make a stab at a more efficient steam using vehicle to show what can be done with the concept today. Are there any ME grad students in the audience?

[naval_aviator_2040]

well I'm an ME undergrad but I've got class in a few minutes and my professor is a licensed PE (I believe) so he'll be able to help me out

[adciv]

I would need some research to convince me. The train arguement is not a good one as diesel may simply give better hp at the expense of efficiency.

A diesel train, geared for cargo, can haul 1 ton 400+ miles on 1 gallon of diesel.

I could counter this statement with the fact that power plants do not use internal combustion.

Powerplants are not using a fuel that can be used with internal combustion. Coal and Nuclear do not work that way. They also have a warm up time and operate at much higher temperatures than you can use in your car.

This isn't a cut and dry situation where one can hand-wave-logic one or the other out.

Yes, it is.

My gut tells me that steam isn't a good idea for a personal vehicle simply because it seems to have already been ruled out, but the rise of hybrids makes me think it needs another shot... on paper at the least.

So, the fact that we are using gasoline electrics makes you want to look at using steam again? Do you even understand why and how hybrids work in the first place?

How did the one in the 20's work? They did have electric motors at the time. If it was straight up mechanical, they may have been able to bring the water to an instant boil with high surface area, but still... there had to be some time to get the heat to the water. (I suppose that's the "almost")

You would still have needed the heat source, which would have eneded time to heat up the surface area. There is no way to instantly turn water to a boil from a cold start. The electric motors for vehicles ran off of DC non-rechargeable battery packs supplied by Edison.

I'm just saying a 2% gain in efficiency is not stopping any gaps and will not be sellable with a 1 minute warm up to boot. This percentage is based off of 1916 numbers, what's the thermal efficiency of a good moderately priced and efficient car of today? Perhaps some research team should make a stab at a more efficient steam using vehicle to show what can be done with the concept today. Are there any ME grad students in the audience?

20-30%. By the way, if you want to make cars more fuel efficient, eliminate the environmental regs that require a rich burn of the fuel to meet EPA standards. Lean burning engines are more efficient.

[Hirschof]

I'd like to announce that I have found a mode of transportation that emits no pollution and requires no large quantities of fuel. I'd like Fuggle to take the maiden trip.

[Aerdan]

Hirschof wins an Internet!

[supra]

20-30%. By the way, if you want to make cars more fuel efficient, eliminate the environmental regs that require a rich burn of the fuel to meet EPA standards. Lean burning engines are more efficient.

yes and no. gasoline engines are most efficient (and, coincidentally, least polluting) at a 0.9 equivalence ratio (1.0 = stoichiometric combustion, so 0.9 is slightly lean). diesels are capable of much better gas mileage because (despite a slightly more efficient thermal cycle), they can run at equivalence ratios as low as 0.3-0.4. this allows for minimal fuel consumption at idle and low load settings. hybrids expand on this by shutting down the ICE except at cruising speeds.

naviator, i have to disagree with your suggestion for steam propulsion. as someone pointed out earlier, the fuels required for efficient steam power are different than those used in vehicular transportation (i.e. not easy to manage in small vehicles), the amount of heat produced by the systems is enormous, and they typically require heat regeneration to maximize efficiency. in a train this is feasible, but not in an auto. as much as i hate to admit it, the best stop gap right now is a hybrid diesel powertrain. ideally it can be replaced with a clean fuel (such as hydrogen), but in order to see significant increases in efficiency, you'd have to scrap thermal cycles alltogether.

[StruckingFuggle]

re: above:

I wonder what the Gs would be like on that thing and how you'd need to set it up, if the Gs were survivable, to reach enough height to come down in a glidesuit thingie or with a parachute, 'cause ... that'd be pretty kickass.

[naval_aviator_2040]

naviator, i have to disagree with your suggestion for steam propulsion. as someone pointed out earlier, the fuels required for efficient steam power are different than those used in vehicular transportation

who said boilers can only be run on coal or nuclear power? the boiler on my school's ship (a 565ft bulk freighter) can be run on almost any grade of petroleum fuel from an industrial No 6 Bunker oil to gasoline or kerosene. just for the sake of curiosity, does anyone here have any experience running steam power plants? I'd really appreciate any input for a variety of reasons not all related to this discussion.

[Beware of the Leopard]

I'd like to announce that I have found a mode of transportation that emits no pollution and requires no large quantities of fuel. I'd like Fuggle to take the maiden trip.

where do you get the energy to set it?

Firstly, let me reiterate that I don't believe steam will win when the numbers are finally crunched, and that it won't lose by a small amount. I don't work with these things on any large scale, so I'll take your 20-30% for whatever it's worth.

What is the tradeoff for lean engine's? Immediate harm for for long term?

Yes, I know how a hybrid works. I imagine that you can't exactly turn off the heat engine on a dime, so you would likely want to collect the energy of the turbine still spinning as you come to a stop. Also, the battery power could be sufficient to get the car moving while you wait for the engine to heat up. 1 minute for the 1920s vehicle. Going down the highway, you would want to run entirely on the heat engine.

As far as the train goes, find me the efficiency for an equivalent steam train. Once you overcome inertia, I'm sure the gas milage does pretty well with that too. That 1 ton of train doesn't have quite as much to deal with as 1 ton of car.

I feel like I'm stuck defending something I don't believe in, so I'm going to stop.

Like I think I said previously. Why not just make it electric and plug into a larger and more efficient heat engine that you don't have to carry. Then the pollution is easier to contain, and you can switch out newer alternatives for less cost than redesigning and reselling all cars every time a better technology comes out. Your car would effectively become a nuclear/coal/solar/wind/hydroelectic/biofuel/etc. hybrid.

[adciv]

What is the tradeoff for lean engine's? Immediate harm for for long term?

Higher NOx and SOx.

As far as the train goes, find me the efficiency for an equivalent steam train.

No, you find it. If you want to argue it is better, find your own numbers to support it. Don't try to make me argue for you.

Like I think I said previously. Why not just make it electric and plug into a larger and more efficient heat engine that you don't have to carry.

It sounds like you want to have an electric heater powering a steam car. At that point, it would be much more efficient to just have an electric car.

[Beware of the Leopard]

What is the tradeoff for lean engine's? Immediate harm for for long term?

Higher NOx and SOx.

As far as the train goes, find me the efficiency for an equivalent steam train.

No, you find it. If you want to argue it is better, find your own numbers to support it. Don't try to make me argue for you.

Like I think I said previously. Why not just make it electric and plug into a larger and more efficient heat engine that you don't have to carry.

It sounds like you want to have an electric heater powering a steam car. At that point, it would be much more efficient to just have an electric car.

Firstly, it was a rhetorical question as the data on steam trains has been lacking over a significant period of time. I think there's one operating up in Alaska. Secondly, no, it would be a gas powered heat engine powering an electric car. Thirdly, I am not arguing that it is better, I am arguing that it is probably not better, but actually unknown given technological advances since the last time it was given a chance.

That an electric car would be more efficient is exactly what I was saying in that last line. Although, I do wonder if a heat engine could be made lighter than the difference between the large battery needed for a good electric car and the small battery needed for startup alone. However, I think the real gain in the efficiency of an electric car is that your power comes from a mix of fossil and renewable fuels and the polution is easier to contain.

My opinion that we do not know which is better and your opinion that internal combustion's superiority does not need to be proven are both moot as neither is better than a car powered ultimately by the grid where at least a percentage is from renewable energy. In fact, this works better for biofuels as well, as you can use them in their solid state without as much refining. You can probably get much more energy out of an acre of corn if you simply burn it stem to kernel than if you convert it to a laughable 40 gallons of ethanol. It's like the juicer on the simpsons that gets a drop of juice out of a bucket of oranges. In this scenario, algae may even be at a disadvantage as it would need to be dried. I say "may be" as this might be offset by faster production and possibly easy separation.

Effectively, we are arguing about nothing; so let's just come to the conclusion that the other is not going to change their mind, and discuss useful options.

[Deacon]

BotL, you don't think train companies and those companies that buy and run trains wouldn't be be looking into it if it were really better? You think nobody has done any research on it in the last 50 years?

[naval_aviator_2040]

Ok I've been able to dig up some more information about steam cars and here's what I've learned.

First, The Doble Steam Motor Company failed to catch on because their owner was so much of a perfectionist that he turned out to be a terrible businessman. He would hold up production on a car for months so he could fuss with insignificant little details like the grip on the throttle wheel. this would lead to delays so bad that the company failed to meet its pre-order promises on a fairly regular basis. the customers got fed up with this and, since they were already fed up with the unreliable/difficult to maintain stanleys, went to the internal combustion autos being mass-produced and therefore promptly delivered.

I have also found out that the Doble Model E (the one that could start in less than a minute) when it ran on Kerosene had a fuel economy of ten to fourteen miles to every gallon of kerosene. not good by todays standards I know but bear with me for a few more moments Generally speaking, in a steam power plant a ship will get much more fuel economy by burning diesel than it will by burning kerosene (i don't have the numbers in front of me but i promise they will come soon) simply because it burns longer and slower than kerosene so the doble burning diesel would likely have better fuel economy than a kerosene burner. I'll give it a 19-20 mpg rating (thats a guess)

Now consider that the Doble Model E Used a reciprocating expansion engine (piston engine) instead of a turbine like modern steam plants. the replacement of the piston engine with a turbine alone would likely give it another 7-8 mpg bringing our max estimate up to 28 mpg. add to that the fact that the materials that the modern car would be made out of would be significantly lighter than the steel's used in the 1920's and we've already got a car that can run on diesel at a fuel economy of at least 30-32 (again a guess)mpg and meet the EPA required emissions standards. and thats without even touching the boiler where the fuel is being burned.

Now, Do I think that this is likely? as I've stated before, NO I do not. But I do think that its farther inside the realm of possibility than most people realize