1,000 ft/lbs of torque in a Production car from 1925

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I think the best powered vehicle would be electric powered with a 100hp 1liter motor to run the generator for the batteries.

Chevy Volt?

While the series hybrid offers a lot of efficiency, my bigger question is what is the most efficient way to power the generator. Also, don't forget that horsepower is not the relevant figure to deal with when discussing a generator engine, but torque is. With enough torque, you can overdrive the engine's output to run the generator at max efficiency with the engine running at it's max efficiency. Theoretically, you could get your generator power source from a number of different sources, but the real questions in a car are how compact can it be made and how light can it be while still retaining reliability and crash worthiness? The basic possibilities to run the batteries would be: Solar, Compressed air (also a possible energy storage medium), steam piston, steam turbine, Gas turbine, Internal Combustion gasoline, internal combustion diesel, or internal combustion natural gas. Within the internal combustion group you would have to decide if you wanted a conventional piston engine, a Wankel rotary, a 4 stroke, a 2 stroke, a 2-4 stroke hybrid, a miller cycle engine, or some other voodoo that I didn't include like an external combustion Stirling engine. If nothing else, I hope I gave you some food for thought and some stuff to Google. This is a great theoretical discussion to have as it teaches those who engage in it to think outside the box. Whether it is practical or not is an entirely different matter though.

 

[Coveted]

and again, water is more precious than oil, so the ONLY way to make this even close to viable is to run it on salt water, even then its probably not close to viable.

its a good idea, but we can live without oil, we cant live without water

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

and again, water is more precious than oil, so the ONLY way to make this even close to viable is to run it on salt water, even then its probably not close to viable.

its a good idea, but we can live without oil, we cant live without water

So... you don't run any form of coolant at all in your car? A steam engine does not have to leave plooms of steam in it's wake. These have a sealed system that can run for years without using any water, just like your IC engine's cooling system. It also does not keep much more water in it than your car's engine does. The system does not burn water, it uses it as a medium to confer energy to a piston or turbine. The heat is generated by burning a fuel like kerosene, coal, zombies, etc.

 

[custom442]

These have a sealed system that can run for years without using any water, just like your IC engine's cooling system. It also does not keep much more water in it than your car's engine does.

Like a ship. But they do need a power source to start the steam process, no?

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

These have a sealed system that can run for years without using any water, just like your IC engine's cooling system. It also does not keep much more water in it than your car's engine does.

Like a ship. But they do need a power source to start the steam process, no?

Yes, but so does anything. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion device. All things are subject to the laws of thermodynamics like entropy and enthalpy. The question is which one offers the best efficiency and the least wasted energy? Both a internal combustion engine (Otto cycle, etc. ) and an external combustion engine (Rankin Cycle, Carat cycle, Stirling, etc.) are means of converting heat energy into kinetic energy. A VERY efficient IC engine is maybe 25-30% efficient while the most efficient stationary steam engines are 40% efficient. While it may not be possible to translate the stationary efficiency to a mobile one, it still offers an intriguing prospect, at least from a theoretical standpoint. Am I advocating it? Not necessarily, but I am also smart enough to realize that it may be an area with untapped potential. All I am saying is it offers an interesting topic for discussion, and should not automatically be dismissed due to prejudices based on perception rather than actual facts. Supposedly, the one Leno has offers very good fuel economy in excess of 65mpg (Kerosene) in a car that could hit 75mph in 10 seconds, and weighs 5,000lbs. If you can scale it and solve the remaining issues to make it comparable to a modern IC engined vehicle, it does offer a viable alternative to what we have now. After all, the Doble is NOT very aerodynamically efficient. If you could use a modern car with good aerodynamics it would be possible to scale it down and lengthen the cycle between burner activations and possibly see 100+mpg without any loss of performance. It actually would be a great competitor for the automotive X prize.

 

[custom442]

I was suprised that steam power never seemed to come up in everybodies talks of alternative fuels over the past few years... must be too low tech for todays consumer. It sure would reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

I don't think it's low tech. I think it's just not practical. Think of the vehicles propelled by steam - tons of torque without much gearing. It would be an engineering feat to use the same tech. in something like a car where acceleration varies so much.

 

[custom442]

Yes, but so does anything. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion device. All things are subject to the laws of thermodynamics like entropy and enthalpy. The question is which one offers the best efficiency and the least wasted energy? Both a internal combustion engine (Otto cycle, etc. ) and an external combustion engine (Rankin Cycle, Carat cycle, Stirling, etc.) are means of converting heat energy into kinetic energy. A VERY efficient IC engine is maybe 25-30% efficient while the most efficient stationary steam engines are 40% efficient. While it may not be possible to translate the stationary efficiency to a mobile one, it still offers an intriguing prospect, at least from a theoretical standpoint. Am I advocating it? Not necessarily, but I am also smart enough to realize that it may be an area with untapped potential. All I am saying is it offers an interesting topic for discussion, and should not automatically be dismissed due to prejudices based on perception rather than actual facts. Supposedly, the one Leno has offers very good fuel economy in excess of 65mpg (Kerosene) in a car that could hit 75mph in 10 seconds, and weighs 5,000lbs. If you can scale it and solve the remaining issues to make it comparable to a modern IC engined vehicle, it does offer a viable alternative to what we have now. After all, the Doble is NOT very aerodynamically efficient. If you could use a modern car with good aerodynamics it would be possible to scale it down and lengthen the cycle between burner activations and possibly see 100+mpg without any loss of performance. It actually would be a great competitor for the automotive X prize.

I'm not counting it out, I'm just trying to work my mind around how to vary the rate of steam pressure in such a way that the original source of power doesn't vary. IC engines couldn't be used as a heat source because they're so inefficient to begin with.

Or maybe the steam could remain constant while only a set of gears changes... But this wastes energy and that 40% is then much less.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I was suprised that steam power never seemed to come up in everybodies talks of alternative fuels over the past few years... must be too low tech for todays consumer. It sure would reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

I don't think it's low tech. I think it's just not practical. Think of the vehicles propelled by steam - tons of torque without much gearing. It would be an engineering feat to use the same tech. in something like a car where acceleration varies so much.

Thus, my idea for solving that issue. Run the car's drive systems off of electricity. That is very throttlable, and would allow the steam plant to run at peak adiabatic efficiency at all times, and shut down when not needed. Since the actual system for creating the steam takes only 40-120 seconds to get up to pressure, it can stay off when not needed. The electric drive also solves the need to wait until the boiler builds sufficient pressure. A compressed air accumulator could also be used for the same thing as the batteries, but it would not allow for the disengagement of the engine for long periods of time like batteries would.

Also, steam is easy to throttle too. All you really need is a ball valve to vary the amount of pressure and volume seen by the steam engine itself. That is how Stanley, White and Doble did it back in the day. And, with the use of a transmission, you can run a smaller power unit with less torque and just bump the wheel torque up with gearing instead of direct drive, if you want a purely mechanical setup. Hell, you could even use a CVT to vary it so that the steam engine is at low revs near max torque at all times too.

 

[custom442]

Thus, my idea for solving that issue. Run the car's drive systems off of electricity. That is very throttlable, and would allow the steam plant to run at peak adiabatic efficiency at all times, and shut down when not needed. Since the actual system for creating the steam takes only 40-120 seconds to get up to pressure, it can stay off when not needed. The electric drive also solves the need to wait until the boiler builds sufficient pressure. A compressed air accumulator could also be used for the same thing as the batteries, but it would not allow for the disengagement of the engine for long periods of time like batteries would.

Yes, but you're working in a cyclic manner. How does the steam heat? Regeneration with the electric drive motor only helps so much. There needs to be a source to initially heat the steam, and it needs to be as near 100% efficiency as possible in order to get the claimed efficiency from the steam engine and electric drive -- think nuclear subs.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Well, you heat it with fire in a boiler. Use gasoline, kerosene, etc. I am not saying the boiler technology needs to be changed much from what Doble and SAAB did as they pretty much had an efficient system worked out for regulating temperature, etc. As for retaining heat, that would be the work of ceramic barrier coatings, etc. If you didn't watch the whole Jay Leno video, go watch it now as he does get into the boiler design and how he improved it with a aerospace thermal barrier coating designed for the space program.

As for emissions, yes, it does burn fuel. But the 1925 Doble is pretty much clean enough to meet ULEV standards of today without any smog equippment.