RE: Steam Challenge update
Discussion
What is the current state of fuel cell development? My current impression is that direct electric vehicles are not that efficient, have limited range and fuel cells/batteries etc are still too bulky and heavy. If one adds the fuel/power conversion rate for modern power stations, plus transmission losses the overall fuel to power conversion rate for electrically driven vehicles is appallingly bad, and makes no meaningful reduction to C02 emissions. I had a long talk with the French guy who produced the electric sports car seen at Goodwood last year, and the car whilst good still has limited range. I guess there are no details for the technology associated with modern steam powered vehicles, but the ability to burn almost anything (that will) to generate power does have a faint attractiveness. Just think we might be able to get about on the remains of yesterdays newspapers and the packaging from last nights McDonalds!
GTROne said:
Probably most of the electricity everybody uses is generated via steam. Coal/nuclear fuel heats water - creates steam - drives steam turbine connected to generator to generate electricity.
Reciprocating engine (normal diesel/petrol) is really inefficient (something like 5%!) compared to this.
Reciprocating engine (normal diesel/petrol) is really inefficient (something like 5%!) compared to this.
Reciprocating steam engines are highly efficient. So are steam turbines. Both are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Power plants use steam turbines with 80 to 91% efficiency. Most internal combustion engines achieve only 30-41% and gas turbines achieve no more than 47 to 52%. Steam power is almost perfect.
Edited by Salaam1334 on Monday 24th July 00:19
Andrew D said:
flossythepig said:
You can only break the record for steam power using steam!
Really? So you're not allowed to run on candy floss at all then? 
My point is that steam has to be generated within the vehicle, and thus any steam vehicle has to carry generation equipment and is therefore heavy and inefficent in comparison to a stored-energy vehicle (fuel cell). The problem isn't the ability to generate energy within a vehicle, the Veyron's good for 1000PS, it's that it's difficult to generate efficiently within the vehicle using renewable sources. So if you want to use renewables, stored energy vehicles are the order of the day.
Thus steam doesn't get round the renewables problem, so it's not really better than gasoline, so what's the point?
You've missed the point completely. Steam engines can use alternative fuels to heat the boiler which creates steam. So they can burn hydrogen, lpg, diesel, natural gas ect ect. So yes they are an alternative fuel platform. The steam only drives the engines and it does so highly efficiently.
Yes a steam turbine is hugely efficient a wonderful piece of engineering Small compact and hugely powerful for the size I work with them and in a box not much larger then a kitchen table you can get 20,000Bhp
Boilers are also hugely efficient and if you can burn something then you can use it in a boiler.
However steam power is not a boiler Steam power is not a turbine Steam power is a steam plant which in terms of total efficiency is pants.
The reason for this is because you have to over come the problem of latent heat. To get steam you have to boil water and those of you that paid attention in school will remember that you need to supply extra energy to turn water at 100C into steam at 100C. Now this energy is very difficult to recover. In old steam trains they did not even try to recover it they did not even try to recover the water they just vented the exhaust steam to atmosphere which is unthinkable in a modern steam plant. In a modern steam plant you must recover your water otherwise you make a mess of your water quality in the boilers which is essential to maintain everything working and not exploding.
Now in a steam plant you can try and recovery as much energy as possible by having a high degree of superheat and then dropping it down through the turbine to a vacuum, but when you condense the steam back to water you lose loads of energy which kills all the efficiency.
But in car it will be hard to engineer a condenser to engineer a condenser that runs at a vacuum would be a huge challenge.
So in short steam is damn powerful but hopeless in terms of efficiency for something like a car where you cannot have huge amounts of cooling to run a condenser at 35c
Boilers are also hugely efficient and if you can burn something then you can use it in a boiler.
However steam power is not a boiler Steam power is not a turbine Steam power is a steam plant which in terms of total efficiency is pants.
The reason for this is because you have to over come the problem of latent heat. To get steam you have to boil water and those of you that paid attention in school will remember that you need to supply extra energy to turn water at 100C into steam at 100C. Now this energy is very difficult to recover. In old steam trains they did not even try to recover it they did not even try to recover the water they just vented the exhaust steam to atmosphere which is unthinkable in a modern steam plant. In a modern steam plant you must recover your water otherwise you make a mess of your water quality in the boilers which is essential to maintain everything working and not exploding.
Now in a steam plant you can try and recovery as much energy as possible by having a high degree of superheat and then dropping it down through the turbine to a vacuum, but when you condense the steam back to water you lose loads of energy which kills all the efficiency.
But in car it will be hard to engineer a condenser to engineer a condenser that runs at a vacuum would be a huge challenge.
So in short steam is damn powerful but hopeless in terms of efficiency for something like a car where you cannot have huge amounts of cooling to run a condenser at 35c
thinfourth said:
Yes a steam turbine is hugely efficient a wonderful piece of engineering Small compact and hugely powerful for the size I work with them and in a box not much larger then a kitchen table you can get 20,000Bhp
Boilers are also hugely efficient and if you can burn something then you can use it in a boiler.
However steam power is not a boiler Steam power is not a turbine Steam power is a steam plant which in terms of total efficiency is pants.
The reason for this is because you have to over come the problem of latent heat. To get steam you have to boil water and those of you that paid attention in school will remember that you need to supply extra energy to turn water at 100C into steam at 100C. Now this energy is very difficult to recover. In old steam trains they did not even try to recover it they did not even try to recover the water they just vented the exhaust steam to atmosphere which is unthinkable in a modern steam plant. In a modern steam plant you must recover your water otherwise you make a mess of your water quality in the boilers which is essential to maintain everything working and not exploding.
Now in a steam plant you can try and recovery as much energy as possible by having a high degree of superheat and then dropping it down through the turbine to a vacuum, but when you condense the steam back to water you lose loads of energy which kills all the efficiency.
But in car it will be hard to engineer a condenser to engineer a condenser that runs at a vacuum would be a huge challenge.
So in short steam is damn powerful but hopeless in terms of efficiency for something like a car where you cannot have huge amounts of cooling to run a condenser at 35c
Boilers are also hugely efficient and if you can burn something then you can use it in a boiler.
However steam power is not a boiler Steam power is not a turbine Steam power is a steam plant which in terms of total efficiency is pants.
The reason for this is because you have to over come the problem of latent heat. To get steam you have to boil water and those of you that paid attention in school will remember that you need to supply extra energy to turn water at 100C into steam at 100C. Now this energy is very difficult to recover. In old steam trains they did not even try to recover it they did not even try to recover the water they just vented the exhaust steam to atmosphere which is unthinkable in a modern steam plant. In a modern steam plant you must recover your water otherwise you make a mess of your water quality in the boilers which is essential to maintain everything working and not exploding.
Now in a steam plant you can try and recovery as much energy as possible by having a high degree of superheat and then dropping it down through the turbine to a vacuum, but when you condense the steam back to water you lose loads of energy which kills all the efficiency.
But in car it will be hard to engineer a condenser to engineer a condenser that runs at a vacuum would be a huge challenge.
So in short steam is damn powerful but hopeless in terms of efficiency for something like a car where you cannot have huge amounts of cooling to run a condenser at 35c
Theres been steam cars in the past that utilized condensors. Additionally theres power plants today that don't use condensors, like the one here in my home town. It's got a lake sitting next to it so they don't have to worry about conserving water.
Cars using this technology have the potential for what? 100+ miles per gallon? At 80% efficiency that seems the case.
Okay either you know far more about steam then me or you know far less, but seeing as i have worked as an engineer on steam ships and running steam ship for the past 10 years i know which one i would be betting on.
Lake water being used in a boiler no way can't do it a modern high pressure boiler would be useless in about a week of you used lake water. You need to use distilled water otherwise you get a build up of salt and scale on the tubes giving you an insulating layer then the tube overheats as there is reduced thermal transfer and it goes pop. Also you have to add hydrazine as an oxygen scavenger and that is not only highly toxic but pretty expensive so if you dumped the steam straight to atmosphere you would loose all that. Not to mention the other chemicals you must add to maintain the proper alkalinity of the water as at high temperatures and pressures water becomes very corrosive.
Of course there is the issue of the actual water consumption we run two boilers both with an evaporation rate of 75tons/hr which gives you 150 ton an hour and that is only a 40Mw plant for you average powerstation that runs a far higher output then you would be using alot more water so if they are drawing water straight from the lake then i think it would be going down quite quickly
As to a power station without a condenser please do tell me how this works as i ain't got a clue unless they you have shedloads of bleeds and feed heating or a really rather clever reheat system.
I really don't think you would ever get 80% efficiency from a steam plant fitted to a car we are getting about 35 to 40% on a modern steam ship where everything is designed for efficiency where as a comparable 2 stroke main engine is getting just over 55% and they are about the most efficient internal combustion engines going
Lake water being used in a boiler no way can't do it a modern high pressure boiler would be useless in about a week of you used lake water. You need to use distilled water otherwise you get a build up of salt and scale on the tubes giving you an insulating layer then the tube overheats as there is reduced thermal transfer and it goes pop. Also you have to add hydrazine as an oxygen scavenger and that is not only highly toxic but pretty expensive so if you dumped the steam straight to atmosphere you would loose all that. Not to mention the other chemicals you must add to maintain the proper alkalinity of the water as at high temperatures and pressures water becomes very corrosive.
Of course there is the issue of the actual water consumption we run two boilers both with an evaporation rate of 75tons/hr which gives you 150 ton an hour and that is only a 40Mw plant for you average powerstation that runs a far higher output then you would be using alot more water so if they are drawing water straight from the lake then i think it would be going down quite quickly
As to a power station without a condenser please do tell me how this works as i ain't got a clue unless they you have shedloads of bleeds and feed heating or a really rather clever reheat system.
I really don't think you would ever get 80% efficiency from a steam plant fitted to a car we are getting about 35 to 40% on a modern steam ship where everything is designed for efficiency where as a comparable 2 stroke main engine is getting just over 55% and they are about the most efficient internal combustion engines going
Edited by thinfourth on Tuesday 25th July 08:20
thinfourth said:
Okay either you know far more about steam then me or you know far less, but seeing as i have worked as an engineer on steam ships and running steam ship for the past 10 years i know which one i would be betting on.
Lake water being used in a boiler no way can't do it a modern high pressure boiler would be useless in about a week of you used lake water. You need to use distilled water otherwise you get a build up of salt and scale on the tubes giving you an insulating layer then the tube overheats as there is reduced thermal transfer and it goes pop.
Lake water being used in a boiler no way can't do it a modern high pressure boiler would be useless in about a week of you used lake water. You need to use distilled water otherwise you get a build up of salt and scale on the tubes giving you an insulating layer then the tube overheats as there is reduced thermal transfer and it goes pop.
Well it does use lake water. City water light and power. They have a water treatment plant as well there. And they don't use condensors. Because I can clearly see all the steam coming out the top.
thinfourth said:
Also you have to add hydrazine as an oxygen scavenger and that is not only highly toxic but pretty expensive so if you dumped the steam straight to atmosphere you would loose all that. Not to mention the other chemicals you must add to maintain the proper alkalinity of the water as at high temperatures and pressures water becomes very corrosive.
They don't use condensors on the powerplant. Here's a picture of CWLP-
thinfourth said:
I really don't think you would ever get 80% efficiency from a steam plant fitted to a car we are getting about 35 to 40% on a modern steam ship where everything is designed for efficiency where as a comparable 2 stroke main engine is getting just over 55% and they are about the most efficient internal combustion engines going.
I disagree.
They probably do have water cooled condensers (cooled by lake water) with some steam ejector vacuum pumps to keep the condensers under vacuum. I'd guess that the plume of steam from the stack is just the exhaust steam from the vacuum pumps.
On-topic though, the record attempt is obviously not aimed at overall efficiency - looking at the link, it's using four LPG boilers and a once-through steam turbine, no condenser. The car will carry just enough water for one quick run and that's it.
It should leave quite an impressive plume in its wake, but you wouldn't want to tailgate it
On-topic though, the record attempt is obviously not aimed at overall efficiency - looking at the link, it's using four LPG boilers and a once-through steam turbine, no condenser. The car will carry just enough water for one quick run and that's it.
It should leave quite an impressive plume in its wake, but you wouldn't want to tailgate it
I am beginning to believe you have zero knowledge about this, though i shall see you i can widen your knowledge a little bit
You say that the local power plant is hugely efficient but you also claim you see loads of steam coming from the turbines straight to atmosphere. Steam is energy so you must be wrong on one of those accounts
You claim they use lake water in the boilers Could you please explain exactly how they run the distillation plant without the normal energy loses you get with these pieces of kit
Now here comes the biggy please tell me how you are going to twist the rules of thermodynamics to get 80% efficiency from a steam plant that fits under the bonnet of a car.
What i suspect you are seeing is lots of water vapour in the boiler exhaust stacks as you can only recover so much heat from the waste gases from the boilers by removing the waste heat. A side effect of this is if you go too low you get water condensing an combing with any sulphor dioxide to for acid, on a marine plant we limit the amount of heat we remove to maintain a higher temp. Now in a shoreside plant they can deal with the acids more easily so they can recover more heat therefore they end up with lower temps and as a side effect you get visible water vapour in your uptakes.
Back to them not using condensers highly unlikely however with a shoreside plant in some places they use waste steam for heating in the surrounding areas another method is they use the waste heat recovered from the condensers to heat water that is then piped to the surrounding building and they get very cheap heating. this is becoming more fashionable as it increases the overall plant efficiency by using waste heat. They are known as CHaP Combined Heat and Power.
Now CHaP will not work in a car as the amount of heat wasted from producing enough power to move it along is far in excess of the heat needed to keep the car warm so unless you plan on building a really big slow motorhome steam ain't ever going to beat the good old infernal combustion engine in pure efficiency.
As i said before i have been working with steam for years and i know alot about it, i might not be able to quote shitloads of formulas for you but i can run a steam plant and knows how it works and what its strengths and weaknesses are. if you wish to continue being a stupid american then fine be my guest. However if you have some great insight into getting the amount of efficiency out of a steam plant you claim then please do tell.
Thinfourth (class 1 combined steam and motor unlimited chief engineers certificate holder)
You say that the local power plant is hugely efficient but you also claim you see loads of steam coming from the turbines straight to atmosphere. Steam is energy so you must be wrong on one of those accounts
You claim they use lake water in the boilers Could you please explain exactly how they run the distillation plant without the normal energy loses you get with these pieces of kit
Now here comes the biggy please tell me how you are going to twist the rules of thermodynamics to get 80% efficiency from a steam plant that fits under the bonnet of a car.
What i suspect you are seeing is lots of water vapour in the boiler exhaust stacks as you can only recover so much heat from the waste gases from the boilers by removing the waste heat. A side effect of this is if you go too low you get water condensing an combing with any sulphor dioxide to for acid, on a marine plant we limit the amount of heat we remove to maintain a higher temp. Now in a shoreside plant they can deal with the acids more easily so they can recover more heat therefore they end up with lower temps and as a side effect you get visible water vapour in your uptakes.
Back to them not using condensers highly unlikely however with a shoreside plant in some places they use waste steam for heating in the surrounding areas another method is they use the waste heat recovered from the condensers to heat water that is then piped to the surrounding building and they get very cheap heating. this is becoming more fashionable as it increases the overall plant efficiency by using waste heat. They are known as CHaP Combined Heat and Power.
Now CHaP will not work in a car as the amount of heat wasted from producing enough power to move it along is far in excess of the heat needed to keep the car warm so unless you plan on building a really big slow motorhome steam ain't ever going to beat the good old infernal combustion engine in pure efficiency.
As i said before i have been working with steam for years and i know alot about it, i might not be able to quote shitloads of formulas for you but i can run a steam plant and knows how it works and what its strengths and weaknesses are. if you wish to continue being a stupid american then fine be my guest. However if you have some great insight into getting the amount of efficiency out of a steam plant you claim then please do tell.
Thinfourth (class 1 combined steam and motor unlimited chief engineers certificate holder)
thinfourth said:
I am beginning to believe you have zero knowledge about this, though i shall see you i can widen your knowledge a little bit
You say that the local power plant is hugely efficient but you also claim you see loads of steam coming from the turbines straight to atmosphere. Steam is energy so you must be wrong on one of those accounts
You claim they use lake water in the boilers Could you please explain exactly how they run the distillation plant without the normal energy loses you get with these pieces of kit
Now here comes the biggy please tell me how you are going to twist the rules of thermodynamics to get 80% efficiency from a steam plant that fits under the bonnet of a car.
What i suspect you are seeing is lots of water vapour in the boiler exhaust stacks as you can only recover so much heat from the waste gases from the boilers by removing the waste heat. A side effect of this is if you go too low you get water condensing an combing with any sulphor dioxide to for acid, on a marine plant we limit the amount of heat we remove to maintain a higher temp. Now in a shoreside plant they can deal with the acids more easily so they can recover more heat therefore they end up with lower temps and as a side effect you get visible water vapour in your uptakes.
Back to them not using condensers highly unlikely however with a shoreside plant in some places they use waste steam for heating in the surrounding areas another method is they use the waste heat recovered from the condensers to heat water that is then piped to the surrounding building and they get very cheap heating. this is becoming more fashionable as it increases the overall plant efficiency by using waste heat. They are known as CHaP Combined Heat and Power.
Now CHaP will not work in a car as the amount of heat wasted from producing enough power to move it along is far in excess of the heat needed to keep the car warm so unless you plan on building a really big slow motorhome steam ain't ever going to beat the good old infernal combustion engine in pure efficiency.
As i said before i have been working with steam for years and i know alot about it, i might not be able to quote shitloads of formulas for you but i can run a steam plant and knows how it works and what its strengths and weaknesses are. if you wish to continue being a stupid american then fine be my guest. However if you have some great insight into getting the amount of efficiency out of a steam plant you claim then please do tell.
Thinfourth (class 1 combined steam and motor unlimited chief engineers certificate holder)
You say that the local power plant is hugely efficient but you also claim you see loads of steam coming from the turbines straight to atmosphere. Steam is energy so you must be wrong on one of those accounts
You claim they use lake water in the boilers Could you please explain exactly how they run the distillation plant without the normal energy loses you get with these pieces of kit
Now here comes the biggy please tell me how you are going to twist the rules of thermodynamics to get 80% efficiency from a steam plant that fits under the bonnet of a car.
What i suspect you are seeing is lots of water vapour in the boiler exhaust stacks as you can only recover so much heat from the waste gases from the boilers by removing the waste heat. A side effect of this is if you go too low you get water condensing an combing with any sulphor dioxide to for acid, on a marine plant we limit the amount of heat we remove to maintain a higher temp. Now in a shoreside plant they can deal with the acids more easily so they can recover more heat therefore they end up with lower temps and as a side effect you get visible water vapour in your uptakes.
Back to them not using condensers highly unlikely however with a shoreside plant in some places they use waste steam for heating in the surrounding areas another method is they use the waste heat recovered from the condensers to heat water that is then piped to the surrounding building and they get very cheap heating. this is becoming more fashionable as it increases the overall plant efficiency by using waste heat. They are known as CHaP Combined Heat and Power.
Now CHaP will not work in a car as the amount of heat wasted from producing enough power to move it along is far in excess of the heat needed to keep the car warm so unless you plan on building a really big slow motorhome steam ain't ever going to beat the good old infernal combustion engine in pure efficiency.
As i said before i have been working with steam for years and i know alot about it, i might not be able to quote shitloads of formulas for you but i can run a steam plant and knows how it works and what its strengths and weaknesses are. if you wish to continue being a stupid american then fine be my guest. However if you have some great insight into getting the amount of efficiency out of a steam plant you claim then please do tell.
Thinfourth (class 1 combined steam and motor unlimited chief engineers certificate holder)
wow...a stupid american. thanks. That says a lot more about you than it does me just by the fact that you said it.
about cwlp-
The Lakeside Power Station is the original generating facility constructed in the mid-1930s on the shore of the utility's then-new man-made Lake Springfield. It consisted of eight coal-fired boilers and seven turbine-generators, only two of which, boilers 7 and 8 and units 6 and 7, are currently active. Unit #6 was installed in 1961; unit #7 followed in 1965. These turbines have a combined nameplate rating of 66 megawatts (MW) and a total maximum capacity of 76 MW. Each unit is designed to burn coal with a heat content of approximately 10,500 Btu per pound. The Lakeside turbines are used to meet intermediate customer load.
In 2005, Lakeside's two generators generated 208,452 megawatt-hours (MWH) of electricity. To do this, they used 129,548 tons of coal, 70,275 gallons of oil, and 5,037 tons of seed corn costing nearly $3.26 million. The station's net fuel cost was $15.63 per MWH.
Particulate emissions at the Lakeside Power Station are controlled by a single electrostatic precipitator. Water for the unit's once-through cooling systems is obtained from Lake Springfield and is discharged back into the Lake after cooling the units' condensers.
Dallman Power Station
Dallman Power Station was built just to the southwest of the Lakeside Station in 1968 to answer the increasing electric demand of a growing city. The first Dallman generator placed on line was Dallman 1, with a maximum capacity of 86 MW (80 MW nameplate rating). It was followed by a second 87 MW (80 MW nameplate rating) unit in 1972. In 1978, a third turbine-generator, with a maximum capatability of 199 MW (192 MW nameplate rating), more than doubled the power station's total generating capacity. These three coal-fired units are intended to meet customer base load.
In 2005, Dallman's three generators used 1,130,807 tons of coal, 145,336 gallons of oil and 7,004 tons of seed corn costing $29.99 million to generate 2,084,105 MWH of electricity. The station's net fuel cost was $14.39 per MWH.
All Dallman units are designed to burn coal with an approximate heat content of 10,500 Btu per pound. Particulate emissions from the three units are controlled by electrostatic precipitators.
In addition, the three units are equipped with flue gas desulfurization systems (scrubbers) to control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. The scrubber for Dallman 3 was installed in 1980. A second scrubber, serving the two older units, was put into operation in June 2001 in response to requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
The three units have also been equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, which reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions to levels allowed by both state and federal clean air requirements. The SCRs, which cost a total of $76 million to install, were placed on line in May 2003. They operate during the "ozone season" (May through September) when NOX emissions are most likely to have an impact on atmospheric ozone levels.
All three Dallman units use once-through condenser cooling water systems with water being obtained from Lake Springfield and discharged back into the lake.
Diesel Generators
CWLP also owns three 1.825 MW oil-fired diesel generators that serve as a back-up electric supply for the utility.
In 2005, these units used a total of 4,487 gallons of diesel oil costing $7,901 to generate 55.4 MWH of electricity. The unit’s net fuel cost was $142.53 per MWH.
Peaking Turbines
CWLP operates three peaking generators, two that are oil-burning and one that has dual-fuel operating capabilities. These units have a combined maximum capacity of 166 MW (147 nominal rating).
Together, in 2005, these peaking turbines used a total of 2,485,720 therms of natural gas costing $2,055,598 and 398,499 gallons of fuel oil costing $762,013 to generate 21,204 MWH of electricity. The average net fuel cost to operate these units was $132.88.
Rob-C said:
They probably do have water cooled condensers (cooled by lake water) with some steam ejector vacuum pumps to keep the condensers under vacuum. I'd guess that the plume of steam from the stack is just the exhaust steam from the vacuum pumps.
On-topic though, the record attempt is obviously not aimed at overall efficiency - looking at the link, it's using four LPG boilers and a once-through steam turbine, no condenser. The car will carry just enough water for one quick run and that's it.
It should leave quite an impressive plume in its wake, but you wouldn't want to tailgate it
On-topic though, the record attempt is obviously not aimed at overall efficiency - looking at the link, it's using four LPG boilers and a once-through steam turbine, no condenser. The car will carry just enough water for one quick run and that's it.
It should leave quite an impressive plume in its wake, but you wouldn't want to tailgate it
Yeah, upon further reading I tracked down the statistics, they use once through water cooled condensors at that plant.
Seriously though, thanks for telling me that without calling me something rude like thefourth did.
I agree with your statement as well, they are wanting to break a speed record. Efficency is not exactly in their mission agenda. Kind of in the sameway that exotic high powered cars aren't built to be efficient (Veyron 16/4 with that W16 engine anyone?). lol.
Andrew D what exactly are you talking about? Steam would be better anyway for if you use a condeser system similar to Aber Dobles you can have a car which can run at least 1100 miles on 1 tank of water plus steam pressure pushes the piston down for it to work in the engine so steam or water is the fuel you also need fuel for the boiler to heat the water up.
Plus the steam goes through the engine and becomes water again, early steam cars use to have water coming out of the back not steam still an brilliant Amercian Engineer called Aber Doble developed a condenser so that thwe escaping water was recaptured so that could used again and again , which even the leading steam car builders the White Car company wanted to put into their cars and they actually did put in condensers in the steam cars , biut they were never as efficent ir as good as Abner Doles, therefore much more cleaner and efficient than the internal combustion engine which loses alot of energy through heat heance BMW trying to do the same principal with te teat and the doesn't leave all the pollutants and smog and ICE engine does. So Cyberface steam cars do not kill planets you are wrong there, Yes water vapour maybe a greenhouse gas but you won't get it from a steam car because you can set up a steam car with condensers and a water tank so it doesn't. Plus the statement that carrying water blunts perfomance for fuel is rubbish . Check these links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_ca http://ghlin2.greenhills.net/~apatter
http://itotd.com/articles/594/doble-s www.steamcar.net/index.html and look around for Doble on the Internet to see how wrong both of you are. For instance did you know that a Doble beat a Dusenburg twice? and that Howard Hughes when he was young used to beat the other rich young men in the 20's with their Cords, ,Cadilllacs, Auburns and Silver Arrows? plus it is very well known that a properly set up steam car can leave an internal combustion engined car in its wake with only a properly set up electric car using Lithum Ion or Zinc to Air or Air Aluminium or even NMIH batteries able the match its acceleration and performance.
I suggest you both do some research on that score. And thinfourth I think you will find that condenser and steam engines with excellent performance has been done and perfected from at least
1914.
Plus the steam goes through the engine and becomes water again, early steam cars use to have water coming out of the back not steam still an brilliant Amercian Engineer called Aber Doble developed a condenser so that thwe escaping water was recaptured so that could used again and again , which even the leading steam car builders the White Car company wanted to put into their cars and they actually did put in condensers in the steam cars , biut they were never as efficent ir as good as Abner Doles, therefore much more cleaner and efficient than the internal combustion engine which loses alot of energy through heat heance BMW trying to do the same principal with te teat and the doesn't leave all the pollutants and smog and ICE engine does. So Cyberface steam cars do not kill planets you are wrong there, Yes water vapour maybe a greenhouse gas but you won't get it from a steam car because you can set up a steam car with condensers and a water tank so it doesn't. Plus the statement that carrying water blunts perfomance for fuel is rubbish . Check these links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_ca http://ghlin2.greenhills.net/~apatter
http://itotd.com/articles/594/doble-s www.steamcar.net/index.html and look around for Doble on the Internet to see how wrong both of you are. For instance did you know that a Doble beat a Dusenburg twice? and that Howard Hughes when he was young used to beat the other rich young men in the 20's with their Cords, ,Cadilllacs, Auburns and Silver Arrows? plus it is very well known that a properly set up steam car can leave an internal combustion engined car in its wake with only a properly set up electric car using Lithum Ion or Zinc to Air or Air Aluminium or even NMIH batteries able the match its acceleration and performance.
I suggest you both do some research on that score. And thinfourth I think you will find that condenser and steam engines with excellent performance has been done and perfected from at least
1914.
Edited by Black Angel on Monday 25th September 14:37
Edited by Black Angel on Monday 25th September 14:39
Edited by Black Angel on Thursday 28th September 03:57
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff