Steam Powered Cars

Well... You've thrown cold water in my boiler... I figure that modern engineering could 'dummy-proof' the engine to the point that a 'check engine' light came on on and the masses would spend money to have some certified person re-set the computer, just like on a gas-buggy.

Do I need to be certified to boil water?

The infrastucture would remain the same. The technicians would unbolt the defective part and bolt on a new one base on what the computer told them to do.

If you use a flash boiler, there isn't much volume to 'throw shrapnel'...

Just thinking about engineering & efficiency, not politically correct, nanny-state tomfoolery

Boiling water isn't the issue per se, however steam under pressure is.

Van Grecken had most of the issues sorted with his car the Gvang.

However it has always been a requirement to hold a "Steam Ticket" to run any equipment powered by a boiler. Some of the operating pressures quoted in various articles I've read would be of concern to the layman.

I have dreamed of owning a car like the Gvang, for some 40 years. The promise of being able to drive for a 1000km on basically 5 litres of fuel has its appeal.

"The infrastructure would remain the same. The technicians would unbolt the defective part and bolt on a new one base on what the computer told them to do."

Sorry, but your average dealer grease monkey would not be able to deal with much more than the vehicle basics not the power plant. Again there would need to be trained and certified technicians to work on them. Just like vehicles powered by LPG/CNG, require people with the appropriate training and certification. It's not "Nanny State" tomfoolery, but a necessary part of the overall engineering package.

As for "Dummy Proofing" the engine there is more to it than just the engine, though it would be possible to automate the control systems. Van Grecken aimed to do just that in his car.

My applied math seems to have a problem with anything getting a 1000 Km on 5 liters of fuel let alone something using an external combustion based steam engine to power that vehicle.

Its not that its impossible but when a realistic weight, terrain, environmental conditions, and traveling speed are put into the equations things seem to fall far short of a 200 Km per liter fuel economy being even remotely realistic.

As I recall from a conversation I had with someone who knew(had a ride in it!) the car and some of its operation. The flash boiler only operated at start up, with regeneration and steam/heat recovery taking over. While short suburban trips would use significant amount of fuel. Longer trips would benefit from the steam/heat recovery. If you stopped after driving for 1 hour, it was possible to restart and drive without the use of the flash boiler if you restarted within 15 minutes.

Now my memory is a tad rusty and I had that conversation some twenty/thirty years ago. But I have always had the hankering to have a car I could traverse Australia (quickly)with only only having to stop to take care of the liveware.

Reality is that what I was told was probably somewhat laden with "Hype". Even so the Gvang was a reality, but too scary for some, as for doing that now? Well the liability kills it for all but as a exotic super car. A bit like Fords Nucleon..

Wiki Ford Nucleon

"Do I need to be certified to boil water?" In Australia the answer is yes, its called a second class boiler attendants ticket. Our government doesnt hurl money at car makers for nothing. Car maker Unions throw a lot of money in ads at election time.

Hello rockbit:

While it be true sealed boilers go boom. This was overcome by a little thing called a safety valve.

The steam pressure needed to drive piston is the same pressure the piston needs from combustion.

Bit of the pot calling the kettle black me thinks.

Cheers Peter

Separate licensing as a steam operator only applies when there is a pressure vessel present. Any modern steam car would operate with a once-through steam generator like the Doble cars did, and those do not count as pressure vessels.

The real problem with steam - besides infrastructure, which has been more than adequately covered - is that its multifuel potential has never been truly exploited. All successful steam cars used high-grade liquid fuels. There are rumors of a Doble prototype designed to use solid fuel, but I've never found any details. A large steam truck, for instance, could use indirect solid fuel firing by way of gasification, and there is some research to support that, but the plant would be bulky, what with stoking arrangements and so on.

None of this addresses a real, current problem. We have plenty of liquid fuel, and will continue to have for much longer than any of us will be worrying about it. Internal combustion engines continue to improve in both fuel economy and pollution reduction. Steam doesn't even satisfy the Global Warming cultists, because it releases just as much carbon into the atmosphere as any other combustion engine, direct or indirect.

Sadly - I'm a steam lover - this is not the answer to any crisis, real or imagined.

but if you use renewable resources for the combustion then it would be carbon neutral. and I think the cyclone engines will take the market.

Perhaps the solution is in the fuel after all. Could steam be more readily adapted to biofuels than normal ICE? I know there is plenty of oil around, but do we really want to put all that carbon back in the atmosphere? If current theories are correct in that oil is broken down dinosaurs and their plants, they lived during a time of high CO₂concentrations.

Drew

"Perhaps the solution is in the fuel after all. Could steam be more readily adapted to biofuels than normal ICE? I know there is plenty of oil around, but do we really want to put all that carbon back in the atmosphere? If current theories are correct in that oil is broken down dinosaurs and their plants, they lived during a time of high CO₂concentrations."

I don't believe that current theory has petroleum coming from animal life. Latest I read is that it's from ancient algae. Not that it really matters to this discussion.

While modern steam advocates have experimented with steam generators other than flash - a very advanced project using a LaMont type boiler comes to mind - there is an obvious advantage in building something that the Authorities do not regard as a pressure vessel so long as it contains less than a set amount of water and/or steam at any one time. And that's the Serpollet type flash steam generator and its successors.

Multifuel capability is a selling point of any external combustion engine. My earlier post neglected low-grade liquid fuels such as residual oil, which are routinely burned in fixed and large mobile steam plants (e.g. ships), but have yet to be applied successfully to light steam plants, as far as I know.

That said, biodiesel burns quite nicely in diesel engines, at thermal efficiencies well above those of any practical lightweight steam plant, so steam holds no advantage there. Alcohol-based fuels burn nicely in spark-ignition engines.

For some years I've been looking for a successful light steam plant using solid fuel in a once-through steam generator. Such things are rumored to have existed, but I've never found direct evidence of one. It may be that the writer mistook a gasification-based, indirectly fired vehicle for one using a solid fuel directly. And there again, if you can clean up the producer gas a bit, it will burn in a modified diesel or a spark-ignition engine equipped with a gas carburetor.

But unless, like a friend of mine, you have access to vast quantities of used motor oil and don't want to refine it to the point where it can safely be added to diesel fuel, you don't really have any reason but nostalgia to go with steam.

I always liked the solid fuel idea too. What about magnesium? I heard it reacts violently with water, but I don't know how it might be controlled and how much is out there, what kind of exhaust gasses it might have and such.

Drew

I disagree. A steam powered plant produces vertually zero NOx as it never reaches the temperatures to produce. It is run by thermocouples which regulate the fuel to maintain water temperature into the pistons. With this in mind the power plant can use vertually any fuel and less refined bringing the cost down, polution down and having a plant that can burn any fuel that is available with one engine.

One engine is the key here to our growing change. We have the algae fuel that is carbon neutral and we do not have to worry about do I buy a gas engine or a diesel? You buy one and put in the fuel that is available. The producers of the fuel do not have to go thru the extensive mixing and blending to meet the set points of the ignition systems in the ICE and diesel engines. No new refineries have to be built because they can triple their production and they are doing Algae now at these facilities. That is a real savings.

Then we have the way the fuel is burned. I went back to the Cyclone site and studied the combustion chamber. It reminded me of the heaters at the refinery. They burn with the primary air used to inject the fuel in the centrifical chamber and then add secondary preheated air and burn it in this motion throwing the particulate matter to the outer walls which eventually burn and the lighter gases go thru the water filled tubing and thru additional heat exchangers and exhaust at what they say is 350 degrees F.

I read one of their press releases about the emmissions with no catalytic converter and it looks pretty impressive just for diesel. Then I went to Jay Leno site as he always talks about his old steam car which with the old system of burning fuel passes California emmissions with no catalytic converter.

No I do not think it is nostalgia, I think it is the future with real savings for the consumer, the producer, and emmissions.

Hello Drew.

Your comment about fuel is one we previously explored. There is a tremendous power boost when steam is utilised together with the energy of Diesel combustion.

In place of a boiler etc, water can be mixed with Diesel in such a way it stays in solution.

The heat of Diesel combustion is of such temperature the pressure that it brings from water is classified. Super heated Steam see the Defence Department.

No engine changes are required, however it will shoot any warranty.

The Diesel engine van we tested on went from 1st gear to fourth on the hill climb.

The problem of using steam to increase the pressure after combustion is the matter of cylinder pitting, which can be overcome by a ceramic sleeve in the cylinder. Or a steam ring in place of the piston ring may cease the problem of pitting.

Cheers Peter

BUT steam cars do not need a boiler.

1. The cylinders are heated to > 1,500 C (ceramic cylinders)

2. Water drops are injected into the cylinder

3. Piston has a very long stroke to get max energy from the steam

4. Thus no special Licences/Expertise required

CR4 Admin – E-mail Address Removed

From the Site FAQ: Do not post phone numbers or email addresses. The CR4 Admin will delete all phone numbers posted in threads or comments, and we strongly urge you not to put up email addresses.

Except in large steam turbines, the energy efficiency of steam has been generally lower than that of gasoline, and lower yet than that of diesel.

Steam cars would be very inefficient unless designed for exotic materials and high temperatures. The efficiency is linked to the pressure (and temperature). Getting both those things high at the same time is difficult (another word for expensive and/or dangerous). How about crashing your steam car with its boiler at 500 deg C and say 100 Bar (1450psi). Don't worry about clearing the road of the mesh, there won't be anything left on the road. It might be like the cement mixer disappearing on Mythbusters (they have way too much fun).

I exaggerate of course, but there are major reasons why they are not everywhere.

Yea, it only took mythbusters a coupla stuck valves and water heater elements to make a water heater reach 300 psi, blow out the bottom, and go 500 feet in the air. Hope no bad guy types watched that one. Can you imagine how far you could send a hundred pound payload, if you put that thing inside a big long piece of steel pipe before you heated it up?

They sent a bowling ball a mile downr range one time with 80 psi of steam.

Good thing they forgot to insulate their steam tank and it wouldnt heat up enough to give them the 300psi they were wanting to launch at. They did some more math, and figured out the bowling ball would have landed somewhere near downtown la.

You have a lot to learn about steam power and what it takes to make steam, and then safely operate steam powered machinery! The words are easy and the reality is not so simple!

The problems were solved back in the 1970's, by ted Pritchard in Melbourne but none of the car makers were interested......see:

<http://www.linux-host.org/energy/spritch.htm>

Search on 'Pritchard Steam Car'

Regards

Bill

There are two basic possibilities.

1. A world wide cabal of greedy tycoons aggressively quash all cost effective, easy to make, efficient alternate energy schemes (including steam) to protect their own profits.

2. None of the alternative schemes pass the real world hurdles of low running cost, cheap manufacture, reliability etc. (i.e. the modern internal combustion engine is just too good).

You mention well know automakers who tried (there are many others) they all find that the economics just don't work. Of course, this may change when the price of petrochem fuel increases (already some electric cars are starting to appear).

Even if all the issues regarding safety and engine components were resolved, and they could be, the BIG issue is that virtually NO driver is going to wait 45 seconds to a couple minutes before their vehicle is ready to drive.

By the way- for many years, the land speed record for automobiles was held by a Stanley Steamer. A specially built aerodynamic (for the time) body was placed over the Stanley chassis. It went over 200 MPH down a beach but, on the return run it hit a bump and the flat side caused it to go airborne and then crash when it fell back to earth. The boiler continued down the course for over 1/2 mile.

Another note- the Stanley's wrapped their boilers with piano wire (like old British cannon) to provide added burst protection.

Basically we could ask why there are no steam trains anymore, but diesel-electric or electric trains instead. Simply because of efficiency & economy & maintenance, & infrastructure, convenience, safety etc.

But there are some new steam locos....

<http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/last30/last30.html>

+ other steam developments

<http://www.greensteamengine.com/>

Regards

Bill

Most of the latest steam driven engines still rely on gasoline based products to build up steam which defeats the object,

Back in the late sixties, there were experiments carried out to emulsify fuel & as far as I can recall they managed to get to something around 50% water/fuel mix, the fuel being the burner in a cylinder would instantly turn the water to steam & because it was a mix of steam & air would expand at around 1/3rd greater than air alone so you weren't getting just 50% saving but a third more, They were getting really good result which I was following with great interest until the info just dried up, No doubt bought up by one of the oil companies & buried as did a lot of fuel saving devices back then.

Bazzer

I have said this before on this forum obviously before you came along; I was involved in an experiment to convert stationary steam boilers to run on a 50/50 mix of water/furnace oil in about 1975- the head engineer had seen the boilers running overseas in China & was impressed- if could be made to work here was potential savings in fuel costs- the preblended mix arrived from China in 44 gal drums- well despite every thing tried under the Sol there was no way that mix was flammable- as a last resort I plunged a lit oxy-acet torch to it- would not combust even then!. Then I had the job of cleaning out the tar - like mixture from the burner system!. In other words the thing was a scam- that is why it disappeared from the scene- like 99% of free energy/ over unity things.!.

I am not sure what you are referring to here as water is not a fuel and with the 50/50 mixture it only changes the BTU per pound and the flash point.

My references are always to fuels being burned in a centrifugal chamber to heat water. From the press releases I read there is a group called Phoenix that is taking the engines and putting them at oil change areas (retail and commercial) and burning the changed oil to produce electricity to put back in the grid. From my understanding the regulations are that you can burn so many gallons per hour per site without too much red tape.

Sorry you had a bad experience but I believe there is a lot of good out there.

Hi Neil.

When I was reading about all this in the sixties the fuel water mix was emulsified as it went into the engine, what got me interested in the first place was the fact that they were using high frequency waves to emulsify the mix & at the time I was working with experiments for high frequency welding in the model car industry so it caught my eye and I followed the story until it fizzled out, From what I could gather they had a small device that emulsified the fuel/water mix just before entering the pump, at the time there were a few drawings showing the device also a box which I assume held the electronics.

Bazzer

Hello Bazzer Englander:

A most interesting post. I had heard it was done somehow using the single injection system. But I only got to see I think was the Commer Rocket which had two injectors per cylinder, one Diesel one water.

Should you wish to try steam for yourself you will need Diesel, Water and Morning Fresh Detergent. Why Morning Fresh and not some other detergent, it works.

We found to get best ecconomy the mix be so watery the Diesel engine will not start on the mixture but shall run quite happily. Bit like petrol start on gas coverted cars.

Cheers Peter

Well Bazzer- we had contact with the source of the fuel mix & did everything they suggested- they had the mercenary interest in selling the mix- & from memory- yes- they said there was a special way of blending which they used*(& only their version worked!)- Another ripoff scam!.

check out http://www.cyclonepower.com/ they are working on some very promising steam technology using an external combustion engine, multi fuel technology.

After reading the thread, there are some obsticles:

1. It comes down to liability. You need insurance to operate a vehicle. In order to get insurace, you have to have a "certified" compentency.

2. Either a closed system (weighty) or carry a supply of liquid (weighty) and fuel (also weighty). If the liquid is exotic, you need to have a distribution system. If it isn't envionmetaly friendly, you need to consider containment and cleanup. You also need to consider liability. Even a water flood causes damage.

3. Some one trained to maintain and repair said vehicle. Most people just turn the key and drive. As far as "greedy tycoons" goes, the tycoon became a tycoon because other people bought his product. There has to be a market, which means cost/price ratio, wholesale and retail outlets, etc.

It can be done, and someone will, eventually do it. Instead of whinning about "Greedy Tycoons," why not take the initiative, and the risk, to become a tycoon, yourself?

In a nut shell you achieve much more from combustion than from heat. In a steam engine you convert heat into a motion. In combustion engine you convert "explosion" into a motion. One liter of diesel fuel contains much more combustion energy than heat energy. For example with one liter of diesel fuel you can drive a car 20 km. How far will you go if you use this one liter of diesel to heat a water in a steam engine? Not even 1 km? In conclusion, heat energy per kg of (any) fuel is very small in comparison to the combustion energy per kg of gasoline or diesel.

Simple solution...use both. Install a steam engine on the exhaust system of an explosion engine, you get part of your required hp from the IC, then spray a little fresh air and fuel into the exhaust and boil water with it.

Drew

I get updates from them and so far they look like they are on to something good. I would like to build one like that for my own fun but have not the time or money but I think that will be the next thing out there. Imagine you could fill up with diesel at one place and wood at another, or if in a bind you could use kerosene or alcohol or just about any other heat source depending on what is available or cheapest.

I still think the way to go is hydrogen, zero emissions producing oxygen & water & with a bit more development be able to produce onboard so no storage problems, I saw a programme on TV about a man in the states who built a unit that ran a Volkswagen golf, he said at the time that he wouldn't sell to the big corporations so they could bury it,He also said he had had threats to him & his family because this idea could change not only the environment but would kill off most of the oil industries, which on the face of it wouldn't be a bad thing considering the places it comes from, unfortunately this man & his idea seem to have dropped off the face of the earth.

Con artists tend to be here today and gone tomorrow. Sounds like this fella ran true to type....

Hello Bazzer Englander:

Our work with hydrogen is that is a fantastic gas. However its has some draw backs, the pressure to liguify, the ammont of permenation leakage, and the corrosion if metal parts exposed to air and hydrogen.

Have you noticed the media drives for new fuels but not new means of using them?

Cheers Peter

Yes I have several thoughts on this. One is that if you go to their sites you see that they were only able to achive 10% efficency which is not acceptable. The reason is that they are still oil lubricating (oil brakes down at 700 degree F) and can not reach the temperatures that bring the efficency up. Cyclone seems to have achieved this thru water lubrication. Remember our engineering manuals comparing slip to ice!!!! They also have everything seperated like the old steam plants which I believe in the white papers on the Cyclone site the inventor read Prof. Stumph's paper on the losses of a steam plant and solved them.

I read an article that they have developed a zero emmission Rankin Cycle power plant in Texas. Now if Cyclone gets that technology it would be even more impressive and I am sure the colaboration will eventually occur.

In the mean time I see the heat exchanger on the Cyclone only uses under 1/2inch tubes and they are located in the combustion chamber. I don't see any real danger here?

I know that one of the car companies had an article two years ago about their steam car down in South Africa at their R&D facility and they claimed they were about 10 years away from having a viable product. I really don't think the auto industry has put this aside they just don't have the talent. Big Companies don't invent, People do.

Just my thoughts.

The vehicles today cast off a lot of waste heat. If that was captured and used in a flash boiler and turbine to drive just the accessories like air conditioning, alternator, maybe a supercharger, radiator fan, etc, the main motor would work less, draw less fuel.

The tricky part is recovering the condensate (turbines love condensers, gives a lot more power) and pumping it back into the system. No big deal, but takes some engineering.

I beg to differ, it is a big deal and one that is not easily done on something as small as a car!

Ah, too bad. Love your avatar. I'll stick to blimps, trying to make a new one.

You are absolutely right. There is a Cyclone WHE (waste heat engine) that seems to work off of any source of waste heat. I believe they say it is around 17 lbs. and they show it running off of the exhaust of another engine. According to their chart on this WHE it has the potential of producing a net 6KW from a truck diesel engine which would take care of the all the accessories and charge an additional system for when the truck is shut down in addition to the savings of fuel not used to run these systems.

Seems to be a lot smaller and less complicated than the Volvo concept at SAE two years ago and the exhaust temperature is reduced to less than 200degrees F.

I really hope this Company or one like it gets funded to bring some of these plants to the retail level.

The answer supplied to me though not by saab or honda is, what would they do with their less efficient engines and the loss of resale of those engines if they were to revert to more efficient engines. Workers, jobs etc. However what happened to the horse breeder, buggy builder etc and their families and those reliant on them.

Ultimate answer the piston-crankshaft has long been lost to new development. What finaly puts it out of production will be Carbon.

Cheers Peter

Hello rockbit.

Not wishing in any way to take away from your excellant post. I ask one think past steam and think of boiling alternate liquids into high pressure gas, and for a lot less heat. One example is Iso Butane another is Co2.

Cheers Peter

If propane refrigerators are available, you would wonder if waste heat air conditioning would be possible for cars. The air conditioner in a car uses a lot of power.

There has to be a lot of gasses that can be used in this project. I would hope a non-flammable, non-polluting gas could be found.

The air conditioner condenser and compressor could be re-tasked to use those spaces for the project. Adding a heat recovery wrap to the catylytic converter should not make it too big. Maybe taking heat from the cat would defeat it's function.......

I know a propane refrigerator has a lot of tubing and stuff to make it work, and it's getting more and more crowded under new car hoods, so this idea may only work is situations where there is space to spare, like big trucks and RVs.

Using waste heat to drive an absorption/diffusion refrigeration cycle for air conditioning makes sense, and can be made to work thermodynamically. Problem is, the equipment is bulky, and the major air-conditioning demand is for private cars with no room left under the hood! I live in the Tropics, and have long wanted to build such a rig for my van.

Does it have to be installed under the hood? Most vehicles try to get the exhaust (and its heat) under the vehicle as quick as possible. Perhaps lifting your van a bit with larger tires would leave you enough room underneath for most of the parts. They would have to be protected from speed bumps and rocks.

This is kinda what I plan for my truck as I do different trials on it.

Drew

Drew,

We once had a flat bed diesel. Vertical exhaust. Ideal for the old kerosene fridge, now gas.

Cheers Peter

"Does it have to be installed under the hood?"

Well, no - it doesn't, but in a regular sedan there ain't much room anywhere else, either! My idea with the van was to put a heat exchanger on the exhaust manifold, then transfer the heat using Dowtherm or some such fluid to a heavily insulated box under the rear seat where the actual diffusion plant would be. It would then be plumbed into the ductwork in the headliner and the dashboard. Pumped heat would be exhausted under the vehicle, about where the spare tire sits now.

A van would be a good candidate for such a task. It may end up looking somewhat like the DeLorean in Back to the Future, but so what.

The absorption unit I saw had a lot of tubes going up and down, separating, processing, etc. The inside of a van would be good for that stuff.

The heat pickup is going to be down low, like I saw on the fridge. Then plumbing to the old condenser up front, then back to the evaporator, maybe the original van ac evaporator, or something in the rear. A lot of plumbing.

If you get it going really good, you could make ice. Very valuable in the tropics.