Get Serious About Steam

It doesn't suggest viable alternatives to generate the steam, any such alternative could be used generate electricity in stead which is also provides relatively simple and clean propulsion with few moving parts.
Much as I'd love to enthuse, it seems rather pointless, you'd still need electricity for the various lighting, entertainment etc which is expected in a modern car.

Del

How'd you generate the electricity, tho'? Wouldn't the conversion to electricity then (via a motor) to kinetic energy lose more than a directly steam-driven vehicle?

re. your last point - a little alternator could be added to run accessories.

OK, I'm convinced...we'll build a steam car.
I'll bring the biscuits.
Del

How about a micro turbine

http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/techtour/index.asp

"Once Upon a Time, There Were Steam Cars"

Once upon a time there were steam locomotives.

Why did they get replaced?

Has to boil (no pun intended) down to cost.

Like Del said, it all comes down to energy conversion, but there is more. In mobile vehicles the real issue is power to weight. Gasoline and diesel both win hands down over a steam engine due to power to weight.

To my knowledge that hasn't changed.

I thought that one of the things that put internal combustion engines ahead of external combustion engines, such as in the Stanley Steamers, was that though you could get great power out of a steam engine, it required warm up time, whereas once you turned the crank, or turned the key, you were going in a gasoline powered ICE auto.

Apparently Bill Lear, of Learjet made some experimental steam turbines that had great power, and were very small, and utilized a "Fast Flash" fluid, that were used to power some LA buses.

It has been a long time since then, but I do wonder if the steam turbines Mr. Lear made, coupled with propane fuel, may offer still some superior motive force, as compared with some of the disadvantages of burning propane or CNG in internal combustion engines.

Transcendian-

I think the Chrysler turbine of the 1960's (direct burn instead of heating steam) would prove a lot more efficient than boiling water to run a turbine, then condensing the water to provide feed to your boiler once more.

When I served in the US Navy in the late 1970's, it was aboard a steam-powered ship. It took 24 hours to get the steam up before we could get under way. While these steam plants were obviously way beyond anything one would need for an automobile, I don't think most people are willing to wait even a few minutes to get moving...

In the early '70s, I served on a RN Destroyer with mixed gas/steam turbines. The Gas would get us off the wall and the steam would be up and running about 6 hours later.....

The ship was not new, I think that she was launched about 1964.....so this was not a new concept. the design was from the '50s.

The RN had the gearbox to make it worthwhile, the MSSSS gearbox.....she could change engine states without the need to stop in the water, US ships (all other navies!) of the time had to stop. Later they (the US) were given the secrets of that gearbox I am told....

Later they (the US) were given the secrets of that gearbox I am told....

Yeah, that would be part of the "special relationship"...
We give 'em our secrets... they use us as an aircraft carrier and tell us SFA about their use of our airspace.
They want to extradite our hackers and we bend over over and take it up the a$$.
Scotland makes a humanitarian decision on a guy banged up on iffy evidece...they squeal like stuck pigs.

_{(Yeah be we still love those bug cuddly guys, cos they scratch us behind the ears)}
Del

Natural gas powered steam engine !!!!

I want one now .

What would be the most efficient option, a steam driven vehicle using propane as a fuel and either a reciprocating engine or a turbine to convert the energy in the steam to rotary motion. One might also consider an electric drive train using electric motors rather than a drive shaft and transmission. Or would a propane powered internal combustion engine which would either drive the vehicle directly or again the use of an electric drive train as previously described.

Propane or CNG would be considered a clean fuel, is the use of steam more efficient than an internal combustion engine.

Living in an area with winter temperatures that may reach -40 degrees (C or F this is where the two temperature scales meet) one would have to give carefull consideration to the working fluid in a steam engine and this is also approaching the point where propane may present starting problems unless provisions are made to gasify the liquid propane.

I have wondered if steam or some other form of external combustion could yield a vehicle that has a much higher efficiency (percentage of captured chemical energy from combustion) than internal combustion engine vehicles.

I say this because I have heard (but not researched) that stationary plants have a much higher efficiency than cars. Maybe the stationary plants technology does not lend itself to vehicles well because of weight and complexity.

Anyway I'm just thinking out loud.

Stationary Plants have a generally higher efficiency because they are designed to operate in a specific power range that maximizes their efficiency and power output. Also, larger systems are generally more efficient by nature of their sheer size, and various energy recapturing systems. A car engine is always cycling through the engine speed because of the nature of driving, so it rarely operates at the point of peak output for any length of time. Also, power plant systems cannot be easily scaled down.

Also, someone else mentioned the possibility of using a steam turbine as the means of motive power. Under 1000 hp is the approximate cutoff limit where turbines become less efficient than a reciprocating engine.

Of course, no one has really tried to scale it down into a car lately (I believe the mid 70's was the last time serious effort was made) so I am interested to see what results a modern attempt can yield.

If you do a bit of research in to why steam-powered cars fell out of favor after the introduction of the internal-combustion engine, you will note that a major detriment of steam is that you need a warm-up period to get your steam head up to operating pressure. When one considers how people use their automobiles these days, it is very unlikely that a viable steam-powered auto will be able to meet popular expectations....

Comment by cwarner7_11 "major detriment of steam is that you need a warm-up period to get your steam head up to operating pressure."

Very true, but I once had a very bad experience with an instant water heater. I stepped into a shower, turned on the water and instantly got scorched by super hot water. It wasn't at a boiling point, but hot enough to take the skin off my belly. It is possible that technology could be developed further to power steam automobiles and get the start-up time down to ten seconds or less.