Steam Busted Engine SBE

People have been working on this for 100+ years. It is far more complicated than you present.

I would suggest you research the material generated over the decades regarding this subject, plus good thermodynamics, machine design, and fluid mechanics texts. You'll see it isn't quite as simple as you believe it is.

I don't understand exactly what you are saying, but I do understand that you are proposing to add a second, complex system to recover some of the heat lost out the exhaust pipe. I'm not sure that you will gain enough recovered energy to make this system feasible, but good luck.

Auto makers seem to favor a gas/electric hybrid over a gas/steam hybrid.

Thanks lynlynch

If you send the exhaust through a boiler/heat exchanger you will be able to run a steam engine on that heat. If the heat exchanger obstructs the flow of the exhaust, this will reduce the power of the gas engine. Take that into account.

The gas engine runs between two temperatures, the combustion and exhaust. the steam engine runs between exhaust and whatever discharge temperature of the steam, engine is.

As far as I know, there are few, in any, of these systems in operation. None in cars that I know of. They may have some in large marine diesels??

Supercharging is done, and seems to work. Possibly the supercharging results in more power to the wheels than what you suggest.

On the basis of these facts, I suspect the complexity outweighs the gain potenatial

Aurizon,

It is sufficient to boil the water inside of the cooling chamber of the engine because the manifold dissipates a great deal of heat back to the engine due to the massive mechanical connection, however in case of a new design a wider contact will improve the efficiency.

Regarding the need for antifreeze the aluminum engines prevents rusting and a fresh water flush or controlled bleeder will eliminate salt deposits, since the engine will be insulated it is not a big deal to prevent freezing the water.

I appreciate your comments and your agreement regarding the fact that there is plenty of power wasted.

If I understand your proposal correctly, you want to use the cooling water for the engine and generate steam to run a turbine. The steam must still exit the turbine as a gas or you will erode your turbine blades. Without a radiator, what will you do with the exhaust steam? You can't just recycle the steam back to the engine because you need the phase change to remove heat from the engine. You can't exhaust the steam because you can't carry enough water in your car to go a mile without running dry. You need a condensor which will be many times the size of an existing radiator. There is a reason it is called a steam "cycle". The heat must be dissipated somehow.

tcmtech

Problem one. The cooling chamber remains full with water that refrigerates the engine as it boils, the boiling point depends on the pressure developed therefore you can set the maximum engine operating temperature by opening a flow valve at the turbine outlet, the manifold dissipates a great deal of heat back to the engine due to the massive mechanical connection.

Problem two. Power is the result of mass times speed or flow volume times pressure difference, it is a mater of having a high volume flow low pressure turbine to get the power without overheating the engine, boiling point starts around 100 C a reasonable working temperature to start with will be 125 C.

Problem three. Thermal response is a fact, you will not receive steam boosting until the engine reaches the maximum working temperature, to decelerate all you need is to control the fuel input as usual, the idle speed control maintains the RMP at minimum. It is not necessary to dump energy because the temperature is maintained at 125 C, there is no need to inject extra fuel unless the turbine can not maintain the idle speed or minimum RPM.

Problem four. I like the idea of having no radiator, no electric fan for the radiator, no water pump for the radiator, to have water tank replacing part of the fuel tank, the other junk you mentioned are only more opportunities to improve.

Your suggestion is one of many based on a "qualitative" appreciation.

As you say you have not the possibility to experiment it, but before any experiment an idea has to be qualified "quantitatively" by numbers, a qualitative estimation is not enough.

There are many good ideas as long as they do not give good quantitative results and MOST of them disappear as good idea after the slightest quantitative verification.

I had a long mail exchange with avery bright person who claimed to obtain efficiencies of over 99% in systems with wind as primary energy source. After a couple of simple computations it came out that which ever principle was used values over 14% wre not easy to reach. The person did not continue the exchange because results were not on same track as idea.

Same with the Tesla turbine a lot of comments are made with great efficiencies and when a detail analysis even rough is made results are far from claimed or expected.

It is justified to experiment an idea and it is even good to do it when at least on paper the numbers are promising.

Thanks nick name

I really appreciate your comment, it sets the bases for a formal investigation instead of disqualifying with no data.

Let's start with a log of concepts that need to be quantified. If some one has questions just add to the log, if some one has answers just add to the log along with the information source.

1 Actual power efficiency of 10 commercial vehicles with the information source.

2 Turbine specifications for steam turbines ranging from 10 to 200 HP

3 Specifications for the cooling water pump, pressure, amps volume per minute.

4 Volumetric range of steam per liter of water at sea level.

steam boosted? or busted? i am guessing that you want to use the exhast gases as the heating source for your steam. then you would need to have a chamber around the exhuast manifold to bring the temperature up high enough to make enough pressure to drive an engine. then a gage set and valves to adjust power output and application. the the engine would then need to be geared to the existing power train to help drive the vehicle. this steam then would have to be exhausted from the vehicle. if it is still in the steam state you are still loosing "heat". the steam would have to be run through several times to bring the steam back to the water state and extract all the "heat" to gain the efficiency that you talk of. a steam turbine would be less efficent, a multipule expansion piston steam engine would be more efficient. if you cant bring the steam back to water you need a condenser. if you use a condenser you will be loosing "heat" into the air, just the same as the losses from the original on board gas engine, well admittedly less the power produced from the first pass of the steam. you cant reintoduce steam into the ic engine or risk over heating it, so it will need to be cooled to liquid. i dont think that you can simply drain off the "salts etc". they remain disolved in the steam- water system. if you do get salts precipitated in the solution you have probably disolved your boiler, engine and condenser. you will need to use distilled water and change it often, or have some type of filtering system to keep ph in balance. or have a huge water tank on board. then it would put a heavy load on the vehicle negating some of the power that you possibly would gain from the steam generation........then you would need a reliable source of water on your trip, have you ever looked for water just to fill your radiator, let alone 100 gallons for your onboard tank????...... this is getting complicated......but a competent computer wizz could probably have the all the functions integrated into the car's computer in no time and it would be seemless to the driver. but be sure that when you pull up to the gas station you put gas in the gas tank and water in the water tank.....i am trying to imagine what a honda prius with this arrangment added to it would look like.....no pun intended, well ok, i it is intended, as the myth-busters say.......

the truth is going to cost you.... the sarcsm is free.....

Sounds like a viable idea to me. All these naysayers told Robert Fulton his steam boat would never work too. Of course there are technological problems to be addressed but that is what engineers do, at least real engineers. You may need to build that engine out of ceramics to get the high temperature properties needed for efficient thermal operation of the turbine but, I don't see anything here that couldn't be overcome. Good luck, and I hope it makes you rich.

it would be possible to run a closed cycle steam engine on exhaust heat, with a radiator.

You could also make sure that you got the maximum heat from the exhaust with a countercurrent heat exchanger to the radiator for the steam engine

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22steam+engine%22+%2B%22exhaust+heat%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Thanks guest

I'll keep your suggestion in mind.

I hope the SBE will make everybody need less fuel.

The opportunity is open to those who make it happen, feel free not only to be my guest but to own the idea.

RF

If your honestly trying to improve the vehicles overall engine efficiency just toss the IC engine and burn the fuel directly to make the steam! Steam engines can be made to extract far more usable heat from a fuel source than the IC engine ever could.

What every attempt at a steam power car I have ever read about came to the final conclusion that the wheight of the system is just not practical. Your full steam powerd Honda prius is going to have a 3000 pound drive system anf 3000 pounds of frame and vehical to hold it!

Steam power is an efficeient power source for stationary aplications. But size and wheight just dont fit into self propeled applications.

It all comes down to power to wheight ratios.

Steam engines can be made to extract far more usable heat from a fuel source than the IC engine ever could.

I also wonder if that is true.

Big Ships diesel reach over 50 % efficiency. How much can the best Seam engine reach ?

An internal combustion engine has zero losses of heat transfer to the working media (air) as the fuel is burned inside the cylinder. Heat losses of course appear after that.

A steam engine has losses to heat up the steam and also must overcome the latent heat. Then, depending on the expansion ratio, we have a thermal efficiency. That is true for steam and for the gases in the ICE alike. If the expansion ratio in a steam engine is made much bigger that in an ICE it will also take more size and weight.

How can a steam engine be more efficient, specifically much more efficient as the ICE?

What is the max efficiency of a well laid out steam engine? can it reach 52% as the big Diesels can? How much more if at all?

Your other point of heavy equipment required for a steam engine is of course also well taken.

I'm with you and guest #15 in querying this. I believe the latest, biggest thermal power stations (steam turbines, of course) achieve about 42%, and that's in the 1000MW area. Smaller, older ones are worse, and reciprocating steam engines much lower. I would guess steam locomotives are in the region of 10%, steam cars or lorries below that.

Anybody know better please post.

Cheers.........Codey

Let me say that I applaud your enthusiasm and interest in trying to improve the state of transportation with your ideas. I hope your efforts do lead to positive results.

However, as I stated in my first post, this problem has been researched and investigated for 100+ years. It is extremely complicated.

Let's examine just a few issues.

(1) Lubricants: Higher temperatures are problematic for lubrication, even with newer synthetic oils/greases/lubricants. Motor oil also serves as part of the cooling system, in removing heat from vital components (engine bearings and reciprocating parts, for example). By "insulating" the engine, you subject the engine to higher temperatures; possibly higher than the lubricant's ability to handle these temperatures.

(2) Coolant: Water actually works pretty well as a coolant; liquid water, that is. Superheated water vapor (i.e., steam) doesn't work so well as coolant. Remember, you will be dealing with a non-homogeneous fluid, potentially leading to localized "hot spots" with high, or potential excessive temperatures.

(3) Internal components: By "insulating" the engine as you plan, you will subject internal components (pistons, for example) to higher temperatures. Once again, a significant possibility for potential component failures.

(4) Electronics: Modern engines feature significant numbers of electrical or electromechanical components; fuel injectors, relays, switches, motors, sensors and so forth. Once again, the proposal to "insulate" the engine and subsequently increase temperatures are not the best situation for these electronics to be subjected to.

(5) "Small parts"; gaskets, seals, liners, so forth; once again, you'll probably find a need to redesign these components or look towards alternate materials to handle the more severe conditions that will be created.

(6) Ancillaries: Coolant pumps, brackets, external parts (alternators, a/c compressors. etc.) may need modification or redesign to give adequate performance under the conditions you may subject the vehicle to.

(7) "Drivability": A car must be designed so that it maintains an adequate level of drivability; the ability of the vehicle to deliver performance so that it can be driven by a WIDE range of operators in a WIDE range of situations. It must accelerate smoothly, without stumble or hesitation. It must be easy starting. It must give the operator confidence. It must not do ANYTHING that could get the driver into trouble easily. The driver MUST be able to get into the vehicle and have no concerns that the drive will be problematic. The most efficient vehicle is useless if the driver is scared they are going to get run over trying to merge onto the freeway.

Again, these are just a few of the issues.

And, once again, I applaud your desire to want to make your ideas a reality. You have a lot of work to do. Work hard, do not be disheartened by failure, and you might just make it.

I am aware of the greater heat capacity of water, but it seems to me that an engine could be made with a combined sump for both functions. Silicon or other synthetic oil both for lubrication and cooling with a radiator for heat rejection to the atmosphere.

I am sure this would lead to greater engineering efficiency, fewer seal needed, no water to boil/freeze or corrode metals.

Modern oils can be made that do not lose their viscosity at high temperatures, nor thicken to a bad coolant at lower temperatures. The oil will be more viscous than water, but that just means a wiped surface exchanger, and I can see that as a soluble problem.

Have engines been made this way? There may be offsetting economies by the avoidance of water

Tanks for your comments standarded.

The SBE as hypothesized pretends not to overheat the engine, actual engines do not take advantage from the cooling properties of boiling water because of the cooling system is a sealed loop.

Actually most engines run far hotter than desirable with the actual radiator system when they are exposed to sustained effort or hot weather.

If the water is allowed to evaporate and it is replaced at the rate of evaporation the engine should not exceed much far from 100 C at sea level and lower in high altitude, the steam at this point is way cooler than the gases at the manifold.

What you see in most cases where an engine blows as a geyser is because the engine was neglected way far from the operation temperature then takes longer to cool down the entire mass of the engine especially because it is not possible to introduce the cold water at the bottom, the water simply boils on the top until is cool enough to allow flow down.

Experiences like that might drive our mind against the SBE.

The way I expect to work is to set the working temperature few degrees over the boiling point and use steam motor as a buster and the engine as a boiler.

The actual air motors requires relative low pressure and weights about the same as a gasoline engine per horse power.

This means that if you can use 1/4 of the wasted power you can replace an 8 cylinder engine with a 6 cylinder steam busted engine and continue to have about the same power with half the 3/4 of the tank of fuel plus 6/4 of the tank of water roughly two and a half tanks total volume.

The major inconvenient are: the boiling noise, the cloud of vapor at winter, and the salt deposits, all of them with diverse solutions for each problem.

The actual problems with electronics, oil, gaskets, hoses, are caused mostly because the waste of heat.

This far seems like no one is questioning the availability of the wasted energy in the actual fuel engines, that is a step ahead.

As nick name stated: 'every quality must be properly quantified and evaluated'.

Use of steam as a bottom cycle to use engine cooling (as preheater) and exhaust heat (as boiler + Superheater) would be feasible, but probably bulky.

It would almost certainly be better to run the steam into a reciprocating engine and probably use 2 stage expansion.

The problem of condensing your steam then arises.

The water in a radiator has a specific gravity of about 1. Steam to be condensed has a s.g. of around .oo1 so all the passages in the condenser need to be about 1000x the cross sectional area of those used to cool water. This makes a very bulky radiator!

The engine block would need to be beefed up because steam will need to be raised at around 1000+psi. The cooling water in the block would need to be at this pressure unless you had another pump to raise it to full pressure before the exhaust heat boiler.

The HP expansion stage will be quite compact, but the LP stage needs to be huge.

Lubrication can be challenging but is not an impossible problem.

I feel the idea would suit stationary power plant better than a car or truck.

An earlier post quoted diesels as achieving 52%. The best I know of being actually realized is below 40%. Good steam plant can reach 40+%, but only in 100's of MW sizes.

Certainly theoretical diesel efficiencies could get to 52% but not in practice. In addition, ICE efficiencies are not directly comparable to steam or other thermal engines because the ICE standard test conditions are quite unrealistic. Test results are usually corrected to these ideal conditions. Efficient diesels only reach around 35%.

Steam plant is tested under actual working conditions.

If we assume the ICE is reaching 30% actual (ie a fairly large diesel), and the steam plant achieves 25% (about 2000psi, 550C steam, condensed at about 50C), theactual overall efficiency is around 53%. This is well above the efficiency achieved by any other plant except possibly gas turbine/waste heat boiler combinations.

To achieve this, you are talking about a stationary power plant. It would be far too bulky for a mobile operation (even a truck).

There is, however, no reason why it couldn't be done. I have fiddled with the idea for years but never got as far as a prototype. On paper, it is feasible.

Hello sceptic, you do your name honor.

Here is the link:

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

Agreed, I have not measured the power output and fuel consumption myself, but this comes from the manufacturer himself. It is a pretty old site. Newer ones, I can't find right now, state the 52%.

Regards

This might be of interest - http://www.mandiesel.com/files/news/filesof5055/P3339161.pdf

and I see that in my previous post I have quoted what is already in the link that you posted - apologies all. Somewhat smaller MAN engines have claimed about 5% more efficiency than the Sulzer big boy.

No harm done in posting that one again. At least I don't feel so lonely. :)

You posted a very interesting link I was not aware of, thanks. One thing though, I could not figure out what SMCR stands for.

Greetings

Floram

SMCR - Specified Maximum Continuous Rating I think - pretty sure in fact.

The best I know of being actually realized is below 40%.

Sceptic

>50% thermal efficiency is possible these days with large slow revving diesels, see below figures from the latest Sulzer RTA96 engine. This is why it is almost impossible to gain steam time on merchant ships these days (since the mid '70s) as they are all diesel driven to save fuel costs.

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

Hi The Prof

Thanks for that. Means the ship diesels are now well ahead of even the supercritical steam cycle systems. All we have to do is figure out how to efficiently run diesels on coal and we can reduce power generation fuel costs!

Unfortunately, the efficiencies realized by vehicle diesels is still down around the 30%, (possibly as high as 35%) mark.

Cummins turbo outlet temps seem to be about 600C on full load, compared to the ship diesels far lower figure (~250C?), which would make a steam bottoming cycle far more attractive if the mechanical problems of bulk and weight could be solved.

Our ideas of steam engines are clouded by the slow revving antique monsters we see in museums. In it's day, the Stanley steamer was no heavier or more bulky than the equivalent ICE cars, and on performance (once warmed up) left them for dead. It was also insensitive to air temp and pressure variations, unlike the normal ICE.

If a bottoming cycle boiler was installed (and modern monotube boilers can be quite compact) and a high speed reciprocating steam engine (probably 2 stage expansion) was grafted onto the ICE, significant efficiency gains could be made. If the design was clever enough, the weight and complexity penalties could well be acceptable, especially for a truck.

For long distance trucking use, you have ideal conditions as the vehicle is large enough to carry the extra gear, runs long hours, so can be fully warmed up with the steam cycle in full use and covers enough miles at a time to make the fuel saving worthwhile.

The biggest problem is still the bulk of the condenser. The huge difference in density between water and low pressure steam means that any condenser is going to be bulky. In addition, some of the heat which was previously carried away in the exhaust is now added to the burden of the water cooling circuit.

I can think of some solutions which will ameliorate this problem, but it will still be bulky and hard to accommodate.

When a prototype steam car was built for Howard Hughes (in the 1930's sometime), the designer had to make bonnet, roof and doors part of the condenser. Hughes remark was supposed to be "If I have any sort of accident, I'm going to be surrounded and scalded by steam?" At this point he dropped the project.

Unfortunately, the basic problem of condenser size still remains.

BMW is/was working on recovering energy from exhaust heat using a Rankin cycle engine. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/05/bmw-rankine-20090503.html

There is also "work being done" on a 6 cycle engine that uses steam expansion and exhaust as the 5th and 6th cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke

I don't know if either are practical.

I think BMW had a concept car using a six stroke gas / steam hybrid. I think it was a Crower style engine and has been proven to work. But of course there are a lot of reasons why it's not suitable for the general consumer.

As I have been reading up on steam engine efficiency the multi expansion type engines are capable of a realistic 40 - 50% efficiency with todays design technology. However by using the waste heat to drive a second multi expansion system that uses a low boiling point fluid(Freon) as measured efficiencies are in the 75 -85% range.

But still to get that efficiency your going to have an engine with a horrible power to weight ratio. Only 2% or less of what a typical IC engine has. That is your super steamer is going to have an engine that is 50+ times bigger and heavier than the IC engine of equal power. You will have an engine the size and weight of a bus powering your honda! Your 0 - 60 time will be measured in minutes not seconds!

If your going for cheaper cost per mile numbers changing the fuel is far easier than changing the engine! If the fuel cost is near nothing and has no bad environmental problems does it matter how efficient the engine is?

"as measured efficiencies are in the 75 -85% range."

You carnot go there...

I am not a big fan of the Carnot cycle. Its an archaic concept devised in the 1830's long before modern technology had been invented. There are many multi heat phase engine and power systems that now make it a less than ideal reference point.

And just how you break down the cycle can make a system seem practical or impossible at the same time. I rather equate it to the old math and belief system from decades ago where faster than sound flight was considered impossible simply because everybody knew it and had mathematical data to prove it was impossible to do going back countless ages.

Interesting comment. I find it very much to the point.

I trust that "CO2" in general, and specifically those from car emissions, is the reason for climate change falls into the same category of your last paragraph. This thinking also includes oil from dinosaurs, I might add.

I am not trying to go against anyones beliefs but over the years of studying and learning about how many of the mathematical references and common used formulas relating to common issues are written Vs how they get used or interpreted I have had to change my views many times.

I was once a big proponent of vehicle emissions systems until I took a few college level chemistry courses and learned about how fuel is burned and what byproducts are formed regardlessly of how you set up an engine. One gallon a gasoline burned produces the exact same amount of byproducts whether its burned in an emissions legal engine or a old farm tractor.

The emissions system dilutes the exhaust gasses and thins out the parts per million ratio of the mass of byproducts but does not in fact change the total produced. One gallon of pollutant poured into 1000 gallons of water is the same volume as one gallon poured into 10000 gallons. The net result is one gallon of pollutants was dumped into the environment. The second example would say the pollutant level was reduced by 10 fold but in reality its still the same amount. Thats how the emissions system works. It just puts more air through the engine to give the illusion that the emissions output is lower per unit of volume. The mass itself does not change.

The problem I have with emissions systems is they are known for reducing fuel mileage. More fuel is burned while doing the same work. I strongly believe all of the wasted fuel being burned by emissions systems is making the problems worse not better! How is burning more fuel reducing the amount of byproducts being made?

The hard math and honest chemistry fact numbers do not add up to what people are being lead to believe about engine emissions. Tree huggers and enviro freaks are worse for the environment than a person that does not care!

Sorry about the rant. Some days it just happens.

To explain thoughts, specially new one or at least ones that are not generally known or accepted take a few more words. So, no rant really.

I like your comments as they are truly 'right on the money'.

The first thing is the formation of the chemical products by combustion.

A) The hydrocarbon fuels combined with oxygen (burned) form water (H2O) and CO2. Reducing CO2 means reducing the fuel burned and therewith the power generated. One cannot reduce CO2 by any means other than increasing the efficiency were less fuel is burned for the available power on the wheels.

B) Other by-products like CO, H2 and NOx can be reduced by a better designed combustion chamber. Here, great strides have been made over the years which is a good thing. BTW, these 'pollutants' dissipate within a short time and at today's levels are no longer a problem.

The anti-combustion people can no longer argue against these points, so they name CO2 as a culprit. Something must be found to be against the ICE. Water would likely not have been believable, but CO2 is good, as most people don't understand it. And it works. CO2 is actually quite benign, it is a fertilizer and it is a link in the natural cycle of plant and animal life.

My point I was trying to make in my earlier post was that CO2 is not the root of all evil, rather the opposite, is a necessary building stone of our world and chemistry.

The opponents then have to make CO2 look bad. To do this is is named to be the reason for climate change, really a very absurd idea.

Climates change all the time. We only need to look back. Climates have changed in the past without burning of fossil fuels. CO2 levels are also changing all the time without man 'helping' it.

Other industry pollutants escaping from chimneys should be addressed which, for some reason, no one does.

However, nothing will be achieved by these "environmentalists" opposing CO2, except perhaps a downturn in our economy by limiting the use of fuel.

I also agree with your point of questioning who is really more harmful to the environment, could it be the environmentalists themselves?

I have thought out the CO2 problem and its not a problem at all. The solution to CO2 buildup was figured out and implemented some 3.5 billion or more years ago. We call the CO2 scrubber technology plant life. Plant life will always keep CO2 in check simply because even a sub fraction of a percent CO2 rise will promote faster plant growth and thus faster scrubbing and reabsorbing. This is taught as botany or organic chemistry 101 class level basics.

I don't think this is even covered on high level tree hugger or enviro nutter doctorate work!

I do fully agree with the purpose of the OP's idea of finding a better solution to the worlds fuel usage problems but however many of the solutions are already here and many decades old. They are just not known by the common public and the corporate giants are certainly not going to tell you how to make some thing that would cause you to buy less of there products!

On top of that people as a whole don't take change well. Convincing anyone to make an adjustment to even a small routine takes a fair amount of work. Most will cut off their own foot before changing the way they walk!

I have ran propane as the primary fuel for over a decade and on three pickups now. My whole family knows I spend way less on fuel and related maintenance. But not one wants to change their vehicles over. That giving up 20 inches of box length they may need some day is just not worth the nearly 50% reduction in fuel and maintenance costs. But they will buy and drive a short box pickup that gets the same mileage as a long box with out hesitation!

Does that sound like our society to you? It does to me.

We must do something to prevent the Hamster Powered Device (HPD) from ruining the planet. From an early beginning they now have monster trucks powered by 100,000 Hamsters(100,000 HP...what else?) careening down our highways and they are creating enormous logistical problems with food, healthcare, dung, among other things.

Fully 30% of our arable land is given over to hamster feed. Poor people in third world countries are priced out of the feed market. Attempts to fuel hamsters on ethanol 85 failed and over a million drunken hamsters laid waste to Des Moines and it was only the intervention of the Del-The-Cat shock troop cat horde that prevented a real disaster.

And hamsters fart a great deal, especially on chili beans. One at a time is trivial, but the thundering roar of 1,000,000 bean fed hamsters is something else again, to say nothing of the monster pong.... Already the atmosphere is .2% hamster pong, and hamster pong is persistent because nothing eats it. It is not metabolized by any known life form, when the atmosphere reaches 5%, it will become intolerable. Hamster pong also traps the suns heat, warming the planet and making the increasing piles of hamster dung problematic. Efforts to make ball bearings from plated hamster dung failed, because the pampered North American work force refused to get their hands dirty.

And to think it all started here...

That's a pretty negative answer.

Without the ICE we would have no transport, no food on the table, no mobile power etc. It would be a pretty poor place and we would live like we did in the stone ages.

With the ICE we have a pretty good and prosperous life. All is booming, we are happy, we have a modern society and live well. How can you even suggest that it will ruin the planet? Where do you get that information from? Likely you hear and believe the special interest groups. Either that or you belong to one.

Surely, without the ICE and without oil, we, the society as whole, would be nowhere near where we are now. We would still hunt for food with bow and arrow. Is it that what you want?

I know the picture I am painting is a bit exaggerated, but this the direction we would go without having oil and the ICE

A few GA's also disappeared over night. Ah well, once you are in a negative grove you stick with it.

Obviously you belong to the car makers or oil producers group.

As for the simple linear expolation of the universal 2 car family with 5 billion cars being forced into alternate methods of power is not attractive to you...

Would you prefer popcorn powered cars?

I read a lot of steam books while working for an engineering college. Steam has gone thru a lot of changes, and I think it still has a future. What I have seen here is some good debate, but actual experimentation is the real test. As far as condensers go, look up the 'jet condenser'. It is small and just may be what this project needs.

My son wants to experiment with his truck, but this is his only vehicle. I've told him to get an old pickup with a straight six and plenty of room under the hood. I would put the experimental boiler in the bed so a safety shield could be built around it. Those catylitic converters re-burn the exhaust and just might make the start of a good superheater. How about for starters you just take a smog pump and feed the steam to it? It will hook right up on the motor using stock brackets and belts. It doesn't matter if it doesn't last or work perfect, it will allow testing of all the other more experimental equipment. Shoving the condensate back into the system is going to require a good pump. An electric fuel pump may be too small, but might run the system long enough to determine what the water flow is. Standard antifreeze and water pump lube should lube and protect the system.