I'm told the steam engine is the most mechanically efficient engine ever made

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: geno
Watch this to see why living with a steam engine won't work for everyday use. It takes too much prep time to get up and running.

This is also a great vid for anyone who's unfamiliar with steam engines.

I enjoyed that, thanks.

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: geno
Watch this to see why living with a steam engine won't work for everyday use. It takes too much prep time to get up and running.

This is also a great vid for anyone who's unfamiliar with steam engines.

Thats an amazing video,

 

[FlashG]

Originally posted by: geno
Watch this to see why living with a steam engine won't work for everyday use. It takes too much prep time to get up and running.

This is also a great vid for anyone who's unfamiliar with steam engines.

That was a sweet vid!

 

[sdifox]

wtf, steam engine is not efficient...

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: geno
Watch this to see why living with a steam engine won't work for everyday use. It takes too much prep time to get up and running.

This is also a great vid for anyone who's unfamiliar with steam engines.

Every time I see Lenno's car site I think that he really needs to turn it into a cable tv show once he retires from the tonight show. Especially because the tonight show sucks!

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: enwar3

So is the steam engine a good idea? Or do I have some facts wrong?

ell oh ell

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sdifox
wtf, steam engine is not efficient...

I think the key word that people are overlooking is "mechanically." For energy efficiency a steam engine is far from the best. For mechanical efficiency it's hard to beat simply because of its simplicity.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: CatchPhrase
the cryengine 2 is not that bad

My next car will run on Quad-SLI Geforce Cards.

 

[beat mania]

Just shove a steam engine somewhere before the radiator, and you've got a hybrid.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bobross419
Couldn't you just store up methane... maybe by a clever adapter in your car seat and power it off of the burnt gas?

Hydrogen is a better alternative and it's been in production for a few years by now, we need better production methods and storage for it though.

The Hindenburg somehow still lingers in the minds of some idiots.

JoS, it's been pointed out to you multiple times that hydrogen is NOT a energy source. It's not an "alternative" but rather is a storage and transportation medium. If you're burning fossil fuels for the energy used to obtain the hydrogen (and the majority of electricity in the U.S. comes from burning fossil fuels), then you're actually making the problem worse.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Carnot efficiency anyone?

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: enwar3
The engine can reach speeds high enough for today's use, can accelerate and decelerate much faster than gasoline engines in cars today, and can burn something plentiful like kerosene.

He also told me the only reason the steam engine hasn't taken off is because 1. oil companies and 2. you have to carry fuel.

So is the steam engine a good idea? Or do I have some facts wrong?

You have some facts wrong. They do not put out much power compared to gasoline engines of the same size and they don't accelerate and decelerate nearly as fast as gasoline engines.

You must have missed the Jay Leno Stanley Steamer video just above your post, where he SHOWS you how fast it accelerates, and explains how he takes it on the freeway and it'll do 60-65mph all day long. He said it has something like 700lb-ft of torque, and it's direct drive so you just open the throttle as fast as you want the car to go.

And that car's 100 years old. Imagine what we could do with today's technology. Butane auto-lighting systems, automatic electric pressurizers, possibilities to modernize steam powered cars are endless.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: enwar3
The engine can reach speeds high enough for today's use, can accelerate and decelerate much faster than gasoline engines in cars today, and can burn something plentiful like kerosene.

He also told me the only reason the steam engine hasn't taken off is because 1. oil companies and 2. you have to carry fuel.

So is the steam engine a good idea? Or do I have some facts wrong?

You have some facts wrong. They do not put out much power compared to gasoline engines of the same size and they don't accelerate and decelerate nearly as fast as gasoline engines.

You must have missed the Jay Leno Stanley Steamer video just above your post, where he SHOWS you how fast it accelerates, and explains how he takes it on the freeway and it'll do 60-65mph all day long. He said it has something like 700lb-ft of torque, and it's direct drive so you just open the throttle as fast as you want the car to go.

And that car's 100 years old. Imagine what we could do with today's technology. Butane auto-lighting systems, automatic electric pressurizers, possibilities to modernize steam powered cars are endless.

And you still have to wait a half an hour to start you car and get a head of steam up.

The internal combustion engine has an awesome power to weight ratio. Power plants still use steam turbines which I guarantee are more efficient.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: finite automaton

Originally posted by: geno
Watch this to see why living with a steam engine won't work for everyday use. It takes too much prep time to get up and running.

This is also a great vid for anyone who's unfamiliar with steam engines.

I enjoyed that, thanks.

ditto.
:beer:

 

[Eli]

What? I haven't read the thread, but that's nonsense.

Well.. It's going to vary a lot by your method of getting steam, I suppose. Also, do you mean stem engine or steam turbine?

There is no way that a normal 19th century steam piston engine is as efficient as a modern diesel engine. Not even a modern gasoline engine.

Besides, even if it were 100% efficient.. there's the whole practicality issue. To say the least. Basically, you want to drive around on a bomb. Would bring a whole new meaning to the car accident. Any breach of the boiler and you would be poached.

It would take an incredible amount of energy to supply enough steam to be able to propel a car forward. Where would that come from? Would we all have to carry a trailer of coal?

:laugh:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Eli
What? I haven't read the thread, but that's nonsense.

Well.. It's going to vary a lot by your method of getting steam, I suppose. Also, do you mean stem engine or steam turbine?

There is no way that a normal 19th century steam piston engine is as efficient as a modern diesel engine. Not even a modern gasoline engine.

Besides, even if it were 100% efficient.. there's the whole practicality issue. To say the least. Basically, you want to drive around on a bomb. Would bring a whole new meaning to the car accident. Any breach of the boiler and you would be poached.

It would take an incredible amount of energy to supply enough steam to be able to propel a car forward. Where would that come from? Would we all have to carry a trailer of coal?

:laugh:

I want my ford nucleon, damnit!

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
....and let's not forget the soon to appear Mr Fusion device!

I don't appreciate you picking apart my life and making a mockery out of it, man.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sdifox
wtf, steam engine is not efficient...

I think the key word that people are overlooking is "mechanically." For energy efficiency a steam engine is far from the best. For mechanical efficiency it's hard to beat simply because of its simplicity.

turbine beats piston any day of the week in terms of power conversion.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Baked
Can you imagine shoveling coal into your glove compartment/furnace while driving?! Awesome!

i lol

 

[Fritzo]

LOL- I can imagine someone with one of those beach sand shovels adding coal to their glove compartment while on the highway...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sdifox
wtf, steam engine is not efficient...

I think the key word that people are overlooking is "mechanically." For energy efficiency a steam engine is far from the best. For mechanical efficiency it's hard to beat simply because of its simplicity.

turbine beats piston any day of the week in terms of power conversion.

Only at high RPMs. A steam piston engine will kick the snot out of a turbine at low RPMs. That's why steam turbines were never really adapted for use in cars, trucks, or trains. Makes no sense to have a turbine spinning at thousands of RPMs while you're idling or going slow and you end up losing mechanical efficiency through the gearing/transmission that would be required.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We used to use steam engines on trains, then switched to diesel and then electric.
See a pattern?

actually the electric ones still burn diesel, but use electric motors for the actual locomotion. Apparantly it's more efficient to do it that way because electric motors give better torque, etc

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: enwar3
The engine can reach speeds high enough for today's use, can accelerate and decelerate much faster than gasoline engines in cars today, and can burn something plentiful like kerosene.

He also told me the only reason the steam engine hasn't taken off is because 1. oil companies and 2. you have to carry fuel.

So is the steam engine a good idea? Or do I have some facts wrong?

You have some facts wrong. They do not put out much power compared to gasoline engines of the same size and they don't accelerate and decelerate nearly as fast as gasoline engines.

yeah, i questioned that when i read it too, but i wasn't sure.

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: enwar3
The engine can reach speeds high enough for today's use, can accelerate and decelerate much faster than gasoline engines in cars today, and can burn something plentiful like kerosene.

He also told me the only reason the steam engine hasn't taken off is because 1. oil companies and 2. you have to carry fuel.

So is the steam engine a good idea? Or do I have some facts wrong?

You have some facts wrong. They do not put out much power compared to gasoline engines of the same size and they don't accelerate and decelerate nearly as fast as gasoline engines.

yeah, i questioned that when i read it too, but i wasn't sure.

Obviously neither of you watched the video. Leno's car only has 20HP, but it has "700-800" ft/lbs of torque, and does 65mph at ~350rpmile. Not bad for a car that is 100 years old.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sdifox
wtf, steam engine is not efficient...

I think the key word that people are overlooking is "mechanically." For energy efficiency a steam engine is far from the best. For mechanical efficiency it's hard to beat simply because of its simplicity.

turbine beats piston any day of the week in terms of power conversion.

Only at high RPMs. A steam piston engine will kick the snot out of a turbine at low RPMs. That's why steam turbines were never really adapted for use in cars, trucks, or trains. Makes no sense to have a turbine spinning at thousands of RPMs while you're idling or going slow and you end up losing mechanical efficiency through the gearing/transmission that would be required.

We were talking about steam piston engine efficiency and not practical adaptation to automotive propulsion.