Slashdot Mirror


The British Steam Car Challenge

Van Cutter Romney sends us word of a British steam-powered car that will attempt to set a world record speed of 200 mph. The car, constructed on a tubular chassis, holds four boilers that deliver four megawatts of power, producing 300 bhp. The current record of 127.659 mph was established in 1906. More photos and specs at the Steam Car Club of Great Britain's site.

184 comments

  1. would I be wrong to say by dotpavan · · Score: 4, Funny

    that this car is "hot"? would I be ensured a "steamy ride" on this? :)

  2. Vaporware by TodMinuit · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet this turns out to be nothing but a bunch of hot air!

    --
    I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    1. Re:Vaporware by sqldr · · Score: 0

      No, it's true.. Tina Turner wrote a song about it - "steamy windows".

      oh, there's my coat. bye!

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    2. Re:Vaporware by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.

      Hey, it works!

      --
      So say we all
  3. Just Wait Til The Steampunks Steampunk It! by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh...wait.

    Nevermind.

  4. Steam isn't an energy source by Colin+Smith · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So what're they heating the water with? Electricity? In which case it's an electrically powered car.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative
      Thank you for personifying the typical Slashdotter by not Reading the Farking Article.

      From TFA's Seventh Sentence:

      Motive power is from a two-stage steam turbine, fed by a boiler fired on LPG.


      Thank you, come again.
      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your point is moot.

      And where does the electricity come from?

      Coal - oh so it's a coal powered car.

      Steam is an energy source - as in it is something that contains usable energy.

    3. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      And where does this coal come from? Carbon. And where does carbon come from? Exploding stars. YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO KILL STARS JUST SO YOU CAN DRIVE A CAR! Won't anyone think of the stars?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean exemplifying, not personifying.

      Unless the typical Slashdotter is inanimate.

    5. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by the_weasel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your reply completed the experience by adding a pedantic correction of a trivial grammatical flaw! :-)

      Just teasing. You are correct, of course.

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    6. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      And where does the electricity come from? FTA (the second link): "Motive power is from a two-stage steam turbine, fed by a boiler fired on LPG."

      So the power comes in the form of steam, the fuel comes in the form of Liquefied Petroleum Gas.

      Not quite an alternative fuel.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    7. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the children of the stars?

    8. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Vombatus · · Score: 3, Funny
      What about the children of the stars?

      Copyright extension laws will look after them, of course.

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
    9. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by kakofb · · Score: 1

      And where does carbon come from? Exploding stars.

      Is that what they teach in Christian high schools now?
    10. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Huh? All the heavier element are theorized to be the result of stars fusion processes and their going nova. Am I off in this? And where did Christianity get brought up?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      So what're they heating the water with? Electricity? In which case it's an electrically powered car.
      You laugh, but So what're they heating the water with? Electricity? In which case it's an electrically powered car. ">this has actually been done before...
    12. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. God just put all this carbon here 6000 years ago to test our faith.

    13. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Hungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought iron was the first to require a net energy input, but I can't be bothered to look.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    14. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I got corrected on this point once when I made a similar statement. To be precise, lighter elements such as carbon also escape from midsize stars when they eject planetary nebula, which are not explosions. (However, that subtle distinction doesn't seem like a high school level topic to me.)

    15. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to waste my time reading the article when I have you to do that for me.

      TYVM.

      --
      Deleted
    16. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      With a really long extension cable...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    17. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Iron is the at the bottom of the fusion/fission energy curves. Or in other words, producing iron (by fusion or fission) is exothermic, but converting iron to anything else is endothermic.

      Thus the universe is fated to turn into a vast pile of iron (ignoring black holes, photons, proton decay, etc etc).

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    18. Re:Steam isn't an energy source by Hungus · · Score: 1

      So I was one off. Thanks for the correction.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  5. 4MW? by mastershake_phd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4 mega watts? You could power a small town with that.

    1. Re:4MW? by jimbug · · Score: 5, Funny

      orrrrrrrr you could drive really fast! Which is a better use of power?

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass.
    2. Re:4MW? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, even more jarring is:
      he car gets 300bhp (which equals about 220kW) out of those 4 MW.

      Just about 5 percent efficiency (compared to well over 25 for gasoline/Diesel/LPG internal combustion cars) show quite well why steam engines are obsolete.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:4MW? by pclminion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      4 megawatts is a little over 5000 horsepower. Hell, a funny car produces almost 3000 horse more than that. Don't be awed by the word "mega." And comparisons to electrical consumption aren't very relevant anyway.

    4. Re:4MW? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a one-off car set to break a performance record, not an attempt at an efficient mass production vehicle.

      Read wikipedia. Steam cars died primarily because they were high maintenance and required several minutes' time to build steam before they could move. Internal combustion engines had a lower risk of rust or damage from freezing and could be started and driven immediately. Inconvenience killed the steam car, not inefficiency.

    5. Re:4MW? by JesseL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Steam engines are obsolete? WTF?

      How do you get electricity out of your nuclear power plant?

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    6. Re:4MW? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      How do you get electricity out of your nuclear power plant?

      Mr. Fusion.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    7. Re:4MW? by kailoran · · Score: 1

      And you think Mr. Fusion is Intelligently Designed to make little electrons move where we want, and that big-momma turbine is there just for the show? And the white clouds steaming from that are not, well, steam?

      Fission/i> (no fusion in power plants yet) only heats the water, which then goes to a massive steam engine that produces the electricity.

    8. Re:4MW? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Just about 5 percent efficiency (compared to well over 25 for gasoline/Diesel/LPG internal combustion cars) show quite well why steam engines are obsolete.

      Yeah, that's why some of the real production steam engine cars of the early 20th century managed to have thermal-power-to-the-road efficiencies in excess of 50%, whilst the gasoline engine in your car tops out at around 30%, with actual power to the pavement figures significantly lower than that number, because of the transmission and the rest of the drivetrain. The only things that killed steam cars were the high maintenance requirements, high cost due to tiny production volumes, great engineering but very poor business sense, and as it turns out, pretty poor winter performance. I guess it's hard to pump frozen water, or something like that.

      This is a special purpose car. It has to turn water into steam as fast as it can, plus it has to be somewhat light. That rules out having thousands of feet of boiler coils, and fuel is lighter than iron. Go figure.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    9. Re:4MW? by pointbeing · · Score: 1

      Something's not quite right. 4Mw - 5361 horsepower.

      This just might win the award for least efficient energy conversion. Of course, using LPG to fire boilers to run a steam engine is only considerably less efficient running an internal combustion engine on LPG and using *that* to drive the wheels ;-)

      But - I guess the objective here isn't efficiency, it's setting a world record with a steam powered car.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    10. Re:4MW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh....

      Perhaps you might consider getting your geek card revoked? Or are you planning, perhaps, to utilise a flux capacitor at some nearby point in the timeline to give you a some time to go back and study your popular culture?

    11. Re:4MW? by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

      "How do you get electricity out of your nuclear power plant?"

      Photovoltaic cells

      (The fusion reactor is a a safe distance of 93 million miles)

  6. Damned inefficient by overshoot · · Score: 3, Informative
    Four megawatts turning into 300 bhp?

    Should be well over 4000 bhp, since one bhp is 746 watts. Looks like an amazing amount of conversion loss there.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Damned inefficient by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Precisely why the internal combustion engine was developed. The IC engine is far more efficient in comparison.

      This challenge is nothing more than novelty. Nothing wrong with that, I would love to be a spectator at this event.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Damned inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Efficiency hardly matters, lad, since you can always just shovel more fuzzy-wuzzies into the boiler, eh wot?

    3. Re:Damned inefficient by NatteringNabob · · Score: 1

      This looks like a mistake in the numbers. Steam turbines are extremely efficient, much more efficient than internal combustion engines. Most of the world's electricity is generated by steam turbines. The problem with steam is that you either need to condense the steam back to water, or run a total loss system. Either one is problematic for a motor vehicle.

    4. Re:Damned inefficient by frdmfghtr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Should be well over 4000 bhp, since one bhp is 746 watts. Looks like an amazing amount of conversion loss there.
      I think it's more a case where not all the energy contained in the steam is used for forward motion. The last thing you want to do is extract all that energy from the steam in the turbine, since in doing so would change the steam back into water. Water and high-speed steam turbines are not a good mix, unless you want to have shards of turbine flying about.

      Instead, you extract as much energy as you can, while keeping the steam hot enough at the final turbine outlet pressure to prevent the phase change. In fact, most of the energy put into the steam (in some cases 75%) is removed AFTER the steam goes through the turbine, by way of the condensers.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    5. Re:Damned inefficient by xero314 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The IC engine is far more efficient in comparison. If Internal Combustion is so much more efficient why is the vast majority of energy produced on earth is converted to electricity through turbines rather than internal combustion driven generators? Gas turbine engines have been produced with a energy conversion efficiency of 46%, as compared to ICs which have reached 42% (both maximums taken from working models not theoretical). It is also easier to addapt heat recovery systems to turbine engines than it is to internal combustion. Now multi stage steam turbines actually surpass Both the IC and the Gass turbine and are capable of reaching 95% isentropic efficiency. I just think you are missing some factors in your efficiency equation.
    6. Re:Damned inefficient by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Precisely why the internal combustion engine was developed. The IC engine is far more efficient in comparison.

      Back in Ye Olden Tymes (TM), it wasn't at all clear how those newfangled horseless carriages were going to be powered. There were electric ones, steam ones, and gasoline powered ones. Steam was a mature technology and well-understood, electric was silent but had range issues, and gasoline was just plain dangerous. Steam was the initial leader. Henry Ford selected gasoline for his Model T, and the rest was history.

      With fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and all that, it doesn't matter how efficient gasoline engines are, if what they run on is too expensive to be practical. Sure, steam engines have thermodynamic limits. But they also have very nice emissions qualities, and excellent torque characteristics. I'd be very interested in seeing what a modern steam car could do.

      The gasoline engine car makers actually ran FUD ads about how dangerous electric cars were. They were so quiet that you couldn't hear them coming, and risked getting run over!

      ...laura

    7. Re:Damned inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 MW is enough to heat 1.5l of water from 0C to 100C and cause the phase transition (i.e. enough to turn 1.5 liters of ice cold water into steam) in one second. IOW, a cubic meter of water in less than 12 minutes.

    8. Re:Damned inefficient by the_weasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. Damn silence used to blanket the world like a fog. Thank god modern progress has defeated the awful quiet. We have driven it away with beeps, honks, bangs, rings and clashes. I don't know how I would sleep without the gentle lullaby of the cooling fans....

      Sarcasm naturally (it is my specialty!).

      If I had a sniper rifle, every last son of a bitch with a Harley modded for sound would have it shot out from under them as they rounded the corner to my house. I don't accept the "It's so other cars can hear me coming" excuse either. I have been riding motorcycles for decades, and the best way to do that is to drive like everyone around you is out to get you.

      We have allowed our world to become polluted with more than just chemicals - we let the noise in too. I am willing to bet it has as much an impact on our long term health.

      [RANT OFF]

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    9. Re:Damned inefficient by LabRat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, yes and no. It's true that the majority of the thermal energy is removed after the turbine stage..but that doesn't mean that 75% of the initial energy is lost uselessly to the environment. Rather, the act of condensing the steam back into water drastically reduces the exhaust pressure and increases overall flow rate through the turbine...causing substantially more mechanical energy to be produced than would otherwise be made. The effect can be calculated quite accurately using 2nd Law analysis. It's the fact that the water-steam volume difference is so great that makes the Rankine cycle so successful. Even at quite high pressures, an exhaust stream of steam can become nearly a vacuum (or at least 1 atm) practically on-demand simply by cooling it to the condensation point. That's the job of the big cooling lakes and/or nearby natural bodies of water that Rankine-based power generation plants are built near.

      All that said, there's no indication from the article that the powerplant is based on the Rankine cycle. Steam power generation plants can achieve thermal efficiencies well in excess of 30%...with some of the newer designs pushing the 50% mark. This particular article is claiming a bit over 5.5%. A lot of that can be attributed to scale (smaller heat engines typically have lower thermal efficiencies)...but I hope there's a typo in there somewhere else color me underwhelmed.

    10. Re:Damned inefficient by Arthur+B. · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And how exactly do you turn water into steam in your steam-engine ?

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    11. Re:Damned inefficient by imsabbel · · Score: 1, Informative

      Maybe because steam engines arent turbines?
      You know, Rankine cyle vs Brayton cycle....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    12. Re:Damned inefficient by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The IC engine was developed as a replacement for steam powered piston locomotion and paddle wheel boating (think river boats on the Mississippi).

      For modern electric plants, steam turbines (running on natural gas or coal) are used and often running with a constant load. This makes for better optimization. In fact, all nuclear power plants use steam turbines. But if you think running a steam turbine in an automobile is far more efficient than an IC, you're mistaken. We don't have heat recovery technolgy that scales down small enough to be as effective as the ones running our power plants.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:Damned inefficient by xero314 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe because steam engines arent turbines? That's interesting since what we are discussing here is a specific entry in the British Steam Car Challenge who's "Motive power is from a two-stage steam turbine [which] drives a gear train with a 5:1 ratio for a wheel speed of 3000 RPM at 200 MPH". Now since you were responding another post which was a comment on the output of the aforementioned turbine powered car, and there was no reference to "steam engine" made until you last post, would you like to go an RFTA and then get back to us?
    14. Re:Damned inefficient by xero314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The IC engine was developed as a replacement for steam powered piston locomotion and paddle wheel boating (think river boats on the Mississippi)...But if you think running a steam turbine in an automobile is far more efficient than an IC, you're mistaken That's a much better comment that the previous one I was responding too. The car under discussion is powered by a two stage turbine engine, not a steam piston and there for pointing out the history or efficiency of the steam piston engine is moot. Regardless to any of that, my original statement still stands, that stating IC is more efficient that steam is a gross generalization, since you even back that up by stating you were comparing a subset of steam power converters to general Internal Combustion.
    15. Re:Damned inefficient by maxume · · Score: 1

      The Doble steamer essentially is a modern steam car.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Damned inefficient by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Precisely why the internal combustion engine was developed. The IC engine is far more efficient in comparison.
      Back in Ye Olden Tymes (TM), it wasn't at all clear how those newfangled horseless carriages were going to be powered. There were electric ones, steam ones, and gasoline powered ones. Steam was a mature technology and well-understood, electric was silent but had range issues, and gasoline was just plain dangerous. Steam was the initial leader. Henry Ford selected gasoline for his Model T, and the rest was history.

      It's important however to understand *why* gasoline won out however. External combustion cars required anywhere from half an hour upwards before they were ready to creep, and required considerable maintenance. Internal combustion cars were ready to go within a few minutes and required much less maintenance.
       
       

      The gasoline engine car makers actually ran FUD ads about how dangerous electric cars were. They were so quiet that you couldn't hear them coming, and risked getting run over!

      Within the limits of anecdotal evidence... I've seen three people nearly run over by hybrids within the last year and some. Twice because niether the driver nor the pedestrian were paying attention, and the third because driver pushed a joke (trying to sneak up on someone) almost to far. So, such FUD may not have been entirely without some factual basis.
    17. Re:Damned inefficient by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe because steam engines arent turbines? Not true.

      The Pennsylvania Railroad built a hugely powerful steam turbine locomotive, and there were others as well. 6900 HP is HUGE for a single steamer, but that much HP is usually only needed for freight trains, and PRR's monster was terribly inefficent below 40 MPH, and most freight trains spend a large portion of their time running slower than that. Also diesel-electrics were starting to come online, which are much more efficient at slower speeds (about 25 MPH is the most efficient speed for a diesel-electric freight locomotive). It might have been useable pulling a fast, heavyish, passenger train, but the newest competition of the day had wings...
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    18. Re:Damned inefficient by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's important however to understand *why* gasoline won out however. External combustion cars required anywhere from half an hour upwards before they were ready to creep, and required considerable maintenance. Internal combustion cars were ready to go within a few minutes and required much less maintenance.

      Yup. That advantage came with the development of kettering ignition. Prior to that most internal combustion engines used glow ignition, where you had to heat the external part of the ignition system with a blowtorch until it was hot enough. The same sort of system is still used in model airplane engines, but their electric glow plugs make them a lot easier to start.

      The local electric car club have a 1912 Detroit, albeit with modern lead-acid batteries replacing the original Edison cells. I've ridden in it; it feels like a telephone booth on wheels. But except for a slight whirr from the driveline, it's silent. These were the cars that made people like Henry Ford nervous.

      ...laura

    19. Re:Damned inefficient by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Boiler_hor sepower,

      it looks that 'bhp' could mean 'boiler horsepower=9.8kW', the efficiency would then be
      300*9.8kW/4MW=73.5%
      and not
      300*0.7kW/4MW=5.5%

      Hmmm, forget what I said, it doesn't sound very likely either!

    20. Re:Damned inefficient by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is an amazing amount of conversion loss there. Why?
            First, on a mile long track (with maybe ten more miles to "spool up") even such a big 4MW won't use so much fuel, and so much water. As such, the cost (in mass penalties and aerodynamics of the car due to radiators) of a condensing component was ruled too great (the Doble car had such systems in the 1920s, and got 14 miles per gallon of fuel oil, for a car weighing 5500lbs).
            Second, a two stage steam turbine has a lower mass but a lower efficiency than a turbine with more stages. Power-plant steam turbines have a better efficiency.
            And third (already mentioned), is the probable low efficiency of the burners/boilers - again, compromising between efficiency and total mass
            And maybe there are other reasons too

    21. Re:Damned inefficient by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I remember a story about the competition between steam and IC engines for trucks. The IC crowd managed to get a road tax system introduced that depended upon the weight of the vehicle. Since steam engines were far heavier at the time, it pretty much finished off steam trucks in one blow. I can't find a reference though - does anyone know, or did I make this up?

    22. Re:Damned inefficient by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Sure noise has a strong negative influence on health, this is very well established and not controversial in the least.

      Prolonged exposure to noise causes increase in aggression, elevated blood-pressure, increased risk of tinnitus (which again often leads to depression and/or anxiety), and increased risk of heart and circulatory problems, besides the obvious one of hearing-loss if the noise-levels are very high.

      Noise in your rest-periods is the most damaging, and sudden unexpected noises are worse than constant ones.

    23. Re:Damned inefficient by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Steam was the initial leader. Henry Ford selected gasoline for his Model T, and the rest was history.



      Mr. Daimler and Mr. Benz are probably spinning in their graves at higher rpms than the engines in their cars ever did.

    24. Re:Damned inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheer up, it's not the end of the world.

    25. Re:Damned inefficient by peterpi · · Score: 1

      I hope you'd use a silencer. Those son-of-a-bitch gun enthusiasts, tsk!

    26. Re:Damned inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because steam engines arent turbines?
      You know, Rankine cyle vs Brayton cycle....


      Both trumped by the Carnot Cycle, which defines the maximum efficiency of any heat engine. The 5.6% efficiency of the steam engine in this car is so far outside of the ideal of any heat engine that any discussion of thermodynamics is rendered moot. Aerodynamics is probably of greater concern.

      Regardless, I find it hard to believe that a four megawatt steam engine can be placed on wheels (short of steel wheels on rails). It must be a misprint in TFA or an error of some kind.
    27. Re:Damned inefficient by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If I had a sniper rifle, every last son of a bitch with a Harley modded for sound would have it shot out from under them as they rounded the corner to my house.

      I know a woman named Mercedes who, last I checked, rode a Honda or something. Her response to "loud pipes save lives" is "why don't you just tape down the horn button then?"

      Harleys are the biggest festering piece of shit bikes on the road. They have no torque and get super shit mileage compared to even the most powerful imports. It's too bad they didn't just go out of business instead of getting rescued by a sports equipment company. They're also some of the least reliable vehicles around. At least as of about 2003, every single Buell (Harley's sport bike) ever made had a life-threatening safety recall. Not something minor like "turn signals fail" but something serious like "bike has tendency to disintegrate at high speeds".

      Anyway, end rant, back on topic:

      We have allowed our world to become polluted with more than just chemicals - we let the noise in too. I am willing to bet it has as much an impact on our long term health.

      Don't forget light! We are sensitive to certain frequencies of light and some of them are put out by shit like streetlamps and passing cars, which interrupts our sleep cycle. Actually, right now my big issue is that half the fucking county (Lake) is being inundated from light from The Geysers. I'm not sure precisely where it is coming from (I could tell if I spent some time with a map, you can see clearly where it comes from at one point on your trip on Bottle Rock Road, which goes up one side of Cobb Mountain) but it must have something to do with US Renewables Group. Yeah, sure, renewable, but they don't give a fuck about wasting shitloads of power on lighting which is going into the sky instead of onto the ground and the work they're ostensibly doing.

      But anyway, light pollution is a serious issue not just for astronomers, but for all of us - and not just because we can't see the milky way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Damned inefficient by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      We don't have heat recovery technolgy that scales down small enough to be as effective as the ones running our power plants
      I wonder if it could scale down as far as a locomotive. I'd be interested in seeing a diesel/steam train in action and compare that to the diesel/electric combinations we have today.
      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    29. Re:Damned inefficient by Trackster · · Score: 2, Informative

      4MW is the _capacity_ of the boilers. Chances are, they never use all that capacity. That's just the size boiler they needed to maintain a large head (charge) of steam at high output for a long time.

    30. Re:Damned inefficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..Steam was the initial leader. Henry Ford selected gasoline for his Model T, and the rest was history..."

      Complete Americocentric nonsense. The last credible steam-powered cars were being made around 1860. They never became more than one-off concept cars. By 1890 Daimler and Benz had established the I/C engine as the way to go. By 1900 I/C cars were commercial products in Europe (though expensive!). Ford started his work in 1910.

      It would have been very foolish of Ford to have put the investment that he did into a technology which was not proven. That alone shows the OP to be nonsense.

      Incidentally, someone has edited the Wiki entry on car invention to read:

      "....In 1895, Selden was granted a United States patent(U.S. Patent 549,160 ) for a two-stroke automobile engine, which hinderd more than encouraged development of autos in the United States. Steam, electric, and gasoline powered autos competed for decades, with gasoline internal combustion engines achieving dominance in the 1910s..."

      The last sentence is completely incorrect. I would have read it with a bit more credulity if they had spelled 'hindered' correctly!

    31. Re:Damned inefficient by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      BTW, where in the article was this 4 MW number? I looked several times and couldn't find it.

      (I'm not questioning your use of 4 MW; I used it myself. I just can't find the source.)

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  7. steam car dragster by secPM_MS · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem with steam engines is the condenser system, which tends to be bulky and weigh a lot. If you are going to go open cycle, an appropriate choice for a short distance racer, a high pressure system can have very high power. In such a situation you have your high power boilers fed by a high pressure pump and exiting a turbine, which is geared down to the wheels. ZOOM!

    1. Re:steam car dragster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two problems really, the other one is the boiler, which in this design is most probably a once through flash steam generator. In any case, it is another bulky piece of kit that won't help the performance. Burning the fuel directly in a gas turbine would be a simpler way of going fast. There shouldn't really be any problem reaching that sort of speed with a steam car, but the whole thing is a bit pointless. Steam plant is still very useful and has its place, but problaby not in road vehicles. It is more suited to large scale applications like coal and nuclear fired generating plants.

      I suppose you could argue that a hydrogen/oxygen fueled rocket is a steam plant. I gather some of those go pretty fast....

    2. Re:steam car dragster by kiracatgirl · · Score: 0

      There shouldn't really be any problem reaching that sort of speed with a steam car, but the whole thing is a bit pointless.

      Of course it's pointless, that's the whole point!

  8. By the time one goes through all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Just fire up a pressure boiler with water, superheat it.

    Then release the pressure, like a water rocket.

    Well, the goal was 200 MPH. Didn't say a thing about the exhaust ( supeheated steam ).

    I don't know if the driver would survive. Or anyone behind the vehicle.

    Inefficient as hell but I betcha it would easily go 200MPH for a few seconds.

    In this world where we are rapidly depleting our fossil fuels, I would be far more impressed with a more efficient car, or even a more efficient air conditioning system.

    Whatever happened to Thermoacoustics?

    1. Re:By the time one goes through all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to Thermoacoustics?

      Pulse Jet engines?

  9. Pointless by GrahamCox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's the point of this? Steam reached the peak of its development for transportation in the 1920s. Thermodynamically you can't do much better than 25% efficiency and that's with all the technology you can muster. More typically you only get 10%. The focus for engineers should be transportation that doubles car efficiency to 60 - 70%. Not halves it.

    1. Re:Pointless by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Funny

      yes, because all of the engineers in the world were busy at work on this project for the last 10 years!
      We are now reaching the end of the development cycle and are ready to release this new, high-speed steam racer to the public.
        This will surely replace all of our current, more efficient automobiles.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Pointless by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      its fun? seriously, i doubt anyone believes this to be a serious engine type for mass use.

    3. Re:Pointless by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      What's the point of this?
      Because it would be cool to do...not everything has to be practical to be cool to do.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    4. Re:Pointless by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the 25% figure?

      It's my understanding that steam cars died because they were inconvenient. Parts rusted, water froze and ruptured areas, and worst of all each time you wanted to use it, it had to spend a few minutes building steam.

      Is it possible that technological advances in the past 80 years would let us overcome some or all of those problems, and also improve the efficiency?

    5. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I know! I made the same comment when the PowerPC G5 workstations started shipping. Who cares if it's faster -- it's less thermodynamically efficient! What a pointless exercise.

    6. Re:Pointless by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's the point of this? Steam reached the peak of its development for transportation in the 1920s.

      The designers of naval powerplants would be surprised to learn this - as they were making performance and efficiency gains right up until (fossil fuel combustion) steam went out of fashion for new builds... Within the last twenty years. Word on the street is that guys over on the nuclear side of the house are still making a few improvements to the steam side of the cycle even today.
    7. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of this? Steam reached the peak of its development for transportation in the 1920s. Thermodynamically you can't do much better than 25% efficiency and that's with all the technology you can muster.

      Dude, you're so full of shit that you must have ruptured something.

    8. Re:Pointless by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Lest my comment be misunderstood (and this being slashdot that's not just inevitable, it's practically compulsory) I'm talking about steam efficiency when used for automotive transportation. The best steam locomotives reached about 25% efficiency. The big problem is that efficiency is related to the temperature difference "across" the engine so you either need to get the steam really, really hot or have a cold reservoir that has a very, very high capacity. Both of these things are compromised severely in a platform that also has to move, haul carriages, people, etc. A stationary power station doesn't have this limitation so efficiencies reached can be a lot higher.

      As for doing it because it's fun, that's reasonable, as long as that is the stated reason. Not everything has to further mankind's progress; fun/curiosity/because it's there are valid too. Hell, I work on pointless projects for fun myself sometimes, as my website will attest. But the article etc. seem in some way to be earnestly suggesting that this is a valid automotive technology. It's not. An electric vehicle even if ultimately powered by a coal fired and steam-driven turbine is still going to be twice as efficient as this.

    9. Re:Pointless by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      the real point is: do we need fast cars when in urban scapes you slow to a crawl? Perhaps a non-efficient, slow, non-polluting engine is better than one efficient, fast, polluting one when you're running at 18mph...

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    10. Re:Pointless by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      the real point is: do we need fast cars when in urban scapes you slow to a crawl? Perhaps a non-efficient, slow, non-polluting engine is better than one efficient, fast, polluting one when you're running at 18mph...

      I think you're right. But steam is even less appropriate in that case. An electric motor is just as efficient whatever speed it runs at, and uses no more power than it needs to for the torque it is required to produce. So even at 18mph an electric motor can be >90% efficient, whereas IC or any other piston-in-a-cylinder or turbine only really works at peak efficiency at one particular speed, usually a high one. So you start with a lossy inefficient power plant and to make it practical for ordinary speeds you add gears, clutches, differentials, throttling mechanisms, etc, all of which incur further losses. Doesn't make sense does it?

  10. Strange Definition of Alternative Fuels by Dunx · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the stated aims is to generate excitement around alternative fuels, and yet it runs on LPG.

    Very curious.

    --
    Dunx
    Converting caffeine into code since 1982
    1. Re:Strange Definition of Alternative Fuels by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1

      Yup. The cabs in Lowell, Massachusetts back in the 80s were Dodge Darts with slant-6 internal-combustion engines converted to run on LPG. It's certainly not a new fuel, and you don't need steam engines to use it.

      A conspicuous absence from the specs is a weight figure. It makes extensive use of aluminum and carbon composites, but it also carries 4 boilers, a turbine, and nitrogen-charged water tanks. I'm really curious how that balances out. If it goes 200+MPH but weighs 5000lbs then I'm not particularly interested. If it weighs 1500lbs then I'm still not sure I'm interested, but I might be.

      --
      -Rich
    2. Re:Strange Definition of Alternative Fuels by Catastrophator · · Score: 1

      I don't think the point was the age of the fuel, but the fact that it's Liquid *Petroleum* Gas i.e. a fossil fuel, which isn't very "alternative".

    3. Re:Strange Definition of Alternative Fuels by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Yes, LPG is fossil-based. The 'alternative fuel' moniker is because it's a by-product you get (free, more or less) when refining natural gas or crude oil.

    4. Re:Strange Definition of Alternative Fuels by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1

      I thought LPG was Liquid Propane Gas. You're right, but it looks like LPG usually does contain propane, mixed with butane and some other ingredients:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_g as

      It *is* an alternative to gasoline, but using it for propulsion is nothing new. And I guess it does nothing to reduce dependence on oil.

      --
      -Rich
  11. MP Power. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what're they heating the water with? Electricity? In which case it's an electrically powered car. Actually, the guys at the Steam Car Club have discovered that the best source of heat is an Member of Parliament for New Labour so at the moment they aren't quite sure whether to call it human/weasel hybrid powered, bullshit powered or just plain old 'hot-air powered'.
    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  12. Yeah! by Silverlock · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Like, totally tubular, man!

  13. inefficient... by pavera · · Score: 1

    As others have stated this thing is really inefficient. My question is, they are using these boilers to drive a turbine. Isn't this how coal fired power plants operate as well? coal heats boiler, steam drives turbine? Nuclear plants as well, just a different fuel. What about natural gas plants? I don't know, do they drive the turbine directly with a natural gas ICE? or do they heat a boiler as well?

    My point is, are all steam driven turbines this inefficient? And if so, wouldn't increasing the efficiency or recouping some of that waste heat go a long way to decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from coal? IE, if we lose that much power in the conversion from boiler to turbine, if we could reuse that waste heat, even if the waste heat recoup was only 10-15% efficient, that would double the power output for the same coal burned (since this appears to be about 15% efficient)? I'm probably wrong, but it seems to me coal and nuclear power both drive turbines with steam, and if its really that inefficient, we could double our output without increasing waste at all (nuclear waste or CO2).

    1. Re:inefficient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in Ames, IA both the college and the town have their own plant and the college reuses the steam generated for heating the entire campus. I imagine some of the town's excess heat does as well. IIRC, they're also using high temperature burners that eliminate many of the bad gasses that burning coal usually produces.

    2. Re:inefficient... by commlinx · · Score: 1

      The ineffiency comes from the steam exiting the system so most of the energy is released out the rear-end. In systems used for power generation the steam is fed back into the system and a variety of other techniques are used to avoid wasted heat so efficiency tends to me more in the 50-90% region. I assume for this application where maximum power output versus weight and size was the main goal it wasn't practical given the extra weight, complexity and cost that would add.

    3. Re:inefficient... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steam turbines are capable of a very high efficiency. The problem is that the plant needed to operate at high efficiency is very bulky, especially the condensers. So a plant which is small enough to fit into a practical vehicle cannot acheive a very high efficiency. The boilers are also bulky. Take away the boilers and the condensers, add a compressor and run the fuel and air through the turbine and you have a a gas turbine. Not as efficient, but a lot more practical for a vehicle.

      There are a lot of variations in how best to turn heat into electrical energy. Efficiency is naturally a major driver, but the nature of the fuel available will also change the choices. Probably the most efficient plants are those that use a gas turbine, followed by a heat exchanger and a steam plant. (combined cycle plant.) Sods law says that the higher you push the efficiency, the more complex and bulky the plant will become.

    4. Re:inefficient... by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      What about natural gas plants?

      Both. Some plants drive turbines directly. This is the case with plants that supplement base power generation during peaks. They start very rapidly to match demand and range in size from small emergency units to turbines the size of a small house. Others are indirect. In some cases gas is used in the same plant with coal. There are a wide variety of configurations for turning fossil fuels into electricity and gas (LPG, NG, etc.) is very flexible.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    5. Re:inefficient... by Mspangler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The smaller the steam turbine, the less efficient it is.
        If you put 9 or 10 stages in series, boost the diameter, and lower the ideal blade speed, they get much more efficient. Also, there are special low-pressure turbine designs that you can put on after the high-pressure turbines. Then you can add reheat stages, where you take out the no longer superheated, but still pretty high pressure steam, resuperheat it, then put back into the same or another turbine.

      The turbine(s) now fill a building, or the aft 1/2 of an aircraft carrier, but they do a lot better at efficiently converting energy.

      Back in the not so old days, the Navy used single stage turbines to run most pumps that were going to be on more or less continuously. They were still in the steam training plant at Great Lakes when I was there in 1976. But it turned out to be more efficient to run the steam to a turbo-generator, then use the electricity to run the pumps. The energy lost from condensing steam in all those small diameter lines was pretty bad by itself. Add in the low efficiency of a single stage turbine, and they were a lost cause.

  14. A futuristic steam-powered vehicle? by vikstar · · Score: 0

    What happens when it hits 88mph?

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    1. Re:A futuristic steam-powered vehicle? by Curate · · Score: 1

      We're gonna see some serious [STUFF]!

    2. Re:A futuristic steam-powered vehicle? by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      it allows you to travel back in time to stop you posting that joke :P

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
  15. No megawatts in TFA by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't mention megawatts at all, so that seems to be typical 'Slashdot Editorial Liberty'. However, in order to bring the water to a boil in a reasonable time, it can probably burn at a megawatt rate at startup.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:No megawatts in TFA by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The first link:

      "This is the Inspiration, the British steam powered car that is attempting to take the British and World land speed records (for steam vehicles). The car is constructed on a tubular steel chassis and holds four boilers which output a massive four megawatts."

      Now, perhaps there was a edit adding that link,
      but there it is.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  16. Oblig by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0

    "PUSH THE BUTTON, MAX!"

    shhhhhh...BOOM!!!

    "MAXXX!!!!!"

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Oblig by westlake · · Score: 1
      "PUSH THE BUTTON, MAX!"

      The Great Race [1965] I know, I know. It dates you a little to remember quotes from old movies. But what a cast: Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis, Natalie Wood, Peter Falk...

      The 1908 New York To Paris race was grand adventure in its own right:

      SOMETHING HAD changed during the running: Timid people had come to realize that a car itself was a road, in dreams, and that it might lead anywhere at all. The Longest Race

  17. Not really a steam car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This article is pointless. This is not a steam car in the conventional sense, as it does not burn coal. It would be a poor match to put a LPG vehicle against a coal-powered one for a record that has stood for a hundred years. Then again, it is an easy target for a world record, so there you go.

    1. Re:Not really a steam car. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not a steam car in the conventional sense, as it does not burn coal.

      If you think a car needs to burn coal in order to be a "Steam Car", then you're seriously out of it. Conventional steam cars burn a variety of fuels, including gasoline.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car

      Steam engines are valued for their excellent power to weight ratios, general efficiency, and greater torque capacity. They also have fewer moving parts so maintenece schedules are quite good, as long as you don't leak your working fluid. (i.e. Water) Thankfully it's quite easy to replace lost water, and can be done as part of regular maintenece. (Think: Flushing and replacing water while changing oil.)

      Or maybe you're trying to be funny. It's hard to tell. :-/
    2. Re:Not really a steam car. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be a poor match to put a LPG vehicle against a coal-powered one for a record that has stood for a hundred years.

      The heat source for a steam engine is pretty irrelevant, especially for the couple of minutes it takes for a speed record run. All you need is anything that burns and enough draft to make a big enough fire.

      Some gas turbines have been powered by an air/coal-dust mixture. That approach is hopped up enough to run a jet engine, but is still "coal-powered". Would you disqualify that as well?

    3. Re:Not really a steam car. by Nimey · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's probably just as well that we're /not/ using steam engines in our cars. Water vapor is even better as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, after all.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Not really a steam car. by Nimey · · Score: 1

      And on top of that, we've already got insufficient supplies of potable water in places. Imagine how bad it might be if we had to keep our car engines supplied with water all the time.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Not really a steam car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The water in the engine doesn't have to be potable though, so that argument is kind of weak.

    6. Re:Not really a steam car. by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Err...

      The first diesel engineered and built by Rudolf Diesel himself ran on coal as well. On an aerosol of fine suspended coal particles.

      So if we follow your logic that should not be a Deseasel, sorry diesel engine, right? Somehow that does not ring right to me.

      Further to this, the engine in this car is a turbine. A piston engine is not a match to a turbine of any description.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:Not really a steam car. by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Oh, and one more thing. IIRC the car to smash the last pre-war speed record by a very large margin (the record was 160mph or so) was electric. The petrol could not get even close at the time to either electric or steam. Funny, how things come around in circles.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:Not really a steam car. by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Steam engines are valued for their greater efficiency? As a comment on the article points out, the boilers generate 4MW of power but only 300 horsepower comes out of the engine. Apart from the stupidity of using different units, this means only about 225kW is output, so the engine is about 6% efficient.

      Or is it just that they could have built a more efficient one but wanted to go for the record above all else. But that doesn't make a great deal of sense. What's the normal efficiency you can expect from a steam engine?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    9. Re:Not really a steam car. by Woek · · Score: 1

      The car is constructed on a tubular steel chassis and holds four boilers which output a massive four megawatts. These force steam into the Curtis turbine engine which will produce 300bhp, enough to push the car to 200mph (in theory).

      Steam engines have good efficiency?... A boiler that outputs 4 Megawatts and an engine that only manages to put 0.2 Megawatts (~300bhp) to use should tell you enough. Generally, the phase change needed for boiling water costs a lot of energy which is not regained.

    10. Re:Not really a steam car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes even farther back really. Many locomotives did not burn coal either. In fact, most of the big "northern" locomotives had their grates removed after only about 3 or 4 years of service and were converted to burn bunker C fuel oil. The few in service these days now burn waste oil, which is motor oil that has been sent to be "recycled". I suppose turning it into a few billion btu of heat is close enough.

      It should also be mentioned that the doble and stanley steam cars burned first gasoline, then later kerosean (higher heat content per gallon = more mpg). The intresting thing about the dobble cars is that A. they pass todays emisions standards with flying colors, infact do far better than anything built today, B. They managed about 40mpg in a car that weighed nearly 5000lbs, C. They would push that 5000lb car to 80mph in around 4 seconds, making somewhere around 1000lb/ft of torque... and getting 40mpg all the way. The dobbles also came to working temp in about 15 seconds, using a 2 million btu flame to flash boil about 2 quarts of water. The steam car, yet another good idea killed by oil companies.

    11. Re:Not really a steam car. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      the engine is about 6% efficient.

      Ugh. That's terrible for a steam engine and suggests that they're exhausting the steam rather than recycling it in the engine. (Possibly for cooling purposes?) My only guess is that they were more worried about simplicity and torque than overall engine efficiency.

      An engine that recycles its steam gets about 30-40% efficiency as a baseline. That can increase substantially (e.g. 60%+) by using combined cycles and/or the addition of waste heat recovery technologies. That's why the majority of electric power generation today is done by Steam Turbine.
    12. Re:Not really a steam car. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Steam engines are valued for their excellent power to weight ratios,"
      Compared to what? Gas turbines have a much higher power to weight ratio as do internal combustion engines.
      "general efficiency," again compared to what? The most efficient prime movers are turbo diesels. Take a look at some of the engines that they use in modern ships they bet the daylights out of a steam.
      Diesels have replaced steam for rail roads and shipping because it is more efficient, has a higher power to weight ratio, and lower matance.
        and greater torque capacity. " Yea they are good at that.

      Steam turbines are very efficient but they are not the top of the list for power to weight or efficiency. There big win is that they are very fuel flexible the can work with solar, coal, geotheraml, or nuclear power anything that gets hot enough to boil a fluid.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:Not really a steam car. by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1
      It would probably smell really bad (worse than conventional exhaust fumes, even) if you didn't use reasonably clean water though. Smell is a rather large component of taste.

      Ever tried to clear a blocked loo with boiling water? (I have not but some students I know did. Why didn't they call their plumber apprentice friend?)

    14. Re:Not really a steam car. by Keith_Beef · · Score: 1

      [6% efficiency is] terrible for a steam engine and suggests that they're exhausting the steam rather than recycling it in the engine. (Possibly for cooling purposes?)

      Since the car is designed to just do the measured mile, it makes much more sense to let the steam escape, rather than recycle it.

      The engine is simpler and lighter, and the vehicle loses mass as it goes, making it less difficult to accelerate.

      Beef.

    15. Re:Not really a steam car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, but it should be distilled and deionized if you want to keep corrosion maintenance down. If you go with powerplant quality water for your propulsion it's actually a lot cleaner than potable.

      I'm not sure I'd want to drive a car for this record though. In addition to being hot already, I'd hate to think what could happen if any fittings broke if for some reason one were to royally screw up and roll the thing. (Hopefully they're smart enough to make the body peel off very easily, lest the driver end up like a soggy hotdog in a pressure cooker. Now there's a visualization for ya.)

      Of course if I somehow came across stupid money to throw at pet projects, I'd probably look at the Graf Zeppelin lighter than air speed record. Of course it would be a helluva lot smaller, use helium instead of hydrogen, and have some semi-rigid composite skinned envelope instead of thermite painted canvas...

  18. Win X Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about building a steam powered Lunar Lander? Oh wait...Can I?

  19. 4 MW Rock Lobster. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Motive power is from a two-stage steam turbine, fed by a boiler fired on LPG. ... The boiler section is in the centre of the car directly behind the single seat cockpit. ... with a bulkhead between the driver and the powertrain.

    Ah yes, the very important bulkhead between driver and 4MW of blue blazes and steam. Steam turbine powered craft do better on an ocean of cooling material or fixed next to a very large body of water. Launching one at 200 MPH on land is, well, crazy.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:4 MW Rock Lobster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the very important firewall between driver and 4MW of fuel-air explosions. Internal combustion engine-powered craft do better on an ocean of cooling material or fixed next to a very large body of water. Launching one at 200 MPH on land is, well, crazy. Oh, wait....

    2. Re:4 MW Rock Lobster. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the very important bulkhead between driver and 4MW of blue blazes and steam. Steam turbine powered craft do better on an ocean of cooling material or fixed next to a very large body of water. Launching one at 200 MPH on land is, well, crazy.

      And inefficient. With 4MW in and 300 bhp out, I make that out to be about 5.6% efficient. Considering that steam-powered gensets can hit 30-35% efficiency easily, and that fuel is getting increasingly rare, this reeks of bad idea.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    3. Re:4 MW Rock Lobster. by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      And inefficient. With 4MW in and 300 bhp out, I make that out to be about 5.6% efficient. Considering that steam-powered gensets can hit 30-35% efficiency easily, and that fuel is getting increasingly rare, this reeks of bad idea.
      They're trying to break a speed record. I don't think they intend to start mass producing these as a solution to the world's environmental problems. The all time land speed record was set by a vehicle that got 0.04mpg using 4.8Gal/sec of fuel. I can't find the actual efficiency, but despite the large size of the vehicle, that sounds pretty inefficient.
      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  20. 1906 speed more impressive. by stimpleton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The current record of 127.659 mph was established in 1906"

    Actually, from TFA, the accepted speed was 121.57mph over one kilometer.

    Regardless, I am very, very impressed by the above.

    With the advent of better machining, lighter materials, and vastly better bearing and bushing technology etc of today, this makes the 1906 record all the more incredible.

    I am going to make a fairly spectacular statement. This small team, in 1906, was as clever as the 14 person combined team that is doing the current days project.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by maxume · · Score: 1

      How much technological advancement has gone into better, and how much has gone into cheaper?

      Lathes are pretty straightforward and let you do some pretty fancy stuff.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...I am going to make a fairly spectacular statement. This small team, in 1906, was as clever as the 14 person combined team that is doing the current days project...."

      Why is that spectacular? Are you an American or some other nationality which automatically thinks that here and now is the best place to be?

      I had always assumed that the Industrial Revolution humans - say 1840-1880 - were far cleverer than we are. Look at the Lunar Society! Ditto for classical Greeks, around 500-200 BC. And as for the literature of the 1550-1600 period - Wow!

      For a self-proclaimed Scientific Age, we haven't produced any new physics since 1905, and precious little of any science since 1950. I think we're living in a crap cycle!

    3. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by hey! · · Score: 1

      What's really impressive is how quickly the speed record moved upward over a few short years.

      There's nothing like an infusion of brain power and capital for getting a problem solved, I guess. Hopefully, we'll see similar advances in electric vehicle technology over the next several years, now that we're near global peak oil production.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by 6031769 · · Score: 1

      we haven't produced any new physics since 1905


      Ahem:

      Quantum mechanics, general relativity, electroweak unification, superfluidity, COBE and the inflationary model, antimatter, black holes, etc. Some of which have allowed: transistors, moon landings, the web, lasers and now teleportation.

      Read Phys Rev A once in a while and you'll see that we have achieved quite a bit in the last hundred years.

      (completion of the lists above is left as an exercise to the reader :-)
      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    5. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      No new physics since 1905? Little new science since 1950? What the hell is quantum electrodymanics then? Liquid-fueled rockets? Biopolymers research gone nowhere, has it? Biochemistry, for that matter? Quantum chemistry, quantum field theories, etc.? Femtolasers?

      The list goes on and on. You're ignorant.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    6. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm....

      Quantum Theory - Plank, 1900
      Liquid-fueled Rockets - Goddard - 1920s
      Laser - Einstein in 1917, though the first working ones were in the 1950s

      You, sir are incompetent. And you don't know history. Could you be American?

    7. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem back:

      Black Hole - 18th Century
      Relativity - 1905 (which was the date picked, of course. Can't you read?)
      Superfluidity - 1937
      Electroweak unification is just part of Quantum Field theory, which was Dirac in the 1920s
      COBE is engineering - the Big Bang inflation hypothesis was in the 1920s

      Read some history of science and you will see that we have improved the engineering on quite a lot of things in the last 100 years, but we have made very few fundamental new science breakthroughs since about 1940. And all of the base physics we know stems from 1905.

      Perhaps the most recent science is genetic bio-chemistry? DNA was isolated in 1869, and Crick and Watson did their structure work in the 1950s. There have been developments since then, but no basic advance. That's why 1950 was picked as an end date in the OP.

      Why not read a proper History of Science (hint, avoid American text-books) and see what really happened? You will find that humanity was impressive before about 1950, and collapsed thereafter. Funnily enough, this mirrors the rise of American influence - I wonder if the two could be related?

    8. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Nice try.

      Quantum FIELD theories have been developed from the late '20s to the present time (QCD, for example, is still being worked on).
      Liquid-fueled rockets were developed by Goddard in the 1920s - which, you'll notice, is new physics (well, physical engineering anyway) since 1905.
      And Einstein's lasers and the ones in the 50s weren't operating on femtosecond scales. Femtochemistry is definitely new science since 1950.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    9. Re:1906 speed more impressive. by 6031769 · · Score: 1

      Relativity - 1905 (which was the date picked, of course. Can't you read?) Strangely enough, yes I can. That's why I specifically mentioned general relativity as first published by A. Einstein in 1915.

      <hutz>I rest my case</hutz>
      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
  21. I for one... by Hungus · · Score: 1, Funny

    Welcome our steam powered overlords!

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    1. Re:I for one... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      While you are welcoming them, could you ask them why Episode 2 is taking so long?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  22. Team credentials / engineering. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's interesting all the people they list at the end with their credentials. However, someone with experience at designing high capacity high pressure boilers is noteable by his absence from the list. (The heat exchangers listed in one fellow's brief biography are almost, but not quite the same thing.)
     
    One of the pictures on another page shows the water becoming superheated steam inside one of the boilers - seemingly in the last of the four boilers. Though much depends on the exact layout of the tubes in their boiler, normally superheaters are behind a wall of other tubes. It is very easy to overheat a superheater - leading to tube failure.
     
    But most interestingly - there is no steam seperator between the water tubes and the superheater. This will make it easier (trivial in fact) for a slug of water to reach the turbine if things go pear shaped.

    1. Re:Team credentials / engineering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These will not be boilers in the conventional sense, by which I mean that there will be no drums. They will be a monotube flash steam generator. This is just a coiled length of tubing heated by the burner. Water is pumped in one end and superheated steam comes out the other. Of course it is not quite as simple as that. The burner must be controlled to match demand. If the tubing gets too hot it will be damaged. Usually stainless steel tube is used these days, because it stands high temperatures well. Conversely, if the tube gets too cold, water will emerge, damaging the turbine. So it is vital to have good control over the burner, and it helps if the plant is to run at a reasonably steady load, rather than throttling up and down all the time. Another not so obvious problem is that any impurity in the water will emerge as high speed grit out of the steam end. There probably will be a steam/scale separator before the turbine to help remove any droplets of water of lumps of grit.

      This is not too hard to do, Abner Doble had most of this all worked out in the thirties. These days we could do a more sophisticated control system.

    2. Re:Team credentials / engineering. by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      It's the "Steam Car Club of Great Britain". To misquote the Bishop of Southwark, "it's what they do".

      Seriously, boiler regs in the UK are very strict, even for vehicles that will get nowhere near a public road. I'm sure that the health-and -safety police will have been all over it.

  23. Will they get Richard Hammond to drive it ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should be easy after the jet car

  24. where'd the 4 megawatts go? by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    4 megawatts is 5.2 THOUSAND horsepower. If the turbine were 28% efficient, should be over a 1,400 bhp car.

  25. Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comparing a ground based turbine set up to a mobile IC is a bit off.

    A steam plant on the ground actually spins, in the US, at a constant 60rpms when all is said done, that's how we get power at 60hz. In fact, one of the little known things about the power grid is that demand on the grid can actually "pull" on the generators, turning them into motors or slowing them down. In extreme cases, it is possible to physically damage the generator. Tales of bent shafts due to fluctuations in demand are common.

    It should be obvious from that anecdote alone, that the physical requirements for land based power stations are vastly different. I rule out natural gas as a solution right away simply because its widely known with the industry that the country screwed up in the 1990s and built too many gas peakers and quite literally burned all the natural gas in Texas. Coal is coming back into vogue because the administration is friendlier and it is so cheap. So what does a coal plant do? Coal based plants today have onsite apparatus to powderize and dry the mile long trains of coal that they burn every month. Because the coal is powderized so finely, dust is everywhere. Coal plants are not clean. Even with today's high efficiency, combustion is not perfect and neither is the water used to make the steam with. Crews must periodically bring down the boiler, get inside there, and clean it out. It is truly a dirty job that requires special, well paid people to do. I should add, as an aside, that many coal plants are so old that utilities often have machine shops of their own to make their own parts with for maintenance.

    All of this stuff weighs a lot. Automakers do a remarkable job fitting an engine and a motor / generator into a hybrid car, but I think adding a boiler would throw off the whole scheme. In order for a boiler to be really good, you need a lot of pressure, and in order to have pressure, you need a strong boiler and that means weight. Then, in addition to your fuel, you need to have a ready supply of water everywhere. If you read about the history of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, you'll see that they tried to bring steam engines into a competitive league with the diesels emerging in the 1930s, but the water was the deal breaker.

    Bottom line is, if you wanted to have a mode of transportation that has you running for fuel and water both, asks you to bring a shovel along so you can shovel your ton of fuel a week into it, and requires you to do a periodic job of scrubbing out dirty tubing, and, in an accident, may literally blow up and kill you and everyone else in your car, then steam transporation is for you.

    But I think steam power is best left to the professionals at your local energy company, and your best way to use it is with an electric car.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by kernspaltung · · Score: 1

      A steam plant on the ground actually spins, in the US, at a constant 60rpms when all is said done, that's how we get power at 60hz. Actually, US utility steam turbines usually spin at either 1800 or 3600 RPM. 60 RPM (Revolutions per MINUTE) would not yield 60 Hz (Cycles per SECOND) alternating current.
    2. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Water tube boilers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-tube_boiler heat quickly, are fairly light weight, and can be immune to catastrophic explosions by design. However, that isn't enough to overcome the many disadvantages of steam that you pointed out.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the turbines are spun at 100k (to get the efficiency from the first stage) then geared down to 3.6k RPM, no?

    4. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Not to detract from you post but it is possible, and common to have sealed system steam turbines. There is no need to replace the water in a sealed system. Water can be heated, there by converted into steam, which produces pressure which forces the steam through a turbine. When the stored energy of the steam is exchanged by the turbine it cools and re-liquifies. The most efficient systems would actually keep the steam in the turbine stages until fully condensed, an there for have 0 waste water.

    5. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, I'm NOT an electrician. However, I've heard about the 60Hz cycle having its roots in the past. But with modern forms of generation, isn't 60Hz "synthesized" in order to maintain the standard now in place?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Actually, US utility steam turbines usually spin at either 1800 or 3600 RPM. 60 RPM (Revolutions per MINUTE) would not yield 60 Hz (Cycles per SECOND) alternating current.



      That depends on how many poles the actual generator has.

    7. Re:Steam Cars Are a Tough Choice by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Ok, I'm NOT an electrician. However, I've heard about the 60Hz cycle having its roots in the past.

      An old friend, an ex-Navy sparky (aircraft carrier radio engineer) told me that 60Hz made calculations a bit easier due to something about a 360 degree phase baseline. That may have something to do with the original choice of 60Hz. No clue as to why Australia/England chose 50Hz, possibly they preferred different calcs.

      So, when I moved from the US to Australia (50Hz) I ended up with two notches in my hearing due to computer room fans, rather than one.

      Eh, what's that you say sonny? Course manouvers?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  26. My Steam Car Will Theoretically Go 210mph by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, screw you Brits! Let me know when you theoretically run your car, and then I will put up a web site to theoretically build mine.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:My Steam Car Will Theoretically Go 210mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well - just so long as you let us know when you are going to attempt to run your go at being the SECOND World Absolute Car Speed Record to go over Mach 1, and we'll come and have a laugh.

      Of course, having done it already, we have the theoretical and practical knowledge of surface-running aerodynamics at Mach-1 upwards. You don't. So Screw You back!

    2. Re:My Steam Car Will Theoretically Go 210mph by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Ah, my Steam Car is going to go Mach 2 then! You'll see! Once I raise sufficient capital, I'll even fly you over for a good Kentucky Bourbon while you witness the awesome power of my ultimate battle station... oh wait, I'm building a steam car, not a death star. Well, maybe my steam car WILL be a death star! :-)

      --
      This is my sig.
  27. Heh, exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This car reminds me of this. (WARNING. This link may be offensive!)

  28. I'd like to register a complaint.... by owlnation · · Score: 3, Funny

    As one who adores steampunk, I'm extremely disappointed to find that this car looks positively modern and computer designed.

    Of course I understand they are trying to break records and aerodynamics is a factor, but surely a few pipes, wrought iron and wood paneling wouldn't hurt too much? Fast it may be, but desirable? Nay sir, I fear this contraption is not for gentlemen.

    1. Re:I'd like to register a complaint.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would probably like the boat I am building better. Thirty feet long, built in strip plank cedar. I have built a compound twin steam engine for it, three inch and five inch bores and three inch stroke. I don't have a boiler for it yet. I hope for about ten horsepower from the plant, and a top speed of maybe 8 knots or so. Not fast, but very elegant.

    2. Re:I'd like to register a complaint.... by British · · Score: 1

      Not only that, there's no guys with handlebar mustaches, top hats, and Thomas Dolby goggles.

      Why is this a web page? Why not some French-made turn of the century poster?

  29. Coolest thing about steam cars by PenGun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Max torque ... 0 RPM. The Stanley Steamers used to be able to put one wheel on a phone pole and drive up it a few feet.

    1. Re:Coolest thing about steam cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, I can do that with my truck. Flip into low range and up I go. I can do front or rear wheel.

      My top speed is well over 100 MPH, how fast is a Stanley Steamer?

      Did I mention I have heat, air conditioning, protection from the elements, etc.?

  30. Megawatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah. I want - no, I need - 1.21 gigawatts.

  31. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next week an exciting steam powered computer competition takes place...

  32. What'd that for? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    Is this just for fun or what?
    I fear that steam technology is now a tittle bit out of the industry focus.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  33. OMG ice by Petersson · · Score: 1

    Since only pure, demineralized water can be used to produce steam, one question remains: how do I start my brand new ecological car when temperature is, let's say, -20C ? All water in the steam system must simply freeze.

    Maybe ethanol/water solution could be used as system fluid. Now that would be an automotive distillery, however the efficiency of steam cycle would surely decrease.

    --
    I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  34. 127K mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my country the dot is the thousands separator, so I first read it as "The current record of 127 thousand mph was established in 1906.", and for a couple of seconds I was like, WTF?!

  35. Why? by weinrich · · Score: 1

    Why would you do this? In an age during which we are trying to figure out how to get OUT of the business of burning fossil fuels to generate power why would someone create a competition to see who can make a car that not only burns LPG, but then takes that and converts it to steam energy, which is then converted mechanical energy. Wow! I don't think it could be any less efficient if they tried.

    Well, perhaps they could have stuck a generator on the end of the steam engine and used the resulting electricity to power a spotlight to shine onto a solar cell that runs a motor connected to pump that lifts water from a tank to the top of a water-wheel, that is then connected to the car's transmission. Although, at that point they may run into copyright issues with Goldberg, et al.

    --
    Error: .sig not found, using /etc/passwd instead
    1. Re:Why? by simong · · Score: 1

      You don't need fossil fuels to create steam, that's the point. The power unit could burn pretty much anything to heat water. I don't know much about current fuel technology where steam engines are concerned but I don't think that this car will be hauling a coal tender.

    2. Re:Why? by cbacba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A steam engine is an external combustion engine with excellent torque and pretty decent power/weight. As such it can be made less polluting and potentially more efficient than an internal combustion engine. When it comes to energy transfer from one medium to another, inefficiencies and losses occur at every step or conversion of one form to another and the steam engine can get away with fewer conversions. What's more, a steam engine only needs a heat source to provide energy for operation. One can mechanical motion directly from the thermally induced expansion - and it's possible to reduce that motion down to minimal levels while not having a transmission, unlike internal combustion engines. And, if youre worried about co2, an external combustion situation can be better controlled for capturing and sequestering carbon than could be an internal combustion situation. Also, being external combustion, it's not picky and choosy over what is burned. There is even a stirling engine which can use the same techniques on ambient air using solar energy.

  36. Marty! by tom12519 · · Score: 1

    We need to reach 188 miles per hour! But Doc, the bridge isn't finished... You're not thinking 4 dimensionally, Marty!

  37. Why do it? by marcko · · Score: 1

    Well obviously this is a bunch of guys who have a ton of experience behind them who want to do something cool with their knowledge. Wouldn't it be great to say to yourself 'what have I achieved in my life?' and be able to answer 'well I helped build a world-record winning steam powered car'.

    Forget about alternative energy this, power conversion efficiency that, the cool factor is reason enough for me.

  38. In the UK.. by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    In the UK what killed off steam vehicles was axle weight restrictions, obviously a steam car is going to be much heavier than a petrol machine.

    But these days in the UK you can drive a steam car without paying road tax, which for enthusiasts is a good thing.

    The price of steam rollers and machinery is very high now due to popularity of the hobby, there's quite a few steam rallys around.

  39. 5 megawatts by mid-may by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subject says it all. Dr. Hathaway wants it now!

  40. The 1906 stanley Rocket by number6x · · Score: 1

    The 1906 Stanley brother's Rocket didn't burn coal. Very few steam cars did. The Stanley brothers used purified kerosene.

    Today it would be called jet fuel, they just didn't have those kinds of jets in 1906. Heck the Wright brothers were still making bikes.

    So the new vehicle is LPG, the old record holder was liquid fuel.

    No coal.

  41. Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the implied sexual overtones would fit directly inline with the British sexism displayed by references to "Lady Driver" as opposed to men simply being labeled "Driver." I didn't realize the UK had anachronistic views of gender within sciency-geek realms.

  42. British? Steam? by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
    With four boilers that means you can enjoy four different pots of tea while driving 200mph.


    Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. Engage.

  43. Any record is a respectable effort. by peterpi · · Score: 1

    TFWiredA states that "Britain has no official record, so just by turning up they win."

    It's not exactly that easy. In order to claim a British record, they'll have to undergo all sorts of safety checks, do the runs under recorded conditions in the presence of an official timer, probably turn the car round and do another run the other way. It's not as simple as just claiming a record.

    Unfortunately, it's so much of a faff that I doubt they'll bother. Similarly, the JCB Dieselmax broke the British diesel speed record while testing at RAF Wittering, but it wasn't an official attempt and so the run was not recognised.

  44. 1.21 jigawatts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bump that up to 1.21 jigawatts and time travel is possible.

  45. Steam car at Indianapolis in 1980s? by aqk · · Score: 1

    Am I just dreaming of electric sheep, or was there some Steam-powered car set to run at Indianapolis several years ago?

      It was designed by Bill Lear of Learjet fame, I think.

        Whatever became of that? If it ran, it certainly must have broken that 1906 record...

  46. Short answer. No it's not sythesized. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    BTW an electrician would be the last person you'd want to ask this question, you'd get a dumb stare.

    60Hz is designed into the rotating generator (really alternator), if has to do with the number of lobes on the stator and the RPM of the machine.

    IIRC (my BSEE is 20 years old) Generally

    RPS * number of lobes / 3 (for 3 phase generation) = Hz

    They maintain fine control on the biggest generators, the little ones just synch up automagically thanks the Maxwell.

    It's when you get large imaginary components in the power factor (current is out of phase with voltage) that things get really ugly/interesting. Even more interesting is when the three phases of power are doing different ugly things at the same time. My eye is starting to twitch as I'm remember more of my power course then I intended.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  47. 50%? by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    50%? you got a cite for that? Warships were lucky to hit 18% in the same time-frame, and they had a lot more space to fit condensers and feedwater heaters and so on. Even today few stationary coal fired plants exceed 42%. Materials technology at the time prevented use of steam at much above 400 psi, from memory.

  48. The Brits are getting tired of this.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We took the Land Speed record from you back in 1983. And waited for your turn to up it......

    When you didn't, we upped it again - this time to supersonic. And you still didn't reply.......

    So now we took the Electric speed record. And then we took the Diesel speed record. And still you didn't reply........

    Now we're going to take the Steam speed record. What is it with you guys? We're running out of records to take from you. Please put up some more so we can knock them down!!