US Team Seeks To Top Steam-Car Speed Record

Zothecula writes "Steam-engined vehicles are quaint, retro and obsolete ... right? Well, maybe not. The current land speed record for a steam-powered vehicle currently sits at 148 mph (238 km/h), set by the British car Inspiration team in 2009. Now, Chuk Williams' US Land Steam Record (USLSR) Team is hoping to steal that title in its LSR Streamliner, powered by a heat-regenerative external combustion Cyclone engine – an engine that could someday find common use in production automobiles."

Comments

240 km in THAT thing?

[Rinnon]

You couldn't pay me to take that... thing up to 240 km an hour. It looks like a metal coffin on wheels.

Re:240 km in THAT thing?

[captain_dope_pants]

Seconded ! I'm sure the guys know what they're doing but it seems to have a very narrow track (distance between wheels when viewed from the front). It looks kinda unstable. If any car geometrists (?!) can explain why it will, in fact, be stable I'd be interested.

Re:240 km in THAT thing?

[theSender]

Well they wanted a low drag shape, and with as narrow as it is there should be no problem burying it and the driver in the same hole. Could be even worse like a motor bike, no safety cage whatsoever.

Re:240 km in THAT thing?

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

Speed Record Cars like this are usually build to run in a straight line on a salt flat. If you don't have wind from the side, there is no need for much stability. Building the car as narrow as possible reduces the area exposed to the wind and thus reduces drag.

Now if you try do drive that thing on a regular road, you'd probably not survive the first turn.

Re:240 km in THAT thing?

[mcrbids]

Even so, just adding another foot or two on each side would make a *lot* of difference in stability. As it is, the width/height ratio is vanishingly small, and at the speeds involved, this just looks like a thrilling way to die!

Re:240 km in THAT thing?

[DavidFox]

True True!.

Anyone?

[Cant use a slash wtf]

US(L)SR

Making Steam uses up Water

[For a Free Internet]

Steam is burned water, a limited naturil resorse that should not be frittered away by greedy car owners. Water beloongs to all of us to share so don't waste it, ride a bike you stupid dickface!

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[Dunbal]

The horror! Most bikes come with water bottles and since the bike's engine (ie you) consumes water, you are also "wasting" precious water.

PS - ever heard of the WATER cycle? How about conservation of matter? You think all the water just disappears off the face of the Earth?

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[Merk42]

The less water the better! You know how many deaths per year are attributed to water?

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[kent_eh]

What!?!?!
You want to conserve the stuff? It's dangerous!!
Take a look here.
We should be calling for the banning of it all together.

But if this type of engine can produce useful energy while safely incinerating what you claim as a "limited naturil resorse" , then I'm all for it.

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[GodfatherofSoul]

I don't know what's funnier, this post or the people trying to correct him.

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[sjames]

Oh boy! Here comes that speech about fluoride, vodka and precious bodily fluids again!

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[Rabbidous]

From TFA: The steam engine used (in its commercial version) is closed-loop- it doesn't consume water, but recycles it by condensing it and reheating. On the other hand, because the speed attempt is short distance, the removed the condenser (I assume to save weight and allow for higher steam flow rates).

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[An ominous Cow art]

And what if there's a collision, or an accident, and the steam reservoir breaks open? Dangerous dihydrogen monoxide could make its way into the water table!

Re:Making Steam uses up Water

[tabrnaker]

Now, now, it's not nice to make fun of the autists.

Waste Heat Engine

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

The Cyclone engine may be grat as a waste heat engine, i.e. to convert process heat back to some more useful type of energy. I doubt it's really usefull as primary engine, because converting fuel to heat and then heat to motion does not really sound more efficient than your usual internal combustion engine. And the main advantage "can burn all kind of alternative fuels"? Come on, I can do that with my diesel engine already. Increasing the efficiency of a car with a internal combustion/steam engine hybrid by using the waste heat of a combustion engine to gain some additional power could be a much better idea.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[sznupi]

The way physics, thermodynamics (a bitch...), Carnot cycle works - it won't give much. Might harm things (added weight, etc.). There's a reason that's a waste heat.

But who knows, steam itself might partly return...

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

Well, the main reasons why otto and diesel engines don't reach the theoretical maximum efficiency of the otto or diesel cycle is that they lose energy to the cooling medium. If you could use some of that heat, you might close the gap between the theoretical maximum efficiency and the practical efficiency. The added weight will of course reduce the gain, but it still might be greater than zero.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[sznupi]

Uhm...no, it's because practical implementations have limits (nvm general imperfections of the real world - the major thing for Otto are properties of fuel / octane number; for Diesel - materials of the engine). Cooling medium, efficient disposal of waste heat is required for the cycles to work!

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[7-Vodka]

Well, if you look at what they are claiming to have already achieved, it's pretty good.

Sure, the Carnot equations do predict that they have a lower theoretical maximum efficiency 1- dT/Th, however, they seem to make up for that in the following ways:

1. more efficient combustion process
2. recycling waste heat, not work heat, to get more heat to do work. (ie the heat that gets exhausted without going through the system)
3. making use of the lower Th to use lighter materials and better design. The videos shows the kind of materials they use are much cheaper looking and lighter for example
4. more useable tq and tq/vol ratio
5. they might be able to drop transmissions, oil, other added weight
6. They could probably harness heat off the brakes
7. much cleaner and more flexible engine with a closed loop Rankine design
8. They could end up with less maintenace and cost per maintenance too by the looks of it
9. Their exhaust temps seem just about right to think about heating the cabin as a final efficiency boost in the winter too

So, they give up some theoretical max efficiency to get a whole bunch of nice trade offs, and from the numbers they allege, those trade offs come back in terms of real world efficiency as well.

It seems worth more investigation before writing it off.. Plus, it looks like a Mr. Fusion.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[hcpxvi]

"But who knows, steam itself might partly return... [via the proposed 5AT]"
To some extent it already has, with the arrival of A1 Pacific N0. 60163 I saw this start off from Edinburgh Waverley a few months ago; the experience left me blubbing like a girl and temporarily rather deaf.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[sznupi]

But they don't do that on top of another engine which already tries to optimize the hell out of its cycle. It would compromise efficiency of the former stage, weight of its cooler (BTW, heating the cabin in the winter is when the cooling works at its best...), et al.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[sznupi]

I've heard about it - but it would have to be a more regular service IMHO ... something which is the case near my place! (rather old engines of course) Might be useful, considering their relatively very wide requirements for the type of fuel.

(seriously, completely regular (of "lowest", regional class even) services few times a day; I had a ride on one of those trains not thanks to planning it - but because I wanted to commute a short distance on some random time and day)

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[d3ac0n]

As a Steam enthusiast I can add that while your statements are technically correct, in a more practical sense they are not. What do I mean? Allow me to explain;

While Steam engines, being external combustion engines, can technically burn just about anything, in order to make burning low grade fuels such as soft and green woods, dung bricks and garbage useful, you need a very large and well aerated grate in a boiler designed to handle those kinds of fuels. More specifically, you need a very large boiler with a gigantic grate and an easily cleaned and serviced heating surface. You can see an examples of low grade fuel burning boilers over here: www.tinytechindia.com The boiler pictured is the smallest they make with 54sq feet of grate area. That's about as large as the back of your average small pickup truck.

Most steam boilers, particularly the more modern designs (such as the one in TFA) have very tightly packed and not easily serviced tube arrangements. This means that one must avoid "sooting" the tubes with low grade fuels that don't burn cleanly as soot and creosote buildup on the tubes causes loss of efficiency and can cause tube failure. Thus one must use cleaner burning fuels such as high-density hardwoods, low sulfur coal, steam atomized oil, propane or Nat Gas. In an automobile application one is pretty much restricted to the liquid fuels, so you are back to using hydrocarbon fuels for heating.

Sadly, even the most efficient steam engine cannot compare in efficiency to even the LEAST efficient gas or diesel engine. The absolute best one could expect to get from a conventional steam engine plant is about 15% efficiency, with most ones in existence (primarily small Hobby sized ones in boats) running at around 7% efficiency. A specialized high-tech plant like this one probably runs at a real-world efficiency of about 25%. That's not bad, but nothing compared to the 50% efficiency of an 80 year old V8 from a 1940's Ford. I'm sorry, but Steam power won't make a true comeback until hydrocarbon options are simply too expensive to use anymore, or we have a global socio-economic collapse requiring a "rebuilding" period.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE steam. But I'm also realistic about it's capabilities and applicability. Maybe this engine design is good enough to get over that hump. I guess we'll see.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[Waffle Iron]

That's not bad, but nothing compared to the 50% efficiency of an 80 year old V8 from a 1940's Ford.

I suggest you recheck your facts. Thermodynamic efficiencies above 50% are in the realm of modern combined-cycle gas+steam turbine power plants, or gargantuan low-speed diesel engines (with cylinder bores that can exceed 36 inches) in big ships. I doubt that a flat head V8 from the 1940s even approaches 20%.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[operagost]

Yeah, but show me the little 6-cylinder gas engine that can get 850 LB/FT OF TORQUE like this baby can! You could pull out tree stumps in between runs on the drag strip.
Jay Leno describes driving his Doble steam car as like "being pushed by the hand of God." *

* No atheist trolls, please. I'm sure your mom is proud of you already.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[DarthBling]

Crower has your internal combustion/stream engine....

Crower six stroke

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[Will.Woodhull]

The physics is undoubtedly good for a one-off run, but it is the chemistry that will determine whether steam engines can be brought to market.

The physics are limited by Carnot equations, but current automobiles perform well below the theoretical limits. Steam engines have effective torques at very low RPMs and have much higher limits on RPMs than ICEs: they can come a lot closer to the theoretical limits. They also reduce the need for a complicated, and heavy, transmission. The power band is, IIRC, very similar to electric motors.

But the problem is the chemistry of water, which is not even touched upon in this story. Water, when put under high temperature and pressure, is THE universal solvent. To make heating coils that will survive long enough to be economical requires some pretty fancy metallurgy. Almost certainly too expensive for the market. And the standard automotive engine that is being used in this race car will be destroyed very quickly. It will be interesting to see what the initial point of failure will be. I'm guessing the piston rings will seize before the valves fail.

As much as I am fan of steampunk like this, I really doubt that there is any future for an automotive reciprocating steam engine.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[damnfuct]

Mostly, this post is good input, but I would argue a couple things.

First, that steam turbines are actually pretty decent in terms of real efficiency (you may have been referring to the piston-type engines). It's something something similar to high-efficiency diesel engines.

Second, that a 1940s V8 is far from 50% efficiency. From what I could dig up, these engines have a compression ratio of somewhere between 4:1 and 7:1, which is truly dismal in terms of thermodynamic efficiency (which is related to compression ratio). Diesel engines are nice in terms of efficiency because of the high running compression ratios it can achieve (14:1 and higher).

Last, I just want to add that the downside of steam power is that a boiler is a (typically heavy) pressure vessel, water is also pretty damn heavy, and a ruptured boiler is really dangerous; this is probably why steam will never catch on in anything but things that don't move, or things that are extremely large and it's a wonder that they move at all (like a ship or something).

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[scharkalvin]

You can't burn ANY fuel in a Diesel engine. If the certane rating of the fuel is too far off you will destroy the engine (try putting gasoline in a diesel and STAND BACK!). In theory you could make a piston engine that would burn any fuel, but you'd need to dynamicly adjust valve, injection, and ignition (for some fuel modes) timing and have a fuel sensor to figure it all out.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[operagost]

Your Corolla would go about 5 MPH in first gear. With that kind of logic, I would be surprised if you could find the oil dipstick in your car.

Re:Waste Heat Engine

[WorBlux]

It isn't efficiency that killed the steam engine, but power/weight. A heat engine such as a sterling can achieve near ideal efficiencies. (It's simply impossible to get any more efficient) It's really quite easy to build a reasonable 30-40 horsepower steam engine that can beat the same power Otto cycle engine any day, It's much easier to maintain, uses less fuel, without too much extra weight or size.

Some people have designed a 6-stroke engine that combines the Otto cycle, with a 2-stroke steam cycle to use wast heat. There's also turbines that can burn many types of fuel, are very efficient, and have very high power/weight ratios. However they have practically no torque so they much be combined with electric drive trains, and are inefficient at slow speeds to there needs to be a battery storage system, however in well to wheel efficiency it's hard to beat. (If you ignore the resources to make the battery, generator and motor.

external combustion?

[shish]

external combustion engine

This can only end well.

Re:external combustion?

[sznupi]

All steam engines are - the working medium is heated by external energy source.

Re:external combustion?

[necro81]

There are all kinds of external combustion engines out there. External combustion means that you have a heat source (a boiler, burner, etc.) that heats up some working fluid (often steam), and the working fluid performs useful work as it expands and cools. Every coal- and oil-fired electrical generation plant is a kind of an external combustor. Nuclear stretches the semantics a bit, because the heat doesn't come from combustion per se. Some natural gas plants are, too, though the preferred architecture these days is combined cycle. Stirling engines are another external combustor. The "external" in this case means that the combustion is happening outside of the mechanical workings.

External combustion has the significant advantage that it doesn't really matter where the heat comes from. Boilers are tuned to work with a specific fuel, and can be further tuned to work on a specific grade of a specific fuel. But beyond that, all the rest of the infrastructure can be input-agnostic: all you need is heat. Contrast this to the internal combustion engine, which is very heavily tuned to its fuel source. Diesels tend to be a bit more forgiving, and modern engine controls allow for a wider efficient operating range, but you would destroy a typical gasoline ICE if you accidentally gave it diesel.

Re:external combustion?

[matfud]

Yes you will destroy a gas engine if you put diesel in it. I know someone who did just that. She must have had a fair bit of petrol in the tank when she refilled the car as it ran for some time before breaking. Very expensive to get the tank drained and the engine fixed. And her face when trying to explain it.

Re:external combustion?

[matfud]

Actually that is the wrong way around. She put gas into a diesel. The same effect though. Little fuel injected tubo diesels are quite highly tuned and though they may run bio diesel they do not like petrol. Must of been that way around as in the UK you cannot put diesel into a gas car.

Re:external combustion?

[name_already_taken]

but you would destroy a typical gasoline ICE if you accidentally gave it diesel.

No, you wouldn't.

If there were a fair amount of petrol/gasoline mixed with the diesel fuel, the engine would run poorly and would produce a lot of smoke, but it would not be destroyed. Catalytic converters and oxygen sensors could be destroyed if the engine is run that way for more than a few minutes. If the engine ran smoothly, there would be a higher propensity for combustion knock due to the diesel fuel lowering the octane value of the mixture, but mechanical damage is unlikely.

An engine designed for petrol/gasoline would not start on straight diesel. It doesn't atomize well enough at the low injection pressures seen in gasoline fuel injection systems.

How do I know? I know the manager of a fleet of vehicles and have heard about just about every combination of wrong-fuel-in-the-tank.

A diesel engine run on gasoline would destroy the injection pump and injectors, because those high-pressure parts are normally lubricated by the fuel and gasoline is a terrible lubricant.

Re:external combustion?

[Red Flayer]

Very expensive to get the tank drained and the engine fixed. And her face when trying to explain it.

Her face was very expensive to get fixed after trying to explain it?

What, was it her abusive husband's car?

OK

[Dexter Herbivore]

Cue car analogies in 3... 2... 1...

Re:OK

[damnfuct]

[static]

Radiators

[jamesl]

The fatal flaw in portable/mobile steam applications to date has been the need for large radiators (really really large radiators) to cool the steam, converting it back to water to complete the cycle. I see no magic fairy dust in this device that solves that problem.

The alternative is to carry enough water to run the engine without recycling and eliminate the condensers. And that's a lot of water.

Re:Radiators

[mangu]

There were a few condensing steam locomotives built. I don't know why they weren't more common, surely a train has space enough to fit a condenser there and stopping to get water must have been a PITA.

In the 1960s Bill Lear a very prolific inventor started working on steam cars. By then Lear had already a number of important inventions to his name, among them the car radio (he created the name "Motorola") and the business jet plane (Lear Jet).

He claimed to have the condenser problem solved by 1969, using an advanced accordion-shaped radiator, but nothing came of his steam car plans. I remember seeing an article on Popular Science mentioning he had a steam turbine bus prototype.

He also had plans for a steam powered race car to run the Indy 500. This car would use a delta-shaped engine, inspired by the Napier Deltic

Re:Radiators

[Dunbal]

Because it was much easier to scoop up water from a trough every so often than to condense water (which added to the complexity). A train has a hell of a lot of momentum. Putting out a scoop to refill every so often will not slow it down at all...

Re:Radiators

[jamesl]

And not a very good old hat. For the few that were in service, "The system was intended to reduce the problems of getting enough water to steam locomotives running through desert and very arid areas."
(from your link)
Carrying lots of water was a better solution for most railroad applications.

Re:Radiators

[necro81]

If you had read TFA, you would have seen that for this speed run they are skipping to regenerator: it's large, heavy, and bulky, and for a sprint run of a few minutes they don't need it.

Re:Radiators

[jamesl]

Your link explains why condensing steam locomotives weren't popular.
"Spent steam is fed through the thick pipe on the locomotive's left side to the condensing tender, where five steam turbine driven fans in the roof blows air down through the radiators on each side of the tender ... The Class 25 was a complex locomotive that required high maintenance ... The equally complex tender also required frequent maintenance."

Re: Bill Lear -- don't forget the eight track tape.
His other secret was Learium, a magic fluid that expanded more than water when heated/vaporized. The potential of Learium was never realized and the secret never revealed.
It turned out that he didn't have the condenser problem solved which is just one of the many reasons that his steam cars and busses never reached production.

Re:Radiators

[Anonymous Coward]

Condensing Steam locos were often used in Underground Railways where the exhaust from the locos was a problem.
Since the majority of what comes out of the chimney is Water Vapour (aka Steam) capturing it is a good idea.
One issue that you face is that putting a pipe over the top of the chimney completely changes the drafting of the fire.
The Smokebox in a steam loco is at a lower pressure than the outside. This is caused by the steam exhating from the cylinders is jetted out up the chimney using a device called a Blast Pipe. Klychap(sp) towards the end of the Steam era vastly improved the design of the blast pipe.
This jet of steam pulls air with it this causing air to be drawn into the smokebox. The only place this can come from is through the steam tubes and thus the fire. As everyone knows, a goot draft of air is needed to make a fire burn well.

Back in 1975 I attempted to turn my 5in Gauge GWR 96xx 0-6-0 Panier Tank loco into a condensing loco. This was the type that ran on the London Underground. Boy did it mess up its steaming capability. I has to modify the Blast Pipe considerably as well as remove two of the four superheater tubes.

Re:Radiators

[maxume]

The 1920s Doble steam car at least approached practicality:

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/at-the-garage/steam-cars/1925-doble-series-e-steam-car/

(but maybe that 1500 mile range comes with a 30 mph average speed...)

Re:Radiators

[d3ac0n]

Except that most steam engines didn't refill by "scoop". They refilled from the TOP via a water tower. They would come to a stop under the tower, the engineer would open the input cap on the hot-well or make-up tank, and a large pipe on a swing-arm would be positioned over the opening. A lever was pulled and gravity would drain the water down into the tank.

The reason that more steam engines weren't condensing is because air-condensers are notoriously inefficient. You simply couldn't make them large enough to condense the water fast enough to supply a large engine. Eventually you would start getting steam back into the hot-well, and it would cause all sorts of problems. It was simply easier and more efficient to set up water-refilling stations all along the track that were refilled from local sources or via "water trains" that were sent along to the drier outposts.

Re:Radiators

[jamesl]

I read TFA and noted that they are not using the regenerator. I also went to the company's website where they say, "From garden equipment and generators to cars, trucks, trains and ships, we see a day when our planet will be powered in a sustainable manner by just One Engine -- the Cyclone Engine."

Ships are the only application where condensing will not be a problem due to the quantity of cooling water available.

They also state that one of the things their engine will not require in automotive applications is a radiator.

Further from their web site, "Steam escapes the cylinders through exhaust ports and ... enters the patent-pending condensing unit where it turns back into water, and ... collects in a sealed pan at the bottom of the condenser. Note, this is a closed-loop system -- the water does not need to be replaced or topped-off. ... Blowers spin fresh air around the condenser to speed the cooling process."

No mention of why the condenser is so effective -- certainly an important part of their secret sauce.

Re:Radiators

[GiveBenADollar]

Condensing steam engines didn't catch on because there was already and infrastructure for refilling water, condensing locomotives were more expensive, and there was also the potential problem of oil in the condensate (which leads to boiler fouling). By the time the benefits started outweighing the costs we had diesel locomotives. Look at Stanley Steamers if you want more information on steam powered cars, at least one of the models was condensing.

Re:Radiators

[GiveBenADollar]

Some steam engines did refill by scoop. There was a long water trough that the engine would go by with its scoop out and pick up what it needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive#Condensers_and_water_re-supply There were also engines that could only refill at water towers.

Re:Radiators

[dogsbreath]

Except that most steam engines didn't refill by "scoop". They refilled from the TOP via a water tower.

Although you are correct that most did not use a "scoop", replenishing water by this method was well known and not uncommon on main lines where there was a competitive desire to reduce transit times. Look up "track pans" for US references.

For an absolutely smashing discussion of scoops see http://jimquest.com/writ/trains/pans/scoop2.htm.

"Scoop" accidents could be deadly; imagine a steamer running full tilt and the scoop drops out or catches on something it shouldn't. Nasty.

*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[mangu]

And the main advantage "can burn all kind of alternative fuels"? Come on, I can do that with my diesel engine already

I'd like to see what sawdust, wood chips, grass clippings or charcoal would do to your diesel engine. Even liquid fuels will not work if they are high-octane, like ethanol. Diesel engines require liquid fuel at a certain cetane number range.

A steam engine, OTOH, has basically a single requirement for fuel: it must burn without damaging the boiler.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

A practical steam engine fuel has at least the requirements:
- high energy density (you don't want a tender full of grass clippings behind your car)
- maintenance free fuelling the burning chamber (you don't want to shovel coal)
- clean, low emission burn

So basically, you have to process most of your example fuels anyways to be useful. Processing them to anything a conventional diesel engine (or, if you really like ethanol, otto engine) can burn is not a significant loss of efficiency.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[damnfuct]

A garbage-to-oil process would solve a lot of these issues (thermal depolymerisation, perhaps), and then you can use whatever kind of engine you want; though, whether you can do it in a manner that is cost-effective is always the issue with this kind of thing.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Actually a steam engine has two additional advantages. One is that it is essentially a hybrid for free. If a computer system (either carbon or silicon based) controlled the rate of fuel flow, then the engine could end up not using any energy while idling, which is the main benefit of a hybrid. No expensive batteries to wear out, just some code. The second is that the car is clean in terms of particulate, NOx, and hydrocarbon emissions. AFAIK steam car from 1915 meets 2025 California emissions standards.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yes, that's a mild hybrid. I should have said that the its not just idling but also lower speed power, which is why the prius is so efficient. I think the prius drive train is better than the insight's, but since the insight is so small and light it gets better MPG. In fact, some modders put a VTEC civic engine in the insight and got 48 mpg. The modern insight and the CR-Z all have the same IMA mild hybrid system.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[Phoghat]

I wonder about all the interest in the anachronistic steam engine when the contemporary Stirling Engine was ignored

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Zero energy use while standing still?

Zero energy use while standing still from the engine. Sure energy is lost by the boiler and from the pipes, but not in needlessly moving the piston(s).

Zero pollution? Coal burning electricity plants have filter stacks on their chimneys that cost many millions, because burning coal is bloody dirty. Biomass can be even worse (if it's wet).

That's why steam cars burned oils, like kerosene. My steam system would work like this:

1. Grow algae using waste water
2. Crush it
3. Put algae oil in car
4. Gasify the non-oil parts of the algae to heat and power house (with steam)
5. Put ashes back into algae tanks

However, steam is 40% despite the lower temperatures. You can basically burn stuff at 100 C to get efficiencies that diesel engines get. So you don't need tons of NOx to get high efficiency. Catalytic converters are expensive, subject to obnoxious regulations, and full of rare materials.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[WorBlux]

There are all the parts of this needed in place. There are already companies burning syngas generated from trash to create power. There are companies in the experimental stage converting biogas into methanol and ethanol/ and long chain hydrocarbons.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[WorBlux]

Regular engines are about 20% efficient.

Re:*ALL* kind of alternative fuels?

[WorBlux]

Weight, for any sort of real power you need to lug around a huge heat exchanger. Regenerators don't work as well with high volumes, and ideal cycle assumes an isothermic stage, which just doesn't happen when you scale up. (both in temperature differentials, and total heat)

Next 50 years is about efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that the internal combustion engine won out over external combustion engines in the last 50 years is its ability to instantly deliver the power on demand. But now with fuel prices going north we are going to need to start looking at efficiency of the engines we use and that's where external combustion engines win out. We are going to probably going to see a internal combustion engine that runs until the other engine gets up to speed. It will most likely be a Stirling engine with its flywheel as a rotating stator for a generator.

Re:Next 50 years is about efficiency

[damnfuct]

In comparison to a gasoline piston engine, gas turbines are more efficient and smaller. In the 60s, Chrysler tried making cars with gas turbines, but went the "direct drive" route (which isn't fitting for the "stop and go" type of city driving); it didn't work out too well. Now that we have computer controllers and electric-drive cars, a (truly) small gas-turbine could be connected to a generator to charge batteries and/or drive electric motors of modern cars. This type of engine is arguably more fitting for a hybrid, and is able to be configured to run a wider selection of fuels.

Century of progress

[boustrophedon]

The 2009 records by Inspiration were the first beat the 1906 record of 127 mph (204 km/hr) set by Fred Marriott driving a modified Stanley Steamer.

Re:Century of progress

[hackingbear]

The 2009 records by Inspiration [gizmag.com] were the first beat the 1906 record of 127 mph (204 km/hr)

I called what I called a 'Sputnik moment' for US! We must defeat the brits and take back the honor of being the greatest nation! We will fix our edukation!!!

They'd better hurry

[Cytotoxic]

From the links at the bottom of TFA, the British team already has a body on their 200mph steam car. Looks a lot cooler too.

Re:They'd better hurry

[Plekto]

And that's how you know that the one in the article is fake. I can spot half a dozen problems from the picture alone, from the heavy gauge steel frame to the geometry and (well, the list is very long). It looks like something cobbled together in a garage by people who don't know how to do proper design.(at least use aluminum tubing to keep the weight down, fools) The British team, though, it looks like a proper purpose-built vehicle.

http://www.steamcar.co.uk/
Interesting reading.

Note - I do wish someone here at Slashdot would filter some of the articles for common sense and scientific validity. A lot of rubbish is getting through lately.

Re:Steam cars will never be practical mainstream

[kent_eh]

I guess it could use an ethylene glycol / water mix instead of pure water in it's steam loop?

It wouldn't freeze (at least at normal Canadian winter temperatures) but the different boiling point may cause some (probably not insurmountable) effects.

Re:Steam cars will never be practical mainstream

[BattleApple]

a tank of boiling water isn't going to turn into a block of ice in a few minutes, and a small battery powered heater could keep it from freezing overnight

Re:Steam cars will never be practical mainstream

[damnfuct]

If you're trying to maintain an constant temperature, all you have to do is add in the same amount of heat that is being lost to the environment. The better the tank is insulated, the less heat loss, and the less input required.

I can biold a faster one.

[geekoid]

A simple nuclear reactor system similar to what is used in submarine could easily beat the record.

Re:Steam cars will never be practical mainstream

[geekoid]

All you have illustrated an engineering problem. An easily solvable one at that. Not that I think steam engines will ever be mainstream, but your reasoning is simple minded.

Embarrassing 2009 effort.

[Animats]

The 2009 effort was embarrassing. They built a low-slung vehicle powered by a steam turbine, designed to travel only in a straight line, and took it to the Bonneville Salt Flats. And they went 148mph.

That's pathetic. A sizable number of street-legal cars and motorcycles can do that. All Indy, F1, and NASCAR cars can do far better. The current land speed record for a wheel-driven vehicle is 416mph. (Jet cars running on wheels have exceeded Mach 1, but those are really aircraft flying at a very low altitude.)

Origin of the term "Cars" and steam revealed!

[Invisible Now]

My ancestor Dr JW Carhart is often credited with building and using the first automobile in Wisconsin in 1871. He actually used his 1,100 pound horseless buggy as a circuit-riding Methodist minister (he was also a medical doctor and physics professor). Some claim he won a $10,000 priize in the first organized steam powered race in 1878. His two cylindered coal fired "Car" covered 201 miles in a loop, starting and returning to Green Bay in 33 hours 27 minutes: exactly 6 smoking miles per hour.

good post

[rainbow9898]

I was very encouraged to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it and I have bookmarked you to check out new stuff you post. escorts services delhi

Re:Steam cars will never be practical mainstream

[eyegor]

I'd be concerned about "gumming up the works" with the glycol. Try taking a few drops of coolant from your car sometime and rub it between your fingers for a while. They'll eventually be coated with the glycol residue and will be pretty sticky. Water steam under pressure is VERY hot and I'd be concerned that the glycol would gum everything up that same residue.

Bringing a steam turbine online would be a pretty slow process and not well suited for quick trips to the store.