Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm thinking electric/fuel cell powered cars are the evolved steam car. Steam was a bridge-technology that was replaced by electric and diesel engines that produced more power, more efficiency, refueled faster, and are generally much safer. Fuel is needed to heat water into steam, the steam and emissions would mix to create a slurry of vapored soot, and the dangers of an explosion due to pressurization makes the steam engine less favorable. The internal combustion engine is quite impressive given it's smaller size, lighter weight, and efficiency. I'd say electric and fuel cells are even more impressive.
It is fascinating to see how many commenters pointed out the industries and economic machine that was created by the private car and fossil fuel industry. They're right and it will be interesting to see how the economy and industry adjusts to more efficiency, renewable, and localized energy.
Let's be real the planet is already too doomed to change for ****, may as well speed up human extinction by letting all our air pollution take us, if we weren't so scared of the death today we would still be driving cars made before safety and emission regulations kicked in!
****? You complain about us going into "human extinction" and then wonder "where steam cars would be today"....
We would be walking and using mule drawn creatures living in mud homes and no electricity... It would be back to the stone age and there would be no overcrowding because humans would be passing away at the average age of 36...
Steam? well, let's think about it...
Very few "condensing steam engines" were ever built. Instead of venting used steam to the atmosphere, they condensed it and sent the water back to the boiler to be boiled again. Yes, some "make-up" water had to be added now and then.
Power? For many years, a certain railroad kept a huge steam locomotive fired up and ready to go to push the diesel electric powered trains over a steep grade in Colorado. Google it.
Innovation? Bill Lear, the inventor of the 8 track tape cartridge and the Lear Jet had a low temperature closed cycle vapor engine under development. It did not use water. When he died, he had one or more of those engines in trucks and/or buses. Nobody continued the development after his death. Could a condensing vapor cycle engine be built today? Probably, but it likely will never happen.
****? You complain about us going into "human extinction" and then wonder "where steam cars would be today"....
We would be walking and using mule drawn creatures living in mud homes and no electricity... It would be back to the stone age and there would be no overcrowding because humans would be passing away at the average age of 36...
Keep in mind that the "average age of 36" was severely skewed by infant and childhood mortality. those who lucked out and lived into adulthood often reached advanced age!
When you have 100 people, and 25% die before they are 12, 25% die due to accidents, 25% die due to disease, and 25% live well into their 70s, what is the "average life expectancy"?
No, the numbers are not accurate. They are for descriptive purposes only.
Tree huggers are control freaks. They're just a subset of the many control freaks out there. Cure one complaint and they'll find something else to complain about.
Conservative = When in doubt, blame liberals
It's all about money,
nobody is going to build a car that doesn't use gasoline = $$$ unless they find a way to make the same amount of money with any other option.
There are answers to all your questions if you will just take the trouble to search on the Internet.
Lear's steam car was a scam. He didn't have anything to replace water, although he said he did.
Steam cars used fuel. They did not "burn" water.
The Stanley Steamer got 5 mpg on kerosene and 5 mpg on water. Steam engines are inefficient. That's why they are not used in ocean-going ships anymore. Or cars.
The SAAB engineers designed a boiler the size of a car battery. They couldn't get the fuel economy into an acceptable range.
There are answers to all your questions if you will just take the trouble to search on the Internet.
Lear's steam car was a scam. He didn't have anything to replace water, although he said he did.
Steam cars used fuel. They did not "burn" water.
The Stanley Steamer got 5 mpg on kerosene and 5 mpg on water. Steam engines are inefficient. That's why they are not used in ocean-going ships anymore. Or cars.
The SAAB engineers designed a boiler the size of a car battery. They couldn't get the fuel economy into an acceptable range.
Well, all that science and engineering stuff is just your opinion, anyway. My opinion is just as valid as yours even though I don't know that you have to use fuel to turn water into steam. It's obvious that there was a conspiracy to deprive us of the benefits of steam cars.
Steam engines lost out to gasoline for economic reasons, not necessarily engineering concerns, a century ago. Gasoline was a WASTE PRODUCT of the cracking process back then and much cheaper than coal.
By the way, do you know what fuel the Stanley Steamers used to make steam?
Well, I'll give you a hint: its name starts with "gas..." and ends with "...oline".
The Stanley brothers were smart enough to make use of a relatively inexpensive liquid fuel. Imagine that.
Could be done with wood pellets, chemical or right combination of metals.
Come on, let's have some details.
Do you mean you drop the wood pellets into the water and it magically turns into steam? Or, maybe, you set the wood pellets ON FIRE?
"Chemical". all righty then. Last I looked, gasoline, coal, diesel fuel were all mixtures of various chemicals. Last I looked, so is water. Are you suggesting that water could be heated to steam by setting "some chemical" on FIRE?
"Right combination of metals". Well, if you mix elemental sodium and water, you certainly get lots of excitement. I am not sure that the results would really be the best for propulsion.
Oh, and of course, all these things are free. Have you priced elemental sodium versus diesel fuel, for the same energy content? And what was the relative cost per unit of energy content?
Sounds to me like you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
