The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
October 23, 2014, 12:59:08 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Official Facebook page: Brass Goggles
 
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Steam Under the Hood!  (Read 7839 times)
Master Aaron
Deck Hand
*
United States United States


« on: June 18, 2008, 06:52:33 am »

A man named Harry Schoell has developed a steam engine that is small enough to fit in a car and that produces enough power to drive the car. Smiley

The article at the Popular Science website http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-05/steam-under-hood

The Cyclone website http://www.cyclonepower.com/index.html


This opens the door to many steam-powerd inventions! Cheesy

p.s. please post any of your ideas or comments.
Logged
Jarod20
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States

Is only a Rumour...


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2008, 07:21:34 am »

I am dumb founded, but at the same time I would love to have a coal furnace in the passenger seat and a cow catcher on the front of my little four door.
Logged

Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.
~George Bernard Shaw
Jack Elliot
Gunner
**
United States United States



« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2008, 01:23:09 pm »

I wonder how long it takes to fire up...

One of the main problems with using steam power in automobiles is the time it takes to heat the boiler. The water has to be heated (in this case, superheated) before power can be produced. Anyone who has stood around waiting for a pot of water to boil knows how annoying that can be. Wink

It wouldn't be terribly convenient to have to wait a couple minutes after starting your car before being able to drive it. This will be a sticking point for the general consumer.

I'd love to see it in action. I'd actually really like to see one of these mated to a generator in a hybrid vehicle using electric motors on the wheels rather than a traditional driveshaft. A long time ago I designed a steam turbine-generator-battery system for an electric car. The battery held enough power to move the car for ten or fifteen minutes while the boiler heated up, the it would start generating power to refill the battery. The turbine & generator kick on and off as needed to top off the battery during driving. It also gets around the problem of having to wait for the boiler to reach operating temperature...as you can drive immediately on the battery power.

Overall, it's a great concept, and as a bonus its flex-fueled. It can run on practically any gaseous or liquid fuel. (My original design concept was to use propane cannisters that you get for gas grills. Wink )
Logged
chicar
Rogue Ætherlord
*
Antarctica Antarctica


Student in Techno-Shamanism and Lyncanthrope

Chicar556
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2008, 04:19:24 pm »

I always wonder why they try to sell us steam power as a eco-energy. I am the first to wish the great return of steam power but we tend to forgot than is steam who have began the mess. This particular one is perhaps able to use any kind of fuel, but i don't know combustible who are not polluting in a way or a other.
Logged

The word pagan came from paganus , who mean peasant . Its was a way to significate than christianism was the religion of the elite and paganism the one of the savage worker class.

''Trickster shows us how we trick OURSELVES. Her rampant curiosity backfires, but, then, something NEW is discovered (though usually not what She expected)! This is where creativity comes from—experiment, do something different, maybe even something forbidden, and voila! A breakthrough occurs! Ha! Ha! We are released! The world is created anew! Do something backwards, break your own traditions, the barrier breaks; destroy the world as you know it, let the new in.''
Extract of the Dreamflesh article ''Path of The Sacred Clown''
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2008, 04:40:13 pm »

I wonder how long it takes to fire up...

One of the main problems with using steam power in automobiles is the time it takes to heat the boiler. The water has to be heated (in this case, superheated) before power can be produced. Anyone who has stood around waiting for a pot of water to boil knows how annoying that can be. Wink

It wouldn't be terribly convenient to have to wait a couple minutes after starting your car before being able to drive it. This will be a sticking point for the general consumer.

I'd love to see it in action. I'd actually really like to see one of these mated to a generator in a hybrid vehicle using electric motors on the wheels rather than a traditional driveshaft. A long time ago I designed a steam turbine-generator-battery system for an electric car. The battery held enough power to move the car for ten or fifteen minutes while the boiler heated up, the it would start generating power to refill the battery. The turbine & generator kick on and off as needed to top off the battery during driving. It also gets around the problem of having to wait for the boiler to reach operating temperature...as you can drive immediately on the battery power.

Overall, it's a great concept, and as a bonus its flex-fueled. It can run on practically any gaseous or liquid fuel. (My original design concept was to use propane cannisters that you get for gas grills. Wink )
First off, its from Pop Sci, the National Enquirer of pop culture science.  Secondly, its not a new design. Thirdly, there's a lot s of reasons why steam died as an automotive power source.
The height of steam power for autos was the Doble. If you want an alternative external combustion system for automotive use, do what NASA did and look at the Stirling engine. Steam cars take about 20 minutes to reach operating pressure, are slow accelerating, and even with modernized controls, are beyond the grasp of the avgerage consumer, who thinks that cup-holders are important, and is clueless about anything mechanical.
 Do you wnat a 600-800PSI boiler running a good amount of superheat (by the way, you can't superheat water, superheating is adding heat to steam, by passing it back through the firebox, superheated steam has a much higher enthalpy, thus more capacity for doing work) sitting just ahead of you? Collisions would have a whole new lethality when the boiler ruptures.  You should do boiler maintanence every hundred hours of running, that would be a problem  given that most folks hadly ever even get the oil changed or check the tires. Water muts be treated to prevent scale and foaming (you really don't want foaming in a boiler, trust me), and even in an effciient steam condensor system, you will have losses, meaning you need to top up the boiler, not trivial in a closed loop, pressure system.
  Steam isn;t economical either, when you look at running costs per mile. Steam is a romantic idea, but its not the best choice in terms of practicality.
Cheers
Harold 
Logged

You never know what lonesome is , 'til you get to herdin' cows.
Master Aaron
Deck Hand
*
United States United States


« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2008, 12:03:02 am »

Ok, everyone needs to go to the two links that I posted (just cut and paste them into your browser). These links explain the Cyclone better that I can.

I am dumb founded, but at the same time I would love to have a coal furnace in the passenger seat and a cow catcher on the front of my little four door.


Jarod20, the Cyclone is quite compact and can run on fuels other than coal and I don’t think that the car sized Cyclone would be able to run on coal due to the combustion chamber size (The Cyclone is quite compact).

I wonder how long it takes to fire up...

One of the main problems with using steam power in automobiles is the time it takes to heat the boiler. The water has to be heated (in this case, superheated) before power can be produced. Anyone who has stood around waiting for a pot of water to boil knows how annoying that can be. Wink

It wouldn't be terribly convenient to have to wait a couple minutes after starting your car before being able to drive it. This will be a sticking point for the general consumer.

I'd love to see it in action. I'd actually really like to see one of these mated to a generator in a hybrid vehicle using electric motors on the wheels rather than a traditional driveshaft. A long time ago I designed a steam turbine-generator-battery system for an electric car. The battery held enough power to move the car for ten or fifteen minutes while the boiler heated up, the it would start generating power to refill the battery. The turbine & generator kick on and off as needed to top off the battery during driving. It also gets around the problem of having to wait for the boiler to reach operating temperature...as you can drive immediately on the battery power.

Overall, it's a great concept, and as a bonus its flex-fueled. It can run on practically any gaseous or liquid fuel. (My original design concept was to use propane cannisters that you get for gas grills. Wink )


Jack Elliot, I don’t know how long it takes to heat up the boiler, which is something that you might want to contact the designer Harry Schoell about.

I loved your idea of using a electric assembly in combination with the Cyclone, I would really like to talk with you further on this car design and I would like to also talk to you about the car that I designed. Grin

I always wonder why they try to sell us steam power as a eco-energy. I am the first to wish the great return of steam power but we tend to forgot than is steam who have began the mess. This particular one is perhaps able to use any kind of fuel, but i don't know combustible who are not polluting in a way or a other.


Chicar, The steam engine didn’t cause this mess, it was people who didn’t know early on about pollution and the mess has only really took off in the last 50 years with the most CO2 growth in the past 25 years when people under stood what pollution was doing to the environment (they knew about global warming in the 1980’s but it was more profitable to ignore it). Also the Cyclone re-burns is combustion 2 or three times and it turns 46% of the energy put into it into torque compared most internal combustion engine which only turn 25% energy put into it into torque.


First off, its from Pop Sci, the National Enquirer of pop culture science.  Secondly, its not a new design. Thirdly, there's a lot s of reasons why steam died as an automotive power source.
The height of steam power for autos was the Doble. If you want an alternative external combustion system for automotive use, do what NASA did and look at the Stirling engine. Steam cars take about 20 minutes to reach operating pressure, are slow accelerating, and even with modernized controls, are beyond the grasp of the avgerage consumer, who thinks that cup-holders are important, and is clueless about anything mechanical.
 Do you wnat a 600-800PSI boiler running a good amount of superheat (by the way, you can't superheat water, superheating is adding heat to steam, by passing it back through the firebox, superheated steam has a much higher enthalpy, thus more capacity for doing work) sitting just ahead of you? Collisions would have a whole new lethality when the boiler ruptures.  You should do boiler maintanence every hundred hours of running, that would be a problem  given that most folks hadly ever even get the oil changed or check the tires. Water muts be treated to prevent scale and foaming (you really don't want foaming in a boiler, trust me), and even in an effciient steam condensor system, you will have losses, meaning you need to top up the boiler, not trivial in a closed loop, pressure system.
  Steam isn;t economical either, when you look at running costs per mile. Steam is a romantic idea, but its not the best choice in terms of practicality.
Cheers
Harold 



HAC, If you had gone to either link (not just blow them both off because you have something against Pop Science) you would have seen that most of the information that you have posted is just not true of the Cyclone. Most of the information that you posted is true for steam engines of the 19th century but the Cyclone is a 21st century engine made from 21st century materials and with 21st century science. I will not explain everything about the Cyclone because it is not my creation, I was just posting this information for everyone to read, I ask you to go now to http://www.cyclonepower.com/index.html and read the information that is on the website.


Master Aaron
Logged
Flynn MacCallister
Immortal
**
Australia Australia


Mad SCIENTIST!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2008, 12:15:17 am »

I always wonder why they try to sell us steam power as a eco-energy. I am the first to wish the great return of steam power but we tend to forgot than is steam who have began the mess. This particular one is perhaps able to use any kind of fuel, but i don't know combustible who are not polluting in a way or a other.

2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

Hydrogen fuel cells!

... But I don;t think their website is entirely truthful... Okay, you'll get less NOx, but there will still be the same amount of C, CO2 and possibly CO produced...


HAC, they're talking about the fact that the water has gone supercritical in the "steam under the hood" link. Is this.... likely? Or, is it even unusual? scH2O is quite acidic and an insane oxidiser and solvent... surely that would cause extra wear-and-tear on the components?
Logged
chicar
Rogue Ætherlord
*
Antarctica Antarctica


Student in Techno-Shamanism and Lyncanthrope

Chicar556
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2008, 12:23:00 am »

Chicar, The steam engine didn’t cause this mess, it was people who didn’t know early on about pollution and the mess has only really took off in the last 50 years with the most CO2 growth in the past 25 years when people under stood what pollution was doing to the environment (they knew about global warming in the 1980’s but it was more profitable to ignore it). Also the Cyclone re-burns is combustion 2 or three times and it turns 46% of the energy put into it into torque compared most internal combustion engine which only turn 25% energy put into it into torque.

I know for the  '' co2 reduction'' but i was so skeptical than was like i ignore it. Howewer, i not considered the '' they shouldn't knew that in the time'' factor,mea culpa.

Flynn, i heard the popular comparision between hydrogen power and steam power, but i not quite sure that the cyclone it mean to work with hydrogen.

Nonetheless, you pawn me 2-1.
Logged
S.Sprocket
Administrator
Zeppelin Admiral
*
United States United States


Industria Proficiscor In!


« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2008, 12:25:32 am »

What about the enginion steamcell HAC?

Quote
From 1996, a R&D subsidiary of the Volkswagen group called Enginion AG was developing a system called ZEE (Zero Emissions Engine). It produced steam almost instantly without an open flame, and took 30 seconds to reach maximum power from a cold start. Their third prototype, EZEE03, was a three-cylinder unit meant to fit in a Skoda Fabia automobile. The EZEE03 was described as having a "two-stroke" (i.e. single-acting) engine of 1000 cc (164 cubic inch) displacement, producing up to 220 hp (500 N·m or 369 ft·lbf).[7] Exhaust emissions were said to be far below the SULEV standard. It had an "oilless" engine with ceramic cylinder linings using steam instead of oil as a lubricant. However, Enginion found that the market was not ready for steam cars, so they opted instead to develop the "Steamcell" power generator/heating system based on similar technology.[8][9]
Logged

"It's what a cove knows that counts, ain't it Sybil?  More than land or money, more than birth.  Information. Very flash." -Mick Radley

"Teaching boys to bake cakes? That's no way to maintain an industrial empire." --Fred Dibnah
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2008, 12:26:30 am »

I always wonder why they try to sell us steam power as a eco-energy. I am the first to wish the great return of steam power but we tend to forgot than is steam who have began the mess. This particular one is perhaps able to use any kind of fuel, but i don't know combustible who are not polluting in a way or a other.

2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

Hydrogen fuel cells!

... But I don;t think their website is entirely truthful... Okay, you'll get less NOx, but there will still be the same amount of C, CO2 and possibly CO produced...


HAC, they're talking about the fact that the water has gone supercritical in the "steam under the hood" link. Is this.... likely? Or, is it even unusual? scH2O is quite acidic and an insane oxidiser and solvent... surely that would cause extra wear-and-tear on the components?
Water doesn't go supercritical, steam does. Supercritical steam occurs above the critical point (for water) of 705 °F (374 °C) and 3,212 psia (22.1 MPa), at that point the steam becomes denser, and as such the thermodynamic efficiency goes up. The only place this is currently used is in steam turbines for power generation. If you look at the termperarures and pressures involved, you can see that these render the system rather unsuitable for the average automotive settinf g both in terms of safety, and cost, as well as complexity. I certainly wouldn't want to be t-boned by a vehicle with a 3200+PSI under the hood..

Cheers
Harold
Logged
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2008, 12:34:28 am »

What about the enginion steamcell HAC?

Quote
From 1996, a R&D subsidiary of the Volkswagen group called Enginion AG was developing a system called ZEE (Zero Emissions Engine). It produced steam almost instantly without an open flame, and took 30 seconds to reach maximum power from a cold start. Their third prototype, EZEE03, was a three-cylinder unit meant to fit in a Skoda Fabia automobile. The EZEE03 was described as having a "two-stroke" (i.e. single-acting) engine of 1000 cc (164 cubic inch) displacement, producing up to 220 hp (500 N·m or 369 ft·lbf).[7] Exhaust emissions were said to be far below the SULEV standard. It had an "oilless" engine with ceramic cylinder linings using steam instead of oil as a lubricant. However, Enginion found that the market was not ready for steam cars, so they opted instead to develop the "Steamcell" power generator/heating system based on similar technology.[8][9]
Seeing as how their site has turned into one of those generic search sites, not much. "Internet Land and Cattle" as the domain owner.  It's nothing new, basically a high-pressure flash boiler..The problem is that for "instant" steam , you have two options - lots of energy into the system in a short time, OR low volumes of steam out. That's always been the problem. Boilers run best at constant (as designed) pressures and volumes, which is why driving a traction engine or locomotive is a tricky proposition, if you want the best efficiency.  Lets look at a steam loco in operation. There are varying demands on the locomotive, starting, accelerating, grade, etc. A good engineer will always let the fireman know what h;es doing, in advance, if possible. That way, if he needs to open the regulator, the fireman is aware of the increased draw on teh boiler and can (hopefully) compensate to try and keep steam pressure and water levels where they should be. 
 Cheers
Harold
I also suspect that gioven their claims, it was more smoke and mirrors than steam...

Cheers
Harold
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 12:52:37 am by HAC » Logged
Johnny Payphone
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States Minor Outlying Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands


Contraptor/ Metalworker/ Bicycle builder


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2008, 12:51:51 am »

At the time that steam cars were outperforming gasoline on the road a car itself was a very high-end item, and so there were steam cars produced that were remarkably sophisticated and could keep up with any luxury car today.  Remember that as steam engines got more advanced they started to have flash boilers like Harold mentioned.  Imagine a sort of high-powered reverse air conditioner, where the fire heats fine tubes of water rather than a big long bucket of it like on a locomotive.

Starting time is usually related to the amount of water that has to be heated.  Some steam cars had 15 gallons and took a while, others used flash boilers and maybe a few quarts of water.  So eventually steam power under the hood was available at the push of a button.  See Jay Leno's steam car at Leno's Garage.

This Cyclone's website claims cold start time is 15 seconds to 1 minute.

Logged

Steampunk life in the living world:
http://www.johnnypayphone.net/blog.php
Flynn MacCallister
Immortal
**
Australia Australia


Mad SCIENTIST!


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2008, 01:02:51 am »

Water doesn't go supercritical, steam does. Supercritical steam occurs above the critical point (for water) of 705 °F (374 °C) and 3,212 psia (22.1 MPa), at that point the steam becomes denser, and as such the thermodynamic efficiency goes up. The only place this is currently used is in steam turbines for power generation. If you look at the termperarures and pressures involved, you can see that these render the system rather unsuitable for the average automotive settinf g both in terms of safety, and cost, as well as complexity. I certainly wouldn't want to be t-boned by a vehicle with a 3200+PSI under the hood..

Cheers
Harold


(It seems to be generally referred to in chemistry and physics 'round here as "supercritical water", hence my use of that term; not that it makes any difference... really, you can approach from either direction.)

That's what I would have thought... still thought I'd better check before concluding anything ^__^

Oh, another thing: if this actually does run, it would have to run on pretty pure, clean water right?

Flynn, i heard the popular comparision between hydrogen power and steam power, but i not quite sure that the cyclone it mean to work with hydrogen.

>_o Yeah, I know. Just being a smart-alec and pointing out that you can have a useful combustion reaction without CO2




The idea of having a steamcar on the surface does seem rather romantic and fun, and it does tick several of the boxes for green energy -- it can run on waste biomass (as opposed to food biomass), the only other thing it requires is water, and it shouldn't have the nitrous oxide of traditional car engines, but as HAC clearly points out, there are safety issues, and plausibility issues here.



Just noticed this:
Also the Cyclone re-burns is combustion 2 or three times and it turns 46% of the energy put into it into torque compared most internal combustion engine which only turn 25% energy put into it into torque.

M. Aaron, could you explain that? Especially how it "re-burns its combustion 2 or three times"?
Logged
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2008, 01:25:49 am »

(It seems to be generally referred to in chemistry and physics 'round here as "supercritical water", hence my use of that term; not that it makes any difference... really, you can approach from either direction.)
That is true, supercriticality is simply a temperature/pressure point at which the phase change does not happen. My background is from the steam side of things, and we always called it supercritcial steam.
As you say, in physics, its a moot point, and water or steam once past the critical point is the same thing.
On the "re-combustor".. That sounds a lot like the way stack gases are subjected to recombustion to help "clean up" final emssions, other than that, it seems to imply a rather incomplete initial combustion..

Cheers
Harold
Logged
Redveloce
Deck Hand
*
United States United States


« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2008, 02:32:21 am »

Hello, everyone. I’m new to this site but I’ve been a steampunk my entire life without even knowing it!

There is a lot of confusion about steam power here. I’ve been involved with steam powered vehicles ranging from full sized locomotives, to traction engines, live steam models, and toys since I was born, so I think I may be qualified to help clear a few things up (with help from Google for specific points).

First off, anyone interested in steam power owes it to themselves to research the Doble Brother’s steam cars. They solved most of the shortcomings of steam power in the 1920s but the fact that internal combustion had already gained a solid lead along with many poor business decisions put them into bankruptcy.

There is a good Wikipedia article on Doble here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_Steam_Car

Another good resource is the Jay Leno’s Garage show. He has a feature on the Doble along with several on early Stanleys including one where he nearly blows himself up relighting a pilot light.
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/


Now to address some individual points.


-Time to heat up:  The Doble was ready to drive away less than one minute from starting the boiler.

There are two basic kinds of boilers, fire tube and water tube. The boilers that most people are used to seeing are fire tube boilers. These feature a water vessel with tubes running through the middle of it coming from the combustion chamber to help with the transfer of heat and exhaust waste (smoke). Most steam trains, traction engines, etc have fire tube boilers.

The second kind of boiler is called a water tube boiler. These boilers feature coils of piping containing the water inside the actual combustion chamber. They are much more efficient than water tube boilers. The Doble boiler is one example of a water tube boiler. These are also similar in design to what is called a superheater, which is used to heat water which has already been converted to steam (water doesn’t turn into steam until it leaves a boiler).

-Eco Friendly: The Doble cars would pass California emissions testing for new cars if they were required to be tested today.

The thing to remember with steam power vs internal combustion is that Internal combustion has to burn an precisely metered amount of fuel and air relying on exact timing of piston, valves, fuel injector (or carburetion) and ignition. This has to happen in a fraction of a second then start over again, which is not ideal conditions for a clean burn. Steam power is external combustion, and also doesn’t have to worry about the overheating and detonation (pinging) issues which plague internal combustion. What this means is that once fuel is delivered to the fire it is not limited by heat or time. Air can continue to be added until the fuel is completely spent.


-Steam cars are slow: The Doble Steam car achieved 0-75mph in approximately 10 seconds in the 1920’s while weighing about the same as a large modern SUV.

While steam cars are now commonly driven slowly because they’re antique and rare, they actually have quite an excess of power. Steam power held many speed records in the early days of the automobile. While it’s true they were eventually beat by internal combustion vehicles, this does not mean they lack power. Horsepower numbers peak low on steam power because the operating RPM is generally extremely low. They do however make massive amounts of torque. Take a steam engine that makes 50 horsepower at 300rpm for instance. You usually measure torque then calculate horsepower, but the equation to do the opposite is torque= horsepower x 5252/RPM. Using this equation, the 50hp engine is making well over 800ft/lbs of torque. In the video with his 1909 Stanley Model R, Jay Leno states that it has enough power to spin the wooden wheels inside the tires.

The secret to steam torque is the power stroke. The “push” from a gasoline explosion in an internal combustion engine amounts to a very short amount of the piston stroke, something like 10%, while a diesel engine makes more torque in part by pushing for a slightly longer duration of the stroke in the same way that a rifle creates more projectile velocity than a pistol by allowing a longer burning charge. Steam expands by over 1600 times the volume it occupied as water. This allows steam to push for 80% of the piston stroke and creates a lot of torque.


-Safety: Water tube boilers are much safer than fire tube boilers.

   The danger of a boiler explosion is mostly limited to fire tube boilers. All (legal) boilers have a device in place to vent pressure when it becomes too great. The most common cause of boiler explosions is when the water level drops below the part of the fire tube boiler directly heated by the firebox, which is called the crown sheet. Normally the water prevents the metal from melting, but without this protection the fire quickly melts the crown sheet allowing the water to depressurize. As soon as the pressure drops in the boiler the hot water immediately turns to steam. Now you have a very high volume vessel suddenly filled to 1600 times capacity. Everything in the immediate vicinity behind the boiler is destroyed in the torrent, and the boiler shoots off like a rocket (I believe there’s a Myth Busters episode featuring a hot water heater that illustrates this nicely). Be very careful when messing around with fire tube boilers.

   Water tube boilers are of course also capable of failing. They tend to fail less catastrophically though due to their small pipe diameter and much less volume of water than a fire tube boiler holds.


I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors, or for just boring you. I am not a wordsmith by trade but thought this information may be useful for anyone who may take the time to read it.
Logged
Redveloce
Deck Hand
*
United States United States


« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2008, 02:33:39 am »

I just realized that there were some posts made while I was typing my reply. It looks like some of my points have already been addressed.
Logged
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2008, 03:07:46 am »

The secret to steam torque is the power stroke. The “push” from a gasoline explosion in an internal combustion engine amounts to a very short amount of the piston stroke, something like 10%, while a diesel engine makes more torque in part by pushing for a slightly longer duration of the stroke in the same way that a rifle creates more projectile velocity than a pistol by allowing a longer burning charge. Steam expands by over 1600 times the volume it occupied as water. This allows steam to push for 80% of the piston stroke and creates a lot of torque.


True, but even Doble used a 20% cutoff setting for economy. Using full cutoff in a steam engine all the time, is very bad engine management, uneconomical, and very ineffecient..

Cheers
Harold

PS>.. what locos have you played with? mine was a Hudson Class 4-6-4, involved from restoration to running, 4 years tutelage under a master steam mechanic of the old school..
Its good to see another member with some real steam experience on the forum...
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 03:11:51 am by HAC » Logged
Redveloce
Deck Hand
*
United States United States


« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2008, 05:06:42 am »

True, but even Doble used a 20% cutoff setting for economy. Using full cutoff in a steam engine all the time, is very bad engine management, uneconomical, and very ineffecient..

True, for economy but the potential is there when you want to go 'balls out'. I'm not familiar with the system Doble used for hookup though.


PS>.. what locos have you played with? mine was a Hudson Class 4-6-4, involved from restoration to running, 4 years tutelage under a master steam mechanic of the old school..
Its good to see another member with some real steam experience on the forum...

My father was a huge railfan while I was growing up and we traveled all over the western USA chasing trains. He is a track inspector for BNSF and two of my uncles are Engineers so they had a lot of connections with the people operating any exhibition trains in the territory. Most of my direct experience was when I was younger, so my experience was primarily watching and learning on the big stuff and getting to operate the scale models (10" and 7.5" gauge). I lost interest in my late teens and am just now, a little over 10 years later, beginning to regain an interest trains, but I've forgot most of the designations. I know I've been on the SP4449 GS-4 4-8-4, an NP 0-6-0, as well narrow gauge D&RG K-28 and a D&RGW K-26.
   
    I can only imagine what it must have been like to learn under someone with that kind of experience. I ended up getting into computers, but if I could go back...


-James
Logged
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2008, 05:22:08 am »

James..
   I got lucky.. my 34 years with Canadian Pacific was mostly in IT, but I had lots of opportunites to go out and learn railroading "on the property". As far as 2816, I volunteered to help out, and was lucky enought to be able to actually be involved, and on company time.. One of my proudest posessions is my 2816 Support Crew pin.. those are pretty few in number and had to be earned.. I was also tasked with acquiring and restoring 15 vintage pocket watches from the CP approved list for use by the 2816 crew... Pic shows 2 of my service watches, my 25 year servcie award pin, my retirement award pin,a dn my support crew pin.. (as well as a spike pulled from the main at Craigellache during CP's centennial year)



Cheers
Harold

Logged
Redveloce
Deck Hand
*
United States United States


« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2008, 05:27:23 am »

Harold,

That's fantastic! Thank you for sharing that.
Logged
von Corax
Immortal
**
Canada Canada

The Leverkusen Institute of Paleocybernetics


« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2008, 02:18:04 am »

... The danger of a boiler explosion is mostly limited to fire tube boilers... The most common cause of boiler explosions is when the water level drops below the ... crown sheet.

This is true of stationary boilers, steam locos and traction engines. Sadly, it would not likely be true of steam autos - and likely or not, the far more damaging danger would be of a ruptured boiler shell or tubes due to crushing impact with a solid object. If that object happens to be another vehicle, you now have pressurized, superheated jets of steam escaping the ruptures and shooting through the other vehicle's passenger compartment, and through the other vehicle's passengers. I suspect the result of this would be one or more well-polished skeletons and a fan-shaped deposit on the ground of a substance resembling well-done pulled pork.  Shocked
Logged

By the power of caffeine do I set my mind in motion
By the Beans of Life do my thoughts acquire speed
My hands acquire a shaking
The shaking becomes a warning
By the power of caffeine do I set my mind in motion
The Leverkusen Institute of Paleocybernetics is 5838 km from Reading
A.G.Morgan
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States

Mechanocycle rider of Indian Territory


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2008, 03:59:00 am »

What? You afraid to get wet?

Anyway even if steam cars aren't as practical as gasoline cars, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a market for them. Motorcycles aren't as practical as cars for all their fuel efficiency, yet still there is a huge industry around them.

If someone could build a production steam car that could be driven safely on the road how many of you wouldn't buy one even if you had to wait ten minutes while it warms up every morning and has to be feed fuel, water, and oil every day.
Logged

Get off the tracks! Here comes the train o' thought!
HAC
Steam Theologian
Immortal
**
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2008, 04:05:21 pm »

What? You afraid to get wet?
A bit more than wet, I'm afraid. Steam at those temperatures and pressure will cook and strip the flesh from your bones, in an instant. Even "ordinary" live steam at several hunderd PSI and a moderate degree of superheat will be likely lethal.

Cheers
Harold
Logged
Johnny Payphone
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States Minor Outlying Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands


Contraptor/ Metalworker/ Bicycle builder


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2008, 11:07:04 pm »

Sorry to be morbid, but I can't resist this steam death story:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
splatman
Officer
***
United States United States



« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2008, 11:22:43 pm »

the far more damaging danger would be of a ruptured boiler shell or tubes due to crushing impact with a solid object. If that object happens to be another vehicle, you now have pressurized, superheated jets of steam escaping the ruptures and shooting through the other vehicle's passenger compartment, and through the other vehicle's passengers. I suspect the result of this would be one or more well-polished skeletons and a fan-shaped deposit on the ground of a substance resembling well-done pulled pork.  Shocked

A way to minimize that risk, is to build the boiler tubes and shell entirely of an alloy(s) that will bend without breaking or tearing, have nothing near the boiler that could rupture it, and have crash-activated valves that can safely depressurize the boiler.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.923 seconds with 15 queries.