Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Dave wrote:
Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and dangerous,
they would work just fine to run a car as long as you have a coal
tender.


Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas fuels.
A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen one running,
and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction steamers from
around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers and liquid fuels.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
they're also proven technology.


But the navy stil uses steam.

Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Dave wrote:
Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be
much easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than
with compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and
dangerous, they would work just fine to run a car as long as you
have a coal tender.


Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas
fuels. A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen
one running, and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction
steamers from around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers
and liquid fuels.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
they're also proven technology.


But the navy stil uses steam.

Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

Still steam, whether you throw a log on the fire or a bit of uranium

And, for catapults, of course.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Dave wrote:
Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be
much easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than
with compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and
dangerous, they would work just fine to run a car as long as you
have a coal tender.


Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas
fuels. A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen
one running, and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction
steamers from around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers
and liquid fuels.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
they're also proven technology.


But the navy stil uses steam.

Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

Still steam, whether you throw a log on the fire or a bit of uranium

And, for catapults, of course.

I should have seen that non sequitur coming...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:u3lv05-qsh.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
:

Dave wrote:
Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be
much easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam
than
with compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and
dangerous, they would work just fine to run a car as long as you
have a coal tender.


Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran
gas
fuels. A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever
seen
one running, and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th
eproduction
steamers from around th eturn of the century used flash tube
boilers
and liquid fuels.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either
and
they're also proven technology.


But the navy stil uses steam.

Other than that produced by a nuclear reactor, where?

Still steam, whether you throw a log on the fire or a bit of uranium

And, for catapults, of course.

I should have seen that non sequitur coming...


Uh yeh.

Bertie