Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 10:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dave wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
:

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?

It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of
the last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes
before you went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no
condensers and you had to top them up with water after about 30 miles
and the cars that recycled like the White were extremely complex to
operate (even the stanleys were pretty daunting)
The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost
silent. Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that
was taken off them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end
the convienience of the IC engine won out after they were simplified
enough to be easy for almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about
1930 for at least one make (I think it was Doble), White lasted up at
least through the first war with steam (they still exist , of course)
and Stanley into the 20s I believe.

Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..

Bertie

Here is some steam power for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphQNGOz7v8



mmm, kay.

I almost forgot, there was one steam powered airplane. It was built
around '29 and was really just meant to show off the inventors' very
efficient steam engine. It was called the Besler engine and they put it
on either a Waco9 or Travel Air 2000. I read my first account of it
years ago in Flying, I think. It worked quite well but was never
intended as serious replacement for IC.

It's party trick was it's ability to run backwards, though it took a
little while to stop and then reverse the prop.whoever flew it did it on
flight and apparently it was fairly spectacular to watch. It also made
landings incredibly short and the airplae could be reversed on the
ground which must have been interesting on an airplane with a tailskid.

I've got an article on it somewhere, but I can't find much on the net
about it.

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn wrote in newsrfairbairn-
:

In article
,
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?

David Johnson

Poor energy efficiency. Steam partitions the power generation from the
heat source -- you lose energy in the transformation processes.


Lots of good low speed torque, though.


Bertie

Wow! Found a film of the Besler here! Later than I thought. The airplane is
a relatively early Travel Air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEv_M7p4fA


Bertie

And another one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NF...eature=related


Bertie

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

"Dave" wrote

The claimed range was (IIRC) something on the order of 40 miles - and
they said it would do 70 Mph. To me that makes for a practical urban
vehicle, whereas most of the electrics are not.
As others have said, what is needed is a thorough test by the
automotive Press. We'll see.

We'll see, indeed. The tank must be the size of an eighteen wheeler.

They should also publish how much energy it takes to pump up the tank. I
would expect to see unbelievably high numbers, if they are being honest.
--
Jim in NC

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

On Nov 15, 11:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dave wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
:

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?

It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
stanleys were pretty daunting)
The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
(I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.

Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..

Bertie

I would think that many of the drawbacks could be overcome with modern
control systems. From what I have read the Doble did solve most of the
problems of previous attempts. However, it was more expensive to build
and overcome by the cheapness and convenience of gasolne engines. The
ability to burn any available fuel could make a difference in the
future.

David Johnson