green steam company

This has no meaning by it's self.

"It also turned out that, contrary to the data of specific steam consumption obtained on a dynamometer, overall efficiency did not suffer all that much in the car, even improved for some operating regimes, at a lower than 1000 psi inlet pressure."

The pressure and temperature do not control efficiency. They control max efficiency. But raising temperature and/or pressure will not necessarly inprove efficiency and yes can reduce effficiency. There are verious parameters effecting efficiency. The key here is that Stan said "The map allows predicting the performance of reciprocating steam plants of a wide range of sizes and power as long as the expander is of a similar configuration and the steam pressure and temperature are similar." That does not hold if an engine is design for a higher pressure and/or temperature. You do have power or speed range that needs to be figured in the design. And if not done with that in mind. Going to higher pressure and/or temperature can reduce power range resulting on poor performance at low power.

From analyzing cycles over power ranges I can say the theory shows simuler effects when only the pressure and/or temperature are changed.

What happens if you have for a specific engine the pressure amd temperature matched to the engine for max efficiency over it's power range and you change the pressure and/or temperature. That is that the pressure and temperatur are such that the engine has over all the least excess heat in it's exhaust and you are not expanding below external exhaust pressure. It's obvious that lowering the pressure or temperature will result in an over all lowering of efficiency. Raising the temperature will lower the steam rate. But will result in excess heat in the exhaust. Lowering efficiency. Increasing the boiler pressure will increase the power range upword. But basicly the efficiency will not change.

Actually, when the rubber hits the road, the wonders of this or that miracle engine are almost invariably overblown, over stated and illusory. Peak numbers on a dyno are less predictive than the curves over wide ranges of conditions; these curves usually being somehow too tedious to generate and supply by so many promoters.

More importantly, in the 21st century, a car is more than the sum of the powertrain and platform; what counts is the full powertrain/vehicle integration. Naturally, a good car can't get more out of an engine than it demonstrates on a dyno and an engine can't propel a platform beyond the limits of its own design; but it is easy to mate a good engine to a good platform and get a mediocre vehicle. Just as a 'fer instance', and probably horribly oversimplified at that, consider an engine that did well on a dyno and a platform that did well in the wind tunnel. After the two are mated up we find that the engine components cause erratic airflow through the engine compartment causing problems with cooling that detract from powertrain capability and turbulence that affects noise, handling and adds drag which robs 1 mpg.

Anytime a promoter pushes his new miracle engine and shows off a car with the engine installed, I tend to tune out if they don't hand the car over for EPA cycle testing and hand the keys to a pack of auto writers for comparative driving impressions; it ain't actually a product until the developer is ready to do those things. It's little things like, "how does the engines center of gravity and placement under the hood affect handling and braking?" or "how accessible is the engine when installed in an engine compartment?" or "how does the engine design, geometry and placement affect crash safety?" or "what changes in chassis structure and weight are necessary to accomodate the engine and obtain a 5 star safety rating?", that really make or break an product. Just demonstrating that it runs proves little, I was at the GM Heritage center last year and saw 30, 40 and 50+ year old gas turbine driven prototypes, 4 rotor Wankel supercars, a 40 some year old fuel cell driven van and more...all of them apparently built to a far higher standard than most of the new technology demonstrators that promoters are pushing....and all of them deemed to be unviable in the market place. And make no doubt, that is what the market does, it winnows out what isn't competitive no matter how much love and enthusiasm was invested.

Ken



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2011 07:16AM by frustrated.

Good points. But almost every new car on the road to day would score on a 1 to 10 scale a 1 on "how accessible is the engine when installed in an engine compartment?".

Andy

Andy, the fuel economy nazis dictate the car must be the minimum size to contain everything, for aerodynamics. So the body and drivetrain engineers figure out the minimum volume needed to hold everything while not getting in the way of installation. Once the engine's in, it's your problem. If it breaks, throw it away and buy a new one.

Boy I miss my old F150. With a straight six there was enough room to stand in there for changing sparkplugs.

You'll note that you don't run into things like you did in the bad old days, having to lift the engine to change a spark plug (Subaru Forester turbo owners may disagree). Today we use stereolithography to model the engine compartment, then bring in some service technicians and ask them to simulate doing the most common maintenance items and repairs, solicit suggestions, then modify the stereolith model and repeat. Given the realistic demands of modern automotive practice, the engine compartment WILL be cramped, but quite a bit of effort has been expended to make the best of it. If you think it's bad now, imagine the typical steam automotive plant under the hood.....

Regards,

Ken

Ken, How long has that pratice been in place? Didn't seam to have been done on my 94 stealth.

Andy

Stereolith was a lot less user friendly back then, Andy, I spent a few weeks in the lab in 98 and they were just gearing up for that sort of thing. Of course, I can't comment authoritatively about the guys in the building with the big Pentastar on the roof about 5 miles away.

Ken

Ken,
You are joking, right? I recently rented an Aveo and looked under the hood. If you are going to tell me someone actually tried to make that thing service-friendly, I want to know what the guy was smoking.
Tom

It appears that Mr. Green's steam engine ideas are fun to watch whirl around, but do not have a place in the industrial or automotive fields.

As to space and accessiblity, that was my profession at Lockheed where, as a Human Factors Analyst, I had veto power over any design submitted for manufacturing, since it was imperative that it be manufacturable and serviceable.

Attached are two photos of a steam car installation, all under the hood of the most aerodynamic production car of the era, with me faking a nap before dropping the preassembled modules into place. There is room to spare for component access. Maybe it is a little longer than a Prius, but it fits fine in the garage and helps deliver superb frontal crash safety. Video at [www.firedragon.com]

Karl Petersen

Fun pictures. I like the morphing effect of the subtleties of lighting and component shifts of the compilation. You look mid to early 20's in fake nap shot.

Going back to your November post, I remember seeing a bunch of exotic designs at the Detroit Historical Society. Also, the GM Tech Center always brought their bright ideas to the Auto Show. They had the Volt's great grandfather at the '89 show, a van with a 10 horse diesel driving a generator, and Ni-Cd cells powering wheel-hub motors, same as the EV-1. Makes you wonder what they could have done if Stempel and Smith had not hated each other.

Green steam engine patent, in case you wondered what the fuss was....

[www.google.com]

Regards,

Ken

Just forget that Green so called engine. Design goes back many decades.
For nutty engines just go look at The Museum of RetroTechnology.webarchive. Anything you can dream up is there.

Karl,
Now where are the videos of the Citroen steamer running ???
Like those VW smog air pump roots blowers driving the two condenser fans. Make dandy vacuum pumps, no internal compression so they can see water too.

Jim

How does that compare to the GE patent for the engine that Tom K. has?

The latest thing on the Green Engine was told to me by a fellow who had invested in Abundant Energy Works out of Goshen, Indiana. He said that Abundant Energy Works, which had done some really good work with a pellet burner, was now located in a secret location in South Bend and was preparing to go big time into production of these engines with important modifications. AEW has modified the flexible drive shaft into a more conventional "Z" crank and made it an 8 cylinder engine and has gotten around all of the original Green patent claims and, wonder of wonders, were the first people to get the engine to work. The cylinder heads still wobble around the knuckle joint, that is more like the human hip joint. It is a strange world out there and no one from AEW has come up to visit my shop, only 45 minutes away, to see how real steam engines world. Tom Kimmel

Hi Scott,

The GE Patent at least shows a rigid engine, the cylinders aren't wobbling all over, the frame is husky and can take a load, and so on. It's still a wobbler, and I'm suspicious of those, but as wobblers go it is distinctly on the rugged side.

Relevant patents for Tom's GE Wobbler:

747926 Henry S Baldwin
[www.google.com]

748083 Hermann Lemp & Oscar Persson
[www.google.com]

768636 Elihu Thompson & Hermann Lemp This one shows enough for Tom to generally recreate the vehicle if he ever felt the urge.
[www.google.com]

853095 Hermann Lemp
[www.google.com]

995384 Arthur M Stanley (those Stanley's, trying to get involved in every steam project..)
[www.google.com]


I also found other GE patents for early steam car engines. As best as I can puzzle it out, Elihu Thomson was a professor of engineering who was also an influential automotive pioneer. Apparently GE hired him to develop automobiles, and he assembled a team including Ball, Lemp, Perssons, AM Stanley and Baldwin. Besides steam they worked on IC, electric and gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles. Near as I can place it, GE lost interest when they realized there was no chance of securing enough patents to tie up the fledgling industry and decided to leave tha market to those companies specializing in automotive manufacture.

If I included GE boiler, feed and other patents, this could go on forever. However, other GE steam car engines included:

740203 Elihu Thomson. Inline 4 cylinder, SA uniflow engine
[www.google.com]

775586 Elihu Thomson and Augustus Ball, valve gear for SA uniflow engine
[www.google.com]

822322 Elihu Thomson and Augustus Ball, variation on SA uniflow engine
[www.google.com]

996900 Augustus Ball Two cylinder, DA, simple expansion poppet valve engine.
[www.google.com]

771892 Augustus Ball. DA 2 cylinder compound with interceptor valve in block.
[www.google.com]

Regards,

Ken

Prof Lemp also invented a check/shock absorber for tiller steerd cars,,Used on early Knox cars called " Lemp check""
It worked a bit like power steering,,spindles followed the tiller motion only,,NO kick at all,,,
Thompson Huston Co,,later became General Electric Co,,,
E ,Thompsons house is now Swampscott town hall
The plant grew and is now the Lynn River works,,GE
The Thompson car formerly owned by Cameron Bradley [VMCCA founding member]] is said to be in Australia,,
it was 100% untouched original when it was in Southborough Ma,,when I was in high school
Flash boiler,,Car was DARK maroon,,,paint/varnish,,
Among Can's treasures was a 1893 Panhard w/tube ign and iron tyres,,
A Mercedes with a Stienway body and make/break ign,,,boat tail !!
an a AlfaRomeo half track,,,skiis on front for winter in the mountains,,,
Oh yes,,,Jumbo,,,a steam pumper,self propelled,,by gas,,,,,but thought to be steam self propelld originally,,,,
Memories,,,,,Ben

In SA v2 #3, [www.steamautomobile.com] , is a small article on a road trip in a GE steamer, and a letter on later developments, both by A. M. Stanley. Plus a couple of pictures of cars - all on the cover & pps 7, 8, 11, 12 .

Kelly

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
Green boiler.png	508.2 KB	open | download	frustrated	11/01/2011	Read message
Steam Cit Lotsa RoomB.tif	602.1 KB	open | download	Karl Petersen	01/05/2012	Read message
Steam Cit DrivePkg Bumper200.tif	607.9 KB	open | download	Karl Petersen	01/05/2012	Read message