turboelectric vehicle

60 mpg was hot stuff with embargo Saudi gas 40 years ago, but today with ~$2.50/gallon [2019 inflated dollars] USA fracked gas, it's "meh". VW just canned their latter-day "Beetle" econocar. Front-drive, water-cooled low-buck Audi with fakey wakey retro-nostalgia "Beetle-ish" "styling", sorry not a real Beetle IMO, so good riddance. Sic Semper fakis. The big profit vehicles in USA now are big pickup trucks and SUVs. Econocars are yesterday's reg-compliance-mandated loss-leaders. I should be working on my "next generation" new-classic steam car powerplants with 4" bore and 5" stroke two-banger "updated Stanleyoid" engines, for fat American pickups & SUV's. Install 'em in already-titled/registered old/exempt Detroit pickups/SUV's to eliminate all "new production vehicle" govt regulations. Better report that up the GM chain of command, Ken, to nip that in the bud with new micromanagement government regs.. If they'll listen to you. They never listened to me, or anybody else I ever knew. Crank used to golf, drink, BS, and hang out with the head of GM, and they never even listened to him. Did you ever play golf with the head of GM? Crank did, and got "The Big Eff" in reward.

Ha ha, how we love golfing and knocking back some Old-Fashioneds with Jim Crank. Of course his old-school steam-car jibber-jabber is strictly for laughs. Steam cars, really? What could the man possibly be carrying on about. Oh, who cares. What a delightful and entertaining fellow. Bartender, another round for our dear old steam car fellow! Befuddled though he may be, we esteem him most highly, and greatly enjoy his entertaining company. Be sure, bartender, that the bitters in his Old Fashioned are Peychaud's rather than Angostura. He's a California man, don't you know.

In the late 1970s/early 80s, The Big Guys in the computer industry never listened to "dumb little stoner/slacker nerds building nerd junk in Mommy's garage", like Jobs, Wozniak, or Gates. "Siily dorks, eff 'em" seems to have been the official/"smart money" corporate Party Line. How'd that turn out?

2019 corpocrats are more hip. But deliver the goods first. "Money talks, BS walks".

Peter



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 07:55AM by Peter Brow.

An Irishman, a WASP, and a Jew get in an airplane... Oh god, did people really make jokes like that... "What could happen to an Old Fashioned?..."

From the classic Hollywood comedy "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World", 1963:

[www.youtube.com]

Imagine Jim Crank as the stiff-jawed WASPy American millionaire played here by Jim Backus...

I'd be the Buddy Hackett character... LOL...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 08:01AM by Peter Brow.

And lest our British steam car friends object to being neglected in the aforementioned antediluvian movie's relentlessly "politically-incorrect" efforts to offend absolutely everyone, I offer this scene, in which All-American "Uncle Milty" [Milton Berle], has it out with British comedy great Terry Thomas, in a hilariously spectacular example of international insensitivity between the 2 worst-possible representatives of their respective nationalities... appropriately set deep in the bleak inland deserts of god-forsaken California...

Peter

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 08:51AM by Peter Brow.

"Money Walks but BS talks" sure fits the bill. A snapshot of an actual run it the high 50 mpg range is ridiculed but endless blather about super efficient steam cars, supported by nothing whatsoever, is defended by obnoxious attacks on others.

Hi Ken

Yes! I would like to see multi-source, independently-verified road-test results on both "all-modern improved efficiency" and "updated-classic" steam cars. I am scrambling to design/blueprint/build a light steam vehicle which will provide the latter; will anyone take up the gauntlet and champion the former?

It is not I who ridicule 50+mpg fuel economy results, but the majority of USA vehicle buyers who prefer 10 mpg big gasoline pickup trucks and SUVs. Argue with them. Or with your bosses at GM, who are canceling production of high-efficiency vehicles to focus on producing popular "gas-guzzlers". And who "killed the EV-1", a "green-washing" PR stunt vehicle which almost nobody bought.

Personally, I think a 60mpg car is cool. But do I want to sacrifice my time and effort to produce a small steam car that beats that, and then get defeated in the market by big GM & other IC large vehicles that get 10 mpg?

.Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 10:39AM by Peter Brow.

weather conditions, road conditions, driver temperament and so on.

LOL

As for a high efficiency steamer, Dutcher Industries built one back in the early 80s. They ended up compounding, doubling the HP side piston rings in an attempt to minimize blowby, added special insulations and coatings to reduce thermal losses. They actually did pretty good by ALMOST matching the efficiency of an early 80s gasoline engine. Of course this was just the engine, the roughly 80 percent boiler efficiency and feed pump expenditure meant the entire powerplant was still pretty far off the mark. Unfortunately, the funding ran out before they got the car on the road, that might have taken a while because the developmental state was pretty immature and a lot more work would undoubtedly have been needed to refine the system into something even vaguely worthy of mass market introduction. Since then cars have come a long way. The best mileage I ever managed back then was 50 in a 1982 Horizon. That car weighed about 55% of my new Cruze, was far less lively and the mileage was obtained cruising at about 85% of the modern car's speed.

We know from dynamometer tests, back when the cars were contemporary, that traditional steamers had a water rate approaching something like twice that of more advanced machines such as the White and Doble. We know that the Doble fuel consumption was inferior to that of ICE vehicles circa 1969 based on the GM lab report of SE-101 and SE-12; and ICE cars post much better efficiency today. The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed since the early 20th century and, if anything, roads are less amenable to achieving peak efficiency than are dynos. I can get close to 70 mpg on a decent road at 45 mph, if Stanleys were getting anything vaguely close to that it's certain that the drivers would be letting people know. Until such time as anyone actually demonstrates a steamer delivering high fuel economy in an identical test to other cars, we have to assume the old tests were valid. I'd note that Ron Rogers, on this forum has stated that his steamer does not get good fuel economy. Since he rebuilt the car from the ground up, has actual versus theoretical experience and associates with other steam car operators regularly, I have to with his statement until the matter is definitively proven otherwise.

As for pickups and SUVs....yep, the market has spoken. This doesn't eliminate the fact that these vehicles are still subject to government regulation. We're seeing smaller turbocharged engine going into these machines in order to reduce weight, and pumping losses, in order to improve efficiency. And, of course, the market is fickle. Trying to extrapolate long term trends from the current news is very likely going to be proven wrong. Much less than ten years ago car companies were switching production to light vehicles in an attempt to catch up with market demand, today the same cars are almost a glut on the market with even Toyota taking the relatively unprecedented step of dumping cars on the fleet markets. Like all trends, this one will change. The fact that people are opting for bigger vehicles doesn't necessarily mean that they are interested in a comparably sized car or truck that gets significantly worse mileage.

Honestly, if anyone on this forum is in a position to know what the companies are investing in, it's me. There's a lot of stuff I can't say, for obvious reasons, but I have to tell you that people who know I'm with SACA think it's interesting that I am involved with a "dead" art. There has been some interest in using the Rankine cycle for waste heat recovery to improve overall efficiency (BMW, Honda, International Harvester, Caterpillar). On this one, Jim Crank seems to have been right. He argued that turbo-compounding such as found in the old Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone engine was a better bet, for a variety of reasons. Some of the latest industry reports are showing a lot of interest in the field and the testing has gone much further than the Rankine systems managed … probably because the system cost and complexity are more in line with what is essentially an auxiliary system.

Let me say that light steam power undoubtedly has a potential in niche markets, especially those in which lightly processed biomass can be utilized at a significant cost advantage. This is an important field of investigation but doesn't rise to the level of being a major force in the marketplace.

As long as we've completely wondered off the subject, would a triple compound engine like that described in the post on it have any advantage, especially as part of a constant speed and load power plant driving a generator in a battery electric vehicle? How about with some reheat between cylinders?

Lohring Miller



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2019 10:10AM by lohring.

Maybe, but triple compounds can be tricky things. People get all caught up in the thermodynamics and ignore practical engineering. For example, the MEP in each stage diminishes but the cylinder and piston get bigger, which increases friction. If you're not careful, you can approach the land of diminishing returns.

People also like to compare piston compounds with compounded turbines, which they ain't, not by a long shot. Turbine stages either have nozzles or blades which function as a nozzle. These nozzles convert pressure to velocity from which the turbine blades extract energy. You also need a pressure differential across piston engine stages, else the steam won't flow. The difference is that pistons work off of pressure rather than velocity, the pressure drop is more in the way of lost work. You get a pressure drop for each stage into which steam flows (including the exhaust or condenser) so there's an accumulated loss that has to be compensated for by other gains.

Another issue with compounds is the flow through the passages and any interstage receivers. These produce friction which requires a bigger pressure drop to overcome. They also greatly increase the surface area through which heat can leave the engine. Nice clean design and a generous amount of lagging are needed to overcome these potential issues.

You also need to look at valve gear closely. Triple compounds usually have a fixed cutoff ratio between cylinders but lower admission pressure into the first stage brings the steam in each succeeding stage closer to the saturation curve at which point efficiency goes to pieces.

You also need to consider piston ring losses in the HP stage. A short cutoff, single stage engine has relatively low MEP even though the peak pressure is identical to the HP stage. The higher MEP in the HP stage tends to exacerbate piston ring losses. This gets even worse in lower speed, traditional layouts where the rpm is lower and the steam therefore has more time to work against the rings.

Triple expansion engines have shown exceptional economy in the past but the shorter cutoff uniflow engine as promoted by Stumpf matched the economy in a much cheaper and simpler engine.

Hi Ken,

Well, I personally opted to spend ~$30K, cash, for a truck that gets significantly lower [than theoretical fantasy] fuel mileage. 2 trucks, actually. I gather that gazillions of other consumers have chosen likewise. As noted, I had the option of a FIAT diesel engine with 2X the fuel mileage, but its 6 grand extra cost would never have paid off with my low annual elapsed miles. Later I learned that the "extra Diesel fuel mileage" might have been one of those manufacturer-software-scam-o-ramas that various government entities have been after various manufacturers about.

Next controversy, phoney-baloney hybrid & BEV "equivalent MPG" figures. The "green" and consumer-advocate types will go gaga over all that. And they'll probably still get actual fuel-BTU-per-EV-mile figures wrong.

Sure would be nice if govt & gas-car maker numbers were for real. Not trying to mess with your head man, just expressing my personal thinking. Write me off as an anti-corporate/anti-govt [rightwing or leftwing or etc] cynic, and keep on believing. Believing feels good. Feeling good is the most important thing.

Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2019 04:16AM by Peter Brow.

Hi Ken,

"Honestly, if anyone on this forum is in a position to know what the companies are investing in, it's me."

Hope all the patting yourself on the back doesn't leave any bruises.

But even if correct, note that what the companies once invested in, at various times, included Wankel, air-cooled, turbine,and other engines, all now discarded.

Peter

Quote
Ken
You also need to look at valve gear closely. Triple compounds usually have a fixed cutoff ratio between cylinders but lower admission pressure into the first stage brings the steam in each succeeding stage closer to the saturation curve at which point efficiency goes to pieces.

I thought that in triple expansion engine the first stage manages the highest intake pressure hence the smaller diameter piston. One question, how does volumetric efficiency factor in to this type of expander. meaning clearance.

Most of all Herreshoff drawings and works, over 13,000 drawing and papers are at the Hart Nautical museum at MIT in Boston Mass. I had opportunity to review a lot of the drawings around 1985.
One thing that surprised me was the drawings of the triple showed that the crank angles were not 120 degrees and all the valve diagrams showed the valves opening at different crank angles, the low pressure as much as 35 degrees before TDC.
Rolly

Hello Peter and All,

Maybe it is time to bring up an idea I posted about long ago.

Convert an older hybrid IC-electric car like a Pruis to steam.
This would replace the IC engine with a steam engine which would run the rear wheels and use an inflow turbine/generator as a second stage expander which would keep the electric part running.

Toyota would fall in love.

Now is this an idea before it's time or after it or just beside it's time. Ideas seem to move everywhere. Dis-attached to their creator they don't usually care much.

Best Regards,

Bill G.

I'm afraid Toyota with their hybrids is behind the times. An all electric vehicle is so much simpler. My Tesla Model 3 performance version has only needed to be plugged in at home or in a hotel destination charger for 11,000 miles. No oil changes, waiting at gas stations, or any other costs or maintenance other than running through the car wash weekly to get the bugs and mud off. It is probably time to rotate the tires. Not bad for a real 21st century American muscle car.

Lohring Miller

PS Sorry for the off topic post. I still love steam and IC engines. I build and race IC engine model boats and would love to set an RC steam power record. It wouldn't be close to the electric record of nearly 200 mph, though.

Hi Bill,
My apologies...I just can't keep quiet about your idea of a hybrid steam-electric car.

I have to disclose that I drive a 2015 Prius (not a plug-in). I do hyper-mile all the time. My miles per gal this morning going to work was 63.5...not bad hugh.

From my perspective, I don't see the need for a hybrid steam-electric when you get the same benefit with just a steam powered car. Some of the parameters to consider:
- Steam engine can start from a stall, just like an electric motor
- When you stop the car, the engine isn't idling and wasting fuel
- When you stop the car, the boiler builds pressure capacity and then shuts off, not wasting fuel
- OK, an electric car charges the battery from brake force energy (big difference)

The last item leads me to one of the things I wanted to prove out on my steam powered scooter. That would be using an alternator as a brake and feed the electricity into an electric heating coil w/in the boiler. This idea would accomplish the same savings. Note that my development is sometimes short circuited by just getting the system to work on basic steam.

I believe there were electric brakes on vintage cars. This idea is not new.

When I drive my Prius I often think about all these traits. The tethered steam model boats run pretty fast, the ones that just go around in a circle. I think they can take the electric record...
Flash Steam Hydrofoil Speed record

Kind regards,
Rick

Hello Rick,

At the time I came up with the 'whimsical' idea about using a Pruis, it wasn't known if the battery would really last that long. So factor in saving a Pruis into the money part, as back then the battery replacement cost was high or was thought it would be. The batteries have more than proven themselves since.

As far as using the regenerative braking electricity to store energy run the heating coils and the steam generator coils through about a hundred pounds of lead and keep it in the solid to liquid state. That should store the heat in a usable state (like Texas) If every car had one of these types of hot liquid lead storage containers in it then people would drive more slowly and save a lot of gas.

I just loved watching the model steam boat you posted. I hear very differently than most people. I could hear the little boat saying as it went around gathering speed; " I am a nine millimeter. I am a nine millimeter. I am a boy. I am a real hot shot!" I listened twice and it said the same thing. Maybe others can hear something.

Best Regards,

Bill G.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2019 05:20PM by Bill Gatlin.

I've exchanged emails with two of the tether hydroplane builders and have drawings of their boilers and engines. Control for an RC version is my main problem. The only RC high speed boat had an on/off control. I will need a throttle with a way to control the monotube's steam output. Everything has been on the back burner for a while as I work on other projects.

Lohring Miller

Hey Bill,

A usable state like Texas, LOL! Thanks. I will avoid commenting on useless States, including the one I recently vacated. Google Chinese political-prisoner slave-labor lithium [battery] mining and massive electric-grid upgrades needed for mass IC-to-EV conversion in USA/West. Those and many more issues are pretty fatal to "the inevitable all-EV future" -- and implicitly anti-steam-car -- horgwarsh peddled by corporate greenwashers. Rich European & USA enviro-smugs driving around in slave-labor-produced, tax-the-working-poor-to-subsidize-the-rich EV's, sorry, vomit. Robin Hood in reverse; rob the poor and give to the allegedly-more-deserving rich.

Sorry, but that worldview is just wrongity-wrong-wrong IMO. Try something right for a change.

Even labor-screwing/multifariously-otherwise-creepy/horrific Henry Ford "cars cheap enough for the common man" looks good in comparison.

Peter



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 08:05AM by Peter Brow.

Yeah, you can get 1000mpg. But factor-in all the production and replacement costs, and the higher-fuel-economy BEV & EV/IC hybrid cars end up costing more per mile, overall, than straight-IC cars. And the straight-IC cars are 98% of the market, and have NOT improved in thermodynamic efficiency. OK, they have improved microscopically, but their cost has increased far more than the negligible cost of the negligible fuel they save. IE, you pay like $5000 extra to save $4000 in fuel over the service life of the vehicle. That is a loss, not a savings.

Oh Peter, you're just an old man who is stuck on old things. Maybe so. But then again, maybe YOU are stuck on phoney-marketing "new things" based on Malthusian delusions dating back to the 1970s "Energy Crisis".

I remember reading all sorts of stuff in my childhood about how Wankels, air-cooled engines, turbines, flying cars, etc, were "the inevitable way of the future". Fast forward 40-50 years, and none of the "inevitable futures" actually happened.

I think that BEV's and IC/electric hybrids are merely today's "inevitable future" vehicles which will never happen.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The auto industry is up to "fool me 8,2013 times", or more.

E-mail me when BEV or hybrid sales/road-fleet numbers exceed standard IC vehicle numbers. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. In the meantime, 4000 lb IC pickup trucks, like the one I daily-drive, get the same fuel mileage as 4000-lb 1920s Stanleys with far higher tire & air drag. Argue against this all you want, but I see the Stanley-like digital-display fuel economy reports on my dashboard every day.

Kinda funny how the debate has shifted from "IC cars are way more efficient than steam cars" to"IC/electric hybrid and BEV cars are way more efficient than steam cars". Yeah, all 2% of the market devoted to those "spend $5000 extra to save $4000 in gas over the service life".

Basically those vehicle are for guys who don't mind blowing $1000 bucks extra -- or far more -- to brag about their extra fuel mileage/"earth-savings".

The extra fuel mileage does not make economic sense overall, and those cars will go the way of the dodo at the next economic downturn.

Peter

An "updated traditional steam car", with an improved Stanley-like 2-cylinder double-acting low-rpm direct-drive engine, on the other hand, might give lower fuel mileage than some of the other alternatives, but IMO the lower powerplant cost would more than make up for the higher fuel cost over the life of the vehicle. IE, the updated traditional steam car might cost 10-20% less, in fuel, maintenance, etc, overall cost per mile, than a comparable IC, BEV, and/or IC/EV hybrid.

It might be comforting to believe that "auto manufacturers will never adopt a powerplant with lower thermodynamic efficiency", but don't bet the farm on it. Faithful believers in IC, EV, and IC/EV hybrid vehicles may yet find themselves "stabbed in the back" by profit-oriented manufacturers of such vehicles. With the right developments, car makers might switch to mass-producing traditional steam cars at the drop of a hat..

Watch your back.

Imagine a future with updated/traditional steam cars dominating the road, and old-fashioned/outdated IC, EV, and IC/electric vehicles gradually disappearing. Would that be a bad thing?

Really. would it be some awful nightmare to drive a traditional steam car with a hand throttle and smooth, silent, instant-response, "hand of God" instant-torque [as Jay Leno calls it], and infinitely-variable, easily-controlled power? At far lower overall cost per mile than comparable IC, BEV, and IC/EV vehicles?

Sounds like a great future to me.

Peter



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 10:02AM by Peter Brow.

Hi Peter,

Yeah, the Texas comment was meant just for you. By the way, did you listen to the boat?

OK, now about those mean old electric cars that are inconveniently in our way. This is admittedly an area in which I lack enough knowledge. But let's look at them in the context of green house gasses only, and see where on the efficiency curves the lines might cross. In other words pound to pound/mile, all other things equal such as vehicle weight. ( I don't much like the term vehicle as it con-notates ownership by the state.)

Let us also assume that just because someones power company gets some of their power from some windmills, that energy alone is not what charged the battery.

So, the power company burns coal or natural gas to produce power and that combined with other sources ends up with so many pounds of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. Those kilowatt-hours are then going through line and other losses to get to the electric vehicles battery to be converted into motion.

Now most steam cars, if ever made, would probably burn gasoline at some overall efficiency, yet to be determined as standard IC engine vehicles do.

So the basic question here is; what is the carbon usage per average mile of the all electric vehicle vs an equivalent gasoline burning vehicle? What overall engine efficiency would a gasoline vehicle have to have to match it?

Thank You,

Bill G.

This completely off topic for this forum, but I just did a comparison of the costs of my Tesla model 3 versus my Subaru BRZ. The BRZ cost $30,000 new but was worth about $11,000 when it was sold. The BRZ was 5 years old and had over 100,000 miles. The Tesla cost $75,000 but came with a $7500 federal tax credit.

In the last 10 months I owned the BRZ premium gasoline cost around $110 a month, oil and misc. disposables cost $250, a repair cost $300, and insurance was $360 for 6 months.

The last 7 months and 12,000 miles the Tesla cost $435 for 6 months of insurance and my electric bill is up between $14 and $24 per month. My weekly driving is around 180 miles, but the car has between 200 and 250 miles of usable range from a 90% to 10% state of charge. Other longer trip charging at hotels has been free. No oil changes or service. The software keeps getting very noticeably better, but it's only self driving at moderate speeds on fairly straight roads with careful supervision.

Not bad for a real American muscle car that saves me around $90 per month in direct energy costs and goes from 50 mph (80 kph) to 70 mph (113 kph) in 2 seconds. The handling is very solid and the only noise comes from the tires and wind. That makes 90 mph feel like 50 mph when passing log trucks on 2 lane roads.

Around here most of the power comes from dams with the rest from natural gas, solar, and wind. The last coal plant is being shut down.

Lohring Miller

How much will a 5 year old Tesla be worth? Will the depreciation wipe out the running and service cost savings?
Mike

[www.kbb.com]

Lohring Miller

Fast forward 20-30 years or less. Now [2039] that all fossil fuels are massively taxed to combat climate change, scientists suddenly discover that fossil-fuel CO2 emissions are merely counteracting the onset of the next periodic ice age. Without massive industrial/fossil-fuel CO2 addition to the atmosphere, sea levels could drop 400 feet or more like 12000 years ago, when the Mediterranean was a vast desert, the British Channel was a huge forested plain, and the ancestors of today's Native Americans migrated across a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. To avoid nearly the entire Northern Hemisphere being covered by a vast ice sheet and sea levels dropping hundreds of feet, with gigantic extinctions and evolutions of new species, governments now subsidize fossil fuel production and less-efficient fossil-fuel-using technology. Of course taxes & regulations have to be increased to increase CO2 emissions and fossil fuel extraction/usage. People who question these necessary policies are condemned as science-hating "climate-change deniers" and enemies of keeping the Earth's biosphere in an unchanging natural balance, which only government can guarantee.

Peter

Reminds me of the movie "Sleeper", where Woody Allen's character is transported to a future world where science has made discoveries about smoking and diet which are somewhat different from commonly-held views of the mid/late 20th Century:

[www.youtube.com]

Sci-snark aside, I still plan to develop a wood-chip-fired steam car, which would be completely "carbon-neutral". Fuel also "cheap as old chips", which in fact is exactly what it would be -- old wood chips in this case. For farmers and others with acreage/considerable wood waste like myself, the fuel would be "free". I believe that it would use 1/2 or less as much fuel per mile relative to a wood-gas IC car, but even if it used more wood per mile, the low cost, 100% carbon-neutrality, and fuel-renewability would make that a moot point. Especially considering that the powerplant could be far less expensive, and could operate without the severe engine-performance reduction of a wood-gas/IC system. Wood fuel does not require clear-cutting/deforestation. Google "coppice". Perhaps wood cannot fuel all cars, but 100% wind/solar/etc EV-conversion is massively problematic too. I think that carbon-neutral bio-fueled steam cars can be _part_ of the solution. Where is it written that there can/must be only one tech solution for everyone? Historically speaking, "Final Solution" type ideas have led to very bad results...

Also, contrary to "fossil fuels are bad, mmmmkay?" thinking, a la Mr. Garrison from "South Park", Earth's biosphere re-sequesters a certain amount of carbon from the atmosphere on a continuous basis. Not to mention the elephant in the room: the [IMO] high likelihood that human population/technology/energy-use growth will be migrating into space in the very near future, and that Earth will soon become a de-industrialized/de-populated backwater "historical nature preserve", with or without government environmental-preservation efforts. Space has infinitely more room, energy, & material resources than Earth. Even "ignorant greedy capitalists" are going to go there, not here. Imagine the mineral/metal/gas/water/solar/nuclear energy extraction potential of the solar system; makes the resources here on Earth look like peanuts in comparison. I mean, jeez, it's already starting; look at all the internet billionaires scrambling to develop space. Instead of bitching about "Earth-destruction", how about some _real_ scientific analysis -- big picture -- of likely futures? Drawing some arbitrary lines around Planet Earth, and assuming a-priori that "nothing ever can or ever will happen outside these lines", seems a bit myopic to me.

Sorta like assuming that, from a late-1800s perspective, ever-increasing city development means ever-increasing horse populations and ever-increasing problems with humane horse care, manure clean-up, flies, and fly-borne diseases. Then came automobiles, and those all became moot issues.

It may seem disturbing that environmental-preservation efforts may end up a moot point, but on the other hand consider that, in the same scenario, the "drill baby drill" anti-environmentalist right-wing POV will also end up completely absurd and irrelevant.

My thing is, will I settle into the Eden-like de-industrialized/depopulated future Earth, or cash in on the "more-more-more" super-boom economic/population expansion into the currently-lifeless/infinite-resource extraterrestrial Solar System?

Chuffing around on pleasant Earth back-roads in a wood-chip steamer sounds fun, but having a huge centrifugal-gravity estate out in space would be cool too. And tons of space colonists will probably want steam cars for tootling around their vast space places. 200 years ago, a one-room cabin with a fireplace was luxury. Today a "typical home" has many times as much room. 50-100 years from now, an ordinary homestead in space may be measured in square miles.

Peter

Hey Guys,
A new idea...adding a Thermo Electric Generater (TEG) to a steam vehicle. This is my latest crazy adventure into the thought process.

DIY TEG
TEG
Science Guy TEG

I'm on track to integrate a burner with special metal to generate enough electricity to run exhaust blowers or what ever else is needed to increase performance of the steam vehicle.

A little fun to the thread...hope you don't mind,

Kind regards,
Rick

I have done extensive research on this topic check this link- I think MHD is the best technique for making DC power this way and holds the most promise.

[www.electrical4u.com]

I have actually illuminated an 1157 light bulb directly from a thermoelectric generator

Quote
thermoelectric
A thermoelectric generator (TEG), also called a Seebeck generator, is a solid state device that converts heat flux (temperature differences) directly into electrical energy through a phenomenon called the Seebeck effect (a form of thermoelectric effect).

I used aluminium coated with silver electroless plating and it burned up really quick.

All files from this thread

File Name	File Size		Posted by	Date
Motor with Gearbox.JPG	498.4 KB	open | download	lohring	04/21/2019	Read message
01a.pdf	31.1 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	04/27/2019	Read message
oil1.pdf	17.6 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	04/27/2019	Read message
oil8.pdf	18.9 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	04/27/2019	Read message
oil10.pdf	33.4 KB	open | download	Jeremy Holmes	04/27/2019	Read message
2018 Cruze TD panel1.png	115.8 KB	open | download	frustrated	05/06/2019	Read message