|
Re: Full Steam Proposal for Auto Mfrs August 25, 2020 08:29AM |
The thing to consider is: "How come these prototypes haven't been built?" I don't have a PhD like the author, but I do work in powertrain development and possess a BS in Business Administration with a heavy emphasis in Economics and Accounting --- so, let's consider that to be more-or-less "the flip side".
You have to step back from the theoretical and look at the proposal from the viewpoint of a manufacturer. The first real bug-a-boo in this proposal is the lubrication --- a new type of lubricant is needed and the author is only able to make generalized comments as to what might work. When an engine requires an entirely new class of lubricants, there's going to be a lot of pushback in the form of "Who's going to manufacture, distribute, sell and dispose of this stuff?" Hey, it's a lot time and resources just to get a working solution, then a lot of testing to ensure that you don't get sued into bankruptcy for burning out customer engines, then followed by a big investment to manufacture, advertise and distribute. It's like the whole bit we heard a few years back about needing a steam car because it could burn renewable algae oil. Proponents argued that producers would rush in to sell cheap, renewable algae oil in order to fuel all these upcoming steam cars. The problem was, who would pay a large premium on a car, with an unproven style of engine, when there was no cheap fuel yet available to create an incentive? It's the chicken and egg problem. Same thing with new, special classes of lubricant. It's easy to wave your hand and say that such and such a thing is needed --- it's entirely a different thing to write up an ironclad business plan, procure investment and shepard the thing into a profitable and sustainable product.
We basically run into the same problem with fuel. The paper argues that this is a slam-dunk because you don't have to worry about octane or cetane values. That all sounds good from a theoretical standpoint, but let's get real. On the first day you start selling cars, there is going to be ZERO number of gallons of lower grade fuel available at service stations. Refineries are complex, and incredibly expensive, beasts --- no one is going to retool one for a demand that doesn't exist. Arguably, you could tap off lesser processed fuel, but there's going to be pushback. First of all, refineries tend to be constant flow processes --- withdrawing significant amounts somewhere in the middle of the process may throw off the following stages. Now that you have this extraction, it is going to require separate handling, testing, shipping and so on. Since we're not talking about anything like the same quantities of regular fuel, the methods are likely to be far less streamlined and economical. Having overcome these hurdles, who is going to sell it? With the exception of a small number of stations under construction, you are basically restricted to existing distribution networks and facilities. This means digging up the grounds for a new tank and, most likely, converting some existing pumps for the new fuel. This is precisely why it's so hard to find a Ford dealership selling the new GT --- Ford requires a special clean room service bay that costs something like a million dollars. In other words, you need to scrape up 7 figures to service the cars and, in return, you have to remove an existing bay that is already quite profitable from servicing far more paying customers than you will see GT owners. Ever notice how relatively few stations sell E-85?
Now let's look at manufacturing the car. You have inherent problems at every stage. Does anyone really think, in the year 2020, that there's a glut of engineers and technicians competent in steam powertrain development? It's probably a lead pipe cinch that a very, very costly extra couple of years development time are going to be needed just to build, test and certify your first pre-production engine. This is a highly competitive industry and it's hard to justify spending that kind of money and, more importantly, rededicating that many existing resources. Heck, I want to see just how you are going to get this thing certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The test cycles are pretty well defined and I envision all kinds of hurdles getting them to clear your tests until they certify the validity of the testing methods themselves. We all know how fast the government is, so sit back and wait. Suppose that, for one year, all that money you invested getting to this point is out of circulation and not generating any returns --- which you desperately need for operations, advertising, plant refurbishment and retooling for new models.
Next off, let's look at the basic engine plan provided (http://www.newsteamengine.com/section11.htm). This thing is a double-acting engine with crossheads and piston rods. It's quite traditional, gives you a lot of very smooth torque delivery, minimizes contaminants in the crankcase --- and utterly won't fit in the engine bay of the average automobile. Let's face it, from crankcase to cylinder head, it's just awfully long. We're going to need to develop a whole new platform for it to sit in, which is going to raise costs enormously, figure about 1 billion dollars to fit out a new plant to make an entirely new platform. That's over and above the billion we are going to need for the new engine plant. These aren't wild numbers out of thin air, that's the kind of money real auto companies spend in order to mass-produce in the kind of quantities needed to bring unit cost down to the point the average consumer can afford.
Even after building a new platform for this engine, we have some issues. That big engine is going to cause a return to the big engine compartment of the days when I was young. This isn't all bad, I used to slide down inside the engine bay of my Fairmont to work on the 4 cylinder engine --- that bay was big enough for inline 6s and V-8s, also. The problem is threefold. First, the bigger bay takes more metal and is, therefore, a bit more expensive. Secondly, and more critically, we can't fit a sloping hood as readily --- this is going to adversely affect aerodynamic efficiency and therefore hurt our CAFE score (government mandated fleet fuel economy). This can be a make-or-break sort of thing. Many years ago the Ford Escort was the best selling car in the US because it got good fuel economy .... boosting Ford's CAFE numbers. In fact, Ford sold the Escort AT A LOSS! The reasoning was simple, every improvement of the score let them sell more highly-profitable Lincolns which guzzled gas. Therefore, they could lose on the Escort because the Lincolns more than made it up. This should be a hint how CAFE can affect your business model.
Of course, we haven't considered the effect of adding a boiler. Not just any boiler, but a big one with multiple stage reheat. This sucker just got bigger yet. Of course, bigger means heavier. Heavier means we need to beef up suspension, steering, crash protection, brakes and so on. In point of fact, it turns out that the weight gained in order to compensate for added weight often exceeds the initial weight gain. The vehicle being heavier, is going to perform more poorly, unless we increase engine output. That, of course, probably adds even more weight.
Now let's consider engine manufacturing costs. An internal combustion engine uses a large number of identical internal parts such as rods, wrist pins, bearings, pistons, rings, valves and so on. Of course, economies of scale kick in as your production numbers rise. A quadruple expansion engine has four different types of piston, rings and rings (very likely others such as bearings and other parts such as crossheads and piston rods.) We are going to need to invest in tooling and labor to build more types of parts, at lower production numbers, this engine is getting more expensive by the moment.
Let's also look at all the high-pressure plumbing needed, this is going to get pricy next to rubber hoses and thin wall tubing.
Compounding our problems is that we can't find anyone producing modern, high performance steam engines. We're going to have to figure out how to economically manufacture a lot of this stuff on the fly. For example, once we figure out how to bore an accurate cylinder, we repeat the process on all the remaining identical cylinders in our gasoline or diesel engine. Is this going to remain true for an engine with different bores and construction?
Let's also consider the real-world effects of steam engineering. Take compounding, as found in this engine, (see the indicator card, below) Note the gap between the high and low pressure stages, plus the fact that the lower pressure stage is beneath the expansion projection line from the high pressure stage. That all indicates lost work. For a quadruple expansion engine, we get to toss in two more similar losses. This is not analogous to compounding in turbine stages because the pressure drop in turbines occurs in efficient nozzles that cause an increase in steam velocity --- which the downstream stage efficiently converts to mechanical power. In the piston engine, the pressure drop is a loss, in the turbine it's part of the operating cycle.
We also face a significant loss at the boiler --- something like 15 to 20% of the heat energy is going out the stack without contributing to steam production whatsoever. This is a loss on top of the engine mechanical efficiency or the Rankine cycle efficiency.
I could go on ... and on...and on .... but coffee break is over. The problem with every single steam car proposal I've seen is that they emphasize a lot of putative advantages but then ignore or gloss over the greater number of challenges. Engineers, production managers and accountants fixate on stuff like this. Viewed in the light of day, it's easy to see why steam cars get written off so easily, the proposals simply don't portray the matter in a realistic manner.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2020 09:02AM by frustrated.
You have to step back from the theoretical and look at the proposal from the viewpoint of a manufacturer. The first real bug-a-boo in this proposal is the lubrication --- a new type of lubricant is needed and the author is only able to make generalized comments as to what might work. When an engine requires an entirely new class of lubricants, there's going to be a lot of pushback in the form of "Who's going to manufacture, distribute, sell and dispose of this stuff?" Hey, it's a lot time and resources just to get a working solution, then a lot of testing to ensure that you don't get sued into bankruptcy for burning out customer engines, then followed by a big investment to manufacture, advertise and distribute. It's like the whole bit we heard a few years back about needing a steam car because it could burn renewable algae oil. Proponents argued that producers would rush in to sell cheap, renewable algae oil in order to fuel all these upcoming steam cars. The problem was, who would pay a large premium on a car, with an unproven style of engine, when there was no cheap fuel yet available to create an incentive? It's the chicken and egg problem. Same thing with new, special classes of lubricant. It's easy to wave your hand and say that such and such a thing is needed --- it's entirely a different thing to write up an ironclad business plan, procure investment and shepard the thing into a profitable and sustainable product.
We basically run into the same problem with fuel. The paper argues that this is a slam-dunk because you don't have to worry about octane or cetane values. That all sounds good from a theoretical standpoint, but let's get real. On the first day you start selling cars, there is going to be ZERO number of gallons of lower grade fuel available at service stations. Refineries are complex, and incredibly expensive, beasts --- no one is going to retool one for a demand that doesn't exist. Arguably, you could tap off lesser processed fuel, but there's going to be pushback. First of all, refineries tend to be constant flow processes --- withdrawing significant amounts somewhere in the middle of the process may throw off the following stages. Now that you have this extraction, it is going to require separate handling, testing, shipping and so on. Since we're not talking about anything like the same quantities of regular fuel, the methods are likely to be far less streamlined and economical. Having overcome these hurdles, who is going to sell it? With the exception of a small number of stations under construction, you are basically restricted to existing distribution networks and facilities. This means digging up the grounds for a new tank and, most likely, converting some existing pumps for the new fuel. This is precisely why it's so hard to find a Ford dealership selling the new GT --- Ford requires a special clean room service bay that costs something like a million dollars. In other words, you need to scrape up 7 figures to service the cars and, in return, you have to remove an existing bay that is already quite profitable from servicing far more paying customers than you will see GT owners. Ever notice how relatively few stations sell E-85?
Now let's look at manufacturing the car. You have inherent problems at every stage. Does anyone really think, in the year 2020, that there's a glut of engineers and technicians competent in steam powertrain development? It's probably a lead pipe cinch that a very, very costly extra couple of years development time are going to be needed just to build, test and certify your first pre-production engine. This is a highly competitive industry and it's hard to justify spending that kind of money and, more importantly, rededicating that many existing resources. Heck, I want to see just how you are going to get this thing certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The test cycles are pretty well defined and I envision all kinds of hurdles getting them to clear your tests until they certify the validity of the testing methods themselves. We all know how fast the government is, so sit back and wait. Suppose that, for one year, all that money you invested getting to this point is out of circulation and not generating any returns --- which you desperately need for operations, advertising, plant refurbishment and retooling for new models.
Next off, let's look at the basic engine plan provided (http://www.newsteamengine.com/section11.htm). This thing is a double-acting engine with crossheads and piston rods. It's quite traditional, gives you a lot of very smooth torque delivery, minimizes contaminants in the crankcase --- and utterly won't fit in the engine bay of the average automobile. Let's face it, from crankcase to cylinder head, it's just awfully long. We're going to need to develop a whole new platform for it to sit in, which is going to raise costs enormously, figure about 1 billion dollars to fit out a new plant to make an entirely new platform. That's over and above the billion we are going to need for the new engine plant. These aren't wild numbers out of thin air, that's the kind of money real auto companies spend in order to mass-produce in the kind of quantities needed to bring unit cost down to the point the average consumer can afford.
Even after building a new platform for this engine, we have some issues. That big engine is going to cause a return to the big engine compartment of the days when I was young. This isn't all bad, I used to slide down inside the engine bay of my Fairmont to work on the 4 cylinder engine --- that bay was big enough for inline 6s and V-8s, also. The problem is threefold. First, the bigger bay takes more metal and is, therefore, a bit more expensive. Secondly, and more critically, we can't fit a sloping hood as readily --- this is going to adversely affect aerodynamic efficiency and therefore hurt our CAFE score (government mandated fleet fuel economy). This can be a make-or-break sort of thing. Many years ago the Ford Escort was the best selling car in the US because it got good fuel economy .... boosting Ford's CAFE numbers. In fact, Ford sold the Escort AT A LOSS! The reasoning was simple, every improvement of the score let them sell more highly-profitable Lincolns which guzzled gas. Therefore, they could lose on the Escort because the Lincolns more than made it up. This should be a hint how CAFE can affect your business model.
Of course, we haven't considered the effect of adding a boiler. Not just any boiler, but a big one with multiple stage reheat. This sucker just got bigger yet. Of course, bigger means heavier. Heavier means we need to beef up suspension, steering, crash protection, brakes and so on. In point of fact, it turns out that the weight gained in order to compensate for added weight often exceeds the initial weight gain. The vehicle being heavier, is going to perform more poorly, unless we increase engine output. That, of course, probably adds even more weight.
Now let's consider engine manufacturing costs. An internal combustion engine uses a large number of identical internal parts such as rods, wrist pins, bearings, pistons, rings, valves and so on. Of course, economies of scale kick in as your production numbers rise. A quadruple expansion engine has four different types of piston, rings and rings (very likely others such as bearings and other parts such as crossheads and piston rods.) We are going to need to invest in tooling and labor to build more types of parts, at lower production numbers, this engine is getting more expensive by the moment.
Let's also look at all the high-pressure plumbing needed, this is going to get pricy next to rubber hoses and thin wall tubing.
Compounding our problems is that we can't find anyone producing modern, high performance steam engines. We're going to have to figure out how to economically manufacture a lot of this stuff on the fly. For example, once we figure out how to bore an accurate cylinder, we repeat the process on all the remaining identical cylinders in our gasoline or diesel engine. Is this going to remain true for an engine with different bores and construction?
Let's also consider the real-world effects of steam engineering. Take compounding, as found in this engine, (see the indicator card, below) Note the gap between the high and low pressure stages, plus the fact that the lower pressure stage is beneath the expansion projection line from the high pressure stage. That all indicates lost work. For a quadruple expansion engine, we get to toss in two more similar losses. This is not analogous to compounding in turbine stages because the pressure drop in turbines occurs in efficient nozzles that cause an increase in steam velocity --- which the downstream stage efficiently converts to mechanical power. In the piston engine, the pressure drop is a loss, in the turbine it's part of the operating cycle.
We also face a significant loss at the boiler --- something like 15 to 20% of the heat energy is going out the stack without contributing to steam production whatsoever. This is a loss on top of the engine mechanical efficiency or the Rankine cycle efficiency.
I could go on ... and on...and on .... but coffee break is over. The problem with every single steam car proposal I've seen is that they emphasize a lot of putative advantages but then ignore or gloss over the greater number of challenges. Engineers, production managers and accountants fixate on stuff like this. Viewed in the light of day, it's easy to see why steam cars get written off so easily, the proposals simply don't portray the matter in a realistic manner.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2020 09:02AM by frustrated.
|
Re: Full Steam Proposal for Auto Mfrs September 04, 2020 05:29PM |
There's a number of factors conspiring against feed heaters. First of all, there's the cycle itself. A primitive car like an early Stanley or its contemporaries is an open cycle machine, the water is vaporized and exhausted to atmosphere. The feed water is at ambient temperature and a feed water heater can save you quite a bit of energy simply because of the large temperature differential between the feed and exhaust.
Ken
Some of the feed water heaters and economizers I’ve built. I call a feed water heater as being outside the boiler and economizer as being inside the boiler housing. The former being heated by the exhaust steam the other by the exhaust gases from the boiler.
Rolly
Ken
Some of the feed water heaters and economizers I’ve built. I call a feed water heater as being outside the boiler and economizer as being inside the boiler housing. The former being heated by the exhaust steam the other by the exhaust gases from the boiler.
Rolly
|
Re: Full Steam Proposal for Auto Mfrs September 06, 2020 06:07PM |
Steam automotive projects of 1970s:
[books.google.com]
Drawings show that steam automotive powerplants have larger volume that equivalent IC engines. Also steam powered automobiles probably won't pass crash testing.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2020 06:15PM by novice.
[books.google.com]
Drawings show that steam automotive powerplants have larger volume that equivalent IC engines. Also steam powered automobiles probably won't pass crash testing.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2020 06:15PM by novice.
|
Re: Full Steam Proposal for Auto Mfrs September 11, 2020 11:53AM |
Rick
You have to be careful what you look at. That’s not original to the car.
Evan some non-condensing cars have feed water heaters in the exhaust duck, but there not original either. There were manufactures making accessories for cars way back then like today.
Saca store room sales copies of the original Stanley instruction books.
Rolly
You have to be careful what you look at. That’s not original to the car.
Evan some non-condensing cars have feed water heaters in the exhaust duck, but there not original either. There were manufactures making accessories for cars way back then like today.
Saca store room sales copies of the original Stanley instruction books.
Rolly
|
Re: Full Steam Proposal for Auto Mfrs September 12, 2020 10:32AM |
Another example of a novel drive system that failed to be commercialized.
Australian underground rescue tractor with the closed cycle gas turbine propulsion powerplant based on 316 hp converted helicopter engine T63-A700 with hydrostatic transmission and an electrically heated 1000kWh 10000 lbs molten sodium fluoride salt energy storage. 150 kw electric heaters melt salt at 1818F in 7 hours. Net efficiency is 35%. That is 350 kWh of useful energy.
Cost of sodium fluoride salt for this system was $6412 in 2001 dollars.
Also, molten silicon alloys could be used instead of salt with twice the energy density.
There were also projects of small automobiles with molten salt energy storage and stirling engine.
![books[22].jpg](https://www.steamautomobile.com:8443/ForuM/picturesx//178/8a8/85d/a73/4d3/4cd/54d/a5a/ad5/fd0/f7_200x200.jpg "books[22].jpg")
Australian underground rescue tractor with the closed cycle gas turbine propulsion powerplant based on 316 hp converted helicopter engine T63-A700 with hydrostatic transmission and an electrically heated 1000kWh 10000 lbs molten sodium fluoride salt energy storage. 150 kw electric heaters melt salt at 1818F in 7 hours. Net efficiency is 35%. That is 350 kWh of useful energy.
Cost of sodium fluoride salt for this system was $6412 in 2001 dollars.
Also, molten silicon alloys could be used instead of salt with twice the energy density.
There were also projects of small automobiles with molten salt energy storage and stirling engine.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
![books[22].jpg](http://steamautomobile.com:8443/ForuM/file.php/1/5572/books_22_.jpg){kind=link}
