Williams ws. Rankin
Posted by Howard Langdon
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 29, 2006 12:32AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 29, 2006 11:04AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Ken,
You put the matter of a new steam car very clearly and correctly. Now consider what private developer has those needed superb facilities at his disposal. I know of none who has such a well equipped shop in his back yard.
Nor do I know of anyone who has the individual time to spend, let alone the money and the personal committment.
Although I could have done the work myself when the ten new Doble crankcases and crankshafts were made a few years ago, I used very competent and well equipped outside contractors to do the actual castings and machining. It was also a matter of getting the job done and not taking years to do that.There was a time factor.
Howard is not seeing the point of my comments. Building a car with available or old parts is only going to make a steamer that resembles ones of the 1950's or even earlier. Establish your objective and then stick with it, super new or workable. If you want the latter, then fine. Some want to do much better than that, thus the endless discussions. I do not consider frequent breakdowns acceptable.
It all depends on what one is intending to do with this. Make a really superb car or make one that just runs on steam. There is a huge difference.
And, what is the real objective? Make as good a car as you can, just to accomplish a most difficult engineering task, or just some thing that runs on steam.
He also brings up a very interesting point. Inject the piston lubrication in the wall of the cylinder and not with the steam. One is then almost committed to poppet valves, from the lubrication standpoint.
Actually Howard, I do know someone with a gas turbine powered motorcycle, Jay Leno. A super fierce machine that I would never consider riding for any reason.
Even the suggestion of using a turbine is only a matter of most carefully working the tradeoffs and then selecting the end result that will give you what you want.
Turbines require a good knowledge of aerodynamic concerns, and is far above any reciprocating engine, as far as the engineering is concerned.
Jeremy, Of course. It is great fun and a good education to look at everything, then make your choices and see what evolves. I didn't spend a lot of time with those investigations of the Lysholm and Wankel just for the fun of it.
JC
You put the matter of a new steam car very clearly and correctly. Now consider what private developer has those needed superb facilities at his disposal. I know of none who has such a well equipped shop in his back yard.
Nor do I know of anyone who has the individual time to spend, let alone the money and the personal committment.
Although I could have done the work myself when the ten new Doble crankcases and crankshafts were made a few years ago, I used very competent and well equipped outside contractors to do the actual castings and machining. It was also a matter of getting the job done and not taking years to do that.There was a time factor.
Howard is not seeing the point of my comments. Building a car with available or old parts is only going to make a steamer that resembles ones of the 1950's or even earlier. Establish your objective and then stick with it, super new or workable. If you want the latter, then fine. Some want to do much better than that, thus the endless discussions. I do not consider frequent breakdowns acceptable.
It all depends on what one is intending to do with this. Make a really superb car or make one that just runs on steam. There is a huge difference.
And, what is the real objective? Make as good a car as you can, just to accomplish a most difficult engineering task, or just some thing that runs on steam.
He also brings up a very interesting point. Inject the piston lubrication in the wall of the cylinder and not with the steam. One is then almost committed to poppet valves, from the lubrication standpoint.
Actually Howard, I do know someone with a gas turbine powered motorcycle, Jay Leno. A super fierce machine that I would never consider riding for any reason.
Even the suggestion of using a turbine is only a matter of most carefully working the tradeoffs and then selecting the end result that will give you what you want.
Turbines require a good knowledge of aerodynamic concerns, and is far above any reciprocating engine, as far as the engineering is concerned.
Jeremy, Of course. It is great fun and a good education to look at everything, then make your choices and see what evolves. I didn't spend a lot of time with those investigations of the Lysholm and Wankel just for the fun of it.
JC
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 29, 2006 11:42PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
Hi Jim:
If anything I think you actually understate just how much money goes into making something like a car. Problem is that it is so stunning that the concept is hard to get across.
Let me lead of with what I not so modestly call 'Ken's Law':
"Any job is easy if you have never done it"
It took me some years to figure this out, the hard way
My theory is that digging a ditch is probably a lot harder than it looks if you have to figure out where to throw the dirt so that it doesn't create problems later. In college I learned first hand that working in McDonalds and doing a good job isn't as easy as people would think it is. Making cars is just plain HARD.
The thing that eludes most people is the difference between 'skilled hand craftsmanship' and 'production quality'. The average guy thinks that 'Old World hand craftsmanship' means superior quality, I have a bridge in Brooklyn they can get cheap. With current manufacturing technology, you need manufacturing grade machinery just to build prototypes good enough to predict how well the eventual mass produced part will hold up. I'm a good machinist, hell, I'm an excellent machinist or I wouldn't work where I do; and there is no way I could conceivably use even good manual tool and die grade machine shop equipment to reproduce the quality of the prototype and preproduction engines we build, literally by the thousands, each year. That last sentence should wake people up, auto companies may literally build more than a thousand engines each year in a prototype shop just to verify product performance and quality before tooling up production lines to build them. How many steam cars have been produced in the last hundred years by comparison?
A Bridgeport mill and South Bend lathe are nice to have, but they will not produce anything like the quality found inside the family chariot today. Figure a million bucks to buy a CNC machine capable of machining an engine block casting, and that is not counting the tooling to cast the block. Another million to buy a machine that can work a crankshaft, again not taking into account the cost of forging the crank rough blank. Another million to grind the crank. Of course that crank needs to be polished, heat treated, rolled and balanced as well. Let's not forget the camshaft grinder if you have to make those. The cylinder bores need to be polished. Everything will have to be leak checked when assembled. Let's not forget this is all very skilled labor, so figure maybe $150,000 a year per tradesman employed after you pay wages, medical and dental, Social Security contributions, pension and so forth. Of course, a big company may need multiple sets of some of those machines. Any way you look at it, the capital needed to build small numbers of automobile engines of quality comparable to even the most economical of cars is going to run into multiple millions, and the labor cost is going to head into the same territory.
I did a stint in a prototype metal fabrication facility where we made disposable kirksite stamping dies to whack out body and chassis components for preproduction cars. For those that don't quite get that, think of all the body parts on your car, each one was stamped out in a die including the roof, trunk, fender and so forth. We had to make a disposable die for all those parts, the dies weighing tons apiece. The government requires crash testing of vehicles, and there is no way anyone can afford to tool up a factory and THEN find out the cars don't pass. So, anyhow, we had to make EXACT replicas of the next generation car by hand with exactly the same materials. I don't know for certain, but the figure I heard bounced around was that each one of those hand made cars cost about $1 million just to run into a wall. Interesting that a hand made super car and a prototype Cobalt cost something similar to make; this implies that the cost is more a factor of the production processes than the cars performance. My observation here is that making super expensive custom machines for the super rich might not really be anywhere near as lucrative as outsiders would assume. I'm guessing the guys running some of those companies have their share of sleepless nights wondering if outgo will exceed income. When production volume drops down to a handful prices climb to astronomical levels if quality is to be kept constant.
Where I'm heading is that it is likely impossible for an individual to build a steam automobile equal to the quality of anything on a dealer lot. Even if you contract it all out, it won't happen. Even assuming you get shops with the ability to work to that level, and that isn't easy, no one ever gets anything perfect the first time, usually takes a bit of effort to totally debug all the systems and turn out a component that meets specifications. That is going to be in the tooling up costs, amortized over 1 part it's unsupportable, over 10 it is a killer, even over a thousand it ain't cheap. Probably a buyer would have to settle for 'almost production grade' and figure that is good enough and still hideously expensive.
On the other side of the doom and gloom is the idea that if you are doing it purely as a hobby, you can afford to scrimp enormously, with the realization that the whole exercise is for personal amusement, growth, self esteem and to make the neighbors wonder just how weird you really are. Personally, I'm working on a design for an advanced, high end engine. On paper it looks great and should be a winner. I'm not going to mope if it just sits there and vents steam without doing much of anything exciting, cause I figure the journey was more important than the destination. Well, OK, I may mope a little. I agree with you that one has to set his goals before hand and decide what you want out of it. As long as the goals are realistically attainable and one assumes a certain likelihood that failure is possible, I think the process could certainly be rewarding personally if not financially.
Heck, without challenges now and then, what fun would life be?
Regards,
Ken
If anything I think you actually understate just how much money goes into making something like a car. Problem is that it is so stunning that the concept is hard to get across.
Let me lead of with what I not so modestly call 'Ken's Law':
"Any job is easy if you have never done it"
It took me some years to figure this out, the hard way
My theory is that digging a ditch is probably a lot harder than it looks if you have to figure out where to throw the dirt so that it doesn't create problems later. In college I learned first hand that working in McDonalds and doing a good job isn't as easy as people would think it is. Making cars is just plain HARD.
The thing that eludes most people is the difference between 'skilled hand craftsmanship' and 'production quality'. The average guy thinks that 'Old World hand craftsmanship' means superior quality, I have a bridge in Brooklyn they can get cheap. With current manufacturing technology, you need manufacturing grade machinery just to build prototypes good enough to predict how well the eventual mass produced part will hold up. I'm a good machinist, hell, I'm an excellent machinist or I wouldn't work where I do; and there is no way I could conceivably use even good manual tool and die grade machine shop equipment to reproduce the quality of the prototype and preproduction engines we build, literally by the thousands, each year. That last sentence should wake people up, auto companies may literally build more than a thousand engines each year in a prototype shop just to verify product performance and quality before tooling up production lines to build them. How many steam cars have been produced in the last hundred years by comparison?
A Bridgeport mill and South Bend lathe are nice to have, but they will not produce anything like the quality found inside the family chariot today. Figure a million bucks to buy a CNC machine capable of machining an engine block casting, and that is not counting the tooling to cast the block. Another million to buy a machine that can work a crankshaft, again not taking into account the cost of forging the crank rough blank. Another million to grind the crank. Of course that crank needs to be polished, heat treated, rolled and balanced as well. Let's not forget the camshaft grinder if you have to make those. The cylinder bores need to be polished. Everything will have to be leak checked when assembled. Let's not forget this is all very skilled labor, so figure maybe $150,000 a year per tradesman employed after you pay wages, medical and dental, Social Security contributions, pension and so forth. Of course, a big company may need multiple sets of some of those machines. Any way you look at it, the capital needed to build small numbers of automobile engines of quality comparable to even the most economical of cars is going to run into multiple millions, and the labor cost is going to head into the same territory.
I did a stint in a prototype metal fabrication facility where we made disposable kirksite stamping dies to whack out body and chassis components for preproduction cars. For those that don't quite get that, think of all the body parts on your car, each one was stamped out in a die including the roof, trunk, fender and so forth. We had to make a disposable die for all those parts, the dies weighing tons apiece. The government requires crash testing of vehicles, and there is no way anyone can afford to tool up a factory and THEN find out the cars don't pass. So, anyhow, we had to make EXACT replicas of the next generation car by hand with exactly the same materials. I don't know for certain, but the figure I heard bounced around was that each one of those hand made cars cost about $1 million just to run into a wall. Interesting that a hand made super car and a prototype Cobalt cost something similar to make; this implies that the cost is more a factor of the production processes than the cars performance. My observation here is that making super expensive custom machines for the super rich might not really be anywhere near as lucrative as outsiders would assume. I'm guessing the guys running some of those companies have their share of sleepless nights wondering if outgo will exceed income. When production volume drops down to a handful prices climb to astronomical levels if quality is to be kept constant.
Where I'm heading is that it is likely impossible for an individual to build a steam automobile equal to the quality of anything on a dealer lot. Even if you contract it all out, it won't happen. Even assuming you get shops with the ability to work to that level, and that isn't easy, no one ever gets anything perfect the first time, usually takes a bit of effort to totally debug all the systems and turn out a component that meets specifications. That is going to be in the tooling up costs, amortized over 1 part it's unsupportable, over 10 it is a killer, even over a thousand it ain't cheap. Probably a buyer would have to settle for 'almost production grade' and figure that is good enough and still hideously expensive.
On the other side of the doom and gloom is the idea that if you are doing it purely as a hobby, you can afford to scrimp enormously, with the realization that the whole exercise is for personal amusement, growth, self esteem and to make the neighbors wonder just how weird you really are. Personally, I'm working on a design for an advanced, high end engine. On paper it looks great and should be a winner. I'm not going to mope if it just sits there and vents steam without doing much of anything exciting, cause I figure the journey was more important than the destination. Well, OK, I may mope a little. I agree with you that one has to set his goals before hand and decide what you want out of it. As long as the goals are realistically attainable and one assumes a certain likelihood that failure is possible, I think the process could certainly be rewarding personally if not financially.
Heck, without challenges now and then, what fun would life be?
Regards,
Ken
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 30, 2006 09:40AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Hi Ken,
Your last paragraph certainly describes a home made steamer.
Oh yes, I am very familiar with what it takes to make a special one-off car.
Two steamers, not mine; but I was there through the whole process, one steam race car and about four IC race cars, and using lots of production components.
Plus having a firm plan and sticking to it all the way through.
If you make it with only a factor of five in the cost, then you created a miracle, even with the most careful planning you can muster up, and two more than competent outside contractors who had the expensive CNC equipment.
Again quite right. A homemade steamer using hand operated tools in the home shop is not going to even come up to a clunker on a used car lot.
I think if one really cannot live without a steam car, then do the best you can and enjoy it. The process is not only very educational; but rewarding if it runs well at all. Without such a challange once in a while, life would not be worth living.
JC
Your last paragraph certainly describes a home made steamer.
Oh yes, I am very familiar with what it takes to make a special one-off car.
Two steamers, not mine; but I was there through the whole process, one steam race car and about four IC race cars, and using lots of production components.
Plus having a firm plan and sticking to it all the way through.
If you make it with only a factor of five in the cost, then you created a miracle, even with the most careful planning you can muster up, and two more than competent outside contractors who had the expensive CNC equipment.
Again quite right. A homemade steamer using hand operated tools in the home shop is not going to even come up to a clunker on a used car lot.
I think if one really cannot live without a steam car, then do the best you can and enjoy it. The process is not only very educational; but rewarding if it runs well at all. Without such a challange once in a while, life would not be worth living.
JC
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 30, 2006 01:42PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 282 |
Jim and Ken,
You both have covered a lot of ground regarding production costs and this probably explains why some many companies are rushing their manufacturing facilities to China where process worker labor is still available at less than $US1 per hour.
What is staggering to see in the market place is the number of low priced machines being imported from China and sold with a profit margin locally at a price about a quarter of previous products possibly imported from some other area. Someone is spitting out gen sets, air compressors, ATVs, electrical goods etc for very low prices and while quality of some materials may be suspect, they are getting better by the day. Small economy cars are being made in Asia for under $US6k.
If a modern steam system can be designed to be safe and simple, the best bet would be to let the Chinese steal the design (they don't like paying for anything up front) and see what they could do with it.
Meanwhile the best we can do is to make test machines by hand with what limited resources are available.
Regards,
Graeme
You both have covered a lot of ground regarding production costs and this probably explains why some many companies are rushing their manufacturing facilities to China where process worker labor is still available at less than $US1 per hour.
What is staggering to see in the market place is the number of low priced machines being imported from China and sold with a profit margin locally at a price about a quarter of previous products possibly imported from some other area. Someone is spitting out gen sets, air compressors, ATVs, electrical goods etc for very low prices and while quality of some materials may be suspect, they are getting better by the day. Small economy cars are being made in Asia for under $US6k.
If a modern steam system can be designed to be safe and simple, the best bet would be to let the Chinese steal the design (they don't like paying for anything up front) and see what they could do with it.
Meanwhile the best we can do is to make test machines by hand with what limited resources are available.
Regards,
Graeme
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 30, 2006 06:17PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
Hi Graeme:
We have actually bid some prototype work out to China. Used to be they couldn't either deliver the speed or quality necessary. Given that they generally can do that now proves that they have massively upgraded to state of the art CNC equipment. They pay the same for machinery and capital that we do, so the only place they are getting the savings is in labor. Give it a decade and they will be charging close to first world wages and the cheap labor will have moved to some other place.
Regards,
Ken
We have actually bid some prototype work out to China. Used to be they couldn't either deliver the speed or quality necessary. Given that they generally can do that now proves that they have massively upgraded to state of the art CNC equipment. They pay the same for machinery and capital that we do, so the only place they are getting the savings is in labor. Give it a decade and they will be charging close to first world wages and the cheap labor will have moved to some other place.
Regards,
Ken
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 30, 2006 06:30PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
Hi Howard:
I have to admit, I am more than a bit curious about two things:
One, what sort of users pay a hundred thousand bucks for an engine that runs for 90 seconds?
Two, what steam plants are considered hot? I'd think a hot powertrain would be one with extremely high output for size and weight, I know of no steam system that comes near this description relative to IC or turbine tech.
Regards,
Ken
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2006 06:38PM by frustrated.
I have to admit, I am more than a bit curious about two things:
One, what sort of users pay a hundred thousand bucks for an engine that runs for 90 seconds?
Two, what steam plants are considered hot? I'd think a hot powertrain would be one with extremely high output for size and weight, I know of no steam system that comes near this description relative to IC or turbine tech.
Regards,
Ken
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2006 06:38PM by frustrated.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 30, 2006 07:59PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Hi Ken,
I have to tell you that my Ferrari owning friends raise unholy hell when their cars break down somehow about every 800 miles, and with a Ferrari, that seems to be the average. The idea of Lucas-Marelli fuel injection gives me nightmares.
Once past the Gee Whiz phase, I find it most amusing that they just sit in the garage. Weekend use only and NO long trips. At least the ten or so I know.
There certainly is no steam plant that can equal what one can buy today on the open market as far as performance is concerned.
Equal a C-6 Corvette or an AMG Mercedes, forget it.
A hundred years ago they were competative, today they simply are not, and no engineering trickery is going to reverse that.
JC
I have to tell you that my Ferrari owning friends raise unholy hell when their cars break down somehow about every 800 miles, and with a Ferrari, that seems to be the average. The idea of Lucas-Marelli fuel injection gives me nightmares.
Once past the Gee Whiz phase, I find it most amusing that they just sit in the garage. Weekend use only and NO long trips. At least the ten or so I know.
There certainly is no steam plant that can equal what one can buy today on the open market as far as performance is concerned.
Equal a C-6 Corvette or an AMG Mercedes, forget it.
A hundred years ago they were competative, today they simply are not, and no engineering trickery is going to reverse that.
JC
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 30, 2006 09:17PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 318 |
HI Jim you are not a racer. I am if a boat finniest the racer it was good if it was in front it was reel good. The poet is hot engines don’t have to last. And vae don’t in the late 60s and 70s May pleasure 17 10 f.t flat Bart tm whit a 900 hp lone 392 vat 120 mph it de tuned so it wood last an our or two. What I am trying to show vat speed peel do not care a bout your garbage as as long as it goes. It just wares faster. I never sad I wonted to billed cars. Jut engines, HIFrystrated glad you toed me now all the small sharps will have to close, as vye are not up to probuction standers, I wood call a 426 hamy vat put out 4500 hp hot or my green monster after it bet a 427 cmaell in a .25 of a mile
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 31, 2006 12:37AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,268 |
Well Guys,
I'm still gonna do it.
And yes, I am hoping that eventually it will be found good enough to be worth producing. For prototypes a small shop or a few different ones will do just fine.
My idea is to get as good an overall design completed as I possibly can and then set up a couple of test mules to test out each component working out as many bugs along the way as possible before a whole engine is put together.
It is my hope also that the engines will find there way into kit cars and conversions to get them on the road, further tested and in the public eye.
Agreed that there is NO competing in any real terms with the IC engine as to power density, that is though more of a boiler output and condenser input issue than with the engine it'self.
Again the big advantage for a steam vehicle is that it can cleanly burn most any liquid fuel, meaning the bio-fuels, many of which don't do that well in an IC engine. Mine also looks very good in the efficiency department, something few seem to want to hear.
GM and the other big companies do things their way and have the facilities. Those types of resources would be very useful of course. But I don't have them and I can't let it stop me. Besides if the thing absolutely requires their super close tolerances to function then there is something wrong with the design. Later to push a well established operational envelope toward better reliability, efficiency or whatever we can add the higher tolerances.
Sixty, seventy, eighty or however many years is indeed a lot of catching up to do, doesn't mean it can't be done. It's only an engine.
Best to Everyone -------- Bill G.
I'm still gonna do it.
And yes, I am hoping that eventually it will be found good enough to be worth producing. For prototypes a small shop or a few different ones will do just fine.
My idea is to get as good an overall design completed as I possibly can and then set up a couple of test mules to test out each component working out as many bugs along the way as possible before a whole engine is put together.
It is my hope also that the engines will find there way into kit cars and conversions to get them on the road, further tested and in the public eye.
Agreed that there is NO competing in any real terms with the IC engine as to power density, that is though more of a boiler output and condenser input issue than with the engine it'self.
Again the big advantage for a steam vehicle is that it can cleanly burn most any liquid fuel, meaning the bio-fuels, many of which don't do that well in an IC engine. Mine also looks very good in the efficiency department, something few seem to want to hear.
GM and the other big companies do things their way and have the facilities. Those types of resources would be very useful of course. But I don't have them and I can't let it stop me. Besides if the thing absolutely requires their super close tolerances to function then there is something wrong with the design. Later to push a well established operational envelope toward better reliability, efficiency or whatever we can add the higher tolerances.
Sixty, seventy, eighty or however many years is indeed a lot of catching up to do, doesn't mean it can't be done. It's only an engine.
Best to Everyone -------- Bill G.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin October 31, 2006 10:10AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Howard,
Oh really? Well if twelve years of SCCA senior competition with everything from an MG to a Kurtis Chevy is not racing, then I don't know what is. Along with friends Porsche Spyders, a Maserati 300si, and various Lotus 23s with aluminum Buicks in them.
Also, I might add, a friends 7 liter Hemi, and 225 class hydroplanes.
There is a box of trophies in the garage somewhere, if it is all that important.
Of course a race engine doesn't have to last. Like Lotus race cars, if they fall apart after finishing first, then they are successful. As long as you have the money to keep going, or a sponsor.
With steamers, I concentrate on reliable street cars, and the point these days is to find-design and use as good a steam engine as can be found, not just talk about one.
To date there are none.
Bill, Of course, keep working on this engine problem.
JC
Oh really? Well if twelve years of SCCA senior competition with everything from an MG to a Kurtis Chevy is not racing, then I don't know what is. Along with friends Porsche Spyders, a Maserati 300si, and various Lotus 23s with aluminum Buicks in them.
Also, I might add, a friends 7 liter Hemi, and 225 class hydroplanes.
There is a box of trophies in the garage somewhere, if it is all that important.
Of course a race engine doesn't have to last. Like Lotus race cars, if they fall apart after finishing first, then they are successful. As long as you have the money to keep going, or a sponsor.
With steamers, I concentrate on reliable street cars, and the point these days is to find-design and use as good a steam engine as can be found, not just talk about one.
To date there are none.
Bill, Of course, keep working on this engine problem.
JC
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 01, 2006 03:57PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 282 |
Jim,
Even with hot engines, reliability has become an issue. The premium racing event, Formula 1 requires each engine to be used for two consecutive races. Typical use is 1,500km of really hard driving. Engine cost is not an issue. You need about $200m a year to play the game.
The cost of hotness for individuals is also very high and $US100k is now not enough. The hottest road production car currently building (using a 1000hp engine) will cost about $US300k plus import duty and delivery charges. Around $1m will get you a prototype of quite a few different things. Small volume production set ups for EVs seem to be around $US60m for vehicles selling initially for $US100k in batches of 100.
A lot of serious money is being spent on novelty/collector/classic/race cars - some one offs, others limited production.
Maybe steam power can attract some of this with a good limited production product done on a small but still realistic budget. Targetting the size and type of product a steady number of people will pay for (or sponsor) may be the hardest part. My view is that not enough hot car buyers would look at a steam option.
How many friends does Howard have with $100k who could keep a program moving?
How many friends does anyone have who would even consider anything driven by steam even if the price was no more than that of the last production car they bought?
Real answers to the last 2 questions will reveal if there are any prospects for moving ahead with any form of new steam system.
Regards,
Graeme
Even with hot engines, reliability has become an issue. The premium racing event, Formula 1 requires each engine to be used for two consecutive races. Typical use is 1,500km of really hard driving. Engine cost is not an issue. You need about $200m a year to play the game.
The cost of hotness for individuals is also very high and $US100k is now not enough. The hottest road production car currently building (using a 1000hp engine) will cost about $US300k plus import duty and delivery charges. Around $1m will get you a prototype of quite a few different things. Small volume production set ups for EVs seem to be around $US60m for vehicles selling initially for $US100k in batches of 100.
A lot of serious money is being spent on novelty/collector/classic/race cars - some one offs, others limited production.
Maybe steam power can attract some of this with a good limited production product done on a small but still realistic budget. Targetting the size and type of product a steady number of people will pay for (or sponsor) may be the hardest part. My view is that not enough hot car buyers would look at a steam option.
How many friends does Howard have with $100k who could keep a program moving?
How many friends does anyone have who would even consider anything driven by steam even if the price was no more than that of the last production car they bought?
Real answers to the last 2 questions will reveal if there are any prospects for moving ahead with any form of new steam system.
Regards,
Graeme
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 02, 2006 10:22AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
Hi Graeme,
Quite right as usual. There is a class of very rich sport car buyers, who purchase such high end cars, not for the technical interest or driving excitement; but to impress their friends. "I have the latest and you don't." That sort of thing.
Recently, $4.5M for an old Ferrari race car. Why? it was the only one left of only a handful made for racing forty five years ago. Well, so what.
The answer to your last four sentences is zero.
I personally know of only one very well funded collector who would pay a high price for a steamer, just because he loves steam. Jay Leno.
The rest that I know look on a steam car with amusement, and go buy another restored Duesenberg or Bugatti for their collections.
A new steamer of worth is to my view, only a subject of interest to one who just loves them for what they are. And, those go buy another Stanley or White.
JC
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2006 10:25AM by James D. Crank.
Quite right as usual. There is a class of very rich sport car buyers, who purchase such high end cars, not for the technical interest or driving excitement; but to impress their friends. "I have the latest and you don't." That sort of thing.
Recently, $4.5M for an old Ferrari race car. Why? it was the only one left of only a handful made for racing forty five years ago. Well, so what.
The answer to your last four sentences is zero.
I personally know of only one very well funded collector who would pay a high price for a steamer, just because he loves steam. Jay Leno.
The rest that I know look on a steam car with amusement, and go buy another restored Duesenberg or Bugatti for their collections.
A new steamer of worth is to my view, only a subject of interest to one who just loves them for what they are. And, those go buy another Stanley or White.
JC
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2006 10:25AM by James D. Crank.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 02, 2006 02:14PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 282 |
Hi Jim,
Yes, the high end market does give some very high prices for scarce products. Production levels of some high cost high performance sports cars are quite low - sometimes only 30 or 50 total and others doing around 300. At the low cost end GM can sell over 20,000 Corvettes a year and Mazda MX5/Miatas have sold over 750,000 overall at around the price of a family car.
In relating to my last question, there are no modern steam products in the market place there is no benchmark for a vehicle size, type, cost or performance to use. I envisaged a family size vehicle costing no more than the average price of all cars sold in the USA - namely around the $20k to $25k level.
There have not been many sales of old steamers in the past year. Several Locomobiles sold well at a recent auction for around $40k but a replica Locomobile offered on E-Bay with a starting price of $30k did not appear to attract any bids even though it may have been a better steamer than any of the originals. I can see why car collectors do not take steamers seriously. The non-condensing models had poor range and most seem to require a lot of upkeep and a lot of skill or effort to operate. While satisfying enthusiasts at the time I don't believe any steamers achieved popular main stream public support that is necessary for survival in a tough market place. Issues may have varied but product reliability and cost were two items that resulted in car manufacturers starting with steam power and changing to internal combustion engines.
There appears to be a real risk that any new steamer will just sit in a showroom and have its tyres kicked. Having it sitting in a collectors shed will be of no real benefit either so those thinking of building something new have more than just technical and financial challenges to worry about. Consumers are beginning to change their preferences to smaller, more economical and environmentally friendly vehicles. Alternative fuels are finally being promoted and overall energy efficiency of vehicles is starting to be examined. There are important implications for steam power once you examine life cycle energy consumption for all vehicle power options.
If steam power suddenly looks viable again we are going to look pretty stupid with no suitable products being tested on the road and ready for more serious consideration. I suspect we will have a repeat of the early 1900s period when steam got rolled by other things by being too slow to get off the mark. We also have some bad experiences with Government agencies to remember so any road ahead looks rocky. I believe the private sector will have to carry the can and work its way through the maze of everything (red tape, regulations etc) in the way.
Perhaps the demand for new steamers could be created by using the Chocolate Icecream Denial method. Take a kid to an icecream shop selling 31 flavours and tell him he can have any flavor he wants except Chocolate. Guess what he will really want and remember for a very long time?
Tell consumers they can have any modern car type except a steamer as that is beyond their buying power. While there is no product anyway this won't mean much but if a good demo vehicle did exist you might get a positive (production proposal) response with a vehicle that even Jay Leno could not buy.
When playing catchup with virtually no money, some creative methods for product development and marketing will be necessary. I partially remember a comedy film long ago about a group of advertising people who created a demand for a new product that did not exist (as proof of the power of advertising) and then had to produce a product that matched the promoted name. We could do with them. False advertising these days is illegal so you have to be careful what you say about any product. This means the product has to be real and fully tested, so not a half-baked show mock up or paper design. Something for serious stayers only.
My $0.02 contribution but probably overpriced as the rate for ideas being normally quoted at a dime a dozen would be closer to $0.008.
Regards,
Graeme
Yes, the high end market does give some very high prices for scarce products. Production levels of some high cost high performance sports cars are quite low - sometimes only 30 or 50 total and others doing around 300. At the low cost end GM can sell over 20,000 Corvettes a year and Mazda MX5/Miatas have sold over 750,000 overall at around the price of a family car.
In relating to my last question, there are no modern steam products in the market place there is no benchmark for a vehicle size, type, cost or performance to use. I envisaged a family size vehicle costing no more than the average price of all cars sold in the USA - namely around the $20k to $25k level.
There have not been many sales of old steamers in the past year. Several Locomobiles sold well at a recent auction for around $40k but a replica Locomobile offered on E-Bay with a starting price of $30k did not appear to attract any bids even though it may have been a better steamer than any of the originals. I can see why car collectors do not take steamers seriously. The non-condensing models had poor range and most seem to require a lot of upkeep and a lot of skill or effort to operate. While satisfying enthusiasts at the time I don't believe any steamers achieved popular main stream public support that is necessary for survival in a tough market place. Issues may have varied but product reliability and cost were two items that resulted in car manufacturers starting with steam power and changing to internal combustion engines.
There appears to be a real risk that any new steamer will just sit in a showroom and have its tyres kicked. Having it sitting in a collectors shed will be of no real benefit either so those thinking of building something new have more than just technical and financial challenges to worry about. Consumers are beginning to change their preferences to smaller, more economical and environmentally friendly vehicles. Alternative fuels are finally being promoted and overall energy efficiency of vehicles is starting to be examined. There are important implications for steam power once you examine life cycle energy consumption for all vehicle power options.
If steam power suddenly looks viable again we are going to look pretty stupid with no suitable products being tested on the road and ready for more serious consideration. I suspect we will have a repeat of the early 1900s period when steam got rolled by other things by being too slow to get off the mark. We also have some bad experiences with Government agencies to remember so any road ahead looks rocky. I believe the private sector will have to carry the can and work its way through the maze of everything (red tape, regulations etc) in the way.
Perhaps the demand for new steamers could be created by using the Chocolate Icecream Denial method. Take a kid to an icecream shop selling 31 flavours and tell him he can have any flavor he wants except Chocolate. Guess what he will really want and remember for a very long time?
Tell consumers they can have any modern car type except a steamer as that is beyond their buying power. While there is no product anyway this won't mean much but if a good demo vehicle did exist you might get a positive (production proposal) response with a vehicle that even Jay Leno could not buy.
When playing catchup with virtually no money, some creative methods for product development and marketing will be necessary. I partially remember a comedy film long ago about a group of advertising people who created a demand for a new product that did not exist (as proof of the power of advertising) and then had to produce a product that matched the promoted name. We could do with them. False advertising these days is illegal so you have to be careful what you say about any product. This means the product has to be real and fully tested, so not a half-baked show mock up or paper design. Something for serious stayers only.
My $0.02 contribution but probably overpriced as the rate for ideas being normally quoted at a dime a dozen would be closer to $0.008.
Regards,
Graeme
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 02, 2006 05:42PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 318 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 13, 2006 01:36PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,038 |
Hello All
I have been reading up on compressable flows. In most flow situations you have a pressure differance driving the flow. Say P.high and P.low. There is whats know as the critical pressure P.c When P.low is greater then P.c the flow varies with P.low. But when P.low is less tthen P.c the flow rate remains constant. As it turns out it is more a critical rate then a critical pressure. For the critical flow rate is when it's velosity reaches the speed of sound in the substance.
The speed of sound varies with density. And a mixture steam and water with a low percentage of water reduces the speed of sound by 1/3 to 1/4.
With the speed of sound in steam being reduced by temperature and increaced by pressure I can see where the 900 RPM flat torque might come from.
Before a clame anything I need some in put. What is the typical area of ports comparied to piston area. As a rough estimate of velocity I think the port velocity to keep up with piston velocity must be PistonArea/PortAre * PistonVelocity. When the velocity gets to that point the cylander pressure would be around half of the up stream inlet pressure.
I could be way off here but I estimated a stanley port to be 0.25 in^2 and with a bore of 5" would require a port flow velocity of 50.27 times the piston velocity. So with inlet pressure around 300 PSIA and 600F The point piston speed at 900 RPM exceeds the speed of sound flow rate through the port would be reached before 10% of stroke.
Now that is a tentative estimate using 700 ft/sec speed of sound in that steam. But as the pressure drops through the port so does the speed of sound.
But in Harry's case at supper-critical temperature and pressures the speed of sound is between 2000 to 3000 feet per second.
Andy
I have been reading up on compressable flows. In most flow situations you have a pressure differance driving the flow. Say P.high and P.low. There is whats know as the critical pressure P.c When P.low is greater then P.c the flow varies with P.low. But when P.low is less tthen P.c the flow rate remains constant. As it turns out it is more a critical rate then a critical pressure. For the critical flow rate is when it's velosity reaches the speed of sound in the substance.
The speed of sound varies with density. And a mixture steam and water with a low percentage of water reduces the speed of sound by 1/3 to 1/4.
With the speed of sound in steam being reduced by temperature and increaced by pressure I can see where the 900 RPM flat torque might come from.
Before a clame anything I need some in put. What is the typical area of ports comparied to piston area. As a rough estimate of velocity I think the port velocity to keep up with piston velocity must be PistonArea/PortAre * PistonVelocity. When the velocity gets to that point the cylander pressure would be around half of the up stream inlet pressure.
I could be way off here but I estimated a stanley port to be 0.25 in^2 and with a bore of 5" would require a port flow velocity of 50.27 times the piston velocity. So with inlet pressure around 300 PSIA and 600F The point piston speed at 900 RPM exceeds the speed of sound flow rate through the port would be reached before 10% of stroke.
Now that is a tentative estimate using 700 ft/sec speed of sound in that steam. But as the pressure drops through the port so does the speed of sound.
But in Harry's case at supper-critical temperature and pressures the speed of sound is between 2000 to 3000 feet per second.
Andy
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 13, 2006 04:57PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,268 |
Andy,
When the critical pressure ratio is reached then sonic velocity is possible and does determine the maximum flow through the narrowest part of the port or nozzle. To reach velocities above sonic then requires expansion through a diverging section to further accelerate the steam or gas.
I doubt that sonic velocity is really gauranted simply by having a critical pressure ratio. Things that produce vortexes, swirls and other chaotic flow would or could choke the flow down. Note that most decent nozzles have a rounded approach to the throat, many valves don't. Boundary layers still come into play with a valve port, effectively narrowing and restricting the port opening even more. The lower the velocity the thicker the boundary layer, the higher the velocity the thinner but more important it is.
I think that instead of piston area to port area size one might look at cylinder volume to port area and that over the opening curve of the valve. It is the changing cylinder volume that determines the pressure differential across the port. A piston crown would have to be receding mighty fast from the valve to start leaving the expanding steam behind, not a problem in IC engines that I know of.
I have no doubt that the RPM limits seen are from either or both of the inlet and exhaust ports choking up. Long before an RPM limit is reached though the efficiency would be affected.
2 cents worth
Best -------- Bill G.
When the critical pressure ratio is reached then sonic velocity is possible and does determine the maximum flow through the narrowest part of the port or nozzle. To reach velocities above sonic then requires expansion through a diverging section to further accelerate the steam or gas.
I doubt that sonic velocity is really gauranted simply by having a critical pressure ratio. Things that produce vortexes, swirls and other chaotic flow would or could choke the flow down. Note that most decent nozzles have a rounded approach to the throat, many valves don't. Boundary layers still come into play with a valve port, effectively narrowing and restricting the port opening even more. The lower the velocity the thicker the boundary layer, the higher the velocity the thinner but more important it is.
I think that instead of piston area to port area size one might look at cylinder volume to port area and that over the opening curve of the valve. It is the changing cylinder volume that determines the pressure differential across the port. A piston crown would have to be receding mighty fast from the valve to start leaving the expanding steam behind, not a problem in IC engines that I know of.
I have no doubt that the RPM limits seen are from either or both of the inlet and exhaust ports choking up. Long before an RPM limit is reached though the efficiency would be affected.
2 cents worth
Best -------- Bill G.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 13, 2006 06:40PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,038 |
Hi Bill
I just a ball park calk. The piston area to port area(or valve opening area, whatever) would be the same as the velocity ratio needed to prevent pressure drop from a choked flow. Obviously there is a pressure drop required to generate flow.
I was just looking at the inlet velociy there. The highest piston speed is close to the middle of the stroke. The 50.27 is the area ratio piston to port. So the port flow velocity would have to 50.26 times the piston speed to keep the pressure from chainging once the cylander as reached critical pressure. From some IAPWS test data I estimated to speed of sound to be around 700 feet/second. The piston speed need only hit 12 feet/second for the port flow to be sonic to keep up. Obviously the port flow couldn't keep up and the pressure would drop even more rapidly.
I found a good document on fluid dynamics on the WEB:
[www.potto.org]
It's intersting that marks never metioned the speed of sound deturming the critical pressure. I always thought it might be the case. The WEB document clearly explains a lot of things.
What I found interesting was that water, having a higher speed of sound then steam, decreases the speed of sound below that of pure steam in a two phase flow. A mixture might only have 175 feet/second critical velocity. Piston speeds above that with wet steam and expansion couldn't keep up.
The book on that web site has a chapter on filling and empting a rigid container through a tube. Basicly the inlet and exhaust process of an engine.
Andy
I just a ball park calk. The piston area to port area(or valve opening area, whatever) would be the same as the velocity ratio needed to prevent pressure drop from a choked flow. Obviously there is a pressure drop required to generate flow.
I was just looking at the inlet velociy there. The highest piston speed is close to the middle of the stroke. The 50.27 is the area ratio piston to port. So the port flow velocity would have to 50.26 times the piston speed to keep the pressure from chainging once the cylander as reached critical pressure. From some IAPWS test data I estimated to speed of sound to be around 700 feet/second. The piston speed need only hit 12 feet/second for the port flow to be sonic to keep up. Obviously the port flow couldn't keep up and the pressure would drop even more rapidly.
I found a good document on fluid dynamics on the WEB:
[www.potto.org]
It's intersting that marks never metioned the speed of sound deturming the critical pressure. I always thought it might be the case. The WEB document clearly explains a lot of things.
What I found interesting was that water, having a higher speed of sound then steam, decreases the speed of sound below that of pure steam in a two phase flow. A mixture might only have 175 feet/second critical velocity. Piston speeds above that with wet steam and expansion couldn't keep up.
The book on that web site has a chapter on filling and empting a rigid container through a tube. Basicly the inlet and exhaust process of an engine.
Andy
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 14, 2006 12:14AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,268 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 14, 2006 10:28AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,038 |
Hi Bill
What is your conecting rod length and port area through valve.
The atachment may be of use. Not having all the parameters I pluged in some. The Rod length does effect the curve shape. The longer the rod the more symetric the curve is about mid stroke.
The worksheet takes bore, stroke, conecting rod length, valve area, and RPM.
Plots flow speed vs piston position. Could easly be crank angle if you wish.
A word of explanation(for you lurkers etc.). The flow speed here is not actual flow speed. The actual flow speed is far more complicated to calculate. What I am doing is calculating the flow speed that is needed to keep up with volumetric increase or decrease as the piston moves. As this is only looking at port flow volume to be equal to poston displacement, as it moves, it does not acount for pressure changes through the system that would be driving that flow.
Andy
What is your conecting rod length and port area through valve.
The atachment may be of use. Not having all the parameters I pluged in some. The Rod length does effect the curve shape. The longer the rod the more symetric the curve is about mid stroke.
The worksheet takes bore, stroke, conecting rod length, valve area, and RPM.
Plots flow speed vs piston position. Could easly be crank angle if you wish.
A word of explanation(for you lurkers etc.). The flow speed here is not actual flow speed. The actual flow speed is far more complicated to calculate. What I am doing is calculating the flow speed that is needed to keep up with volumetric increase or decrease as the piston moves. As this is only looking at port flow volume to be equal to poston displacement, as it moves, it does not acount for pressure changes through the system that would be driving that flow.
Andy
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 14, 2006 07:23PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,268 |
Wow Andy,
That is at 1800 RPMs putting the flow through the valve at around sonic. You got the valve port opening right at a little more than 0.6"^2. There are no con-rods so the effective rod length is infinite but the curve would just be more semetrical. The question becomes what is the pressure drop across the valve/port? As we approach sonic the pressure differential would climb to critical(sonic).
As 1800 is a target RPM but not a limit, I think an even bigger valve & port opening may be in order. I hadn't gone through this previously as the valve port is already 4 1/2 times that of the Williams engine, from the little data I have anyway. This for a bigger cylinder displacement. Looks offhand like the Williams would choke up at the inlet valve quickly.
What is sonic velocity at 1000 by 1200 deg, if you have it handy?
Thanks -------- Bill G.
That is at 1800 RPMs putting the flow through the valve at around sonic. You got the valve port opening right at a little more than 0.6"^2. There are no con-rods so the effective rod length is infinite but the curve would just be more semetrical. The question becomes what is the pressure drop across the valve/port? As we approach sonic the pressure differential would climb to critical(sonic).
As 1800 is a target RPM but not a limit, I think an even bigger valve & port opening may be in order. I hadn't gone through this previously as the valve port is already 4 1/2 times that of the Williams engine, from the little data I have anyway. This for a bigger cylinder displacement. Looks offhand like the Williams would choke up at the inlet valve quickly.
What is sonic velocity at 1000 by 1200 deg, if you have it handy?
Thanks -------- Bill G.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 15, 2006 11:47AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,038 |
Hi Bill
The speed of sound in steam varies quite a bit. I am working on getting that property from the IAPWS 95 formulations. I have a bunch of test points given in the IAPWS papers. I picked one close to the 500 PSIA, 600F as that is close to Stanley conditions. The test points range from 252 m.sec to 2444 m/sec. The higher values may be liquid though. Quality is not one of the given test point properties.
I havn't implemented speed of sound or Cv yet.
I am having a problem finding any documented dynamic flow models. Have found partical simulations programs for lots of money. I would think one could do with a 1 demensional flow model.
Flow gets very complicated to simulate.
Should have speed of sound property implemented in a day or so.
Andy
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2006 09:10AM by Andy.
The speed of sound in steam varies quite a bit. I am working on getting that property from the IAPWS 95 formulations. I have a bunch of test points given in the IAPWS papers. I picked one close to the 500 PSIA, 600F as that is close to Stanley conditions. The test points range from 252 m.sec to 2444 m/sec. The higher values may be liquid though. Quality is not one of the given test point properties.
I havn't implemented speed of sound or Cv yet.
I am having a problem finding any documented dynamic flow models. Have found partical simulations programs for lots of money. I would think one could do with a 1 demensional flow model.
Flow gets very complicated to simulate.
Should have speed of sound property implemented in a day or so.
Andy
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2006 09:10AM by Andy.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 15, 2006 10:30PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,268 |
Andy,
Thanks for reminding me, hows fifty bucks sound? One of us should jump on this.
[www.raczynski.com]
Best -------- Bill G.
Thanks for reminding me, hows fifty bucks sound? One of us should jump on this.
[www.raczynski.com]
Best -------- Bill G.
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 16, 2006 06:26AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 375 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 16, 2006 09:13AM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 16, 2006 10:26AM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 16, 2006 02:34PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 375 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 16, 2006 07:46PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,441 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 17, 2006 05:15PM |
Admin Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 2,120 |
|
Re: Williams ws. Rankin November 18, 2006 10:17PM |
Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 1,519 |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
All files from this thread
