4 ms·

> It is true that the technology poses some difficult problems, but one cannot help but be curious how efficient a steam car might be with the benefit of modern

> It is true that the technology poses some difficult problems, but one cannot help but be curious how efficient a steam car might be with the benefit of modern materials and computers. It's easy to shrug off questions like this, placing them in the category of "if it were feasible, someone would obviously be doing it already", but it's still interesting. Having read a pretty extensively about how steam locomotives work, and some additional reading about steam power in general, it's interesting to read this article and catch small windows in to the overall progress of steam during the era. For example, reading the remarks about closing the steam circuit reminds me of the progress made in condensate and heat recovery developed in steam power at the time. Really remarkable to see that in something as small as a car. As an academic exercise, I think it'd be really cool to develop a "steam powered auto challenge". Of course, no one is going to get behind it because steam is not a green technology, but sometimes we can learn important lessons from the past. Working on a completely unrelated technology and studying its progress can teach us lessons about the development of current technologies.

jhallenworld 11y ago
>no one is going to get behind it because steam is not a green technology Were it not for the radiation problem, you could make a nuclear powered steam car. Perhaps this is easier than using a turbine.. http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/ http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/
- stcredzero 11y ago
  From what the article claims, rediscovering their principles would produce a car with much better noise characteristics than turbines and modern ICEs. I wonder what modern metallurgy could do for the design? The part count is extremely low. With remote control from a smartphone, the big disadvantage -- boiler start time -- would be entirely solved. As it was, they had gotten it down to something comparable to starting diesel cars on a cold day.
  - TylerE 11y ago
    Boiler startup was essentially solved by Doble 80 years ago. The steam generator (Sort of a JIT for steam) could produce useable pressure in less than a minute.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      Like I said: Comparable to an old diesel. That kind of delay still got massive hate from my ex-girlfriend. However, if you give people a remote to have it done by the time they get down to the car, they'd feel it was nifty technology and it would make them feel powerful.
      - TylerE 11y ago
        Could probably tie it into the keyless entry.
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  Could you use something like an RTG to heat the water? That way, you wouldn't have to have an actual nuclear reaction.
  - outworlder 11y ago
    Something like an RTG would make sense. An actual, plutonium-based RTG wouldn't.
codazoda 11y ago
I wonder if steam would be "green" today. I've got an electric steamer that I use as an alternative to ironing clothes. It probably takes a lot of electricity to turn water into steam but who knows.
- quarktasche 11y ago
  Wolfram Alpha does! http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=energy+to+heat+1l+of+water+from+0C+to+100C http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=energy+to+heat+1l+of+wa...
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Resistive heating to produce steam is very expensive, relatively speaking. It's the most expensive way to do it, AFAIK.
  - ForHackernews 11y ago
    Why is that true? Just because of the loss of generating electricity from heat sources only to turn it back into heat? Because isn't an electric heating coil essentially a big short-circuit? I would've thought it would be extremely efficient at changing electricity directly into heat.
    - Vendan 11y ago
      Resistive heating is terribly inefficient as a heating method in most cases. Much more effective(in most cases) is stuff like heat pumps. Remember, you aren't grading it on "amount of electricity turned into heat", but on "amount of heat added per unit of energy". You can technically push that above 100%. A good heat pump can do something like 3.5 CoP, i.e. you put in 1 kWh of electricity, it heats the "hot side" by 3.5 kWh of heat.
      - steve19 11y ago
        If it were that simple we would have unlimited free energy by simply using heat pumps to power steam turbines. I don't think heat pumps can generate very high temperatures efficiently. Resistive heating is 100% efficient by definition. There is almost no energy lost. the only loss of energy is light generated.
derekp7 11y ago
I would like to see a gas/steam hybrid engine that uses waste heat from the engine to make steam to power an additional couple of pistons. That might get you better gas mileage than a gas/electric hybrid.
- TylerE 11y ago
  The best setup for that is not additional cylinders, but to run a 6-stroke cycle - injecting a drop of water at the end of the exhaust stroke, which will expand and generate some extra power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
- blacksmith_tb 11y ago
  Though not terribly efficient, we could certainly use thermoelectric generators like Peltier junctions to pull energy out of the waste heat in car exhaust. On the plus side they are cheap and have no moving parts (and they're not even radioactive).
maxerickson 11y ago
Condenser size/effectiveness/whatever ends up being the limiting factor. The Jay Leno video someone linked has him stating that the car gets 200 miles out of the water in warmer weather (which isn't a huge problem, water is cheap, but radiators are pretty well advanced technology at this point so there isn't much reason to expect big improvements). Someone at NASA analyzed it once: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700018268.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1970001...
- bradleyland 11y ago
  This has to be one of the most significant barriers, I'd suppose.
RobGR 11y ago
Because the combustion products must transfer their heat to water before the energy can be used, I think there is an inherent limitation on the efficiency of a steam engine as compared to internal combustion. I was interested in steam cars for a while, I have a manual to a Stanley Steamer and a short book published by Lindsay on them. However it was reading the history of steam that is in the opening chapters of Lyle Cummin's "Internal Fire" and his description of the limitations of steam and sterling engines, that I came to think there was a fundamental reason behind it. The Doble and Stanley era cars seem to have gotten about 10 mpg. On the other hand, they do have a possible advantage in being able to consume a variety of non-standard fuels. There may be a niche market for that, which given the relative size of the car markets in 1925 vs 2015, is quiet huge and could support a sizeable company.
- Retric 11y ago
  This is far less of an issue than you might assume. Modern steam engines can have around 48% efficacy and combined cycle power plants can hit ~60% where IC engines rarely top 35% with cars generally averaging less than 25%. A much larger issue is trying to scale this down. Power plants are optimized for efficiency and cost not weight, where IC engines can be very light relative to their power output.
- geon 11y ago
  > the combustion products must transfer their heat to water before the energy can be used This happens in an IC engine as well. The heat from the combustion is transferred to the gases inside the cylinder, causing them to expand.

jhallenworld 11y ago

>no one is going to get behind it because steam is not a green technology Were it not for the radiation problem, you could make a nuclear powered steam car. Perhaps this is easier than using a turbine.. http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/ http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/

stcredzero 11y ago
From what the article claims, rediscovering their principles would produce a car with much better noise characteristics than turbines and modern ICEs. I wonder what modern metallurgy could do for the design? The part count is extremely low. With remote control from a smartphone, the big disadvantage -- boiler start time -- would be entirely solved. As it was, they had gotten it down to something comparable to starting diesel cars on a cold day.
- TylerE 11y ago
  Boiler startup was essentially solved by Doble 80 years ago. The steam generator (Sort of a JIT for steam) could produce useable pressure in less than a minute.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    Like I said: Comparable to an old diesel. That kind of delay still got massive hate from my ex-girlfriend. However, if you give people a remote to have it done by the time they get down to the car, they'd feel it was nifty technology and it would make them feel powerful.
    - TylerE 11y ago
      Could probably tie it into the keyless entry.
ForHackernews 11y ago
Could you use something like an RTG to heat the water? That way, you wouldn't have to have an actual nuclear reaction.
- outworlder 11y ago
  Something like an RTG would make sense. An actual, plutonium-based RTG wouldn't.

codazoda 11y ago

I wonder if steam would be "green" today. I've got an electric steamer that I use as an alternative to ironing clothes. It probably takes a lot of electricity to turn water into steam but who knows.

quarktasche 11y ago
Wolfram Alpha does! http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=energy+to+heat+1l+of+water+from+0C+to+100C http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=energy+to+heat+1l+of+wa...
stcredzero 11y ago
Resistive heating to produce steam is very expensive, relatively speaking. It's the most expensive way to do it, AFAIK.
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  Why is that true? Just because of the loss of generating electricity from heat sources only to turn it back into heat? Because isn't an electric heating coil essentially a big short-circuit? I would've thought it would be extremely efficient at changing electricity directly into heat.
  - Vendan 11y ago
    Resistive heating is terribly inefficient as a heating method in most cases. Much more effective(in most cases) is stuff like heat pumps. Remember, you aren't grading it on "amount of electricity turned into heat", but on "amount of heat added per unit of energy". You can technically push that above 100%. A good heat pump can do something like 3.5 CoP, i.e. you put in 1 kWh of electricity, it heats the "hot side" by 3.5 kWh of heat.
    - steve19 11y ago
      If it were that simple we would have unlimited free energy by simply using heat pumps to power steam turbines. I don't think heat pumps can generate very high temperatures efficiently. Resistive heating is 100% efficient by definition. There is almost no energy lost. the only loss of energy is light generated.

derekp7 11y ago

I would like to see a gas/steam hybrid engine that uses waste heat from the engine to make steam to power an additional couple of pistons. That might get you better gas mileage than a gas/electric hybrid.

TylerE 11y ago
The best setup for that is not additional cylinders, but to run a 6-stroke cycle - injecting a drop of water at the end of the exhaust stroke, which will expand and generate some extra power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
blacksmith_tb 11y ago
Though not terribly efficient, we could certainly use thermoelectric generators like Peltier junctions to pull energy out of the waste heat in car exhaust. On the plus side they are cheap and have no moving parts (and they're not even radioactive).

maxerickson 11y ago

Condenser size/effectiveness/whatever ends up being the limiting factor. The Jay Leno video someone linked has him stating that the car gets 200 miles out of the water in warmer weather (which isn't a huge problem, water is cheap, but radiators are pretty well advanced technology at this point so there isn't much reason to expect big improvements). Someone at NASA analyzed it once: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700018268.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1970001...

bradleyland 11y ago
This has to be one of the most significant barriers, I'd suppose.

RobGR 11y ago

Because the combustion products must transfer their heat to water before the energy can be used, I think there is an inherent limitation on the efficiency of a steam engine as compared to internal combustion. I was interested in steam cars for a while, I have a manual to a Stanley Steamer and a short book published by Lindsay on them. However it was reading the history of steam that is in the opening chapters of Lyle Cummin's "Internal Fire" and his description of the limitations of steam and sterling engines, that I came to think there was a fundamental reason behind it. The Doble and Stanley era cars seem to have gotten about 10 mpg. On the other hand, they do have a possible advantage in being able to consume a variety of non-standard fuels. There may be a niche market for that, which given the relative size of the car markets in 1925 vs 2015, is quiet huge and could support a sizeable company.

Retric 11y ago
This is far less of an issue than you might assume. Modern steam engines can have around 48% efficacy and combined cycle power plants can hit ~60% where IC engines rarely top 35% with cars generally averaging less than 25%. A much larger issue is trying to scale this down. Power plants are optimized for efficiency and cost not weight, where IC engines can be very light relative to their power output.
geon 11y ago
> the combustion products must transfer their heat to water before the energy can be used This happens in an IC engine as well. The heat from the combustion is transferred to the gases inside the cylinder, causing them to expand.