The "Water Fueled Car"

[Rhydderch Hael]

I guess most of you have completely forgotten that most early cars were powered by steam piston engines... It was gas powered cars that were considered unsafe and dangerous for the longest time.:P...

That's because gasoline-driven cars were traveling so fast (45 mph!) that crashes were inflicting more damage and fatalities. Lack of seat belts and safety glass added to the carnage, of course.

Humans have this funky perception of the dangers of speed. When the first trains were made, people were afraid the human body could not stand the stress of traveling 40-50 miles per hour for lengthy times (they'd get crushed by the motive force, would they not?).

Generals thought airplanes would make for horrible observation craft because at the speeds they flew (90+ knots), the ground must zoom by in a blur!

[Doc]

That's because gasoline-driven cars were traveling so fast (45 mph!) that crashes were inflicting more damage and fatalities. Lack of seat belts and safety glass added to the carnage, of course.

Humans have this funky perception of the dangers of speed. When the first trains were made, people were afraid the human body could not stand the stress of traveling 40-50 miles per hour for lengthy times (they'd get crushed by the motive force, would they not?).

Generals thought airplanes would make for horrible observation craft because at the speeds they flew (90+ knots), the ground must zoom by in a blur!

So... When Oldsmobile made their mile a minute (That's right, 60mph) steam powered car, I wonder what people thought of that? Or the fact that gas powered combustion engines would have to wait a while longer to reach that sort of speed... Combustion powered cars were SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW at first. Everybody was convinced that steam was the way to go. It was a steam powered car that first broke the 100mph mark. Steam powered cars are still beating gas powered cars in some events. Way back when, combustion motors were terrible. You had to stop every 10 minutes to avoid vapourlock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4076811.stm <-- A 200+ mph steam powered batmobile.

That there in that news clipping is not your daddies steam powered car. Although I did get a kick out of one of the quotes...


" The steam car, driven by Fred Marriott, reached 127.7mph (205.5 km/h), beating four petrol-powered vehicles to pick up the Dewar Trophy rewarding the fastest vehicles on land." Yeah, that's from 1906... But everybody was starting to think steam was the way to go. And they may have been right. There has been huge advancements in both steam powered turbines and steam powered pistons.

Steam as a technology is not yet dead.

http://www.vcamm.com.au/news/_news_single.asp?ID=125

And I can't find a link, but here is somebody building a nuclear steam powered locomotive. Should that work, I wonder how long till we see nuclear steam powered trucks and busses and large transport type rigs.


Steam is still a contender.

Oh, and somebody right now, I forget who, is making a steam piston powered car that will break the sound barrier.

[kandrathe]

My problem with steam and combustion engines is the waste of energy expressed as heat. Electric motors seem to be a more efficient transfer of energy to kinetic energy, where the waste heat from power generation (if properly planned) can be used for industrial or residential heating.

[Roland]

You know, there was a time when we thought the Earth was flat, too. And that the universe revolved around us.

Time changes perception as new truths are revealed. As knowledge grows, old beliefs proven unfounded fade out. Steam, for all its worth, is inferior to internal-combustion in a lot of ways, most notably being safety. Granted, steam does have some advantages over internal-combustion, but if it was that greater a technology, it would have survived the evolution of technology. Darwin exists in much more than just nature.

See Occhi's comments on steam-powered cars. The biggest concern to steam-powered engines is safety. While it's all fine and dandy for a tractor (moving, at most, 15 MPH - in a field, without other traffic), or even a locomotive (one train per track means, again, no other traffic to worry about slamming into), it simply isn't safe enough for general use in automobiles. The risks are simply too great. Despite how explosively flammable gasoline is, the actual risk of ignition or explosion is very, very minor (outside of Hollywood, of course) compared to that of steam. If you slam into a car, it's generally built so as to make the gas tank fairly safe from rupturing, and indeed this does transfer over into the real world. Steam, however, has to be stored at extreme pressures in order to maintain viable, practical application. Because of this, ANY risk of rupture means potential explosion and almost guaranteed collateral damage to passengers, from the steam itself most likely.

It's just not safe enough for practical use in an automobile. The risk is far too great for the meger reward it brings.

[Doc]

You know, there was a time when we thought the Earth was flat, too. And that the universe revolved around us.

Time changes perception as new truths are revealed. As knowledge grows, old beliefs proven unfounded fade out. Steam, for all its worth, is inferior to internal-combustion in a lot of ways, most notably being safety. Granted, steam does have some advantages over internal-combustion, but if it was that greater a technology, it would have survived the evolution of technology. Darwin exists in much more than just nature.

See Occhi's comments on steam-powered cars. The biggest concern to steam-powered engines is safety. While it's all fine and dandy for a tractor (moving, at most, 15 MPH - in a field, without other traffic), or even a locomotive (one train per track means, again, no other traffic to worry about slamming into), it simply isn't safe enough for general use in automobiles. The risks are simply too great. Despite how explosively flammable gasoline is, the actual risk of ignition or explosion is very, very minor (outside of Hollywood, of course) compared to that of steam. If you slam into a car, it's generally built so as to make the gas tank fairly safe from rupturing, and indeed this does transfer over into the real world. Steam, however, has to be stored at extreme pressures in order to maintain viable, practical application. Because of this, ANY risk of rupture means potential explosion and almost guaranteed collateral damage to passengers, from the steam itself most likely.

It's just not safe enough for practical use in an automobile. The risk is far too great for the meger reward it brings.

Please, no offense when I say "Bunk!"

Some of the newer steam engines run at cooler temps and lower pressures than gas combustion engines. The danger is not as great as some might have you believe... Read that first link I posted. The extreme pressure bit is no longer the case... And with a piston based engine, all of the pressure is released when the piston extends. No pressure! Pressure builds again rapidly in seconds, and is released. No more dangerous than a combustion engine getting slammed. Also, many steam engines also produce more horsepower even while running at lower temps and pressure than their gas burning counterparts. Also, once the engine and nice and hot, friction keeps everything nice at hot... Many steam pistons don't use lube, the piston rolls in the cylinder on bearings, like many old motorcycles used to do. (Indians come to mind) Sudden influx of water in to the chamber keeps temps stable. While coasting with the engine pistons engaged, the friction from the engine actually keeps the water boiling quite well on it's own, needing very little electricity to keep things nice and hot.

The only real trouble with steam piston engines, and this has never changed, is that you must keep refilling them with water, and lots of it. I know that from experience with tractors, I've seen some of those boil though over 500 gallons in a hard day.

I have no idea how it could be done, but there needs to be some sort of water / reclaimation system that captures the water vapour somehow but still allows pressure to escape. I have no clue how to do that... Condensing cooling coils that rapidly turn the steam in to liquid water again and collect it? I have no clue.

Steam pistons are a better engine than combustion in many ways, which is why somebody is trying to build a car that will go the speed of sound on land using a steamer. For one thing, they are more stable and tend to be self cooling with all the water going in and out and evaporating rapidly. Less risk of overheating and exploding, engine running to hot and warping, or cylinder rod getting to hot and going soft.

For long running long hauls, I dunno, I still see steam as a contender. Trucks, busses, delivery rigs, etc. Maybe not a car. And with a hybred system of steam and biofuel rather than standard diesel or carbon charcoal oil type stuff, there is potential for a very clean burning workhorse engine.

Oh, forgot, there is one big issue with steam that should be addressed... Noise pollution!

A steam piston engine sounds like a bloody calliope falling down a flight of steel stairs once it builds up speed and a full head of steam.

With an 8 cylider engine you can hear four distinct toots :lol:

[Occhidiangela]

Please, no offense when I say "Bunk!"

Crap comma bull.

Rather than lose energy twice, once when heating the water by burning the fuel, and once when converting energy to rotary motion, you lose it once: converting heat content of fuel to rotary motion via combustion.

That is why the internal combustion engine, in its present form, kicks steam's butt. If it didn't, Le Mans would be run on steam powered cars, as those guys race to win. Likewise NASCAR.

The thermal efficiency is also why steam has been replaced by gas turbines on medium sized combatants in the Navy. (Cruisers, Frigates, Destroyers.) Petrol allows for remarkably less maintenance, and a Whole Lot Less moving parts. That last bit decreases costs, for production and maintenance, by a significant margin. The gas powered turbine engine is immensely more responsive, time wise, than a steam plant. Same is true for cars: gas engines respond to inputs for changes in throttle (think gas pedal) far more precisely and quickly.

The KISS principal at work.

I suggest you maintain speed and lane position, rather than doing as you just did: drive onto the shoulder, ;)

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

The News Blurb on the car that runs on water.

Does anyone have documentation, or some published test information, that shows the kW requirements for the electrolosis process in volved with this?

Occhi

From a guy at CNA:

This is a sham that has been around for a number of years.

These guys claim that they have developed some new type of electrolysis process that changes the molecular formula of water from H2O to "HHO" (commonly called "Brown's Gas" after it's original "inventor" Yul Brown). HHO as a molecule would be extremely unstable if you could make it at all- it pretty much violates the principles of chemical bonding.

I did a little reading on this, and what they're claiming as "HHO" gas is really just a mixture of the hydrogen and oxygen gas that you get when you electrolyze water (i.e. pass an electrical current through it). These two gases will readily recombine when a spark or flame is introduced to produce water (hence the torch).

The problem is that the entire process is very energy inefficient. The chemical bonds in water are very strong (hence its stability), and a large energy input (via electricity in this case) is required to break those bonds. The amount of energy you get back when you recombine the product gases is significantly less than what you put in. So, although you can create a welding torch by doing this (and by what I've read, not a very good welding torch...apparently it makes for a pretty brittle weld), it would impossible to run an automobile purely on water using this method.

That's why the guy in the video has only converted his car to a "hybrid" - he needs the gas combustion engine to produce the electricity to separate the water. His claim that he can go 100 miles on 4 ounces of water may or may not be true, but the more relevant question is how much gas does he burn over that same distance? I'm sure he's pretty reluctant to answer that question.

v/r,

Jon

Dr. Jonathan Schroden
CNA Representative

So, the Fox News shills were taken in.

Occhi

[Dozer]

Hi,
I keep seeing this 'HHO' thing, but I have no clue, and can't seem to buy one, about just what it is. If it is supposed to be some different structure of water, then I can't see that there would be much energy available and the molecule of water would just thermally revert to its polar V shape in a short (millisecond, microsecond, faster?) time. If the split is in a H, OH manner, then the chemistry gets interesting since both are very active bits, indeed the basis for most acids and bases. And separating water into a hydroxyl and a proton is probably very energy intensive. But, if the split is just into gases, then the output is just O2 gas and H2 gas.

--Pete

Unless atomic theory has completely changed in the three weeks i've been out of school, Hydrogen is completely incapable of making two bonds. Sounds like a bunch of crap to me, or just some guy trying to get published (cold fusion, anyone). Or just a misleading name of something else.


Edit: Ah, Occhi beat me to it. Cheers.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Unless atomic theory has completely changed in the three weeks i've been out of school, Hydrogen is completely incapable of making two bonds. Sounds like a bunch of crap to me, or just some guy trying to get published (cold fusion, anyone). Or just a misleading name of something else.
Edit: Ah, Occhi beat me to it. Cheers.

Yes, but there are resonances that can be formed where an electron 'is' shared among multiple atoms. Actually, that classical description is misleading, but a more correct description gets too involved. Some of the resonances can be long lived, most aren't. AFAIK, none of them are stable. So a tank full of HHO (assuming it can even exist) could decide to revert back to H2O (say in a chain triggered by one or more HHO's spontaneously converting) and lead to a nice explosion. Makes the Pinto station wagon gas tank look safe by comparison;)

And, yes, Occhi did indeed supply a good demythification. But the first and second laws of thermodynamics beat him to the punch :lol:

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

And, yes, Occhi did indeed supply a good demythification. But the first and second laws of thermodynamics beat him to the punch :lol:

--Pete

Reason enough to call it "Thermogoddamics" that first semester . . . ;)

Occhi