Why can't we power cars with water/steam?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
So you want to burn whatever fuel for several hours before your car will move? That is what steam takes. Years ago I ran three boilers that were each the size of a small house. It took over an hour of burning natural gas before they started building pressure when cold.

You have to burn and shovel in coal to a steam locomotive that burns coal for about 24 hours before it can move.

Wood gasification would be easier and faster to use. Those systems take less than an hour. But then you are cutting down all those trees.

Beyond coal, how long would it take for a natural gas flame to heat a 5 gallon bucket of water? Couldn't the moment of the wheels also come into play for conservation of energy?

You cannot just light a cold boiler and open it up to high fire. It has to dry out and heat up slowly or it will start falling apart on you. Five gallons might get you a couple of miles after an hour of heating. You would have to have at least 100 gallons of water to get any range, preheated by some of the steam from that 5 gallon boiler. Unless you are thinking about recovering the dead steam by condensing it but that would double the size of the engine. Not practicle in a car sized vehicle.

Well yeah, I did come to the conclusion you'd just condensate the steam back to liquid. But I've worked on boilers as a plumber for 9 years, there's nothing wrong with exposing a cold boiler to a high flame if you have an efficient system. But even in a cold start, waiting 30 minutes to drive your car while your boiler reaches optimal temp, i would argue isn't as inefficient then burning through your savings putting petrol in.. A 100 gallon boiler isn't that large either after you take the jacket off..

It would only take about 30 minutes to get the boiler to start producing steam, on a 100 gallon boiler too...They're not necessarily heavy compared to a car motor either..And since these new combo exchange Navien boilers, they've become extremely efficient.

Ever heard of Stanley Meyer? Here’s an old thread. Apparently he could get 100mpg with water.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
So you want to burn whatever fuel for several hours before your car will move? That is what steam takes. Years ago I ran three boilers that were each the size of a small house. It took over an hour of burning natural gas before they started building pressure when cold.

You have to burn and shovel in coal to a steam locomotive that burns coal for about 24 hours before it can move.

Wood gasification would be easier and faster to use. Those systems take less than an hour. But then you are cutting down all those trees.

Beyond coal, how long would it take for a natural gas flame to heat a 5 gallon bucket of water? Couldn't the moment of the wheels also come into play for conservation of energy?

You cannot just light a cold boiler and open it up to high fire. It has to dry out and heat up slowly or it will start falling apart on you. Five gallons might get you a couple of miles after an hour of heating. You would have to have at least 100 gallons of water to get any range, preheated by some of the steam from that 5 gallon boiler. Unless you are thinking about recovering the dead steam by condensing it but that would double the size of the engine. Not practicle in a car sized vehicle.

Well yeah, I did come to the conclusion you'd just condensate the steam back to liquid. But I've worked on boilers as a plumber for 9 years, there's nothing wrong with exposing a cold boiler to a high flame if you have an efficient system. But even in a cold start, waiting 30 minutes to drive your car while your boiler reaches optimal temp, i would argue isn't as inefficient then burning through your savings putting petrol in.. A 100 gallon boiler isn't that large either after you take the jacket off..

It would only take about 30 minutes to get the boiler to start producing steam, on a 100 gallon boiler too...They're not necessarily heavy compared to a car motor either..And since these new combo exchange Navien boilers, they've become extremely efficient.

Yes, but are these externally efficient boilers able to move? They are not designed to have the water in them sloshed around by a moving, tilting, acceleration and breaking. You would have to start all over again with the boiler design. Most likely a vertical cylinder much like a nuclear reactor.

You are going down a hill for several minutes, one part of the boiler overheats because it is at an angle and the water is flat. You get the bottom of the hill and there is an overpressure explosion where the water hit the red hot metal where it overheated. Not a pretty picture having the car occupants steamed to death.

Not even steam locomotives are designed to take the grades on a mountainous roadway.

why don't we skip the middleman and extract electricity from the atmosphere with magnets?

the only reason we have to spin turbines with magnets
is so that they can collect enough to push down transmission lines to a million people.

just give everyone a magnet and let them produce their own

Another member mentioned something I'd never heard of, a Chrysler Turbine Car. Link

Then there was Bob Lazar with his water powered car. The real reason there is no alternative until modern times with the electric car is Big Oil. They bury alternatives to maintain their oil sales. Here in Europe LPG/CNG fueled cars are a thing but only profitable to drive if you drive long distances due to the cost of installation. They still require gas (petrol) to start but can be switched over to gas (not gasoline) after starting.

Big Oil is the reason we can't have nicer things, imho.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
Water powered machinery is a different timeline
This one is the innocence devouring satanic Elite overlords timeline

Will some of you please take a Physics class before commenting any further.

I'm guessing that the main concern for eliminating the Internal Combustion Engine is the Global Warming theory.

Your only real option is nuclear. That's it plain and simple. The tech isn't there yet for efficient generation from wind and solar. It isn't feasible to put nuclear power into a car, bus or truck. With the necessary protection from damage, shielding and weight of the reactor itself, it just doesn't work. Use nuclear to generate electricity. Then the problems just start. Current motor and battery technology isn't quite there yet. Then there is the whole infrastructure thing. Our electrical grid isn't set up to handle the requirements of a wide spread use of electrically powered vehicles. Look at the brownouts in California and Texas over the last couple of years. They work right now because they are a novelty. I'm not even going into the effect that the rupture of a high pressure steam vessel would have in the event of an accident.

As it was mentioned the turbine idea may break even or result in a negative. The turbine is designed to be stationary and to have the wind flow around it. In a moving vehicle it will cause drag not to mention a weight penalty.

What's wrong with the Combustion Engine? The first thing would be to improve the efficiency of the engine. We can start by taking a serious logical look at their emissions control systems, at least on gasoline powered vehicles. These systems were mandated when gasoline wasn't refined as well as it is now. You could lose 90% of them without any increase in pollution. They won't because you have two sides in the issue. The people who manufacture the systems and the environmental nuts who would spaz out at the mention of their removal. A gain of 10% efficiency is possible by the removal of those systems. Lose Ethanol in gasoline. It reduces efficiency, takes more energy to produce than it saves and uses up farmland that could be producing food.

There's other ways to increase the efficiency and reduce pollution, with out scrapping the current system. I'm old enough to remember heavy smog and pollution. I've gone swimming in a river that I wouldn't have considered swimming in twenty years ago.

There are a few questions that need to be asked.

Why isn't nuclear more of an option? Don't say safety. I also remember Three Mile Island, where they did everything wrong and the safety systems still prevented a major accident. The US Navy has been operating reactors for over 60 years. I used to live 300 ft. away from a few of them. Nuclear waste isn't an issue either. Breeder reactors can convert waste to usable fuel.

Why the push to get rid of the Internal Combustion Engine? Is the push REALLY environmental? I doubt it. I'd say it is more political than anything else. If the environment was the REAL concern, the environmentalists would be demanding pipelines instead of fighting them.

Don't fall for the "save the Earth" rhetoric. Take a real look at the crap you are being shoveled and then take the shovel and smack the shoveler in the face with it.

Why are we and japan developing the Rotating Detonation Engines for space flight and not using traditional propulsion engines? lololol
www.techbriefs.com...

Rotating detonations are continuous, Mach 5 explosions that rotate around the inside of a rocket engine. The explosions are sustained by feeding hydrogen and oxygen propellant into the system at just the right amounts. This system improves rocket engine efficiency so that more power is generated while using less fuel than traditional rocket energies, thus lightening the rocket's load and reducing its costs and emissions.

japanese research


how much energy does it take to boil water

In order for Steam to be used it has to operate at a very high pressure, high pressure steam needs very strong metals to contain it, typically very heavy.

Steam is water is corrosive and needs a lot of maintenance.

Steam needs heavy valves and other ancillary equipment which is also heavy.

Water is heavy.

It’s just not a viable solution to small motor vehicles.

I think we are on the right track with electric motors, regenerative charging via breaking, use of vegetable oils for lubricants? It’s just those batteries are not very environmentally friendly even if they are charged green.

It is because water isn't an efficient source of power in an application such as a car.

1 gallon of water cannot put out the same energy as 1 gallon of gas.

Maybe someday someone will develop an engine that can run on water and some chemical reaction.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Too inefficient.

Boil your kettle and see how long it takes for it to produce steam and how much heat/energy the boiling water gives off.

Now fill it with petrol and set it on fire, observe the energy differential and speed of reaction.

Yeah...
I do love me some Steampunk games .

We can turn a little bit of water into allot of electricity

But there is better technology than even this

Matter is compounded by 5/8 ratio with 1/2 return

We can use these ratios in centrifugal displacement, to create a gravity drive that literally runs on nothing but the forces of the planet

Water and electricity are essentially the same thing. They are just the inside version of each other

If we diffuse the hydrogen in water within a balanced and stable binary, we can create a massive amount of electricity. Water is essentially like a coiled spring of potential

It can be turned into electricity

Or, it can be turned into any and every element known

Every single element in existence, without exception, originated from water

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Been some good answers in this thread; in the end it all boils down (pun intended) to efficiency.

And it's not theoretical. There have been several steam powered cars, like the Stanley Steamerand the Dobie Steam Carto name two examples. You can find more at the Wiki page.

The internal combustion engine simply out-performs them. There have been several attempts to return to steam powered cars, but so far no one has been able to make one that compares to the modern internal combustion engine. They are notoriously slow to start, underpowered, heavy, and require constant maintenance. A steam car is not one where you just walk to it, turn a key, engage the transmission, and drive off. With a steam powered car you walk to it, turn it on, wait for it to warm up, engage the transmission, and hope it drives away. If not, you get to fix it and repeat the process. Could take a few hours to get the car started.

A steam powered car fueled by propane or LNG would also be far less efficient than an internal combustion engine powered by propane or LNG. Heat is the least efficient energy conversion; it tends to dissipate into the environment. In an internal combustion motor, the fuel is turned into an expanding gas, which pushes pistons down to power the car. In a steam engine, the fuel is burned for heat, which is used to turn water to steam, which is then used to drive a turbine. More less efficient conversion processes means less efficiency.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Compendium

Water and electricity are essentially the same thing. They are just the inside version of each other

This I have to hear! Please, tell us more!

TheRedneck

H2O is phase conjugation of EM vortices

The 2 Hydrogen are actually 2 poles of the same hydrogen. The same as the poles of the planet

Positive/Negative
North/South
Atmosphere/Land

Stable in between, they were water

Pull them apart either side, the potential arcs as electricity

Last night I was watching "The History Channel". There is a series called "The Machines That Built America". One of the episodes "Tractor Revolution" goes into depth on why the Internal Combustion Engine won out over steam. I recommend it. It will answer several of the questions asked here.

All you need to do is look why diesel-electric locomotives replaced steam locomotives and you'll have your answers. They even had gas turbine locomotives but those also had the same issues as steam.

a reply to: nonspecific


Ever see the video online of them hitting a nuclear canister with a loaded train coming at it full steam?
No pun intended.

It survived

a reply to: PiratesCut

Yes - but the word 'canister' doesn't do justice to the massive 'flask' in question. It requires a serious truck to carry it.

The test was done to allay public unease on the transport of nuclear items around the country.