Talk:Steam car

See Fourness & Ashworth's Patents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.143.183 (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Pritchard

Why not mention Ted Pritchard and his steam car?

Why not indeed - who is brave enough to tackle it? (wish you people would sign and date your comments)--John of Paris 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

9 years later, he had now got a mention. NealeFamily (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Cugnot's Fardier

I don't know if this can really be described as "the first step in independent transport". It was built for the French army for dragging cannons around. Not the sort of thing in/on which you would take your girl out for a joyride. --John of Paris 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted to mention the Fardier as the first steam car although it was difficult to handle (no wonder with all that weight over the steerable front wheel) and although it ruined a barack's wall when presented to officials. The counting matter is that it drove by steam power alone. It's envisioned purpose is not of relevance. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed link

Enginion AG link redirects to some other website.

Problem sorted NealeFamily (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(90 percent efficiency?

Whilst a boiler may have 90% efficiency, the amount of heat converted by the engine to mechanical work is nothing like this high. It is unlikely that the overall thermal efficiency will be any better than the 30% quoted for the Otto cycle. For the simple plant which could be accommodated within the space available in a road vehicle, even this appears hopeful.

Space limits preclude a condenser, so the minimum cycle temperature will be 100 degrees Centigrade. External combustion must have a lower cycle temperature than the flame temperature, and if long boiler life is required, would not be operated much above 800 degrees. The Carnot cycle efficiency is, therefore 35%. It is difficult to see how 90% efficiency could be achieved within the constraints of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Gordon Vigurs 12:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Space limits certainly do not preclude a condenser! You really should verify your facts before making such affirmations. Many steam cars including Doble's and Ted Prichard's had a condenser taking the form of a fan-cooled radiator. I won't enter into this arcane "efficiency" debate, a time-honoured red herring that does not begin to explain why steam cars have always given a very good account of themselves when compared with internal combustion as regards fuel consumption, and emissions-wise have generally proved far superior. Surely this begs more searching questions as to why this should be in spite of all this "received theory".--John of Paris 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, the condensers fitted served to recover water or avoid excessive emissions, rather than reduce minimum cycle temperature. I think you are confusing combustion efficiency (which for all forms of extermal combustion is high) with thermal efficiency.

Ok, let's drop the minimum cycle temperature to 30 degrees; that yields a Carnot cycle efficiency of 1-303/1073=72%, still a fair way from the 90% claimed. The only Rankine cycles that approached this were mercury/steam binary cycles. Steam alone cannot achieve it because the maximum temperature is well above the critical point, so the isothermal heat addition needed to even approach the Carnot efficiency is not possible. I am intrigued to hear that these vehicles are not constrained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, what other fundamental physical laws do not apply to their operation? Gordon Vigurs 09:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know who put that 90% figure in the article; I for one would not defend it and am for taking it out (but the whole paragraph will need rewriting). Overall efficiency claimed for steam cars is nowhere near that or even the 72% you suggest. It probably applies to boiler efficiency, which can reach almost 90% in some cases, but is usually somewhat lower. When you come to overall efficiency, it's a different kettle of fish altogether. Ted Pritchard in a paper circulated privately, claimed 10-13% for his steam car whilst adding that the figures given of 30-40% claimed for an Otto cycle car are "erroneous" and nearer to 10%. A diesel is better giving around 40% at constant full load; the problem is that full load does not apply to conditions in automotive service with varying load, idling etc. which Ted believes probably brings diesel overall efficiency down to around 16%. However the advantage of a modern steam unit is its intrinsic ability to store power. Doble and Pritchard cars had an automatic control box sensitive to pressure and temperature; it cut the burner or the water feed in and out (which notably meant lower, not higher consumption in urban conditions). No I am not confusing thermal efficiency with fuel efficiency although, the latter should logically derive from the former. Nor would I ever claim that steam vehicles are not constrained by any law of nature. What I do say is that theory should closely reflect practice. When it does not seem to do so, either the theory is wrong, or incomplete, or wrongly interpreted. The application of pure theory can be relevant when seeking a fresh appoach to a specific technology but is only part of the story when developing hardware or when it comes to comparing (and choosing) rival technologies where many more parameters are involved and the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Reality is always more complicated - that's why theories get reassessed from time to time. Did Carnot have the whole truth? He believed that heat is a substance called caloric.--John of Paris 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was only the figure of 90% which caused me concern, the rest of the article is fine.Gordon Vigurs 09:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The point about 'practical' efficiency and 'theoretical' efficiency is well made and is highly relevant to this article. Mis-match between the two usually arises from incomplete definition of the problem, the use of an inappropriate approximation to theory, or the current problem (e.g. deciding how long an engine should run before it requires overhaul) is not readily amenable to theoretical analysis, and is better approached empirically. Most engineering problems tend to be of this latter, theoretically messy nature.

The reduced transmission losses, insensitivity to the variable loading conditions inherent in road vehicles, particularly when the vehicle is stationary, all favour steam propulsion. They also serve as arguments against road transport in general - but that's a different issue. I'm not sure that Carnot was in fact responsible for the Carnot cycle, it may well have been named in honour of him as the first to recognise the fact that heat engines must reject a proportion of the supplied heat energy in order to work at all.Gordon Vigurs 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can say that it is more than an honorific title and that Carnot was responsible for defining the cycle in the first place along with laying out the First Law [1]. I think the mismatch you speak of stems from more than "inappropriate approximation". It comes from polarising on a single viewpoint, ill-adapted to the intricacies of the steam process, where heat transfer, fluid dynamics, boiler chemistry and tribology are of equal importance and crucial to getting the complete picture. For this holistic approach it is instructive to study the research of James Watt, D.K. Clark, Anatole Mallet, Abner Doble, André Chapelon, and more recently L. D. Porta, who had an extraordinary multi-faceted vision of the question. Ted Pritchard is also worthy of close study, if you can get hold of his writings which are now off the web since the "pretty flowers" rehash of his site --John of Paris 10:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Carnot is noted for the Second Law. The details of how one approaches the maximum cycle efficiency are not really relevant. It is obvious that the engineering difficulties of getting anywhere near the Carnot cycle efficiency are very great indeed. The Carnot cycle efficiency is derivable from the observation that heat always conveys from the hot body to the cold body, unless external work is added. Greater efficiency implies heat will flow spontaneously from cold to hot body, which is contrary to observation. If fuel were converted to work in a more ordered manner than heat, e.g. in a fuel cell or in muscle tissue, then the Carnot cycle limitation would not apply, and higher efficiency would be possible. Actual steam engines use various forms of superheated Rankine cycle, which are well below Carnot cycle efficiency, because the operate at temperatures well above the critical point. The only Rankine cycle engines which even approached Carnot cycle efficiency were the experimental mercury/steam binary cycles built in the 1920s. I do indeed polarise on a particular viewpoint; it is the viewpoint which does not tolerate the possibility of perpetual motion machines of either the first or second kind. Gordon Vigurs 09:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the authors I cited would have tolerated the possibility of perpetual motion. What I do not understand is the reason for what seems to be an over-wide gulf between theory and practice.--John of Paris 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Technology: 90% efficiency; ECE - more on.

First point: I think we should do something about that 90% efficiency claim. I don't know who put it in but perhaps the person responsible would be good enough explain his reasons for doing so, otherwise I am for swiftly deleting it. I think I can see where it comes from: in the steam engine article under the heading "Efficiency" there is the following statement: "It is also possible to capture the waste heat using cogeneration in which the residual steam is used for heating. It is therefore possible to use about 90% of the energy produced by burning fuel—only 10% of the energy produced by the combustion of the fuel goes wasted into the atmosphere." This is fine as far as it goes, but he figure appears to have been uncritically "lifted" (please correct me if I am wrong)and inserted into this article where it now smacks of POV and quackery. My second point is that, as I have already made clear, I am very uneasy about the term "external combustion" which I am dismayed to see invading all the steam articles. I suspect it comes from pure pedantry (an opposite had to be coined to "Internal"). IMO, the term EC is inadequate to describe the steam process and a source of confusion to lay persons trying to inform themselves about this already grossly misunderstood technology. Contrary to what one we are being led to believe, External combustion is not even a generally accepted definition of the steam process nor is it a convenient means of describing it (again IMO) in the way IC is for Otto cycle, diesel engines or gas turbines. Whilst you will find internal combustion in any dictionary - technical or otherwise, the same is absolutely not true of EC and I for one strongly oppose the adoption of this term in any general overview of a steam process.--John of Paris 10:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Steam engines (systems) can be made to waste less energy than ICE's. So yes, this is a measure of 'efficiency' Pendragon39 03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please expand on this--John of Paris 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Steam engines are better able to use temperature differentials to create mechanical energy. The most efficient device in this regard is the Stirling engine and the least efficient is internal combustion. The 90% figure would not be the % of heat converted into mechanical energy, but the overall efficiency of the system. Sort of like the efficiency ratings for furnaces.Pendragon39 04:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

90%, 60%, 42%

I have lowered the thermal efficiency rating to 60% as per the steam engine article. If using a gas turbine is not applicable to the steam car, the next level is 42%. Considering the development of hybrids and future methods of waste heat recovery, these numbers are of limited value. Also noted: some Wiki articles place ICE efficiency at 25% Pendragon39 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean a steam turbine don't you? The only non-hybrid application of a gas turbine to a steam generator I know of was in the Velox supercharged boiler used in electricity generators, ships and in one case a railway locomotive. The combustion gases under pressure facilitated heat transfer and only after passing through the steam generator did they work a low pressure turbo-charger but that had nothing to do with power delivery. The feedwater was also circulated rapidly under pressure. What I keep trying to hammer home is that the steam engine is a totally different ball park from IC or Stirling, fuel is burnt only to produce and maintain steam pressure, so what counts is the use of STEAM PRESSURE - IT IS NOT A HEAT ENGINE as such, whatever Carnot etc may have said. Of course heat is needed to make and maintain the steam pressure but any efficiency calculation/estimation has to take into account the whole system. 90% efficiency (the highest ever attained to my knowledge) was claimed for the Velox boiler as to its efficiency in boiling water, however overall efficiency of the Velox locomotive was little better than an ordinary steam locomotive due to inefficient use of the steam once generated. That's why there are no Velox boilers today. Doble's boiler had much in common including the advantage of thermostatic and pressure control which meant that the boiler only produced steam and burnt fuel when necessary (About 60% max of the time - no idling). This makes any efficiency comparison with IC etc extremely difficult except over a period of time in performing similar work.--John of Paris 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall system 'efficiency' is a measure of the amount of energy wasted vs the amount used. This is different from thermal efficiency, which measures % of input energy converted to mechanical output. Saying a steam boiler uses 90% of its energy to produce steam doesn't help us evaluate the next step: the conversion to mechanical energy. By the same token, thermal efficiency does not help us evaluate the overall efficiency of a system, in this case a steam automobile. Do we use a conventional drivetrain or a series hybrid to store and transmit power to the wheels? Do we employ a stirling engine to capture more of the waste heat or otherwise make use of it? Its not clear to me if this article is to describe existing models or potential ones, based on current technology. A heat engine is a device designed to produce mechanical energy from a temperature differential. A boiler by itself is not a heat engine, but a piston or turbine driven 'steam device' is. The example taken from the steam engine article described using a gas turbine, then attempting waste heat recovery using steam. Not that such a system could reasonably be fit into a car! Pendragon39 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What "fits into a car" is high temperature and high pressure differentials. The two are intimately linked, but separate considerations - a point which tends to be largely ignored in present-day writings. A steam unit is self-contained, needing no hybrid attachments, gearbox nor clutch, being capable of starting from 0 rpm. Once the steam is generated, the problem is one of fluid dynamics and avoiding leakage plus maintaining temperature at a level sufficient to avoid condensation - at least during the working cycle. --John of Paris 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, storing and extracting energy from steam are problems. How are these best solved? Have prototypes been developed? What is their expected efficiency? This article is about a car, hence the numbers should relate to what is wasted and what is used to turn the wheels. Then compare with a conventional ICE vehicle or hybrid Pendragon39 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought on the IC process, explosions and the like. We are still talking about the EFFECT of heat on a gas. And what is happening? Rapid temperature change gives rise to rapid pressure change and vice versa. The heat generated in a diesel engine or a fire piston comes from a rapid pressure hike; that ignites the fuel creating a still greater pressure hike: that's what does the work whatever the final temperature. In contrast, a steam engine, reciprocating or turbine, does not care whether it receives hot steam or compressed air at room temperature. In the boiler/steam generator, the effect of the heat applied is to continuously convert the water into steam; the more water you convert in a confined space, the higher the pressure that results and that's what does the work. Loss of pressure due to work will bring down steam temperature and condense it turning it back into water. this is why you need either to start the steam cycle at very high temperature or to resuperheat it at an intermediate stage enabling it to continue to work at lower pressure. Temperature and pressure are therefore complementary, but temperature is always the "slave" to pressure.--John of Paris 10:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Increasing the pressure increases the boiling point of water, which increases the amount of energy stored as steam. At this step of the process, heat generated through combustion was exchanged, not converted. An ICE operates on the most extreme temperature differential, that of combustion/detonation - to convert that energy into mechanical output. Thus a steam engine can convert heat > mechanical at a lower temperature differential. In terms of thermal efficiency it is midway between ICE and Stirling. Pendragon39 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, heat is exchanged - and the water converted into steam.--John of Paris 12:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious assertion about efficiency of engine

The article makes the following assertion that I consider to be dubious:

While Gasoline-powered ICE cars have an operational thermal efficiency of 15% to 30%, automotive steam engines are capable of only about half this efficiency.

It is dubious because the article does not mention that IC Engines are inefficient because they must run constantly, even when the vehicle is not moving - that is, the engine must "idle". Steam engines do not need to do this. For a steam-power car, the only consumption of energy when it is not moving is to replace any energy that is lost as heat to the environment. Thus, steam cars consume far less energy when the vehicle is not moving than a comparable vehicle with an IC engine. It is therefore misleading for the article to assert that the IC engine is more efficient without qualifying this.

Another reason to question the statement is the fuel efficiency statement for the Dobie given later in the article:

the Doble managed to achieve 15 miles per gallon (18.8 litres/100 km) of kerosene despite weighing in excess of 5,000 lbs (2.27 tonnes).

While this looks fairly inefficient, we must consider that this is a vehicle that weighed as much as a decent-sized modern truck. Had an engine with the Dobie design been built into a modern car weighing about 1,200 kg, and the Dobie engine been built smaller to suit the car, the Dobie engine would likely have had no trouble getting a fuel economy figure below 10 litres/100 km. As it is difficult to make such a comparison, a more reasonable comparison would be to show the fuel economy figures for an ICE car of the same mass from the same era. It is very unlikely that such an ICE vehicle that was contemporaneous to the Dobie would have had better fuel economy figures. --B.d.mills 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. What I am trying to do, strange as it may seem, is to bring some sort of balance into this debate. It does seem to me that the best candidate for steam technology would be a truck of some kind as suggested by James Crank[2]. The arguments trotted out by the IC fraternity are always on based on "thermal" efficiency: 5% versus 30% or whatever - the only factor ever considered.--John of Paris 10:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor who entered this number has not provided an explanation. The steam engine article does not support it as far as I can tell Pendragon39 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am at present working on a new version of the steam engine article. just give me a bit more time that's all.--John of Paris 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful. "Even allowing very optimistic efficiencies as high as 80% for as few as five of the basic stages in the superheating/condensing steam cycle, you still end up with a thermal efficiency below 33%, a level at which petrol engines have been working for years. In fact steam efficiencies are generally much lower than this [80%], especially in condensors: the best of the modern American steam carswere quoted as yielding maximum thermal efficiencies of 26%...without auxiliary loads...[or]20% at the driving wheels...." From L.J.K. Setright, "Steam: The Romantic Illusion", in Northey, Tom, ed. World of Automobiles (London: Orbis, 1974), Volume 19, p.2173. While I don't doubt things are better now, Setright points out numerous drawbacks, all of which seem formidable to me; the article addresses few of them, seeming to accept press releases at face value. Trekphiler 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the net thermal efficiency of automotive steam systems has (generally) been no more than 1/2 that of modern internal combustion automotive systems. However, I would like to emphasize that this is not inherent in the physics of steam power. I've believed for several years now that the rapid advances in materials technology will soon permit the construction of automotive steam systems with performance that exceeds existing internal combustion automotive systems. The best example on the scene now are the engines created by Cyclone Power Technologies. Their automotive steam system may operate well over 20% net thermal efficiency. More importantly, there are many other qualities of their steam system that make it superior to the internal combustion engine for automotive use. Devilishadvocate 02:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the above statement has been Re-Factored from its original text here, with no edit summary explaining why or informing other editors of this fact, thus following statements do not relate directly to the above statement now showing on the page. (this has been done by the original author) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that in principle. However I have visited the recommended site and was a little dismayed to find that I came out not much wiser than when I went in. The so-called "tech pages" are no more than publicity blurbs. Much more technical information needed.--John of Paris 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

John of Paris, if you're interested in learning more about the Cyclone then I recommend referencing the discussion board at steamautomobile.com. The inventor of the Cyclone, Harry Schoell, is very active at the site. There is one extensive posting in particular that provides a lot of technical details on the Cyclone. Also, Mr. Schoell is generally very willing to answer questions on the technology.Devilishadvocate 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. After my last posting I decided I had been a bit hasty and did go back to look more closely and follow other links. Much more interesting than I thought - the website is not very well organised which tends to deter a new visitor; however seeing the names of Jim Crank and George Nutz as technical advisers certainly brightened up the prospects. I have downloaded the patent document and am now wading through it after first listening to the radio interview. Anyway if you wish to discuss this matter further, it might be better to do so on my talk page rather than clog this one up. Cheers,--John of Paris 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dream Steam hybrid?

If I was to imagine a modern steam car, I would use a steam turbine to drive a generator. Eliminate the transmission and differential in favor of direct drive electric motors. It would have batteries for electrical energy storage and super-capacitors for supplemental storage or to improve torque. A Stirling engine could be used to extract additional energy from waste heat and eliminate the need for a condenser. Power from the Stirling would be used for accessories or fed into the electrical system.

The boiler would ideally use cheaper fuels and be as clean burning as possible.

It's just a dream of course, manufacturers will not move away from gasoline/diesel engines. To do so would entail engineering, design and retooling costs Pendragon39 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A low power Stirling engine working as a pump might just be used to condense the steam but there are plenty of efficient ways to do that. As for transmission, don't bother with hybrids the whole point of a steam engine is that it starts away at 0 - (I said ZERO) rpm. that said you will need a differential but that's no problem. The boiler can be made to burn anything combustible. You who live in Melbourne, just get into touch with Pritchard power[3], they will put you in the picture.--John of Paris 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any concept how inefficient turbines are for stop-&-go driving? Their throttle response would be hideous. You'd be better advised just to use a pure Stirling, which will also burn anything... Trekphiler 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, the turbine was to drive a generator. It is the electric motors/regenerative braking that drive the vehicle. As with hybrids, this allows the power plant to run at its highest efficiency. The aim for hybrid systems is to decouple power generation from its consumption. For most systems, this entails the use of electricity as the energy storage and retrieval mechanism. Pendragon39 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only steam turbine car I am aware of is the Steam Car Challenge vehicle. I hardly think the group will be worrying about stop & go driving for the moment. So I would ask you, when will the next British Stirling Car Challenge be taking place? Let's hope one day soon. I for one wish all power to the elbows of people developing the Stirling engine if that can help cut down noise and pollution. As for steam, the evidence is overwhelming that it can do at least that. We may well be pursuing a "romantic dream" but in today's worsening energy situation we had better keep ALL our options open and all technologies up to date.--John of Paris 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

- Moreover in the last two statements just added to the the Technology section (By the way, are they both by Setright?) there are several factual errors plus some incorrect use of terminology (for instance, you don't "feed" a boiler with a fan). I don't know Setright's article and would like to read it. That said he seems to be referring to the 1970s projects about which there is very little available information; from what I can gather, in spite of appearing very hi-tech they had a number of retrograde features due to a too-brief R&D period coupled with general loss of "steam culture". To my mind, the most promising of the more recent steam car developments were Doble's contribution to the 1950s Paxton car project and Ted Pritchard's prototypes of the 1960s and 70s. They are the references we should be studying rather than Setright who appears to come from an essentially hostile point of view.--John of Paris 10:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider boiler as part of the engine?

This question was posed in the summary of changes to this article. I would say the boiler should be considered as part of the steam car Pendragon39 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree of course, except to say you haven’t answered the question as to whether the changes made to the article were worthwhile. The problem is wider than the steam car: once again, as already stated in these discussions and others, my problem is with the term External Combustion Engine (ECE) which in IMO does not adequately represent the sum of the two basic components. In an IC unit we have one component, power being developed inside the engine, also delivered by the engine - that's easy, whereas in a steam power unit (?) it’s not just an “engine” we are dealing with, but a composite power unit consisting of two basic components, power being developed by and eventually stored in the generator/boiler, then delivered by the engine. The problem is that you can mate a variety of different boiler types with a variety of different of engine types — in any instance, the sum of the whole is what? A “steam unit”? A “steam drive”? or something else? - not an “engine” at any rate.--John of Paris 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion regarding the term ECE. "Steam unit" and "power plant" are alternative terms that could be used. The main focus of the article should be to briefly describe the main components of various steam cars - from existing models and prototypes. The emphasis is on the car and its overall performance, not its components. The reader can always follow the links if they need more details Pendragon39 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well daft as it may sound, I have just taken the two alternative terms and re-edited the paragraph on the Paxton Phoenix in the "Aftermath" section of the Doble Steam Car article. - Thanks - why didn't I think of that before? It makes life so much easier. It's not a question of more details, what I am talking about is very very basic: people can follow links until they are cross-eyed, but as long as they do so with a particular (IC) mindset, they are unlikely to fully latch onto what they are reading about. Of course the car's overall performance is important, but unless you give an idea of the means employed to achieve that, what is the point? It's not about components per se, but strange as it may seem (and I speak from experience), many people have not even begun to grasp the simple fact that to power a car (or anything else) by steam, you need two basic components (or ingredients, or whatever) of equal importance, one called a boiler (or steam generator) and the other an engine (or expander) - many tend only to see an "engine" and come up with the strangest notions on how it's supposed to work.John of Paris (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign at the time, but it must have been 27 August 2007)

Well, I certainly have learned more about steam cars since reading these articles :) In this article, the level of detail will depend on how many models of steam car are presented. I'm glad to see the Doble has its own article Pendragon39 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New steam technology

Perhaps new steam technology (steam production via the blending of methanol and hydrogen peroxide, instead of simple heating) might again propell steam cars. The technology has been produced by Tiancun Xiao and picked up by Oxford Catalysts

See also:

• Oxford Catalysts Portable Steam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.169.144 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 04 September 2007

The above comment may well have been a bit of 'self-promotion' on the part of Oxford Catalysts, but for those interested in the subject it is certainly worth a look. The reaction they have discovered is little short of 'magic'!

Also available from their site is a Press Release (?) apparently written by a freelance science writer. This gives a better idea about the practical applications of this technology. However, I can't help feeling that a spray applicator for domestic cleaning, that operates at room temperature, and produces a jet of steam at 800degC might be a tad dangerous!! (Their website demo video shows steam igniting a piece of paper!!)

The technology is too new to add anything on this page, but if suitable refs can be found, would be a good addition to the steam page...

EdJogg 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest we continue this discussion on the talk:Steam page (where I have already copied it). Once I know we're all there, I'll delete this section from here.--John of Paris 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Steam now added to watchlist as a result of copy-edit... EdJogg 10:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, pioneers

I've heard of a 1788 Fourness steam car. Anybody know more? Add it? Trekphiler (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an unsubstantied story about a car and a couple of steam boats, which seem to be based solely on Fourness' 1788 patents. NealeFamily (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Further research

http://www.stanleysteameronline.com/ is a potentially useful source of information for further research, and includes photos of steam cars and related advertising literature and ephemera, plus a large amount of detail on individual manufacturers. Unfortunately, despite the obvious knowledge of the site owner, it is effectively a 'fan' site and doesn't really meet WP's criteria for external links (although many similar sites are already linked!), particularly because pages cannot be addressed individually.

EdJogg (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a small family site under construction. The best bet is [4]- that's where all the big cheeses in the steam car world hang out, such as Jim Crank and George Nutz (not pseudonyms as far as I know). Lots of serious historical and technical pages. The Forum [5] is very lively and well worth the occasional visit.--John of Paris (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

London Steam carrige

This is mentioned in Francis Trevithick's Life of Richard Trevithick, Vol.I p. 142 and is described as "apocryphal" by Robert Young, Timothy Hackworth and the locomotive (Pub. 1923, reprint 1975 & 2000). What one can ask is how he would have found the time to develop and build it at that hectic time.--John of Paris (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

British Steam Car Challenge

It is said that the record for land-driven steam vehicles should have lasted since 1909. But as I remember some US locomotives were said to have pulled trains at speeds near 240 km/h which is more (if it is true) than the actual new land record for steam driven vehicles. -- 170.56.58.148 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support team

The following list was recently added to the article. I think this is far too specific for Wikipedia, and is exactly the sort of information that should be sourced via an external link. (Formatting applied by EdJogg)

The complete list of record breaking team members

• Principal Driver - Charles Burnett,
• Test Driver - Don Wales,
• Engineering Logistics Coordinator - Frank Swanston,
• PR Liaison Officer - Pam Swanston,
• PR Manager - Rebecca Nicholls,
• Engineer - Jerry Bliss
• Engineering Administrator/Strategic Planner - Matt Candy,
• Technician - Clive Hawkins,
• Technician - Dave Crabtree,
• Electrical, Wiring and Computer Technician - Matthew Warr,

• Electric and Electronic Technician - Nick Bass,
• Composite Body Work - Mike Horne,
• Fabricator & Welder - Chris Yates,
• Student Placement - Adam Tye,
• Transport - Nigel Leppard,
• Newtown Park Estates Manager - Richard Channell,
• Team Medic - Ed Ortega,
• Turn Around Crew - Ben May, Chris Piercy.
• Special thanks to USAF escorts, SSgt T. Davenport and SSgt A. Shura of Edwards AFB.

EdJogg (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Top of article needs much work

Just taken a closer look at the start of this article (usually I am either vandal-patrolling it, or just checking the diffs, so I hadn't noticed previously). It is ridiculous! The entire lead "paragraph" is: "A steam car is a car powered by a steam engine." and it is accompanied by a banner that says "This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents..." What a marvellous example of understatement!

I then looked at the first section -- usually such a short lead section is followed by an 'Overview' section resulting from some misguided editor splitting a comprehensive lede to make it shorter. No, the next section is "Technology", and this is a series of sentences giving the drawbacks of a variety of power sources. Then we go into the History sections, which are generally OK.

Where is the description of how a steam car works? How is it built? What distinguishes its engine from other steam engines? What about the developments in the boiler design that allowed faster starting in later models? (Some of this is contained within the following sections.) All of this should come before the present technology descriptions.

</rant>

I am not able to address these problems myself, as I lack the reference material and knowledge. But WP can make some articles develop in a very skewed fashion and I think this is a prime example and thought there was a need to say as much.

EdJogg (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Iain John Clifford-Webb

Looks like a WP:HOAX to me. An editor, suggesting vandalism, has added a {{cn}} request but I would delete it outright, pending a source to prove me wrong. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Listings

We are facing a problem: Did you know that the "Standard Catalogue of American Cars 1805-1942" (Beverly Rae Kimes, editor and Henry Austin Clark, jr., 2nd Edition, Krause Publications, Iola WI 54990 ISBN 0-87341-111-0; pages 1542-1543) lists far more than 400 makers of steam car - and these are only the US-based companies that (also) built steam cars in this period. Not mentioned are Non-US makes and those who just built trucks (no cars). How useful is it to mention more or less accidentally some of them? Further, many of the makes mentioned above are already listed in the List of car brands without mentioning the kind of power they used. Same is true for electric powered vehicles. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be useful for List of steam car makers Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Condense the lead

Would someone take a look and see if the lead can be shortened? Otr500 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede is about the right length (at 3-4 paragraphs). Needs to be checked that it accurately reflects the article content, before which, I suggest, the article should be reviewed. Also see WP:LEDE. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

I added categories that seemed relevant. If there are some that do not belong then someone can correct. Otr500 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Normally you would not include parents and grand-parents (etc) of existing categories. I sometimes (try to) stretch this rule where the category tree is so strung-out that the article needs to (eg) belong to its great-great-grand-parent category too, or it won't be found -- but other editors sometimes disagree!

Also, you need to beware of adding categories that are not strictly relevant. I have left a couple, which may be OK; however, the article really does not belong in the sets denoted by Category:Automobiles by country nor Category:Automobiles by decade.

EdJogg (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuel Type?

As of the time of this comment, there is hardly any mention of the type of fuel used to heat the boiler in the general area of the article, or in any of the discussions of individual cars. Discussion of the possibilities as well as the common choice(s) of fuel would be significant.

There are mentions of starting these cars with a key which makes the fuel/boiler question even more intriguing. We know that locomotives used coal or wood, but clearly those are not suitable for a car that is started with a key.

The tangential mentions of the "Doble" using diesel (in the technology section) and contradicted by mentioning kerosene (in the Doble section) are the only mentions of fuel at all. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point and I agree more should be said about fuels. I believe (but may be wrong) that most of them used paraffin (kerosene) but the very earliest used coal or coke and more modern ones often use(d) LPG. However, I'm not sure enough of the facts to add this info myself. I'll leave it to the experts. --Roly (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Steam: The romantic illusion

Does this make sense or add anything to the article?

The steamer has other drawbacks, also. The absence of a gearbox is more than counterbalanced by the weight of cooling and forced draft fans, fans, and boiler feed, fuel feed, and air pumps; the battery and fan to feed even a flash boiler will more than overcome the weight of a gearbox, and need to run even at idle.

Furthermore, the radiator must be larger, since all heat engines depend on the temperature differences in the working fluid; in steam cars, this heat exchange must be larger and more rapid, and so, too, must the radiator.

My view is that the first paragraph could be summed up with There is no weight advantage for steam and the second has been challenged by others as nonsensical. Could someone with a steam/engineering background comment. The source quoted for comments was Setright, L.J.K. (1974). Northey, Tom, ed., ed. Steam: The Romantic Illusion. World of Automobiles. Vol 19 (London: Orbis). pp. 2170–2171. NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The steamer has other drawbacks, also. The absence of a gearbox is more than counterbalanced by the weight of cooling and forced draft fans, fans, and boiler feed, fuel feed, and air pumps; the battery and fan to feed even a flash boiler will more than overcome the weight of a gearbox, and need to run even at idle.

This is also mostly nonsense. A steam car does not need any fuel feed pump heavier than any internal combustion engine car has. It doesn't need any more battery than any ordinary internal combustion engine car has. It doesn't need any cooling fans. To claim that the fan required to blow air into the boiler weighs more than a typical automobile gearbox, is just plain stupid. One of the biggest weight differences, is going to be the need for two tanks, one for water and one for fuel.Lathamibird (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these two paragraphs are unhelpful, and consequently I have removed the remaining one.

The whole 'Technology' section is sorely lacking (see 'Radiator' below), and may indicate the need for a re-structure of the whole article.

EdJogg (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Radiator

"Furthermore, the radiator must be larger, since all heat engines depend on the temperature differences in the working fluid; in steam cars, this heat exchange must be larger and more rapid, and so, too, must the radiator.[1]"

This statement is wrong, and I removed it. However, someone disagreed with that, and put it back in.

Steam cars do not have a "radiator". The person who inserted that paragraph obviously has only a very limited understanding of heat engines and thermodynamics. They have failed to understand the difference between closed cycle heat engines ( most electric power stations, refrigeration ) and open cycle engines ( 99% of steam cars ever built, and also 99% of steam railway locomotives, and gasoline and diesel automobiles ).

In a steam car or steam locomotive, the water is pumped into the boiler, heated, forms steam, which goes to the cylinder, does work on the piston, and is vented to the atmosphere. That's it. The water is lost, it's an open cycle. That's why steam cars and locomotives need to refill with water, often. Experiments were made with both automobiles and locomotives, to condense the steam and re-use the water, and were found to be impractical as far as transportation machinery is concerned. And, this equipment would invariably be called a "condenser", not a "radiator". The key point, whether closed or open cycle, is that it requires less energy to pressurize the water, in the boiler feed pump, than the energy you get back from the steam at it returns to low pressure in the cylinder ( or turbine ).

"in steam cars, this heat exchange must be larger.." larger than what ? A steam locomotive ? An electric power station ? The only "heat exchange" that is relevant in a steam car is the boiler, where the steam is made using heat from burning some kind of fuel. Boiler design for steam cars is problematical, because of size and weight issues, and start-up delays. It has nothing to do with a "radiator"! In any boiler, you want to capture as much heat as you can, into the steam. You certainly don't want to waste it to a "radiator".

"Furthermore, the radiator must be larger, since... ". larger than what ? Larger than a gasoline fueled car, perhaps he means ? Again, a braying ignorance of thermodynamics is on show here. A gasoline or diesel automobile engine is also an open cycle engine, the working fluid ( ordinary atmospheric air ) is sucked into the engine, heated by the burning fuel, does mechanical work on the piston, and is discharged back into the atmosphere through the exhaust pipe. An automobile radiator is not an essential part of this thermodynamic operating cycle - as the existence of air-cooled engines proves. Only about 1/3 of the energy created from the burning fuel is converted into useful mechanical work, the other 2/3 becomes "waste heat", which either goes out the exhaust pipe, and also makes the engine block hot. The limitation here is the heat tolerance of the metals from which automobile engines are made. It is possible to air-cool the engine block, but turns out to be more practical to transfer a lot of that heat to a radiator, because water ( the radiator cooling water ) has better heat transfer characteristics than air. This is not part of the "heat engine" cycle, however. The "working fluid" in an automobile engine is the air being sucked in the air filter and discharged through the exhaust pipe... it isn't the radiator cooling water.

In a steam automobile, the waste heat which is inherent in the combustion of the fuel, goes out the exhaust of the boiler. It is impossible for all of the heat from the burning fuel ( and air required for the fuel to burn ), to be captured by the water which is being heated in the boiler. As for the cylinder and pistons, these work BETTER at a higher temperature, and there would be no good reason to attempt to cool the cylinders of a steam car, in the manner in which the cylinders of an internal combustion engine are conventionally cooled.

""Furthermore, the radiator must be larger, since all heat engines depend on the temperature differences in the working fluid;". This sentence implies a causative relationship from the second part of the sentence to the first part. A completely misconceived relationship. The second part isn't even true, and is not connected to the first part, and steam cars don't even have "radiators".

I'm removing this short paragraph again, because it is rubbish.Lathamibird (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

While you're argument makes sense I would like another steam enthusiast to vet it. Also I had asked you to leave the article alone until the issue is resolved because you are in danger of creating an edit war which ends up with users blocked. NealeFamily (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly qualify as a 'steam enthusiast', as I would not claim to be an expert on the technical workings, although my knowledge leans towards railway locomotives and traction engines rather than steam cars.

On being asked to give an opinion, my first reaction was to suggest involving Andy Dingley, as he is largely responsible for Wikipedia's coverage of the many types of steam boiler. (I've always regarded him as an expert, even if he wouldn't claim so himself.) It was only when I saw the edit history I realised he was the third part in the triumvirate!

I think part of Andy's rejection of the edit is because it removes referenced text. Nevertheless, having looked right back through the article history, and taking a step back from the section, I agree that it should be removed. I have also 'been bold' and removed the adjacent section from the same reference. The information may well have been correctly cited, but it is incomplete and confusing.

The 'Technology' section is sorely lacking anything useful. Steam engines used in cars were a distinct breed, being small and mobile. The section needs expanding to explain the unique challenges of steam car technology and reflect the differences with that used in railway locomotives, traction engines, (under-type) steam lorries, and stationary steam engines.

With regard to Lathamibird's comments, many steam cars certainly had a condenser which looks and works in a very similar way to an internal combustion engine radiator (hot water (steam) passes through a series of pipes over which cold air passes, removing some of the heat, and producing colder water as a result.)

EdJogg (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This comment is somewhat misconceived. You don't want "colder water". You need to condense the steam, to reduce the pressure at the cylinder outlet. A piston engine or steam turbine works by having a lower pressure at the outlet, than at the inlet. The condensor of a power station turbine or large stationary engine, or ship engine, if supplied with a large amount of cooling water, is capable of creating an effective vacuum at the outlet of the steam cylinder or turbine. If that cannot be practically accomplished, then venting to the atmosphere will have to do. Creating a vacuum for a turbine is more beneficial to total efficiency, than it is for a piston. Attempting to condense the steam in a "radiator" isn't going to work. Having a large amount of cooling water in a separate cooling water cycle with a "radiator" isn't going to work very well either for a car. Notice how electric power stations (coal and nuclear) need to be sited near a lake, large river or estuary, for cooling water. Otherwise they need those enormous cooling towers for evaporative cooling of the cooling cycle water ( not the boiler cycle water ) The problem with "radiators", is the low specific heat and thermal conductivity of the air, and the poor heat transfer from the radiator to the air at low temperatures. An automobile radiator works with water at about 96 degrees celsius, and under pressure to increase the water's boiling point, and requires a water pump to force the water to flow through the narrow passages in the radiator core. All three of these factors are militantly detrimental to the function of the steam engine, which requires the steam outlet to be at the lowest practical temperature and pressure. A "radiator" operated at a lower temperature will transfer very little heat to the atmosphere. Several steam car companies tried to put condensors on their cars, these projects were both thermodynamically and financially doomed.Lathamibird (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A condenser has two main functions. One is to create a partial vacuum, to improve efficiency. The second, and more important in a steam car, is to conserve water, so that the driver doesn't have to stop to fill up every few miles. --Roly (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Roly.

The whole reason we are talking about 'radiators' is that it was the terminology used in the disputed (and now removed) text. A comparison of radiator vs condenser would seem a useful subsection of 'Technology' for the general readership. A number of steam cars had the condenser mounted at the front where a radiator would usually be sited (my one reference specifically mentions 'radiator' in this context) probably to obtain maximum airflow over the cooling fins.

This conversation is also underlining: (a) my limited understanding of the physics of how these things work; (b) the desperate need for suitable (user-friendly) explanations in the 'Technology' section; and (c) my lack of suitability as the person to write it!

--EdJogg (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My library contains few references about steam cars, but there is a 26-page chapter in "Steam on the Road" (1974) by David Burgess Wise. There is sadly little technical info, but I did discover this:

In 1916, the Stanleys...bowed to convention and fitted a condenser to their cars to conserve water... The change...forced by Chicago and Boston city authorities...[who warned]...Stanleys would not be allowed within city limits unless steps were taken to curtail the clouds of uncondensed fog...

The same book also notes that White (another prominent manufacturer) also used a condenser.

The 'Technology' section should discuss how the mechanics developed over the years. The reader should not be expected to read all the individual manufacturer sections to piece together the workings of a steam car. It may be that the whole article now needs restructuring to give a more cohesive narrative.

EdJogg (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I have often found that when an article reaches a certain length that further development is inhibited by its structure. At the moment the lead is not a lead WP:LEDE it is an ==Introduction==. Adding a new section labelled ==Introduction== will allow you more freedom later on. The section ==Technology== is way too short, and indeed needs some heavy physics and technology, at the moment it lapses into talking about historic events, caused by the structure problem.

The bulk of the article should be under a major heading of ==History==, and sections becoming subsections etc. A three sentence synopsis needs to be fed back into the lede. There is crossover here with other vehicules. A section == Precursors to the steam car == may be useful. Releasing material to a new article ==List of steam cars== may help to keep this article tighter.

I have looked several times at related article- and concluded that there were too many nice starts and stubs that needed similar care love and attention, so have not got involved (save for photos on commons). To do steam car justice you will need to tweak many other articles too. It is sad to follow a {{see}} tag and find that the target is less informative than the launcher.

I hope this is of use. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Clem.

I had not actually read the article recently, and your analysis seems a good starting point for development.

The early history of steam road vehicles is complicated and difficult to classify in the world of Wikipedia. Also, it is difficult to say where the article History of steam road vehicles should stop and Steam car begin.

This article has certainly moved on from when I made a previous comment (see "Top of article needs much work" above) back in (gulp) 2009. However, my position has not changed: even if I had the time available, I do not have the knowledge nor the reference material to do what's needed. On the other hand, I could certainly offer support in terms of proof-reading.

EdJogg (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My thought would be to reduce the content of the History of steam road vehicles to headline sections on the different types: cars buses, trucks, and anything else - with each section referencing to main articles. I suppose a development of steam engines for such uses would also be included. Any thoughts? NealeFamily (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not quite. The whole point of History of steam road vehicles is to describe the development in the early years that preceded specialisation into cars, buses, trucks, etc. The steam car / steam bus / steam lorry articles refer to 'History...' to avoid duplicating information about their common ancestry (or that is the intention, at least).

The 'Victorian Age of Steam' section of 'History...' seems to have expanded to include a considerable number of minor, independent car builders, with no indication of their significance to technological progress. The lede of 'History...' suggests that by about 1850/1860, commercial production of steam vehicles was feasible, and maybe this should be the point at which the articles start to diverge. Perhaps what is needed is, as you suggest, a new section after 'Victorian era' -- maybe called 'Commercial production' ? -- that gives an overview of developments for the different types of vehicle and links into the individual main articles. This will give a better article hierarchy.

And yes, the important information to include is the development of the technology.

Were you aware of List of steam car makers? I had forgotten about it, and Clem must have missed it too. It is mentioned several times in the article, but could perhaps be included in the lede in a phrase such as "There were many hundreds of manufacturers of steam cars, and List of steam car makers attempts to collate these." The Steam Car article should concentrate on the 'most notable', ie the early pioneers, anyone who introduced technological developments later adopted by others, and, of course, the very largest or most successful/prolific manufacturers (Stanley, White, etc), since that would be expected by most readers.

Expanding Clem's suggestion, as we already have an article listing the manufacturers in a table, it would not be unreasonable to develop a series of articles such as "Steam car manufacturers of North America", "...United Kingdom", etc. Organised alphabetically, these could include sections for each manufacturer that was sufficiently notable to include in Wikipedia, and about which there was something significant (and referenced) to write, but which did not warrant their own article. This gives you an exit strategy for keeping the Steam Car and 'History...' articles focussed, manageable and readable.

Phew.

By the way, this is a common problem with Wikipedia articles. It is comparatively easy to write a cohesive article about a smallish subject, such as an individual manufacturer, but when you start tackling a 'top level' article like this, it is no longer a simple process. However, creating and populating the sub-articles is usually a good first step. Best of luck!

EdJogg (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - it looks like a major project. I'll have a think about a strategy and post it here once I have decided on my approach NealeFamily (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. When you're ready, message me on my talk page (to send me an email), as I no longer actively watch pages on WP.

-- EdJogg (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Be bold!- well someone had to. Not perfect, at least we have a lead ClemRutter (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)