Steam engines are notoriously dirty.Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I'm sure somebody more clued-up on the subject than me will say I'm wrong, but isn't part of the problem the internal combustion engine itself? To work efficiently an IC engine needs to achieve rapid controlled combustion under very specific conditions, whereas a steam engine (or a jet turbine engine for that matter), merely has to ensure total combustion of fuel within the relevant part of the power plant. Though a steam engine run on old socks and spoilt ballot papers may not smell very nice, nevertheless it converts a significant proportion of the available energy into useful power, and it doesn't need retuning to do so. Perhaps the real problem isn't the fuel, but the gizmo we are feeding it to. Just a thought...
Steam engines are notoriously dirty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I'm sure somebody more clued-up on the subject than me will say I'm wrong, but isn't part of the problem the internal combustion engine itself? To work efficiently an IC engine needs to achieve rapid controlled combustion under very specific conditions, whereas a steam engine (or a jet turbine engine for that matter), merely has to ensure total combustion of fuel within the relevant part of the power plant. Though a steam engine run on old socks and spoilt ballot papers may not smell very nice, nevertheless it converts a significant proportion of the available energy into useful power, and it doesn't need retuning to do so. Perhaps the real problem isn't the fuel, but the gizmo we are feeding it to. Just a thought...
That depends on the heat source. If you ran one using focused sunlight or geothermal heat the only dirt would be from lost lubricant.
They do lose heat, they are not totally efficient and they have higher weight to power than IC engines in general though designs like the Stanley Steamer show differently and there was a really good car and engine but to my understanding there was never a Stanley Airplane. By the time you get one running at high output -for that engine- the efficiency does drop quite a bit but the same is true for all heat engines including IC engines.
Aimail look for the BBC series "Fred Dibnah's Age of Steam" (or some title close to that). He shows steam engines that ran in multiple stages, where the exhaust from one piston ran another to achieve higher efficiency. The fastest steam locomotive in the world was a British one built with some aid from Westinghouse and hit over 130 mph in IIRC 1938.
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
They do lose heat, they are not totally efficient and they have higher weight to power than IC engines in general though designs like the Stanley Steamer show differently and there was a really good car and engine but to my understanding there was never a Stanley Airplane.
oh yes there was .....
<span class="flash-video"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
height="385"
width="480"
><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nw6NFmcnW-8?fs=1&hl=en_US"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed allowScriptAccess="never"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
wmode="transparent"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
height="385"
width="480"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nw6NFmcnW-8?fs=1&hl=en_US"
/></object></span>
Absolutely.Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still think bio fuels is a bad idea.. it takes us in the wrong direction.
BIO-fuels do not only have a worse outcome on pollutives than oil-besed fuels, they'll olso need extensive growth in fields and farming lands - guess where that's gonna be done: The Amazonas-area or any tropical forest area for that matter.
It actually is a square feck-up for the environment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is R&D growing algae to produce IIRC alcohol underway that they're talking about setting up production in deserts.
I don't know if there's problems with them but some efforts looked into jojoba and creosote plants to extract useful energy and lubricants from. However like other forms of alternate power, when it gets started the oil companies and their OPEC partners cut the price of gas and that's usually enough to bankrupt the startups. After a while and a lot of investments down the tubes the risks do get known.
HOLY COW! I wish my Father was still around to see that! But it's not the Stanley engine which had no 'boiler' but rather built steam up in tubes which no way could explode and used a unique piston arrangement as well -- that might have been more efficient than the Besler. Also I do have to wonder on what kind of range the Besler got.Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
oh yes there was .....
HOLY COW! I wish my Father was still around to see that! But it's not the Stanley engine which had no 'boiler' but rather built steam up in tubes which no way could explode and used a unique piston arrangement as well -- that might have been more efficient than the Besler. Also I do have to wonder on what kind of range the Besler got. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
oh yes there was .....
Well one of the proposed powerplants for the me264 long range bomber was a 6000 horsepower steam turbine fueled by a mixture of powdered coal and petroleum so steam aircraft in theory could get reasonable range. The main advantages of steam are constant power at all altitudes and simple maintenance.
Messerschmitt Me 264 Amerika Bomber - The Luftwaffe's Lost Transatlantic Bomber
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1292&page=2
... (Sonderkommando Nebel) commissioned Professor Losel of the firm Osermaschinen GmbH to carry out the design and development of a steam turbine power unit which was to be rated at 6,000hp at 6,000rpm with a power to weight of 0.7 kg/hp and a consumption of 190 grams/hp/hour. An Me 264 airframe - possibly the V2 - was to have been placed at the disposal of the firm, but it was apparently destroyed in an air raid before experiments got under way.
Two forms or propeller were envisioned; one at 5.3m diameter revolving at 400-500 rpm and the other at 1.98m diameter revolving at 6,000 rpm.
The system consisted of four capillary tube boilers, each one meter in diameter in 1.2m high; a boiler feed water pump and auxiliary turbine; a main turbine, 0.6m in diameter and 1.82m in length; a combustion air draft fan, condenser, controls and auxiliaries. By the end of the war, many of these components had been manufactured and were ready for use including one of the boilers, the turbine blades and auxiliaries, such as the combustion air draft fan and condenser pump. Work had also started on the auxiliary and main turbine.
The system was designed to use 65% solid fuel (pulverized coal) and 35% liquid fuel (petrol), but it was intended to use liquid fuel only when it became available in quantity. Osermaschinen claimed that the advantages of steam turbine power were:
Constant power at varying heights
Capacity for 100 per cent overloading, even for long periods
Full steam power obtained within 5-10 seconds
Not sensitive to low temperatures
Long life and simple servicing requirements
Simple and quick control