Re: 'Steam' powered cars...

[Colin Stamp]

As standard? Erm... How about the Lotus Esprit Turbo?

I get a prize?

Cheers,

Colin.

[Guy King]

The message from marb contains these words:

Not cooled by the radiator they don't.

[Guy King]

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Partly that, but mostly because it's the difference between the incoming cold charge and the hot burning that generates the power. Designers now keep the engine as hot as practial in order to keep the gases as hot as possible during the power stroke so that they're only cooled by expansion instead of radiation/conduction/convection. It's the efficiency of expanding the hot gases which drives the efficiency of the engine as a whole.

Obviously there are many other considerations, but that's the fundamental thermodynamic one.

[Andy Dingley]

You see my point? Not many are there, and that one's mid-engined. Presumably it's easier to deal with the extra heat capacity on the existing radiator than to arrange ducting for an air-air intercooler.

Leave a mince pie out and we'll see what the fat bloke can arrange.

[Andy Dingley]

Why is that particularly relevant though? That deals with the temperature of the working fluid, not the engine itself. A petrol car engine might take several minutes to warm up properly, but the combustion temperature is stable within seconds.

[Johannes]

This was in context of my original post; I wanted to emphasise that it was a generalised assertion of the maximum possible efficiency. Other factors may reduce the efficiency.

[Colin Stamp]

You only asked for one. Some people are never satisfied ;o)

The real reason they're so seldom used is that they're seldom needed. They don't have many advantages over air-air intercoolers. The main one is that the cooling airflow doesn't need to be anywhere near the air to be cooled. That's what makes them attractive for cars like the Esprit where there isn't much in the way of cool air available in the engine compartment.

I'd also be surprised if the engine cooling system is used to dump the heat. Surely that would end-up heating the charge air rather than cooling it. At best, you'd end up with a 90C ish charge, which is really dismal. More likely, the chargecooler[sic] would have it's own radiator. The engine cooling system will still need to dump more heat though because of the power increase provided by the denser charge air.

He can sod off. The mince pies are all mine!

Cheers,

Colin.

[AJH]

Absolutely, you need a cold inlet to maximise air mass into the engine and the engine to run hot so that heat loss from the charge is not lost to the engine mass. There is work done on ceramic parts which could run without lubrication so that temperatures could be raised. I suppose this could put up exhaust temperatures giving more scope for recovering more here.

AJH

[Doctor Drivel]

A Perpetual Motion Machine. I hope it worked. Some do, but can only turn themsleves and produce no more power for other work.

[Doctor Drivel]

No, 75% of "energy" is wasted.

[Doctor Drivel]

BL and Honda had much work on it. The problem was that all the world had gone over to catalyst, so us and Japs had to follow. A bit like the VHS v Betamax.

[Doctor Drivel]

ancillaries not to drive the wheels. This SteamCell is the size of a PC tower and is very clean using external combustion and ceramic fibre burners. They have installed these in buses and coaches, and leave the engine just to turn the wheels with no fan belts on it at all. Then the overall emissions are down, and overall efficiency up as this thing is well above 25% efficient, more like 80%. It can actually drive a small car too.

can also turn a genny to power and electric motor. This is viewed as feasible and economical too. It can also run off natural gas and be used as microCHP in a building.

Battery technology has come along, long way, to the point the electric car is technologically here. Any other innovation is a stop-gap or a desperate attempt at a comp[any which can't grasp the future. What have BMW ever innovated that matters?

Using Lithium batteries in a car only 5%, or less, of the energy stored in the vehicle is lost, while 75% of the energy in your tank is wasted. It is more efficient overall to pour the fuel in a motor at a power station with efficient combustion, energy re-claim and advanced scrubbers, which turns a genny, which sends the electricity down a line, charges a vehicle battery and runs the motor, rather than pour the fuel in the car directly. Also they are 100% clean at point of burn.

[Doctor Drivel]

It's overcomplex and cannot compete with the simplicity and efficiency of a Toyota setup hybrid, which most major companies are adopting.

[Ian Stirling]

75% of both. Energy = power * time.

[roger]

The message from Ian Stirling contains these words:

I hate to agree with Dribble, particularly when he is only right by accident, but in the instance above his answer does seem to fit the facts. Some of the wasted energy departs via the radiator rather than the exhaust pipe. :-)

BTW Dribble thought up a convincing definition for 'mountain' yet?

[ThePunisher]

Subrau Legacy

[The Natural Philosopher]

Sadly however, on car, the radioator does notr cool the exhaust gasses.

So you are talking bollocks.

If te exgaust were dindensed in te raradiator, it woudl indeed enable a more efficient engine to be produyced, but teh cat enbsures that the exhaust temperetures are high enough to make this impossible

[Guy King]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Yuletide cheer got the better of your typing finger?

[The Natural Philosopher]

And a stiff neck ;-)

[Andy Hall]

You must learn to swallow those little blue tablets properly..... :-)