Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Going back to steam engines.

  1. #1 Going back to steam engines. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Quite simple really, recycle the steam from the engine through a car type radiator, cool down back to near boiling point to be re boiled.

    What do you think?

    Should save quite a bit of energy...

    Water expands in to steam at boiling point, car radiator works well in a car,, so why not?

    Use petrol to boil water, push pistons.
    Or use a conventional car engine as usual, use the heat from the engine to boil water to give extra power to the car. Just need a light thin engine to help transfer heat.
    Put the engine in a vacume flask to save loss of energy.

    Add my gas compressor to the engine to collect all exhaust fumes and your have good clean motoring.


    Last edited by griffithsuk; July 31st, 2011 at 04:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Does anybody believe in my "Fuel driven vacumed recycled steam engine" idea? At a guess, fill your petrol tank once a month or so!!!!
    Paul Griffiths Bristol UK. Zero Pollution solver.

    Inventor: Right to British patents:
    Fuel driven vacumed recycled steam engine.
    Lighting in music tracks.
    Live predict sports betting.
    Gas compressor pollution collector.
    Car Pollution Container.
    Petrol Lifting Technologies
    Space-Solid-Space theory (Space surrounds solid)


    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 1st, 2011 at 10:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    You have to blow a fan in order to keep the water in your radiator at the right temperature. If you allowed it to get hot enough to convert into steam and then condense, then you'd just have to blow that fan all the harder in order to cool it enough to get it to do the condensing part. Since heat engines are never very efficient due to Carnot's Law, you'd be losing more energy to the fan than you gained from harnessing the steam energy. The exception to this would be if the car were able to cool its radiator without the need of a fan, like maybe in a really cold environment like Northern Canada in the Winter or something.

    Carnot's theorem (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You have to blow a fan in order to keep the water in your radiator at the right temperature. If you allowed it to get hot enough to convert into steam and then condense, then you'd just have to blow that fan all the harder in order to cool it enough to get it to do the condensing part. Since heat engines are never very efficient due to Carnot's Law, you'd be losing more energy to the fan than you gained from harnessing the steam energy. The exception to this would be if the car were able to cool its radiator without the need of a fan, like maybe in a really cold environment like Northern Canada in the Winter or something.

    Carnot's theorem (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Not necessarily true. It depends on how efficient your radiator is, and the medium and ambient heat removing flow is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Now that I think about it, I guess there's not really any extra cooling involved. You have to cool the water anyway, so no reason not to let it get really hot first, and then cool it down before sending it back into the motor. Somehow I was thinking like that would be an extra task or something. The only extra task is keeping the really hot water coming out of the motor separated from the really cool water going back in. Also designing the engine so the water will leave it hotter than it was when it entered it, instead of just spreading the warmth throughout.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Now that I think about it, I guess there's not really any extra cooling involved. You have to cool the water anyway, so no reason not to let it get really hot first, and then cool it down before sending it back into the motor. Somehow I was thinking like that would be an extra task or something. The only extra task is keeping the really hot water coming out of the motor separated from the really cool water going back in. Also designing the engine so the water will leave it hotter than it was when it entered it, instead of just spreading the warmth throughout.
    How much larger and complicated would the reciprocating engine become? I think if the idea had merit, car companies would have used it with these mandated fuel economy standards over the years, unless we want to make it that only the rich can own cars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think I figured out where the energy loss is. Condensation is part of the effect that causes the steam to exert a force. It's the vacuum that makes the pressure have somewhere to go. Since the turbine resists the flow of steam from the hot area to the cold area, I think it would also add the energy required to cool the water.

    So, then my original comment was accurate. You probably wouldn't recover more energy this way than what it's costing you to create the effect.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    I think my invention has merit. Once at the correct pressure then the only heat loss is from 100 deg steam back to 99deg water, thats a 99% efficient engine design. Increase the idea to 100 deg steam to 99.9 deg water and thats a 99.9% efficient design, it just depense how you work it. Add to the fact that the engine could be 100 times lighter than a conventional combustion engine I think there could possibly be an amasing profit from the design, though without a working model well never know. The fan in the radiator is just a little power just like a conventinal car radiator, nothing to worry about.

    There could possibly be other chemicals that expand to heat better than water, giving increased power. Such a mercery used in themometers.

    It's hard to say how unefficient conventional car engines are, theres loss of energy because of heat and sound.

    House the design in a thick plastic protective jacket and your have a nice bass sounding engine.

    Petrol/gas/fuel powered recycled steam engine, a possible future.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 08:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    The problem is we have possibly burn 1,000,000 years worth of trees as petrol and diesel in the past 100 years, that will take time to go away, our rain smells bad now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    I think my invention has merit. Once at the correct pressure then the only heat loss is from 100 deg steam back to 99deg water, thats a 99% efficient engine design. Increase the idea to 100 deg steam to 99.9 deg water and thats a 99.9% efficient design, it just depense how you work it.
    Properties of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Just converting 18g of steam back to 99deg water per second would release more than 40kw of energy your radiator would need to dump.

    Also remember how heavy boilers and heat resistant high pressure piping is.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    I think my invention has merit. Once at the correct pressure then the only heat loss is from 100 deg steam back to 99deg water, thats a 99% efficient engine design. Increase the idea to 100 deg steam to 99.9 deg water and thats a 99.9% efficient design, it just depense how you work it.
    It doesn't work like that. Just to go from 100 deg water to 100 degree steam requires overcoming the the latent heat of the water. The latent heat of vaporization for water is 540 Kilocalories per kg. 1 Kilocalorie is equivalent to the amount of energy that it takes to raise 1 kg of water one degree. Thus the energy needed just to convert 1kg of water to steam when it is already at 100 deg is the same energy as it would take to heat 540 kg by 1 deg (or 5.4 kg by 100 deg, etc.) The energy difference between heating water from 99 deg to 100 deg and heating it from 99.9 deg to 100 degrees is minor compared to the energy to boil the water.




    There could possibly be other chemicals that expand to heat better than water, giving increased power. Such a mercery used in themometers.
    Any such chemical would also have an increased latent heat, requiring even more energy input to go from liquid to gas.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Cooling the engine on the outside means an increased temperature difference between inside and outside for the cilinders thus increased heath. That means more heat-loss for the driving engine because that part of chemical energy from the fuell is lost.

    I suppose if the car keeps using the same amount of fuell the loss of temperature inside the cilinders will mean a loss for the maximum frecquency of the engine for a given gear ; it slows down because the fuellmixture burns slower (or less complete if the expansion in the cilinder goes to quick ). This limits the frecquency for a cars engine with use of the same amount of fuell per cycle. In practice the driver will go to the next gear at a lower speed by hearing the sound of the engine and in the highest gear with same amount of fuell the running frecquency will also be lower. The same trip will take longer.
    Thereby the fuell rendition of the car is influenced negatively and for such a system and it,s purpose this is a significant loss. It,s because you have two systems in the car working from the same fuell that are in contradiction and interact.
    The engines thermic energy is a factor for both. More heathexchange is a positive for cooling purpose but a negative for the engines other purpose.
    Last edited by Ghrasp; August 3rd, 2011 at 02:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    umm, i know your talking figures, but a car releases a lot of heat, the radiator cools by some amount, if the radiator was the size of the floor pan, then it may work. This is hard.

    A combustion engine makes X amout of heat, boiling water with the same amount of fuel will also make X amount of heat, if a radiator can keep a car from overheating then I believe it could work the same. It's may not be any more profitable than an explotion, i just don't know yet, but 100 times lighter engine is vastly more profitable.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 02:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Old steam engines were made out of iron, very heavy, they had to change the cooling water every X miles, a modern light version with a good efficient radiator could work well. Plastic body, might be good cheap transport.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I think I misinterpreted you,r post you mean it as build into a steamengine ?

    Evaporation inside a steamengine doesn,t take energy from the environment through the pipe-walls it takes most if not all energy simply out of the water with the water expanding. And local temperature differences over parts mostly even out through the thick walls. Just as a spoon partly held in hot water makes the whole spoon hot. Cooling cools anywhere on the outside cools the whole engine. That energy for cooling will have to come from the same fuell as the steamengine uses.

    Cooling a steamengine is for being able to work with higher pressures and higher temperatures. A relatively compact engine can then transmit more energy per second the fire to it can be put higher. But for energy rendition the cooling it needs is a negative. Think of it as cooling and same time putting more fire to the same thing it,s not hard to imagine that the same fuell can,t be effective for both purposes.
    Last edited by Ghrasp; August 3rd, 2011 at 04:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Any type of steam powered engine.

    You boil water in a boiler, it expands as steam, pushes turbine, engine makes kinetic energy. This steam then goes through a standard car type radiator which cools the steam down down just below boiling point back to water. This water falls in to a tempory storage container, once this container is full up it is transfered back to the boiler to be re boiled, this process then repeats.

    Could even have 2 boilers, offset, so you don't feel the transfer of the water back to the boiler and not loose performance. Getting pretty interesting now.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 04:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    it expands as steam, pushes turbine
    Expands and pushes same time ? What pushes is not the steam or expansion but the fire to the boiler. The expansion only transmits the energy from the chemical energy from combustion. Steam doesn,t power anything or deliver any energy in a steamengine. Just as a chain doesn,t drive a bike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Or more than 2 boilers.

    A turbine or piston is driven by the the pressure of the steam as it travels, just like air blowing a fan.

    Look at different steam engine designs in wikipedia, if they work 100 years ago, there work today. Your also need a gear box. breakes, and everything else that is tarnish to produce a safe moving verhicle, or any type of engine for any type of purpose.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 04:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    A mixture of fuel and oxygeon could increase performance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    expands as steam, pushes turbine
    Expands and pushes same time ? What pushes is not the steam or expansion. The expansion only transmits the energy from the combustion or not even that because expansion on itself has no direction. The direction for expanding only comes indirect from the lower resistance in turbine direction the steam moves that direction due to the engine construktion. That movement is a kinetic movement (with a direction)not the expansion on itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    OK, im not quite sure what your emplying but a piston requires pressure, that is provided by steam pressure, the expansion of water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Or more than 2 boilers.

    A turbine or piston is driven by the the pressure of the steam as it travels, just like air blowing a fan.

    Look at different steam engine designs in wikipedia, if they work 100 years ago, there work today. Your also need a gear box. breakes, and everything else that is tarnish to produce a safe moving verhicle, or any type of engine for any type of purpose.
    I'm pretty sure those steam engines didn't have to cool the water themselves. The coldness required to cool the water to the point where it could condense again came from outside the system. The problem with a car is that it uses a fan to artificially force the water to cool. That fan will end up consuming any energy you created by harnessing the steam.

    Turning the water into steam to begin with costs energy, but it's energy we already want to lose (heat). That part is good. Condensing the water again, however, will cost energy to cool it by that 1 degree Janus was talking about. Converting heat energy into mechanical energy (to drive the fan) and back again involves a very inefficient exchange. You don't end up with as much energy as you started with.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Condensing comes from you travelling along, air hitting and cooling the radiator. Also the electric fan.

    100 years ago, we only had iron, now we have steel. We can build technology like radiators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    You haven't studied thermodynamics, have you? When you have learned a little bit of thermodynamics, you will understand why your idea will not work.
    Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The maximum efficiency of an engine that works between temperatures TH and TC is (1-TC/TH). Therefore the efficiency of your engine working between the temperatures of 100C and 99C would be darn near zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You haven't studied thermodynamics, have you? When you have learned a little bit of thermodynamics, you will understand why your idea will not work.
    Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The maximum efficiency of an engine that works between temperatures TH and TC is (1-TC/TH). Therefore the efficiency of your engine working between the temperatures of 100C and 99C would be darn near zero.
    Im a little confused here, you don't get pressure until you reach boiling point, and throwing away steam is a waste of energy, a moving car with a large radiator should be enough to cool back to 99deg.
    If steam engines make profit from cold then why would it be near darn zero if I recycle the water?

    All your after is making use of the expanding steam, so 0-99 deg is no energy gained. if you can oscillate between 99-100, thats your expansion, thats your profit.
    Even if i let the escaping steam travel along a large enougth pipe it will cool back to water, boil again and more profit.

    Has anyone ever tried a radiator on a moving steam engine?
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 09:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    what a crock, go study some thermodynamics and come back, see ya
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney View Post
    what a crock, go study some thermodynamics and come back, see ya
    The atoms don't get excited untill 100deg. Then every bit of heat makes them more excited. Oscillate!

    100deg to expansion - 100deg to expansion - 100deg to expansion. Like pumping up a bike tyre.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 10:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You haven't studied thermodynamics, have you? When you have learned a little bit of thermodynamics, you will understand why your idea will not work.
    Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The maximum efficiency of an engine that works between temperatures TH and TC is (1-TC/TH). Therefore the efficiency of your engine working between the temperatures of 100C and 99C would be darn near zero.
    Im a little confused here, you don't get pressure until you reach boiling point, and throwing away steam is a waste of energy, a moving car with a large radiator should be enough to cool back to 99deg.
    If steam engines make profit from cold then why would it be near darn zero if I recycle the water?

    All your after is making use of the expanding steam, so 0-99 deg is no energy gained. if you can oscillate between 99-100, thats your expansion, thats your profit.
    Even if i let the escaping steam travel along a large enougth pipe it will cool back to water, boil again and more profit.
    Again, it takes 540 Calories of energy to turn 1 kg of water to steam when the water is already at 100°. It takes 1 Calorie to raise the water's temp from 99° to 100°. The steam also has to give up 540 Calories to revert back to water. Some of that energy is given up to the piston. The rest is lost to the environment when the steam condenses back to water. You will have to resupply that energy to reboil the water.

    In other words, any steam left over after driving the piston wastes energy. So for instance, assuming that 1/2 of the energy in the steam drives the piston, that means that you waste 270 Calories of the energy used to boil the water. Now assume that you started with water at 27° It takes 73 Calories/kg to raise the water temp to 100° and 540 Calories/kg to boil the water, out of which, you will get a useful output of 270 calories/kg to drive the piston. that is a efficiency of 44%. If you start with 99° water you expend 541 calories for the same output, which gives an efficiency of 49.9%. An improvement, but of only ~5%.

    So to improve efficiency, you should be more concerned about the conversion of steam energy to piston movement than what happens afterwards. The maximum theoretical efficiency for a steam engine is 63% but in practice, you might get 25% with recycling the water. And this is for a driving a turbine for power plants. A piston steam engine runs at about 10% efficiency.(compared to a internal combustion engine at ~18%.)

    Has anyone ever tried a radiator on a moving steam engine?

    Its called the Rankine cycle



    It is used for power generation plants.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You haven't studied thermodynamics, have you? When you have learned a little bit of thermodynamics, you will understand why your idea will not work.
    Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The maximum efficiency of an engine that works between temperatures TH and TC is (1-TC/TH). Therefore the efficiency of your engine working between the temperatures of 100C and 99C would be darn near zero.
    Im a little confused here, you don't get pressure until you reach boiling point, and throwing away steam is a waste of energy, a moving car with a large radiator should be enough to cool back to 99deg.
    If steam engines make profit from cold then why would it be near darn zero if I recycle the water?

    All your after is making use of the expanding steam, so 0-99 deg is no energy gained. if you can oscillate between 99-100, thats your expansion, thats your profit.
    Even if i let the escaping steam travel along a large enougth pipe it will cool back to water, boil again and more profit.
    Again, it takes 540 Calories of energy to turn 1 kg of water to steam when the water is already at 100°. It takes 1 Calorie to raise the water's temp from 99° to 100°. The steam also has to give up 540 Calories to revert back to water. Some of that energy is given up to the piston. The rest is lost to the environment when the steam condenses back to water. You will have to resupply that energy to reboil the water.

    In other words, any steam left over after driving the piston wastes energy. So for instance, assuming that 1/2 of the energy in the steam drives the piston, that means that you waste 270 Calories of the energy used to boil the water. Now assume that you started with water at 27° It takes 73 Calories/kg to raise the water temp to 100° and 540 Calories/kg to boil the water, out of which, you will get a useful output of 270 calories/kg to drive the piston. that is a efficiency of 44%. If you start with 99° water you expend 541 calories for the same output, which gives an efficiency of 49.9%. An improvement, but of only ~5%.

    So to improve efficiency, you should be more concerned about the conversion of steam energy to piston movement than what happens afterwards. The maximum theoretical efficiency for a steam engine is 63% but in practice, you might get 25% with recycling the water. And this is for a driving a turbine for power plants. A piston steam engine runs at about 10% efficiency.(compared to a internal combustion engine at ~18%.)

    Has anyone ever tried a radiator on a moving steam engine?

    Its called the Rankine cycle



    It is used for power generation plants.
    I totally agree with that. Add a large radiator and travel. The wind will do the rest. Griffiths Cycle!
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 12:12 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Not everything in the universe is what is seems. Add a gas compressor to an engine to collect fumes, you wouldnt think it would compress back to liquid and give you profit. But it will.

    Expand, contract and also move your vehicle.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 12:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You haven't studied thermodynamics, have you? When you have learned a little bit of thermodynamics, you will understand why your idea will not work.
    Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The maximum efficiency of an engine that works between temperatures TH and TC is (1-TC/TH). Therefore the efficiency of your engine working between the temperatures of 100C and 99C would be darn near zero.
    Im a little confused here, you don't get pressure until you reach boiling point, and throwing away steam is a waste of energy, a moving car with a large radiator should be enough to cool back to 99deg.
    If steam engines make profit from cold then why would it be near darn zero if I recycle the water?

    All your after is making use of the expanding steam, so 0-99 deg is no energy gained. if you can oscillate between 99-100, thats your expansion, thats your profit.
    Even if i let the escaping steam travel along a large enougth pipe it will cool back to water, boil again and more profit.
    Again, it takes 540 Calories of energy to turn 1 kg of water to steam when the water is already at 100°. It takes 1 Calorie to raise the water's temp from 99° to 100°. The steam also has to give up 540 Calories to revert back to water. Some of that energy is given up to the piston. The rest is lost to the environment when the steam condenses back to water. You will have to resupply that energy to reboil the water.

    In other words, any steam left over after driving the piston wastes energy. So for instance, assuming that 1/2 of the energy in the steam drives the piston, that means that you waste 270 Calories of the energy used to boil the water. Now assume that you started with water at 27° It takes 73 Calories/kg to raise the water temp to 100° and 540 Calories/kg to boil the water, out of which, you will get a useful output of 270 calories/kg to drive the piston. that is a efficiency of 44%. If you start with 99° water you expend 541 calories for the same output, which gives an efficiency of 49.9%. An improvement, but of only ~5%.

    So to improve efficiency, you should be more concerned about the conversion of steam energy to piston movement than what happens afterwards. The maximum theoretical efficiency for a steam engine is 63% but in practice, you might get 25% with recycling the water. And this is for a driving a turbine for power plants. A piston steam engine runs at about 10% efficiency.(compared to a internal combustion engine at ~18%.)

    Has anyone ever tried a radiator on a moving steam engine?

    Its called the Rankine cycle



    It is used for power generation plants.
    I totally agree with that.
    So you agree that the inflated efficiency claims you made eariler are completely bogus and that a steam driven car, even with reclaiming the water would be less efficient then an internal combustion driven car.
    Add a large radiator and travel. The wind will do the rest. Griffiths Cycle!
    Yet you are still promoting the idea?
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    Yet you are still promoting the idea?
    Yes, if you lift oil and not use a pump, that's enviromental wastage down by quite a bit.
    If you add a radiator to a steam engine that could be 99% less polution.

    That's world pollution down to near 0.5%! If it works that is.

    Pretty cool stuff. I would love to see you beat my ideas.
    Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 04:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post

    Yet you are still promoting the idea?
    Yes, if you lift oil and not use a pump, that's enviromental wastage down by quite a bit.
    If you add a radiator to a steam engine that could be 99% less polution.

    That's world pollution down to near 0.5%! If it works that is.

    Pretty cool stuff. I would love to see you beat my ideas.

    It's already been explained in this thread why the high efficiency you expect is just not possible, even theoretically, let alone in practice. The very reason that locomotives moved to diesel from steam is that steam was so inefficient. Sticking a radiator on just won't make the type of difference you think it will.

    Repeating the same claim over and over again after it has been repeatedly been shown to be false is a good way to get yourself labeled as a crank and this thread moved to pseudoscience.

    Being mistaken is one thing, stubbornly holding on to a mistake even after careful correction is another and leads to crackpottery.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    Condensing comes from you travelling along, air hitting and cooling the radiator. Also the electric fan.

    100 years ago, we only had iron, now we have steel. We can build technology like radiators.

    If the air hitting a car's radiator imparted enough cooling on its own, then radiators on cars would not have fans. However they do have fans on them, and the reason is simple: because the fan is necessary in order to keep the temperature of the water at an acceptable level.

    If the water had been used to drive a steam engine before cooling it, then we would need the fan even more than it already does without a steam engine. It would not only need to cool the water of the normal waste heat, but also cool it enough to cause it to condense, which means it would need to expend more than the normal amount of energy. And that would use up all the energy you had gained by running the water through a steam engine.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    If you did not use a raidator and had a long enougth n shaped pipe the steam will return back to water naturally.
    Return this hot water back to the boiler improves efficientcy.
    Use wind will improve on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    If you did not use a raidator and had a long enougth n shaped pipe the steam will return back to water naturally.
    Return this hot water back to the boiler improves efficientcy.
    Use wind will improve on this.
    Assuming a 244 hp engine and a 50% efficiency for the process of converting steam energy to mechanical energy ( an unattainable goal), in order for your pipe to have enough surface area to condense the steam fast enough, it would have to be in the order of 1 ft in diameter and 165 ft long. Wind would not improve this, it would only keep it from having to be longer.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    173
    ok, 224hp engine you said.
    100 times lighter plastic engine is 100 times easyer to move. So now we only need 24hp engine for same power.
    Add a vacume could save 33% so now is 16hp.
    recycle the engine steam you don't need to boil from cold saving a lot. now were at say 4hp.

    224hp / 4 hp = 56
    165 foot / 56 = 2.94 foot.
    Add wind, it now 1.5 foot.

    Could be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    If you did not use a raidator and had a long enougth n shaped pipe the steam will return back to water naturally.
    Return this hot water back to the boiler improves efficientcy.
    Use wind will improve on this.
    Figuring out a way to build a radiator that doesn't require a fan would improve efficiency all on its own. No need to go that extra step and build a steam engine to go with it, unless the radiator is just so good that it can cool it enough to cause it to condense and still not be using any extra energy. However, I'm pretty sure most designs that involve the radiator having a large enough cross section to cool without a fan also involve a lot of aerodynamic drag, which would increase fuel costs to keep the car in motion.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by griffithsuk View Post
    ok, 224hp engine you said.
    100 times lighter plastic engine is 100 times easyer to move. So now we only need 24hp engine for same power.
    Engine weight is only a fraction of a vehicle's overall weight, and that's not counting the passengers or fuel.

    Even the in-city version of the Smart car (a two person cracker box on wheels) needs a 45 hp enigne and the inter-city model uses a 64 hp engine.

    Add a vacume could save 33% so now is 16hp.
    recycle the engine steam you don't need to boil from cold saving a lot. now were at say 4hp.
    It doesn't work that way. There is a theoretical limit to the efficiency of any steam engine. The( actually unobtainable)50% figure I gave was for just the conversion of expanding steam to mechanical energy, and did not include any other losses to the system (such as heating the water from some lower temp to 100&#176 Any refinements you make (recycling the steam, etc) can only moderate how much lower the total efficiency of the engine will go down, it cannot increase the efficiency further.

    224hp / 4 hp = 56
    165 foot / 56 = 2.94 foot.
    Add wind, it now 1.5 foot.
    No. the size I gave was assuming ideal conditions. IOW, that the air in the vicinity of the pipe stayed at normal air temp. This allows for the maximum heat transfer from the pipe. With no wind, the air around the pipe heats up and forms an insulation blanket that slows heat transfer. What wind does is removes that warm air and replaces it with cool air. So again, the wind just allows you to get closer to the ideal conditions that I assumed, not exceed it.

    Could be true.
    No. it couldn't. In every one of my examples, I bent over backwards to give your idea the benefit of the doubt, fudging the figures in your favor to the breaking point, and still came up with answers that proved your idea unworkable by a huge margin.

    Your plan is based on some basic misconceptions and ridiculously unrealistic expectations. It is time to give up on it.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •