Many problems were caused by their own hands, and some by outside sources that they allowed to badly influence their corporate decisions. Congress has also added to the problem by using simplistic thinking and constantly demanding better and better fuel mileage, while at the same time being totally ignorant of the impossibility, or desirability, of these requirements and ignoring the costs they inflict on the automobile industry. These will be dealt with later in this chapter.

Among other things now, the car in general needs a new engine, due to an intense demand to eliminate or at least reduce the CO2 levels in the exhaust and one exact engine being considered again by some is the steam engine. However, in the present state of financial crisis in Detroit, it is not probable they would even look at a new engine development, only to continue with temporary solutions like hybrids and such. 

Yes, the steam engine. You laugh? Well, when thinking that the vintage steam car technology is what some are proposing, you certainly may do so, the author will join in. However, quiet and determined research and development in the past ten years or so on this power source, has dramatically shown that old concepts while nice and quaint and the old steamers are lot of fun to drive, are useless. Now the engine has evolved to something that is orders of magnitude better than anything that has gone on before.

But; why in heavens name would one even look at the steam engine again as a possible power source for the automobile? What can it possibly offer as being superior and what are the problems with using it once again. There are sound reasons on both sides. It all depends on just how committed our government is to reducing that CO2.

To the vehicle engine designer, such a power plant is one of the most difficult and aggravating projects to ever attempt. The accurate information on the old cars is not all that easy to find and with a lot of modern “developers”, what is proposed must be taken with a grain of salt. Enthusiasm does not substitute for hands on knowledge. But; make a success of it and one has really done something of worth.

The Plus Side.

1) The Rankine cycle steam engine offers full and prodigious torque as soon as the throttle is opened. This means that an otherwise necessary six or eight speed automatic transmission that the IC engine now uses is not only not needed; but it is not wanted at all. Only a two speeds forward with a neutral is desired and useful. 

2) The steam engine’s burner can use any light liquid fuel and give essentially total and pollution free combustion without any pollution control gadgets being tacked on. This means any petroleum fuel, or any bio fuel made from algae or cellulous waste material can be used with no burner alterations or redesign.

3) The Rankine cycle engine is mechanically simple; but there is a considerable amount of plumbing involved. Although, if one looks under the hood of his new IC car, not nearly as much of this hardware is needed in the steamer as the modern car now uses. Unfortunately, this steam engine is labor intensive to assemble and install. Perhaps this is a problem for vast mass production, but not for a specialty vehicle.

4) The steam engine does not require the computer controlled ancillary equipment the IC engine now demands for engine management, pollution control and fuel feed systems. Production of steam in the system and the burning of fuel are infinitely simpler than what people imagine.

The Negative Side.

1) There is a finite limit to the power density and output of any given steam engine. You cannot just continue to raise the steam pressure and temperature to get the efficiency and power level you think you want, that just does not work, as Abner Doble found out the hard way. There simply are material operating conditions that put a limit to this game. This, however, also applies to the IC engine too. Keep adding higher and higher supercharger boost and while the output climbs dramatically, eventually the connecting rods and pieces of crankshaft exit the bottom of the engine. There is that matter of long term reliability to consider.

2) To date, there is not one bit of available hardware suitable for making this steam engine system for vehicle use. All the parts must be custom designed and then prototyped and refined, then put into some production. Also consider that some of these components must live and operate in the most severe environments possible, so correct material selection is absolutely critical to success.

3) There is one really nasty thermodynamic loss problem and one physical problem that are simply inherent in the Rankine cycle engine that one cannot avoid, and it directly relates to the working fluid used. The term for this loss is called the heat of vaporization. The other part of this is the fact that water freezes at 32° F and you can’t do anything about this one, except provide some heating system when the car is parked in very cold weather.

In order to generate steam from water, it is required that one adds some 947 BTU per pound of water, just to effect the phase change from liquid to steam. Then add the heat needed to elevate the steam temperature up into the superheat region for the expander to use. What this means is that you must burn fuel to have this phase change take place, then throw this heat away in the condenser and not be able to gain one bit of power out of it. Only that extra added heat is usable. The reason good steam cars have such large condensers. This situation ultimately puts a cap on the available efficiency. The point where intense research is needed is to make the use of the hot steam in the expander just as efficient as possible. Also one must see that as little of this otherwise wasted heat is captured and returned to the system or at least drastically reduced.

4) The aspect of establishing the parts and service side of such an engine for public use is daunting. Most all mechanics and service shops have never even seen a steamer in their entire lifetimes, so this function will have to be established from scratch.

5) This modern knowledge bank on the superior steam engine system is out there; but it is one that is much more held in private hands than in some corporate or public library, so entering this development arena means searching out those people who do know how to design a really modern automotive steam engine system and bringing them on board.

A Golden Age of Innovation, Again?    

Writing such a chapter on the potential and possibilities of a new Rankine cycle steam engine becoming a serious competitor to the IC engine is not easy to do, although a most interesting challenge. However, as it is appropriate to end the Doble history by giving thought to doing just that, some considerations are presented.

The one problem that makes writing such a review very risky, is because as some companies have made serious progress in making the steam engine much more suitable for automotive propulsion, each advance quite frequently changes the entire prospective and can easily erase previously held conceptions. It is now a constantly moving base line with the technology and the researcher must adapt his reasoning to encompass this.

One must not consider himself as some all knowing guru on the subject, as any good engineer must be very well informed about all the past efforts and be willing and able to investigate, absorb and use the ever evolving knowledge of the latest appropriate applicable technologies. A competent engineer is always learning to the end of his career.

            Five basic premises are the basis of the author’s entire presentation on the modern steam car becoming reality, in one form or another.

1) The entire subject of becoming free of imported petroleum oil is most critical. To accomplish this requires that home grown and renewable fuel sources must become widespread and commercially viable, whatever they may be. The position taken is that a bio-fuel oil derived from plants and algae is the only one that shows the greatest long range potential, with alcohol made from cellouse waste products and not corn being the most probable choice for spark ignited IC engines, as it cannot use this bio-fuel oil.

2) The matter of global warming is past the point of argument. It is factual that the earth naturally does go through a long period climate change; but that man has greatly contributed to the ongoing problem by producing excessive amounts of CO2. Therefore, whatever power source is adopted must reduce or eliminate this gas being produced and injected into the atmosphere.

Methane gas is at the minimum twenty five times more harmful to global warming; but this one is more than just difficult to reduce, as it is emitted by natural processes over which man has little or no control.

This is a complicated subject, as some proposed fuels like alcohols do still produce CO2 during the fermentation part of the production process and the burning of this fuel in the automobile. A fact that the various government agencies seem to be ignoring when promoting and legislating alcohol as a desirable fuel for the automobile.

3) Also, that the production of the new fuel must not consume great amounts of energy in it’s production, such as hydrogen.

3) That the energy content per gallon of this fuel be high so that a reasonable mileage per tank is achieved. Neither alcohol, compressed natural gas, or hydrogen will offer this. Unless engine changes are made, the user will see a reduction in both power and decreased mileage per tank of fuel.

4) That the use of bio-fuel oils means that the spark ignited IC engine is not adaptable for burning this fuel. Only the Diesel and the Rankine cycle engines can use it.

However, the Diesel engine suffers from one serious inherent problem that must be stated at the beginning of this discussion. The high compression, needed for the ignition phase, also creates high NOX generation. There is no way to overcome this basic fact and introducing high exhaust gas percentage to the intake phase, or tacking on some horribly expensive exhaust system does not solve the problem, only masks it.

Customer rejection may follow as people discover the down side of the Mercedes-Benz, BMW and VW systems in actual use. Corporate price gouging for their mandated emissions fluid and the most invasive government mandate that disables your new expensive car if you don’t replenish the supply, just could cause rejection from potential customers. Right now these firms are doing all they can to suppress this information from future Diesel customers. 

5) That the selection and adoption of an alternate fuel for the automobile is constantly being pushed and pulled by outside influences, and not being solely based on reliable and factual scientific and realistic data. Politicians, lobbyists, corporate greed and Wall Street analysts are manipulating the selections for their own gains.     

The Rankine Cycle.          

Before discussing the use of steam in a modern automobile and the fuels it can use, a description of the thermodynamic operating cycle used by the condensing steam engine is appropriate at this point.

William John Macquorn Rankine (1820-1872) was a Scottish engineer and physicist who first described the complete theory of the operating cycle that the steam engine uses, in order that the efficiency of that engine could be accurately calculated.                              

All heat engines have a specific and different operating cycle. The term Rankine Cycle is used to identify the thermodynamic cycle that the condensing steam engine uses. The other forms of fuel burning engine cycles also are named for the persons who invented or first described their operating cycles: The Otto Cycle, the spark ignited four cycle gasoline engine; the Diesel Cycle, where the heat of compression is used to ignite the fuel sprayed into the cylinder; the Brayton Cycle, where fuel is used in a constant pressure engine, the gas turbine or jet engine, and the Stirling cycle, the hot air engine, where external heat is added to and rejected from the gas in the cylinders to produce power from the resulting pressure changes. These engines and descriptions of their operating cycles can be found in any textbook on heat engines.

The gasoline and Diesel engines are internal combustion, where the fuel is burned intermittently inside the cylinders. External combustion, the steam and hot air engines, is where the fuel is burned continuously outside the working cylinders. The gas turbine is internal, constant pressure, continuous combustion

We are only concerned with the condensing steam engine here.

The Rankine cycle used four steps in the production of power from heat.

1) The working fluid, water, is elevated up to the operating pressure by a pump. As the water is in liquid form at this stage, little power is required to raise the pressure to the operating level.

2) The water is then led into the boiler or steam generator at constant pressure where external heat is applied. This changes the liquid into a vapor; steam, for use in the engine or expander. This is also the point where a serious loss of energy from the heat input is seen, as mentioned earlier. This heat of vaporization is wasted when the steam is converted back to water in the condenser.

3) The resulting steam is then led to the engine where it converts the energy in the steam pressure and temperature into shaft power, by the expansion of the steam in the engine’s cylinders to a lower pressure and temperature. The steam engine is not converting all the usable heat in this expansion into power, some still remains in the engine’s exhaust. In order to gain the highest cycle efficiency in this conversion, the engine must use the steam in the most efficient manner possible. Flow and mechanical friction, heat exchange to the metal of the engine, radiation, lack of the highest practical expansion ratio from the input to the exhaust, all contribute to reducing this output power and are energy losses. Engines that are not as efficient as they must be use more steam per horsepower hour than what is desired. This is termed the engine’s water rate and it is expressed as: Pounds of water evaporated per horsepower developed per hour.

4) The exhaust steam from the engine is then conducted to the condenser, where the final heat is rejected and where the steam is changed back into water. This is also where the heat of vaporization has to be rejected to the cooling medium, in water or air cooled condensers. This is why steam cars have such large “radiators”, just to reject this heat of vaporization to the cooling medium, plus the heat used by the engine to produce power. The water is then conducted back to the feed pump to be recycled over again. This is the basic Rankine cycle.

      There are proven techniques used to modify the basic Rankine cycle that will improve the cycle efficiency. Capture the heat remaining in the engine’s exhaust by means of a recuperative heat exchanger to preheat the water going to the steam generator, and thus reduce the amount of heat needed from the burner. Recover heat energy from the steam generator, or expander’s, exhaust and preheat the combustion air supply. Use the energy remaining in the exhaust steam to power the burner’s air blower, and also to power the air condenser’s cooling fan and vacuum pump.

Reuse whatever heat source is available and otherwise be wasted and return it back into the cycle at the appropriate place. 

The Steam Car Again, Is It Possible, Can It Be Done?  

A discussion such as this must cover a lot of ground, many complex side issues are involved in trying to decide what possible prime mover could replace the gasoline engine we all know so well. Thus it is necessary to mention what these issues are and offer some ideas on how to address them. It is not a matter of just saying that we should make steam cars again, that is just simplistic and naïve thinking.

It is also most essential that the Rankine cycle engine receive the best and latest technology and material advances available and not be only some slight improvement over the previous actually 19^th century technology that has gone into most new steam cars to date. To be seriously competitive, the Rankine cycle engine must see a drastic improvement in power density and also in overall systems net efficiency.

In the political and economic climate of the present day, air pollution, climate change, the actual fuel supply and where it comes from and what it costs to produce, plus reduction of CO2, all have to also be factored in when making the decisions.

These have to be the most important goals, not what Congress constantly focuses on, the miles per gallon. This is too simplistic and is irrelevant within reason when the fuel is home produced and the actual use of that fuel drastically reduces or eliminates the CO2 production. Far too many other factors must enter into these selections and decisions.

It is most unfortunate that the various Federal and State governments cannot envision the fact that just mandating some high fuel mileage does not sufficiently address the problem on an overall basis.

The recent Federal Fuel Mileage Standard law that Congress enacted is already causing considerable harm to the automobile industry. In an effort to meet the law’s requirements on time, the entire vehicle makeup of each maker’s line is being drastically changed at great cost. Couple this with the present high fuel costs to the consumer, which seem to be more related to maintaining oil company profits than any market conditions and also that unwise decisions are being made in haste that will hamper the adoption of really viable and well engineered power plant solutions for the future. The percentage gains from the ever increasing mandated fuel mileage standards, are always balanced by the added cost of making the cars and maintaining their reliability, which are certainly passed on to the consumer.

The automakers do not have the historical engineering background at their fingertips to enable a rational and realistic review of all suitable alternate powerplant technology to meet this law. They do not know where to go to find competent guidance in this matter. They consider themselves to be the absolute experts, when that idea is far from the truth.         

They instantly revert to palliatives that while they will work, are not ideal by any means. Fuel cells, hybrids, hydrogen and plug in electric hybrids are not the long-term solutions that the auto makers rely on and constantly promote in their press releases. Only the battery electric car for strictly city use shows any real potential.

What is being seen right now (12-08) is that the electric car is gaining in favor and much effort is being spent on developing that power system for vehicle use. The effect may just mean that the widow of opportunity for the steam engine to be even considered is being reduced as time goes along. When the auto makers achieve some commercial success and customer satisfaction with some form of electric propulsion, the tendency might be that adopting a totally different power source will not be given consideration.

They will go with what they can do right now to meet fuel mileage standards and which actually works, however temporary that electric systems may be in the long run. With the electric car, the energy losses from the pound of fuel burned in the power house, the boiler losses, conversion to shaft power in the turbines, the generator losses, the transmission line and transformer losses, the charger in one’s garage, then the loss by charging the battery, and now the loss by the vehicle’s drive motor and gearing to the rear wheels, has not been appreciated. This chain of losses is notable.

The battery electric car is not that efficient, no matter how convenient one is to use.

It seems a matter of what fuel and where it comes from and the most efficient engine that can use these fuels successfully were not factored in. Not just something that is pasted together to meet the new fuel mileage mandates. What was done was to copy what others are doing and alter their product line to match, not to search for and adopt the most technically superior and long-term engine form that will serve for many decades.

What is most unpleasant to see is that the elected government representatives, their staffs and the hired consultants, do not have the qualifications in basic engineering, thermodynamics and the other necessary engineering disciplines to have written this standard with competency. One only hopes that the new 2009 administration will have the sense to modify this new law back to one that does less harm, while minimizing the costs to the manufacturer and finally the consumer.

Then there is the unpleasant situation that the Detroit automobile companies are currently being battered into failure, if for no other reason then that their senior management think that they must maintain corporate profits at all costs. The high cost of fuel during 2008 caused mass abandoning of monstrous SUVs and other gas guzzling vehicles. Detroit was not ready to respond to this fast change in their markets. There is also the situation that the general collapse of the world financial condition rapidly caused a downfall in crude oil prices and thus a reduction in the high gasoline price. Now, with a recession going on, fuel prices have lowered to the point where people may think of again buying outsized vehicles. Not a wise move at all, as the situation may change again.

These are not actually automotive people running the companies; but investment bankers and finance and sales people. They are not competent to direct multi-billion dollar automotive manufacturing corporations, as witness their present collapse from not foreseeing the changing trends and being ready and able to adapt to them with dispatch.

There is also a tendency in the past thirty years for the auto companies to not only try to match their competition in every way; but to have models to fill every conceivable niche that comes along, in the desperate hope that one of them becomes a profit center. Such efforts cost tens of millions of dollars each year and waste corporate assets. This tendency is directly caused by Wall Street analysts demanding and getting far too much control over the actions of management and their Boards. They are only concerned to maintain their own profits by their stock selling activities and not one bit concerned with the future of the company involved, only that it somehow remains as a cash source.

The situation that was exposed in 2008 or so, shows that a most serious and brutal housecleaning is necessary, or G.M., Ford and Chrysler are going to only be names from the past in history books and the Japanese auto companies will only profit from this disaster now going on. They react to changing market conditions faster than Detroit does, although the credit market collapsed at the same time, a double barreled threat for all. 

THE MARKET FOR THE NEW STEAM CAR. 

However, the basic fact remains. While the steamer is only a fond memory for many, the Rankine cycle engine, when given the upgrading it so desperately needs, can be a serious competitor. There is a technical limit to just what can be accomplished and the research has to establish if this plateau is sufficient to make the steamer realistic. The author believes that it can be accomplished, when judged against the gasoline and Diesel engines now being used in the automobile and factoring in the known development improvements these engines will receive in the near term future. The question remains is if these improvements are enough to sustain those engines for the long term future.

Such a new steam car can be made in small numbers at first. When the questions that are raised about efficiency, reliability, clean fuel burning, and operational satisfaction to the buyer with the latest developments now going on are answered, then perhaps it could return in some form.

In spite of the lack of real knowledge by the auto industry regarding the steamer, and a most closed corporate mindset from past experiences and beliefs, the steam engine with all the improvements to date becomes a most serious matter not to be rejected out of hand.

Finding the really best clean fuel for the automobile and quickly is the first priority. Then improving the power source that can economically use that fuel comes next. Then stop wasting time and money and get going. This is an immediate need.

The first task would be to define the market where the steam engine can show some promise. It just may not be the automobile at first; but some other need that gives the best entry point to reintroducing the steam engine to the world.

The steam engine is not the all purpose engine, no engine is. It all depends on the use and adaptability to the particular need. The automobile is the one subject that needs a new source of power, and here the Rankine cycle engine could just fit in quite well.

First of all the paramount questions must be answered. Is the auto industry even looking for an alternate engine that can burn fuels other than petroleum based ones, or is corporate management going to take the easy way out and just manipulate and buy carbon credits and continue applying more Band-Aids to the present IC engine?

In reality, trading carbon credits is one more governmental scam. Pay a fee and you can essentially just continue your pollution by using some other non-polluting industry’s cleaner operation as a cover. What good does that do for eliminating CO2? All it really does accomplish is create one more political bureaucracy and waste money.

Do they really intend to reduce or eliminate CO2, or just pay lip service to the problem? Is the auto industry actually capable of using some other type of engine than the present IC versions, or is it so wedded to the gasoline engine that adopting some other one is impossible for them to even consider? Could they even afford such a conversion, providing a successful and producible one actually is shown to be advantageous? The current financial crisis being seen by all the auto companies, when you come right down to it today, is basic corporate survival and not further exploring of new engine technology, at present none of them can afford it.

This mass market for the new steam car most probably does not exist at all. What does exist is catering to the top end GT and sports car market, where specialty vehicles with high price tags exist quite well and their companies make a profit on them. Add to this the interstate truck market, the large marine engine business and industrial and energy power in general, plus the military.

The gasoline engine has served very well for over a hundred years; but now the considerations regarding air quality and global warming, plus the fuel source, have combined to cause serious investigations to find a potential substitute.

THE POWER SOURCE.

Alcohol works in the IC spark ignited engine, although mileage and power is less than with gasoline. Pure bio-fuel oils work in the Diesel engine, providing some refining is done to remove the harmful chemicals present in the basic fuel, and especially with oils reclaimed from the food industry. The most productive source of such oils now appears to be derived from algae. What is most advantageous about these algae fuel sources, is that the best ones grow in salt water, the ocean. Meaning that huge scale production of this fuel source will not impact the fresh water supply. It is a most impressive source and is now being actively researched to bring it into large scale commercial production.

 Batteries for electric cars are receiving a massive and productive amount of research and some definite improvements are being seen in the laboratory at present. This means a constantly evolving baseline that makes it hard to settle on just one type for vehicle use. Battery electric cars may be quite suitable for city use; but are useless for interstate driving or for large trucks. In point of fact, almost every one of them on the market today is nothing more than an expensive golf cart.

There is one notable exception to this, however. The brand new MINI E by BMW is a very well designed city battery electric car, most probably the very best one yet seen.      A range of about 120-150 miles and achievable freeway speed is most notable. If actually put into mass production, the MINI E would serve a very large market, providing the initial cost is reasonable and the cars are produced in quantity. The battery is still the hindering factor; the rest of the electric system is well developed.

What may eventually evolve is that the average family owns two cars, an electric for city use and something else when long trips are made. The selection must depend on the end use and the frequency of that use.

The Rankine cycle engine offers some definite possibilities, providing a reduction in size and weight, a big increase in power density and efficiency, and a reasonable level of production are accomplished. A given gasoline engine’s power output per pound and it’s size and weight can be dramatically improved upon with known technology; but souping up some gasoline engine to a much higher output does decrease the reliability and life span. The steam engine can also see improvement with higher pressures and higher steam temperatures; but there certainly is a limit to this.

It is also interesting to note that at normal part loads that are typical of the passenger car, city driving, the Rankine cycle engine can show a higher efficiency than the gasoline engine. While the IC engine decreases in efficiency under low or part loads, because of pumping losses and friction among other things, the Rankine cycle engine’s net efficiency can actually increase under the same conditions.

Advanced hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen, and other more exotic solutions, are still laboratory demonstrations, as the entire structure to use them requires much more funding and production capability before they can honestly be adopted en mass, if ever.

Only the basic hybrid and plug in hybrid have reached commercial production. Although seen by many as being more of a panic driven answer to the clean air problem and congressional mandates and not the long term solution at all.  

The passenger car gasoline engine is really almost reaching the limit of physical development. There is now so much ancillary equipment needed to meet present and near term future pollution reduction demands, the crossover point where further additions are not very advantageous or economically sensible is approaching. The percentage gains today are becoming less and less with each development being incorporated at higher and higher costs to the consumer.

What is most interesting to observe by comparison is that the basic prime mover, the steam engine itself, is very simple. The rest of a steam engine system may seem complicated at first glance; but in reality it is not, only different.

In the IC engine, one now sees very complex variable valve timing, double overhead cam four valve engines, expensive electronic fuel injection systems, very complicated and expensive six and eight speed computer controlled automatic transmissions and a computer controlled engine management system, plus the inclusion of many sensors that often fail. All of this at high expense to the customer. The steam engine itself needs none of these additions. Mechanically it is simplicity personified.

The steam car was once attracting official attention, 1960-1985, just because a well designed burner could use the fuel in a very clean manner compared to the gas engines of that period. Now, the same burner is also shown to be able to consume any light liquid fuel, including bio-fuels, without modification and in an even cleaner manner than the ones of a few decades ago. Burner development has indeed well advanced since then. Clean burners are not now the pacing item in steam car development, they are an established fact.

Today the Diesel engine is becoming the accepted new benchmark power source, as currently it is the one available engine with the fewest problems in using bio-fuel oils. The latest developments in passenger car Diesel engines, notably by Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Volkswagen with their “Bluetec” systems, represents a commercially successful alternate to the gasoline engine for the private automobile. Their exhaust NOX and soot removal systems, although quite complicated and no doubt very expensive to replace and service, can meet emissions requirements. They still are plagued with that NOX problem and the cost of eliminating it in the engine’s exhaust is quite painful.

There are presently some misguided concepts being proposed that inject fuel into the soot removal system, so that the converter burns the soot as it is produced. This does nothing to improve fuel economy and is considered to be more of a panic driven solution, rather than a realistic one. Burning soot, which is carbon, only produces more CO2.

While the Diesel engine is right now a satisfactory substitute for the gasoline engine, unless someone comes up with a much more cost effective and usable NOX and soot control system, the Diesel may just again fade from passenger car use should a superior power source be revealed and adopted. These new Diesel engines are really good and most satisfactory to drive in one’s personal vehicle. The eventual reliability and cost of their pollution control systems may become the hindrance in the future, should governments continue to mandate cleaner and cleaner engines.

These new powerful and durable engines offer environmental and fuel efficiency advances that have raised the benchmark to what may indeed be an impossible standard for any steam car to ever match. Providing one goes along with the idea that high fuel mileage is the prime hard and fast single criteria, which it is not. However, absolute fuel economy is not the most important factor, where the fuel comes from and at what price is much more important than some illusionary super high mileage.

There are other considerations. Further developments in Diesel engine technology, undoubtedly now being considered and implemented by the American, European and Japanese auto industries will raise the bar even higher, yet perhaps not for cost reasons. Perhaps this bar will become just too high for the Diesel engine manufacturers to accept.

The Congress, EPA and California Air Resources Board continue to impose mandates that may mean that the Diesel engine simply cannot meet pollution standards in the future. Then if your business has adopted that engine and now you cannot sell them, what is your option? Go out of business entirely or find some other power source? Unless there is some rational forcibly imposed on these bureaucratic rulings, this situation could indeed happen.

The latest victim of this pollution cleanup problem is Caterpillar, a mainstay in the industrial engine world. In November of 2008, they announced that as the cost of providing this equipment on their engines was so high, they would not make truck engines any more. Leaving only apparently Cummings as the only interstate truck Diesel engine supplier. Now, if Cummings also cannot meet future pollution requirements, what next for the trucking industry? Consider that if this situation does occur, how long do you think it will be until these bureaucracies turn their attention to the passenger car Diesels and rule them off the road too? What possible alternate power source could they adopt?

If the final chosen fuel source is to be bio-fuel oils, then the Rankine cycle steam engine has to also be given the most serious consideration. Batteries for electric cars are just not coming along as fast as necessary, even for a purely city vehicle. Good, yes; but still not optimum or cost effective. Fuel cells, hydrogen and compressed natural gas and such, are not making the grade, if they ever will, they work; but at what cost? Compressed or liquefied natural gas and hydrogen are just not in the picture as they are far too costly to produce and distribute on a nation wide basis.

There is no clear cut decision that can be made yet as to which new energy sources will actually make it to market in the family car, and which ones are going to fall by the wayside, because of insurmountable technical difficulties and cost, and also operational convenience for the automobile owner. One who is not going to put up with a much shorter range per tank of fuel and reduced power, like E-85, or searching for a plug for his electric car in the middle of the night and standing around for hours while his battery pack is being charged.

The entire subject of whether or not the Rankine cycle steam engine is or is not suitable today to power the automobile has received a serious infusion of new potential. The most recent requirement world wide to reduce CO2 injection into the atmosphere has become a subject of intense demand. It has indeed changed the playing field, and caused the steam car to once again be a serious matter of study and consideration for some astute engineers who are capable of maintaining an open mind on the subject.

Also to minimizing the religious, financial, and cultural upheaval triggered by the Iraq war, and any further reliance on Middle Eastern or South American countries for our basic fuel. We must rapidly develop fuel sources that are stable, plentiful, economical, and produced within our own borders, and not be held hostage by any unstable and hostile foreign nations. Bio fuel oils from algae are rapidly gaining favor, which implies one has to use the Diesel engine for now. In spite of their problems, they are efficient.

Some Middle Eastern nations have discovered that manipulating the oil supply is a most powerful political weapon to enforce their demands. There are reports that OPEC deliberately lowered the price of oil by 50% in 1980 to make the research into finding a substitute for their oil not cost effective and those programs had their funding dropped and caused the abandonment of the Energy Security Act. Some OPEC members have even threatened to do so again. They are right now reducing their oil production to boost the price. We must not be held captive to this market manipulation by foreign nations.

Several major oil companies are now seeing the need for some alternate fuels than petroleum, and are funding serious research into developing those fuels. Then, when it is finally seen as not being advantageous to continue burning petroleum in the automobile, they still are able to profit from the fuel supply business.

Is it not time to identify some reasonably available alternate liquid fuel for the automobile with a good driving range, and the power sources that will readily use this alternate fuel, and stop producing excess CO2 altogether?    

Much like Doble with his endless modifications to his steam engines, many energy technologists and enthusiasts today have a tendency to latch onto one feature of an alternate automotive power source, while ignoring serious problems attendant to employing that source. They wallow in the nice fuzzy feelings that, say, fuel cells or hydrogen can offer and remain ignorant of the other bothersome and most costly aspects.

Abner Doble sought performance and engineering excellence and completely ignored cost and manufacturing difficulties, just as some battery electric car advocates claim non-polluting power for their cars while ignoring the coal or gas burning power plant 500 miles away. And virtually everyone seeks technical solutions, and ignores the implications of the constantly evolving law decisions regarding pollution, and future related government mandates and not to ignore the influence that the lobbyists have on these decisions.

Although, it is conceivable that government mandates that are foolish and costly to implement are going to have the brakes put on them. Laws or no laws, Congress is going to have to be forced to realize the auto industry cannot continuously raise fuel mileage standards without seriously impacting the automobile. High fuel mileage standards are raising so high that one will be forced to use highly turbocharged little engines and much smaller cars and trucks than the present ones, along with safety features being abandoned to save weight. There is going to have to be an end to this situation. The thought of a Lincoln Town Car being run by some little 1.5 liter four cylinder turbocharged engine is laughable. The buying public may just reject such vehicles, then what? Should one totally embrace this new mileage standard and concentrate his vehicle engineering and manufacturing process to only encompass and satisfy that new mandate by Congress, and then the cars are laughed off the market and you have no backup position in place, what do you do now? This exact situation could indeed occur.

Since the reduction of CO2 is now the new imperative, the auto makers have a big problem on their hands. In any case, addressing this problem is going to cost a huge amount of money at a time when the American auto industry is not in the best of financial health, to say the very least. For some, even their very survival is at risk. Presently they are lined up in Washington, to get a Government bailout of their self-caused problems, although Congressional mandates have certainly added to this situation. As hard as it may sound, G.M., Ford and Chrysler should go down into bankruptcy and then reorganize on a much more rational business plan than the one they have used for the past fifty years. Their overhead costs are much too high to continue as they have in the past.

One may wonder why the entire world wide automotive industry does not combine forces and say “NO” to these mandates generated in our Congress. “We cannot afford to do what you demand and we will work on the problem for sure; but your ideas are damaging our industry and we must put a stop to this.”

Perhaps the political fallout, or more likely corporate cowardice, of such an action would make it simply not feasible for the manufactures to do; but something has to be done to curb these Congressional demands. Since the major auto makers also produce vehicles for the military, this may be a major negotiating point for them. It is impossible for them to go out of business. However, they need to take a very firm stand with these politicians.

USING THE FUEL. THE BURNER.

There is a most interesting facet that relates to steam cars now. In past days, the ability to cleanly burn petroleum fuels was the prime reason to look at the Rankine cycle, and considerable government funded research was done in the 1960-1985 period. Now the need to reduce or completely eliminate CO2, NOX, CO, soot and any unburned hydrocarbons is an insistent demand; but this time the steamers ability to cleanly burn pure bio-fuels successfully, makes the system even more attractive than before.

 These pollutants are simply not present in a well designed burner, because of low combustion chamber pressure, less than 1 psig, and a long residence time for the fuel particles in the burner which translates into complete combustion. Interestingly enough, if the steamers burner flame temperature is held down below 2500°F, by means of secondary air admission to the burner, no NOX is produced, and so doing does not harm the cycle efficiency. This has already been well demonstrated.

As far as pollution is concerned, what else can you ask for?

THE FUELS.  ALCOHOL.

Technically methyl alcohol C-H3-OH, and ethyl alcohol C2-H5-OH are also bio-fuels. Methanol is made by destructive distillation of wood or other cellulous material, or made synthetically from natural gas or coal. Ethanol is distilled from fermented grains like corn, or more efficiently from cane sugar and beet sugar.

Converting cellulous waste into fuel ethanol is receiving serious attention now, as by using enzymes, many waste materials to make it become practical sources. The question is whether there is enough of it to supply the entire demand. Ethanol for fuel use is usually mixed with some chemical to prevent human consumption, commonly formaldehyde, which is dangerous and poisonous and seriously adds to the tailpipe pollution.

Alcohol is not energy efficient, as considerable energy is consumed in the production and the heat content, the BTUs per gallon, is less than other liquid fuels.

Ordinary gasoline has about 115,000 BTU per gallon, Diesel oil and oils derived from plants and algae have some 139,000 BTU per gallon, while ethanol-methanol have only around 76,100 BTU per gallon. This translates into having to burn more alcohol per mile to gain back the energy to produce the same horsepower in the same engine, as when it burns pure gasoline. These numbers may vary a bit depending on the base source for the fuel and the individual suppliers. These are numbers gleaned from several E.P.A. reports, which also state that E-85 fuel has only about 70% of the energy per gallon vs. gasoline. Which translates into vehicles using E-85 are going to take a significant hit in fuel mileage.

There is also the matter that alcohol-gasoline blends such as E-10, E-15 and E-20 are actually only gasoline extenders and that while they are used in about half of the U. S., there is really no emissions benefit and in fact a degradation in fuel economy and an increase in evaporative emissions is seen and has been reported.

A further problem that has been reported, is that while companies such as General Motors and Ford are actively promoting their Flex-Fuel E-85 cars and trucks, it really is only a scam of the CAFE fuel mileage requirements. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules give a substantial extra credit to flex-fuel vehicles, while in reality, almost all of these vehicles will never see a drop of E-85. Pure bio fuels also have this tax advantage. So actually, selling such vehicles enhances their average corporate fuel mileage, making it possible for them to continue making their gas guzzlers.

However, the recent high fuel prices have just about ruined the big SUV and pickup truck market for them and the people who need one for their businesses, like the construction industry to name only one, who must use large pickup trucks out of necessity, are experiencing high fuel costs that have impacted their profit margins.

This upheaval in marketing is causing serious financial problems for all the Detroit automobile companies. These big SUVs and large trucks gave Detroit their largest profit margins. Now when such vehicles are not purchased for daily transportation, which occurred before the high gas prices hit, these profits have vanished and this has contributed some serious impact to their bottom lines.

The U. S. Postal Service reported (5-21-08) that their mandated fleet of Ford E-85 capable delivery trucks got 29% fewer miles per gallon then when the trucks burned gasoline. They reported that it took 1.33 gallons of E-85 to equal one gallon of gasoline.

In the same report, a cost of about $1.00 per gallon more than gasoline was mentioned.

When these trucks are replaced, the Post Office is seriously looking at battery electrics.

As one example of Washington fuzzy thinking, the Energy Independency and Security Act, passed in 12-07, called for ethanol production to double to 1.5 billion gallons per year by 2015 and that the U. S. government pays the oil refiners like Exxon-Mobile some $.51 per gallon in tax refunds to do so. When this law was passed, our “Informed” legislators and President Bush managed to forget to include in the federal law that the companies not only have to make this alcohol fuel; but they must also make it widely available and that the vehicles actually use it. Nothing says they have to sell it widely on the market and that drivers have to run their vehicles on it. The entire E-85 fuel legislation is only one more government fraud and should be ended as soon as possible. The entire program is seriously flawed in its basic reasoning and the faulty science behind it.  

To properly use alcohol in any IC spark ignited engine, the fuel injectors or the carburetor jets need to be enlarged, so as to regain the power level and keep the correct air-fuel mixture ratio. Doing this results in less mileage per tank of alcohol fuel than the original gasoline. Running such an engine with the original jet sizes results in a very lean mixture that can cause burned valves and pistons should the vehicle be run rather hard.

However, to get satisfactory running and restore the power level compared to gasoline, more fuel must be flowed into the engine along with a change in ignition timing. The G. M. Flex Fuel system does this by remapping the engine management settings when it is switched over to use E-85, as do other vehicle makers.

With E-85, this will become one serious problem for many motorists with older cars who cannot easily alter the amount of fuel going to the engine or the compression ratio, should E-85 become the standard fuel in the United States. Not everyone replaces their cars every two years.

There is an additional operational problem with using an alcohol fuel like E-85 in older vehicles that is most serious. This fuel is a very active solvent, and using it in an older car that was not intended to use anything but gasoline, will cause the accumulated dirt, varnish and sludge in the fuel tank and lines to come loose and clog the fuel systems and carburetor jets. Attendant to this problem is the fact that older vehicles have gaskets and O rings in the fuel systems that are seriously damaged by alcohol, and will disintegrate over time and leak, causing a fire hazard. Vintage cars will be seriously endangered when using E-85 fuel, unless a costly conversion is first done.

Using E-85 in any older vehicle means that the owner must have all of the gaskets, rubber hoses and sealing components replaced with alcohol compatible materials, at some considerable cost to the car’s owner.

The major concern expressed recently, is that corn should not be the basic feed stock to make alcohol, because of the growing serious impact on its use as food, particularly in third world and underdeveloped nations. The percentage of corn used to produce alcohol in 1997 was about 5%, while in 2007 it has risen to 20%, with the expectation to go up to over 60% in a few years. The price of corn has more than tripled in just the past few years, and this is only going up, this is a serious problem with this staple food for many. The U. S. push for corn based fuels has generated the highest increase in food costs in 17 years, and is not making much headway in reducing gasoline consumption. This is why ethanol made from waste materials is so attractive now as no corn is needed to make it.

The actual facts are also stated that massive alcohol production subsidies and similar subsidies to the corn farmer are necessary to make this industry even viable, and when it has to stand on its own feet and should it not receive government funding, it will not be economically profitable to continue with it as a major fuel source.

This food shortage situation could result in the focus of using alcohol for automobile fuel to be shifted from ethanol to methanol and many propose this for one very simple reason, methanol can be synthesized from almost anything. If so, then some more serious operational problems in vehicle engines emerge. Both of the alcohols are most corrosive to older fuel systems, particularly methanol, both are also very hydroscopic, absorbing moisture out of the atmosphere, and this greatly increases the corrosion problem. Both alcohols also have bad starting problems in cold weather. Using any alcohol fuel still produces CO2 in the exhaust and that fact cannot be ignored.

A further situation is present with the growing of corn as a fuel source that is becoming most damaging. Corn production demands a huge amount of nitrogen fertilizer be used and the runoff from the fields has produced a growing destruction of the seafood industry in the Gulf regions. This fertilizer finds its way into the Mississippi river where it finally enters the Gulf of Mexico and does the damage near the mouth of the river. The growing of corn is not profitable to the farmer without this large use of fertilizer.

The fertilizer produces huge amounts of algae, which dies and sinks to the bottom where it consumes the oxygen when it decays and this has destroyed the bottom sea life, such as crabs and shellfish and other bottom dwelling species in the resulting dead zone. Fishermen are now required to go much further out to harvest their catch at greater cost to themselves and this is reflected in rising seafood prices in the market.

Should this species of algae be useful for producing bio-fuel oil, the large scale harvesting of it could be a great salvation to the fishing industry and a good feed stock for making the bio-fuel for Diesel engines and the Rankine cycle engine. An excellent example of symbiosis, where one industry helps another for their mutual benefit.

The Bush administration has legislated (12-07) a massive increase in growing corn for alcohol production that will rapidly head this damage towards the tipping point where this destruction of the seabed will become permanent for many decades into the future, if it is allowed to continue. They deliberately ignored this destruction.

Growing corn as the base material for alcohol production also requires a lot of water, and in some areas, like parts of Iowa, groundwater supplies are not sufficient to realize any massive increase in growing corn for fuel stock. 

There is also the problem that alcohol is not adaptable to being transported in the same pipelines as petroleum fuels, the water absorption corrosion problem, it requires a totally separate distribution infrastructure, at a vast cost to the consumer. The present method is the use of tanker trucks and railroad tank cars, which is no solution at all and most costly

While alcohol is not the most advantageous fuel for the automobile, it can be produced in the United States, so the dependency on foreign oil is at least minimized; but that is not sufficient reason to convert to mass use of alcohol for motor fuel, the CO2 problem must also be addressed at the same time. Using alcohol as motor fuel does not help that situation one bit.

In 2006-07 the alcohol business experienced a gold rush mentality. But politics and lobbying are playing a very big role in all of this. Alcohol was legislated into existence as a fuel by the Bush administration for political reasons. It is massively subsidized and was pushed for nefarious political reasons using taxpayer funded subsidies.

A most satisfactory solution was offered; but rejected. Brazil has offered the United States all the alcohol needed; but the Bush administration refused the offer, because of their political payback situation to the big alcohol producers, Halliburton and Archer-Daniels-Midland, et al and the farm lobby. No other reason will stand scrutiny.

The tax credits to the alcohol producers in the United States are $.51 per gallon. In 2005, this amounted to nine billion dollars. In Europe it is $2.00 per gallon for bio-fuel.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program figures, the farmers receive $21.00 per acre from the C.R.P.; but receive $174.00 per acre to produce corn for alcohol production. It does not take a genius to see which way the farmers are going. They are shifting land from the conservation program and putting it back into growing corn. The world food supply situation suffers dramatically from this and will only get worse.

The use of sugar cane is much more profitable to produce fuel alcohol than distilling fermented corn mash, as Brazil has certainly demonstrated. However, as the fermentation part of the process converts the sugars in the cane and corn mash into alcohol, a huge release of CO2 takes place. Sugar cane is already sugar, so it is at least much more economically productive to use it in place of corn, although the CO2 problem still remains.

Alcohol is a house of cards, and it could tumble if the subsidy for growing corn changed, or if there was a drastic reduction in the price of oil, or perhaps a drought or flood, or a plant disease should strike the corn growers.

Right now in the United States, what does make good technical, humanitarian and commercial sense is to switch from corn based alcohol to cane sugar based alcohol and especially the making of fuel alcohol from waste material and not any food stocks.

 Considering the great impact on world food sources of using so much corn for motor fuel, the switch to cane sugar based ethanol is the only responsible way to go, and also the reason for a renewed interest in switching to alcohol made from waste products.

What is most annoying to see occur, is that many of these taxpayer and industry supported fuel studies are only repeating the technology that has been well known since the early 1900s. The energy industry supports this business as good public relations, as it serves as good publicity for the environmentalists to see that this industry is doing something about new fuels and reducing atmospheric pollution. It is a sham, as any cursory investigation will show that the technologies were used successfully many, many, decades ago and is honestly nothing new. Even Dr. Diesel used peanut oil as fuel in his first engines. So what’s new? The technology is ancient history, only improved production methods need to be funded as the basics are already well established and well proven.

What is rather pathetic to see, is the government-industry hype about using E-85 fuel in racing as the dramatic platform to introduce it for vehicle use, this is nothing special or new. Alcohol was used back in 1912 for some European trials and has been the selected fuel for racing cars ever since then. The use of alcohol for racing is old hat, and the present NASCAR publicity tries to imply that this is a new thing and great for the environment. Too bad they don’t know their history about this one.

The technology and the industry to produce it are in place and in operation, so in spite of the operational and environmental problems, alcohol will be seen and supported by politicians as the fuel for the automobile for quite a while. We are going to be stuck with it.

Alcohol is a splendid fuel for racing cars; but not totally acceptable for passenger cars, it has too many downsides. It is simply not a very good fuel in all respects.

BIO FUEL OILS.

The most promising of the new fuels are pure plant and algae bio-fuel oils. The essence of plant fuels, whether made from hemp, grasses, soy beans, corn oil, peanuts, or various algae, resides in the oils they contain. Plants take in water and CO2 from the air and convert it into sugars and then emit O2 and water vapor back into the atmosphere — the process called photosynthesis. The formula is: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O + sunlight energy = C6 H12 O6 (the glucose sugar) + 6 H2O.

The rational for using these fuels is that the carbon is in what is called, a closed carbon cycle. What burning the plant fuel produces in CO2 is balanced by the CO2 absorbed by the plant in the growth cycle, it remains as a neutral condition.

When pure bio fuel oil is used, then the net CO2 released is extremely low or zero, thanks to this carbon neutral condition of using plant oils. Such oils also have a high heat content, the BTUs per gallon, matching petroleum fuel oil, the user will see excellent fuel mileage.

Plants are actually using solar energy to do this task, so the actual conversion process in the plant’s physiology is only a carrier for solar energy.

According to the National Biodiesel Board, using pure bio-fuel oils in a Diesel engine, or now even better in a steam car, results in up to a 78% reduction of emitted net CO2 because it is this closed carbon cycle. In addition, the sulfur oxides and sulfates produced by petroleum use are eliminated. While the Diesel does require the glycerin and water be removed to give good piston ring life, this is not difficult to accomplish. The steamer can use bio-fuels with little or no downstream processing. It also smells a lot better. It’s a given that a steamer could use American grown and renewable bio-fuel oil almost right out of the can, just strain the dirt, chop suey, and chicken bits out, if you please.

Some Diesel car manufacturers like Mercedes-Benz are not accepting the use of only bio-fuel oils, because of corrosion of the mechanical fuel injection equipment, especially in the older models, and there is an open question if one’s warranty will be honored if the car only uses this fuel. They only admit that a 5% mix with petroleum fuel is acceptable. This will be resolved very soon with material changes; but it may not permit use in older models, as it is a time dependant reliability problem and a serious one.

However, while many emerging companies are developing this fuel source, only the Diesel is adaptable at present, with modifications, and many automotive companies are not in the position to affect a mass switch to this engine, even if they wanted to do so, since now they are all facing a financial crisis of monumental proportions.

So, what seems to be the most rational way to get rid of using imported petroleum at the present time are the following, if the sole criteria is that imported petroleum fuels are really to be totally replaced and ignoring the remaining CO2 problem for the present:

1) IC spark ignited engines: Alcohol from waste products, and just live with the reduced mileage and operational problems. At least alcohol permits a much higher compression ratio as it has a high octane rating, around 104-114. But; if the engine has a greatly increased compression ratio to regain the power level with alcohol, it cannot be again used with gasoline, or serious detonation will occur and pistons will be seen with burned holes in them. To burn both fuels successfully, the engine still has to have the compression ratio that gasoline will accept, so greatly reduced mileage and lower power will be the norm for the average passenger car. This has already been seen.

2) Diesel engines: Pure bio-fuel oils once the corrosive chemical problems are resolved and the NOX and soot problems receives a more cost effective permanent solution.

3) Rankine cycle engines: Both of the above; but alcohol is the least preferred fuel, although one can use it if he really has to do so.

4) Battery electric cars: Only the lack of suitable and affordable batteries still hinders the emergence of this car for more wide spread city use, plus identifying the electricity source for recharging the batteries. But; it is not an efficient total power system.

Taking the position that bio-fuel oils are going to be the final selected fuel, and then the actual power source decision must be based on what is realistic and achievable. This position also must include the use of fuels for other uses besides the automobile. Lawn mowers, portable generators, marine, railroads and motorcycles and industrial use of engines for power in general must be included when discussing an alternate to the gasoline engine. The entire commercial situation of portable power needs competent review. Quite probable it will be discovered that there is no one single engine to satisfy all these needs.

BIO FUELS, ENGINE TYPES, OTHER POWER SOURCES.

Considering the available contemporary technology in the first decade of this century, there are four powerplants that can burn pure bio-fuel oils now: the Diesel, the Brayton cycle gas turbine, the Stirling cycle air engine, and the Rankine cycle engine — the steamer. Curiously, the battery electric car, a common sight in many cities a century ago, has returned and with strong support.

While the Diesel engine is showing dramatic improvement from a pollution standpoint, and can use bio fuels with some material modifications, its immediate future remains clouded by politics, and there still remain those NOX and soot problems, which are expensive to resolve. Diesel engines are still regarded by many government agencies as inherently dirty, and various political forces still hinder the large scale adoption of the Diesel as a substitute for the gasoline engine. As one sad example of this confusion in government: The California Air Resources Board prevented mass sales of Diesel engined cars (2007) in California. Yet, they promote bio-fuels as an acceptable alternate to petroleum fuels, while forbidding the sale of the exact cars that can use this fuel most efficiently. Diesel powered cars that were marketed elsewhere in other states.

An age old problem with politically appointed boards that are staffed because of past political favors, do not suffer any peer review of their decisions or public oversight and generate mandates regarding automotive engineering with no real knowledge of the engineering and science involved or accountability for the damage they produce.

The gas turbine is problematic for automobiles because of its very high working temperature and monumental material cost, although it certainly is the smallest and lightest power source for the horsepower it can develop. Plus, gas turbines are less efficient in smaller sizes, although some contemporary versions would roughly equal a conventional steam car’s energy consumption, both would likely exceed that consumed by any other engine, at the present state of their development.

The pressurized Stirling cycle engine reached the all time highest net cycle efficiency of any fuel-burning engine decades ago, 47%. This achievement is just one of the good results of a multi-decade and costly research effort primarily by the Philips organization in Holland to develop them for wide spread use. Unfortunately, the engine has some high temperature material problems and is very hard to throttle, making it unsuitable for direct drive in an automobile. Ford tried the Stirling engine in cars; but gave it up. The Stirling cycle engine is unsuitable for any application requiring rapid throttle response.

 It is well suited as a constant speed engine, for powering small electric generators and would be ideal for marine use in private yachts, as it is quite silent and would offer better fuel economy. It is presently a very expensive engine to manufacture. It is not in production in medium horsepower sized units, seemingly only small demonstration engines for classroom instruction. Large commercial use of the Stirling engine for power does not appear to be given any attention or interest now, only using the cycle as a cryogenerator for liquefying various gasses. The Stirling cycle is reversible, so powering the engine with an electric motor produces refrigeration in place of producing power when heating the hot section and with equally high efficiency.

As the Stirling engine is external combustion, the same benefits seen in the Rankine cycle steam engine are present, multi-fuel capability and no pollution.

The concept of a Stirling battery electric hybrid is a most interesting thought. The Stirling engine is well suited for that use, where it would function at a steady speed recharging the batteries. It would mean a full time electric motor drive and a much larger battery pack, but that poses no particular technical problems, only cost, bulk and weight. The concept is seemingly worthy of exploration and prototyping providing the high temperature material problems can be solved. This is in the heater section of the engine. The preferred working gas is commonly high pressure hydrogen and the heat transfer rates are low, so the material used for the hot section of the Stirling engine becomes most costly, like those used in the hot sections of a gas turbine. It could become an alternative to the same hybrid vehicle with an IC engine. Yet, it is an expensive alternate option for now. At the very least it would be an interesting experiment to try one out.

HYBRIDS.

Hybrid gasoline-electric cars and plug in hybrids have become popular, and they do technically work; but it is very expensive to add this system to an existing vehicle, they are not an overall long range solution, only a stepping stone and they still produce CO2, as they use a gasoline engine. A fact that is constantly avoided by the media.

This melding of small gas engines, batteries and electric motors results in large added weight, complex electrical control systems, dubious battery life and high costs, including the cost to replace the battery pack once the guarantee runs out. Moreover, and despite seemingly excellent mileage statements by the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency, many informed critics claim hybrids actually take more total energy to make than they save, and do not deliver the claimed mileage by a large amount.

Also, the E.P.A. test cycle for automobiles is really not relevant to the real world by a long way, as some automotive journals have related. It is supposed to now being changed to reflect actual on the road driving conditions. We shall see about this one.

One must not forget that at highway speeds, it is the gasoline engine that is propelling the car, not the electric motor addition. That can be used for momentary acceleration; but the battery capacity does not allow continuous use all the time, unless greatly enlarged.

Several learned research reports also state than in the long run, the high added cost to a given vehicle that now includes a hybrid system, most often will not result in any monetary savings over the life of the vehicle for the owner.

An ordinary mid sized car gets 25 mpg and costs around $25K and is driven about 15,000 miles per year, and assume fuel costs $4.00 per gallon. The Prius saves $1200 per year not counting the batteries, and about $700 per year counting the batteries; but it costs $7,000 more to buy than the IC version. So it takes ten years to break even. By that time the owner will have traded it in for something else before having to replace the battery bank. Actually, these numbers can even be worse, as reported by many. 

The best combination, assuming the very idea of a hybrid makes sense at all, would be a Diesel hybrid now, or a Stirling hybrid in the near future. Hybrids are a temporary placebo, and not hard to accomplish; but they are not a long term viable solution at all.

THE STEAM ENGINE.

Compared to the first three and the hybrids, the fourth option, the Rankine cycle steam engine, has received the least development attention in the past sixty years. Work by Besler, Doble-McCulloch, Williams, and various other innovators and companies in the past decades focused on critical individual aspects of the steam powerplant, and did achieve a few significant innovations. But; they were unable to overcome the same inherent underlying problems of basic heat losses from the heat of vaporization and freezing with a water based system.

One additional basic problem is that condensers work at relatively low delta T ratios, the exhaust steam temperature vs. the ambient air temperature. The higher this temperature differential is in practice, the larger the heat transfer rate. What with the most up to date methods of analysis and materials we now have available to us, a really advanced Rankine cycle engine can minimize this old problem. Along with some improved condensing concepts such as two stage condensation. There is much work needed in the specific area of how to wring all the available energy out of the exhaust steam before trying to condense it back to water and just how to do the actual condensation.

The second big and very real problem known to the Dobles, Stanleys, and all other later steam car developers, water freezes at 32°F. Left out in cold winter weather a steam car’s pumps and plumbing are vulnerable to damage. In warmer climates this is not a problem, but in the Eastern U.S. or mountain states it is a show stopping problem. Various schemes have been proposed to overcome this problem; but none have shown much practicality. However, this is not all that hard a problem to solve.

A somewhat amusing situation not unlike a new Bugatti owner in days past. When confronted by an irate owner, who was complaining about how hard his new Bugatti was to start in cold weather, M. Bugatti retorted: “If you can afford a Bugatti, then you can afford a heated garage.” So much for him!

 Over the past many decades dedicated engineers and technologists, fascinated with the steam car’s promise, have sought to address these two issues by attempting to find an alternate working fluid to replace water. A great number of systems have been built and tested. Such fluids are well known for geothermal, ocean thermal, secondary heat recovery systems, co-generation, and particularly for solar power, going back some 120 years. The usable options all have a tendency to superheat upon expansion in the engine, and that means a large recuperative heat exchanger is required in the expander’s exhaust plumbing, which is difficult to accommodate and adds to the weight, cost and bulk of the system.

As the suitable fluids have a much higher molecular weight than water, flow losses in a valved reciprocating engine proved to be a serious issue. These fluids are much more adaptable to being used with turbines; but that then introduces even more problems.

However, the specific heat, and the heat of vaporization of these fluids is usually one third that of water, so to get the same power from the same engine running on steam, one has to pump three times as much. This greatly increases the feed pump power loss and does not help the heat of vaporization problem as many think.

They also suffer from thermal degradation when used much above about 550°F, producing some very dangerous byproducts. Even the somewhat usable alternatives, such as toluene, are flammable, toxic, poisonous, costly, and chemically unstable at high temperatures. This instability translates to a restricted peak operating temperature, a lower cycle efficiency than water results, and that means burning even more fuel.

All things considered, only steam really works.

HYDROGEN.

Hydrogen is widely viewed as a potential fuel, for modified internal combustion engines or fuel cells, because it is so common and leaves behind no pollution — only water vapor. It and alcohol are the pet fuels of politicians and environmental dreamers. The often mentioned “Hydrogen Highway” is eventually going to be seen as a dead end street. Production costs and distribution, along with operational problems are going to see to that.

 Although hydrogen has been a major industrial byproduct of petroleum refining for decades, and used in huge quantities in the fertilizer industry to make ammonia, the existing distribution system is basically confined to industry and is nowhere near big enough to serve the automobile need nation wide. Expanding it to serve the car would cost billions of dollars, then, there are operational problems that are most difficult.

The most practical means of producing hydrogen today is stripping it from natural gas, methane, but this requires doing something with the leftover carbon. The present idea is sequestering the leftover carbon in rock strata as CO2. This government-industry “inspired” solution is only putting the problem off for future generations to deal with.

     CO2 in water produces carbonic acid, think of the common bottle of soda water, and this is just what they propose doing to the earth’s water strata. One humorous aspect was once mentioned: “OK, they pump CO2 into the earth for years, then an earthquake occurs, what happens? Just like shaking a champagne bottle, then popping the cork!” Such sequestering is not the answer to what to do with the leftover carbon, a much better solution has to be found. Or more to the point, start using a fuel that does not produce it in the first place, bio-fuel oils made from algae. How many times must this be said before people start using common sense and combine this U. S. produced bio fuel and no excess CO2 as an answer to the present energy and pollution situation?

Hydrogen can also be produced from water by electrolysis, with no carbon to dispose of, but that requires a great deal more energy in the process. Also, should hydrogen be an eventual fuel, then only nuclear power to run the electrolysis plants will be the most efficient and practical source of electricity and the only one that makes sense. The others like solar or wind power are simply not of a large enough scale to do the job.

Yes, many hydrogen enthusiasts say that one can make hydrogen by electrolysis at home by using solar panels on the roof and have some hydrogen storage system in your garage to refill the car, and now this means one has a 15,000 psi compressor and the storage tanks too. Home hydrogen generators are one very expensive way to do things, and just wait until your insurance company gets wind of this!

Honda has proposed this with their latest massively subsidized fuel cell car. This is only viewed as a good publicity stunt and not relative to what the average car owner can ever finance for their own vehicles. It draws attention to Honda’s technical expertise and nothing else. They publicized this car to the limit and avoided the downsides in their publicity. Although recently one never hears about this one any more, it vanished.

Hydrogen for the automobile is usually stored in very high pressure tanks on the vehicle. Liquid hydrogen storage systems are another form that is often mentioned; but the energy cost of producing this ultra low temperature (-423.17°F) cryogenic form is very high. In sum, and politics aside, hydrogen is significantly more expensive than gasoline, alcohol or bio-Diesel fuel, and would require a new, very costly and greatly expanded production and distribution system nation wide. A very risky investment for the fuel industry, should bio-fuels actually be selected to be the most satisfactory long term solution and thus adopted.

Hydrogen can be used in a modified gasoline engine, as several automakers have demonstrated. However, since hydrogen burns at a very high temperature it requires some alterations to valves and other components. The fuel delivery system also demands a much higher degree of precision control and fail-safe operation. The gas does diffuse through some metals as it has the smallest molecule and a tiny high pressure leak will self ignite, just due to the friction from the gas escaping. Hydrogen does have the widest ignition range, almost any air-fuel ratio will explode and it is very easy to ignite. The Hindenburg syndrome, and right in your own garage.

In spite of the pollution gains to be had, hydrogen makes no sense when the real solution is some liquid fuel that gives much better mileage, is much cheaper and is a whole lot easier to use in IC engines that already are here, with only minor alterations.

One has to consider all the aspects of using hydrogen. Focus on the entire situation, not just one part of it.

FUEL CELLS. 

Fuel cells are receiving serious attention, with hydrogen viewed as the primary potential fuel, and they may play a larger role in the future. While the fuel cell concept is elegantly simple and very efficient, the technology is limited by some operational problems. Fuel cells have existed for over a hundred sixty eight years, going back to Grove in 1840, and were seriously developed for the space program in the 1960s; but they have always been used in stationary applications with fixed or slowly varying loads, where they serve very well. In automotive applications sudden current surges or large varying loads, as well as very hot or cold weather and vibration, can damage the delicate membranes where protons and electrons are exchanged and power is generated.

      Given that these proton exchange membranes commonly use small quantities of platinum and other rare metals as the catalyst, their replacement is a most costly business. Also, platinum sources are mainly outside the United States, which can produce some serious supply problems, dependent on the existing political situation. Other catalysts are under intense development now. To date, only a reduction in the amount of catalyst used has been accomplished along with improved membranes, not any major reinvention of the basic fuel cell system.

The hydrogen used in fuel cells must be as pure as possible, or the poisoning of the membrane slows down the reaction, resulting in a serious inability to produce electricity.

If a liquid fuel such as alcohol is the fuel for these cells, as some propose, then one has to have and carry along a very complex and costly system in the vehicle to separate out the hydrogen, an actual little refinery that seriously adds to the cost. Then what do you do with the leftovers, carbon?

The current produced by fuel cells is direct current, DC, and this means that a costly conversion system to change DC to AC must be included to power the now desired three phase AC electric drive motors in automobiles.

Included in the current conversion and management comes the situation with fuel cells, and secondary batteries too for that matter, that not all the cells discharge or charge at the same rate, so this electric power management system is quite complex and costly, and unavoidable. Part of the problem with using fuel cells, is that with a sudden heavy load the voltage drops, just one of the many problems with using them.

The fuel cell does not produce a high cell voltage, .65-.7 volts per cell is typical, lead acid batteries produce 2 volts per cell, so a large number are needed for any automotive system, making for a very complex assembly of cells, filters, pumps, radiators, heaters and even more hardware and plumbing to make them usable. When operating, fuel cells generate heat, and this must be taken into consideration by including cooling systems. 

Judging from test cars and buses, in the U.S., Japan and Europe, major automakers have proven that fuel cell electric vehicles technically work, but it remains to be seen if they can ever reduce the high cost of the fuel cell systems down to consumer levels.

Fuel cells are not the utopian solution people think they are. They are simply not the consumer item people would like to believe them to be yet, and they may never gain that distinction.

THE NUT BRIGADE.

      There is one other power source currently being hyped in the media; but the author only includes it in this discussion for comic relief, compressed air. These people have no grasp of basic thermodynamics, particularly the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the sad part is seeing so much time and money expended on such ridiculous nonsense.

The media cannot tell the difference and reports this as if it was the Second Coming.

One person even seriously proposes that since his car has a compressor on board, it can keep the tank pumped up as the car goes along. Back to school people, you are making fools of yourselves!!

There was even a converted Locomobile steam car in New York City way back in 1902 that used liquid air as the power source, expanding it back into a gas and using it in the original steam engine. Worked too, until the coils under the buggy that did the liquid to gas conversion froze up from plain old atmospheric moisture and quit working. Oh well!  

Back to reality and the real world.

THE OTHER CONTENDER.  BATTERIES AND THE ELECTIC CAR.

Battery electric cars would be very familiar to the Doble brothers, both from their experience with their father’s business and from simply by street experience. Baker Electrics, Detroit Electrics and the Rauch-Langs with their quaint steeple-like bodies, were the proper mode of travel for ladies, businessmen and doctors on their errands about town in the early years of the 20th Century. Undoubtedly the brothers would find it perplexing, if not challenging, that electric cars still have exactly the same problem today that they had a century ago, the batteries. They went to the moon and they still haven’t made a good battery yet? Not that a great many have not tried.

Many have certainly worked very hard, going back to Edison’s day with his nickel-iron batteries, and it has not stopped since then. There is a real demand for greatly improved power batteries, ones with a high energy density, a long life with many charge-discharge cycles, good cell voltage, and commercial pricing levels. In-plant vehicles, forklifts, and mine locomotives, are just some of the many constant users of power batteries, along with the now emerging electric cars. It is a large market, and for the end user it is a most clean and convenient power source.

Electric motors and control systems for cars are very well developed and already on the commercial market, though at very high prices for vehicle use now; but serious battery improvement is still needed to give a reasonable range, and this has yet to be done on a vast commercial cost effective scale. Energy density, battery life and initial cost must be drastically improved before the electric car is truly successful.

      The TESLA, a new very high priced electric sports car produced in California, uses some 6,800 Li-ion “AA” sized cells, similar to those used in laptop computers, cell phones and a vast array of consumer electronics, because that was the best that was available. The firm wanted the highest power density and smallest size and weight and only the Li-ion can presently provide that; but at a choking cost. It is expected to achieve a 200 mile range in average use, so they say, a debatable point. In the fine print of the TESLA specifications the need to replace the battery at some point is mentioned, at a cost suggested of some $20,000.00 right now by some critical automotive reports, and remarks heard during one demonstration the author attended some time ago.

The new MINI E by BMW also uses a multiple Li-ion battery pack and reports similar mileage. Although this converted MINI is much more usable as a family city car than the TESLA, which is much more a toy for the gold chain brigade to brag about.

BMW claims the cost of a replacement battery pack is about $8,000, so at least some improvement is being seen there.

Secondary batteries all degrade with each charge-discharge cycle, this is unavoidable. These batteries do not take kindly to many deep discharge cycles as it reduces their life, as buyers of electric cars will discover when they need to buy a new battery pack. What is quoted now is that a life span of about five years is all one may expect.

The nickel metal hydride battery is a reasonable solution, and the subject of considerable research by major corporations, although, they have an inherent serious self-discharge problem. All batteries have this self discharge to one degree or another. This becomes a problem should the battery electric car be only used occasionally and not on a daily basis. An expensive charger has to be used, as each type demands a different charge rate and type of charge to keep them alive. Failure to keep one’s battery fully charged causes rapid destruction and results in a high cost to replace it.

Li-ion batteries achieve the highest energy density, are extremely costly to use and under certain circumstances can be a fire hazard. Lithium is one of the alkali metals group along with sodium and potassium that explode when put in contact with water, there is a safety hazard with any battery using such metals. Just ask some firefighter about this one. As one Battalion Chief the author knows replied to this question: “If the people are out of the car, let it burn down, I am not risking my men for just saving a car with that bomb on board.”

Li-ion cells also have a rather nasty habit of occasionally shorting out, the resulting fire, or even explosion, is a matter of much improved cell construction and stringent attention to quality inspection during manufacturing; but if it does occur, as has happened with consumer electronics, then the situation becomes dangerous. Attention has to be paid to this when using such high voltage Li-ion batteries in electric vehicles.

There is one other serious problem with Li-ion batteries. When a heavy discharge load, or even a fast high current charge is applied, as in vehicle use they get very hot, actually hot enough to catch on fire if this goes too far. If the battery pack is large enough, this can be controlled; but if the pack is kept down in size due to cost and weight factors, then the battery must be cooled and that means more hardware to pack into the vehicle.

Curiously, in all the research to develop a new battery the original concept, the lead acid battery, has been re-invented and is the subject of new and very intensive research and considerable progress has been made to improve this combination. As also are solving the many basic problems with battery operation, even charging incorrectly can destroy the battery, so using them in an electric car is not all as simple as people would have one think. Like fuel cells, the problems are all under intensive investigation.

There remains the serious health and environmental problems of disposing of such a large number of batteries when their life span expires.

What is unfortunate for the enthusiast for battery electric cars, is that the books available for battery study are out of date even before they reach the bookstores, the research and new battery developments are moving that fast.

Battery electrics may once again be a most satisfactory car to drive in town. There’s no question such quiet and simple performance would make city driving easier and less stressful. Then again they may become common for types of city cars and delivery trucks, a status they achieved in the early years of the twentieth century; but not yet in this one.

 But; make no mistake on this, the battery electric car is a most usable and nice city vehicle and may fill a need, providing that elusive battery improvement is finally seen.

However, one must not take at face value the often repeated sales pitch that these electric cars are “Pollution free” when they most certainly are not. The car itself is clean as a whistle, only the pollution is moved some 500 miles away to the electric power plant, which is burning coal or natural gas. Hydroelectric power is abundant in the West; but not that plentiful in the rest of America. Nuclear is the other now often proposed enlarged power source, much to the hysterical alarm of the environmentalists and yet the only viable option for mass recharging any battery vehicle system. There is no electric fairy in the wall plug, the power has to come from somewhere.

Power grids are often in trouble now, and the increased need to also recharge a vast host of electric cars is going to be a notable additional problem, should they be adopted on a very large scale for city use. A large increase in the number of power plants is what would be needed.

All in all, the power battery is just not to the point where it really is satisfactory in ordinary consumer use for road vehicles. Considering that development has seen continuous effort for about one hundred years, the definitive one has not appeared and may never appear. If one accepts the limitations and the use with these hindrances is of no consequence, then they are at least usable for strictly short trips in town.

STEAM, THE ALURE  AND THE POTENTIAL.

First of all, why today would one wish to spend the funds and time to design and construct any new steam car? Why do these cars constantly evidence such a hold on enthusiasts and why do they continually propose such a power plant in the face of all the obstacles? It seems to be a subject that has a strong grasp on some people’s imagination, much as it all but consumed the genius of Abner Doble in his day and a lot of people since then. The author must plead guilty to this one too.

This is not anything new, the present vision of a new and better steam car goes back to the early 1930's when there was a big surge of interest and some serious financing, particularly by bus companies, whose vehicles were being pounded to death on the new highways. Their greatly increased maintenance costs with transmissions and clutches failing, plus a need for more power generated a renewed interest in steam powerplants.

In the 1900-1910 period, the steamer was competitive to the existing gas cars; but that situation changed rapidly. It received attention again in the 1919-1925 era, with many new steam cars proposed, most of which never reached any meaningful production, if even any at all. Many developers then were much more successful in producing fancy sales brochures and stock certificates than actually making cars for sale. Then it surfaced again in 1930 and that interest continues unending to this day.

      However, the technical sophistication of the internal combustion automobile has now gone far and above what the steam car’s competitors were offering 80 years ago. In spite of all the arm waving by enthusiasts, the steamer has made no honestly significant big advance in the basic application technology since the Dobles and the Williams brothers ended their work. There is no truly modern steam car in existence that can sit beside the latest gasoline or Diesel cars as a competitive equal. There have been a few engine and component improvements for sure; but no real system advances have been made, nor really identified as areas needing improvement, except for one brand new system that has just emerged, the Cyclone engine.

There is also the basic fact that steam car systems are more expensive than any IC engine to produce today, even at some very low level of production. The basic problem is centered on the amount of manual labor needed to assemble such a system. The gas engine sees massive production on large automated assembly lines, while the steam engine system is yet a one off, hand made, situation and that costs a lot of money.  

This said, it must be related that Cyclone Power Technologies Inc is now developing one brand new steam engine system. This is a seriously new and most impressive engineering accomplishment and they are achieving results. It uses water lubricated bearings and piston rings, a clean multifuel burner, extensive regeneration, and operates on the critical cycle, with very high pressures and steam temperatures, which are needed to improve the power density and the overall engine efficiency. The present 23% efficiency is notable for sure, with 26%-30% in the offing, which would certainly make them more than competitive to the gasoline engine.

This system is in the experimental stage right now and no doubt as this work progresses, even more advances will be seen as dynamometer testing will prove the concept and as is usual, expose some areas where more work will be needed.

This new engine has also done one other most important function it has proven beyond argument that the compact and efficient steam engine is certainly not a dead issue.

It proved that one dedicated company that had the good engineering sense to take the basic Rankine cycle system as an entity, and competently analyzed the defects and invent, develop, and test superior hardware that can indeed again make the steam engine a viable power source for a great number of uses, and not just automotive.

The Cyclone engine is one impressively compact unit. The steam generator, burner, air blower, expander, condenser, regenerative heat exchangers, pumps and storage tank are all arranged in one barrel shaped unit. The only external connections are the fuel and 12 volts DC and the output shaft.

Interestingly enough, this one piece unit is quite similar in it’s packaging to the old naptha launch engine of the 1890s, with everything in one neat package, not the collection of parts with lines running all over the place connecting the components together, as is usual with steam plants in cars.

The Cyclone system is the only brand new updated Rankine cycle powerplant that really works to be seen for the past sixty years. It demonstrates what may be gained by a total rethink of the entire subject of the Rankine cycle engine. The commercial success of the Cyclone engine should be rewarding to the company, as nothing like it at all has ever been seen before. They have done one marvelous job in developing and packaging this new steam engine. What remains to prove the engine now (12-08), is a long series of dynamometer test runs that confirms the innovations and life span of the engine under load. This engine has not yet reached the commercial production stage, yet.

Perusing their web site; cyclonepower.com is most instructive and very interesting.

However, the Cyclone engine is not directly aimed at powering a car right now, so that specific application is what we are interested in exploring, and discussing.

As of the first decade of the 21st Century there is no production hardware available on the market to construct a new steam car. While there are good control system components and excellent feed water pumps available; but the engine itself is a vast area of indecision, ignorance, guessing, and speculation, and a good one for vehicle use does not exist. There is no proven engine design available anywhere that will yet fully meet this need. It has to be designed from scratch and made, then tested in the lab, improvements made, and all to achieve reasonable production costs.

The steam generator and burner are not such a serious problem, as there is vast knowledge on how to successfully produce these components. The condenser is one other component that needs some serious research and testing done to reduce the size by enhancing the heat transfer rate; but the technology is well known to accomplish this, it remains to be applied. The condenser is driven by the air side heat exchange rate and this needs improvement without drastically increasing the cooling fan power needed. The actual expander and the condenser remain as the most serious stumbling blocks to making a new and successful steam car today and they are real killers.

There isn’t likely to be any major corporate or government support either. Given that previous government funded attempts to make a successful steamer for the general public, or any other market for that matter, ended in total failure, the automotive companies have firmly turned their back on any idea of a new steam car. The author was told in conversation with a most senior executive in the auto industry at dinner that as far as they are concerned the steamer simply does not exist. As he related: “We watched this work with great interest; but when they all failed to produce any successful and usable steam car, Detroit turned it’s back on them. For us, the steam car simply does not exist.” As a result, to this day the steamer is simply not up for any consideration at all.

 This viewpoint is unfortunate, as the Rankine cycle engine is no harder to produce than the present gasoline engines and in production would most probably cost less. It is a sad fact that none of the Detroit companies will take the time to honestly consult with proven experts and take a most realistic approach to using this engine in vehicles. The damage this earlier government funded failure caused has produced a corporate mindset that will be very hard to penetrate. However, at this present date, the demands world wide to reduce or eliminate CO2 and use something besides petroleum fuels are causing some serious thinking in the auto industry. Right now only the Diesel is available; but many companies do not have suitable versions in their own inventory and must go into either design and production of such engines, or buy them from other automotive companies, and that many do not wish to have to do. Offering a suitable substitute may indeed be seen with favor. Providing they first overcome their present financial problems.

There are the most serious financial, political, employment, and other potential situations that would be most seriously impacted if a new steam car were to go into mass production. Consider the vast support industries that provide components, supplies and support services to the auto industry, fuel systems, electronics, engine components, the list goes on and on forever. All would be seriously endangered unless they could provide the needed components for a steam car, and were willing to change their inventories.    No, it is not just the major car companies that would be affected, there is are host of other people and companies involved who would be seriously upended. This assumes that for the purposes of argument, a steam car was going to be mass produced, not likely at all at the present time.

The auto industry prefers to follow the government “suggested” routes and not go off trying to perfect a totally new, to them, system. Increasingly they count on technology developed initially outside the automobile industry that can be applied, like fuel cells, alcohol, hydrogen, or hybrids, to solve their problems. The steam car is an area for them of almost total ignorance, and they are not interested in even discussing the subject, learning about them, let alone building one. Today they do not even recognize the steam car as a viable option. What means would have to be used to at least get their attention is just not known. Only the youngest new automotive engineers take an interest, a blessing of being young with all the creative juices still flowing, and not yet submerged into the corporate mindset of the Detroit companies.

 Just as the Doble brothers recognized almost a century ago, the new steam car would have to be the product of private investment and development. No one is likely to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to put any such car in production for general sale, if they even acknowledge the dubious wisdom of so doing. Perhaps if a suitable level of specialized market interest is proven, and if the new car is designed according to the requirements of that select market, finance might be possible, at least for prototypes.

In any case the initial cost of any steamer is going to be seriously high, due to the low production levels possible at first. Consider the whole area of high cost specialist high performance vehicles: Ferrari, Aston-Martin, Lamborghini, Jaguar, Maserati, Mercedes Benz, et al. This is the world of the automobile where any even tiny production of any steam car lands, at least at first. Or perhaps one might consider the heavy trucking industry, as the most recent decision by Caterpillar to end all of their vehicle Diesel engine production may have quite an impact on the large truck manufacturers. The fallout from this has yet to be seen.

The number of people who really have proven experience with automotive steam systems is abysmally tiny and this makes it hard for the would-be developer to settle on a suitable powerplant design. Competent advice to the steam car developer is hard to qualify, and the promoter and his financial backers are the least informed to even begin to attempt this function, although many have ignored this situation in the past to their peril.

Unfortunately there were many efforts in the recent past where the proposed chief engineer had a great gift for selling himself to the promoters; then totally failed to live up to the expectations. This has managed to instill a great and understandable skepticism in the minds of today’s potential backers for a new steam car. Any chief engineer must have proven credentials, and be able to separate the practical from the wild fantasies of some enthusiast or academic. He must direct the work with firmness and clarity of purpose and intent, as the success or failure rests totally on his shoulders. This is not going to be some company where blame for failure can be spread around like confetti, it all depends on one man, the chief engineer. It is a daunting burden to carry.

The new computer controlled machine tools and computer-aided design and systems modeling make a new steam car perhaps less costly to design and build today, even in limited numbers. What were once most laborious and time consuming tasks are now infinitely easier to accomplish. Even precision components can be produced to virtually any desired tolerances in small production runs and in any material. CNC machining has now gone way beyond the earlier use of such machines for only small scale prototyping and into actual mass production, with a great improvement in being able to make things on a much more productive and cost effective manner than before.

These new technologies make it possible for a small group to actually see reason for success, at least in producing the first prototype demonstration hardware. Nevertheless, the development of a full sized car will cost a great deal of time and money. While it now can be done a bit easier with the new tools available, it remains a challenge requiring a team of seriously competent engineers acting with caution and with measured steps if the effort is to produce a new steam car of real worth. Their work must proceed quietly, and with absolutely no press hoopla, until a successful car can be demonstrated.

This was the one area that seriously hurt the past government funded steam car work. The promoters made impressive predictions in the press of their eventual success, when in fact almost nothing came out of it, certainly not a usable vehicle. The habit of the academic technical leaders, and eager promoters in this program to conceive something, then wildly extrapolate it to some imagined high level of performance and efficiency, managed to cast considerable scorn on any steam car designer from then on when the results were not there as predicted. There were for sure some most notable improvements in steam generator and burner design that were of benefit. What was evident after all the press releases and hot air ended, and the whole program crashed to a halt, was that most of the steam car developers were really in the business of harvesting government grant money and not producing a worthy steam car.

One must also add the huge problems the government agencies themselves added to this soap opera. Impossibly short time for any development, it has to work right off the drawing board was the norm, and woefully inadequate funding. Holding out the carrot of mass future production, and such production was never in the plan, when the intent was only brief public demonstrations to satisfy the critics and environmentalists. This entire program was badly organized, and depended on some very dubious claims, assumptions and information to start with. This did great harm to any future steam car endeavor.

Steam car enthusiasts of today seem to be centered on some magic engine improvement as the single solution, while the entire systems design excellence is pushed into the back seat. Most enthusiasts for the steam car today are simply unable to grasp the huge scope of the problem and the many areas of vehicle steam power systems engineering that have to be included in the thousands of equations that go into the competent analysis and application of this Rankine cycle system design.

It must be acknowledged that many enthusiasts have identified the steam car’s engine and condenser as the most troublesome components, and they are. Certainly a large amount of research and funding must be focused on engine design to attain an acceptable level of efficiency. But; it must also be recognized that the steam powerplant has to function as a successful total entity and that means serious engineering attention to the whole system, not just one part of it. Total and successful systems integration excellence is the key driving force that must prevail. Only the Cyclone Power Technology Company has done this to date. One hopes others will follow.

The design of a new and very superior reciprocating automotive steam car engine is a seriously arduous design problem. While there are numerous engine designs that will indeed propel the car; but their high steam consumption, their bulk, weight and packaging are often most unacceptable. The list of potential candidate designs, plus the innumerable variations in how to design a reciprocating engine is mind numbing. In fact, detailing all the potential possibilities is way beyond the scope or intent of this chapter. Those that continue to work in this field of engineering already know the candidates.

Serious research has to be done to weed through all the impossible ideas, and unfortunately much of the archived and collected data to accomplish this is not always easy to access for someone new to the work, as much of it is in private hands and not known or openly available.

Computers can be valuable tools in organizing the research and accelerating the design process; but ultimately the proposed engine needs to be constructed, then fully tested on an engine dynamometer, and then modified, and modified again and again until it works flawlessly, and to the desired level of excellence, reliability and efficiency.

Designing a new steam engine itself, as well as the entire powerplant, inevitably involves a plethora of options to be wisely considered. In conceiving the engine, the fun lies in improving all the details until a symphonic whole and the design goals are achieved. This is one deadly serious, most complex and costly engineering endeavor.

A lot of this design complication also has to be based on whether the proposed vehicle is a brand new one, or is the steam system going to be a retrofit situation to some existing vehicle? An interstate truck is one use that would not be so difficult; but a passenger car is certainly another matter and much worse from a packaging aspect.

Once the engine design is resolved the auxiliary systems must be considered. Alternators, as well as the fuel and feedwater pumps, burner air blowers, condenser fans and vacuum pumps, all need power. Also the air conditioning, power steering and power brake systems need to be kept running regardless of vehicle speed or load conditions.

The first question is how to power the auxiliary systems, off the primary engine, or by a separate engine, or possibly electrically from the vehicle’s battery and generator, like the Scott-Newcomb car of 1920. Or perhaps a combination, directly from  the engine when the vehicle is moving, then electrically at stop lights. Separately driven auxiliary systems are a proven, yet costly solution and were employed on some models by many steam car builders, including Scott-Newcomb, Staley-French-Coats, Doble, Besler, Sentinel, and others. If this route was chosen, even more design work would be needed. Although the efficiency of steam engines tends to decrease as they get smaller, there are methods to somewhat reduce the losses. Such use of an auxiliary engine requires a very cautious and most competent and thorough energy balance study. There are very definite operational advantages to separating the actual vehicle propulsion from how the auxiliaries are powered.

Then comes the situation that the entire steam system must be designed not only with great competence, it all must be packaged so it fits in the modern chassis of the new steam car, and can be serviced easily. Often quite contrasting problems to solve.

The choice of what steam generator to use is another problem area, although not as onerous as the engine design. Fire tube and natural circulation water tube types are rejected out of hand, because of weight, safety and bulk, plus low rate steaming ability. Only various forms of the forced circulation steam generator should be considered.

The usual Doble style has control problems aplenty when they are forced to high evaporation rates, making tube failure a frequent visitor unless some complex control systems are used. Only one form of the forced circulation monotube has the ability to bypass all this in one leap, and gives the best heat transfer rate known in small sizes.

The Lamont steam generator design does minimize this problem of large and heavy boilers. The Lamont is a definite improvement over the established Doble flat pancake coil design. If designed correctly, with extended surface tubing, parallel circuits in the economizer section, and using combustion air preheating, and if well insulated, the end result is a steam generator that is half the size and weight or less of the traditional Doble design for the same output. The greatly enhanced heat transfer rate and operational safety inherent in the Lamont is a serious improvement over anything else that is even remotely usable in a new steam car.

The reason for considering the Lamont is that the steam generator coils next to the fire, where the heat input is the highest, are filled with only a high velocity water flow, not steam, a most major way to increase the heat transfer rate, and it has a much simpler control system than the Doble style. The Lamont is a definite major advance.

Employing the Lamont steam generator offers one other major improvement. As the control system only needs to supply enough water to keep the level constant in the outside separator-storage drum, the need for a complex modulating control system or a separately driven auxiliary unit vanish. A large diameter helical coil on the outside of the main steam generator casing may be used to replace the usual Lamont separator-drum.

Then one has to consider the situation of whether he is going to go up to using a critical or supercritical cycle or stay down to more moderate steam conditions. Supercritical systems mean using very costly and exotic metals in the steam generator, and one most reliable control and feedwater system. Any steam generator control system that experiences just one hiccup, is going to result in a destroyed unit, melted down and right now. There is certainly greater power density and overall high power and better system efficiency to be had from using such a cycle; but this is a step one takes with enormous caution.

Notably there have been serious improvements in some; but not all, of the steam car’s hardware. These advances, and there are many to consider, drawing from all aspects of automobile development, may also reduce the greater weight and bulk of the resulting steam power plant compared to any non supercharged internal combustion engine of the same power output. Material developments since WW-II are certainly one area where drastic advances have been made and the steamer can well benefit from this work.

These are the big problems, the expander and the condenser and then there are a myriad of lesser issues. Such as radiation and conduction heat losses, crankshaft and connecting rod bearing choices and how to lubricate them, piston ring leakage, size and weight, material selection, internal corrosion, leak proof connections, balancing, piston ring lubrication and all the contamination problems that may entail, etc. All these, and more, must be considered and sound engineering solutions found and incorporated, and if the test phase shows potential improvement needs, then one has to change something.

It must be said that while it is certainly possible for a good engineer, one who really  does know how to apply the Rankine cycle to automobiles, to build a steam car, the real challenge lies in developing such a car for even modest production. A one-off experimental vehicle is one thing, honestly it is nothing more than a running proof of concept vehicle, a sort of work-in-progress demonstration; but a pre-production prototype is most certainly another and to a much higher level of sophistication. Perfecting the design is where a great amount of money and time must be spent, to bring the vehicle to an acceptable level of not only performance, but reliability and dependability. And of course, one must be able to produce it in marketable quantities, however small, at a profit. And, what with the most serious increase in high temperature materials cost, this profit level is more than iffy.

Once the car is ready to be manufactured, and presuming there are at least a modest number of potential buyers, then there is the serious issue of establishing the infrastructure to sell and support a new steam car. Today’s auto mechanics, with very rare exceptions, have never even seen a steam car, let alone worked on one. A corps of trained service people would have to be established, along with a parts supply and distribution network.  

Then there is the reality of obtaining liability insurance for a ”new” type of car. Steam cars work with high pressures and high temperatures, so amateur tinkering with a steam car can be a dangerous and serious matter. The Saturday morning ritual many car enthusiasts love to indulge in of working on their collector or sports cars, could send one to the local hospital's burn unit if they didn’t know exactly what they were doing.

Presuming all this was done how would the new steam car be presented to the world? First the basic and unique features of a steam car would be outlined, including its astonishing performance and ease of control and great reduction in moving parts, great flexibility and silence. Second, its unique ability to burn any kind of liquid fuel cleanly would be highlighted as a major environmental value. And third, its durability, mechanical simplicity and long life would be emphasized, plus simply the sheer fun of just driving one.

Today’s drivers are accustomed to internal combustion, where the fuel burning within the engine produces the power and the machinery is all under the hood. Steam involves external combustion, where the power is not produced in the engine, but in the energy contained in the form of steam generated in the separate boiler. Power production and power application are separate events and often may be in different locations in the vehicle. It should be mentioned that except for the real car enthusiasts, most people know nothing about what goes on under the hood, and couldn’t care less as long as it keeps running. Usually there is also sales resistance to a strange looking machine and an understandable concern that the company will still be in business when the car needs some service work done or new parts.

By transforming the fuel into energy outside the expander, which is really acting as an energy converter, the steam power plant’s torque output can be something of inspiring awe and not all that dependent on rpm, although power level is dependent on the rpm. The steamer has a prodigious and instantaneous torque output as soon as the steam enters the expander. Torque comes from the brake mean effective pressure pushing down on the piston, the BMEP, and horsepower is dependent on rpm plus torque, separate entities. 

Consider that the latest Mercedes-Benz top of the line turbocharged V-12 engines give about 738 lb/ft of torque, while the now the eighty four year old Doble Series E could develop 2,200 lb/ft of torque at start, times the engine to differential gear ratio of 1.5-1, or 3,300 lb/ft on the rear axles, puts the meaning of torque and acceleration that is inherent in the steam car into another world.

The steam engine and the electric motor are the only two power sources that provide this, and only they perfectly match the torque-speed-power need of the automobile. This means no transmission or clutch is needed, as the steam engine is usually geared directly to the differential — a simple and direct solution. Analogous to an electric car, a potent steamer offers the driver extreme flexibility in operation with no added hardware. One can accelerate unceasingly with no concern for shifting gears and no roar from a screaming engine. Indeed, regardless of whether one is driving up a steep hill or cruising in the left lane, the usual noise of an internal combustion engine at 3-4,000+ rpm is replaced by the near silent output of the steamer, often at much less than 1,500 rpm.

      The advantages are numerous. There is no need for some eight or twelve cylinder supercharged engine, three or four cylinders are all that is needed. There is no need to be shifting any gearbox to park or maneuver the car, because reversing only requires flipping a lever or pushing a foot pedal to shift the valve gear timing 180 degrees, so the engine reverses itself. Since the engine is so much simpler and has such a high starting torque, there is no need for a transmission, although a steam car engine greatly benefits from having at least a two speed with neutral transmission. The moving parts count in a steam engine versus an internal combustion engine is drastically reduced, particularly an IC car with an automatic transmission, from hundreds to a dozen or so, so there is much less need of engine maintenance, because there are fewer parts to fail, and they are moving relatively slowly. Fewer moving parts also translates to silence and smooth operation and, if properly maintained, an extremely long service life.

      External combustion also has significant environmental implications, because the fuel is consumed not within the cylinders where it burns at different rates according to engine status and this is exactly where the pollution problems originate; but within the boiler by a burner functioning at a steady output. Combustion of the fuel particles happens at less than one pound of air pressure, and they have a long residence time in the burner. Production of NOX, CO and unburned hydrocarbons out the exhaust stack are eliminated, as the longer residence time for the fuel particle to completely burn means complete combustion regardless of engine speed or loads. Net CO2 production is infinitely lower, or zero, depending on what fuel is used. A well designed burner where excess air is employed to modulate combustion temperature can be extremely clean-burning, actually the best of any fuel burning engine.

Steam cars excel in the one mode of operation where internal combustion engines are the most wasteful, and spend most of their time, stop-and-go city traffic. When just puttering along in city traffic the burner is off most of the time, dramatically reducing in-town fuel consumption because the system does not have to burn fuel just to keep running. The pressure in the steam generator and its residual heat keeps the system at the operating point. The burner only comes on to maintain this condition. Given that the average automobile is in heavy traffic for most of the miles it travels, the steamer’s value here is not insignificant.

There also is the situation that is likely to arise where some cities, states and the federal government might take a dim view of a large conversion to using nothing except pure plant bio-fuels, the tax problem. These governments depend on high fuel taxes to support their wasteful operations. Eliminating or drastically reducing oil consumption is going to impact the present tax level they depend on. This will certainly go on with a large use of battery electric cars too. No petroleum fuel required, no tax paid to the governments, a most interesting dilemma for them for sure, although they will certainly try to start taxing such a fuel. Some states now are trying to tax home produced fuel oil and want expensive licenses and permits to be obtained. However, they are going to find it a difficult, if not impossible situation in trying to tax home produced fuels. They failed with prohibition and they will fail with this one too.

There is already a growing grass roots movement in making bio-fuels at home from waste oils from the food industry and this is rightfully growing in leaps and bounds.

It even has raised to a nice high and increasing level, the price of used Diesel cars. Now there is a good market demand for them, when in the past, one could hardly give them away. But; the long term durability when using bio-fuel oils has yet to be proven.

It is not hard to visualize that should governments try to tax bio-fuels to the level they get from petroleum fuels, this underground movement will explode exponentially, and a nice long and noisy legal fight ensues for years, along with justified open rebellion. The Boston Tea Party all over again.

But then again, perhaps the time is ripe for a total reorganization of this entire subject and a whole new way to feed the automobile comes to the front, pushing the rapacious oil companies and the various meddling micromanaging governments aside. The battery electric car is in the same boat with this fuel tax question. This one is going to be a lot of fun to watch.

It certainly has started down at the grass roots level; but as oil prices continue to be manipulated for corporate profit, and the government constantly promotes and legislates inferior ideas of how to fuel and run the family car that are simply impractical, this bio-fuel-electric vehicle business is only going to grow, and nothing will stop it, certainly not attempted government interference.

Of all the options available today, and given all the uncertainties and questions they represent, it is perhaps impossible to truly evaluate whether a new steam car is a viable candidate until one is made that honestly demonstrates the advantages. The issue can only be truly resolved if and when some group designs and builds a really good steam engine system. This will take time, commitment and funding.

This all says that while not quite as overall efficient as a modern gas or Diesel car at present, a steamer does have some nice features that still to this day, make it attractive in certain areas. Very recent developments are rapidly increasing the Rankine cycle system efficiency to the point, should they continue, of seriously challenging the gas engine, as we know it today in average vehicle use.

The view held by the Detroit companies that the steam car is something that can only achieve ten miles per gallon or so, takes a long time to start up, is not the least bit relevant today. With the old steamers poor fuel mileage was acceptable, the IC engines were just as bad and fuel was cheap; but this has rapidly changed for the better and does not apply and that line of thinking is totally out of place. It only displays the corporate managements lack of education regarding what the Rankine Cycle engine can actually accomplish today.

Short of some revolutionary breakthrough in steam powerplant design, and that is most unlikely; but certainly noting the advances made in the Cyclone engine system, and given the inherent limitations of a working fluid that freezes, the steam engine will likely remain a delightful curiosity, only applicable to specialized needs.

However, the advocates for demanding that Detroit instantly adopt the Rankine cycle have no concept about the cost and time necessary to introduce a new engine. Hundreds of a new engine design are built and tested to destruction in the dyno facilities of all the major car industries, before being accepted. The production tooling and actual production, parts supply situation, training of service personnel and everything else takes vast amounts of funding and many years before all is in place. It would be nice to dream that a new steam powerplant for automobiles would be in the showrooms in six months; but this is just not reality, no matter how limited the production really is going to be.

The high performance exotic car business proves the technical feasibility of producing complex machinery on a limited and profitable scale. Any new steamer is first going to be made in a very tiny quantity, and that means a very big price. The steam car is not viable for mass marketing to the general public now. If it is marketable at all it is to wealthy enthusiasts who seek the exceptional experience of cruising in silence, yet with notable power. Perhaps some limited editions of a sports or GT steam car that is conceived as much for the experience and pure enjoyment, as it is for practical everyday transportation. After all, you really don’t use your new Ferrari for local shopping trips, do you?

OBSERVATIONS.

In the first decade of the 21st century there is a virtual free-for-all global debate about automotive propulsion, and the larger reality of energy sources in general for all purposes.

All sorts of power systems are being advanced as the ultimate answer, while really a good number of them are barely just getting out of the laboratory stage, and many are just worthless in the long run, only a very few do indeed have merit.

 Indeed, many scenarios are presented for consideration, but there’s no consensus to implement any particular program on the vast scale required by industry. Except in Germany and Japan, where citizens take the problems most seriously and intend to be fossil fuel free as fast as possible and force their governments into sensible action. An example we should follow in the United States.

When the Doble brothers were coming of age and the car was new there was considerable debate as to which mode of propulsion was superior. Once again, after a century of dominance by the winner of that debate, the internal combustion engine, we arrive back at that question. Only today there are new entrants in the contest and new issues on the table and the once level playing field has been badly tilted again. Do we adopt alternate power sources, or do we continue as we are with continuous refinement of the gasoline internal combustion engine and is the Diesel included in that definition?

Auto makers regularly show off numerous experimental systems, of every conceivable form, but demonstration vehicles are just that, technology demonstrations and publicity devices. They do not prove anything beyond marginal technical feasibility in most cases. A $40,000 SUV with a $500,000 fuel cell system, nor even the most elegantly crafted custom dream show car with any form of propulsion, does not constitute a vehicle marketable to the average motorist in the near future. Environmental purity does not necessarily translate into economic viability. The new car, and its propulsion system, must be economical to purchase and operate on a long term basis for the individual private owner, unless it is purchased just for the fun of owning and driving it, the sports car.

Each of the alternatives now being proposed publicly, whether electric or internal-external combustion in basic strategy, have serious problems in terms of providing a cost effective alternative to the present gasoline internal combustion engine, and in terms of the total energy required to produce the new fuels. Each new power technology represents intrinsic problems that are going to cost billions of dollars to resolve, assuming some are even possible to solve. And no matter what technologies are chosen the resulting new car is likely going to be even more costly, at least in the beginning, and the buying public could indeed reject them. If they are not accepted, then the dealers cannot sell them and the manufacturers will not continue to make them. The car industry is turned topsy-turvy, not that it is not already in that condition.

      The challenges faced by the industry today, compared to sixty years ago, are being complicated now by an unfortunate emphasis on constantly adding trivial features instead of concentrating on just sensible engineering. The author quite well remembers his father buying a new 1941 Chevrolet. The decisions presented by the salesman were rather elementary to say the least: “What color do you want and do you want a radio and a heater?” Today the options list goes on for countless pages.

The modern family car is increasingly becoming an extension of their home rumpus room or their office. From a purely safety aspect, putting in lap top computer and fax machine connections to the present satellite telephones is most unwise. A lot of drivers are already far too preoccupied with cell phones and talking map contraptions to pay attention to simply driving their cars. Some of the latest electronic systems are simply not wise at all. The newest vehicles that can park themselves are something that may provide rich comedy in Court when they fail, and the auto company is held liable. If you cannot park your own car properly, then take the bus or hire a chauffeur.

There now exists a situation for the private vehicle owner that will become most costly and serious. The components used in these added electronic gadgets, and for that matter the entire vehicle-engine management computer systems, are advancing so fast in their development, that in only a few years it just may not be possible to repair or service your vehicle. The electronic additions are out of date and service is not available, only a most costly total replacement is possible. Think of this when the warranty runs out.

Does the modern motorist only want more toys to play with while driving, a traveling game room, or are the manufacturers putting this stuff in for ill perceived competitive reasons? What may drastically alter this present situation is the terrible financial condition of the American automobile industry right now. In addition to more sensible and efficient cars being produced, they may, or should, take a hard look at the cost of these playtoys and perhaps start eliminating most of them as an economy move to even stay in business. They would be doing many of us a great favor in leaving this junk out of our cars. Option them if they must; but please do not include them as standard equipment.

However, all these issues, while of interest and good fodder for debate, do not relate to the basic premise that a new steam car is a possibility. In the spirit of pragmatism it would seem the steam car is not a viable candidate on the face of its past performance; but do realize that it has come a long way since 1915 or 1925. There are the inherent realities: The Rankine cycle is not as fuel efficient as the I.C. Otto cycle, or especially the Diesel, so it is going to burn more fuel; but that fuel can be anything liquid without refinement, although recent improvements in Rankine cycle technology may certainly alter this past efficiency situation most dramatically for the better.

And, please recognize that the IC engine and automatic transmission package is not that efficient at all in town, only when at full speed does it show any efficiency, and most cars today spend their time in stop and go city traffic. Here the steamer does very well indeed. It is not the absolute mileage that is the most important, it is where the fuel comes from and what it costs that should be the deciding factor. And also that whatever this fuel may be, it does not add to the CO2 problem and global warming. Something that using alcohol does not help solve. The media fails to notice this; but the media is always focusing on the obvious, sensational and immediate and not the entire situation.

Then there are the unavoidable physical realities with steam, specifically the high latent heat of vaporization of water, which means a large condenser area, plus the simple fact that water freezes at 32°F. Then of course there are the financial realities, specifically the costly and time consuming endeavor of designing, developing and making everything from scratch, then perfecting it. Not for one single moment must one ignore the basic fact that the steam car demands competent maintenance, a simple fact of owning one of these cars. Maintenance that simply cannot be ignored or put off until some other more convenient time, similar to owning a new Ferrari or other car of that nature.

Considering these all realities it would seem a modern steamer is not very practical as a mass market car for the general public, perhaps it really is not. Unless there are extraordinary breakthroughs in steam systems technology, and such are not seen today, except for the ongoing new work by Cyclone Power Technology, it’s probable the steamer is a technological orphan for now, at least as an automobile for general use; but not for specialized use. However, this situation may indeed change in the future. The alternatives are not all that satisfactory and many are simply worthless publicity stunts and result from confused management slinging money at any and all possibilities in hopes one will work.     

In the first decades of the 21st Century, and assuming the criteria is mass acceptance, using renewable home produced fuels, realistic and achievable fuel economy, and the drastically reduced CO2 when burning plant-algae bio-fuels, then the Diesel engine is the only possible choice for right now, and accept the expense of an exhaust system to remove the soot and NOX that engine produces. The engine manufacturing technology is in place and tens of thousands are made every year, so new Diesels can be produced with only a modest increase in production costs to the manufacturer, if they are made in even larger numbers. The latest Diesel automobiles offer splendid performance and excellent mileage, coupled with extreme reliability and long life, and one may go to the local dealer and buy one.

There is no question a new steam car can indeed be engineered and constructed, and that it would show a drastic improvement over the now elderly Dobles, or anything else since those days. A new steamer could burn alternate fuels very cleanly and it would offer fine performance. It certainly can eliminate using foreign oil and contributing to pollution.

Producing a new steam car would also represent a most challenging engineering project, where designing and building a successful steam car would not only represent a splendid technical accomplishment, a great ride for the owner and a matter of high personal pride and satisfaction to the builder.

There are also a significant number of informed enthusiasts, wealthy collectors and performance minded technologists who would no doubt take a high interest in owning a new steam car, and fuel mileage would not be their primary criteria. They are the customer base for this proposed new steamer.

Perhaps the legacy of the Doble brother’s work, and automotive steam technology in general, is the mere fact that a steamer remains alluring purely for the experience. Those who have driven a steam car, or even ridden in one, speak of quiet surprising acceleration, and the feeling of effortless silent power no matter what the road conditions. Could it be that a new steam car could be built simply to share and enjoy the experience?

One would certainly be considered practical and sensible to dismiss the steamer as a quaint relic of an earlier age, and only be a matter of preservation and collecting them as historical objects, or by the continuing enthusiasm for the breed by amateurs who love to tinker in their workshops. But then a host of contemporary sports and GT cars could be similarly dismissed as simply excessive and wildly costly toys for exhibitionists and the buyers are only concerned with having a rare status symbol, along with fantastic performance and bragging rights.

 It would seem the steam car yet remains, as it was for many devotees of Doble and other luxury car builders of the early decades of the last century, a matter of owning an expression of the true art of automotive engineering, not only just a means of transport.

However, it is certainly the time to go past the Dobles and all the past efforts. The accepted procedures of mechanical engineering, especially thermodynamics and in the material sciences and now with computer analysis can produce a steam engine system that is very competitive. The driving pleasure of such a car is not to be denied.

CONCLUSIONS.

What the author sees as a near term set of conditions and products is this:

1) The present IC gasoline engined car is going to be with us for a long time; but using American produced alcohol fuel, in spite of the problems. However, the continuous modifications to this engine are reaching a limit where it is not commercially realistic to keep going this way, Congress notwithstanding. One can only do so much to this engine before reliability is seriously compromised. Monumental repair bills are going to develop customer rejection, when they learn that there are more satisfactory solutions to be had.

2) The battery city electric car is going to see considerable expansion and production, providing the actual battery developments continue at the pace they are seeing right now.

To date, batteries are just not good enough, and the most powerful ones are way too expensive for any wide spread use. This condition is only going to be improved upon by much larger scale production to get the cost way down. The Li-ion battery is probably as good as you are going to get or as good as you actually need for such a car.

3) The Diesel engine is more expensive; but when alcohol is seen to be the less attractive fuel for the family car, and algae fuel production is given the mass increase it will get soon, this engine will receive wider acceptance and increased production. The use of bio-fuel oils is going to see rapid expansion, providing the Detroit makers do indeed consider switching to this engine. One side feeds the other. The political barriers are going to be squashed simply by public demand and the Diesel will be seen as a most satisfactory engine for the family car, running on pure bio-fuel oils. Providing the alternate fuel suppliers are prevented from gouging the motoring public, as they presently are doing.

Yet there still remains the cost to the buyer for the NOX and soot removal systems and the question of their reliability and service problems over a long time.

4) The Rankine cycle steam engine is being advanced and the efficiency of this engine is right now seeing drastic improvement. Any Detroit company that continues to ignore this potential powerplant is only short sighted. A collaboration to fully test the engine for durability and adaptability will provide an alternate power source that can be applied to their cars. Such a program is drastically less expensive than the present thinking of using fuel cells or hydrogen, and such an engine is splendidly adaptable to using these bio-fuel oils that are now receiving massive improvement in production methods. It can be a serious alternate to the Diesel engine.

    The imperative right now is for some automobile company to put aside their mindset and previous objections and take a really good unbiased look once again at the steam engine. What is most interesting to ponder, is if a good steam car had been produced in all the past efforts, would have Detroit embraced the idea? As not one emerged from all this government sponsored work in the past, none were really any good, all things considered, so this question remains unanswered.

Fuel oils from various algae are now the most productive and cheapest way to make them that is possible. The yield per acre is huge, envision 20,000 gallons per acre per year right now, with good improvements coming right along, it is a commercially advantageous and usable fuel. The steam engine burns them cleaner than any other fuel burning engine, and the torque-speed relationship is perfectly matched to vehicle use. It must be seriously evaluated again.    

If the imperatives to reduce or eliminate CO2 and eliminating or drastically reducing our dependence on foreign oil is really taken seriously, as they must be, then only the Diesel and the Rankine cycle engines can use these bio-fuel oils, the spark ignited IC engine cannot use them. The other alternatives are just not yet palatable in the real world.

The disturbing situation that exists today is that the auto industry has a huge vested interest in keeping on with the gasoline engine and this position is certainly most understandable. They all construct various vehicles powered by everything under the sun; but this is only to show that they are working on the problem and to show publicly that they have the technology to apply these power sources to the automobile, however experimental or costly they may be. Whether they go the most sensible and cost efficient way is certainly another matter. They first must know with certainty what that way is.

The auto company that takes the Rankine cycle system seriously to heart is going to be one leg up on the competition when alcohol is finally seen as a most unattractive fuel. The same goes for any company that makes engines for industrial and consumer use.

However, at the present time, alternate engines are not going to get any attention in Detroit. Their financial condition is in ruins and the stock prices for G.M., Ford and Chrysler have plummeted into the basement. This situation must be corrected first before any new engine technology is going to be given any consideration.

END