1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
BMW steamer!
Posted by: john robinson (IP Logged)
Date: December 14, 2005 05:18PM
<HTML>[www.gizmag.com]
BMW has announced a steam powered BMW. a new BMW STEAMER concept car. claims of using the exhaust heat to power a steam engine to boost output of car, and with a 15% savings....</HTML>
BMW has announced a steam powered BMW. a new BMW STEAMER concept car. claims of using the exhaust heat to power a steam engine to boost output of car, and with a 15% savings....</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Brian Drake (IP Logged)
Date: December 15, 2005 02:23AM
<HTML>You've been scooped. [steamgazette.com];
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: December 16, 2005 01:36AM
<HTML>And some better diagrams.
[www.mwerks.com];
[www.mwerks.com];
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: December 16, 2005 10:54PM
<HTML>Doesn't appear that anything is new as the STILL engine used the two cycle diesel exhaust to run a contributing steam cycle that added 20% or more to the total efficiency---it was claimed in the early 1940's I believe to have achieved 42% thermal efficiency back then. Large units were constructed with great success and good longevity. Seems to me that BMW is just re-inventing the Still cycle utilizing water jacket and exhaust heat to contribute to added efficiency via a steam engine. In the case of the STILL engine the underside of the diesel piston was the steam engine, it was truly a double acting diesel-steam cycle. Glad its been rediscovered again. As usual the original inventor(s) get no mention or credit.
Happy Xmas, George</HTML>
Happy Xmas, George</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: December 21, 2005 09:04PM
<HTML>George,
Thank you for your information. Do you have any links to the original Still engine. I've not come across it before and would enjoy learning about it.
Dick</HTML>
Thank you for your information. Do you have any links to the original Still engine. I've not come across it before and would enjoy learning about it.
Dick</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Ken Helmick (IP Logged)
Date: December 22, 2005 07:16PM
<HTML>Here's a brief website on the Still:
[www.dself.dsl.pipex.com]
I think I may have a copy of the US patent floating around in my computer somewhere.
Ken</HTML>
[www.dself.dsl.pipex.com]
I think I may have a copy of the US patent floating around in my computer somewhere.
Ken</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: December 31, 2005 09:31AM
<HTML>George had me wondering about the Still cycle engine.
Been think of the same idea roughly for a heavy truck.
And it appears the USS Eurybates built in 1928 and ran until 1956 was
indeed a 2500hp Still.
Hence,the Eurybates using the design George described,diesels have
blowby that ended up in the boiler water.
So an earlier version of that engine used in the USS Dolius had
5diesel cyclinder followed by 2 uniflow poppets.Actually worked better.
Also 2500hp.It ran until 1959.
All aux. items were steam powered including the blower(steam/electric like a Doble blower just bigger) for the diesel.
Locomotives also toyed with idea....in the US it was a KItt Still 8cylinder powerplant.4diesel cyclinders on the inside rows and 4steam cylinders
on the outside rows. Geardrive off crankshaft and had a locomotive boiler
that looked half of the size. That a steamer would expect for a 2500hp steam locomotive.
The Russians also had a Still cycle locomotive.......
Shortly after they had a 20 axle locomotive rip rails out of the ground
faster than they could lay them in the curves.
They tried a 8 cylinder Still that had walking beams working dual cranks(4 diesel cylinders on rear crank and 4 steam cylinders on front crank).
The "Teploparvoz" also had a hammering force that ripped rails.
Unclear on Hp. ,but may have been 6000hp.
It was also mentioned that the Russians were running lighter rails(20 ton axle load) than the Americans(50 ton axle loads).
The Russian then brought locomotives from Baldwin and Garrett.</HTML>
Been think of the same idea roughly for a heavy truck.
And it appears the USS Eurybates built in 1928 and ran until 1956 was
indeed a 2500hp Still.
Hence,the Eurybates using the design George described,diesels have
blowby that ended up in the boiler water.
So an earlier version of that engine used in the USS Dolius had
5diesel cyclinder followed by 2 uniflow poppets.Actually worked better.
Also 2500hp.It ran until 1959.
All aux. items were steam powered including the blower(steam/electric like a Doble blower just bigger) for the diesel.
Locomotives also toyed with idea....in the US it was a KItt Still 8cylinder powerplant.4diesel cyclinders on the inside rows and 4steam cylinders
on the outside rows. Geardrive off crankshaft and had a locomotive boiler
that looked half of the size. That a steamer would expect for a 2500hp steam locomotive.
The Russians also had a Still cycle locomotive.......
Shortly after they had a 20 axle locomotive rip rails out of the ground
faster than they could lay them in the curves.
They tried a 8 cylinder Still that had walking beams working dual cranks(4 diesel cylinders on rear crank and 4 steam cylinders on front crank).
The "Teploparvoz" also had a hammering force that ripped rails.
Unclear on Hp. ,but may have been 6000hp.
It was also mentioned that the Russians were running lighter rails(20 ton axle load) than the Americans(50 ton axle loads).
The Russian then brought locomotives from Baldwin and Garrett.</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Bill Gatlin (IP Logged)
Date: December 31, 2005 04:45PM
<HTML>Arnold,
I would bet that one of the inefficiencys of the Still setup (not knocking it) is from the loss of heat transfer efficiency by running a boiler from the exhaust. This means that the exhaust still exits the system with a good deal of heat. The Kalina cycle did better by capturing more of the exhaust heat.
I would think that if one were to use the engine exhaust directly and mix it with enough fresh air to get a correct amount of oxygen to run a standard boiler that the efficiency would be higher. This would be a type of exhaust gas recirculation and would use all of the exhaust heat from the engine.
The gas or diesel engine would be smaller in relation to the steam engine than with the Still setup, and the steam engine would be the main engine. The boiler output would be more closely controlled as with a regular steam engine and it's efficiency higher. A Still engine setup looks like it would put steam conditions all over the place as throttle and load conditions varied.
Actually a Diesel powered boiler that ran all of the pumps and auxiliarys at little thermal cost might be attractive. I had been looking at a small gas turbine in this way for larger semi tracktor installations, forced draft and all the exhaust heats the boiler.
Anyway, more to chew.
Happy NewYear ---------- Bill G.</HTML>
I would bet that one of the inefficiencys of the Still setup (not knocking it) is from the loss of heat transfer efficiency by running a boiler from the exhaust. This means that the exhaust still exits the system with a good deal of heat. The Kalina cycle did better by capturing more of the exhaust heat.
I would think that if one were to use the engine exhaust directly and mix it with enough fresh air to get a correct amount of oxygen to run a standard boiler that the efficiency would be higher. This would be a type of exhaust gas recirculation and would use all of the exhaust heat from the engine.
The gas or diesel engine would be smaller in relation to the steam engine than with the Still setup, and the steam engine would be the main engine. The boiler output would be more closely controlled as with a regular steam engine and it's efficiency higher. A Still engine setup looks like it would put steam conditions all over the place as throttle and load conditions varied.
Actually a Diesel powered boiler that ran all of the pumps and auxiliarys at little thermal cost might be attractive. I had been looking at a small gas turbine in this way for larger semi tracktor installations, forced draft and all the exhaust heats the boiler.
Anyway, more to chew.
Happy NewYear ---------- Bill G.</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: Arnold Walker (IP Logged)
Date: December 31, 2005 07:59PM
<HTML>Now days a single speed turbine in a car or truck would not be that much of a problem.
Virtually every farm tractor built uses that kind of transmission....hydrostatic.
In a road vehicle...you hook the governor to load and unload engine with transmission.Like the C130 turboprops do with governor controled hydraulic props.They contrlol rpm's,with prop pitch, as fuel is increased or decreased by the pilot.Part of the reason, the cargo planes are so noisey.
So the truck or car would have a turbine running constant speed like an electric generator turbine at the utility.The transmission does the rpm change at the driveshaft.
Can think of two ways of doing that, in a truck.
Standard turbine governor with driver actually moving the the transmission setting with the throttle pedal.
Or the pedal works the fuel setting with governor working the transmission setting.
As odd as it may seem Garrett and other manufactutrers would rather you to run. Constant on thier turbines.Because of balance harmonics at different speeds when the turbine speed is changed.
Much of the mil spec. research time is spent figuring.If one of the rpm settings will rip the turbine apart with bad harmonics.
Garret APU units had a tendency to do that at 1/3 rpm setting(1min.+ duration)
Hence, the legal noise they made about using them in fixed pitch prop homebuilt planes.
But not helicopters.</HTML>
Virtually every farm tractor built uses that kind of transmission....hydrostatic.
In a road vehicle...you hook the governor to load and unload engine with transmission.Like the C130 turboprops do with governor controled hydraulic props.They contrlol rpm's,with prop pitch, as fuel is increased or decreased by the pilot.Part of the reason, the cargo planes are so noisey.
So the truck or car would have a turbine running constant speed like an electric generator turbine at the utility.The transmission does the rpm change at the driveshaft.
Can think of two ways of doing that, in a truck.
Standard turbine governor with driver actually moving the the transmission setting with the throttle pedal.
Or the pedal works the fuel setting with governor working the transmission setting.
As odd as it may seem Garrett and other manufactutrers would rather you to run. Constant on thier turbines.Because of balance harmonics at different speeds when the turbine speed is changed.
Much of the mil spec. research time is spent figuring.If one of the rpm settings will rip the turbine apart with bad harmonics.
Garret APU units had a tendency to do that at 1/3 rpm setting(1min.+ duration)
Hence, the legal noise they made about using them in fixed pitch prop homebuilt planes.
But not helicopters.</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: George (IP Logged)
Date: January 01, 2006 09:55PM
<HTML>Arnold,
Thanks for all the info on a few of the Still engines that were built, very helpfull.
Bill, think the original Still engines had an exhaust temperature of 200F or a little bit more, it required a cast iron heat exchanger to take care of dealing with the condensed acids of combustion. 42% real efficiency back then was quite a feat with a diesel/kerosene primare engine. Could do a bit better nowdays.
JW, we always thank you for all the work you put into maintaining your wonderful website, am sure we are all grateful for all yu provide for us.
Joyous 2006, George</HTML>
Thanks for all the info on a few of the Still engines that were built, very helpfull.
Bill, think the original Still engines had an exhaust temperature of 200F or a little bit more, it required a cast iron heat exchanger to take care of dealing with the condensed acids of combustion. 42% real efficiency back then was quite a feat with a diesel/kerosene primare engine. Could do a bit better nowdays.
JW, we always thank you for all the work you put into maintaining your wonderful website, am sure we are all grateful for all yu provide for us.
Joyous 2006, George</HTML>
Re: BMW steamer!
Posted by: ArnoldWalker (IP Logged)
Date: April 11, 2006 02:26AM
<HTML>Design getting closer ,so might be able to able give data based answer without the year.
Still working on solid fueled steam turbine tractor....
And starting to layout Combined cycle aspirated Mercedes 300D.
Crossing all fingers and toes in hopes of something to show by SACA meeting.
Might to have switch the Mercedes back to diesel from vegetable oil,if I do make it.....</HTML>
Still working on solid fueled steam turbine tractor....
And starting to layout Combined cycle aspirated Mercedes 300D.
Crossing all fingers and toes in hopes of something to show by SACA meeting.
Might to have switch the Mercedes back to diesel from vegetable oil,if I do make it.....</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.