Alain Riaud
06-16-2005, 11:13 PM
"News" <Newss@NOSSPAMnomail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
bculqt$lf6$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:751f8d35.0306192058.7027f602@posting.google.c om...
>
> > > > While I too am a fan of the steamers, reality is that they cannot
even
> > > > come close to matching the efficiency of IC engines or even Electric
> > > > power. It was tried by at least one big company back in the 60s?
70s?
> > >
> > > Looked at by GM and Lear looked into it also. As
> > > kid in England I remember the old steam trucks
> > > which ran up until the mid 1960s. Senitels, which
> > > were slow but pulled amazing heavy loads. Built
> > > between 1933-36. One version could do 60 mph,
> > > which was better than the IC engine trucks around
> > > in the mid 1930s. Even as a kid, apart from the
> > > old fashioned design, what stood out to me was
> > > how quiet the steamers were. The rattling of the
> > > trailers was the only real sound and they were silent
> > > at traffic lights. These trucks lasted over 30 years
> > > pulling amazing loads, which few diesel trucks of the
> > > day could not even look at. And no transmission either.
> > >
> > > Even today, modern steam units would be far better
> > > in city buses and any heavy truck. Or any vehicle that
> > > had the engine run all day. The emissions
> > > would be far lower than
> > >
> > > > for cars and they couldn't make them a feasible option. Railroads
> > > > where the biggest and longest users of them in the day. They went
to
> > > > other types for economy, operation, and maintenance ease. If steam
> > > > could be made competitive, they for sure would have.
> > >
> > > The power used to power the computer you are
> > > using right now was most probably generated
> > > using steam.
> >
> > Well no, by hydro but you do have a point in most locations.
> > Unfortunately what will work in mega size plants via turbines doesn't
> > translate to vehicles via pistons. Oddly, a steam -piston- engine
> > develops max torque at stall.
>
> They don't need a transmission. Pre WW2 and after, a steam truck could
> accelerate to 60 mph like a car. The petrol/diesel trucks of the time
> needed 3 miles of straight road and crashing though gears to get to 60
mph,
> and only the best could get to 60 mph. Only after WW2 did IC trucks
compare
> as gearbox technology improved via tanks of WW2.
>
> The problem with steam trucks was that the max torque at crawling speeds
> meant some of them ripped up the tarmac roads, especially the older sold
> tyres models, so extra taxes were put on them to pay for the damage, which
> accelerated their decline. I'm sure that problem can be eliminated today.
> Around WW2 the UK and Germany were making steam trucks.
>
> > The only type of engine (that I know
> > of) that does that. Fuel economy would go
> > down the tubes if used in buses/trucks.
>
> We don't know that, hense my Qs to Arnold. Modern steam units are
supposed
> to be far more economical. Steamers were comparable, or more economical,
> than IC engines pre WW2. Some of the steam trucks I saw as a kid in the
> 1960s were 40 years old. The were simple, cheap to maintain and run and
> economical for the intended function.
>
> > If they were competitive, steam locomotives would still
> > be in use (yes, I know they are in some countries).
>
> I don't think enough research and development has been done. If there
was,
> steam loco's would still be in use. It took a long time for Diesel loco's
> to replace steam trains in the UK. Most of the current main line
passenger
> trains are overhead cable electric. Steam loco's were used right up into
> the 1970s. If the economic argument was for Diesel engines, steam loco's
> would have disappeared in the early 1930s, or before. Steam loco's were
far
> more reliable, which meant a lot when running a railway.
>
> A high constant speed steam turbine turning a generator must be feasible
> today. Great improvements can be made on the boilers burner side,
resulting
> from modern pre-mix heating burners used in buildings. Burner condensing
> technology has also come a long way. Flash boilers have come a long way
> too, and also I'm sure great improvements can be gained there too.
>
Not to mention what computers can bring in increased efficiency. They
brought a lot for IC engine, why not for steam engines.
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003
>
>
bculqt$lf6$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:751f8d35.0306192058.7027f602@posting.google.c om...
>
> > > > While I too am a fan of the steamers, reality is that they cannot
even
> > > > come close to matching the efficiency of IC engines or even Electric
> > > > power. It was tried by at least one big company back in the 60s?
70s?
> > >
> > > Looked at by GM and Lear looked into it also. As
> > > kid in England I remember the old steam trucks
> > > which ran up until the mid 1960s. Senitels, which
> > > were slow but pulled amazing heavy loads. Built
> > > between 1933-36. One version could do 60 mph,
> > > which was better than the IC engine trucks around
> > > in the mid 1930s. Even as a kid, apart from the
> > > old fashioned design, what stood out to me was
> > > how quiet the steamers were. The rattling of the
> > > trailers was the only real sound and they were silent
> > > at traffic lights. These trucks lasted over 30 years
> > > pulling amazing loads, which few diesel trucks of the
> > > day could not even look at. And no transmission either.
> > >
> > > Even today, modern steam units would be far better
> > > in city buses and any heavy truck. Or any vehicle that
> > > had the engine run all day. The emissions
> > > would be far lower than
> > >
> > > > for cars and they couldn't make them a feasible option. Railroads
> > > > where the biggest and longest users of them in the day. They went
to
> > > > other types for economy, operation, and maintenance ease. If steam
> > > > could be made competitive, they for sure would have.
> > >
> > > The power used to power the computer you are
> > > using right now was most probably generated
> > > using steam.
> >
> > Well no, by hydro but you do have a point in most locations.
> > Unfortunately what will work in mega size plants via turbines doesn't
> > translate to vehicles via pistons. Oddly, a steam -piston- engine
> > develops max torque at stall.
>
> They don't need a transmission. Pre WW2 and after, a steam truck could
> accelerate to 60 mph like a car. The petrol/diesel trucks of the time
> needed 3 miles of straight road and crashing though gears to get to 60
mph,
> and only the best could get to 60 mph. Only after WW2 did IC trucks
compare
> as gearbox technology improved via tanks of WW2.
>
> The problem with steam trucks was that the max torque at crawling speeds
> meant some of them ripped up the tarmac roads, especially the older sold
> tyres models, so extra taxes were put on them to pay for the damage, which
> accelerated their decline. I'm sure that problem can be eliminated today.
> Around WW2 the UK and Germany were making steam trucks.
>
> > The only type of engine (that I know
> > of) that does that. Fuel economy would go
> > down the tubes if used in buses/trucks.
>
> We don't know that, hense my Qs to Arnold. Modern steam units are
supposed
> to be far more economical. Steamers were comparable, or more economical,
> than IC engines pre WW2. Some of the steam trucks I saw as a kid in the
> 1960s were 40 years old. The were simple, cheap to maintain and run and
> economical for the intended function.
>
> > If they were competitive, steam locomotives would still
> > be in use (yes, I know they are in some countries).
>
> I don't think enough research and development has been done. If there
was,
> steam loco's would still be in use. It took a long time for Diesel loco's
> to replace steam trains in the UK. Most of the current main line
passenger
> trains are overhead cable electric. Steam loco's were used right up into
> the 1970s. If the economic argument was for Diesel engines, steam loco's
> would have disappeared in the early 1930s, or before. Steam loco's were
far
> more reliable, which meant a lot when running a railway.
>
> A high constant speed steam turbine turning a generator must be feasible
> today. Great improvements can be made on the boilers burner side,
resulting
> from modern pre-mix heating burners used in buildings. Burner condensing
> technology has also come a long way. Flash boilers have come a long way
> too, and also I'm sure great improvements can be gained there too.
>
Not to mention what computers can bring in increased efficiency. They
brought a lot for IC engine, why not for steam engines.
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003
>
>