a practical steam engine

[thefairlaneman]

With all of this concern about having to have gasoline just to enjoy a boat maybe its time to reinvent the steam engine. It would be a hoot and only fuel needed would be wood.We dont have to buy wood from the frickin foreigners and the oil barons wont be able to stuff their pockets from the profits from selling wood.....why not

 

[bandit86]

Re: a practical steam engine

oil fired stem engine would be reliable, but you'd still need oil. unless you want to carry wood on your boat

 

[JCF350]

Re: a practical steam engine

Ain't enough trees.

 

[External Combustion]

Re: a practical steam engine

Why reinvent? What is out there right now is far more reliable than internal combustion engines and will take whatever fuel you want to burn. Check out my website. PM me for the details.

Yet.......with a steam engine you are an intrigal part of the powerplant. With solid fuel you will have to fuel on an unforgiving schedule. No slacking as far as paying attention to water level in the boiler. Constant vigilance to stay safe. Horrendously poor fuel economy in small craft sizes. It take over five hundred tons displacement before steam comes into its own for economy.

However......with many years of safe cruising I still prefer my steamlaunch to all other boats.. The quiet, slow push of the engine and the fuel that others pay me to haul off is still a thrill to this day. In bad weather I'd rather trust my steam engine than any infernal combustion engine and I own several types. Steam is not for everyone, but right up my alley.

The Northwest Steamboat Society can give you much more information on small steamers.

 

[CN Spots]

Re: a practical steam engine

Boy, that's a whopper of a conundrum for tree huggers.

 

[tommays]

Re: a practical steam engine

The steam engine droped out because of the space required for the fuel supply as compared to new infernal units


Its not like steam turbines are not used BUT the big singel diesel is what is moving your stuff around the world and they pinch every penny on those ships

 

[WizeOne]

Re: a practical steam engine

The steam engine droped out because of the space required for the fuel supply as compared to new infernal units

Plus, in the heydays of the steam locomotives and river boats, they were having to haul the wood from further and further away as they were totally denuding any sources that were close to the points of use.

Absolutely would not fly today.

Oh, and did I forget to mention the carbon footprint? Yikes, what would AG say?

 

[QC]

Re: a practical steam engine

Al would say, "send your carbon offset checks to P.O. Box . . . "

 

[External Combustion]

Re: a practical steam engine

Carbon footprint? I'll compare the worst steamer under 65 feet that I know to AG's Gulfstream any day. At least steamers aren't trying to run others lives while we exempt ourselves from our own pontification.

At least my fuel will combine the same amount of carbon whether it is burned in my boiler or rots in the woods. The wood is free also and keeps it out of the landfill.

Sorry, I'm on my soapbox again.

Yes, the space devoted to solid fuel is significant. I burn about one cubic foot of wood an hour for eight to ten horsepower. The dirt and dust of the fuel is also something that should be considered if using solid fuel. It is not quite up to modern white painted surfaces and show standards, but managable. Liquid fuel can be very versatile for a steamer, allowing one to change from heavy oils to light ones with no modifications, vegetable oils to used petroleum if the system was designed for it.

The fun of steamers is enough to overcome the drawbacks to some of us. We never lack for passengers and I have not had one aboard my steamer that did not have a big smile when they stepped ashore. There is no panacea in life, but I like what steam has to offer.

 

[Nos4r2]

Re: a practical steam engine

I think I prefer this steam engine.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3321-steam-fires-underwater-jet-engine.html

Doesn't seem to be much more info yet though and the article is old...

 

[JB]

Re: a practical steam engine

Steam autos failed only because it took too long to get them ready to make power compared to pushing a starter button and driving away.

Now steam is not often considered because people seem to think that they only run on wood, coal or nuclear power.

Solar heat collectors make excellent energy sources for steam engines, as do geothermal sources.

Stirling engines are even more efficient, running on just about any temperature differential, but they are big and heavy for their power output. Well, so are steam engines, be they reciprocating or turbine.

 

[External Combustion]

Re: a practical steam engine

I love patent pending stories! Especially when no working models have been made and no demonstration of feasability has been shown.

What was described was a simple steam injector/ejector. They have been used to feed boilers, clear bilges, mix chemicals and even supply fire hoses for over a 150 years. I use a bilge ejector on my launch. Using full boiler pressure (120psi) you can feel the boat move sideways when the ejector is on. What fire hose at that pressure wouldn't produce some noticeable thrust?

I can tell you though that using the same amount of steam in the main engine will provide enough thrust to attain hull speed, which the ejector never will even come close to.

Notice the tellers of this tale do not want to produce the engine, just get someone else to pay them. I'm placing my money on the guy that has developed a new revolutionary propeller that allows an 85 hp 'Rude drive the Big Mo at flank speed!