Back to topic, as interesting as the "petrol vs. diesel"/"rules to encourage use of diesel in motor racing" debates are...... whatever the standard of turbo modelling; perhaps, probably, the XRT is simply designed to be a turbo car which suffers from turbo lag.
Then how do you explain the pitiful turbocharger behaviour in the RAC? 
Ahh different question, you need to make another thread for that
Tristan, the only reason you see the Steam Engine as a failed invention, is because there is such things as Steam Engine rallys and Traction Engine Rallys... but there isn't a Petrol Engine rally is there?
It's not extremely efficient, but it's cheap and easy-going...
I would rather use a Steam Engine for a generator for power, than a diesel engine, You have the heat from the boiler alone.. The Steam Engine is 2 sources of energy... Heat and Pressure. You could use the Heat at the same time as your using the Pressure to power something... A Petrol or even a Diesel cannot do such a thing.. Simply because it's not practical because Conventional Engines only have 1 Energy output, not 2 like a Steam Engine..
It's not extremely efficient, but it's cheap and easy-going...
I would rather use a Steam Engine for a generator for power, than a diesel engine, You have the heat from the boiler alone.. The Steam Engine is 2 sources of energy... Heat and Pressure. You could use the Heat at the same time as your using the Pressure to power something... A Petrol or even a Diesel cannot do such a thing.. Simply because it's not practical because Conventional Engines only have 1 Energy output, not 2 like a Steam Engine..
I think there must be a crossed wire somewhere.
Obviously the technology for steam engines still exists, and obviously people still make/run/restore steam traction engines and railway locomotives. But that's like saying people still live in flint houses, and therefore flint isn't a failed building material - both flint and steam have been surpassed.
Also, if you take the heat away to do something, you reduce the pressure. You can't make energy for nothing, so use the heat and you have less pressure to use... A diesel engine could (and does, inside the cylinder) make heat and pressure. Both are used for driving the pistons down the cylinder.
But steam IS NOT used for modern locomotives or automobiles. Or even electric generators most of the time. Therefore it's a failed concept nowadays.
Diesel will go the same way soon enough. Just need a bit more time to give petrol engines all the advantages (unthrottle them and allow true lean burn running, and perhaps compression ignition) and diesel will be out of the window, allowing petrol (where efficiencies increase with compression ratio as opposed to diesels falling efficiency with the same variable) to 'win the war'. Until something better comes along - either Nuclear or hydrogen engines (and I can see some pretty firm resistance to mini-nuclear reactors in cars!!).
Obviously the technology for steam engines still exists, and obviously people still make/run/restore steam traction engines and railway locomotives. But that's like saying people still live in flint houses, and therefore flint isn't a failed building material - both flint and steam have been surpassed.
Also, if you take the heat away to do something, you reduce the pressure. You can't make energy for nothing, so use the heat and you have less pressure to use... A diesel engine could (and does, inside the cylinder) make heat and pressure. Both are used for driving the pistons down the cylinder.
But steam IS NOT used for modern locomotives or automobiles. Or even electric generators most of the time. Therefore it's a failed concept nowadays.
Diesel will go the same way soon enough. Just need a bit more time to give petrol engines all the advantages (unthrottle them and allow true lean burn running, and perhaps compression ignition) and diesel will be out of the window, allowing petrol (where efficiencies increase with compression ratio as opposed to diesels falling efficiency with the same variable) to 'win the war'. Until something better comes along - either Nuclear or hydrogen engines (and I can see some pretty firm resistance to mini-nuclear reactors in cars!!).
Diesel will never go out the window simply because of the price of the fuel itself.
I understand Conventional engines produce heat, but its not in the same way, you could make a steam engine using electricity, that will heat up the water, inturn making the pressure enough to power a piston inside a cylinder, and then pushing a driveshaft, rotating a generator, to generate the electricity in the first place... The Steam Engine is the most GW friendly thing ever made... funny how it was made in the days, when GW wasn't even comprehendable then... The Steam Engine is the way forward... The Petrol is a continuing method, and the Diesel is economic KING.
I understand Conventional engines produce heat, but its not in the same way, you could make a steam engine using electricity, that will heat up the water, inturn making the pressure enough to power a piston inside a cylinder, and then pushing a driveshaft, rotating a generator, to generate the electricity in the first place... The Steam Engine is the most GW friendly thing ever made... funny how it was made in the days, when GW wasn't even comprehendable then... The Steam Engine is the way forward... The Petrol is a continuing method, and the Diesel is economic KING.
What to you pay for a liter of water?
Sounds efficient! Electricity is free anyway!
It's not like water vapour is an even worse "greenhouse gas" than CO2 or anything. Steam FTW.
Seen the untaxed price of diesel and petrol recently?
Indeed you could use electricity to heat water and make boiler pressure. In the same way you can use electricity to turn a motor.
But how do you make that electricity? By burning coal and oil (mainly). So anything electric, be it cars, hairdriers or computers pollute the environment.
How do you make steam in a steam engine? Usually, by burning coil.
How do you make petrol engines work? By burning petrol.
Which is the most efficient, and which has the least emissions (including after treament like EGR and catalysts)?
You can't argue with my theory, sure, the BIG fish creating electricity and so and so will be polluting, but the little fish won't be... Steam is the way forward, i just talked it over with my dad... And he was talking about Water in a petrol engine... I wonder what they use to make the water explode..
rubbish ... complete and utter rubbish by someone who hasnt got the slightest grasp of physics and engineering
with a steam engine heat is what drives the engine ... if you use the heat for something else youre reducing the engines power
with a internal combustion engine the heat (which on a normal road car is easily enough to heat a house) is a wasteproduct that _must_ dissipate into the air for the engine to run
so if you use the heat produced from internal combustion for something else the power of it will stay exactly the same while at the same time increasing the engines lifespan
actually most power plants use steam to drive the generators
most definitely powering a electric motor directly from the powerline and if you have to with the intermediate step of using a battery
yes you can because steam engines are a pile of shit in terms of efficiency especially if you want to convert electric energy into heat first
erm, guys?
steam is just outdated, and therefore called 'failed'
think a few genarations further and our grandchildren might say the same about todays petrol/diesel(un/watered)/natural gas/powercells (alcohol/hydrogen)...
failed concepts?
i disagree, because it was the best that science could offer (maybee not) but what the industry tought was most 'money making successful'.
so could we please stop flamming ourselfes about history?
thanks!
steam is just outdated, and therefore called 'failed'
think a few genarations further and our grandchildren might say the same about todays petrol/diesel(un/watered)/natural gas/powercells (alcohol/hydrogen)...
failed concepts?
i disagree, because it was the best that science could offer (maybee not) but what the industry tought was most 'money making successful'.
so could we please stop flamming ourselfes about history?
thanks!
If you hook 2 pipes to a boiler, you can have 2 steam engines.
It's the same theory for Diesel and Petrol Engines.. but its just not the same..
The following is my understanding of things and may not be entirely (or at all) factual.
Take 2 engines, one a high RPM screamer, the other a low RPM torque monster. Assuming similar power output, with the only differences being where peak power is made and gearing that is proportional to that difference, the torque on the output shaft of the transmission and it's rotational velocity will be the same. However, on the input shaft, there is a massive difference.
In the case of the screamer, the input shaft doesn't have to be very strong since the engine doesn't produce very much torque. It gets its torque by multiplying what it has through massive gear reduction. The wide rev range makes this possible. Essentially all the input shaft has to be able to do is spin fast. (disregarding high RPM clutch dumps)
However, for the torque monster, the input shaft is under massive stress. It doesn't have to spin nearly as fast, but it gets completely hammered every time the engine fires.
It's like the difference between driving a nail by hitting it many times with a small hammer, or just once with a big sledgehammer. If the nail is weak, the small hammer won't break it, but the sledgehammer probably will.
Steam engines? :ices_rofl
I thought this was LFS
I thought this was LFS
i feel like im talking to a wall ... except most walls tend to have a better understanding of physics
Most walls are responsible for upholding the laws of physics, or counteracting them... understanding is imperative for them.
This has turned into a rather silly argument, one thing that hasn't been thrown into the debate yet is the Stirling engine, which is supposedly potentially far more efficient than any internal combustion or steam engine. It has just never really worked in practice on large scale engines.
Erm yes I've got two pipes and a roll of cellotape lying around, how do I make a steam engine again?
Erm yes I've got two pipes and a roll of cellotape lying around, how do I make a steam engine again?
Shotglass was saying you reduce the pressure, which isn't true to my knoledge. England has always been at the forefront of Steam Technology, I can't have a German knowing more, although it makes more sense that a german knows more. Enginerical Nation 'n all.
Heat = pressure = power. You use the heat to increase the pressure in the boiler. Use the heat of the furnace for "something else" and it takes more fuel/energy to achieve the same boiler pressure, and the steam pressure (obviously) is what drives the pistons of the steam engine.
Yeah, saying it's "failed" technology suggests it was too flawed to succeed in the first place.
Regarding BlueFlame's mentioning of an internal combustion engine running on water, I remember reading about a prototype 6-stroke (?) engine in Popular Mechanics. It injects water into the cylinder after the exhaust clears, using the resulting steam burst for an additional stroke. Apparently it works quite well and obviously helps with fuel-efficiency...though I imagine it must sound weird!
I can't think that would have much durability over long time with all those hot-cold-changes, unless someone finds some new material which can keep up with that kind of stress.
There is a different one... Something else is injected into the water, to make it explode.. There is separate valves for it, or something,
Nitroglycerin?...
There is nothing in engine that "explodes".
Another six-stroke engine: http://www.jack-brabham-engine ... duct.aspx?tech=1&ID=2
Realistic intake/exhaust?...
(74 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG