Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:36:22 -0600
Reply-To:     tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG>
Organization: Tippen Ringware
Subject:      Re: User friendly fuels (was you fixed it..)
In-Reply-To:  <19A2875F-7860-11D8-828F-000A958E5A98@mac.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Possibly true, but they don't scale to small size very well.  Turning the fuel
directly to hot gas to spin the turbine is probably more efficient, and even
more important, has a better power to weight ratio.  For instance, I haven't
seen a lot of steam turbine prop aircraft.

Also just because they make power plants with them doesn't mean they are the
most efficient thermalwise, just that they are the most efficient costwise for
huge power generation.  They are also the only reasonable way to use nuclear
produced heat.

On the other hand, I seem to remember a Stanley Steamer could go just as fast
in reverse as forward.  That's gotta count towards a lot of cool factor.

tom

On 17 Mar 2004 at 17:11, Kim Brennan wrote:

> http://ghlin2.greenhills.net/~apatter/doble.html
>
> The 1920's Doble steamers got 10-14 mpg on fuel oil
>
> Here's a url for conversion of a VW engine to a steam engine
> http://www.firedragon.com/~kap/Barrett/VWConversion.html
>
> Almost all electric plants today are steam engines, the water is boiled
> by coal, natural gas or uranium.
>
>
------
Tom Ring K0TAR, ex-WA2PHW  EN34hx
85 Westphalia GL Albert
96 Jetta GL The Intimidator
taring@taring.org

"It is better to go into a turn slow, and come out fast, than to go into a turn fast
and come out dead." Stirling Moss