home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.energy
- Path: sparky!uunet!grebyn!daily!sgs
- From: sgs@grebyn.com (Stephen G. Smith)
- Subject: Re: Info on the GM SE-101 Steam Car
- Message-ID: <1992Nov18.202738.3330@grebyn.com>
- Organization: Agincourt Computing
- References: <1992Nov13.123426.11872@bsu-ucs> <1992Nov13.223911.25528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:27:38 GMT
- Lines: 37
-
- In article <1992Nov13.223911.25528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@carla.JSC.NASA.GOV (Keith Mancus/MDSSC) writes:
-
- > -Why did they use a piston steam engine instead of a geared-down turbine?
- > Gearing problems? Cost of the turbine?
-
- > Keith Mancus <mancus@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov>
-
- While I am not familiar with the GM car, the problems with using a
- turbine are fairly well known.
-
- 1. They're expensive and hard to build. A turbine will spin at ~60,000
- RPM. See a dynamics textbook for a description of all the amusing
- ways that high-speed rotating machinery can destroy itself.
-
- 2. They have lousy acceleration characteristics. Drivers want
- something to happen *now* when they hit the accelerator. Not "just a
- few seconds to ramp up". Nobody cares if the turbine is in an
- ocean-going ship or a power station.
-
- 3. They have lousy torque characteristics. Note: so do IC engines.
- This means transmissions and suchlike.
-
- Piston steam engines have been in use since the 1700s. They are
- mechanically simple, easy to design, and easy to build. Acceleration
- and torque characteristics are excellent (better than IC). They don't
- need a transmission.
-
- Problems are fuel efficiency and condenser size. Note that
- historically, steam engines have either been stationary or part of
- ships or locomotives, where size is not a limitation. Also,
- historically, fuel has been cheap.
-
- Conclusion: we need more development work.
- --
- Steve Smith Agincourt Computing
- sgs@grebyn.com (301) 681 7395
- "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."
-