On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:37:46 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:35:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:57:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:59:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


So this is a Hollywood special effects piece?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZJsvDy19I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N98mXwTsx5A

The fact that none of them are being built today should give you your
answer. They just can't cut it.

Steam is just not an answer, Gunner, no matter how much you may like
it.


Say...isnt the internal combustion engine somewhere around 28%
effecient?

Not the latest ones. We're headed for 40% as a typical number within a
few years. Some cars surpass it now.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.instructables.com/answers...rn-for-modern/

Read the first comment by SteamRoss.53. He has it right, except for
the uniflow steam engines running on superheated steam. The whole
point of uniflows is to avoid the need for superheated steam. You can
do it, but it has nothing to do with the uniflow's operation or
performance.

Other than that minor nitpick, the guy knows what he's talking about.


http://www.cyclonepower.com/

shrug A hyped-up flash-boiler feeding a radial engine. They've been
around for over 100 years.


Intersting.

Note that the feature pushed for the "Cyclone" is fuel flexibility.
That's what drove the Stirling developments in the 1970s, including
Ford's fleet of Stirling-powered postal trucks.

What happened is that we since learned how to burn just about any
liquid or gaseous fuel in IC engines, and they have many advantages.

Bunker fuel will burn in a pickup truck?

If we're reduced to bunker oil, it will mean that your pickup truck is
too hot with radiation to drive, and you'll either be deep underground
or dead.

Do you have bunker oil stations in Taft?

--
Ed Huntress