http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

In article ,
"Steve B" wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

It'd sure be nice and cozy come come January in Minnesota too... and oh
so safe and attractive!

Jeeze, could you imagine the din of a simi-dense residential area loaded
up with these things? No one would ever sleep...

Amazing they even built a prototype, let alone production models.

Erik

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:58:09 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc


Very cool! "Hey, Mr. Jaywalker!" Vrooooooooooooom!
A human Veg-a-Matic!

--
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare;
it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.
-- Seneca

On 2009-11-24, Steve B wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

Very amazing indeed!

i

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:58:09 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc


Fascinating!!!

Change the prop to a steel one and put up a decent windshield with
good...good wipers and one could have all sorts of fun at an ACORN
sponsored street demonstration.

VVBG

Gunner

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

They had a special on a while back on Jay Leno's vehicles. One was a
motorcycle with a helicopter turbine engine. They were discussing it, and
Jay said the big drawback was there was a 1-2 second throttle lag. You
turned the throttle on, and it was 1-2 seconds before it kicked in. You
shut off the throttle, and there was a 1-2 second delay until deceleration.
He said he rode it, but it was scary. When asked top speed, he quoted the
top RPM of the turbine, but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

This car would have the same problems, and would have to be driven on wide
open straight areas with little turning, stopping, or starting.

But it is unusual, and very interesting that some metal worker geek put it
all together with state of the art elements from his era. Quite a car.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc



hmmmm Flow-Thru Ventilation (tm)

On Nov 24, 1:44*am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:44*am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.

The Stanley Steamer was about 50 years ahead of it's time, then the
auto industry took a left turn to internal combustion and never looked
back.

If they could mass-produce the boilers so they were an easy swap-out
when they had problems, they would be the answer to lots of our energy
problems.

Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

And with computers it could start and run itself safely, and only
need a few minutes warmup before you could drive.

We know how to build a suspension system now.

-- Bruce --

On Nov 24, 11:54*am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
* Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

-- Bruce --

"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:44 am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.

The Stanley Steamer was about 50 years ahead of it's time, then the
auto industry took a left turn to internal combustion and never looked
back.

If they could mass-produce the boilers so they were an easy swap-out
when they had problems, they would be the answer to lots of our energy
problems.

Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

And with computers it could start and run itself safely, and only
need a few minutes warmup before you could drive.

We know how to build a suspension system now.

-- Bruce --

Hmmmmmmmmmm. That would be an interesting metalworking project. You'd get
to be in ALL the parades, get on Good Morning America, get to have lunch
with liberal political photo ops. That would be good. Except for the
liberal political photo ops part.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

I've spent enough time 6 feet behind a propeller
that I'd only want to do it if I was 5000 feet
over the earth or going 120 mph.

Here's sort of the inverse. Old farts will
recognize the engine immediately...

http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper002.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper004.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper003.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper001.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper005.jpg

It belongs to my neighbor at the airport.

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:54 am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

-- Bruce --

"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

Think Nukuler!

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:54:38 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:44*am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.

The Stanley Steamer was about 50 years ahead of it's time, then the
auto industry took a left turn to internal combustion and never looked
back.

If they could mass-produce the boilers so they were an easy swap-out
when they had problems, they would be the answer to lots of our energy
problems.

Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

And with computers it could start and run itself safely, and only
need a few minutes warmup before you could drive.

We know how to build a suspension system now.

-- Bruce --


One of my favorite online comics....

http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php


Gunner

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:06:56 -0600, the infamous RBnDFW
scrawled the following:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:54 am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

-- Bruce --

"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

Think Nukuler!

That's sure as hell what _I_ want for my next vehicle. Yeah, a
super-duper new Mr. Fusion!

--
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare;
it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.
-- Seneca

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
"RAM³" wrote in
. 10:

jeff wrote in
news:92oog51birohvumuk8s6sjadh37b0ss4p5 @4ax.com:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:58:09 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

I can only imagine what a deer or even a moose up here in Maine would
look like comming out the back side of that thing.......


I'd sure hate to be in that contraption along the Texas Gulf
Coast...Given the large cloulds of millions of salt-water mosquitos
common to this area.

Before a Manysodan starts making claims about their "State Bird",
those things are totally innocuous whereas these things kill cattle
each year.

I make no claim to knowing which state has the biggest, nasiest
mosquitos. I do remember being surprised on a fishing trip in Wyoming
that theirs were large enough that you could kill them in mid-air with an
open hand swat. Too much mass to get blown out of the way, and enough
mass that the impact would kill them.

Doug White

Heck, one foggy night at Randolph AFB, in 1957 a mosquito landed on our ramp
and we put 40 gal of avgas into him before the chief determined he was not
just another B-25.

Flash

On Nov 24, 6:35*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
...

Our skeeters in Jersey have twin engines. But sea robins are our state bird.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress-

Those long-legged critters with the inch-plus wingspans are actually
harmless crane flies.
http://www.highroad.org/ranch%20imag...nefly-hand.jpg

jsw, glad we don't have chiggers in NH.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 6:35 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
...

Our skeeters in Jersey have twin engines. But sea robins are our state
bird.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress-

Those long-legged critters with the inch-plus wingspans are actually
harmless crane flies.
http://www.highroad.org/ranch%20imag...nefly-hand.jpg

Shhhh!! We use them to scare New York beach tourists away.

We call the crane flies "Jersey skeeters." We know they don't bite. We just
don't want the people from Long Island and Westchester to know. We even tell
them that if they get bitten, they'll need to get to the hospital for an
emergency transfusion. d8-)

And the real mosquitos here are high-quality birds, capable of raising havoc
at any outdoors event.

But this is the thing we're proudest of. We have, not 61, not 62, but 63
different species of mosquitos in New Jersey! That's more than one species
for every NJ politician arrested for corruption in an average year:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/njspp.htm

jsw, glad we don't have chiggers in NH.

But you have blackflies. I've been bitten by them, up near the Canadian
border. Ugh.

--
Ed Huntress

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


But this is the thing we're proudest of. We have, not 61, not 62, but 63
different species of mosquitos in New Jersey! That's more than one
species for every NJ politician arrested for corruption in an average
year:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/njspp.htm

jsw, glad we don't have chiggers in NH.

But you have blackflies. I've been bitten by them, up near the Canadian
border. Ugh.

--
Ed Huntress


wow, 63 species. i figured there were maybe 3 species.

Impressive, huh? We don't fool around here. I think that Rutgers
Agricultural Extension Service cross-breeds them for toughness and
resistance to toxic waste. d8-)

thank god and knock on wood we don't have blackflies here in s.e. new
york state, or at least like they have in NH. many years ago i went on a
fishing trip with my brothers to NH. never experienced this before. i
opened the car door, stepped out and within 2 or 3 seconds was swarmed
with blackflies. they were in my eyes, up my nose, in my ears and down my
throat. was gagging on swallowed blackflies. in my entire life up to
that point i never had to use one of those hat-net things, they were an
absolute necessity there, was fumbling with it trying to put it on as fast
as possible. if the net got a fold in it and touched your skin they'd
find it and be biting you there, was incredible. they were biting me all
over. i was in a mild state of panic thinking "jeez, if you were stranded
in the wilderness with these bugs they could KILL you!" i mean, either
directly or indirectly, like you'd starve to death or die of dehydration
constantly swatting them off of yourself. maybe we just happened to step
into some localized concentration of 'em, but if it's like that all over
in NH i'd want to shoot myself if i lived there. can't imagine what it
would be like to enter a cloud of 'em like they have in alaska (saw it in
a movie).

b.w.

Yes, blackflies are God's reminder that we're not really necessary to the
continuance of the planet, and that he might decide to dispense with us at
any time. They are the Harpies from Hell. The soul of Satan resides inside
of each one. They are vile, ugly, and mean...but don't get me started. g

My dad went fishing in upper Quebec province once upon a time, without
headgear, and when he got home his head looked like a pumpkin that had been
shot with a few loads of birdshot. And he was born in NH and should have
known better. I'll never forget it, and I was four years old at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


But this is the thing we're proudest of. We have, not 61, not 62, but 63
different species of mosquitos in New Jersey! That's more than one species
for every NJ politician arrested for corruption in an average year:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/njspp.htm

jsw, glad we don't have chiggers in NH.

But you have blackflies. I've been bitten by them, up near the Canadian
border. Ugh.

--
Ed Huntress


wow, 63 species. i figured there were maybe 3 species.
thank god and knock on wood we don't have blackflies here in s.e. new york
state, or at least like they have in NH. many years ago i went on a fishing
trip with my brothers to NH. never experienced this before. i opened the
car door, stepped out and within 2 or 3 seconds was swarmed with blackflies.
they were in my eyes, up my nose, in my ears and down my throat. was
gagging on swallowed blackflies. in my entire life up to that point i never
had to use one of those hat-net things, they were an absolute necessity
there, was fumbling with it trying to put it on as fast as possible. if the
net got a fold in it and touched your skin they'd find it and be biting you
there, was incredible. they were biting me all over. i was in a mild state
of panic thinking "jeez, if you were stranded in the wilderness with these
bugs they could KILL you!" i mean, either directly or indirectly, like
you'd starve to death or die of dehydration constantly swatting them off of
yourself. maybe we just happened to step into some localized concentration
of 'em, but if it's like that all over in NH i'd want to shoot myself if i
lived there. can't imagine what it would be like to enter a cloud of 'em
like they have in alaska (saw it in a movie).

b.w.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 1:44 am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.


Stanley Steamers were a neat car! I had a ride in one once.

Steve R.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:05:06 -0500, "Flash" wrote:


"Doug White" wrote in message
...
"RAM³" wrote in
. 10:

jeff wrote in
news:92oog51birohvumuk8s6sjadh37b0ss4p5 @4ax.com:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:58:09 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

I can only imagine what a deer or even a moose up here in Maine would
look like comming out the back side of that thing.......


I'd sure hate to be in that contraption along the Texas Gulf
Coast...Given the large cloulds of millions of salt-water mosquitos
common to this area.

Before a Manysodan starts making claims about their "State Bird",
those things are totally innocuous whereas these things kill cattle
each year.

I make no claim to knowing which state has the biggest, nasiest
mosquitos. I do remember being surprised on a fishing trip in Wyoming
that theirs were large enough that you could kill them in mid-air with an
open hand swat. Too much mass to get blown out of the way, and enough
mass that the impact would kill them.

Doug White

Heck, one foggy night at Randolph AFB, in 1957 a mosquito landed on our ramp
and we put 40 gal of avgas into him before the chief determined he was not
just another B-25.

Flash



Oh ye of little faith, He ain't (necessarily) making it up ;-)

British mosquito:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:05:06 -0500, "Flash"
wrote:



Heck, one foggy night at Randolph AFB, in 1957 a mosquito landed on our
ramp
and we put 40 gal of avgas into him before the chief determined he was not
just another B-25.

Flash



Oh ye of little faith, He ain't (necessarily) making it up ;-)

British mosquito:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito


Mark Rand
RTFM


yeah, that's the way i read it the first time (wood aircraft) but then
re-read it and started to see the joke. that's awesome, to have seen,
touched, and interacted positively with a real flying de havilland mosquito.

b.w.

On Nov 25, 12:44*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"William Wixon" wrote in message

My dad went fishing in upper Quebec province once upon a time, without
headgear, and when he got home his head looked like a pumpkin that had been
shot with a few loads of birdshot. And he was born in NH and should have
known better. I'll never forget it, and I was four years old at the time.

Ed Huntress

I wear a broad-brimmed boonie hat (camo, so they can't see it) loaded
with repellant. It masks the IR signature of my head pretty well and I
don't need to spray much on my skin. When they are really hungry I
drape a net over it, the brim makes it hang far enough out to prevent
skin contact.

jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:

I do have a thermonuclear clothes dryer.

jsw
We been using one of those for over 50 yrs.
...lew...

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:57:29 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:06:56 -0600, the infamous RBnDFW
scrawled the following:

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:54 am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

-- Bruce --

"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

Think Nukuler!

That's sure as hell what _I_ want for my next vehicle. Yeah, a
super-duper new Mr. Fusion!

Hell, I'll be glad to sell you a Brand New Mr. Fusion! Zero hours!

(Quickly makes new "Mr. Fusion" labels and covers up the factory
markings on the Krups Type 57 coffee mill sitting on the shelf behind
the computer...)

They make catalytic converters for the hamburger grease smoke on
restaurant char-broilers, I don't think that little boiler is a
problem that cant be solved.

-- Bruce --

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:10:55 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:44 am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.

The Stanley Steamer was about 50 years ahead of it's time, then the
auto industry took a left turn to internal combustion and never looked
back.

If they could mass-produce the boilers so they were an easy swap-out
when they had problems, they would be the answer to lots of our energy
problems.

Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

And with computers it could start and run itself safely, and only
need a few minutes warmup before you could drive.

We know how to build a suspension system now.

-- Bruce --

Hmmmmmmmmmm. That would be an interesting metalworking project. You'd get
to be in ALL the parades, get on Good Morning America, get to have lunch
with liberal political photo ops. That would be good. Except for the
liberal political photo ops part.

The boiler section is long proven nsafe and efficient, just dust off
the Stanley design, scale it up and down in fixed steps for future
backwards replacement compatibility (16" 20" and 24" sizes at a stated
output...) because they do wear out, and start building.

The burner and stoker (for solid fuels) and the control systems are
the big bugaboo that will take some serious work. Triple expansion
motors and Condensers are easy, but getting the cylinder oil out of
the water before you feed it back to the boiler it is always a
challenge.

Modernizing the controls and sensors so it can run automatically and
unattended isn't bad, they have continued building steam boilers - you
just have to miniaturize control gear built for a 100MW power plant
down to the proper size to work on a car.

But once the "Mainstream Media" finds out a conservative was working
on it to solve part of our energy problems, all that free press
disappears. Bill O'Reilly tops the bestseller lists for months, and
cant get arrested on TV or even reviewed in the MSM newspapers...

Sarah Palin writes a book, and the MSM puts fourteen fact-cherckers
on it looking for any tiny inconsistency...

But Al Gore lies his head off and not only doesn't get the data he
trots out checked, he gets all the free press they can throw at him.
Go figure.

-- Bruce --

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:34:45 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:


One of my favorite online comics....

http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php

And you heard about it from who...?

cue the Jeopardy! theme, and toss the Estate of Merv Griffin two
cents for the royalties...

;-P

-- Bruce --

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:10:55 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:22:57 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:44 am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.

The Stanley Steamer was about 50 years ahead of it's time, then the
auto industry took a left turn to internal combustion and never looked
back.

If they could mass-produce the boilers so they were an easy swap-out
when they had problems, they would be the answer to lots of our energy
problems.

Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

And with computers it could start and run itself safely, and only
need a few minutes warmup before you could drive.

We know how to build a suspension system now.

-- Bruce --

Hmmmmmmmmmm. That would be an interesting metalworking project. You'd
get
to be in ALL the parades, get on Good Morning America, get to have lunch
with liberal political photo ops. That would be good. Except for the
liberal political photo ops part.

The boiler section is long proven nsafe and efficient, just dust off
the Stanley design, scale it up and down in fixed steps for future
backwards replacement compatibility (16" 20" and 24" sizes at a stated
output...) because they do wear out, and start building.

The burner and stoker (for solid fuels) and the control systems are
the big bugaboo that will take some serious work. Triple expansion
motors and Condensers are easy, but getting the cylinder oil out of
the water before you feed it back to the boiler it is always a
challenge.

Modernizing the controls and sensors so it can run automatically and
unattended isn't bad, they have continued building steam boilers - you
just have to miniaturize control gear built for a 100MW power plant
down to the proper size to work on a car.

To modernize the handling of solid fuel, you'll need a little robot with a
shovel, who sings "16 Tons" while he's stoking the boiler.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:13 -0800, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:06*pm, RBnDFW wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:54 am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

Think Nukuler!

Chernobyl or TMI?

More people have been killed in Teddy Kennedy's car than have been killed
by civilian nuclear power accidents in the USA.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Let the Record show that Jim Wilkins on or about
Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:00:23 -0800 (PST) did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Nov 24, 11:54*am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
* Because you can run a boiler on practically anything that will burn,
as long as you can come up with a burner for a liquid or a stoker to
feed it in. Used vegetable oil, wood pellets, ground corncobs...

-- Bruce --

"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

But with a steamer, it is external combustion. So the problems
attendant on internal combustion (high pressure and temperature
chemistry) aren't there. Now, it does have the potential for a
problem with particulates )fly ash, soot) but that is "smog" of a
different color.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"Steve R." wrote in news:HG5Pm.49622$W77.44652
@newsfe11.iad:


"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
news:154196a3-6f43-4211-bd95-1faa1a9a3810
@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 1:44 am, "Steve B" wrote:
...but said that no one who had ever ridden it anywhere
would take it anywhere near that high speed.

Steve

I've heard that about Stanley Steamers, too. They had the suspension
of a horse-drawn wagon.


Stanley Steamers were a neat car! I had a ride in one once.

I got to drive a friend's several years ago. What a hoot! You needed
three hands to work all the controls to signal, slow down & make a turn.
No "vroom", just "chuf chuf chuf" as you accelerated.

Doug White

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:
snip
The burner and stoker (for solid fuels) and the control systems are
the big bugaboo that will take some serious work. Triple expansion
motors and Condensers are easy, but getting the cylinder oil out of
the water before you feed it back to the boiler it is always a
challenge.

Modernizing the controls and sensors so it can run automatically and
unattended isn't bad, they have continued building steam boilers -
you just have to miniaturize control gear built for a 100MW power
plant down to the proper size to work on a car.

To modernize the handling of solid fuel, you'll need a little robot
with a shovel, who sings "16 Tons" while he's stoking the boiler.

Why not base it on pellet stove technology?

A friend of mine uses a pellet stove for heat. He has a big hopper in
the garage labeled "Purina Stove Chow".

Doug White

Jim Wilkins wrote:


I do have a thermonuclear clothes dryer.

jsw


I guess I'm due for an upgrade,
mine is only solar.


technomaNge
--

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:
snip
The burner and stoker (for solid fuels) and the control systems are
the big bugaboo that will take some serious work. Triple expansion
motors and Condensers are easy, but getting the cylinder oil out of
the water before you feed it back to the boiler it is always a
challenge.

Modernizing the controls and sensors so it can run automatically and
unattended isn't bad, they have continued building steam boilers -
you just have to miniaturize control gear built for a 100MW power
plant down to the proper size to work on a car.

To modernize the handling of solid fuel, you'll need a little robot
with a shovel, who sings "16 Tons" while he's stoking the boiler.

Why not base it on pellet stove technology?

Eh, it's possible, but you'd need a big hopper -- maybe you'd want to tow a
tender. g Its energy density is roughly 1/3 that of gasoline, per unit
weight; energy density per unit volume is slightly better. So a 55-gallon
hopper would be equal to a 20-gallon gas tank, not including the screw or
other feed mechanism.


A friend of mine uses a pellet stove for heat. He has a big hopper in
the garage labeled "Purina Stove Chow".

Can he put wheels on it? He might get across the state line with that. g

Steam engines without recuperators and other complexities aren't very
efficient to begin with. And starting up in the morning would be a bit...er,
slow.

However, they're fun to think about.

--
Ed Huntress

Capture and loose 10 of each (or 1000) and loose them in
the capitol buildings there - might shake them up!

Martin

snip
wow, 63 species. i figured there were maybe 3 species.

Impressive, huh? We don't fool around here. I think that Rutgers
Agricultural Extension Service cross-breeds them for toughness and
resistance to toxic waste. d8-)

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:24:53 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Steve B wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dv-gl6RCGc

I've spent enough time 6 feet behind a propeller
that I'd only want to do it if I was 5000 feet
over the earth or going 120 mph.

Here's sort of the inverse. Old farts will
recognize the engine immediately...

http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper002.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper004.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper003.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper001.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper005.jpg

It belongs to my neighbor at the airport.

He can keep it. Model A engine sitting backwards with a magneto
kludged on the nose of the crank... That's a little too far to the
"wing and a prayer" side of Homebuilt. A Lycoming or Continental
where I don't have to worry about an "Oh, ****..." moment.

And the instrrument panel is past sparse, and bordering on "guess" -
No compass, no electrical at all, no nav lights, no transponder, no
radio...

A Piper Cub, a Grumman Goose, maybe a Huey. But that's as far back
as I'm going to hop in - while conscious. You'll have to A-Team me.

And NO Ospreys, them things are death-traps.

-- Bruce --

On Nov 25, 10:33*pm, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:24:53 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:

http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper002.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper004.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper003.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper001.jpg
http://grumpyoldgeek.com/images/AirCamper005.jpg

It belongs to my neighbor at the airport.

He can keep it. *Model A engine sitting backwards with a magneto
kludged on the nose of the crank... *.

* -- Bruce ---

Look up that tail number.

jsw

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:49:54 -0800, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:13 -0800, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:06*pm, RBnDFW wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:54 am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
...
"anything that will burn" makes the necessary emission controls a
nightmare.

Think Nukuler!

Chernobyl or TMI?

More people have been killed in Teddy Kennedy's car than have been killed
by civilian nuclear power accidents in the USA.

Amen! There have been a few recorded deaths (though they were
hushed up for many years) in the 'Military and Experimental" category
of nuclear power generation, but none in the civilian realm.

Chernobyl had no containment building, just a 'warehouse'. Three
Mile Island stayed contained - Barely. But "almost" only counts in
Horseshoes and Chicago Pineapples.

-- Bruce --

Let the Record show that Lewis Hartswick on
or about Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:38:33 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

I do have a thermonuclear clothes dryer.

jsw
We been using one of those for over 50 yrs.
...lew...

After years of R&D, you find you are cutting edge!

Marvelous, isn't it.

pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!