XPost: soc.history.what-if, alt.mechanical.engineering, sci.physics
XPost: sci.chem
From: Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com
There were many steam vehicles in the teens to the twentys. Then along came
the internal combustion engine with the electric starter.
The steam cars were winning all the world land speed records at the time. A
20 horsepower steam engine had 600 ft/lbs of torque!
They were going 200 miles per hour back then!.
A steam car would probably be more efficient and environmentally friendly
with today's technology. You could burn corn or wood pellets and hook it to
a generator for a steam/electric car. You could also keep it running after
getting home to power your house and use the waste steam in your house
radiators for heat. Wouldn't Exxon hate that!
"Gulliver" wrote in message
news:357a8890.0407191135.2bd34ee5@posting.google.com...
> winnim3@yahoo.com (Gulliver) wrote in message
news:<357a8890.0407182242.705354fe@posting.google.com>...
> > "Pete Lynn" wrote in message
news:<1090201971.456777@kyle.snap.net.nz>...
> > > "Gulliver" wrote in message
> > > news:357a8890.0407181128.1ca8d3ee@posting.google.com...
> > > > So. Question. In summary, were the early objections against
> > > > over-the-road locomotion versus over-rails locomotion sound?
> > > ...
> > > Pete.
> >
> > So is the general consensus that, (A): lack of early power
> > capabilities among the different types of early steam engines, and
> > lack of good shock absorbers and power trains, meant that the
> > requirements for the building of the types of roads that early road
> > vehicles could actually use, in terms of friction and slope gradients,
> > made them unfeasible in comparison with the optimisation of scale and
> > the frictional properties, that would come with use of steel rails for
> > contact with the ground?
> >
> > Or is the consensus generally that, (B): it was all false, and that
> > railroads were ultimately the result of mistaken conceptions about the
> > ultimate feasibility of ground locomotion without rails, considering
> > the fabrication technology that existed at the time. And that the
> > failure of early road based steam power, mostly came from regulation
> > and from partial quasi-monopolistic competition with horse coaches,
> > which kept them from being developed to their complete potential early
> > on, or at least mistaken ideas about the practical feasibility of
> > mechanised road transit, allowing rail transport to be given the more
> > critical levels of development, that would give them the ability to
> > obtain the higher and more continuous reliable speeds that would be
> > needed, to give them more tangible advantages over horses?
> >
> > If one could have halted all railroad development, is it reasonable to
> > say that the later 19th century would have been one notable for the
> > heavy use of steam vehicles on roads, or were the design barriers
> > real, when it came to 19th century fabrication technology?
>
>
> http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter4.html
>
> http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/
>
> So, so far I have gotten a few tangential statements slightly in favor
> of (B), however, no one on usenet yet so far has seemed to know much
> one way or the other about the specific subject, and so either from
> duplicity or from lack of knowledge, can not truthfully say much one
> way or the other about it.
>
> I will try to crosspost to a few more groups.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 7/16/2004
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
