http://www.steamcar.co.uk/

http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm
another alternative, it's funny how absolutely no one seems to know about this one.

And how many other alternative technologies are there that no one seems to ever hear about? I do like the statement of the British Steam Car Challenge about creating excitement in the arena of alternate fuels, and the desire to create interest in cleaner and safer forms of transportation.

I have one for you. It appears that there is a rather simple and logical technology which will allow existing automotive and industrial engines to operate much cleaner, while experiencing a marked increase in fuel efficiency. It is a new type of combined-cycle, internal combustion, steam engine. To learn about this amazing technology, visit http://desakrisson.topcities.com

I would like to hear any comments or discussion by other readers who have taken the time to seriously investigate this site.

I saw this on The Daily Show. It's on YouTube. Why stop with cars? Steam power iPods! Well, he said something like that.
Anyway, I don't know much about modern steam power, but how much energy would be needed to turn the water into steam? I'm sure we're not gonna burn coal, wood, junk mail, or whatever to do it. Seems like it would require quite a bit. But, maybe it could work.

This is a great lil deal here id sure like one of them

I like that Little SMART car too i saw some in europe they are cool

Comments: Steam has been notoriously inefficient in automotive applications. There are problems: first, any real attempt to make this practical will be met with resistance from the economic powers. Second, the size of the automobile limits the number of reclamation possibilities. Third, most states in the US still have stupid laws on the books that make it illegal to run a steam power plant without having a steam engineer's license. If some research is done in steam power, you would find (in the Electrical Engineer's Handbook) that the average steam power generation plant has an efficiency around 86%, primarily due to the efficiency of the turbine and the recovery/re-use of heat energy. Turbines can be built to be quite efficient, since there is one moving part; recovery of waste heat to preheat incoming water is a large factor.
The question then becomes how to do these things in a small enough package to use in an auto. With research, I suspect that it could be done, quite possibly by some adventurous soul working in his garage.
Advantages of steam are numerous: you can remove gearboxes and increase overall efficiency; you can use multiple expansion engines; you can use either turbine or piston; you can use anything that will burn as fuel; and, since they are external combustion, you can operate any way you need to decrease pollution, with little effect on the efficiency of the primary power source.

Now, about the steam/IC technology. This type of technology was developed long ago, during WWII, for bombers. It was used in several different engine configurations, most notable being the "corncob" radial, four banks of seven cylinders. The engine put 2000 hp to the prop; water injection was used for higher altitudes (to provide cylinder cooling), but upon testing, it was found that the injection increased horsepower to 2700, ultimately increasing the total hp by 2800 (4 x 700). Obviously, emissions were not tested. The fact remains that the injection dramatically increase hp, and would do the same in an automotive application.

I like steam, and I like electric... Both offer capabilities beyond the capacity of IC engines.

is a read this post, i tought is sounded familiar, than i looked at the name.
welcome back sir.

Thats one of the ugliest damn cars I've ever seen! lol. Just my opinion

I suppose the buzz-phrase in alternative fuels these days is 'carbon footprint'. I haven't researched how carbon-efficient the various technologies are, although I have read that steam power is notoriously carbon inefficient (I'm ready to stand corrected).

With electric cars it may seem carbon-efficient for the individual, however are we just shifting the carbon footprint to another area of the energy economy? To power (charge) these vehicles in quantity equivalent to todays' use of IC vehicles may require the construction or upgrading of power plants which will increase the overall emissions (although nuclear may offset this).

More thoughts from everyone about this?

no, steam power is exactly that, power of steam, how you get presurised steam is another question. every steam engine needs boiler of some sort, as of now it's by burning fossile fuels, mostly. nuclear reactor is another way, but it's not for cars, at this time.
electic cars i think is the future, they are much simpler, than ic cars, power sources, are improving. power grid is sufficiant enough for them, to charge, that is if you charge them from power grid, but there are other ways.
right now the only manufacturer of electric cars(not golf carts) is tesla motors, their electric roadster goes from 0-60 in 4 sec. range is 250 miles.

check out this site, there is planty of interesting stuf.
http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm
the main reason we tied to fossile fuels, is becouse there is huge amount of money made, on thiss addiction. politycal and economical reasons,

Thanks. Had to come back, at least for a while. Maybe I can just add thoughts without getting the "educated idiots" p. o.'d and making their personal attacks.

Current alternative research is oriented towards building fuels usable in IC engines to replace oil, right? Consider that in the case of steam power, the fuel can be nearly anything that will burn. There are no currently available production IC engines that will even approach the 86% efficiency I previously mentioned, so it must be considered that if an auto could utilize the same or similar existing technology to reach that efficiency, it would be more carbon efficient, wouldn't it?
Secondly, electric cars don't necessarily need to be "plugged in". Toyota, some years ago, offered the RAV4 as a purely electric commuter. It has since been removed from the market. At least one of the owners of this vehicle has installed a solar array to charge batteries for the car, and never needs to plug the thing in. That is quite carbon efficient, since no fuel is used at all after the initial manufacture of the cells.
The biggest problem with electric propulsion is that range is limited. However, if a proper hybrid were manufactured, range could be dramatically increased, pollution held to a minimum, and overall efficiency driven way up...
Here's the reasoning: hybrid cars currently available use electric as an addition to IC power. None of these hybrids is (as a production model) capable of more than a few miles under electric power. This needs to be reversed, such that the IC is nothing more than a charging plant, and all propulsive power is from the electric. Those who object that electric motors can't put out enough power, I refer you to diesel-electric locomotives, in which ALL propulsive power is from the electrics. The diesel is part of a genset, and none of the diesel's mechanical output is diverted to the drive; that is all accomplished through traction motors. These locomotives pull millions of pounds of train and freight, still obtaining what must be considered incredible mileage compared to an auto.
With electrics, it is also possible to utilize various means of decreasing motor current requirements with varying conditions. One that comes to mind is to start the vehicle using a series would DC motor, and when underway changing the configuration to a parallel wound motor, requiring a smaller input to keep the vehicle moving. So during higher power requirement periods, the motor is used one way, and during lower requirements the other. This increases the overall efficiency, similar to switching off some of the cylinders of an IC engine.
Another method was developed at a motor manufacturing company in LA. A unique configuration of rotor-stator sets up the possibility of switching off a field (open field) during the time that part of the rotor is entering the stator field, thus decreasing the back emf of the motor. The larger problem with this aspect is that while back emf decreases, current requirements increase vs voltage requirements. Those who aren't familiar with dc motor design must understand that one of the things that occurs with these is that as the drive/speed increases, the capacity to act as a generator also increases back emf; this means that a higher voltage than apparent must be applied to increase the motor speed/power to overcome the increased back emf. The motor referred to removes much of the back emf problem, but at the cost of increased low speed current flow, and decreased voltage requirements. Put simply, the configuration makes the motor look more like a passive resistance and less like a reactive element.

There is a lot we could do if we really wanted to cut back on carbon fuels.

Oh God. Its the big Oil Company Conspicy theory. You guys are embarrasing, and your Socialist tendencies are frightening. Those that promote this kind of propaganda are evil.

RabidCat, thanks for the info

What about the hydrogen IC (or fuel-cell) engine? I'm not so worried about the overall efficiency of the propulsive method (although obviously that's an advantage) but the detrimental environmental effects. The waste product of hydrogen combustion is water vapour and this would seem to be a cleaner system. The only real issue I see with changing to hydrogen is replacing all the infrastructure but perhaps you have other knowledge you can disperse?

I would concede that a purely electric drive-train would seem to be the most environmentally friendly, but the motorist (like me) wants a but of 'grunt' as well and hydrogen combustion may be a good, all-round solution.

dude electrics are faster, ever heard of tesla roadster, 0-60 in 4 sec, or ev1, wasnt slow, or x1 that killed porshe, and ferrari in 1\4 mile. or elica 8wheeled limo, 0-60 in 4 sec.
hydrogen overcomplicate things. it's b.s.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/EV/