WI: Internal combustion engine never invented, electric + steam engines still exist?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
Hoist40
Banned
Here you go, though if they burnt oil there would be a lot less smoke.
http://youtu.be/AItKnbfREIg
In the 1960's several US auto builders experimented with steam cars because they were easier to make clean burning then contemporary internal combustion engines.
Also if you include a condenser with the steam engine you don't have to worry about constantly having to add more water to the vehicle like the video above shows. Overall however the steam vehicle would be a little less efficient then a internal combustion one.
If the truck is too big then maybe a steam motorcycle is more your size
http://youtu.be/0gkgoNTBLdE
http://youtu.be/AItKnbfREIg
In the 1960's several US auto builders experimented with steam cars because they were easier to make clean burning then contemporary internal combustion engines.
Also if you include a condenser with the steam engine you don't have to worry about constantly having to add more water to the vehicle like the video above shows. Overall however the steam vehicle would be a little less efficient then a internal combustion one.
If the truck is too big then maybe a steam motorcycle is more your size
http://youtu.be/0gkgoNTBLdE
Last edited:
You effectively make long-range road travel impossible. Steam cars are impractical compared to rail, & electrics are really no good for long ranges. (Did somebody say steam-electric hybrid...?
)
You've also created an environmental disaster: the batteries for those electrics are going to wear out, & when they do, they become toxic waste. Not to mention the enormous increase in power demand to charge them. You think acid rain was bad OTL? Imagine it if it had to power millions of cars, too.
It would have beneficial effects. Do you suppose the residents of Nevada & Utah would stand for acid rain so Angelinos can have their cars? I seriously doubt it... So you'd see a national clean air standard akin to OTL California's much sooner.
It does mean the auto industry is deeply stunted compared to OTL, which means the steel industry is also much smaller, too... It probably means you don't ever see Detroit becoming the center of auto production; batch makers in New England & elsewhere could keep up with the North American demand much longer TTL. (Maybe not; the area around Detroit was a major wagon-making center, & between that & the bicycle industry...)
You've probably made cyclecars like the Morgan 3-wheelers more popular/common, as well as the likes of the '59 Mini, the Fiat 500 & 124, & the Honda Beat or Daihatsu Copen, among others.
)You've also created an environmental disaster: the batteries for those electrics are going to wear out, & when they do, they become toxic waste.
Not to mention the enormous increase in power demand to charge them. You think acid rain was bad OTL? Imagine it if it had to power millions of cars, too. It would have beneficial effects. Do you suppose the residents of Nevada & Utah would stand for acid rain so Angelinos can have their cars?
I seriously doubt it... So you'd see a national clean air standard akin to OTL California's much sooner.It does mean the auto industry is deeply stunted compared to OTL, which means the steel industry is also much smaller, too... It probably means you don't ever see Detroit becoming the center of auto production; batch makers in New England & elsewhere could keep up with the North American demand much longer TTL. (Maybe not; the area around Detroit was a major wagon-making center, & between that & the bicycle industry...)
You've probably made cyclecars like the Morgan 3-wheelers more popular/common, as well as the likes of the '59 Mini,
the Fiat 500 & 124, & the Honda Beat or Daihatsu Copen, among others.No ICE age?
Off the top of my head, here are a few things that would butterfly from this:
1) Automobiles probably won't be as popular, as affordable, or as high-performance as in our timeline. Electric vehicles will be heavier and more expensive than an internal-combustion vehicle of similar performance due to the weight and cost of the battery packs required. They will probably also suffer from range problems for the same reason. Steam vehicles will probably be heavier and more expensive as well...boilers and condensers aren't cheap, nor are they low-maintenance. Steam also isn't as convenient....it can take several minutes to bring a boiler up from "cold" to "making steam". Even a crank-started gasoline engine is more convenient. Steam also isn't as easy to operate. In an internal-combustion (gas or diesel) vehicle, you need to watch RPM, water temperature, oil pressure and oil temperature. For a steam vehicle, add in steam pressure, firebox temperature, condenser temperature and pressure...it's a lot to watch.
2) More mass transit. A lot of the drawbacks of steam fade fairly fast as the vehicle gets larger....the mass of a boiler might make a family car a slow, hard-to-handle barge...but the impact of boiler mass on a 100K lb long-haul truck? Considerably less. Add in the economy of scale with the increased cost of a personal vehicle, and the bus suddenly looks more attractive.
3) Smaller cities. Without personal transportation, the suburbs won't look quite as attractive...suburban sprawl will still happen, but I can't see it being as extensive as it is in our timeline.
4) No (or at best, very little) air traffic. Steam has a definite 'issue' in terms of horsepower per pound of engine, and the first generations of heavier-than-air aircraft were already teetering on the edge in terms of power. Without internal combustion, those first-generation pioneers won't be able to get their machines off the ground. I don't even want to *think* about early-generation (hydrogen-filled) zeppelins....if the steam engine is below the gas bag, one flying cinder or spark hitting the envelope is going to make life *very* interesting. If the steam engine is above the gas bag, any (intentionally or otherwise) vented hydrogen is going to lead to another set of 'interesting' outcomes. Of course, you could shift to helium as a lifting gas, but you just cut Germany out of the zeppelin business, which really doesn't leave much.
Off the top of my head, here are a few things that would butterfly from this:
1) Automobiles probably won't be as popular, as affordable, or as high-performance as in our timeline. Electric vehicles will be heavier and more expensive than an internal-combustion vehicle of similar performance due to the weight and cost of the battery packs required. They will probably also suffer from range problems for the same reason. Steam vehicles will probably be heavier and more expensive as well...boilers and condensers aren't cheap, nor are they low-maintenance. Steam also isn't as convenient....it can take several minutes to bring a boiler up from "cold" to "making steam". Even a crank-started gasoline engine is more convenient. Steam also isn't as easy to operate. In an internal-combustion (gas or diesel) vehicle, you need to watch RPM, water temperature, oil pressure and oil temperature. For a steam vehicle, add in steam pressure, firebox temperature, condenser temperature and pressure...it's a lot to watch.
2) More mass transit. A lot of the drawbacks of steam fade fairly fast as the vehicle gets larger....the mass of a boiler might make a family car a slow, hard-to-handle barge...but the impact of boiler mass on a 100K lb long-haul truck? Considerably less. Add in the economy of scale with the increased cost of a personal vehicle, and the bus suddenly looks more attractive.
3) Smaller cities. Without personal transportation, the suburbs won't look quite as attractive...suburban sprawl will still happen, but I can't see it being as extensive as it is in our timeline.
4) No (or at best, very little) air traffic. Steam has a definite 'issue' in terms of horsepower per pound of engine, and the first generations of heavier-than-air aircraft were already teetering on the edge in terms of power. Without internal combustion, those first-generation pioneers won't be able to get their machines off the ground. I don't even want to *think* about early-generation (hydrogen-filled) zeppelins....if the steam engine is below the gas bag, one flying cinder or spark hitting the envelope is going to make life *very* interesting. If the steam engine is above the gas bag, any (intentionally or otherwise) vented hydrogen is going to lead to another set of 'interesting' outcomes. Of course, you could shift to helium as a lifting gas, but you just cut Germany out of the zeppelin business, which really doesn't leave much.
NothingNow
Banned
Ugh. I hate these threads.
Also, with the flash boiler, it takes only half a minute for a Doble Series E for it to be ready for use from cold in freezing weather, and within a minute of ignition, you could be doing 75mph. It'd take about just as long long for a ICE car from the period to accelerate to 60.
In urban areas and for local hauling OTOH, Traction Engines are the shit if you've got a decent engine. An engine of comparable design to the Doble Series E engine would actually be better for most commercial vehicles than an ICE design, especially if you've got a halfway competent mechanic at the shop.
Nope. A Doble-type Steam engine with a half-assed condenser is more than capable of a long distance drive (Doble's condenser would allow 1500 miles off a 24 gallon water tank,) and was pretty efficient (comparable fuel economy, at twice the weight,) and very powerful for it's day (the 1920's,) while being clean, unnervingly quiet, and provides 100% of it's peak torque at all points on the power band.
Also, with the flash boiler, it takes only half a minute for a Doble Series E for it to be ready for use from cold in freezing weather, and within a minute of ignition, you could be doing 75mph. It'd take about just as long long for a ICE car from the period to accelerate to 60.
As are OTL's tractor-trailer units when you're talking long distance work.
In urban areas and for local hauling OTOH, Traction Engines are the shit if you've got a decent engine. An engine of comparable design to the Doble Series E engine would actually be better for most commercial vehicles than an ICE design, especially if you've got a halfway competent mechanic at the shop.
Max Sinister
Banned
How hard would a, let's say, four-cylinder combustion engine be to build, compared to a steam engine?
until the steamturbine comes along, and someone thinks of creating a gasturbine. from that point on airtraffic becomes much more feasible.
internal combustion experiments were already done in the 17th and 18th century. so not that different.
Agreed. Given the headaches steam engines created, I wonder if you don't see much more electrification.Brother Stormhammer said:
It also means interurban rail doesn't disappear.
That had a lot to do with other policies, not least the G.I. Bill (which financed buying new homes but not remodellingBrother Stormhammer said:
) & the mortgage interest deduction (which encourages buying more expensive homes--which need to be in areas of lower property taxes, namely, 'burbs). If you're right & there's less sprawl, you get less CO2, from shorter commutes & less pavement. You also get cities being less destructive to the environment around them, & having less "heat island" effect.
I tend to agree. That said, what are the chances for evolving wing in ground effect aircraft, in the fashion of Hughes' H-4 ("Spruce Goose")?Brother Stormhammer said:
It's also possible you get electric aircraft that resemble gliders.
Given steam is impractical for submarines, & there are no gas/diesel engines, this has a serious impact on sub warfare. Does it encourage fuel cells?
If it does, you've transformed both cars & airplanes, too.I stand corrected.NothingNow said:
For local hauls IMO electrics would be the option of choice, not steam.NothingNow said:
For me, the high pressures & working temperatures needed for practical automotive (as opposed to marine or rail) steam, plus the very high heat rejection necessary, make it very unattractive. You're going to get cars that make the '32 Caddy look small.
Achieving this would be hard, tho. Not least because there were experiments in oddballs like gunpowder engines...
NothingNow
Banned
Not when battery technology sucks, and you can get a 200km range, and over 1000 N·m of torque out of a decently engineered steam-car drivetrain.
For stuff like milk floats though where they aren't expected to go more than 20-30km in a day, electric vehicles are the better option.
Internal combustion engines these days are about as complicated as a practical Steamcar drivetrain needs to be.
The Doble Series E's drivetrain worked at 57bar and 400°C.
Doble's Ultimax engine for the Paxton Phoenix in the 50's put out 120hp sustained and 155hp at peak with the working fluid only being ~108 bar and ~480°C.
Again, not really. The Series E rode on a 3600mm wheelbase, and were directly comparable to 30's Cadillacs in most respects. It's actually about the same size as a Cadillac Series 355 or Series 370, while the Series 452 V-16s were larger, slightly heavier, and about as powerful.You're going to get cars that make the '32 Caddy look small.
Nah, the hard part would be scaling all of Dobles designs to fit in something the size of an old Mini or Volkswagen Type 1. Which, if you're willing to settle for an engine putting out something like 200N·m of torque and maybe 7kw of power (so roughly a 2CV engine) you could do it, and likely keep the weight of the car under a tonne.Achieving this would be hard, tho. Not least because there were experiments in oddballs like gunpowder engines...
I suggest moving this thread to the pre-1900 section. As far as I know, the first attempts at creating an internal combustion engine were made in early 1800s (using pellets of black gunpowder, no less, that were fed into the ignition chamber!)
The practical IC engine, the Lenoir's one, has been produced, if the Wiki is a reliable source, in 1859. The Otto engine, the one that fitted better for non-stationary use, has appeared in the late 1860s, and the four-stroke Daimler one, in the late 1870s. Even the Diesel engine, that's still the XIXth century (its very tail end, but anyway).
As for the repercussions, I think, they would be enormous. Without the concurrence from the reasonably perfected IC engines, there would probably be nothing like to the OTL Doble motor car and Besler aeroplane. The (few) steam, and electric cars would have seen their use limited to the urban areas, with the steam ones requiring a professional engineer for a driver (thus limiting their use even further and almost excluding the possibility of a middle-class oriented steam car). This would have stifled the post-WW2 style suburban sprawl as we know it, leaving the Metro-land (or the streetcar suburbia) the only viable model of suburbanization. The mass transit would be mostly rail-based, probably with some trolley bus or battery-powered electric bus lines as a cheaper replacement for the full-fledged tramways.
Socially, the lack of cheaply available motor cars and easily accessible private homes might lead indirectly to lesser degrees of consumerism compared to OTL. Without the car, there are no strip malls, and without the car-based suburbanisation, the mail order business, while being more popular than IOTL is something that marks its end user as living in a backwater area and having no access to proper shops with the real deal to sell (just as buying on eBay and, God forbid, Taobao does sometimes these days). The concept of commercial branding would probably evolve into something marginally different from OTL, without the malls as major vectors of brand propagation.
The powered flight, OTOH, could get some boost in development, with the jet engine (not being directly related to the IC engine) getting more attention than IOTL and the jet-powered aircraft coming earlier (say, in the end of 1920s).
As a side effect, gas and oil turbines could have their niche somewhat enlarged compared to the OTL, with the turbine-powered heavy duty lorries, fast motor coaches, trains and combat vehicle more frequent than IOTL. But here's a question: would the demand for them be enough to create the corresponding infrastructure and to put up with the shortcomings of the land-used turbine engines (huge fuel consumption being the first)?
Without the internal combustion engine, the armies remain largely unmechanised. There would be some attempts at developing a tank, but these would rather work as mobile blockhouses, with near-to-zero manoevrability, but decent armour and firepower from the beginning. The introduction of a turbine more or less suited for the land use might lead to the landship design: multitowered, with naval guns... and abandoned after the first such vehicles are build by the major powers. The armoured trains remain pretty much the only kind of land-based mobile firepower.
The practical IC engine, the Lenoir's one, has been produced, if the Wiki is a reliable source, in 1859. The Otto engine, the one that fitted better for non-stationary use, has appeared in the late 1860s, and the four-stroke Daimler one, in the late 1870s. Even the Diesel engine, that's still the XIXth century (its very tail end, but anyway).
As for the repercussions, I think, they would be enormous. Without the concurrence from the reasonably perfected IC engines, there would probably be nothing like to the OTL Doble motor car and Besler aeroplane. The (few) steam, and electric cars would have seen their use limited to the urban areas, with the steam ones requiring a professional engineer for a driver (thus limiting their use even further and almost excluding the possibility of a middle-class oriented steam car). This would have stifled the post-WW2 style suburban sprawl as we know it, leaving the Metro-land (or the streetcar suburbia) the only viable model of suburbanization. The mass transit would be mostly rail-based, probably with some trolley bus or battery-powered electric bus lines as a cheaper replacement for the full-fledged tramways.
Socially, the lack of cheaply available motor cars and easily accessible private homes might lead indirectly to lesser degrees of consumerism compared to OTL. Without the car, there are no strip malls, and without the car-based suburbanisation, the mail order business, while being more popular than IOTL is something that marks its end user as living in a backwater area and having no access to proper shops with the real deal to sell (just as buying on eBay and, God forbid, Taobao does sometimes these days). The concept of commercial branding would probably evolve into something marginally different from OTL, without the malls as major vectors of brand propagation.
The powered flight, OTOH, could get some boost in development, with the jet engine (not being directly related to the IC engine) getting more attention than IOTL and the jet-powered aircraft coming earlier (say, in the end of 1920s).
As a side effect, gas and oil turbines could have their niche somewhat enlarged compared to the OTL, with the turbine-powered heavy duty lorries, fast motor coaches, trains and combat vehicle more frequent than IOTL. But here's a question: would the demand for them be enough to create the corresponding infrastructure and to put up with the shortcomings of the land-used turbine engines (huge fuel consumption being the first)?
Without the internal combustion engine, the armies remain largely unmechanised. There would be some attempts at developing a tank, but these would rather work as mobile blockhouses, with near-to-zero manoevrability, but decent armour and firepower from the beginning. The introduction of a turbine more or less suited for the land use might lead to the landship design: multitowered, with naval guns... and abandoned after the first such vehicles are build by the major powers. The armoured trains remain pretty much the only kind of land-based mobile firepower.
How would that work? Electic heating element boils water?(Did somebody say steam-electric hybrid...?
How would that work? Electic heating element boils water?
Steam engine turns an alternator to power electric motors. Like, say, a nuclear carrier, or a power plant, or a diesel-electric train (okay, that last one uses an ICE, but the principal is the same). If you need more power, I guess there might be a battery pack you could tap.
Seems like it would be too heavy for individual vehicles, but for big ones...? Well, I suspect it's at least pretty likely to show up in locomotives sometime, and of course this idea has repeatedly been used in ships.
Would that be any more of a problem than millions of tons of tetraethyl lead being pumped out year after year in every town and city in the world? At least with batteries you have the possibility of recycling them, and the damage can be localised somewhat if you don't.You've also created an environmental disaster: the batteries for those electrics are going to wear out, & when they do, they become toxic waste.
Fairly high I'd have thought, but again, it would be limited, steam just isn't that powerful for its weight.
With no aircraft faster than steam-powered zeppelins (which are also an order of magnitude more visible at long distances), does it affect it so much?
For anything within a city certainly, although inter-city stuff (say, Los Angeles to Long Beach) might use steam, simply because of the possibility of battery failure. Of course, in a world without the ICE, batteries will be much more developed, but there'll still be the chance of failure.
Last edited:
Batteries are heavy (even Lithium Cells aren't hugely light compared to the power available in petrol), and solar panels don't work in darkness, so you'd przbably do better with oil-fired steam, although electric transmission could be useful.
Ooh, one other thing, without the ICE you'll probably be stuck with WW1 warfare for a lot longer, as neither steam nor electric would make for a particularly brilliant tank or armoured car.
Last edited:
That's true enough. Given the choice, batteries might not be so bad.MattII said:
(I still worry a lot about creating a lot of *Love Canals as lead & acid leach into the water table, tho.)Agreed, on its face.MattII said:
Forget zeps or blmps: without IC, you've made diving inherently much, much more dangerous, for all the extra valves you have to close.MattII said:
Not to mention your boats have to be much bigger, to accommodate the size of the steam plant. And very much more unpleasant to serve aboard (it gets damned hot inside).Or you switch entirely to battery...which turns your boats into little more than mobile mines.
(And you've still got to recharge...) Or develop fuel cells.Also, you've made torpedoes much, much less effective, so subs are a lesser threat, as are torpedo boats, so destroyers probably never evolve. Unless you accept the Howell becomes commonplace, which I'd be inclined to do for sheer coolness.
(Develop electric winches for PTs & subs...)Agreed entirely. IMO, tho, the limits on battery & steam will tend to make public transit & trains much more attractive, not least because airlines will be out of the picture (for all practical purposes).MattII said:
How about this? Radioisotope generators, like NASA used for Voyager.phx1138 said:Did somebody say steam-electric hybrid...?How would that work? Electic heating element boils water?
Railroads would still primarily use steam locomotives. Cars and trucks would be steam along the same design as the Doble. Air travel is pretty much limited to hot air balloons. I can't imagine how you would engineer a steam powered airplane especially one large enough for commercial air travel.
So you surface at night, and rely on batteries during the day, this is pretty much how the U-boats ended up anyway.Forget zeps or blmps: without IC, you've made diving inherently much, much more dangerous, for all the extra valves you have to close.
This thread is really in the wrong section of the forums, the internal combustion engine has been around and developed in various forms ever since circa 1800.
What differentiates many of the earlier designs from later ones is that they ran of more volatile chemical substances, like Hydrogen and Oxygen rather than hydrocarbon oils and petrochemicals. With generally less precise machined parts, and much more dangerous (and expensive fuels) so it takes till around the 1870s before Daimler and others can really produce the first 'reliable' or 'economic' combustion engines.
The trouble with the very premise of this 'What if?' is that the engineering principles behind the combustion engine have been around since the Roman Era! Even worse, the physics that allowed the more efficient steam engines of the latter half of the 1800s is also entirely applicable to combustion engines too!
Hence you can't really have 'good steam engines' existing without having people able to build combustion engines.
Because a combustion engine is at heart far more energy efficient than steam because of the gain of not loosing heat from thermal conduction to the environment and during condensation (latent heat), then whoever invents a combustion engine is onto a winner from the very get go.
Hence it's a non starter from the principles of common sense.
Thus you would have to develop a very contrived reasoning as to why internal combustion is 'deamonised' by the wider public and so not used because its considered dangerous or unethical.
What differentiates many of the earlier designs from later ones is that they ran of more volatile chemical substances, like Hydrogen and Oxygen rather than hydrocarbon oils and petrochemicals. With generally less precise machined parts, and much more dangerous (and expensive fuels) so it takes till around the 1870s before Daimler and others can really produce the first 'reliable' or 'economic' combustion engines.
The trouble with the very premise of this 'What if?' is that the engineering principles behind the combustion engine have been around since the Roman Era! Even worse, the physics that allowed the more efficient steam engines of the latter half of the 1800s is also entirely applicable to combustion engines too!
Hence you can't really have 'good steam engines' existing without having people able to build combustion engines.
Because a combustion engine is at heart far more energy efficient than steam because of the gain of not loosing heat from thermal conduction to the environment and during condensation (latent heat), then whoever invents a combustion engine is onto a winner from the very get go.
Hence it's a non starter from the principles of common sense.
Thus you would have to develop a very contrived reasoning as to why internal combustion is 'deamonised' by the wider public and so not used because its considered dangerous or unethical.