Steam car attempts a new land speed record

[stiffyschlong]

bulll steam engines are 10-11% efficiency while conventional ICEs are 27 to 30%. Crap.

[0tothezenith]

title change please...swap "attempts" for "thinks about"

[994206]

No threat to the speed of sound yet then!

[beastofblurdon1]

where do u put the coal?

[cartmanrlsusall]

way to go overthinkers,a converted mustang could beat this money pit

[ginganz13]

"powered only by steam" - which miraculously just comes from nowhere...

[bored1980]

Oh neat. Another narrated slideshow on a video website. Got any powerpoint presentations too?

[TheRunningBoy20]

the bonville??? bitch stop talking

[homskoult]

Well it failed, all it did was sit there.

[jay33011211]

even is a steam engine is not fast, its the best type for pulling load like trucks and heavy loads. a 2 cylinder stram motor about 1 square foot could produce 400 pounds of torque easily and at 80 mph thats fast enough for just using water and batteries to heat up the water.itll be cheaper than gas.

[Techerd101]

did she say.....170 mph? my moms car goes faster than that

[TheOzzyNut]

Wait 1 min there trying to beat a record thats over 100 years old ??? shouldnt be to hard with the same old engine in a modern designed car with all those light weight materials on hand.........this mob picked the easyest challenge there is.....now all they need is a bloke old enough to fix that shitty valve

[bloodreighn]

thanks for this useless video.. i was hoping to actually SEE the run, not a report of "oh no.. it broke"

[MCDCBPAUX]

Can you imagine the humidity problems created by these things? I'd rather have smog and emphasima than frizzy hair.

[85kewgrr]

Propane is a non-polluting gas, it produces zero carbon emissions. It's smelly and yes there is a flame, but heat doe not always equal pollution. Heating up the water with propane makes it NON polluting, much less than old coal-burning or gasoline burning steam engines!

[ohmphthschwrhu]

@85kewgrr propane does not stink.just ask your friend did he fart before you lite up though.

[85kewgrr]

@ohmphthschwrhu Have you ever been around a propane powered forklift or generator? It's not very pleasant! You won't smell it burning a propane soldering torch or something, but burn a lot (like in an engine) and you'll smell a very familiar rotten eggs smell! You've got to be close to smell it though, it dissipates quickly.

[ohmphthschwrhu]

@85kewgrr i deliver propane.my trainee flipped a truck over and took off running i said where the hell you goin.he just kept running never saw that guy again.it was funny as hell.propane has no scent thats what makes it so much more dangerous when drilling for it only sensors can tell when youve tap it naturally .its required by fed that producers add the rotten egg smell as a singature of danger.butane has no smell.methane is poot its far more dangerous than propane.all enviromentally clean.

[85kewgrr]

@85kewgrr Yeah that's true, sorry I forgot that this was added! But yes, the forklifts where I use to work, STANK!

[KenMacMillan]

@85kewgrr Propane is odorless & tasteless. That smell is added to it so you know it's there.

[jdapowell1]

@85kewgrr, you cant be serious!! Propane in itself is not a greenhouse gas but please enlighten me and explain how the combustion of propane (the process which is used to generate heat for steam production) does not result in the evolution of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, as I'm sure you are aware?

[predalien1995]

@jdapowell1 well... there is absolutely nothing in the world which wont create C02 while combusting

[jdapowell1]

@predalien1995 Read my comment again! I asked @85kewgrr to offer an explanation as to why he claimed propane was not a greenhouse gas, which is clearly not true as it is a nonrenewable hydrocarbon fuel. Further more please review your chemistry from high school. Combustion is the rapid combustion of any element not just carbonaceous substances. Would find it impossible to produce CO2 from the combustion of hydrogen, iron, sodium, lithium, sulphur etc etc.

[predalien1995]

@jdapowell1 I beg your pardon then, you are absolutely correct, I thought you meant fire-like combustion.

[xXShadowRejectsXx]

1906!??! thats pretty fast for a car in that age

[gamblemadman]

Imagine how fast 128 mph would have seemed like for people living in 1906 lol.

[datafreak667]

WAT they rested it in ma back yard and i missed it (i live near the salt flats)

[MrPokeman043]

F-ZERO X !!!!!

[LunaticQuutamo]

Have the guy inside always put carbon bricks inside a heater for the boiler?

[cjellwood]

put the kettle on, theres a good chap

[inserto1000]

what a junk. it doesn't even work LOL

[EmperorChupacabra]

I see someone has no appreciation for good old-fashioned steam power.

[gilessmokey]

what a magnificent 1906 record i would feel bad about going a little faster with todays tech

[Sadetree]

151mph!!!  I wounder if I cane do it with wood and a pickup truck.

[Sadetree]

I intend to break this new record with a registered vehicle.

[Logik426]

you are ignorant. ITS A CLASS FOR STEAM ENGINES!! Its normally that steam engine is slower that Otto or Diesel engines, but Its still fastest steam car in the world - its record!

[Sadetree]

YOU THINK! Assuming that my steam engine is a combustion engine. LOL!

[DerVampyrEngel]

@Logik426 No Steam Engines are not slower than ICE engines they are as fast or faster and the Steam Car was breaking one of the oldest records in the world it is now broken

[Stanleyguy101]

I can agree with you on that madmanmapper.

Since I've never tried using compressed air to power any of my small engines. I do it with a complete steam plant. Though I'll add that heat does make an impact on the performance of the engine. The hotter they get the less steam they use in general. I can try to explain if you don't understand why but you seem to know your stuff.

Does oil get in the engine with compressed air because by the principles of a displacement oiler tell me no it won't.

[Stanleyguy101]

Steam engines like someone mentioned are heat engines.

Heat engines take the energy in a fuel and use it do mechanical work

water is a medium that transfers energy

IC engines are powered by explosive force

Diesels even though they use heat by compression to create an explosion the explosion does the work not the heat

Nuclear submarines use a nuclear reactor to make steam turbines turn

There are also diesel-electric submarines don't get the two mixed up please.

That's my only comment.

[madmanmapper]

@Stanleyguy101 Yes, a steam powerplant turns heat energy into mechanical energy, but the engine itself is powered by pressure differences only. The heat merely creates that pressure difference. You can run steam engines on compressed air, which is not heated.

[mongo5888]

It is pathetic how people are arguing over how each other says/explains something. Extremely childish. Is it really that fucking hard to just shut the fuck up and ENJOY THE VIDEO? People like the ones arguing here ruin Youtube for the intelligent population.

[ratchetization]

Its all just a load of hot air whichever way ya look at it.lol

[mocaorca]

The real name for a steam engine is a xxxx fired steam engine, where xxxx is the fuel you're using. People shorten things, then they think steam is a power source when it's actually a medium for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy. An accurate description of this vehicle is a propane fired steam engine. Or more accurate a propane fired heat engine since, although water is the best medium for converting thermal to mechanical energy, you can use any fluid.

[Lascalpab]

Jasonadventure: no steam powered vehicle, car, boat or locomotive, uses steam as a fuel, because steam does not burn.

Fuel (wood; coal, diesel, propane, or nuclear fuel) is used to heat water and generate steam .

Nuclear subs and ships are actually steam powered...

So, this car is steam powered, much like a steam locomotive or a nuclear sub are..

[jasonsadventure]

idk why they say,"steam powered" when it's actually a propane powered steam engine.

[reverendcutterx]

Because it's steam powered by a steam engine. Is this a trick question?

[jasonsadventure]

a car is gas powered and in that way, this vehicle is not steam powered.

this vehicle is propane powered. it just uses a steam engine, but steam is not used as a fuel.

[MackenzieClare]

Actually, steam engines are steam powered. They may use propane or coal for fuel to generate the steam, but in the end, it is still powered by steam.

[jasonsadventure]

sorry bro, i still think you're wrong. the energy that makes the vehicle go comes from propane. remove the propane, no steam, no steam, no go.

steam is simply stores & transfers the energy created by the combustion of the propane.

the steam engine converts the propane energy stored in the steam to work to drive the car.

since the power in the steam comes from propane, the vehicle is propane powered with a steam engine.

[MackenzieClare]

Actually, the energy that makes the vehicle go comes from the steam which is generated by the propane. You can use the propane to heat the boiler, reach operating pressure, and then you can shut off the propane fire and still use the steam that was generated to move the vehicle. You don't actually need the propane on to do that, which means that the energy comes from the steam. Even if you remove the propane, the steam will still be there. The vehicle is steam powered, but propane heated.

[jasonsadventure]

wrong, wrong, wrong.

nuclear powered submarines generate steam that turn turbines, we don't call the sub steam powered because the fuel is nuclear

diesel locomotives use diesel engines to turned electric generators to power electric motors but we don't called them electric trains because the fuel is diesel

this is a propane powered vehicle irrespective of how the propane energy is converted to locomotion.

no disrespect, but your comments indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of physics bro

[MackenzieClare]

You are still wrong. You could have an internal combustion engine powered by propane so saying that this steam engine is a propane engine is not correct. Saying it's a propane engine could mean either of these things. It is still a steam engine fired by propane. The nuclear submarine has an entirely different type of steam engine so you cannot compare them.

[jasonsadventure]

holy cow bro.

take your internal combustion example. how are cars powered? gas. why? gas is the fuel that is burned. so cars are gas powered.

internal combustion is the "engine type", not the fuel source

just like a steam turbine is the "engine type" of this vehicle, NOT THE POWER SOURCE.

"powered by" speaks to the fuel source, not the engine type.

a nuclear sub is a perfect comparison. both are propelled by a steam engine. how the steam is generated determines the power source.

[MackenzieClare]

There are cars powered by propane so you can't say that this is a propane engine because it could mean this or a car. Take trains for example, they call diesel engines diesel, you are correct with that one, but they don't call steam engines coal engines because they are driven by steam even though coal is the fuel. There are many different fuels you could use. Yes, steam engines are not fueled by steam, but steam is still the power source. You could have propane, but No Steam, No power.

[jasonsadventure]

even steam engine example associated "steam" with the word "engine" not "powered"

i rest my case on my previous comments. i think it adequately makes the distinctions between engine types and fuel (or power) sources

powered by = what fuel is burned used.

[MackenzieClare]

I am not going to argue with you because you clearly don't understand the concept of steam power. The way you are saying it, it might as well be water powered because it boils water to make steam. You don't know what you are talking about so please stop trying to act like you do.

[jasonsadventure]

wait. seriously? steam is water.  you know that right?

[MackenzieClare]

I know that. What I meant was it might as well use water as a fuel because there is water involved. That's what it sounds like you are saying. In the end, yes you are correct about propane being the fuel, but steam is still the power that makes it operate.

[jasonsadventure]

"it might as well use water as a fuel"

"that's what it sounds like" I AM SAYING???

can we not base our arguments on what things sound like in your head, but rather what things are on paper?"

propane is the fuel so...

propane is the power source so...

the vehicle is propane powered

period. end of story

[MysticLoser]

To break it simple, just think of the process. Propane boils water> steam compress chamber> steam compression move pistons Not propane moves pistons. Since the steam is doing the work, you can say it's steam powered. A car: diesel is ignited>gaseous combustion move pistons, thus cars are gas powered since the gas does the work.

[jasonsadventure]

let's use ur analogy with a diesel locomotive

diesel fuel ignites, moves pistons in diesel engine

diesel engine turns shaft of electric generators

current from generators run electric motors

that turn wheels & make the train go

so, by ur analogy since electricity is doing the work, we should call diesel train electric. that's false, we don't

ur analogy fails the exact same way when describing a nuclear powered sub

nuclear reactor>steam>turbines>props

& we don't call them "steam" powered

[MysticLoser]

Mmmm.... You make it sound like a hybrid car. For nonhybrid, the piston creates the motion energy for the wheel.

Not all nuclear sub uses steam (Most actually use a diesel-electric motor), but you can call it a steam powered, nuclear sub.

If anything, we won't call something diesel fueled, diesel powered car.

BUT! I say, you call it what you want and I'll call it what I want. I do believe we both will understand what each other is talking about anyways.

[jasonsadventure]

the bullet car is not like autos but like both the locomotive & the sub as follows:

fuel > power transfer sys > propulsion sys

fuel) train=diesel; sub=nuclear; bullet car =propane

power transfer sys) train=electricity; sub=steam; bullet car=steam

propulsion sys (i.e. propelled by)

train = electric generators; sub=steam turbines; bullet car =steam turbines

powered by? train=diesel (not electric); sub= nuclear(not steam); bullet car=propane(not steam)

"powered by" & "fueled by" r equivalent

[MrUnidyne]

THEY DID IT!!!! On 25 August! Two runs at 219 km/hr (136 mph) and 243 km/hr (151 mph)!

[wtnvideo]

I have seen Youtube news and video on some other site but it was embedded in to their player so there was no link to the original on Youtube.

[moparmuppet]

Why does it have to look like a 600 mph car when it is only going to go as fast as a family saloon?

[slome815]

the current steam record was set in 1906 at 127 mph. Does your saloon move faster???

[NintendosWee]

so how does the steam car work?

[sparhu]

steam turbine. do you think that the narrator's voice was a little irritating? it just sounded weird.... idk....

[desmondo2006]

YES! Omg it annoys the crap out of me.

[ludvan64]

Yes but I bet she is good in bed. Those types usually are.

[Carolshelby1]

Sounded really irratating and I wanted to punch her in the mouth lol.

[cornholio435]

@sparhu Yeah, she sounds like she really couldent give a shit.

[QuicK2800]

@sparhu Yeah it was a woman...the kind of voice every man tries to tune out is making us listen to it

[preacherboy244]

You put steam in the engine and the engine runs the wheels.

[THE1V]

lol

[FLOYDRIX]

HA HA... where does the fckuing coal go EH!!!!!

[DobermansRock]

Cool a race care that sound like a locomotive. I wonder if they mounted a train horn on it. That would be the shit to hear as they finish the mile.

[cannissolis]

Oh and as to engine type in shipping, I think you will find that virtually all naval warships use steam turbines (mostly oil fired) and most passenger liners use steam turbines (oil fired) and quite a lot of other ships also use this type of engine as it exceeds the efficiency of a compression ignition oil engine and is therefore cheaper to run. However greater initial expense often means that a cheaper but less efficient "diesel" is fitted to reduce the massive outlay when building a ship.

[cannissolis]

wow! that is some of the worst commentating I have heard

[TallBrooklynGuy]

screw gm and the big 3. they want bailouts? let them be innovative and perfect the steam powered car. with some modifications it will be a zero emission most economical vehicle to run and OPEC and the arabs can go back to selling camel steaks.

[Silverjda]

hey, dumbass! wat are you gonna burn in order to heat up the water? OOPS. yea get your ass back to bending over for the arabs.

[oilhammer04]

Gather up anything that burns . . . . plastic bags, used rubber tires, used cooking oil. ;)

[Brrrutus]

Hey, dumbass! Why on earth do you think you need oil to boil water? Steamengines hardly used oil as a heatsource, do some research before posting!

[tenorlord]

O' contraire! Oil replaced coal as the way to power steam driven vehicles around 1930. The only "improvement" on that since then has been nuclear heat to boil the water. (I'll bet some applications use natural gas too!)

[gratedrake1]

why not try a steam jet turbine

[logcabiny]

The video was terrible, but the comments (especially "Oh, the humidity!") have been worth the reading time. Thanks.

[oversoulseven7]

When will it be?

[refan75]

god the damn thing looks like it could fly! i agree with nelli0t tho becouse horses sounds like a WAYY better suloution

[nelli0t]

what happened to riding horses? ... at least then EPA would have something to do ...

[7div]

If only steam cars had over 100 years of developement like the petrol engine cars.

[shakaama]

@7div and half a trillion dollars in subsidies. can't forget that part. That beats out 100 years by itself.

[Cheesecake2k]

@7div petrol was better in the beginning, thats why they chose it.

[mwhite112393]

@Cheesecake2k Actually Steam was better in the beginning, and technically still is as far as power. Petrol is just more efficient, but took a long time to perfect, and was definitely not better in the beginning.

[JBofBrisbane]

@Cheesecake2k - actually, petrol needed something to make it easy enough to use, and that happened when the electric self-starter replaced the hand crank. From that day on, steam power's days were numbered.

[soylentgreenb]

@7div Yes, if only, then we could have less efficient steam cars running on petrol instead of more efficient ICE cars running on gasoline.

[JBofBrisbane]

@soylentgreenb - What's the distinction? Where I come from, gasoline is called petrol.

[soylentgreenb]

@JBofBrisbane Where I come from english is a secondary language and I mix american and british english without any kind of consistency. The distinction is between external and internal combustion, not gasoline and petrol.

[philtripe]

@7div theres nothing to develop...its steam,they stopped using steam in trains and cars because its dangerous and has less potential than internal combustion engines or turbine...these people are idiots

[candr]

@philtripe Not really, they are looking for tor "torque" which in a steam engine is incrediblely high. Granted the old steam cars and trains were passed by gasoline. But the power tey prduced (for a short period of time) would outstrip and other system. They ain't looking to bring the world around to steam, just to create a device that would dump energy into a space of a few minutes.

[idontcare80]

@7div Yeah, imagine having to fill your car up with fuel AND water, that would be fun!

NOT.

[candr]

@idontcare80 The water would be cooled and returned to a liquid form to be reheated, topping off the water tank would not be that often. The good part of a steam car is that you can burn just about any fuel you would like. However the old ones were dangerious, but hen again....ever seen a gallon of gas go up! One gallon is equal to several pounds of TNT LOL.

[idontcare80]

@candr Gasoline doesn't explode unless it's atomized. Ever try to light a puddle of gas with a match on a cold day? It's not that easy. Gas tanks VERY rarely explode in accidents and many times don't even explode during car fires. Boilers, on the other hand, did explode on a pretty regular basis. Steam is just insanely impractical. How are you going to keep the water from freezing? How big would a condenser have to be? How long are you willing to wait for pressure when the boiler is cold?...

[candr]

@idontcare80 Very true, but it does happen, just pointing out that the water is usually in a closed system and therefore does not have to be loaded when ever you fueled up. And I did say if you notice, that the old steamers were dangerious. Since there are only a hand full these days, the record for their safety.

[idontcare80]

@candr ...How are you going to control the emissions from what is essentially an open flame? What is the energy conversion ratio? When you consider all of those things steam just doesn't make sense.

ELECTRIC vehicles can use energy from any fuel or energy source you can think of and with excellent efficiency, so there is no reason to even bother with steam.

[candr]

@idontcare80 LOL don't get me wrong I'm for electric or anyother less polution forming energy source, just stateing that useing less poluting fuels to create the heat then gasoline is possible. Besides, I'm talking about a race car, one in millions. To do a job that is stated in the vid speed over a short distance.

[TakronRust]

@7div There is a reason for that you know...

[Haakon45]

we havnt gotten much faster since 1906 id say steam power cars are a write off dont you?

[mrboxleytheonly]

well yea, but they are not as efficient as gas cars. Yea they can go fast, once, then you have to stop, and refuel, yea it's cleaner, yea it was fast, but it takes too much to do so little you know?

[sb6lb3]

mr box that is an absolute lie. steam engines, if recirculating the steam, were reaching an efficentcy of of almost 40% thats much higher than the 25% of the cars today

[mrboxleytheonly]

you know it doesn't collect most, yea maybe for like a day's use it would be that efficient, you would need to refill it a lot faster than most cars, and it's speed is not efficient with the amount of power it takes to move something, like an 18 wheeler, good luck with that..

[sb6lb3]

i read this car on some website i will not name. i frown on this car. 100 years ago, steam car such as the stanley steamer and great doble could attain these speeds with RECIPROCATING ENGINES! this thing has a turbine, it dumps the steam back out and can barely reach its speed. the doble steam car can reach 120 100 years ago and is probably around the efficentcy of cars today. not to mention it was a aerodynamic disaster and weighed like a ton. i frown on this car

[D0M1N8R1x]

Amazing.. 128MPH in 1906 and 100 years later we are going to try to break that by 40-50 MPH.. LoL

[UncleKennybobs]

Use petrol..

[McLarenMercedes]

for the STEAM records attempt?

[KimfromSoCal]

faulty valve? this thing is so complicated that it couldn't be replaced then and there? I guess they haven't seen the movie "The World's Fastest Indian"

[supermotardmario]

per houweeeerrr , she should realy work on her speaking :s

[Migslayer101]

so nothing happend why even post................

[rcpmac]

100 years and we are trying to break a record made using inappropriate technology?! Why not try fixing something that is broken.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burned.

[Truthiness231]

100 years later and we can't even double the speed. I'd say I concur with your assessment that this old technology needs to be 86'd.

[gdrbs427]

Maybe we can put huge pieces of canvas on ships, and use wind power to move our vessels across huge spans of water!!!

[ANESTORLAK]

Lolz good year tires

[perltyr]

Actually, steam engine is the father of our diesel and gasoline engines. It is even better because the piston does two torque strokes instead of one stroke like diesel or gasoline. The only problem is heating the water to generate the steam. On government level big engines, they use Plutonium rods dipped in heavy water, which have the ordinary water kettle dipped in it. All of our navy vessels and subs are steam powered. The same engine can use compressed air, like the new City CAT from India

[McLarenMercedes]

Steam engines have nothing in common with steam turbines, besides being powered by steam. The traditional steam engine uses boiled water to drive a piston. The steam turbine which they use in nuclear powerplants is basically water boiled with uranium rods, and the steam led through a turbine with high pressure.

The steam engine has a inferior power to weight ratio to the gasoline or diesel engines, not to mention they use a lot of water.

Nuclear powered steam turbine cars? Nuclear waste??

[cannissolis]

steam "engines" have a lot in common with steam turbines(a turbine classifies as an engine) which, incidentally, do not have to be run from nuclear powered boilers as you will see by examining the majority of world shipping!

[McLarenMercedes]

Hm, I though the majority of world shipping runs on huge diesels?

Emma Maersk, the world's largest ship in current use, uses enormous Wärtsilä diesels.

So do most of the huge supertankers,container ships and cruise ships in operation.

Diesel power.

The only ships which use nuclear powered steam turbines are aircraft carriers, nuclear ice-breakers and a few military ships. Nuclear subs too.

[cannissolis]

Well that was rather my point, most steam turbines in the world run from conventionally fired boilers, you seemed to imply otherwise with your previous post. Also you stated:"Steam engines have nothing in common with steam turbines" so I re-iterate, a steam turbine is a steam engine. You also stated:"not to mention they use a lot of water" Actually a fully condensing engine recycles virtually all of its water and uses very little.

[Rcrby525]

ethonal is a stupid idea, 80% of kids, IN THIS NATION live in poverty, why waste food for fuel?

Bio-desiel, hybrids won't do shit,

hydrogen cars, we may some potential there.

[McLarenMercedes]

never mentioned ethanol

hybrids DO save a load of gasoline, and make the cars frugal, for instance the new Lexus LS600h, not that most people can afford a such, but it's a step in the right direction

hydrogen works fine, although hydrogen gas is rather infamous for it's nasty habit of exploding

fuel cells or a new form of revolutionary batteries is the future, today's batteries are nowhere near efficient enough

[true2853634]

Ir doesnt matter if 80% of children are in poverty, i'm not against hydrogen, but the fact that we are using crops to create energy, it matters that it takes up too much space, but in fact hydrogen fuel cells cost more than ethonal does.

And for MclarenMercedes, hydrogen isn't as flammable as everyone thinks it is, if someone crashed with a hydrogen car the hydrogen flame would burn out in about 10 seconds, as gasoline would have relatively the same sized flame and it would burn for much longer

[posen123]

We havent even started to grow crops in massive skyscrapers, or in massive greenhouses in the sahara.... :)

Ethanol can be made from Hemp plant which would be more efficient than any other plant.

But i believe that the future is in hydrogen/water, we just need to develop the cleaner ways of making electricity.

[angurisloud]

Yeah, and Honda's H car only cost $us600,000 - so they'll be affordable in a few years... say around 2110...

[DarkLinkAD]

Ethanol from grass and wasted plant life, Corn branches etc. is a good idea though.

Ethanol may produce less btu per liter but its higher octane more then makes up for it.

Todays examples on the market, are gasoline engines, that are capable of running ethanol.

A better example would be a high compression 15:1-16:1 Ethanol engine that can retard spark to run gasoline.

Then you would see the full advantage of Ethanol. Needs to be affordable.

I dont agree with gas-eth mixtures, Pointless.

[spongah]

Wow cool! Then maybe we can get a horse and buggy land speed record!

[doorgone]

The title is misleading. People think they get to see a steam car running. Then you give us the shtick, 'UNFORTUNATELY', I would expect something like this from the French, but Brits?

[rcpmac]

No, the french would use their time to separate their recycling and use the balance having excellent nonpolluting sex.

[weylin6]

Ill be impressed if its a steam car run on coal ROFL

[HumboldtZ]

well i hope they could beat the record set in 1906! thats more than 100 years and we havent made any improvements? we suck

[puretroubleman]

we have made improvements just not with steam.

steam sucks

[residenteviladict]

same with bk!

[bkelly331]

wtf? they dont even show it going, i was exited and congragulations, you ruined it.

[ericpid]

wow, something that didn't happen. thanks?

[Fahim00717]

Why?

[adrastea99]

Steam car = Train off tracks

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!

[Yggdrasill4]

Inspired by SteamBoy...

[adrastea99]

I think I can

I think I can

I think I can

I think I can

Chooo choooo!!!!!

[javierenchina]

is there some other application for new research into steam locomotion...? or is this just for "fun". ROBOTS DON'T NEED FUN.

[tetranoob]

We're sorry, this video is no longer available. !!! why does it keep saying this!

[gfissakura]

128 miles in hour in 1906 JESUS THAT WOULD BE LIKE..............786.87945 MILES PERHOUR TODAY WITH THE TECH WE HAVE NOW

[LegoDudez]

what about hydrodon

[clownschuhe]

170 mph, that's almost like 1400 furlongs per hour! Wonder how many stones that mystical one-and-a-half rod long horseless chariot weighs!

(Please stick with the metric system, those senseless ancient units noone uses are really embarrassingly retarded.)

[komotoko]

so if cars run off water instead of gasoline one day would that not make more rain and eventually all them cars would create such wetness that it would practically never stop raining?

[psychomelody]

Oh the humidity!

[AtheistCitizen]

it doesn't run off water. Something must heat the water, then some steam turbine system moves the vehicle. duh.

[qwerty7546]

lol we'll all be wearing galoshes and raincoats.

"wetness" lmao!!!!!

[RedneckResponder]

Stop global wettness!

[gfissakura]

a car that is powered on water uses a fuel cell engine. fuel cell engines run of the the hydrogen cells from the water. in which the engine seperates the hydrogen from the oxygen cells in the water. this can be repated many times without giving off anything that could polut the air or even cause rain

[PerfectBlindness]

Steam engines heat up water which expands, and the difference in power between the environment and the car produces energy potential. The potential is utilised and the car moves foward. It is very different to a rocket engine.

[LukeSkyscraper]

nnnnggg.. not quite. A fuel cell car "burns" hydrogen as a fuel IN the fuel cell along with oxygen and produces heat, electricity and water. There are catalysts at both anode and cathode which are separated by a polymer electrolyte membrane. There are a number of vehicles on youtube which claim to be running on water fuel cells producing "HHO" but these are really just electrolysis cells. "Hydrogen on demand" electrolysis of water sufficient to run a car is something of a holy grail.

[gfissakura]

hey i'm noyl twelve i don't nkow that yet.

[LukeSkyscraper]

That's ok ;) I wasn't having a go.. Just correcting.

[547212436]

wow... that owns...

[legendary852004]

128 mph in 1906 really? Wow

[Roman500]

kinda stupid that after a century they can only up it by 50 mph :/

[EmanuelHoogeveen]

Well, it's not like we've been putting a lot of effort into it - this car looks pretty slick, but the fact that it's made from all those odd components seems to indicate they're on a tight budget. I'm sure if a car company and a university worked together and threw several millions at it, we could do even better. Of course, I applaud this team for bringing steam energy into the forefront - it's just so damn cool :P

[RedneckResponder]

It's a weight to power thing. Water weighs a lot. Phyisics hasn't changed since 1906.

[narutopowers]

Steampunk for the win!