why didn't they make coal powered cars?
I'm sure they've tried to boil a kettle of water while driving. They are really into boiling water as a means of energy production.
>>17080627they literally did. built some tracks for them as well. insanely based cars. lotsa power as well
>>17080627You mean trains? By the time personal cars were a viable form of transit liquid fuels were already a thing and they are just lot easier to work with, even trains run on diesel these days if not on electricity.
>>17080632based
>>17080627they didthey had about half the efficiency of internal combustion engine cars, though
>>17080632>>17080633A limited run of Automobiles also were designed to be coal powered and even powered by burning regular logs (known as gasifier cars) during times of global war when oil and gas because scarce in certain regions (mostly Europe and Japan), but as soon as oil supply chains opened back up, it was exponentially cheaper to run on oil again since liquid oil/gasoline weighs less than converting biomass to gas doesn't lead to nearly as much waste and residue buildup, it is much cheaper to maintain than autos running on wood/coal gasification and they last a lot longer.http://www.robertsarmory.com/gas.htm
>>17080659The whole history of fossil fuels is a sideline to the real story of why automobiles became common in the modern world. The real story has more to do with the idea of “interchangeable parts” and the “assembly line”. Interchangeable parts were a development that came out of the US Civil War gun manufacturers and it has more to do with industrial standardization of tolerances and industrial practices. The assembly line is genuinely an innovation Henry Ford created but relies very heavily on the developments related to Interchangable Parts.It is very possible that Ford could have instead created a streamlined industrial process for electric cars instead of internal-combustion cars (even though batteries were very primitive then, overhead wires were a possibility). But the industrial system was the key new development and internal-combustion exchangeable parts was more economical by a logical marginon the other hand nobody ever really thought coal cars were very economically viable; coal engines do not really fit well into a streamlined industrial mass-production paradigm (since Coal is quite variable in its quality/purity/etc and is not nearly as well-standardized as gasoline or diesel-type fuels, at least in those days)PS I am kind of out of my depth here and if anyone knows better I am happy to learn
>>17080660one would think from reading the opinions of americans at face value that they were the originators of the industrial revolution
>>17080660>It is very possible that Ford could have instead created a streamlined industrial process for electric cars instead of internal-combustion carsHe very much tried teaming with Edison since the first generation of american cars leaned more electric than ICE, but ICE engines were less than half the price and lasted over twice as long, so the economy of scale favored it over time. Since Ford favored dealing with individuals over governments/municipalities, so he never got into the electric trolly/streetcar business, but those had problems due to their large fixed infrastructure deteriorating and competing with other space needs over time.I think moreso the problem with coal/logs is it just takes up way more space than liquid and you need much more weight to get the same results since it produces more waste to burn and less fuel economy, so you end up burning more just to carry around what you need for your trip.
>>17080663Of course the Industrial Revolution started in England, what with their water wheels powering looms for women to make fabric (manually) faster.Textiles were important but the Assembly Line concept for creating machinery at a rapidly accelerated pace using the concept of Interchangeable Parts—it’s a whole new world at that point. You have model T’s and Sherman Tanks and Washing Machines and etc etc. Britain, on the other hand, created a massive boom in like shirts and table cloths
NK has fire wood powered trucks (the real deal trucks not burger "trucks")
>>17080658How does this work, you need to keep throwing pieces of coal in a furnace as you drive?
>>17080668Yes, precisely! Exactly like on a steam train, if you have ever seen how they work, just with no tracks. One needs to maintain an optimal amount of steam pressure in the boiler. There were later, more efficient innovations which coexisted with internal combustion engines for a time, but became more or less obsolete by the time the crankshaft had been done away with. (Unlike internal engines, external engines did not require a crankshaft to start and were considered at one time to be in some ways safer)Here in the united kingdom there are events called steam rallies where one can see all manner of such mechanical creations which have been lovingly maintained.
>>17080660>I am kind of out of my depth hereIt shows. The actual reason why coal cars never took off is the simple reason. Coal is just not a very good fuel. You can't really put it in internal combustion type engine and have to rely on bulky steam engines or gasifiers which are by necessity very heavy and also just less efficient than internal combustion until you hit some industrial high pressure steam turbine tier (which are not small). The efficiency doesn't even really matter all that much because you could just carry more coal to compensate but the bulkiness kills the idea outright. You can't really make a steam car that's smaller than a tractor and if that's the smallest (and cheapest) vehicle it's never going to take off as a way of personal transport for various obvious reasons like speed, reaction time between adding fuel and getting power, cost, maintenance, cleanliness, clunkiness and the overlap between a person who can afford a steam tractor and a person who is willing to shovel coal being very thin. Steam engines were being made in mass for namely trains and ships for longer than cars and the same techniques of mass production, replaceable parts and assembly lines were also adopted in their manufacture where it was applicable so that's not the reason for "no coal cars". The fact that coal isn't super consistent is basically irrelevant, just shovel more coal.
>>17080677I totally agree here but my point is that if we had the system of interchangeable parts and the assembly line back in, say, 1840 (let’s assume that were possible, for the sake of argument, though in reality it wasn’t) then maybe one would have seen a proliferation of inefficient, tractor-sized coal “cars” in parallel with coal-powered steam-engine trains. I could imagine that if the assembly and industrial processes were precise enough for it back then, people on farms and in trading-post cities would have created an economic demand for vehicles powered by coal that did not require tracks and the highly-regimented back-and-forth railroad routes of that time (which were notoriously subjected to robber barons creating silly monopoles and dominating markets). This is all speculative what-if history but I find it very believable
>>17080679>but my point isThe point is just not very good. Oil is an obvious power source, the thing that was limiting oil was the precision machinery needed to make internal combustion viable. Coal and steam dominated early on precisely because you can make them huge and not care about efficiency all that much, people would have just used oil to power steam engines instead of coal if it was cheaper than coal. As soon as tech improved to make personal vehicles possible then oil was going to be the fuel of choice basically immediately. From the other side horses already existed and put an upper floor for the cost of the vehicle. No amount of steam advancement can work around these two factors, either tech is advanced enough to make oil the obvious power source or it's not and horses are cheaper.
>>17080627>>17080687Steam is quite a bit better than internal combustion for cars, the main problem was that they were a chore to start. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo>>17080679Interchangeable parts became common in the 18th century France, no idea what you are talking about.
>>17080688>Interchangeable parts became common in the 18th century France, no idea what you are talking about.My understanding of the history of interchangeable parts is that it only came into the mainstream during the US Civil war, before that maybe it had some origins in France and Switzerland among the watchmakers of Geneva (and maybe Basel and Zurich maybe). OK, maybe you had the technology first but didn’t apply it where it really made a difference (like everything in the world BESIDES WATCHES)
>>17080690typical american ignorance
>>17080688That's not a coal car. The fact that you have to wait minutes for stuff to happen and the fact that you pay extra for the privilege puts it decidedly in the "worse than internal combustion" category as well. You should notice other downsides too, like how it's massive even with 1925 technology.You can make good stuff with steam, especially with more modern advances, but steam is just not all that suitable for personal transport nor is steam alone even half of the problem coal has.
>>17080692care to make an argument or just be a french smug douche (whose entitlement is stolen from Switzerland in this case anyhow)?Honestly I would like to hear your interpretation of the history
>>17080694>>17080690Don't double down. You are consistently wrong on this topic.
>>17080677>you can't really make a steam car smaller than a tractor simply not true. steam cars of similar size to internal combustion engine cars were commercially produced up until 1930https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car
>>17080694I'm not that anon, nor am i french.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maudslay
>>17080698Thanks anon, I will read that and maybe we can discuss the historical origins of modern society in some future thread.
>>17080697Take this as an example>>17080688It weights 2.5T, a model T was 500 kilos. One cost 10k dollars and made a massive loss for every unit, other was 300 buckaroos and made Ford one of the richest men in the world. The simple fact is that a small steam unit is far too expensive to be a real car. Steam is only efficient when you scale the system up which is why it was still popular with trains and ships for a long time. Coal has even more problems. None of the examples you provided are using coal.The production numbers of these various steam cars are just laughable amounting to single digit days from any one of Detroits auto plants. They are gimmicks not real technology.
>>17080694do americans seriously think they started the industrial revolution? it was a british thing and you guys were playing catch-up for the next 150 years
>>17080700>Steam-powered and electric cars outsold gasoline-powered cars in the United States prior to the invention of the electric starter, since internal combustion cars relied on a hand crank to start the engine, which was difficult and occasionally dangerous to use, as improper cranking could cause a backfire capable of breaking the arm of the operator. Electric cars were popular to some extent, but had a short range, and could not be charged on the road if the batteries ran low.
>>17080701have you not read the thread? I already responded here>>17080666
>>17080702Yes they "outsold" gasoline when gasoline cars weren't really invented and amount of "cars" "sold" was measured in single digits. Again it's a gimmick, these aren't cars they are horseless carriages for the person who as Lenno succinctly put it for the person who has a "man" e.g. you walk out of your house into a ready waiting and running vehicle driven and maintained by someone else. None of these still ran on coal.
>>17080700the stanley steamer weighed 750 kilos, so not all that different from a model T. it set the record for the fastest mile in an automobile in 1906, at 127mph. The record was not broken for the next 6 years, so they were faster than the first model Ts.of course the technology was eventually superceded but it was not nearly so black and white as you are making it out to be.
>>17080705they sold over 10,000 stanley steamers anon, and that's just one model by one company
>>17080708That doesn't run on coal.
>>17080709The most popular steam car sold 10k units over 30 years. To put that into perspective the Model T sold that many in it's least productive year ever (1909), during which the steamer was putting out about 600. 10k is also the same number as a single days production of model T's in 1925, one year after the year Stanley motor company ceased to exist. They also did not run on coal.
>>17080710okay? you were making statements about steam cars, you didn't specify coal-powered
>>17080713This thread is about coal powered cars
>>17080714so why are you talking about ford model Ts?
>>17080716Because it's not a coal powered car and illustrates the massive advantages not using coal power has. It also illustrates the massive advantages of not using steam regardless of if it's powered by coal or not for you specifically such as price, ease of use and size.
>>17080717ok. so i was providing a counterexample to show that actually some of the better steam cars performed much better than you were giving them credit for
>>17080718>so i was providing a counterexampleWhich I refuted instantly by pointing out how you were not only wrong but also the fact that the example you provided was not a coal powered. Unless by "give credit" you mean the credit required to pay the bank because that's what you have to do to acquire the 10k dollar steam horses carriage.
>>17080719your fragile ego precludes meaningful conversation
>>17080719> steam horses I want a steam powered horse. Please provide me on citations so I can find out how to get a steam horse
>>17080726Anon price, size and ease of use are real downsides for which these real not coal powered steam horseless carriages got left in the dust bins of history. I listed these out in my own post that you initially replied to and then repeated to you not only as the first response to your "counterexample" but several times hence. None of the examples you provided can counter these any of these facts and in fact demonstrate them aptly. In addition none of the examples you provided use coal powered which is the topic of this discussion which is extremely strange way to argue for coal by repeatedly mentioning non coal using vehicles, the fact that coal necessitates the use of the inferior steam power is merely one downside coal has and not even the main one in every use case. All I can say to you is concession accepted.>>17080728That was supposed to be horseless.But here's a citation on a steam horsehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Horse_locomotive
