The Steam Engine That Might

In the view of many Americans, the awesome edifice of modern technology has become more a millstone than a spire. And the internal-combustion engine, which propelled an adoring U.S. public to the forefront of the 20th century, has become the critics' primary target. They indict it for polluting the air and disturbing the peace. The fuel that it burns has presented Texas oil barons and Middle Eastern potentates with generous profits, but there is growing public pressure for some alternative kind of engine.

Surprisingly, one of the most talked-about substitutes is the old-fashioned steam engine, which enabled the Stanley Steamer to reign briefly in the early part of the century as queen of the road. The steamer was dethroned because it was costly to buy, its water boiler required constant replenishment, and it was slow to start. Today, in corporate laboratories and amateur workshops all across the country, tinkerers and dreamers are trying to overcome these formidable obstacles.

Chatter and Hiss. The Government is becoming involved. The Environmental Protection Agency has just awarded a $570,000 steam-engine-development contract to a small firm in Newton, Mass., called Steam Engine Systems, or SES. Similar contracts to develop non-steam, low-pollution vapor engines using organic fluids like fluronol instead of water have gone to California's Aerojet-General Corp. and Thermo Electron of Waltham, Mass. The environmental agency expects to hold a competitive runoff by year's end to determine which of the three engines merits additional federal money.

SES has already put together an experimental 100-h.p. steam engine with support from Mobil Oil, which is interested in the lubricating problems of steamers. SES President Richard Morse headed a 1967 federal study group, which concluded that a return to the steam engine was indeed possible. Morse says that theoretically a steamer could use any kind of fuel, "even camel dung, if there were enough camels," but he prefers kerosene. The fuel is not exploded inside the cylinder as it is in the internal-combustion engine but is burned in an external combustion chamber at atmospheric pressure. As a result it gives off much lower concentrations of toxic gases than present machines. Because there are no cylinder explosions, the steamer is fairly quiet, merely chattering and hissing instead of roaring like internal-combustion engines.

No Tanks. Under the terms of the new contract, SES has a year to produce a design for a 100-h.p. engine that could power a five-passenger car. American Motors has agreed to do an engineering analysis and help in adapting the engine for automotive use. To ensure that the car will not resemble a tank, the entire propulsion system cannot weigh more than 1,600 lbs., v. 1,300 lbs. for a conventional medium-sized car. Yet the system must be able to thrust the car from zero to 60 m.p.h. in 13 sec., drive it up a 5% grade at 60 m.p.h. and give it a top speed of 80 m.p.h. To make the engine marketable, the company must also find a way to lessen the danger of freeze-ups in frigid weather and the problem of quickly getting up steam to start. SES staffers have only to glance out their windows for inspiration. Company offices are separated by a small stream from the site of the original Stanley Steamer works.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.