Sort of ... ???

Just come across this Youtube clip. If you can ignore the presenter, the content is worth watching.

**LINK**

rgds

Bill

Please say what the video is about rather than just posting a link so people don't waste time if they are not interested in the subject.

This is a wannabe top gear presenter visiting a genuine model engineer who has trashed a series 2? Landrover and put a Foden style steam plant in it. He has a nice big colchester lathe but no details of the engine are given.

Bazyle - thank you for the response.

Not sure that all link suggestions should carry a synopsis to avoid wasting member's valuable time - personally, I assess these sorts if things quite quickly and go elsewhere if interest fails ... different folks, different strokes, I suppose.

rgds

Bill

As soon as I saw the firebox full of wood, I lost interest completely - though I guess if I'd engaged brain properly  I'd've sussed the need for a fireman at the start.

Edited By Mick B1 on 09/08/2021 21:22:17

I thought someone would come back to confirm the type of Landrover.

Bill this is just a pet peeve of mine. if you had titled the whole post "Steam powered Landrover video" it would clarify the subject and search engine friendly all in one go, Even better is to advise to skip drivel and adverts in first 4 minutes.

Steam engines are very interesting examples of devices of their time - and keeping them working is a valid exercise in demonstrating the steps that got us where we are now - but to me it makes no sense at all to downgrade something from a current technology.

Perhaps someone wants to convert a Landy to horse-drawn? Or better still a rickshaw variant?

Yes, for a Landrover with a dead engine, an electric conversion with a fork truck motor would be much a more sensible exercise. Retain the front axle drive, easily manage higher speeds, probably more range, etc, etc.

Novelty value 10/10. Useful value 1/10.

I, too, would prefer to know what is in the bag I am being invited to put my head in, particularly when the thread title gives minimal information.

I guess what it does bring into focus is the truly vast practical superiority of internal combustion engines over solid-fuel external combustion.

And the backbreaking, disciplined, numbingly tedious manual labour many of the population would have to take on in order to return to that technology on any substantial scale.

Yes a decent title and/or text saves having to go looking at things you may not be interested in or have seen before like this easily searched for thread of the same landy posted a few years back.

There is no contest really, or even a comparison. Oil would have replaced coal after a few years and now LPG would likely be used as fuel. They would require a lot more water than fuel.🙂

BUT, either no masses of individual transport or horrendously accelerated use of fossil fuels (and hence climate change). At least internal combustion engines have reached 25-30% energy efficiency and (mostly) without the air pollution of a coal fire.