It’s time for yet another historical article! Quite long this time, but I am sure you’ll love it.
Source: Vollketten (shared from WoT NA forums with permission)
From: AFV-G2 Magazine, Vol.5, Number 4 in 1975. By Baron Publishing
Steam Power for Tanks
by Col. Robert J. Icks, Ret’d.
The origin of the tank as such during World War I. Is usually credited to the British, but the French were working on such a device at the same time, with neither knowing of the other’s efforts. But what is not generally known is that the idea for this type of weapon appeared during this period in other countries as well. The Italian Pavesi-Tolatti or Pavesi-Cassali two-turreted tank probably pre-dated both the British and French designs, but it seems not to have progressed beyond the mock-up stage. The Russian Lebedenko was a huge tricycle, which seems to have been built but was not found manageable.
In the United States, Cleve F. Shaffer of San Francisco had tried unsuccessfully in 1914 to interest the German consul there in arming and armouring hundreds of little Fagcol orchard tractors. Norman Leeds of the Automatic Machine Company of Hartford, Connecticut built two mock-up hulls on the chassis of the firm’s commercial ‘Alligator’ vehicle, calling them the ‘Automatic Land Cruiser I. and II.’. U.S. Patent No. 1,161,267, issued to W. T. Taylor in 1915 covers an amphibious tank bearing a remarkable resemblance to the modern LVT(P)5.
The inspiration’ for the British and French tanks was the American Holt tractor, then in use in both armies. It therefore was natural that Holt would capitalise on the fact. The Holt plant at Stockton, California built several mock-up hulls called ‘Special 18’ or ‘Scat the Kaiser’. One of these later was refitted with a Cadillac engine, thereby doubling its speed. There also was a tiny HA 15 one-man tank powered by a motorcycle engine and resembling the British heavy tanks of the period. Another Holt vehicle was the G-9, built at the Peoria, Illinois factory. This was a standard 10-ton tractor with an armoured box surmounted by a small revolving turret at the front and another larger one at the rear. It was tested at the Sandy Hook, New Jersey Proving Ground, predecessor to the Aberdeen Proving Ground facility.
The C. L. Best Tractor Company of San Leandro, California built two mock-up types on their CLB 75 tractor. One had a semi-cylindrical hull with a turret and the other was similar but the hull had flat surfaces. These two machines appeared at a Fourth of July celebration in San Francisco in 1917, in manoeuvres with units of the California National Guard. Another Best vehicle was a tiny cable-controlled demolition tracklayer known as the Wickersham Land Torpedo, which pre-dated the German ‘Goliath’ of World War II. by almost 25 years.
Designs from other manufacturers also appeared. One was the Skeleton Tank, a vehicle made up of plumbing pipes and connections and bearing a general resemblance to the British heavy tanks of the period. It was submitted by the Pioneer Tractor Company of Winona, Minnesota. A simple smaller version of a British heavy tank but with a small turret was the Victoria, also known as the Hamilton, built by the Oakland Motor Car Company.
Still others included the Holt Gas-Electric Tank, a boxlike affair somewhat like the German A7V of World War I., and built jointly by Holt and the General Electric Company[its picture appears at the head of the article]. By the time the United States had entered World War I., mobilisation and production problems were tremendous and decisions regarding armament had to be made in order to make American power felt as soon as possible. An Army armament board in Paris recommended that, insofar as tanks were concerned, we should adopt two types, a light and a heavy. But it was not until three months later, in September, 1917, that a final decision in the matter was made and there was no follow-through until December of that year.
Industrially from then on, all was confusion. There were optimistic estimates as to production.
The French furnished us with the first Renault FT light tank off their assembly line, which we were to produce as the ‘Six Ton Special Tractor (a code name). In February 1918, the AEF was told that the American copy would be in production shortly and that the first six vehicles would arrive in France in April. However, in February the drawings had not yet been converted from metric measurements and not all contracts had been let. Order did not come out of chaos until October 1918, and the first few tanks did not reach France until after the Armistice in November. For heavy tanks, the British Mark VIII. design was adopted, although none had yet been bruit. The plan m tins case was to divide construction between England and the United States, with assembly to take place in a new factory to be built in France. A few of these tanks were completed in England and 100 were built at Rock Island Arsenal in the United States from parts purchased in England, but not until after the war was over. The Mark VIII. and the Six Ton Tank remained the standard U.S. tanks for years following World War I.
However, part of the confusion over tank production was due to other designs being urged on the Army. Besides the vehicles already mentioned, there was the Mark I., or Ford Three-Man Tank, built by the Hudson Motor Car Company, then owned by the Ford family. This tank had resulted from a request by the Service if Supply in France for such vehicles for security purposes. Ford also proposed the little two-man tank which utilised many standard Model T parts. This vehicle was so well received by the Ordnance Department as a machine gun carrier and tractor that 15,000 were ordered, however, only some 15 reached France before Armistice Day, 1918, and the remainder were cancelled.
In the meantime, the Allied plans for using tanks in large numbers in 1919 included provisions for keeping up the momentum of attack by means of thousands of unarmed tracklaying tractors. The British took up the responsibility for furnishing these and adopted a British Ford design known as the Newton Tractor. In addition to production in England, the British contracted with Buick and Studebaker in the United States to build these tractors, known here incorrectly as Buick and Studebaker tanks. Only the Studebakers could have been so called, because that firm also built for the British an experimental armoured cover which could be dropped over the tractor and bolted to it. The resulting vehicles resembled a miniature British heavy tank.
All of the vehicles mentioned were gasoline powered. Production, production and more production was the cry of the day, so not much consideration was given to any other form of vehicle production although steam power was not completely ignored. The Holt Company built a 17-ton armoured tricycle resembling the German Treffas Wagen of the same period. The Holt Steam Wheel Tank was powered by two Doble steam engines. Another steam-powered tank was known simply as the Steam Tank.
The Steam Tank was a project of the Corps of Engineers. A flame-thrower demonstrated in November of 1917 was so successful that the Corps of Engineers decided to build a tank to carry it. There was some reason for the Engineers to become involved in tanks, since the U.S. Tank Corps originated by converting the 1st Battalion, 65th Engineers into tankers. The Engineers had no funds for the project, but a firm of bankers in Boston financed its building, which was accomplished at the Endicott and Johnson Shoe Company. Its design closely resembled that of the British heavy tanks of the day, and its armament comprised flame-throwers and machine guns. The Steam Tank weighed 50-tons and it was powered, like the Steam Wheel Tank, by two Doble steam engines. These were not the first steam-powered combat vehicles ever built, however. In 1900, two unarmed steam-powered cars mounting Colt machine guns had been built by cadets at Northwestern Military Academy. then at Highland Park, Illinois, under the direction of the Commandant, Colonel R. P. Davidson. These cars were used by the cadets in manoeuvres for several years, and were driven to Washington. D.C. over the very poor roads of the time. The Russians also built a steam- powered car in 1900. This was the Dwinsky armoured car, designed by the Imperial Artillery Committee. It was found to be too heavy and was underpowered, and it was abandoned. The first successful armoured steam tractors used in war were built by the British Army during the Boer War in South Africa. These were commercial steam driven Fowler tractors enclosed in armour and drawing armoured trailers in train. They were used to carry artillery and personnel.
A review of the background of steam power as applied commercially to automobiles properly begins at about the same time. Steam tractors had been used in agriculture and logging since the 1880’s. Steam power was applied to the automobile almost at the same time as the internal combustion engine was. From this review, it will be seen that the application of steam to power armoured vehicles would have been a perfectly logical thing in 1917, since steam had been an acceptable commercial fact for some years. However, internal combustion powered vehicle production was much greater, so that with the volume of production urgently needed for tanks, steam took second place.
When the history of the automobile began at the end of the 19th Century, the internal combustion engine represented a fairly compact power package. The external combustion, or steam engine was bulkier and had other drawbacks. Never- theless, a few engineers worked to eliminate the shortcomings. Among these were the Stanley twins. The Stanleys began building steam cars in 1897. Before long, they were producing some 600 cars each year. However, the twins were not young and were not interested in expanding beyond this point.
The early Stanley cars were fast but had a limited range. They were costly and difficult to operate. They emitted clouds of steam and some of the larger cities later forced the design and inclusion of a condenser, which added to the cost. By the time of World War I., the age of the Stanleys and the restrictions imposed on the economy by the War Emergency Board prevented further development. After the death of one of the brothers, the company began to decline and finally became bankrupt in 1923.
Locomobile went into the steam car business for a few years beginning in 1898. The White Company, originally a sewing machine firm, began to produce a quality steam car in 1900 and made many steam car improvements. However, by 1910, White decided that the internal combustion engine was gaining in popularity and they dropped the steam car. Eventually, White stopped production of passenger cars and concentrated on trucks.
There were many other American manufacturers of steam cars in the early part of the 20th Century, although none produced any great volume. They included such brand names as Boss, Clark, Conrad, Eclipse, Gardner-Serpollet, Grout, Jaxon, Lane, Meteor, Milwaukee, Mobile, Reading, Stea- mobile, Stearns and Toledo. European builders included Serpollet in France and Cox, Sheppee and Pearson, and Turner-Miesse in England.
The name ‘Stanley Steamer’ persists today, perhaps because of the alliteration of the name, but it was the Doble Steam Car that overcame most of the objections to earlier steam automobiles. Development began when Abner Doble built a car while a student at M.I.T. Several years later, an improved model was first shown at the 1917 New York Auto Show. It was an overnight sensation. The Doble firm received thousands of orders but wartime government metals restrictions prevented their being filled. In fact, Doble automobile production was not started until 1922. The Doble brothers, John, Warren, Wilbur and Abner, members of a well-established California engineering firm, then produced a reliable luxury car that was easy to drive. The Doble was guaranteed for 100,000 miles and its quality made it as high priced as a Rolls-Royce.
Some of the Doble four-cylinder steam powered cars are still running today and at least one has logged over 600,000 miles. However, through no fault of their own, the Doble firm became bankrupt early in the Great Depression of the Thirties. By this time, other American firms had sprung up to build steam cars, but these also disappeared from the scene, after building only a few cars each. They included the Brooks, Coats, Delling, Gardner and Gearless. General Motors built a steam car but dropped it. From 1897 to 1925, there actually had been some 80 different steam car manufacturers.
Abner Doble became associated with A. & G. Pierce in New Zealand in 1931, where an A.E.C. bus was successfully converted to steam. He and one brother went to England the following year, where they spent two years acting as consultants to the Sentinel Waggon Works. The Sentinel steam powered truck was then dropped because the firm decided that it could not compete with diesel powered trucks.
At the same time, the two brothers travelled back and forth to Germany, where they licensed two companies that made steam powered railway cars. buses and trucks. Little money was available, however, since Germany was beginning to pour money into arms production. During the same period, the former Allies were still suffering from limited appropriations for military purposes. Hugh stocks had been left over from World War I. and, although experimental combat vehicles were being built in almost every country, money was tight because of the world-wide depression.
As already mentioned, the United States continued to get along with the Six Ton Special Tractor and Mark VIII. Tanks, except for a few experimental types. In an effort to stir up come comment as well as the possibility of improving on the Six Ton Tank, the author wrote a ‘1984’ type of article for ORDNANCE magazine, describing the updating of our Six Ton tanks by converting the suspension to a Christie type. The article drew no comment.
I then wrote an article under the non de plume of ‘Duffer’ with the title ‘The New Illyrian Tank’. It appeared in the September 1930 issue of THE ROYAL TANK CORPS JOURNAL. Only the Editor and Major Fritz Heigl, the well-known Austrian tank authority, knew I was the author. The article described a mythical country that had rebuilt its Renault FT tanks with Christie suspension. It had a two-cylinder steam engine together with an auxiliary high-speed steam turbine, which drove a commander’s combination vision stroboscope and neon light signalling device as well as a triple slotted disc stroboscope for the driver and a turret basket to replace the former hammock seat for the commander. The article was complete with detail sketches and a faked photograph. This article attracted more attention.
Part of the German press was sure that I was describing a new French Renault M29/30 tank being used in Yugoslavia, perhaps because ‘Illyria’ at one time had been the name for that part of Europe, One German review translated ‘Duffer’ into ‘Quatschkopf, which was inaccurate as well as uncomplimentary. Dr. Heigl told me that the article appeared to be taken as gospel for some time, with eventual German resentment for having been fooled.
Mention of this episode is made only to indicate that I have been an advocate of the use of steam power for quite some time. During World War II., I tried to get an allocation of $40,000 for a trial installation of steam power. At that time, I was in charge of automotive testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground and believed it worth while trying anything that would produce better fighting vehicles.
Montgomery’s tanks at that particular time appeared unable to catch up with the retreating Afrikakorps after the Battle of El Alamein, due to the limited radius of operation of tanks at that period. The Post Engineer (at Aberdeen Proving Ground) happened to be a successful steam power consultant in civilian life. He remarked to me that British tanks should have been powered by steam engines instead of internal combustion engines. When he learned that the World War I. ‘Steam Tank’ was in the Ordnance Museum, he suggested removing one of its two Doble engines to determine its condition and measurements, with a view to making layouts for an experimental installation in an M4A4 Medium Tank.
Testing the engine with compressed air proved it to be in perfect working order. Layouts showed that installation in the M4A4, which had a slightly longer hull to accommodate the five Chrysler engines around a common crankshaft, was feasible. However, the project was killed. A long list of young Ordnance officers in the Pentagon, most of whom in peacetime were employees of the several automobile manufacturers and oil companies, killed the request with their sarcasm written on the ‘buckslips’ so common in the Pentagon during World War II. I still have them. Most are humorous, some of them painfully so, but none showed any real thought having been given to the proposal. The rejection was a disappointment, especially in view of the millions of dollars then available for research, with so much of it visibly squandered.
Later, it was learned that Henschel in Germany actually had been making layouts for a steam power installation in a Tiger tank at almost the same time. They found that existing boilers and condensers occupied too much space, and since the OKH was disinterested, the project was dropped.
After World War II., steam power for .passenger and commercial automobiles was revived commercially. An American steam car was designed by Thomas S. Derr and was made in 1945, but it got no further than the prototype. McCulloch Motors Corporation engaged Abner Doble as a consultant. They produced a six-cylinder, poppet valve ‘Paxton’ engine in 1953, but it was never installed in a car. This engine could start in twenty seconds from dead cold! It had many other good features but the project was costly and was dropped. Abner Doble also worked for a time with the Kean Manufacturing Company of Milwaukee during 1956. He died in 1961.
There have been other firms which have developed experimental engines or actively build and market a range of steam engine designs. Among these is the Williams Engineering Corporation of Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. This company each years sells a few cars of standard makes in which their four-cylinder engine has been substituted for the original engine. Other William’s engines range in size from 10 to 1,000 horsepower.
Some of the other post-World War II. steam cars include one with a three-cylinder Paxton Vapor engine (not the McCulloch engine) by Paxve, Inc. of Newport Beach, California. A thermo-Electron one-cylinder car is made by a firm of the same name. A Volkswagen Microbus with a Kinetics Corporation rotary Minto engine is another. This engine is a positive displacement rotary type, with internal reversibility, and has only two moving parts. It is a vapor engine, using Freon gas instead of water.
In recent years, Gene van Grechen in Australia built a 40 horsepower, boxer long stroke steam engine, and installed it in a passenger car chassis. Later, a larger engine of 400 horsepower, delivering 125 horsepower at the wheels, was installed. Engine speed and torque were governed by a steam emission valve, activated by a hydraulic master cylinder, operated in turn by a standard accelerator pedal. A solid-state miniature computer with two memory banks controls the operation of the generator through a photoelectric cell. This device monitors the flame size and adjusts the burner output to meet the power demands. The condenser serves as a heat exchanger. Steam pressure is 800 psi., very low for steam power. The vehicle has a 1,000 mile range before the water needs replenishing.
Since 1963, the Pritchard steam car, built by the Pritchard Steam Power Proprietary LTD., has received considerable publicity in Australia and here. It comprises a Ford Falcon sedan, powered by a two-cylinder V-type steam engine. Prior to this, the firm had produced a steam powered 5-ton truck.
Currently, the State of California is conducting tests of steam powered buses in Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The vehicles are standard buses powered respectively by a three-cylinder Brobeck made in Berkeley, a six-cylinder Steam Power System engine, and a vapor turbine built by Lear Motor Corporation. The same turbine is intended for the firm’s Monte Carlo sedan. Another current test is that of a 100-horsepower Steam Engine Systems Corporation engine in an Ambassador car; this test if being conducted by American Motors for the federal government.
Even later is the ‘Fascination’ sports car, which is being marketed by Highway Aircraft Corporation of Sidney, Nebraska. This car is powered by a 100-horsepower engine measuring only 5x6xl2-inches in size, called a vapor generator steam turbine engine. The engines are made by American Boilerless Steam Engine Corporation.
Controlled Steam Dynamics (now Steamotive, Inc.) does not build or modify automobiles but has developed an eight-cylinder, 212-pound, 600-horsepower engine with the cylinders arranged around a central shaft. The pistons actuate a helix on a rotating drum camshaft. The Elliptocline engine, made by Steam Motor Systems of Winston-Salem, is similar. It has two pistons for each of nine-open-ended cylinders which act against inclined plates instead of a helix. This engine weighs 300-pounds and develops 1000-horsepower at 2,000 psi.
As concerns the application of steam to armoured vehicles, the next time the subject was broached after World War II. Was in 1954. At that time, Chester Utz, a prominent and respected automotive engineer and then Chairman of the Ordnance-Industry Combat Vehicle Committee, proposed exploration of the matter. He received no support, perhaps again because most committee members had industry responsibilities.
In 1964, Victor Millman, then with Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation, proposed a closed circuit steam system for a 42-ton tank and built a three-foot working scale model. The design called for a pair of steam turbines in a full scale tank, each turbine delivering 250-horsepower at 24,000 r.p.m. Including a three-to-one reduction gear, these turbines in full size were expected to be no more than 9-inches by 18-inches in size.
The opposition of the automobile and oil industries is understandable. They have tremendous investments in the internal combustion engine. They maintain staffs that research other means of propulsion, but these staffs are small and the emphasis has been on the gas turbine or the glamor types of internal combustion engines such as the Wankel, the Tschudi and others. Some work has been done by General Motors on the Sterling Thermal engine following pioneer work done by Phillips of Holland. The Ford Motor Company has acquired rights to this engine. The Sterling engine is a hot air engine rather than steam, and the principle is quite old. Combustion takes place outside the engine cylinder and the hot air produced is led through a closed circuit system to double pistons in each cylinder. Gas combustion is continuous and expanding alternate heating and cooling produce the cycle of operation. The engine is silent but it is heavy and costly to produce.
The later developments in steam power have received relatively little publicity. Since the industry and the Army are conditioned to the internal combustion engine, and the public has made no demand for steam because of existing folklore which is hard to dispel, the tactical and logistical advantages of steam power are not being exploited. Here are the myths regarding steam power:
1. Steam power is bulky ….
Doubling steam power does require about eight times the heat exchanger volume, but nevertheless, some of the engines themselves, as just noted, are very small. And, delivery of power at the drive sprockets of a tank is the proper method of comparison because it eliminates conventional power train losses. A steam engine needs no power train and, unlike the internal combustion engine, the external combustion engine torque output is maximum even when starting from a stop. Thus, it is estimated that a steam engine of 500-horsepower is the equivalent of a 1000-horsepower internal combustion engine.
2. Water freezes, is subject to scaling, and needs frequent replenishment ….
The speed of steam vapour travel greatly reduces scaling. ‘Closed circuit’ power flow reduces water consumption so that, in modern steam passenger cars at least, water loss is no more than a gallon per 1000 miles. As to freezing, a small electric immersion heater easily prevents this. And there are vapour media other than water. One of these is Freon as used in refrigerators. Freon is cheap, non-toxic, has low freezing and boiling temperatures and is a good lubricant for steel.
3. Steam carries a risk of high temperatures, boiler explosions and fire ….
Effective fail-safe systems which shut off the boiler, permitting operation of the built-up pressure until lowered pressure again turns on the burner have existed for over fifty years. Abner Doble’s 1917 car had it as well as the monotube boiler, a small diameter tube coiled in a tight spiral. Exhausted vapour is returned to the boiler or heat exchanger through the condenser to a feed tank where it is recycled. If ruptured, the small diameter tube contains only a small amount of steam. The danger of explosion or fire is less than that of the conventional power package, in spite of working pressures as high as 3000 pounds-per-square-inch.
4. Steam engines require a long time to ‘fire up’…
Slow start was eliminated with Abner Doble’s monotube boiler. Today, starts take no longer than five to thirty seconds, even in winter.
So, instead of disadvantages, steam engines have many advantages. In addition to those already mentioned, they include fewer working parts, reduced maintenance needs, quietness, freedom from vibration, no increase in noise during acceleration and none in gear shifting since there is no transmission, great radius of operation and good speed control over a wide range.
It probably is true that the accessory load, sometimes called the ‘hotel load’, would require some form of auxiliary power. In a tank, this load is considerable. However; a small supplementary engine or turbine driving a generator was proved by Doble to be a practical accessory. In fact, another approach to tank motive power might be a steam-driven electric generator with an electric motor driving each track. The French St. Chammond tank and the U.S. Holt tanks of World War I. had gas-electric drive. Some U.S. T23 Medium Tanks in World War II. were similarly powered. They were rejected by the Armoured Force because of the claim that there would be too great a danger of being immobilised through enemy fire, however, this hazard exists regardless of the type of motive power used. The T23 tanks were extremely manoeuvrable. Steam-electric tanks would be equally so.
For passenger automobiles today, the emphasis is on such engines as the Wankel, but mainly from the standpoint of quietness of operation and of eliminating air pollution. These engines are quiet, but success in the matter of air pollution has been less than expected. A few gas turbine powered passenger automobiles have appeared in recent years but these have been distributed only to a few selected owners for marketing tests.
The U.S. Army tested a Solar gas turbine in a T95 tank and an M60 tank test rig is currently operating with an AGT-1500 gas turbine as a possible power plant for our future tanks. A steam engine would provide everything that a gas turbine can and more. Not the least of the advantages of the steam engine is that it does not have the characteristic, self-revealing whine of either the gas turbine or the steam turbine. General Dynamics Corporation, proposed a closed circuit steam system for a 42-ton tank and built a three-foot working scale model. The design called for a pair of steam turbines in a full scale tank, each turbine delivering 250-horsepower at 24,000 r.p.m. Including a three-to-one reduction gear, these turbines in full size were expected to be no more than 9-inches by 18-inches in size.
Resistance to change is human. Without a demand for it, automotive steam power is not likely to be offered to the general public. The financial cost of commercial changeover, together with problems of mass production, mass marketing, advertising and planned obsolescence would be enormous. Therefore, it is hardly likely that we will see a change to steam for a long time to come, even as a result of the energy crisis or through the demands of ecologists. However, such matters would be secondary as respects military needs. They could be met without any great commercial upheaval. Special tooling would be minimal and machining to high tolerances would not be required to the extent that it is in the case of engines like the Wankel, for example. But even so, for industry to meet a military requirement for steam power would take some time.
However, if the Army could be convinced that the matter is worth exploring and were to allocate sufficient funds for the purpose, the firms already involved should be more than interested in expanding and further developing the existing working engines to meet the requirements of heavy armoured vehicles. Certainly there is a great deal more reason to investigate the potentialities of steam power now than there was in the early 1950’s, when the Army considered the use of atomic power in medium tanks and actually modified a vehicle to accept an atomic power installation. Steam power is not as far out as that was ….
I have continued to feel that some experimentation in steam power was desirable. During the period when a special research committee was convened at Fort Knox for the purposes of setting guide lines for a tank to replace the ill-fated MBT 70, they asked for ideas, receiving a good many. Mine suggested, among other things, that steam power be given some consideration. There was no response. I then wrote an article which was published in ARMED FORCES JOURNAL in April of 1973, about the time that the committee made its report. Not one word of comment, one way or another, has appeared anywhere.
Had the U.S. Army started on this steam power project in 1942, in 1954, in 1964 or in 1972, it would by now have been well along toward solution and perhaps even application. Since we do not seem to expect a new tank to replace the basic M60 tank until 1980, it is still not too late to consider steam power in the development of such a replacement tank.
In the article in ARMED FORCES JOURNAL, I stated at the close that: ‘The preliminary work has been done. All that is needed is to open more eyes to the potential of steam as a source of power for future combat tanks. In the language of the streets: ‘If you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it.” It seems unfortunate to me that the Army is not doing either one.
Bibliography
Armed Forces Journal (Periodical), April 1973.
Bloch, A., Alternate Automotive Power Systems Fossil Fuel Burning, Automotive Industries, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, 1969.
Derr, T.S., ‘The Modern Steam Car and Its Background, Los Angeles, CA, 1945.
Popular Mechanics (Periodical), 1945-1973.
Popular Science (Periodical), 1945-1973.
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, Automobile Steam Engines and Other External Combustion Engines, Serial No. 90-82, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Alternates to the Gasoline-Powered Internal Combustion Engine, Serial No. 92-H33, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.
‘The Antique Automobile’ (Periodical).
Walton, J.W., ‘Doble Steam Cars, Buses, Lorries and Rail Cars’, Light Steam Power, Kirk Michael, Isle of Man,1970.
Correspondence with:
Gibbs-Hosick Trust (Steam Motor Systems), Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Highway Aircraft Corporation, Sidney, Nebraska.
Kinetics Corporation, Sarasora, Florida.
Victor Millman, Costa Mesa, California.
Paxve Inc., Newport Beach, California.
Michael Rosen, San Francisco, California.
Thermo-Electron Engineering Corporation, Waltham, MA.
Steamotive Inc., Tempe, Arizona.
Williams Engineering Company, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania.
