Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests

Non-weapons of war, weapons of war

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Dutch46   » Fri May 23, 2014 11:20 pm

Dutch46
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:01 pm

Weird Harold wrote:
Dutch46 wrote:I think you need to take a closer look at what is required to keep a triple expansion engine running. The vaunted reliability of steam stems largely from redundancy and not from the reliability of the multitude of its separate parts.


I don't recall anyone claiming reliability as an advantage for steam power. One reason ICEs took over so completely is the maintenance to operations ratio for steam is so costly. Steam engines can take all day to raise steam, require constant oiling and monitoring, and a host of other tasks to start up or shut down.

What Steam engines offer is maintainability: A decent blacksmith can rebuild almost any part needed.

Steam also offers versatility: external combustion means the boiler can be fired by solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel; everything from buffalo chips to cow farts can fuel a steam engine. (some fuels are obviously better than others. :D)

In Safehold's case, Steam also can pass the inquisition -- at least a Charisian inquisition.

Steam isn't a permanent solution, but it can fill the gaps until the Go4 is defeated and the Proscriptions can be lifted.



A diesel will run on anything that combusts at the temperature that the compression generates. The only problem is getting it into the cylinder at the right time and in the right quantity. There have been diesels that have been run on dried sewage solids. Boilers have a number of drawbacks for mobile applications such as trucks that make diesel propulsion preferable. for stationary applications, steam is fine.
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by biochem   » Sat May 24, 2014 7:45 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

Tenshinai wrote:
SYED wrote:
I don't know why but the inquisitors forced to go after books with talking dragons make me laugh.




That might just hurt their reputation a wee bit...


Yeah, I have trouble imagining inquisitors confiscating copies of "Clifford the Big Red Dog"


:lol:


Seriously that sort of thing might really help. Thinking long term, fantasy stories don't violate the proscriptions the way science fiction stories would. So they'd have the benefit of being justifiable to those outside the inner circle. But at the same time they open people's minds to different ideas. And once minds are open to some different ideas, it's easier to stretch their minds in other ways....
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by AirTech   » Sat May 24, 2014 8:27 am

AirTech
Captain of the List

Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:37 am
Location: Deeeep South (Australia) (most of the time...)

Weird Harold wrote:
Dutch46 wrote:I think you need to take a closer look at what is required to keep a triple expansion engine running. The vaunted reliability of steam stems largely from redundancy and not from the reliability of the multitude of its separate parts.


I don't recall anyone claiming reliability as an advantage for steam power. One reason ICEs took over so completely is the maintenance to operations ratio for steam is so costly. Steam engines can take all day to raise steam, require constant oiling and monitoring, and a host of other tasks to start up or shut down.

What Steam engines offer is maintainability: A decent blacksmith can rebuild almost any part needed.

Steam also offers versatility: external combustion means the boiler can be fired by solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel; everything from buffalo chips to cow farts can fuel a steam engine. (some fuels are obviously better than others. :D)

In Safehold's case, Steam also can pass the inquisition -- at least a Charisian inquisition.

Steam isn't a permanent solution, but it can fill the gaps until the Go4 is defeated and the Proscriptions can be lifted.


Big diesels need maintenance too, the major advantage of a diesel over a stem engine is the one to three hours needed to build the fire in the boiler, up to the point where the boiler pressure is ready for service, in the morning - a step a diesel can skip - and as this adds around two hours minimum to the paid day of the fireman is a significant cost to the operation of a railroad as does removing the ash from the firebox and smokebox. Steam engines and diesels are similar for efficiency (with a slight margin in favor of a compound condensing steam engine), turbocharged diesels work better than steam engines in cold and high enviroments and steam engines require marginally less maintenance (due to fewer moving parts) -
new build steam engines have been considered for a number of applications but the required infrastructure is now lacking in most places.
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat May 24, 2014 8:41 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Dutch46 wrote:A diesel will run on anything that combusts at the temperature that the compression generates. The only problem is getting it into the cylinder at the right time and in the right quantity. There have been diesels that have been run on dried sewage solids. Boilers have a number of drawbacks for mobile applications such as trucks that make diesel propulsion preferable. for stationary applications, steam is fine.


How many long-haul trucks run on sewage pellets? In practical terms, Deisels are limited to liquid and gaseous fuels -- mostly liquid because injecting gaseous fuels presents some explosive problems.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat May 24, 2014 8:53 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

AirTech wrote:Big diesels need maintenance too, the major advantage of a diesel over a stem engine is the one to three hours needed to build the fire in the boiler, up to the point where the boiler pressure is ready for service, ...


The biggest advantages of ICEs over steam is manhours/operating hour. ICEs do require maintenance as well as steam engines, but they don't require as many manhours for each operating hour. That's both "not as many workers" and "not as much work."

The problem isn't that Steam is better than Diesel, it is the Proscriptions that can be stretched to cover steam, but not ICEs.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat May 24, 2014 9:00 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Tenshinai wrote:Like i said before, if gaslights can get by, then ICE probably can.


Gaslights are simply an extension of "burning things provide light." "City Gas" is "just coal in another form." Gaslights don't really introduce any new technology, they're simply adaptations of traditional lanterns to a central fuel supply.

I'm not sure how you stretch "burning things provide light" to "burning things in a cylinder provides power." There's no logical connection between the operating principles of gaslights and ICEs.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat May 24, 2014 11:08 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Weird Harold wrote:
Tenshinai wrote:Like i said before, if gaslights can get by, then ICE probably can.


Gaslights are simply an extension of "burning things provide light." "City Gas" is "just coal in another form." Gaslights don't really introduce any new technology, they're simply adaptations of traditional lanterns to a central fuel supply.

I'm not sure how you stretch "burning things provide light" to "burning things in a cylinder provides power." There's no logical connection between the operating principles of gaslights and ICEs.


You can run ICE on the exact same gas. Then you´re just burning the gas inside a cylinder instead of a lamp. How is that NOT a logical connection?

Since you cant use sparkly bits to ignite, it would be a bit tricky to get around that as with gas spark plugs tend to be preferable, but it´s doable.
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat May 24, 2014 11:13 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Tenshinai wrote:You can run ICE on the exact same gas. Then you´re just burning the gas inside a cylinder instead of a lamp. How is that NOT a logical connection?


How do you make the connection between "this provides light" to "this creates power." Gaslights produce light and heat, but under normal operating conditions, they do NOT create explosions or power.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by lyonheart   » Sat May 24, 2014 3:38 pm

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi AirTech,

I remember about 30 years ago when when they replaced 1300 HP RR steam engines that had been operation the better part of a century in Bolivia and Peru, with diesels of similar power and discovered they didn't work too well at that altitude, so they wound up replacing the 1300HP diesels with 3000 HP diesels to match what the steam engines had been doing with far less fuss and expense for decades.

L


AirTech wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:**quote="Dutch46"**I think you need to take a closer look at what is required to keep a triple expansion engine running. The vaunted reliability of steam stems largely from redundancy and not from the reliability of the multitude of its separate parts.**/quote**

I don't recall anyone claiming reliability as an advantage for steam power. One reason ICEs took over so completely is the maintenance to operations ratio for steam is so costly. Steam engines can take all day to raise steam, require constant oiling and monitoring, and a host of other tasks to start up or shut down.

What Steam engines offer is maintainability: A decent blacksmith can rebuild almost any part needed.

Steam also offers versatility: external combustion means the boiler can be fired by solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel; everything from buffalo chips to cow farts can fuel a steam engine. (some fuels are obviously better than others. :D)

In Safehold's case, Steam also can pass the inquisition -- at least a Charisian inquisition.

Steam isn't a permanent solution, but it can fill the gaps until the Go4 is defeated and the Proscriptions can be lifted.


Big diesels need maintenance too, the major advantage of a diesel over a stem engine is the one to three hours needed to build the fire in the boiler, up to the point where the boiler pressure is ready for service, in the morning - a step a diesel can skip - and as this adds around two hours minimum to the paid day of the fireman is a significant cost to the operation of a railroad as does removing the ash from the firebox and smokebox. Steam engines and diesels are similar for efficiency (with a slight margin in favor of a compound condensing steam engine), turbocharged diesels work better than steam engines in cold and high enviroments and steam engines require marginally less maintenance (due to fewer moving parts) -
new build steam engines have been considered for a number of applications but the required infrastructure is now lacking in most places.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Non-weapons of war, weapons of war
Post by Weird Harold   » Sat May 24, 2014 4:53 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

lyonheart wrote:Hi AirTech,

I remember about 30 years ago when when they replaced 1300 HP RR steam engines that had been operation the better part of a century in Bolivia and Peru, with diesels of similar power and discovered they didn't work too well at that altitude, so they wound up replacing the 1300HP diesels with 3000 HP diesels to match what the steam engines had been doing with far less fuss and expense for decades.


I think that's why "Turbocharged Diesels" were specified. Steam engines do work better at altitude than at sea level -- as long as differential pressure (PSID) is monitored as well as absolute boiler pressures. (PSIA)

Still, it is going to be a while before Safehold technology is up to building Turbochargers or Superchargers, OR the advanced Diesel engines that can survive them.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top

Return to Safehold