Diesel

SWM wrote:We aren't getting anywhere with this. I haven't seen a new argument or angle posted in the last week. There are people who think that diesel and internal combustion engines can be squeezed into the Proscriptions, and some who don't, and no one has managed to convince anyone to change their minds. I'm not sure there is anything useful left to be said on the topic for the moment.

Very true. But, without snippets to spur new ideas and concepts, the crew are bashing just to stay active. LAMA has been out for months and speculation for HFQ has reached a standoff until we have more data.

How about this for a reason: Steam engines are just more lovely because of their (relative) simplicity.

Water should be no problem, as most rails would be lain near canals, because of grade issues.

I am aware of the superiority of other mechanisms to power railroads, but given where Safehold is at the moment, it just seems logical to go to steam.

dan92677 wrote:How about this for a reason: Steam engines are just more lovely because of their (relative) simplicity.

Water should be no problem, as most rails would be lain near canals, because of grade issues.

I am aware of the superiority of other mechanisms to power railroads, but given where Safehold is at the moment, it just seems logical to go to steam.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

Don

Steam engines are nicer.

n7axw wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

There does seem to be lot of that going around in the threads discussing Charisian technology. There are the "Steampunk" posters that don't want Safehold to go past Steam for any reason, and those who want steam consigned to the dustbins as quickly as possible.

Personally, I'd like to see Safehold go past both as quickly as possible and totally forgo development of fossil fuels and all the environmental problems associated with them.

Getting past coal to natural gas or a renewable bio-fuel like Fire-vine Oil to fire steam engines would be as far as I'd take heat engines of any kind before moving to electric factories and vehicles with Steam and Hydro-electric turbines to generate the electricity.

n7axw wrote:

dan92677 wrote:How about this for a reason: Steam engines are just more lovely because of their (relative) simplicity.

Water should be no problem, as most rails would be lain near canals, because of grade issues.

I am aware of the superiority of other mechanisms to power railroads, but given where Safehold is at the moment, it just seems logical to go to steam.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

Don

Have you ever seen a diesel without its hood? Steam engines are are a comparative marvel of simplicity. Even a Shay has nothing on a diesel electric or even diesel hydraulic loco. (And diesel mechanical is even worse).
(As I keep getting back to, its not the engine that's hard, its building a light weight, high power transmission, special metallurgy is not just nice, its essential, (and turbochargers are yet another complication if you want high efficiency (or at least better than a steam engine)).
You have to keep remembering that even a simple diesel vehicle engine has an order of magnitude more pistons (and connecting rods and valves) than a similar power steam engine - partly because you have single acting cylinders and partly because smooth power delivery is required without a big (and very heavy) flywheel from impulse firing cylinders).
A Deltic diesel or a rotary sleeve valve diesel would however be a pleasant way of messing with the CoGA's minds (particularly if the final drive gears were missing from the Deltic).

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

There does seem to be lot of that going around in the threads discussing Charisian technology. There are the "Steampunk" posters that don't want Safehold to go past Steam for any reason, and those who want steam consigned to the dustbins as quickly as possible.

Personally, I'd like to see Safehold go past both as quickly as possible and totally forgo development of fossil fuels and all the environmental problems associated with them.

Getting past coal to natural gas or a renewable bio-fuel like Fire-vine Oil to fire steam engines would be as far as I'd take heat engines of any kind before moving to electric factories and vehicles with Steam and Hydro-electric turbines to generate the electricity.

I have no problem with diesels per se, but pushing too fast risks undermining a broad spread of the technologies (and the associated maintenance infrastructure). f you are fighting a war, you don't want many diverse power plants to maintain, common spare parts are worth their weight in gold when something breaks (and it will). As for renewables, firing steam engines on wood has a really long history but needs bigger fireboxes than coal fired engines.

dan92677 wrote:How about this for a reason: Steam engines are just more lovely because of their (relative) simplicity.

Water should be no problem, as most rails would be lain near canals, because of grade issues.

I am aware of the superiority of other mechanisms to power railroads, but given where Safehold is at the moment, it just seems logical to go to steam.

For railroads, steam works quite well, same goes for ships. It´s even better as fixed industrial engines.

It´s when you try to take it elsewhere that it´s bad sides start becoming very noticeable and "pesky".

AirTech wrote:Have you ever seen a diesel without its hood? Steam engines are are a comparative marvel of simplicity. Even a Shay has nothing on a diesel electric or even diesel hydraulic loco. (And diesel mechanical is even worse).

Why do you insist on using modern diesels to compare with? That´s just dishonest.
Diesels can be made simple as well.

If you compare a fully developed triple expansion steam engine with a simple diesel, at that point the diesel is the "marvel of simplicity".

Or can you find a diesel engine that needs to have about 200 instruments and controls?

AirTech wrote:(As I keep getting back to, its not the engine that's hard, its building a light weight, high power transmission, special metallurgy is not just nice, its essential

First of all, why do you need a lightweight transmission?

And you do realise that in the real world, suitable transmissions could be built with the technology needed to build decent steam engines.

AirTech wrote:(and turbochargers are yet another complication if you want high efficiency (or at least better than a steam engine)).

Again incorrect. A turbodiesel simply takes the better efficiency of a regular diesel and makes it drastic.

AirTech wrote:I have no problem with diesels per se

Yes you do, as otherwise you wouldnt go in such extreme circles trying to fudge so much against it.

One "complication" would be the "Still" engine, Double acting with steam below the piston and diesel above with the diesel exhaust used to boil more water for the steam side.

For railway use there was the prototype "Kitson-Still" locomotive successfully trialled in the '30s but not used further because of the depression and engineering Luddism - several successful installations at sea, though as the thermal efficiency was worthwhile on long voyages