Diesel

Weird Harold wrote:I don't misunderstand, I oversimplify.

If crude oil -- or Fire Vine oil or Oil Tree oil -- will burn, it will fire a boiler. Unless you get very lucky, the same is not true for ICEs.

Refining is highly preferable because there are useful fractions to extract for other purposes, no matter where you burn the remainder. Refining is necessary for efficient ICE operation.

But that is oversimplifying to the point where it is outright wrong. Early realworld car history involved running ICE engines on unrefined "mountain oil", usually purchased in small bottles from an apothecary, where it was a long since common item for a multitude of uses.

As long as the oil was of high enough quality, it worked perfectly fine in an ICE.
However, ICE engines couldn´t become common until refining became effective, because there just wasn´t enough production(or cheap enough) of oil of that high quality.

However, there´s absolutely nothing saying that any of Safehold´s sources of oil isn´t such high quality(or the opposite of course).

Also, if you build some ICE right, diesels, glowbulb engines and others for example, they really CAN run on a surprisingly many types of oils.

Most modern diesels for example, despite specifically NOT being designed for it, can usually run on cooking oil. Including USED cooking oil taken directly from a frier.
A lot of vegetable oils will also work perfectly fine.

Point being that a modern diesel, while advanced, is actually less suitable for this than a primitive one made for a multitude of fuels.

So no, refining is most definitely not necessary. It is preferable for reliable mass use but certainly not a requirement.

And if the local sources of oil are of high enough quality, then it´s a completely moot point, because then refining is specifically NOT needed at all.

For the sake of making this point, you need to realise that the kind of unrefined oil you could get from an apothecary in the 19th and early 20th century (before the best sources ran dry), were of such quality, that you could pick a random airplane of today and run the engine on it quite fine. You might cause longterm maintenance issues, but that´s just because it´s a high performance engine.

Weird Harold wrote:So what you're saying is that "Bunker C" is crude oil with all of the easily flammable and volatile fractions removed -- that it is less flammable than pure crude?

That is preferable yes!





##########

LarryWill729 wrote:Note to all, please be careful when discussing EFFICIENY of various power systems. Efficiency can be, and is, based on different methods of comparison. During my training in Thermodynamics in Navy Nuclear Power School, the efficiency of gasoline ICS was given as 18%, and Steam power plants was a maximum of 30%. Granted I went through that school almost 30 years ago, and things have changed, but those numbers are what I remember and were given as best values in theory, not practice.

Aye, the numbers are not completely directly comparative, and there are additional efficiency costs for all systems, though steam generally ends up with the worse share of those. Steam is very good for a few things, like HUGE scale power generation, but overall, ICE is vastly more efficient for common use.


Also, those numbers of yours, they have definitely been overrun quite some time ago.
There are also some recent advances that might make ICE drastically more efficient.
For example, a team of designers managed to come up with a design for a constant combustion ICE a few years ago, if it works out well outside of a lab as well, it will be rather revolutionary as it pretty much doubles how much of the fuel is used efficiently during the combustion.

In lab conditions they claimed around 60% efficiency.
The "cylinder" looks almost like a turbine engine.




And *lol* at the nerd discussion. At least i can say that i understand it (if roughly at some points) even if i´m soooo not going to get involved with it.

MWadwell wrote:
Just to address the point I have highlighted above, Pressure is potential energy.

Bleed compressed air out of a cylinder into a turbine, and you have kinetic energy (the turning turbine).

Remember - energy cannot be destroyed (only converted), and so pressure must be potential energy, as otherwise the kinetic energy from the turbine has come out of no-where.....

EDIT - check out the wikipedia article on Enthalpy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy for more information about this form of thermodynamic potential energy.

No, Pressure is force across a surface. Pressure is not potential energy. It doesn't even have the same fundamental units. Heat is potential energy. There is a reason that it is called "thermodynamic potential energy".

Tenshinai wrote:However, ICE engines couldn't become common until refining became effective, because there just wasn´t enough production(or cheap enough) of oil of that high quality.

But we are talking about Diesels becoming common enough to replace Steam for transportation, no? Doesn't your argument mean that Diesels can't become common enough to displace Steam without effective refining?

Tenshinai wrote:So no, refining is most definitely not necessary. It is preferable for reliable mass use but certainly not a requirement.

But we're talking about mass use -- at lest mass use enough for the Army's supply chain or agricultural uses.

Tenshinai wrote:For the sake of making this point, you need to realise that the kind of unrefined oil you could get from an apothecary in the 19th and early 20th century (before the best sources ran dry), were of such quality, that you could pick a random airplane of today and run the engine on it quite fine.

But an aircraft engine is an entirely different kind of ICE from a Diesel. Gas Turbines -- eg Jets and Turboshaft -- can run on just about anything liquid and flammable; The 1960s Turbine powered car (Ford Thunderbird?) was run on a test track powered by $150/Oz French Perfume as a publicity stunt. But this thread isn't about gas turbines, it's about Diesels.

FWIW, gas turbines work best in constant speed/load applications, like power generation or long distances at a constant speed for ships or planes. They proved unsuitable for trains, even in turbine-electric applications.

Tenshinai wrote:
LarryWill729" wrote: Note to all, please be careful when discussing EFFICIENY of various power systems.

Aye, the numbers are not completely directly comparative, and there are additional efficiency costs for all systems, though steam generally ends up with the worse share of those. Steam is very good for a few things, like HUGE scale power generation, but overall, ICE is vastly more efficient for common use.

Just how are you defining "common use?" Common use in the real world is NOT the same as common use on Safehold; especially until the Proscriptions can be lifted.

Tenshinai wrote:For example, a team of designers managed to come up with a design for a constant combustion ICE a few years ago, if it works out well outside of a lab as well, it will be rather revolutionary as it pretty much doubles how much of the fuel is used efficiently during the combustion.

But is that a Diesel?

Most modern ICEs are disqualified because they require electricity, even modern computer controlled Diesels are disqualified for requiring electronics/electricity.

Steam compares much more favorably with early Diesel technology in everything except manpower/maintenance.

Also, you haven't addressed the issue of pollutants produced by high-pressure combustion. The more ICEs in a a given area, the easier those combustion byproducts can be detected from space. If there is enough ICE pollution to produce photochemical smog, it won't even take sophisticated instruments.

Steam produces pollution, too, but it doesn't produce pollution that is significantly different from that produced by home heating and cooking with coal. The same can't be said of ICEs and especially Diesels.

Weird Harold wrote:But we are talking about Diesels becoming common enough to replace Steam for transportation, no? Doesn't your argument mean that Diesels can't become common enough to displace Steam without effective refining?

That was because on REAL WORLD EARTH, there wasn´t enough naturally occurring oil of high enough quality.

Safehold sources may all be of high enough quality to run an ICE without refining.

Or all sources might require refining to have any chance of it working, perhaps even needing refining to use it with steam engines.

Weird Harold wrote:But an aircraft engine is an entirely different kind of ICE from a Diesel. Gas Turbines -- eg Jets and Turboshaft -- can run on just about anything liquid and flammable

I specifically said "pick a random", meaning i include common piston engined small aircraft. That was in fact the unstated but intended focus.

Weird Harold wrote:Just how are you defining "common use?"

Guess once? Real world obviously, as otherwise there is no comparison.

Weird Harold wrote:But is that a Diesel?

Well duh, of course it isn´t. It was an example of one of the more extreme improvements in efficiency that has recently appeared for ICE in general.

Weird Harold wrote:Also, you haven't addressed the issue of pollutants produced by high-pressure combustion. The more ICEs in a a given area, the easier those combustion byproducts can be detected from space. If there is enough ICE pollution to produce photochemical smog, it won't even take sophisticated instruments.

That is because steam engines tend to produce MORE pollutants, meaning that if you accept steam, then ICE works just as fine.

Steam in general uses more fuel to do the same work, the combustion is generally less effective, and, a steam engine also releases a lot of steam into the air, which draws with it other particle into the air, the vapor is a temporary addition, but it is still MUCH more noticeable by something looking for "pollutants" than the exhausts from an ICE.

Weird Harold wrote:Steam produces pollution, too, but it doesn't produce pollution that is significantly different from that produced by home heating and cooking with coal. The same can't be said of ICEs and especially Diesels.

That is effectively rubbish.

Weird Harold wrote:Steam compares much more favorably with early Diesel technology in everything except manpower/maintenance.

Steam compares favourably in largescale fixed location systems. Only.

Weird Harold wrote:Most modern ICEs are disqualified because they require electricity, even modern computer controlled Diesels are disqualified for requiring electronics/electricity.

This thread and others have mentioned at least 4 ICE that does not need electricity.
I personally added glowbulb engines as they are relatively easy to manage.

That some ICE are discarded does not in any way discard all. Why the crusading witch hunt against ICE?

Tenshinai wrote:That some ICE are discarded does not in any way discard all. Why the crusading witch hunt against ICE?

Why the crusading witch-hunt against steam?

ETA:

From: https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/diesel_comb.php
Diesel engines have an excellent reputation for their low fuel consumption, reliability, and durability characteristics. They are also known for their extremely low hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. However, they have also been rejected by many for their odorous and sooty exhaust that is also characterized with high nitric oxide and particulate matter emissions. Since performance, fuel consumption, and emitted pollutants result from the combustion process, it is necessary first to understand the mechanisms of combustion in diesel engines if we are to improve it.

ETA2:

From: https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/emi_intro.php
Diesel emissions include also pollutants that can have adverse health and/or environmental effects. Most of these pollutants originate from various non-ideal processes during combustion, such as incomplete combustion of fuel, reactions between mixture components under high temperature and pressure, combustion of engine lubricating oil and oil additives as well as combustion of non-hydrocarbon components of diesel fuel, such as sulfur compounds and fuel additives. Common pollutants include unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulate matter (PM).

Weird Harold wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:That some ICE are discarded does not in any way discard all. Why the crusading witch hunt against ICE?

Why the crusading witch-hunt against steam?

ETA:

From: https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/diesel_comb.php
Diesel engines have an excellent reputation for their low fuel consumption, reliability, and durability characteristics. They are also known for their extremely low hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. However, they have also been rejected by many for their odorous and sooty exhaust that is also characterized with high nitric oxide and particulate matter emissions. Since performance, fuel consumption, and emitted pollutants result from the combustion process, it is necessary first to understand the mechanisms of combustion in diesel engines if we are to improve it.

ETA2:

From: https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/emi_intro.php
Diesel emissions include also pollutants that can have adverse health and/or environmental effects. Most of these pollutants originate from various non-ideal processes during combustion, such as incomplete combustion of fuel, reactions between mixture components under high temperature and pressure, combustion of engine lubricating oil and oil additives as well as combustion of non-hydrocarbon components of diesel fuel, such as sulfur compounds and fuel additives. Common pollutants include unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) or particulate matter (PM).

It seems to me, Harold, that the vulnerability of your argument here is that steam, using coal or even wood, which at least for the moment Safehold is stuck with, produce even more pollution per erg of energy produced. Questions about the proscriptions are valid, although I find myself coming down in a somewhat different place than you do on that on.

Don

n7axw wrote:It seems to me, Harold, that the vulnerability of your argument here is that steam, using coal or even wood, which at least for the moment Safehold is stuck with, produce even more pollution per erg of energy produced.

It isn't about the amount of pollution, it is about the kind of pollution. ICEs operate at higher pressure than the boiler for a steam engine does; that produces more of certain types of pollution and some pollutants boilers don't produce -- unburned fuel, for example.

ICE emissions are distinct enough that there is a separate classification of Smog attributed to them.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
Transportation emissions

Traffic emissions – such as from trucks, buses, and automobiles – also contribute.[4] Airborne by-products from vehicle exhaust systems cause air pollution and are a major ingredient in the creation of smog in some large cities.[5][6][7][8]

The major culprits are from transportation sources are carbon monoxide (CO),[9][10] nitrogen oxides (NO and NOx),[11][12][13] volatile organic compounds,[10][11] sulfur dioxide,[10] and hydrocarbons.[10] These molecules react with sunlight, heat, ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form the noxious vapors, ground level ozone, and particles that comprise smog.[10][11]

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:It seems to me, Harold, that the vulnerability of your argument here is that steam, using coal or even wood, which at least for the moment Safehold is stuck with, produce even more pollution per erg of energy produced.

It isn't about the amount of pollution, it is about the kind of pollution. ICEs operate at higher pressure than the boiler for a steam engine does; that produces more of certain types of pollution and some pollutants boilers don't produce -- unburned fuel, for example.

ICE emissions are distinct enough that there is a separate classification of Smog attributed to them.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
Transportation emissions

Traffic emissions – such as from trucks, buses, and automobiles – also contribute.[4] Airborne by-products from vehicle exhaust systems cause air pollution and are a major ingredient in the creation of smog in some large cities.[5][6][7][8]

The major culprits are from transportation sources are carbon monoxide (CO),[9][10] nitrogen oxides (NO and NOx),[11][12][13] volatile organic compounds,[10][11] sulfur dioxide,[10] and hydrocarbons.[10] These molecules react with sunlight, heat, ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form the noxious vapors, ground level ozone, and particles that comprise smog.[10][11]

I won't comment in detail here, but everything that burns polutes. Housmyn is conerned about the health risk to his workers, coal causing black lung. Whether you are talking coal, diesel, wood, gasoline; it all does unfortunate things to us when we inhale it to say nothing about pouring all that carbon into the air.

What we can hope for is that thanks to Owl and Merlin, Safehold will have a leg up on the solutions to all of this and won't wait centuries to figure it out.

Don

n7axw wrote:I won't comment in detail here, but everything that burns polutes. Housmyn is conerned about the health risk to his workers, coal causing black lung. Whether you are talking coal, diesel, wood, gasoline; it all does unfortunate things to us when we inhale it to say nothing about pouring all that carbon into the air.

There is pollution, and then there is pollution. I'm all in favor of Howsmyn converting from coal to fuel oil or natural gas -- preferable natural gas or coal gas to fire industrial steam engines. If he's using Coke to make steel, then one of the byproducts of Coke production is "City Gas" which can fire steam engines relatively cleanly. The other byproduct(s) is coal tar, which formed the foundation for real world chemical industry.

Steam is fairly easy to convert to a cleaner fuel. ICEs not so easy. Diesels can run on almost anything, but to get efficiency, you need to refine a fuel to match the engineering.

n7axw wrote:What we can hope for is that thanks to Owl and Merlin, Safehold will have a leg up on the solutions to all of this and won't wait centuries to figure it out.

Steam will be sufficient to win the war and overturn the Proscriptions.

Once electricity is possible, ICEs can be bypassed almost entirely; especially with a little forethought in the steam infrastructure. Electrifying existing light/municipal rail systems is a lot more efficient than converting trucks and buses from steam or ICE to battery-electric.

It's even possible that OWL might be able to bypass electricity as we know it for transportation and go directly to Fusion or whatever powers Merlin's skimmer and the SNARCS -- no roads and no pollution.

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:It seems to me, Harold, that the vulnerability of your argument here is that steam, using coal or even wood, which at least for the moment Safehold is stuck with, produce even more pollution per erg of energy produced.

It isn't about the amount of pollution, it is about the kind of pollution. ICEs operate at higher pressure than the boiler for a steam engine does; that produces more of certain types of pollution and some pollutants boilers don't produce -- unburned fuel, for example.

ICE emissions are distinct enough that there is a separate classification of Smog attributed to them.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
Transportation emissions

Traffic emissions – such as from trucks, buses, and automobiles – also contribute.[4] Airborne by-products from vehicle exhaust systems cause air pollution and are a major ingredient in the creation of smog in some large cities.[5][6][7][8]

The major culprits are from transportation sources are carbon monoxide (CO),[9][10] nitrogen oxides (NO and NOx),[11][12][13] volatile organic compounds,[10][11] sulfur dioxide,[10] and hydrocarbons.[10] These molecules react with sunlight, heat, ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form the noxious vapors, ground level ozone, and particles that comprise smog.[10][11]

I can't let that go unchallenged. If your boiler is throwing black smoke from the stack it is throwing unburned fuel out the stack. The distinct emissions of ICEs would be NOX, which is not produced by boilers untill you are useing pressures and temperatures high enough for supercricality, which requires active pumping (thus not practical on Safehold). White smoke from a smokestack is mostly water.