Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?

Zakharra wrote:I've never heard of putting sand on a rail. that seems like it would be counter productive and act as a lubricant rather than traction.

So far all I am hearing is that a stirling engine can give some smaller advantages in a stationary position, but I'm not hearing that they would be very efficient at the tech level Safehold is at currently. Right now Safehold has working steam engines, the stirling engine isn't viable yet (seal problems and possibly metallurgy problems in making it). Just because we can make a stirling engine effective now, doesn't mean they could then. The stirling seems to lack the needed oomph a steam and IC engine brings. I know people want working alternatives, but really we know what works and a stirling doesn't seem like it would be a fast engine. Slow as molasses comes to mind.

Yes the stirling can be more efficient on fuel, but at the tech level we are dealing with, fuel isn't a consideration because most things are so inefficient a few more % of fuel inefficiency isn't that much, if at all, of a cost consideration. Plus Safehold is trying to get to the higher tech levels as fast as possible and Steam is a lot faster in getting there than the stirling would be. The stirling seems more like a step sideways than forward.

One thing to consider why the submarine has some stirlings is noise. IC engines are noisy and a stirling sounds like it would be very quiet. And engine noise is a serious consideration on a submarine.

In the factory application, you care more about costs to run than size, and there the Stirling, inherently more thermodynamically efficient and inherently mechanically simpler, wins. It uses less fuel and less mechanic time and breaks less often.

I am not convinced that's true otherwise the factory owners in the middle to late 1800s to the early 1900s would have used the stirling. They were notorious penny pinchers. Many of them were extremely cheap in what they paid for factories, equipment and employees, and if a stirling would have come with operational costs significantly lower as you are implying, they would have been all over that in a heartbeat.

alj_sf wrote:If you run it without flywheel, the impulse is available on a much larger segment of the circle than with steam, and a 3 units engine will have big torque available all around.

More, by playing on pressure you can generate the exact amount of torque you need, decreasing the risk of the driven wheel slipping.

As I said before, the throttle control is however a bit lagging so you want either a clutch or better an hydrocoupler in the system. That add cost, but not that much.

Zakharra wrote:I've never heard of putting sand on a rail. that seems like it would be counter productive and act as a lubricant rather than traction.

fallsfromtrees wrote:
I suspect that in the late nineteenth early twentieh centuries, that the Stirling engines were not as efficient as they are now, as the themodynamics of them was not understood, and the seal technology was not present to run them at 5-12 bar. Also fuel costs were extremely low in that time frame, so the differences in running cost were not as apparent, and steam was a known technology, and the Stirling engine was not. Lethargy undoubtedly played its role as well.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:I've never heard of putting sand on a rail. that seems like it would be counter productive and act as a lubricant rather than traction.

You're obviously not a "train nut"

Think putting sandpaper on your socks and trying to slide down the hall.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:I've never heard of putting sand on a rail. that seems like it would be counter productive and act as a lubricant rather than traction.

You're obviously not a "train nut"

Think putting sandpaper on your socks and trying to slide down the hall.

Captain Igloo wrote:
Regardless of what they burned for fuel, all locomotives required dry sand. Still used today in the same fashion, the sand is fed to a pipe in front of the driving wheels and placed directly on the rail to increase traction on slippery rails or when getting a heavy train started. The steam locomotive did not require sand as often as it did water and fuel, but it was still vitally important to its operation. Therefore, at every locomotive terminal there is a sand house equipped with dryers and a delivery system of pipes and hoses.

TN4994 wrote:

Captain Igloo wrote:
Regardless of what they burned for fuel, all locomotives required dry sand. Still used today in the same fashion, the sand is fed to a pipe in front of the driving wheels and placed directly on the rail to increase traction on slippery rails or when getting a heavy train started. The steam locomotive did not require sand as often as it did water and fuel, but it was still vitally important to its operation. Therefore, at every locomotive terminal there is a sand house equipped with dryers and a delivery system of pipes and hoses.

Didn't they also use it for inclines?

Zakharra wrote:

In the factory application, you care more about costs to run than size, and there the Stirling, inherently more thermodynamically efficient and inherently mechanically simpler, wins. It uses less fuel and less mechanic time and breaks less often.

I am not convinced that's true otherwise the factory owners in the middle to late 1800s to the early 1900s would have used the stirling. They were notorious penny pinchers. Many of them were extremely cheap in what they paid for factories, equipment and employees, and if a stirling would have come with operational costs significantly lower as you are implying, they would have been all over that in a heartbeat.

Graydon wrote:

Zakharra wrote:

I am not convinced that's true otherwise the factory owners in the middle to late 1800s to the early 1900s would have used the stirling. They were notorious penny pinchers. Many of them were extremely cheap in what they paid for factories, equipment and employees, and if a stirling would have come with operational costs significantly lower as you are implying, they would have been all over that in a heartbeat.

Factory owners in the middle to late 1800s did use Stirling engines. The major problems were low specific power -- that's the seals -- and cylinder failures -- that's the materials. Still used. (It's not like early steam engines didn't have boiler failures!) Steam, and waste gas single-cylinder gas engines, eventually won out industrially mostly for reasons of specific power.

Safehold, and specifically the Empire of Charis, has a history of good plumbing and what sounds like hydraulics, nickel-steel armor plate, good steel gun barrels, etc. Can totally cheap on the recuperator, too. (In a "try a quarter inch longer" sort of way, just what Howmsyn's known for.)

They can totally make an efficient Stirling engine because they're in most respects well ahead of the 19th century so far as materials science goes. That would give them an engine that can be run safely by anyone capable of managing a fire, which is just easier than a steam engine.