Graydon wrote:Zakharra wrote:The IC engine displaced steam pretty fast on most things. A publicity campaign certainly had an effect, but they are a hell of a lot more convenient and require less maintenance (a steam powered tractor or truck is going to require more maintenance than a gas/diesel powered one by several factors. Not to mention a steam one would be impossible to use in the winter. Ice in the pipes.).
In the same way a gasoline engine is impossible to use in winter because the radiator freezes?
IC engines don't start displacing steam in ships until the 1950s and it doesn't get comprehensive until the 1980s.
IC engines didn't start displacing steam in trains until after a whole pile of governmental money got sunk for diesels for submarines. (And then you get the Napier Deltaic, a marvel of power-to-weight and a maintenance problem.) And then the "better" for trains isn't mechanical, it's in reduced crew. Something Safehold can't have until they can have electrical controls, at which point they can have fusion. Look at something like the LMS Turbomotive; steam can beat diesel's operating efficiency under circumstances (like Safehold) where there will have to be a crew in each cab anyway.
The Stanley Steamer engine has 13 major parts. It's direct drive. No transmission, two simple robust sliding valves, no spark plugs -- and on Safehold, you either can't have spark plugs or you can have fusion -- and there are hundred year old running examples that have been maintained by not rebuilt. You're going to have a real problem coming up with a first generation diesel that's got better power-to-weight or is easier to maintain.
/facepalm I am speaking about motor engines in things like tractors and such. But even in ships, the engines were oil fired, so they still polluted, and still do. Diesel engines for trains are a lot more efficient and powerful than steam ones are, one reason they were replaced.
The Stanley Steamer also got out performed by the IC engine and car. The IC engine and cars/trucks simply became better and more efficient despite being somewhat more complex. They were more convenient, easier and more importantly to most people, cheaper. It cost $3000 for a Stanley, whereas a Ford cost $500.
Zakharra wrote:You can let a car/truck/tractor sit for awhile and then hop into them and go. That's not exactly possible for a steam engine, plus you have to worry about leaking pipes and corrosion. What about water that is heavy in minerals? Do you have to use distilled water then?
You certainly can't let first generation cars/trucks/tractors sit for months and then expect them to just work; you can't compare modern IC engines to 1900 steam engines and get a sensible result. You have to compare the (cantankerous, erratic, hand-cranked, < 10 hours MTF...) 1900 IC engine to the 1900 steam engine.
You're also supposing that the IC engine never has problems with, for example, condensate in the fuel when it gets cold. These are all solved problems now but they certainly aren't on Safehold.
... are you serious? You think people still put straight water in radiators in cars/trucks? Only an idiot does that. Radiator fluid isn't water and has a better heat loss ration than water, and its freezing temperature is far lower than water so it's less likely to be affected by extreme cold. You're more likely to be affected by a cold drained battery, frozen fuel lines than a frozen radiator.
Those problems would be known via OWL and avoided for the most part (better fuel quality and better machining/manufacture and such). They can make electric starters pretty quickly.
Zakharra wrote:if Safehold has the petrochemical resources, I don't see why we should ignore it because some people have a problem with some of the side effects. You and others would rather restricting the freedom of movement (no cars for you until they have electric cars) until there are options in place that you approve of.
Well, they can't build cars yet; the economy isn't there. Doesn't really matter what kind of engine. They're at the start of the fifty years that ended around 1930 when widespread private automobiles weren't a real possibility and people took the train. (Irrespective of how the cars are powered.) By our -- Anglo-NorAm -- standards, Safehold is very, very poor.
We don't know what the Archangel Pasquale had to say about smoke inhalation or other industrial pollution; we know they've got things like phosphorous and asbestos expected to be in use, with strict rules, so it's not impossible there are rules about smoke and coal ash, too. The Delthak Works may be obliged by canon law to be located well away from population centres.
Safehold is already habitable in part because of a more active carbon cycle and higher atmospheric CO2, so it's more vulnerable to industrial activity carbon loading its atmosphere than Earth is, and Earth is already plenty vulnerable. Human civilization on Safehold is already dependent on genetically engineered crops with necessarily limited genetic breadth; munging up the climate could easily be much worse there than here. I don't think anyone on Safehold is in a position to evaluate that risk, either. They've got a former space navy tactical officer, not an ecologist or a biologist.
Safehold is poor right now. That will change and that is the intention of Merlin to change that. To make it so everyone has access to higher technologies (in time) as well as rights, greater wealth and freedom of movement. Given time, the economy will be there for people to be able to purchase their own vehicles. If the US hadn't experienced the automobile boom it did after WWI and WWII, the US would be a poorer place I think. It allowed our economy to expand in ways it never had before because the average person was able to buy and own an automobile.
Delthak Works is located where it is for several reasons; it's in an area it can expand in without taking over areas of a city, and it's at the mouth of a river so it's easier to get coal, ore and other materials to it for smelting and manufacturing. I doubt there is any canonical reason. Remember that the other places were located in/around the cities, so there can't be that many restrictions on smoke or industrial pollution, otherwise that would directly restrict all industries and the size of cities.
Zakharra wrote:Another question I don't think I've seen answered is; what other alternatives for airplanes are there besides IC engines? Steam engines and stirlings can't work for a air plane or for a jet.
Stirlings certainly can work for aircraft.
But, really, whatever the Federation tech uses is magic; you've got something roughly the size of an F-16 that can sustain hypersonic mach numbers halfway around the planet without refueling and make multiple orbital trips! If you need aircraft, that's what you go for if you possibly can.
In the meantime, aircraft aren't essential to development -- they've already got excellent maps and aerial resource surveys! -- and you are back in 1900, standard-of-living wise. (if not 1850.) Aircraft are only useful if there are a lot of people with the money to travel on them; that takes about 1960 in our time line, and hopefully Safehold won't get the development boost from strategic bombing our history got. So at least three generations before it's a significant possibility.
I googled Stirling aircraft engine. So far it is hype and not much more. It's running into the high power requirement that aircraft engines need. If it can work, all the power to them, but so far it looks like a dream atm. One of the reasons I asked was for military applications. Fighter craft, bombers and transport planes. The first two, the first especially, needs an engine capable of putting out a LOT of power on demand and be able to handle aerobatic maneuvers such as dogfighting.
Another reason I am pushing for aicraft to be developed once the Proscriptions and OBS are removed is besides freedom of movement, it gives people used to the idea of being able to go long distances fast and easily. And get used to the mechanical and electric systems and theories. Aircraft are also damned useful in hauling large amounts of people cross country (much faster than trains) or across the oceans or the world. Rapid movement is a good thing. It still seems like many of you are looking for reasons to restrict peoples movement rather than open it up by giving them multiple methods.
Zakharra wrote:I will point another thing out, if steam engines are/were so good, why did the IC engine display steam development in Europe? The US automakers or tire makers didn't have anything close to a monopoly in Europe, yet Europe went with the IC engine over steam.
In large part because of the Great War. Not only had immense development resources been sunk into high power-to-weight ratio engines for aircraft, the main industrial nations of Europe -- France, Germany, and Czechoslovakia -- had just lost ~4% of their population, mostly from the young men. These are not conditions under which major innovation takes place; you're just trying to keep going. (Note that both BMW and Mercedes-Benz have logos based on aircraft propellers. That's where the companies started, aircraft engines.)
And you're still looking at a displacement that took fifty years and mostly happened (for everything except automobiles) AFTER Hitler's War. Most of the Wehrmacht's logistics were horse-drawn.
And Hitler's War, among other things, sank a whole lot of money into IC engine development
again.
It also says that there's a reason why those engines were selected. Better power cost to weight ratio for the engines. Ever think that the IC was developed so well
because it was the better option? Despite the advantages of steam or stirling, IC engines at the times weighed less, had more power and were easier to maintain and purchase, as well as being reliable, and were able to be adapted rapidly to changing technological conditions. You all see it as bad because of pollution or causing the airplane and automobile to explode across the world.
If steam engines would have given the same power output and reliability, Hitler and the German (and the Allies) would have used it for engines to power the tanks and mechanized units). Tanks, trucks, jeeps and airplanes were powered by IC engines because those ones could deliver better than steam engines.
I looked up the companies just to see what there was on them; Mercedes-Benz started as an automobile company before WWI. BMW you are right on it starting as an aircraft company, but they had to move to motorcycles and automobiles because of the Treaty of Versailles.
I love Wikipedia, I can browse that place for hours just following links. ^_^ I think though we are going to have to agree to disagree here. We're not going to convince each other otherwise. Good discussion all around.
. My point was there are safe ways to deal with it on Safehold that do not involve destroying what might prove to be a valuable resource.