Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by Graydon   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:41 pm

Graydon
Commander

Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:18 pm

[much selective snipping]

Zakharra wrote: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.


You're comparing the heavily capitalized assembly-line production vehicle intended to be entry level with the undercapitalized workshop vehicle aimed at a luxury market (and having a much higher standard of coachwork) on price. The factor of six should register as surprisingly low.

Cost scales with parts count, other things being equal. Steamers with comparable capital and an actual assembly line could easily be -- there are simply less things to make! -- much cheaper. Howsmyn can be expected to notice that if things go on long enough under the Proscriptions that cars are a real economic possibility.

Thermodynamic efficiency is inherently constrained by the engine cycle, and the Otto Cycle isn't as efficient as the Rankine. What you get working soonest -- founder effect -- runs into the contrast between "easy" and "good". Safehold has a crib sheet, and has the opportunity to go for good, if "good" happens to exist inside the Proscriptions.

Zakharra wrote: ... 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.


Absolutely. But not in 1900. (And probably not in 1930, if the number of cartoons where there's a fountain of steam out the radiator cap is anything to go by.) Modern pinnacle-of-development IC engines, after billions upon billions of dollars of development effort, fluid chemistry, computer simulation, sub-one-in-ten-thou accuracy via fourth and fifth generation CNC machining, and complex alloy parts, aren't what anybody on Safehold is going to be able to build.

And to go back to the meta-point, steam locomotives operated in Minnesota, Manitoba, and Murmansk during the winter. So, yes, don't freeze the working fluid. But a comparable effort to what IC engines got can handle the problem.

Zakharra wrote:[aircraft]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.


There shouldn't ever be an application for this, though. The Empire of Charis is working its collective butt off to have an economy that just might be able to afford steam ocean vessels. It's long way from aircraft, and post-proscriptions Federation tech is available. That's going to require a certain degree of planetary unity, hopefully at least enough to preclude wars.

Plus, any time you're building military hardware, something has gone wrong. It's a direct dead loss to your economy and represents a problem; starting an arms race with the mainland isn't a good outcome. (Starting a standard of living contest would be...) Policy should at least be trying for the good outcome.

Zakharra wrote: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.


You're treating the sunk historical pattern of development as inherent in the technology.

For example, the US put a lot of effort into high power-to-weight flat -- so they would fit in the wings, for streamlining -- aircraft engines in the 1930s. Those didn't work, but the effort had a big effect on subsequent aircraft engines.

That didn't have to happen; someone might have gone for turbine engines a little sooner in the 1930s -- it wouldn't have been obviously crazier than trying for less than a pound per horsepower -- and we might never have had the high-output piston engines at all. One good turboprop demo in 1938 would have changed a lot.

Or consider that nigh-everybody was using gasoline engines in tanks, which might well be considered maliciously crazy from a flammability (always) and reliability (often) standpoint. This was in no way optimal, and indeed nobody is completely happy with their tank engines even today. (The US Army is seriously considering developing a turbocompound engine in an effort to get what it wants.)

This isn't an indication that you can't possibly get the required power-to-weight with some Rankine-cycle engine. It's an indication that our history didn't.

On Safehold, with Proscriptions, they might have to, but hopefully not. (Because they still have less population! Getting into attritional air-land battle when they other guy has four times as many people = BAD PLAN.)

Zakharra wrote: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. :)


It does look like that, yes. But, as you say, good discussion!
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by n7axw   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:01 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Just a comment I was wanting to make about early vintage cars. If they were properly maintained, the would run reliably. Touring cars for long range trips were already there prior to WW1. They did have their drawbacks. Fifty plus thousand miles for most of them and they were worn out. They were inefficient by today's standards. Roads and tires were of poor quality. But the other side of it was that the repairs were usually pretty simple and engines could be overhauled or rebuilt.

My high school and college years were during the muscle car era of the sixties. The drawback here was still efficiency, but the wearability of the cars improved dramatically to well over a hundred thousand miles.

Modern cars really began with computer regulated ignition systems and fuel injection. A well maintained vehicle will now go over a quarter of a million miles without too much trouble. Fuel efficiency is up, probably double on average from 30 years ago.

I suspect that the next step is widespread distribution of the hybrids that run pimarily on battery power but have a small ic engine whose primary role is to keep the battery charged. With the Prius, the Volt and other offerings, different variations on that theme are going on right now.

I suspect that purely battery operated cars that are practical for most applications are still some years in the future.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:56 pm

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

n7axw wrote:Just a comment I was wanting to make about early vintage cars. If they were properly maintained, the would run reliably. Touring cars for long range trips were already there prior to WW1. They did have their drawbacks. Fifty plus thousand miles for most of them and they were worn out. They were inefficient by today's standards. Roads and tires were of poor quality. But the other side of it was that the repairs were usually pretty simple and engines could be overhauled or rebuilt.

My high school and college years were during the muscle car era of the sixties. The drawback here was still efficiency, but the wearability of the cars improved dramatically to well over a hundred thousand miles.

Modern cars really began with computer regulated ignition systems and fuel injection. A well maintained vehicle will now go over a quarter of a million miles without too much trouble. Fuel efficiency is up, probably double on average from 30 years ago.

I suspect that the next step is widespread distribution of the hybrids that run pimarily on battery power but have a small ic engine whose primary role is to keep the battery charged. With the Prius, the Volt and other offerings, different variations on that theme are going on right now.

I suspect that purely battery operated cars that are practical for most applications are still some years in the future.

Don

Could be less time that you think, given that Tesla has opened up most or all of their patents on battery and charging technology, and the current Tesla Model S has a range of 265 miles, with a recharge time of about 45 minutes. Which means driving across country at 70 miles per hour, you have to take a 45 minute stop ever 3.5 hours - probably not a bad idea anyway.
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by n7axw   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:42 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

fallsfromtrees wrote:
n7axw wrote:Just a comment I was wanting to make about early vintage cars. If they were properly maintained, the would run reliably. Touring cars for long range trips were already there prior to WW1. They did have their drawbacks. Fifty plus thousand miles for most of them and they were worn out. They were inefficient by today's standards. Roads and tires were of poor quality. But the other side of it was that the repairs were usually pretty simple and engines could be overhauled or rebuilt.

My high school and college years were during the muscle car era of the sixties. The drawback here was still efficiency, but the wearability of the cars improved dramatically to well over a hundred thousand miles.

Modern cars really began with computer regulated ignition systems and fuel injection. A well maintained vehicle will now go over a quarter of a million miles without too much trouble. Fuel efficiency is up, probably double on average from 30 years ago.

I suspect that the next step is widespread distribution of the hybrids that run pimarily on battery power but have a small ic engine whose primary role is to keep the battery charged. With the Prius, the Volt and other offerings, different variations on that theme are going on right now.

I suspect that purely battery operated cars that are practical for most applications are still some years in the future.

Don

Could be less time that you think, given that Tesla has opened up most or all of their patents on battery and charging technology, and the current Tesla Model S has a range of 265 miles, with a recharge time of about 45 minutes. Which means driving across country at 70 miles per hour, you have to take a 45 minute stop ever 3.5 hours - probably not a bad idea anyway.


The problem there is affordability at this time. If availability is to be widespread, they must sell not much more than $30,000. Otherwise expense of ownership cancels out any advantage gained by economy of operation.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by Graydon   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:49 am

Graydon
Commander

Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:18 pm

n7axw wrote:The problem there is affordability at this time. If availability is to be widespread, they must sell not much more than $30,000. Otherwise expense of ownership cancels out any advantage gained by economy of operation.


Those are due around 2017, according to Tesla and GM's public schedules.

Much of the problem is battery demand having got ahead of supply and stayed there for years; smart phones were a surprise. Which is why Tesla and Panasonic are making that enormous battery factory in Arizona.

There are a couple other interesting battery chemistries, too, and one good thing about electric is you can pretty much swap the power pack if something better comes along.
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by AirTech   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:17 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:
fallsfromtrees wrote:..,so this gives an acceleration of 6.875 gravities - not real comfortable. And 3 seconds give us 9.1 g. Definitely not comfortable.


Pffft! :P

That's what grav-plates, intertial compensators, and g-suits are for. :P :P :P


In a vehicle that can operate as a drone on call, a couple of hundred g on call could be useful. (And survivable in the very short term).
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by Weird Harold   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:41 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

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

AirTech wrote:... a couple of hundred g on call could be useful. ...


Who cares about useful? I'm talking overpowered, excess horsepower, FAST hotrods that are better than any measly MOPAR. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by AirTech   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:06 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:
AirTech wrote:... a couple of hundred g on call could be useful. ...


Who cares about useful? I'm talking overpowered, excess horsepower, FAST hotrods that are better than any measly MOPAR. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


As a rule people break vehicles - vehicles don't break people. Most passenger planes come apart at forces that the passengers could walk away from. The human body can withstand over 45g, the seat rails on a commercial jet fail at 9g and the wings come off at 6g (so you get to watch your plane come apart around you). (The average car cannot exceed 0.5g in any direction under power(OK F1 cars get up to 2g but your Chevy lacks the wings and the speed to pull this off)).
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by n7axw   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:53 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Weird Harold wrote:
AirTech wrote:... a couple of hundred g on call could be useful. ...


Who cares about useful? I'm talking overpowered, excess horsepower, FAST hotrods that are better than any measly MOPAR. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Hey, I'll serve you up for lunch with my Charger SRT... except you might cause me indigestion.... :o

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?
Post by Cheopis   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 9:18 am

Cheopis
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1633
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:04 am

n7axw wrote:Just a comment I was wanting to make about early vintage cars. If they were properly maintained, the would run reliably. Touring cars for long range trips were already there prior to WW1. They did have their drawbacks. Fifty plus thousand miles for most of them and they were worn out. They were inefficient by today's standards. Roads and tires were of poor quality. But the other side of it was that the repairs were usually pretty simple and engines could be overhauled or rebuilt.

My high school and college years were during the muscle car era of the sixties. The drawback here was still efficiency, but the wearability of the cars improved dramatically to well over a hundred thousand miles.

Modern cars really began with computer regulated ignition systems and fuel injection. A well maintained vehicle will now go over a quarter of a million miles without too much trouble. Fuel efficiency is up, probably double on average from 30 years ago.

I suspect that the next step is widespread distribution of the hybrids that run pimarily on battery power but have a small ic engine whose primary role is to keep the battery charged. With the Prius, the Volt and other offerings, different variations on that theme are going on right now.

I suspect that purely battery operated cars that are practical for most applications are still some years in the future.

Don


I just wish that the best vehicles weren't targeted for elimination.

I have a 1998 Ford Ranger with the 2.5L 4 cylinder engine. The factory says it should get 24 or so MPG highway, but if you DON'T drive it like you stole it and keep the tailgate down, she gets 25MPG in city and 30ish on the highway. Always has, through both engines. First Engine died at 200k miles. 150k of those miles were delivery truck and contractor miles. The engine had some issues in the last 50k miles due to wear and tear caused by two instances of overheating due to water loss.

The clutch is original at 250k miles, and when the engine was replaced at 200k miles, the clutch plates were inspected and I was told they were halfway through their usable thickness. I hope to get 500k miles on that clutch if I can avoid delivery/contractor jobs for another twenty years.

And Ford chose to get rid of the Ranger. The hands-down best light utility vehicle they have ever created IMHO.

*grumble*
Top

Return to Safehold