Internal Combustion

Theemile wrote:
~80% of my 1984 Dodge Charger's control systems (gauges, sensors, and controls) were pneumatic (either vacuum or pressurized) and my '78 Honda was just shy of ~95% (Vacuum powered brakes totally suck when the master hose collapses - thank god it was a stick). These controls usually included the carburetor, emissions controls, gauges. Before the mid 80's only a handful of items on cars were "fully" electric.

The German ME-163 Rocket plane had a Pressurized air tank to power it's flight controls. There were instances where the pilot had run out of air pressure and lost control of the aircraft prior to (or during) landing if he had been maneuvering too much.

I saw a documentary several years ago, where the last surviving steam shovel used to dig the original Panama Canal was discovered in some Minnesota woods, where it had been rotting for ~20 years. They spent 2-3 days replacing some steam lines and chipping the worst of the rust - hitched a Sull-air industrial compressor trailer to it, connected the air lines, and drove the shovel out of the woods using it's own tracks (notice, no one trusted the steam engine...).

These "Large" Bucyrus Steam Shovels were about the size of a medium sized backhoe today, but we're still talking about something weighing 10+ tons, so along with everything else, yes, a pneumatic tank is 100% possible.

Very light, low power applications, air works well. Everything else? No.

Historically, the only reason air was used is because water seals could not be made. Still can't and who would ever want to use water as it rusts everything it touches and is a poor lubricant. When someone got a very basic idea and implemented it, using oil, it changed history. An oil seal, unlike a water or air seal is very simple and easy to create.

Air/cable systems are abysmally bad. Horrendous amounts of maintenance is required and when cables break, is VERY dangerous. Why the entire world sprinted, to hydraulics as fast as possible as well as being more energy efficient as well as lighter and less maintenance required.

The only downside to using oil over air or water is that a fine mist of oil due to broken pumps, lines, or hoses, can cause fires. So, you trade off the possibility of a fire for efficiency. This is solved by the expediant use of a shield around the exhaust of ICE engines or main hydraulic compressors in manufacturing centers. It should be noted that air tools/systems, also coat the entire work place/tool/parts in an oil mist as oil is mixed with the air as a lubricant. Without said lubricant the machines die quickly.

Hydraulic tools are quieter and warmer to hold as well. They also happen to have higher power densities than air tools with higher torques. The downside? Hydraulic hammering as oil is incompressible and a damper must be installed.

What is new, no perfect source for power. Who knew, there is no magic elixir.....

Relax wrote:

Theemile wrote:
~80% of my 1984 Dodge Charger's control systems (gauges, sensors, and controls) were pneumatic (either vacuum or pressurized) and my '78 Honda was just shy of ~95% (Vacuum powered brakes totally suck when the master hose collapses - thank god it was a stick). These controls usually included the carburetor, emissions controls, gauges. Before the mid 80's only a handful of items on cars were "fully" electric.

The German ME-163 Rocket plane had a Pressurized air tank to power it's flight controls. There were instances where the pilot had run out of air pressure and lost control of the aircraft prior to (or during) landing if he had been maneuvering too much.

I saw a documentary several years ago, where the last surviving steam shovel used to dig the original Panama Canal was discovered in some Minnesota woods, where it had been rotting for ~20 years. They spent 2-3 days replacing some steam lines and chipping the worst of the rust - hitched a Sull-air industrial compressor trailer to it, connected the air lines, and drove the shovel out of the woods using it's own tracks (notice, no one trusted the steam engine...).

These "Large" Bucyrus Steam Shovels were about the size of a medium sized backhoe today, but we're still talking about something weighing 10+ tons, so along with everything else, yes, a pneumatic tank is 100% possible.

Very light, low power applications, air works well. Everything else? No.

Historically, the only reason air was used is because water seals could not be made. Still can't and who would ever want to use water as it rusts everything it touches and is a poor lubricant. When someone got a very basic idea and implemented it, using oil, it changed history. An oil seal, unlike a water or air seal is very simple and easy to create.

Air/cable systems are abysmally bad. Horrendous amounts of maintenance is required and when cables break, is VERY dangerous. Why the entire world sprinted, to hydraulics as fast as possible as well as being more energy efficient as well as lighter and less maintenance required.

The only downside to using oil over air or water is that a fine mist of oil due to broken pumps, lines, or hoses, can cause fires. So, you trade off the possibility of a fire for efficiency. This is solved by the expediant use of a shield around the exhaust of ICE engines or main hydraulic compressors in manufacturing centers. It should be noted that air tools/systems, also coat the entire work place/tool/parts in an oil mist as oil is mixed with the air as a lubricant. Without said lubricant the machines die quickly.

Hydraulic tools are quieter and warmer to hold as well. They also happen to have higher power densities than air tools with higher torques. The downside? Hydraulic hammering as oil is incompressible and a damper must be installed.

What is new, no perfect source for power. Who knew, there is no magic elixir.....

No one said Pnuematic was the best way to go, or even the most efficient. The questions were is a pneumatic tank possible and what kind of systems can be replaced with Pneumatics.

Personally I hated screwing with vacuum issues on that 84 Charger and 78 Honda. Beyond the brakes in the Honda trying to kill me during bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic one nice sunny Friday in June, I remember spending 2 weeks trying to figure what was causing the Charger to run for crud (A mechanic "tuning" my engine forgot to tighten the bolts on the carburetor - I didn't notice the loose carburetor until it shifted under the hand anchoring me while I leaned over the engine tracing vacuum lines with the other.) I personally would never engineer a solution with them - there are far better, simpler, more reliable systems available today for a far lower cost.

That does not change the fact that they were used at one time or another for all kinds of sensory or control uses, and 100 ton steam trains and steam shovels ran on pneumatic technologies, and warship turrets were turned and elevated via pneumatics powered from a ship's steam plant.

So if they wanted to build a steam tank - sure they could. Will there be better solutions for most Pneumatic applications in just few years - heck yeah. Does it make sense to build a 100% pneumatic tank now - most probably not.

My point, not directly stated, though I thought was "obvious, uh clearly it wasn't, was that with Merlin around dispensing knowledge, Pneumatics would be entirely SKIPPED for the most part as a technological step.

Difference between an author who has to write a story and the easiest way to do so is to look at or own history and instead understanding the actual engineering materials science that allowed said break throughs. As often is the case, the history of engineering very rarely ever tells the reasons why certain technologies were used and the generally very simple "innovations" that allowed for far greater efficiency, reliability, safety, lower maintenance, easier to manufacture, etc.

Knowing what we know today, for crude technology bases(charis et al), no one in their right minds would use pneumatics over hydraulics for the vast majority of applications. Assuming there is no electricity that is.

Anyways, for starting engines there are dozens of ways to do so. It is an interesting read over at the patent office and trademark if one looks up all of the early patents on how to start internal combustion engines before the advent of the electric starter.

Relax wrote:Knowing what we know today, for crude technology bases(charis et al), no one in their right minds would use pneumatics over hydraulics for the vast majority of applications. Assuming there is no electricity that is.

My day work used to be to deal with high-pressure hydraulics, and with crude tech base, I would definitely choose pneumatic over hydraulic for all applications not needing static handling of loads (eg lifting jacks).

Why ? The one advantage of oil based hydraulic is that it is incompressible but the drawback is that is not at all leak tolerant. Oil must be ultra-pure, and quite highly refined. Any pollution will induce problems.
Compressing oil is not easy as soon you want big flow rates without ram shocks nor cavitation. You have to design cleverly the actuators to work at constant radial section.

Water based hydraulic is rather good for jacks (Eiffel tower lifts are still using the original water jacks), but fouling precludes about any fine control.

Pneumatics works by pressure differentials and tolerate small leaks. You also dont have to check for turbulences caused by rough inner surfaces inducing pressure drops and again cavitation or (small) changes in sections. There is some drawbacks : Because of the compressibility of air, you have to use lower Psi in the system, and so it is more bulky. You have also less precise control on extension of jacks.

But you can also use depression in a pneumatic systems. In fact up to the late 80's many lab rated measurement instruments where depression pneumatics because they were much more precise than electric or optic ones. They were a pain in the *ss to calibrate though.

alj_sf wrote:

Relax wrote:Knowing what we know today, for crude technology bases(charis et al), no one in their right minds would use pneumatics over hydraulics for the vast majority of applications. Assuming there is no electricity that is.

My day work used to be to deal with high-pressure hydraulics, and with crude tech base, I would definitely choose pneumatic over hydraulic for all applications not needing static handling of loads (eg lifting jacks).

Why ? The one advantage of oil based hydraulic is that it is incompressible but the drawback is that is not at all leak tolerant. Oil must be ultra-pure, and quite highly refined. Any pollution will induce problems.
Compressing oil is not easy as soon you want big flow rates without ram shocks nor cavitation. You have to design cleverly the actuators to work at constant radial section.

Water based hydraulic is rather good for jacks (Eiffel tower lifts are still using the original water jacks), but fouling precludes about any fine control.

Pneumatics works by pressure differentials and tolerate small leaks. You also dont have to check for turbulences caused by rough inner surfaces inducing pressure drops and again cavitation or (small) changes in sections. There is some drawbacks : Because of the compressibility of air, you have to use lower Psi in the system, and so it is more bulky. You have also less precise control on extension of jacks.

But you can also use depression in a pneumatic systems. In fact up to the late 80's many lab rated measurement instruments where depression pneumatics because they were much more precise than electric or optic ones. They were a pain in the *ss to calibrate though.

1) All of the problems you just stated are for micro fine control. A) Not needed and B) there are multiple ways around that as you well know.

2) Stop using modern high psi rating problems in your analysis. Go back to the old 800psi or lower hydraulics that everyone and their mother flocked too. Guess what? Almost all of the problems you stated, vanish. Tolerance problems vanish. Leak problems by and large vanish. etc etc etc.

"need refined oil" What a joke. Only for maximum life. Can use straight crude if you want. Charis et all will be using said hydraulics as motors, and as heavy equipment, along with some hand tools. Can use oil with some water mixed in if you want in such applications. Hydraulics by and large do not care. Why everyone ran to them. Only time you care is if you are going to operate something with tiny poorly designed pores.... like in an automatic transmission. Even then, you can still use oil with impurities. Sure, gotta flush it more often, but beats the living tar out of air for most applications.

Oil Hydraulics are not as much today because air pneumatics have been grandfathered in and switching over would be an immense expense. And pneumatics do have one major advantage, even if it leaks, it will still partially operate as there is no such thing as "Running out of air".

Relax wrote:My point, not directly stated, though I thought was "obvious, uh clearly it wasn't, was that with Merlin around dispensing knowledge, Pneumatics would be entirely SKIPPED for the most part as a technological step.

Howsmyn expresses a desire to move beyond pneumatic power tools to electric at one point in textev. The tools in question are riveters, impact wrenches, grinders, etc -- all the kind of pneumatic tools I could go down to the local Harbor Freight or Home Depot and buy examples of.

What technological leap short of electricity do you propose for that technological niche? (A niche which still exists in the 21st century.)

Weird Harold wrote:Howsmyn expresses a desire to move beyond pneumatic power tools to electric at one point in textev. The tools in question are riveters, impact wrenches, grinders, etc -- all the kind of pneumatic tools I could go down to the local Harbor Freight or Home Depot and buy examples of.

What technological leap short of electricity do you propose for that technological niche? (A niche which still exists in the 21st century.)

IIRC, Howsmyn expresses a desire to use electricity to replace mechanical power transmission, aka pulleys, gears, spinning shafts, etc that have been in use almost since Creation.

Pneumatic power was an intermediate measure suggested by Pater Wylsynn that was adopted because pneumatic power transmission has far fewer moving parts that workers can get caught in and chewed up by.

Since then Howsmyn has not expressed any desire to move on to electrical systems. Although that's likely more because he has so few scenes rather than abandoning the desire for it.

So given that Howmyn is using pneumatic power for his tooling, I was wondering how inventive his subordinate inventors (who AREN'T in the Inner Circle) can get with the concept.

Pneumatic power was actually more a benefit to an assembly line than as a motive force.

Assembly lines require both the worker and his tools to be easily man portable.

LAMA Oct 896 Chap .XXIII. wrote:Of course, he had a point, Howsmyn acknowledged. His manufactories’ work floors had always been noisy places, but it was even worse now. And in many ways, Wylsynn had only himself to blame. The assembly line they’d just finished inspecting was the product of his suggestion, and the noise level of the pneumatic and hydraulic machinery was the next best thing to deafening. That was why both of them wore the ear protection and safety helmets Howsmyn had issued to his entire workforce.

Henry Ford spent a lot of time trying to find useful cordless electric power tools that would last for a work day.

They were (I don't know about anymore) a major portable power source in most body shops and garages when I was growing up. There was a reason. Cutting a 150 psi airline is generally less dangerous than cutting a power cord with a sander and the like. But did require substantial investment.

For what it is worth,
T2M

Relax wrote:1) All of the problems you just stated are for micro fine control. A) Not needed and B) there are multiple ways around that as you well know.

2) Stop using modern high psi rating problems in your analysis. Go back to the old 800psi or lower hydraulics that everyone and their mother flocked too. Guess what? Almost all of the problems you stated, vanish. Tolerance problems vanish. Leak problems by and large vanish. etc etc etc.

"need refined oil" What a joke. Only for maximum life. Can use straight crude if you want. Charis et all will be using said hydraulics as motors, and as heavy equipment, along with some hand tools. Can use oil with some water mixed in if you want in such applications. Hydraulics by and large do not care. Why everyone ran to them. Only time you care is if you are going to operate something with tiny poorly designed pores.... like in an automatic transmission. Even then, you can still use oil with impurities. Sure, gotta flush it more often, but beats the living tar out of air for most applications.

Oil Hydraulics are not as much today because air pneumatics have been grandfathered in and switching over would be an immense expense. And pneumatics do have one major advantage, even if it leaks, it will still partially operate as there is no such thing as "Running out of air".

The motor and jacks may not care (and motors will as soon as they revolve fast enough), but the control commands, check valves and so on definitely do. Without control equipment you have nothing usable, beside very simple things like a turning table or a lifting platform using jacks.

What is needed for any machinery is interlocking systems and feedback control loops and those are easy with pneumatics, and not possible in hydraulic at current Safehold tech level.

Where you really require hydraulics (heavy duty or static pressures needed), it will definitely be used, but you then need to use an external control loop either mechanical or pneumatic, which makes the machinery much more complex.

The control loop problem is why pneumatic took over hydraulic (hydraulic was used first, often water based) in most light applications, it is just simpler and safer to use. This is valid here too. Safehold has the tech to make pneumatic control loops, not yet hydraulic ones.

Also, pneumatic is well adapted to central generation and distribution to working posts on an assembly line, hydraulic is not.

I have, at home, a four volume "The Modern Electrical Engineer" published in 1929.
In an early chapter there is a discussion/comparison between distributed pneumatic and electrical systems for industrial use: no decisive conclusion is drawn between the two systems at that time, but this shows that the pneumatic/electrical debate was still active then.

One sequence in the books shows the installation of a large Bellis & Morcom three-cylinder compressor (driven by a 10' diameter "salient-pole" motor)at Barrow Colliery - Barnsley Main, this being for supplying compressed air for the underground drills, winches etc. as being much safer than electrical equipment underground.
(I was part of the team that removed this compressor to the National Mining Museum when the Colliery closed in 1984 - it was still in "good working order" and providing its designed load cycle)