Steam

Hi Darman,

Regarding British steam cars, they actually started in the 1830's and were put out of business by deliberate acts of Parliament (requiring a man to walk before them warning everyone they were coming, though they were faster than horses).

Regarding Gatling guns, they had bad feed problems until the 'Bruce' style feed mechanism, but 25 misfires out of 30 is kinda high, even for Gatling's.

Maybe a confederate sympathizer sold it to your fellow re-enactor?

Keep the good posts coming,

L

Darman wrote:Two things: Gatling guns and steam-powered vehicles.

Steam-powered vehicles first, the British used a steam-powered road vehicle very much like a train but it didn't need to run on tracks. They used it in South Africa during one of their many wars at the end of the 19th century. Put some armor on the front, on the sides, and on the troop-carrying wagons attached and you have an APC of sorts. However I'm certain everyone will claim it is Shanwei's own war chariot.

Gatling Guns: I just started as an American Civil War reenactor and at one of the reenactments somebody had a Gatling Gun. We could hear it in the distance. POP POP POP -crickets- POP -crickets- -crickets- POP POP.
Out of a 30 round magazine there were over 25 misfires. So at least the one he had wasn't very reliable.

lyonheart wrote:Regarding British steam cars, they actually started in the 1830's and were put out of business by deliberate acts of Parliament (requiring a man to walk before them warning everyone they were coming, though they were faster than horses).

I did not know that they were around that early. Thanks! I just remembered seeing a picture of this monster on wheels while researching something logistics-related for my class.

Regarding Gatling guns, they had bad feed problems until the 'Bruce' style feed mechanism, but 25 misfires out of 30 is kinda high, even for Gatling's.

We all had a good laugh and hoped that that had never happened to a Gatling-gunner whilst on the receiving end of a cavalry charge.

Early turbines were horribly inefficient. ICE engines at the time were far superior except they had an inferior cross section for airplanes.

Steam Powered Vehicles were around long before Ford and and Ford. If Ford had powered the Model T with steam power we would probably still be driving them today.

Gotta love Sterling Engines. Burn anything and very simple to make. They are certainly not light weight due to the condenser/boiler/engine required. From a practical efficiency standpoint they are superior to Brayton(turbine), diesel, or carnot(gas engine). Sterling engine today routinely obtain 50% efficiency. One can sometimes find a sterling engine being used in conjunction with giant steam turbines creating power or even as waste heat collectors at industrial plants as a sterling engine will run under very low temperatures unlike a carnon(ICE) or diesel or brayton engine.

Most efficient engine in the world is a small sterling engine as I recall at over 50%. If environmental wackos were really interested in fuel efficient cars they would be touting sterling engines and they would put their money where their mouths are and develop one. Instead their true values show through, they just want cars off the roads and everyone living in caves 'living off the land' and dieing at age 35 or earlier due to pneumonia or infection.

Driving to work using coal/wood/grass clippings/banana peals... quite doable.

Real reason turbines would NOT be the first engine created is due to high tolerances needed to balance said engines. That and when said engine fails it will THROW a blade destroying and killing everything in its way. All other engine types don't do this even when they throw a "rod". The KE of a thrown turbine blade is immense. Creating "armor" is not practical in the slightest. Killing someone in the car next to you instead of yourself by changing the orientation of said turbine isn't exactly neighborly either.

There is a reason that the bearings on a turbine die so quickly. There is a reason turbines have very low time between tear downs and major maintenance overhauls.

The only engine type that makes any practical sense is either the Sterling/Diesel or Carnot for a barely there society. Demanding precision balancing with piss poor turbine blades that by their very nature would have to be spinning at very high RPM as the smaller the Turbine is, the faster it must spin to compress said gas creating combustion. Also the smaller a turbine is the less efficient it is as the cumulative area not sealed due to tolerances from heat expansion among others is FAR greater on small turbines.

Small turbines in tanks/helicopter/airplanes are NOT used because of fuel efficiency. They are ONLY used because they pack more power/weight than any other type of engine. In all other respects they stink until one goes to VERY large. You would note modern jet airliners with HUGE front fans? Compare them to say old 707's or 727's MD80's etc. The internals of said engines really haven't changed much in the past 30 years other than better materials allowing higher operating temperatures, rather the GIANT efficiency boost has been to their turbo fan designs operating above MACH 1 and materials( strong(Read stiff) enough and light enough) able to withstand said stresses/strains at said RPM. Carbon Fiber over Honeycomb. Even with these extreme advances, their fuel efficiency is not on par with a diesel engine whom operates around 40% efficient at optimum while said turbine is operating around 30% at optimum.

Practically speaking especially true for a low materials science background, one cannot make decent gears and gear boxes applicable to a steam turbine. Its operating speed is way too extreme for a backwards technological society. This is where Diesel shines. High Torque, low RPM allowing poorer quality gears, IE larger gears that would be impossible to use on a turbine due to imbalance/backlash/mesh angle problems among other things.

Turbines are NOT the way to go! Just put that one to bed ok?

Steam Turbines for power generation... OK as you need said tech tree for hydro power anyways. Only reason they existed early on and then later due to WARSHIPS who had space problems and needed a higher power/density. They would have been better off going to a sterling engine actually for land based applications, but due to the push of defense budgets pushing forward steam turbine design for warships, they attained efficiencies and manufacturing abilities that the sterling engine folks could simply not compete with.

Cheers. Now you have way too much information.

Main Problem with Stirling engines is the obvious... Freezing or at least overpressure bypass ability till engine unfreezes. If bypass fails your engine fails and its a high wear part.

You will need Diesel/kerosene anyways for tractors and heavy machinery if nothing else.

PS. You can run Anything through a diesel engine. Of course not modern diesel engines with their injectors thus lowering its efficiency. Honestly said efficiency won't be there till they create proper cast iron sleeves or ABL technology and CNC machining for oblong cylinders.

Steam engines require a few skills that are unknown in Safehold right know; Engineering and a pretty solid understanding of thermodynamics, Boyles Law and a pretty decent metalurgical foundation. Yes there are a few talented people who are just now exploring Newton and Liebnitz. But without the calculus then there is no understanding of the rate change over time and there is no ability to even make the simplest of structural design; so that means no really big steel stuff. So we won't be seeing the Bismarck being rebuilt anytime soon. Of course it could all be printed out by Owl, but spoon feeding tech can't be healthy for any society.

On Safehold now design is by rule of thumb. There is no scientific method or exploration of the natural laws. That is of course changing but it would take a generation for it to be accepted and commonplace.

"Real reason turbines would NOT be the first engine created is due to high tolerances needed to balance said engines. That and when said engine fails it will THROW a blade destroying and killing everything in its way."

Actually that's not quite true. Charles Algernon Parsons invented the steam turbine in 1894. His engines did NOT have bearings that you would recognize. Instead the main shaft rotated within a series of coaxial plates floating in an oil sump. The concept worked beautifully and his engines where extremely reliable. By 1897 he a developed a Naval version in the Turbinia which was at that time the fastest vessel afloat at over 40 knots. That small ship was demonstrated at the Queens Jubilee in 1897 and he received a commission to fit his engine in a naval destroyer. The upshot of his efforts? So began the era of steam turbines in Naval warships. The HMS Dreadnaught launched in 1906 was powered by Parsons steam turbine engines and she was not the first nor the last. The Turbinia is now a museum ship and her original powerplant is on view at The London Science Museum.

Turbines have a far greater power to weight ratio than piston displacement engines, and very few moving parts. One actually! Aside the occassional valve or two. As a result they are reasonably inexpensive to manufacture. Steam Turbines also spin at far slower speeds (3000 to 4000 rpm) than gas turbine engines (in excess of 20,000 rpm). This is due to steam being a denser gas and able to apply more force to the blades than can a gas or jet turbine engine. Steam turbines also don't need a compressor stage to compress the air before the ignition chamber.

The age of Naval Steam piston engines lasted about 60 years before being replaced by lighter and more efficient turbines. Turbines however were not unknown and Parson's merely improved upon and patented an idea that had been floating about for a hundred years or so prior.

"Turbines are NOT the way to go! Just put that one to bed ok?

Steam Turbines for power generation... OK as you need said tech tree for hydro power anyways. Only reason they existed early on and then later due to WARSHIPS who had space problems and needed a higher power/density. They would have been better off going to a sterling engine actually for land based applications, but due to the push of defense budgets pushing forward steam turbine design for warships, they attained efficiencies and manufacturing abilities that the sterling engine folks could simply not compete with."


Arguably Steam Turbines are the way to go. Parson's engine in Turbinia was elegantly simple, reliable and quite powerful. It also didn't require complex machining. It delivered so much power to the single screw that it cavitated. Cavitation was a new concept.

...and historically the concept is far older than piston displacement. In fact the ancient Greeks had what they called an Aeolipile, a spinning globe driven by venting steam. Turbines were known to the Egyptans and they where known in 16th century Spain. The piston engine was the easier route to go AT FIRST but these engines became massive as the demands for power grew. Turbines were developed almost concurrently and quickly came to replace piston engines due to their smaller size, less weight, greater efficiency and comparatively low cost.

Forgive me but you also are confusing the physics of gas turbines (jet engines) with steam turbines. They are light years apart. Gas turbines run faster, hotter and require a compressor first stage. Steam turbines run much cooler, slower and are only single stage. Steam turbines also have the benefit of running direct drive with a gear box of comparatively slow rotating gears. These gears would be roughly cast from iron or bronze and then machined. Steam turbine blades could be simply stamped from cast steel blanks and polished as they were. Today gas turbine engine blades are also stamped and machined but fromm exotic heat resistant alloys.

Steam engines, which-ever; piston or turbine would find better use as stationary power plants driving over-head belts as they did in factories in the 19t century; replacing water powered plants. By 1898 however Parson's was producing 1MW steam turbine powerplants for the electrification of manufacturing. On a side note; in New England many mills driven by water where converted to water powered electrical generation in the early 20th century as electricty could be generated and delivered to a machine cheaper and with greater efficiency than mechanical drive shafts. Many of these power plants were "re-stored" with more efficient water powered generators in the 1980's.

The problem with steam cars and trucks is simply they require too much support. Coal has to be transported for them as well as spare parts and competant mechanics as they were notoriously unreliable. I can only imagine that scene from "Big Jake" when the Sherriff's posse sets out in a Stanley Steamer only to have it break down and strand them in the dessert. John Wayne and his crew soon pass them by on horseback.

Hi rav555

?? Sterling engins then ??

R

kbus888 wrote:Hi rav555

?? Sterling engins then ??

R

I don't think so unless it's the Beta engine which is quite simple and would make an excellent stationary power plant.

Stirling engines can't provide the torque that steam engines can. And Stirling engines still need a constant heat source. The bigger they are the more heat they need. They may be more efficient except where eficiencies of scale are applied. The Stirling Engine was invented in 1816 or so and they never really caught on. Largely because they need a delta-T and rates of cooling affect power.

The idea of steam engines and iron clads are an attractive means to achieve Naval supremacy. But that same supremacy can be acheived by the pre-emptive destruction of enemy ship yards.

The support necessary for a squadron of Iron Clad steam ships would be huge: world wide coaling stations and collier ships. The economics of iron and steam whould not favourably suit Charis. Those outposts would also be attractive targets for attack as Pearl Harbor was. Scaling up to produce that much Iron would detract form other war efforts.

The immediate obsolescence of sail in favor of Iron and steam would level the playing field and start an arms race not unlike what happened in the late 19th and early 20th century. This would also raise hell with the Safehold economy.

There is still a lot of nautical miles left in improving sailing ship design without having to immediately reorganise an economy to run on rails and build steam powered iron clads. A railroad infrastructure is absolutely essential to even begin thinking about organising of a steam powered Navy.

Cladding sailing vessels in Iron is certainly going to occur to designers as an easy deterrent to round shot and exploding shells.

But improvement in Naval gunnery if smokeless powders are developed will be able drive cast steel rifled shot clean through iron. Iron does not resist punching shear nearly as well as steel plate. Iron plate is very expensive, but waht the Confederates did with CSS Virginia was to use iron rail

It's kind of what Krupp did in the early 20th century when he sold armour plate to several European countries and to Germany, his own country, he sold the AP shells to punch through them.