General Discussion

JayPotter wrote:

MichaelSol wrote: Now, anyone who doubts there is a clowntown on Trains, only needs to look at the geniuses who suddenly decided to post on "titanium" failures -- each one of which has zero engineering background. To the extent that it matters -- and I don't know why it should -- I have an engineering degree from the Naval Academy.

And you claimed what about titanium blades? The clowntown I refer to has a very few inhabitants. None of them have engineering degrees.

 

JayPotter wrote:

JayPotter wrote:  MichaelSol wrote: If you've ever been a member of a professional society, its easy to see that a different standard of discourse applies among genuine professionals. In what profession are you? Having not received an answer to my question from yesterday, I decided to ask again. Michael, in what profession are you?

In a subsequent post, you reference your degree with the caveat, "not that it matters." My current profession means what to you?

JayPotter wrote:

I did an Internet search under "RB211 Hyfil"; and I found a great many references indicating that Rolls Royce's fan-related problem wasn't that it tried using titanium alloy versus pure titanium but, rather, that it tried using a carbon-reinforced epoxy instead of any form of titanium.  I don't know how accurate any of those references are; but I found one of them particularly interesting.  It was an Airliners.net discussion topic entitled "RB-211-22 Composite Use".  What I found interesting about it was how low-keyed and progressive, so to speak, the discussion was.  It appeared to me that the participants ended up with more collective information than they had at the beginning; and they managed to accomplish that without any real arguing along the way.

Railfans are a distinctive breed. I've never seen so much arguing over such petty points by so few who are so inexperienced.

Rolls Royce spent a great deal of time and effort trying to modify their blades. I don't know why, titanium worked just fine. They went through a variety of alloys and finally ended up with a composite formulation. That process was time-consuming and expensive. RR considered the composite better than the alloys, and went to production with that. And then the problems started. Yes, that was with the composite finally used, but my reference is to the expensive alloy testing program at RR, which found the alloys deficient compared to the composite. After the operational problems with the composite, Rolls subsequently returned to using pure titanium. If there is not a message in that saga, then you are looking for something else and it doesn't have anything to do with alloys.

Our project reviewed anything involved with government airtankers, among other things, and the L1011 was proposed as a tanker. If I am recalling correctly, and I might not be, it was originally proposed as a tanker, and the passenger version came out of that. We tested aircraft metals through a fatigue testing protocol using ASTM standards and a "run to failure" metric. Titanium is a remarkable metal and its alloys can have very interesting properties. However, in each instance, a positive attribute of a given alloy over the pure stuff seemed to have a downside in other operating environments. Primarily, while alloys could have longer fatigue life than pure titanium, they were less consistent in that regard whereas pure titanium had a fatigue life that was remarkably consistent under all conditions we tested for.

Whether this was due to manufacturing problems, or inherent in the alloys themselves, we did not determine. Titanium alloys were new ideas and there was not a lot of history or experience available on them. Composites were completely new in this application. We had quite a discussion with ASTM over whether the testing standard we were using for metals was appropriate for composites, for instance. Rolls was covering new ground, but the moral of the story is that it chose the composite over the alloys and ultimately returned to using the pure stuff.

And the POINT, oh yes, the point: metalurgical technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. It is to me the peculiar feature of the people here that they cannot conceive of improvements to a machine based on those improvements if it happens to use coal as the fuel.

 

 

 

Hmmmm...

Whoa! Cahoool!

Ouch...

 

Now stop fighting, you both say your professional, yet, your bickering like a bunch of children on a train forum.  Just look at yourselves...

 

Best regards,

Mike

Mike, Mike,...

Slow down and take a load off before you blow a gasket...no need to get so steamed.

Clowntown...that's cute...been saving that insult up for a special day?

 

MichaelSol wrote:

edblysard wrote: Wow, Looks like the Australian Transport Safety Board used the word alloy four times...guess someone needs to write them a note and explain to them they how wrong they are. Yup. On a failure. Do you have any idea why? Or is this one of your bigmouth expositions? What, about this topic, do you actually know anything about? And, do you actually know anything about titanium in aircraft? I do. I ran the tests. Now, anyone who doubts there is a clowntown on Trains, only needs to look at the geniuses who suddenly decided to post on "titanium" failures -- each one of which has zero engineering background -- without even appreciating the irony that they are describing alloy failures, which are avoided by using pure titanium. The failures are why manufacturers keep returning to pure titanium. Moderators: note the names. Do you really think they posted here because of their overarching interest in Titanium? Or because they actually know anything about it? Go back to the Futuremodal threads. Same posters. Isn't that odd? And you guys just couldn't do anything about it. Just couldn't figure out why Futuremodal got hostile. Oddest thing, wasn't it? A bunch of fairly bright guys ... but what a mystery. Over and over. Must have been Futuremodal's fault. Right? No accident here, and this is what is killing these forums.

edblysard wrote:

Mike, Mike,... Slow down and take a load off before you blow a gasket...no need to get so steamed. Clowntown...that's cute...been saving that insult up for a special day?

Changing the thread name to "edblysard speaks to the World on Titanium" was indeed the comic thought for the day ...

ignatius wrote:

Gentlemen:  There is still more here to be vetted.  To remove all doubt, the most advanced steam in North America had automatic stokers which would direct feed coal from the tender to the firebox.

There's no such thing as an automatic stoker for a steam loco. Any mechanical stoker you care to name is operated and regulated by the fireman.

ignatius wrote:

PRB coal is plentiful, but not necessarily the quality you want for anything but a large multi MW electric plant. Right?

Wrong. Think NP. Build your loco with a big enough grate and a combustion chamber or Gaines wall.

Mark.

There is no inherent speed limit that is imposed on a reciprocating engine by its rods and crank pins.  It is a mistake to look at the flailing rods of a steam locomotive and assume that they represent an extreme out of balance condition that threatens to tear the machine apart at speed.  It is true that the rods and crank pins constitute an eccentric loading to the rotating wheels, but the objective is to counterbalance that load with the lead filled counterweights.  

The only challenge is to provide sufficient counterbalance to get the job done.  Locomotive rods need strength, and with strength comes weight.  There is only so much room to fit the counterbalance weight.  So there has sometimes been difficulty in achieving perfect counterbalance.  Therefore, if an exotic material is needed, it is needed for the rods.  There are, no doubt, several different types of materials and processes that have been developed since the end of steam age that could be applied to the rods of a modern locomotive in order to perfect the dynamic balance.   

Bucyrus wrote:

There is no inherent speed limit that is imposed on a reciprocating engine by its rods and crank pins.  It is a mistake to look at the flailing rods of a steam locomotive and assume that they represent an extreme out of balance condition that threatens to tear the machine apart at speed.  It is true that the rods and crank pins constitute an eccentric loading to the rotating wheels, but the objective is to counterbalance that load with the lead filled counterweights.   The only challenge is to provide sufficient counterbalance to get the job done.  Locomotive rods need strength, and with strength comes weight.  There is only so much room to fit the counterbalance weight.  So there has sometimes been difficulty in achieving perfect counterbalance.  Therefore, if an exotic material is needed, it is needed for the rods.  There are, no doubt, several different types of materials and processes that have been developed since the end of steam age that could be applied to the rods of a modern locomotive in order to perfect the dynamic balance.

The test runs of the Hiawatha noted that "the faster she went, the better she rode" as they got up around 112 mph. The fact is that the NYC J3 static tested at 139 mph. It ran just fine and did not threaten to fly apart. A 150 mph steam engine was entirely feasible 60 years ago -- but impractical for any actual service for the same reasons that a 150 mph train service on regular passenger runs on regular tracks remains impractical today from the standpoint of serving a market and the distance and time necessary to accelerate and brake, not to mention trackbed. Modern materials and engineering would no doubt improve on the capability, but the point of the exercise was to illuminate the fact that a steam engine at 150 mph can still operate more cheaply than a diesel-electric at 50 mph, which underscores the remarkable economic efficiency, today, of steam (or rather, coal-fired) locomotion.

 

 

....It is difficult to understand how the supporting journals of the drive rods could support without getting over stressed.....the flailing rods at such speeds.  Especially back when the rod material would have been heavier material.

I also find it difficult to believe a modern designed steam engine would even think of using that mechanical technology.

Modelcar wrote:

....It is difficult to understand how the supporting journals of the drive rods could support without getting over stressed.....the flailing rods at such speeds.  Especially back when the rod material would have been heavier material. I also find it difficult to believe a modern designed steam engine would even think of using that mechanical technology.

It is a part of every internal combustion engine.  It worked to over 100 mph, over 100 years ago.  Why do you think it is a show-stopper today?

If you think it wouild not work today, what technology do you think would work today?

.....Ok, it's similar.....but the journals on an internal combustion engine have support on either end of the journal or piston pin....!  And rods in internal comb. engines generally have lighter material in them.  And of course miniture in size compared to locomotive drive rods.  Just my

I'm not one that is implying anyone to build a "new" steam engine design.  Although, it sure would be possible to improve on 60 - 100 year old designs.

Actually, Mike, all but two of the Clowntown folks have engineering degrees, in fact, most of them have several advanced degrees in many disciplines.

Myself and one other being the exceptions.

 

They earn their living using their degrees; one of them is even a lawyer, practicing law in an actual court, as opposed to doing real estate contracts.

Of course, your engineering degree is from....what university or college?

You claim to have a degree in mechanical engineering and one in chemical engineering, and railway engineering...from what schools?

You asked what degree I had in mechanical engineering...the answer is none, and I now ask the same question of you.

 

You always  insist that others provide their bona fides and educational experience before they are be allowed to comment on anything you utter, but you never answer the same question or provide your credentials when it is asked of you.

So, where did you earn you degree(s), and at what level?

 

Its not a unreasonable question, and I find it hard to believe anyone would be ashamed to say where they went to school, so I can only take your refusal to answer such questions as an admission that you actually don't posses any of the bona fides you demand others show.

 

Mr. Potter was kind enough to answer your question, so shouldn't you extend the same courtesy?

 

And before you claim I am attacking you, I am not; I am simply asking you a straightforward question.

 

What advanced degrees do you posses, and what institutions issued them to you?

MichaelSol wrote:

JayPotter wrote:  MichaelSol wrote: Now, anyone who doubts there is a clowntown on Trains, only needs to look at the geniuses who suddenly decided to post on "titanium" failures -- each one of which has zero engineering background. To the extent that it matters -- and I don't know why it should -- I have an engineering degree from the Naval Academy. And you claimed what about titanium blades? The clowntown I refer to has a very few inhabitants. None of them have engineering degrees.

From what I gather, exceeding 100 mph was no big deal for many of the 4-4-0, 4-6-0, and 4-4-2 types in the 1880-1900 era.  I am guessing that this happened routinely for a variety of reasons.  It is left to conjecture, however, since these little speed records could not be proclaimed because they were against the rules.  When the M&StL took delivery of their new high-wheeled moguls in the late 1890s, they did publicly proclaim in the newspapers that the engines were capable of hauling their passenger trains at 80 mph.  Yet nowhere did their speed limit allow anything close to that speed.  So if they were willing to admit by implication, speeding to that extent, I have to wonder how fast they might have occasionally gone without admitting it. 

edblysard wrote:

Actually, Mike, all but two of the Clowntown folks have engineering degrees, in fact, most of them have several advanced degrees in many disciplines. Myself and one other being the exceptions.

Futuremodal created the clowntown: a small group of individuals who would show up on every single thread he ever posted on: it consisted of Ken Strawbridge, you, Jay Eaton and Tom Diehl. Simply because he had opinions and defended them and you disagreed with him.

Throughout it all, none of you has ever betrayed an ounce of engineering background.

Posting, as with "Titanium" here, on whatever nitwit thing you could think of to Google that day simply as a thin disguise for your personal attacks on him, or Idaho, or whatever fool thing you decided to distract any given thread from.

It was offensive beyond belief and wrecked many a good discussion.

And this thread repeats the old pattern: "Edblysard Pontificates on His Knowledge of Titanum."

Oh really?  Thanks for the info. It must have been building up for a long time; just been itching to comment on Titanium issues, haven't you?

It is the reductio ad absurdum of why you feel a real "need" to post on some threads, but I think your post does, finally, show your motive for posting here. Not a thing to actually do with the thread topic, does it? The motive is clear. It's your personal grudge festering, as it has for years, in exactly the same fashion that it did with Dave Smith.

However, obviously you think the idea of a "clowntown" includes a lot more people than I do. Interesting. I am sure they would be flattered.

Mr. Potter was kind enough to answer your question, so shouldn't you extend the same courtesy?

I didn't ask him the question. Interesting that you thought I did. I take his comments at face value because he's obviously not here pursuing his personal agendas, brings a knowledge value to the discussion, and has never shown any inclination to cascade through multiple threads cyberstalking Dave Smith or anyone else as you did and, as shown today, continue to do.