....Feathered and rotatable turbine fins have been used in automotive transmission convertors to broaden their effective use during different driving situations. No reason why that design couldn't be applied to "other" designs.
And speaking of the same feathered design used in aircraft props....Those who have experienced taking off in a Lockeed Electra 4 engined plane many years ago can easily agree with that.
Quentin
wsherrick wrote: By the way this modern steam locomotive is equipped with Compression Braking a functional equivalent to dynamic braking without the waste and dissipation of generated energy.
By the way this modern steam locomotive is equipped with Compression Braking a functional equivalent to dynamic braking without the waste and dissipation of generated energy.
Dynamic braking does not generate energy in and of itself, the kinetic energy of the moving train is converted to electric energy and is dissipated through the resistor grids by being converted to heat. Compression braking on a steam locomotive would be similar, the kinetic energy of the train has to go somewhere when braking of any sort is applied. The laws of thermodynamics apply equally to diesel-electric and steam locomotives.
I wish to apologize for the use of the word "rediculous" in one of my postings. I should always be more respectful to people with different opinions. My MIT education, experience at Electro Motive and the Boston and Maine, should not be an excuse for arrogance, and again I apologize.
There may be untried ways of making turbines, gas, steam, or whatever, more efficient over a wider range. Perhaps blades can be feathered as on advance design prop airplanes, or their can be multiple entry and exit ports so that one large turbine can essential operate as one or as two in parallel. Such technology may not only benefit a return of steam, but may make gas turbine locomotives practical.
Here is a graph of the work performance of the new steam locomotives vs new diesel and traditional steam power. It's quite revealing.
Edit: I forgot to add that these new steam locomotives haul a 70% greater payload while saving 4 minutes off the same schedule as the diesels they are compared against. So the cost savings per unit of revenue is even greater with the steam power.
YoHo1975 wrote: That differential isn't all that much.The efficency lost by converting to electicity is made up for in the added flexibility of design, regenerative braking (Battery or super Capacitor) and the ability to reuse existing equipment and reduce switchover costs. The precision available in electric motor drives versus direct drive ganged drivers etc etc etc. It's not as simple as the efficency loss.
That differential isn't all that much.
The efficency lost by converting to electicity is made up for in the added flexibility of design, regenerative braking (Battery or super Capacitor) and the ability to reuse existing equipment and reduce switchover costs. The precision available in electric motor drives versus direct drive ganged drivers etc etc etc.
It's not as simple as the efficency loss.
Guess what the steam locomotive compared with the diesel was burning the SAME fuel. The cost comparisons there include the whole economic ball of wax. This includes maintenance, availability for service, fuel cost and crew costs.
With a the vast difference existing between coal and petroleum. The steam engine trounces the diesel down pat. By the way this modern steam locomotive is equipped with Compression Braking a functional equivalent to dynamic braking without the waste and dissipation of generated energy.
And for what its worth any steam locomotive old or new will stomp any diesel of equivalent weight on the drivers performance wise. I know it from 30 years of running steam and diesel locomotives. It's not theory with me or something I've read.
Your refusal to believe it doesn't make the facts any less so.
As far as pollution goes, here is a revealing graph comparing diesel and modern steam exhaust emissions.
It's pretty clear which form of power is the cleanest.
Here is a direct cost comparison for modern steam, diesel, and traditional steam power from actual service conditions. This graph courtesy of DLM Company.
...."Using the steam to generate electricity is secondary".....At the prices we're into now for oil and perhaps much more to come that secondary figure might become somewhat more important to have a power source to power the traction motors on existing fleets of diesel electric's all over the country.
daveklepper wrote:Rediculous to both use reciprocating or direct drive turbine power and at the same time generate electricity for traction in the same locomotive or "slave" units. Steam will make a comeback only through electricity generation because it is more economical, more efficient, easier on the track, more compatible with existing off-the-shelf technology, basically a small mobil power plant furnishing power to the diesel electrics standard modern electrical-electronic system. Anything else is pure and simple waste. But with today's technlogy, more than one turbine and generator are essential, two being a minimum for three efficient throttle positions.
Ummmm......we've already dispelled the myth that traction motors were easier on the tracks than driving wheels. Just the opposite is true.
And the point being made is that, if we return to burning coal in an external combustion engine, it is more economical to use that steam in either reciprocation or direct-drive turbine. Using the steam to generate electricity is secondary, perhaps complimentary, but definitely not primary.
Go back to the locomotive performance comparison graphs, oh..... back about a dozen pages give or take. You'll see real data that dispells the "diesel superiority" myth.
wholelephant wrote: Why is this site so difficult to use?Why can't it have some user-friendly margins and line-spacing?Why does it have to go all over the place?
Why is this site so difficult to use?
Why can't it have some user-friendly
margins and line-spacing?
Why does it have to go all over the place?
I am not sure what is happening with the margins. When I just checked, it returned once, but testing with dots, it just keeps going. I usually type the message in WORD and then copy/paste it in here. The margins always are OK, but line spacing always has to be adjusted once it is pasted in here.
Hmmmmm, your post here seems alright.
It's just that other "wholelephant" guy that keeps screwing up!
Generator/motor drive is both very expensive to build and loses about 20% of the prime mover power. As decentralized power it requires generating capacity equal to fleet horsepower, whereas the Pennsy's central power plant load averaged 16% of fleet horsepower and never exceeded 22%. (Barriger's foreword, When the Steam Roads Electrified)
It does produce lots of torque from a high speed prime mover, which is why diesels are so good
at lugging. It can run indefinitely; thus with an engine that can run long periods it can do non-stop runs like the Pioneer Zephyr.
At speed, however, where transmission is not necessary, it is not only a major expense, but a rigid limitation on output.
....Sure I suppose that idea could be an option to have or have not traction motors under it...{The tender}. One could supply as many traction motors as would be to the advantage of the "power" available and able to put it on the rail in usable T E.
Modelcar wrote: ....From the thoughts I put forth yesterday regarding a "steam electric tender", I was commenting of a "unit" to accommodate housing a portable {being portable by the unit it's mounted in}, boiler / steam engine to power a generator / alternator to simply supply electricity to traction motors {via connecting cables}, on normal existing diesel electric engines....NOT to power the mobile "tender" with mechanical power or any other kind of power. That tender would be available to be connected to and not be part of the locomotive force supplying T E to the rail.If oil continues to skyrocket and remains in the high cost bracket, this tender would be a unit capable of using several different kinds of fuel including coal rendering the ability to shut down the prime movers in the diesel electrics and get the power right from these "tenders".
....From the thoughts I put forth yesterday regarding a "steam electric tender", I was commenting of a "unit" to accommodate housing a portable {being portable by the unit it's mounted in}, boiler / steam engine to power a generator / alternator to simply supply electricity to traction motors {via connecting cables}, on normal existing diesel electric engines....NOT to power the mobile "tender" with mechanical power or any other kind of power. That tender would be available to be connected to and not be part of the locomotive force supplying T E to the rail.
If oil continues to skyrocket and remains in the high cost bracket, this tender would be a unit capable of using several different kinds of fuel including coal rendering the ability to shut down the prime movers in the diesel electrics and get the power right from these "tenders".
An interesting concept that would fit into existing (North American) motive power practices, you could have traction motors under the generator unit so that it could act as a slug taking power from either the turbogenerator or the electrically connected locomotives,dynamic braking power gets sent back to the boiler to make more steam..both GE and Railpower hold patents on the type of inter-unit power bus/distribution system this would require, GE patent covers an energy storage tender/slug...(but is it "ABS" I wonder...)..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
wsherrick wrote:This idea has been already thought of and drawn up in a set of plans. When I worked on the Crab Orchard & Egyptian back in the early 80's we were going to do that if we could get the funding for a prototype. The idea was to have the traction motors on the trailing truck and tender trucks as a booster under 4 MPH. There were going to be heating elements in the bottom of the boiler to use the heat from the dynamics to boil water, but the funding was never appropriated. Maybe someday.
This idea has been already thought of and drawn up in a set of plans. When I worked on the Crab Orchard & Egyptian back in the early 80's we were going to do that if we could get the funding for a prototype. The idea was to have the traction motors on the trailing truck and tender trucks as a booster under 4 MPH. There were going to be heating elements in the bottom of the boiler to use the heat from the dynamics to boil water, but the funding was never appropriated. Maybe someday.
The GE Turbomotive from 1939 had dynamic braking resistors under the boiler. With current technology it would be simpler to use a battery (although the boiler could absorb more energy than a reasonably sized battery).
Norman Saxon wrote: Modelcar wrote: .....If emergency planning is the priority....how about design....develop.....approve.....and build....a supply of "steam electric tenders"....Units with a portable steam engine / gen./alternator unit {that can burn various kinds of fuel, including coal}, and supply existing diesel electric engines with power simply by connecting power cables to them to supply the traction motors, etc.Dynamics still available.....and unit could still operate {as designed originally, with the diesel prime mover}.JawnHenry, anyone?If I follow Michael's premise correctly, we could have a basic Northern design with enough power being produced to not only provide more than adequate steam to the pistons of reciprocating design (or a direct-drive turbine ala Pennsy Q2), but also power a turbine(s) to turn a generator(s) onboard that also powers traction motors. These motors could be located on the lead truck or trailing truck of the locomotive, the trucks of the tender, and/or on a booster loco comprised of a conventional diesel-electric or true electric?That way, you get the high speed hp of conventional steam, but also some of the lugging power of traction motors.
Modelcar wrote: .....If emergency planning is the priority....how about design....develop.....approve.....and build....a supply of "steam electric tenders"....Units with a portable steam engine / gen./alternator unit {that can burn various kinds of fuel, including coal}, and supply existing diesel electric engines with power simply by connecting power cables to them to supply the traction motors, etc.Dynamics still available.....and unit could still operate {as designed originally, with the diesel prime mover}.
.....If emergency planning is the priority....how about design....develop.....approve.....and build....a supply of "steam electric tenders"....Units with a portable steam engine / gen./alternator unit {that can burn various kinds of fuel, including coal}, and supply existing diesel electric engines with power simply by connecting power cables to them to supply the traction motors, etc.
Dynamics still available.....and unit could still operate {as designed originally, with the diesel prime mover}.
JawnHenry, anyone?
If I follow Michael's premise correctly, we could have a basic Northern design with enough power being produced to not only provide more than adequate steam to the pistons of reciprocating design (or a direct-drive turbine ala Pennsy Q2), but also power a turbine(s) to turn a generator(s) onboard that also powers traction motors. These motors could be located on the lead truck or trailing truck of the locomotive, the trucks of the tender, and/or on a booster loco comprised of a conventional diesel-electric or true electric?
That way, you get the high speed hp of conventional steam, but also some of the lugging power of traction motors.
Michael:
.....Yes, never thought of the emergency power unit usage and that it could be moved around on the rails anyware....And....the thought that FEMA might contribute to the overall cost sounds great too.
YoHo1975 wrote: Norman Saxon wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: Wow, Just Wow, have you read ANY of the articles on this?They are predicting lower land utilization by far. (As if coal doesn't cost for land utilization.)They DO have a pilot program. The Coal Fired reactor at MIT and they're building one for a 1000 MW unit in the southwest. Read the article.And that's not even discussing the Cyanobacteria stuff that I just linked.Read the articles first. I DID read the article. And I'll tell you right now - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!You're dealing with living organisms here, and as we all know life does not conform to the templates of demand and expectation we thrust upon it. Just because an organism can exist on a small scale and produce minute amounts of oil as excrement doesn't mean you can ramp that up to a scaleble facility capable of producing the desired product. The admission that jump out at me from the article is this:"One of the challenges researchers have faced is that while some types of algae can produce large amounts of oil--as much as 60 percent of their weight--they only do this when they're starved for nutrients. But when they're starved for nutrients, they lose another of their attractive features: their ability to quickly grow and reproduce."This is another case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. I predict the attempts to rectify this opposing tendency will prove both costly and fruitless.Example: If only we could get the lard from the cow without killing it. Oh wait, we can use lyposuction! Problem is, the cost of using lyposuction to get the lard without killing the cow will outweigh the value of the lard.However, I do not wish to stymie any further research into algaediesel. You and GP-dude go ahead and invest in algaediesel, I'll invest in CTL diesel, and we'll see who laughs last.It IS happening right now!The plants are in operation RIGHT NOW. Maybe it won't scale without a few bumps in the road, maybe something better will come along, but it's a compelling technology to say the least. Again, as an engineer (lower case) I like compelling technologies be they revived external combustion, or fuels made from algae grown in otherwise dead environs. As for investment, I tell you what, I'll invest in both and either reap part of the reward, because the Algae thing failed, or I'll reap more reward. CYA and all that.
Norman Saxon wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: Wow, Just Wow, have you read ANY of the articles on this?They are predicting lower land utilization by far. (As if coal doesn't cost for land utilization.)They DO have a pilot program. The Coal Fired reactor at MIT and they're building one for a 1000 MW unit in the southwest. Read the article.And that's not even discussing the Cyanobacteria stuff that I just linked.Read the articles first. I DID read the article. And I'll tell you right now - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!You're dealing with living organisms here, and as we all know life does not conform to the templates of demand and expectation we thrust upon it. Just because an organism can exist on a small scale and produce minute amounts of oil as excrement doesn't mean you can ramp that up to a scaleble facility capable of producing the desired product. The admission that jump out at me from the article is this:"One of the challenges researchers have faced is that while some types of algae can produce large amounts of oil--as much as 60 percent of their weight--they only do this when they're starved for nutrients. But when they're starved for nutrients, they lose another of their attractive features: their ability to quickly grow and reproduce."This is another case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. I predict the attempts to rectify this opposing tendency will prove both costly and fruitless.Example: If only we could get the lard from the cow without killing it. Oh wait, we can use lyposuction! Problem is, the cost of using lyposuction to get the lard without killing the cow will outweigh the value of the lard.However, I do not wish to stymie any further research into algaediesel. You and GP-dude go ahead and invest in algaediesel, I'll invest in CTL diesel, and we'll see who laughs last.
YoHo1975 wrote: Wow, Just Wow, have you read ANY of the articles on this?They are predicting lower land utilization by far. (As if coal doesn't cost for land utilization.)They DO have a pilot program. The Coal Fired reactor at MIT and they're building one for a 1000 MW unit in the southwest. Read the article.And that's not even discussing the Cyanobacteria stuff that I just linked.Read the articles first.
Wow, Just Wow, have you read ANY of the articles on this?
They are predicting lower land utilization by far. (As if coal doesn't cost for land utilization.)
They DO have a pilot program. The Coal Fired reactor at MIT and they're building one for a 1000 MW unit in the southwest. Read the article.
And that's not even discussing the Cyanobacteria stuff that I just linked.
Read the articles first.
I DID read the article. And I'll tell you right now - IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
You're dealing with living organisms here, and as we all know life does not conform to the templates of demand and expectation we thrust upon it. Just because an organism can exist on a small scale and produce minute amounts of oil as excrement doesn't mean you can ramp that up to a scaleble facility capable of producing the desired product.
The admission that jump out at me from the article is this:
"One of the challenges researchers have faced is that while some types of algae can produce large amounts of oil--as much as 60 percent of their weight--they only do this when they're starved for nutrients. But when they're starved for nutrients, they lose another of their attractive features: their ability to quickly grow and reproduce."
This is another case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. I predict the attempts to rectify this opposing tendency will prove both costly and fruitless.
Example: If only we could get the lard from the cow without killing it. Oh wait, we can use lyposuction! Problem is, the cost of using lyposuction to get the lard without killing the cow will outweigh the value of the lard.
However, I do not wish to stymie any further research into algaediesel. You and GP-dude go ahead and invest in algaediesel, I'll invest in CTL diesel, and we'll see who laughs last.
It IS happening right now!
The plants are in operation RIGHT NOW. Maybe it won't scale without a few bumps in the road, maybe something better will come along, but it's a compelling technology to say the least. Again, as an engineer (lower case) I like compelling technologies be they revived external combustion, or fuels made from algae grown in otherwise dead environs.
As for investment, I tell you what, I'll invest in both and either reap part of the reward, because the Algae thing failed, or I'll reap more reward. CYA and all that.
Here's the thing. You are probably aware that the primarily accepted theory of the origins of petroleum is that some life form converted organic material into the oil over a period of eons, e.g. the "biotic" theory of petroleum origins. This algae that excretes oil during stress fits this theory, and may indeed be a primary causal factor for conventional oil sources.
If that's the case, and this algae to oil thing is just a window of what happened during dinosaur days, why are we calling diesel fuel derived from this oil "bio-diesel"? Seems to me it may just be the same basic process as that which occured for fossil oil.
It's not biodiesel, rather conventional diesel with the intent of being created in such an accelerated fashion as to prevent saturation of undesirables over the eons such as sulfer et al.
Secondly, this basic process took millions of years to form conventional petroleum sources. Is it even within the realm of the possible to accelerate this process to the point of being able to produce this oil in sufficient quantities within a normal production timespan to make it worthwhile?
My guess is no. To try and accelerate the production of oil from algae in sufficient quantities would demand an exemption from normal physical realities.
Then again, I could be wrong.
An interesting thought. It does raise, again, the observation that as of the early 1950s, Steam engines were developing power output in single units that remains unmatched today by the Diesel-electric. If nothing else, a Steam engine, within the physical limitations of locomotive size, can generate a terrific amount of raw power, and today's improvements -- doubling of conversion efficiency, turbine applications -- suggests potential outputs far in excess of what can be used by a single locomotive unit because of TE limitations. The very interesting thought is that such a machine not only generates its own power, but power for three or more additional units -- and those units could be diesel and/or electric.
Now, for those who love government, these also represent a "National Power Reserve" of high power, high efficiency mobile generators for emergency use -- and just as the Navy pays CDF to maintain its fleet of S-2s for emergency defense purposes, FEMA could contribute to their cost.
Maybe algae oil will pan out, maybe not. It is a bit early to tell.
Maybe the fuel cell locomotive will pan out too. It just might turn out that hydrogen is easier to store than electricity. If it pans out, it will be a sort of storable, catenaryless electrification. But, again, it is a bit early to tell.
Maybe the bacteria that eat sulfur, generate sulfuric acid, and hollow out caverns out west might eat sulfur in coal.
Being a bit early to talk about such things, we just might need something in a hurry, say, if the Straits of Hormuz are cut off and oil does not get through.
My suggestion is, again, the van Sweringen Berkshire, a highly effective and proven design. It is a KISS solution to a possible emergency. We might get adventurous enough to try 300 lb. pressure, poppet valves, a Porta/Wardale boiler, and a Lempor exhaust.
And we can build the KCS Class J 1-10-4 off the same tooling. That might be how we keep trains running in a pinch.
wsherrick wrote: timz wrote: wsherrick wrote:According to a post here an acre of pond scum can produce 15,000 gallons of oil.... The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates. It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.Doesn't look too practical to me.90 square miles of pond sounds practical enough. Problem is, the poster never said an acre of pond can produce 15000 gallons of oil in a day. More likely in a year, wouldn't you guess? That's the whole point. It's impossible. Any of the articles quoted above can be read from a Google list. One of them said that the land area would take somewhat more acreage than the State of Maryland. The article said it costs about $20 a gallon to produce this stuff that comes to $840 a barrel.
timz wrote: wsherrick wrote:According to a post here an acre of pond scum can produce 15,000 gallons of oil.... The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates. It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.Doesn't look too practical to me.90 square miles of pond sounds practical enough. Problem is, the poster never said an acre of pond can produce 15000 gallons of oil in a day. More likely in a year, wouldn't you guess?
wsherrick wrote:According to a post here an acre of pond scum can produce 15,000 gallons of oil.... The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates. It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.Doesn't look too practical to me.
...
The daily consumption of Petroleum in the United States is 20,687,000 Barrels per day at current consumption rates.
It would take 57,947 acres of water each producing 15,000 gallons of algae oil per day every day to meet that demand. And that's at 100% efficiency.
Doesn't look too practical to me.
90 square miles of pond sounds practical enough. Problem is, the poster never said an acre of pond can produce 15000 gallons of oil in a day. More likely in a year, wouldn't you guess?
That's the whole point. It's impossible. Any of the articles quoted above can be read from a Google list. One of them said that the land area would take somewhat more acreage than the State of Maryland. The article said it costs about $20 a gallon to produce this stuff that comes to $840 a barrel.
Read what I quoted this stuff doubles Volume in a matter of hours. It's quite sustainable.
As for the cost per gallon, Does that include the credit for the emissions reductions, the credit for the sewage treatment provided? The fact that you can produce both Ethanol and BioDiesel from it at a much lower energy cost?
It's an experimental program, of course it's per unit costs are high. It has a higher likelyhood of dropping than corn ethonal.
Also I read in several of the articles, that the Federal Government had a research program into this idea some years ago and decided to stop funding it.
Did you read the article I linked that said that the Feds are RESTARTING THAT PROGRAM, because scientific advances have made it viable again?
Research into this stuff is fine as long as nobody banks on it and the Government doesn't mandate its use like ethanol which is a fiasco in the making.
Um, it's research, by definition, it's studying new untried and untested technology. That's kinda the point. We can talk about the practicality in terms of today, right now, but that's a boring conversation. The question is where can we go. And hey, I agree that corn ethonal is a boondoggle, but then, so does everyone that isn't a midwest farmer or the railroader hauling the product. One thing that subsidy does spur is research. Research is a good thing, the best thing for all of us.
The reality is that it takes fuel to move goods, people and to provide the services that we have come to expect and demand in this society and if the fuel is not provided, then the economic norms we have blind faith in cannot be sustained for very long.We are slowly reaching the end of the path that we decided to take after WWII. We allowed a completely sustainable, highly evolved transportation system to be largely abandoned and neglected for a system that cannot stand on its economic legs without vast subsidies, resource consumption and energy input.We have traded efficiency for convenience.Was this change the best long term decision we could have made as a society as a whole?I am of the opinion that it was not.
The reality is that it takes fuel to move goods, people and to provide the services that we have come to expect and demand in this society and if the fuel is not provided, then the economic norms we have blind faith in cannot be sustained for very long.
We are slowly reaching the end of the path that we decided to take after WWII. We allowed a completely sustainable, highly evolved transportation system to be largely abandoned and neglected for a system that cannot stand on its economic legs without vast subsidies, resource consumption and energy input.
We have traded efficiency for convenience.
Was this change the best long term decision we could have made as a society as a whole?
I am of the opinion that it was not.
agreed
If one has faith that the current system can be sustained with alternative energy sources, well; you are welcome to that belief.
I don't know that anyone has voiced this belief. Things are going to change. Only a fool would be looking at BioFuels or any of the alternatives as a way to maintain status quo.
But, it turns out that these kinds of changes are usually pretty violent at least emotionally.
Sooner or later we as a society are going to have to come to grips with a changing economic paradigm and we are going to allocate our available resources accordingly.The worst thing about it is that the checks and balances of the market probably won't decide these policies; it will be by Goverment Fiat and the result will only push us further down the wrong road.
Sooner or later we as a society are going to have to come to grips with a changing economic paradigm and we are going to allocate our available resources accordingly.
The worst thing about it is that the checks and balances of the market probably won't decide these policies; it will be by Goverment Fiat and the result will only push us further down the wrong road.
The Checks and Balances of the market have never soley determined anything like this in the history of this country or the world.
Part of the point of the Federal government is to ensure life liberty and persuit of happiness(property). That gives them the right and in fact the job to steer the private sector for the benefit of the people of this country when the market has no economic interest in doing so. That's their job. Now, they may not do a good job, but that's a different problem.
I think I'll leave it at that though before the political censors get tripped.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.