Display:
I like steam engines, and there are some applications where steam makes sense. In particular, tourist railroads, and engines that have to run at high altitude.

However, the fundamental thermodynamic inefficiency of the steam cycle cannot be ignored. When one applies modern techniques to diesel engines, they still are better than steam. If you have a fuel that can be burned in an internal combusion engine, you're better off to do so.

Investigation and development of external combustion engines should continue, of course. However, I suspect that the diesel-electric hybrid system will be the winner for onboard power generation, and electric power from coal-fired power plants will be the winner for those situations where oil is unavailable. Just my prediction...

by asdf on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 09:13:09 AM EST
They'll have do do something better on NOx emissions.

Perhaps it is time to reassess fundamental thermodynamics - how do you explain the results Waller and Pritchard got?

John of Paris

by JohnofParis (wrightdotperrierarrobasfreedotfr) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 10:13:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps it is time to reassess fundamental thermodynamics
Er... no, fundamental thermodynamics is quite solid. The problem may be in the difference between theoretical and actual efficiencies, which is an engineering problem.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 10:25:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pardon me Roy.
Is that a .037% more efficent choo-choo?

It's not a problem.  It's what engineers do.

The whole romance of engineering, to me, is the gap between the theory, current systems, and attempting to narrow the chasm.

by ATinNM on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 03:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't mean "problem" as in "trouble". I mean it as "a physics/mathematics problem", that is, a challenge or a question to be answered within the given field.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 03:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't get me wrong, efficient steam engines are attractive in many environments. But what these guys did was compare older diesel engines with new steam engines.

Re NOX emissions, there is a lot of development work going on in this area. Pre-production road locomotives with significantly reduced emissions are already out there, and hybrid road engines are under development. Here's a recent GE "Evolution" engine that meets the latest EPA standards.

by asdf on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 06:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
-- "Don't get me wrong, efficient steam engines are attractive in many environments. But what these guys did was compare older diesel engines with new steam engines."--

Oooh - the pot calling the (steam) kettle black! That's the trick the diesel promotors played on steam so often in the Forties and Fifties when the boot was on the other foot, except that they often compared really old-fashioned steam with the very latest latest diesels.

Where Waller is concerned your criticism is invalid as, rather than directly compare with a slightly older diesel he made a point of asking for the latest specifications the diesel manufacturers could offer. However I have always thought that the trials and comparison should have been pursued after 1992 taking into account the effects of wear and tear in service. Personally, I would like to see an independent body set up - a sort of international "Porta Institute" to look into that sort of question. We can dream!

The GE diesel looks interesting, I'll follow that up.

John of Paris

by JohnofParis (wrightdotperrierarrobasfreedotfr) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 11:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series