Mariyam Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I can imagine the chain of events that led to you posting this pic:cantstop: How about spelling it out for the benefit of those who can't imagine the chain of events that led to that pic being posted? :hmmm:
Prakat Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 My natural question: If a train with 50 bogies can run on coal, why can't a car? I'm not a science student, so this maybe a dumb qn Yes, by reducing the load of the bogies and the distance to be traveled, it's possible that a small steam locomotive could travel short distances with a few sacks of coal. if you notice, the long-haul train, also has two bogies filled with coal right behind the locomotive, they are also restocked during long stops at junctions. :confused: There are turbines in a train?? turbines for generating electricity in coal power plants. pistons in the steam locomotive.
akshayxyz Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 How about spelling it out for the benefit of those who can't imagine the chain of events that led to that pic being posted? :hmmm: ++ I still can't figure out the context.
Holysmoke Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 How about spelling it out for the benefit of those who can't imagine the chain of events that led to that pic being posted? :hmmm: gunner reads my post on punjabi music thread about a new song by nindy kaur:yoyo: gunner goes.. nindy kaur...:desiwoman: does she have point elbows??:hmmmm2: gunner goes and googles nindy kaur :gamer1:, looking for gunner sees snoooooooooooooooop :woot: gunner forgets everything, ghajini style..:girl_wacko: gunner comes and posts snooooooooooooooooooooooop on this thread. :bigboss:
akshayxyz Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 My natural question: If a train with 50 bogies can run on coal, why can't a car? I'm not a science student, so this maybe a dumb qn Hmm. You have a valid question. The answer is - every design has its limitations. You can't simply scale up/down and expect to maintain the functionality, efficiency, durability,safety, length-of-run on single refueling, etc... Let me first give you few analogies. We can't scale down nuclear reactors to be able to power buses, trains...not yet...Hydrogen fuel cell is supposed to be most clean & efficient for cars/buses kind of use, engine is feasible - but then there are practical limitations over hydrogen storage. We don't see steam powered airplanes, or electric/petrol powered rockets!! Now - specific to coal-powered (as-a-fuel), steam-engine-cars. Steam engines has to take care of these things and many more: a) The steam generated from the boiler has to give you sufficient thrust to power the car...hence it defines the pressure required. b) Pressure defines the thickness of the wall and other dimensions of the boiler. Make the walls too thin and it can burst, make it too thick - and it will become too heavy. c) Amount of water, and other heat transfer fluids required to be carried on board. d) Amount of fuel (coal) required, and rate of coal feed - to maintain the thrust/pressure in a given range - to give a smooth (relatively) drive....in short, energy efficiency of the fuel. (usable power (energy per second) per weight.) e)Quality of roads, using steam engines on rails was relatively easy, but general roads were not good enough, that bulky coal-steam-engines can be used on them safely and efficiently. . .. ... For me, its difficult to explain without getting a bit technical, so I will leave it at that. For now these pictures should give you some idea. 1771, steam engine car ( i am confident that coal is the fuel) http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarssteama.htm 19th century steam cars - powered by gasoline/kerosene. http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/GeneralTechnical/GeneralTechnical.htm @akshay yes. they won't be making cross-country journeys. But technically speaking it would be easy to travel within south mumbai on a small sack. Also, coal would be available for refueling at all the market areas. It would be crazy hilarious though, steam billowing on one side, coal exhaust on another side. And you reach your destination with a facepack of fresh soot. design limitations, energy density ( coal vs gasoline/kerosene/ethanol), quality of roads..and many such factors would have prohibited using coal in steam-cars ( not rail road steam-locomotives). Anyway, here is this source which substantiate my understanding - kerosene/gasoline/ethanol were the fuel used for steam-cars. http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/GeneralTechnical/GeneralTechnical.htm So I'm imagining, if diesel was available in a place, I'm pretty sure the internal combustion engine was too. Also, it would be a lot more energy efficient, for the car to be powered by the ICE than by steam that is generated by burning diesel (SAFETY HAZARD!!!) in an open flame (:woot:) under a boiler of water. @bolded part - Availability of ingredient implying existence of the product!!!! That is like saying - cheese and bread were available, I am sure pizza was there! Today we have the choices among matured technologies - things have not been always like that. Internal Combustion Engines were invented about 100 years after Steam locomotives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car). Steam-car manufacturers/inventors wouldn't wait for the future ICE to make viable steam/electric cars. Also, I believe it took some time for oil refinery industry to develop - to make petro/diesel available at commercial levels.
Prakat Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 @bolded part - Availability of ingredient implying existence of the product!!!! That is like saying - cheese and bread were available, I am sure pizza was there! Today we have the choices among matured technologies - things have not been always like that. Internal Combustion Engines were invented about 100 years after Steam locomotives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car). Steam-car manufacturers/inventors wouldn't wait for the future ICE to make viable steam/electric cars. Also, I believe it took some time for oil refinery industry to develop - to make petro/diesel available at commercial levels. I think you misunderstood the point I was making. For it to be financially feasible for someone to ship a product (petroleum derivative in this case) there needs to be a user base and as we were discussing how we were unable to think of any other use of the product other than in vehicles the point was valid. To correct your analogy, If cheese and bread were only used to make pizza, and we couldn't find any other use for them then it follows that availability of cheese and bread in an area indicates availability of pizza.
DomainK Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Why is thread turning into nerd talk???:dontknow:
akshayxyz Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I think you misunderstood the point I was making. For it to be financially feasible for someone to ship a product (petroleum derivative in this case) there needs to be a user base and as we were discussing how we were unable to think of any other use of the product other than in vehicles the point was valid. To correct your analogy' date=' [b']If cheese and bread were only used to make pizza, and we couldn't find any other use for them then it follows that availability of cheese and bread in an area indicates availability of pizza. This should answer your own question. ICE was not the only place of use of Diesel/petrol. So, you can not say, if diesel was there, ICE has to be there. Anyway, as I showed the reference - By the time ICE came into picture, steam-cars using kerosene/ethanol as fuel had already 'matured'.
Prakat Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 So in how was diesel/petrol used other than in the ICE which made it commercially viable for it to be shipped?
Prakat Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 use as the fuel is not the first and only use for petrol/crude oil etc. They might be required for other petro-chemical products.. good topic to research a bit. You agreed earlier, that you too didn't know what the other uses were. Have you found something from your research since?
DomainK Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Unbelievable. He must have practiced that for years.
akshayxyz Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 it is obvious fake. Even if you have highly accurate ball throwing machine, this is still in open air - small gush of wind, slight swing, and many other minute factors will change the trajectory considerably.
Holysmoke Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Anna Hazare would be SO annoying to play Monopoly with. "No I will *not* leave jail." http://twitter.com/#!/mojorojo
Recommended Posts