Subject:
|
Re: Gray VS. Black Metroliner Nose
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:39:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
674 times
|
| |
|
|
> It can never convert as high a percentage of input energy to
> work as an engine operating at higher temperatures (this is a basic fact of
> Carnot cycle engines you cannot escape unless you can repeal the laws of
> thermodynamics),
I'd take serious challenge to that statement. The best steam only power plants
are in the 45-47% range of effiency (input to output). Mind you, they DON"T
MOVE!...
When done correctly, steam has a cycle effiency of ~12% on the rails (I can get
~3% with a 100 lb engine...it gets better as they get bigger...the tests I was
refering to with 614T got to 6%). That is a cycle to rail %, not just the
engine.
At 6%, fuel costs were lower than that of a diesel...mostly because coal costs
less per BTU than diesel fuel...
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gray VS. Black Metroliner Nose
|
| (...) You can challenge it all you want. But you're not arguing with ME, you're arguing with thermodynamics. (unless you can show I've misapplied it) (...) and I bet their operating temperature differential is higher, too, being stationary. That's (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gray VS. Black Metroliner Nose
|
| (...) Venemous??? Hardly! (...) I don't think it did! Jason's slagging me right back. (...) Plenty cool. Don't get me wrong, steam is neat. Steam engines are impressive. It's just not practical. It can never convert as high a percentage of input (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
