Remember me
▼ Content

Consequences of climate change are arguably worsening


Consequences of climate change are arguably worsening16-03-2019 13:40
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(837)
https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/consequences-of-climate-change-are-arguably-worsening-1458997315665
16-03-2019 14:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
MSNBC ... Dismissed.

I didn't even get as far as their formal definition of Climate Change.
16-03-2019 15:54
Clarity john
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
It will get worse for all Mankind, the leaders will look on in disbelief of everything that they think will work. Only to be proven wrong when the answer is quite simple really, all new ideas and concepts However obscure and daft they look. From the ordinary Man or Woman in the street, they must be proven yes or no. At the moment they dismiss or disregard anything that is placed before them, ask them WHY and you will not get an answer. The answer or Carbon Free Rotational Power is out there, yet will they look ??? No they will not because they cannot answer it, they always think it's not possible. Expansion and Contraction Forces are worldwide, they run our planet and they can be used. It's Carbon Free Power, for all mankind.
16-03-2019 17:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
IBdaMann wrote:
MSNBC ... Dismissed.

I didn't even get as far as their formal definition of Climate Change.


I got as far as the pictures of the protestors. Each one seems to be a pretty small group, yet MSNBC calls them 'thousands' in each case.

Ah...the manufactured news.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2019 17:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
Clarity john wrote:
It will get worse for all Mankind, the leaders will look on in disbelief of everything that they think will work. Only to be proven wrong when the answer is quite simple really, all new ideas and concepts However obscure and daft they look. From the ordinary Man or Woman in the street, they must be proven yes or no. At the moment they dismiss or disregard anything that is placed before them, ask them WHY and you will not get an answer. The answer or Carbon Free Rotational Power is out there, yet will they look ??? No they will not because they cannot answer it, they always think it's not possible. Expansion and Contraction Forces are worldwide, they run our planet and they can be used. It's Carbon Free Power, for all mankind.


Who are they to interfere with the energy markets? Fascism is illegal in the United States, you know.

Price controls never work.


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2019 19:00
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(407)
Clarity john wrote:
It will get worse for all Mankind, the leaders will look on in disbelief of everything that they think will work. Only to be proven wrong when the answer is quite simple really, all new ideas and concepts However obscure and daft they look. From the ordinary Man or Woman in the street, they must be proven yes or no. At the moment they dismiss or disregard anything that is placed before them, ask them WHY and you will not get an answer. The answer or Carbon Free Rotational Power is out there, yet will they look ??? No they will not because they cannot answer it, they always think it's not possible. Expansion and Contraction Forces are worldwide, they run our planet and they can be used. It's Carbon Free Power, for all mankind.


Carbon Free Rotational Power? Do you have a link to the particular process that got you so excited? I may have missed it, as I've had my computer busy doing other things. Alternative energy sources aren't very efficient, take up a lot of real estate. I figured this is prime time for overunity devices to get a lot of attention, and potential investors. I don't buy into it myself, but it is an interesting topic to pick at.
16-03-2019 19:08
Clarity john
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
See that's the problem when an idea is put forward, before it is even looked at an assumption is made and acted upon. How much out there which is dismissed, could help change the way we live and obtain power. Two Forces only all across the Universe Expansion and Contraction, they are free to use for all Mankind.
16-03-2019 19:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
Clarity john wrote:
See that's the problem when an idea is put forward, before it is even looked at an assumption is made and acted upon. How much out there which is dismissed, could help change the way we live and obtain power. Two Forces only all across the Universe Expansion and Contraction, they are free to use for all Mankind.


So...what? Is this power source for your new car powered by God?


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2019 19:38
Clarity john
☆☆☆☆☆
(15)
Lololol I can see you have adopted the same approach, act on an assumption which is unproven. Nice talking to ya. Cheers
16-03-2019 19:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
Clarity john wrote:
Lololol I can see you have adopted the same approach, act on an assumption which is unproven. Nice talking to ya. Cheers


?? I'm not acting on any assumption. YOU are. You have presented no description for your machine. You have presented no 'approach'. You make a void argument, than accuse other for not listening to your void argument.

WTF??


The Parrot Killer
16-03-2019 19:58
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Clarity john wrote:
It will get worse for all Mankind, the leaders will look on in disbelief of everything that they think will work. Only to be proven wrong when the answer is quite simple really, all new ideas and concepts However obscure and daft they look. From the ordinary Man or Woman in the street, they must be proven yes or no. At the moment they dismiss or disregard anything that is placed before them, ask them WHY and you will not get an answer. The answer or Carbon Free Rotational Power is out there, yet will they look ??? No they will not because they cannot answer it, they always think it's not possible. Expansion and Contraction Forces are worldwide, they run our planet and they can be used. It's Carbon Free Power, for all mankind.


Carbon Free Rotational Power? Do you have a link to the particular process that got you so excited? I may have missed it, as I've had my computer busy doing other things. Alternative energy sources aren't very efficient, take up a lot of real estate. I figured this is prime time for overunity devices to get a lot of attention, and potential investors. I don't buy into it myself, but it is an interesting topic to pick at.



Scientists are working on it right now. It requires using a carbonless rotation. Ever hear of a toroidal coil? It creates a doughnut shaped electromagnetic field.
I'll explain a simple fact that you overlooked. The work the magnets do is free. This lowers the energy cost of performing work.
If causing hydrogen to form into helium releases heat then can the initial source of energy be recycled? This is in way getting into ZPE or what's commonly referred to as Zero Point Energy. If you consider how much energy nuclear fusion releases, that's an overunity device because it produces more energy than is required to split radioactive elements. When those elements split, they cause other elements to split as well. This is their secret to releasing so much more energy than the trigger device requires to start the process.
When Chernobyl had it's melt down, that was caused by the fuel rods being pulled out too quickly when a cooling pump failed. At the time it was believed that by quickly pulling out the fuel rods would decrease the reactions which to a degree are self sustain.
They found out that the process intensified because it caused more of a reaction because it decreased entropy.

Of course Clarity John might be considering whether or not the linear potential of gravity can be converted into mechanical energy.
That's probably already been done and found to only be capable of generating a small amount of energy. An easy way for something to be lost in history. It just didn't have sufficient commercial value.
Myself I wouldn't be surprised to find out that someone already invented a perpetual motion machine just as I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to get Nuclear Fusion to work.
16-03-2019 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Clarity john wrote:
It will get worse for all Mankind, the leaders will look on in disbelief of everything that they think will work. Only to be proven wrong when the answer is quite simple really, all new ideas and concepts However obscure and daft they look. From the ordinary Man or Woman in the street, they must be proven yes or no. At the moment they dismiss or disregard anything that is placed before them, ask them WHY and you will not get an answer. The answer or Carbon Free Rotational Power is out there, yet will they look ??? No they will not because they cannot answer it, they always think it's not possible. Expansion and Contraction Forces are worldwide, they run our planet and they can be used. It's Carbon Free Power, for all mankind.


Carbon Free Rotational Power? Do you have a link to the particular process that got you so excited? I may have missed it, as I've had my computer busy doing other things. Alternative energy sources aren't very efficient, take up a lot of real estate. I figured this is prime time for overunity devices to get a lot of attention, and potential investors. I don't buy into it myself, but it is an interesting topic to pick at.



Scientists are working on it right now.

No scientist denies the laws of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
It requires using a carbonless rotation.
Still haven't described that, dude. I'll just consider it a buzzword for now. Meaningless.
James___ wrote:
Ever hear of a toroidal coil? It creates a doughnut shaped electromagnetic field.
Yup. Use them all the time. They do not create energy out of nothing.
James___ wrote:
I'll explain a simple fact that you overlooked. The work the magnets do is free. This lowers the energy cost of performing work.

A magnet by itself isn't work. A torioid coil (or any coil) producing a magnetic field requires electrical energy to do so.
James___ wrote:
If causing hydrogen to form into helium releases heat then can the initial source of energy be recycled?
Sure. By putting the energy you got out of it back into it. See e=mc^2.
James___ wrote:
This is in way getting into ZPE or what's commonly referred to as Zero Point Energy.

Another buzzword. You probably don't even know what this means.
James___ wrote:
If you consider how much energy nuclear fusion releases, that's an overunity device because it produces more energy than is required to split radioactive elements.

No energy is required to split radioactive elements. They just split on their own. That's why they are radioactive elements.
James___ wrote:
When those elements split, they cause other elements to split as well. This is their secret to releasing so much more energy than the trigger device requires to start the process.
Nothing needs to start the process. Just bring enough material together.
James___ wrote:
When Chernobyl had it's melt down, that was caused by the fuel rods being pulled out too quickly when a cooling pump failed.

WRONG. Chernobyl failed because the cooling pumps did not have sufficient power to cool the reactor, and the control rods took too long to insert. That concentrated higher power output at the bottom of the core, and the core overheated, which in turn prevented the control rods from ever completing their travel. The rest, as they say, is history.
James___ wrote:
At the time it was believed that by quickly pulling out the fuel rods would decrease the reactions which to a degree are self sustain.

WRONG. The problem was a failure to insert the control rods and the cooling pumps losing power.
James___ wrote:
They found out that the process intensified because it caused more of a reaction because it decreased entropy.

Now you are just being silly. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states the entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system. It can never decrease in any system.
James___ wrote:
Of course Clarity John might be considering whether or not the linear potential of gravity can be converted into mechanical energy.
Sure it can. Head for the local carnival ride.
James___ wrote:
That's probably already been done
I like roller coasters.
James___ wrote:
and found to only be capable of generating a small amount of energy.
Ever see a roller coaster crash? How about a plane crash?
James___ wrote:
An easy way for something to be lost in history.

Nah. You can go visit a carnival near you today.
James___ wrote:
It just didn't have sufficient commercial value.

No? Disneyland makes quite a bit of money, dude.
James___ wrote:
Myself I wouldn't be surprised to find out that someone already invented a perpetual motion machine

That's because you are so willing to ignore the laws of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
just as I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to get Nuclear Fusion to work.

They already did. It's called a bomb.

The Earth is already fusion powered. It's called the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 03:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
James___ wrote:
I'll explain a simple fact that you overlooked. The work the magnets do is free. This lowers the energy cost of performing work.

Into the Night wrote:A magnet by itself isn't work. A torioid coil (or any coil) producing a magnetic field requires electrical energy to do so.

I don't mean to butt in but this is an important point. To accomplish work using a torioid coil running off of electricity instead of using an engine that burns hydrocarbons, the electricity will have to come from generators burning hydrocarbons ... and the 2nd LoT tells us that the inherent inefficiencies will guarantee FAR more hydrocarbons will need to be burned to accomplish the same amount of work than by just burning the hydrocarbons directly.

This is a case whereby understanding the laws of thermodynamics can raise the red flag to a very bad idea.


James___ wrote:
If causing hydrogen to form into helium releases heat then can the initial source of energy be recycled?

Into the Night wrote:
Sure. By putting the energy you got out of it back into it. See e=mc^2.

[minor clarification]
The 2nd LoT says that *some* of it can be recycled and some is guaranteed to be lost to entropy (will become unusable to accomplish work).
[/minor clarification]

James___ wrote:If you consider how much energy nuclear fusion releases, that's an overunity device because it produces more energy than is required to split radioactive elements.

That's the theory. Some argue that in practicality it can't work and that that is why the ITER site languishes with the construction of the reactor going nowhere.

I hope you're right but current events give a depressing outlook on this front.


James___ wrote:They found out that the process intensified because it caused more of a reaction because it decreased entropy.

Entropy NEVER decreases.

James___ wrote:Myself I wouldn't be surprised to find out that someone already invented a perpetual motion machine

Better yet, invent one. The wealth of the Incas will be yours before lunchtime.

James___ wrote: just as I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to get Nuclear Fusion to work.

Into the Night wrote:
They already did. It's called a bomb.

@ Into the Night - that would be fission, not fusion. I am not aware of any nuclear bombs that work via fusion. In fact, they cannot because there is no chain reaction to fusion; it just stops. The danger in fusion reactors is only the super hot temperatures, not a nuclear explosion so much.

@ James___ - It's not so much a matter of surprise as it is a matter of hope. If they can get fusion working then that would change everything.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2019 06:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
IBdaMann wrote: and the 2nd LoT tells us that the inherent inefficiencies will guarantee FAR more hydrocarbons will need to be burned to accomplish the same amount of work than by just burning the hydrocarbons directly.

This is a case whereby understanding the laws of thermodynamics can raise the red flag to a very bad idea.


I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Great teaching moment for someone here...take it away. Thanks!

Edited on 17-03-2019 06:33
17-03-2019 06:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2019 07:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?
Edited on 17-03-2019 07:11
17-03-2019 07:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
GasGuzzler wrote:Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?

Humanity is simply waiting for you to transition the world to that paradigm. You're the first to realize this oversight.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2019 07:32
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(407)
Wow! That was a weird, wild ride... I was just curious about 'Carbon Free Rotational Power', never heard of it before. I've had a strange interest in free energy and perpetual motion gadgets most of my adult life. I don't believe either is possible, but it's still interesting to listen to the sales pitch. Guess, my interest in free energy, came not long after studying the works of Nikola Tesla. He did a lot of cool stuff, mostly the high voltage experiments interested me. He never made any claims of producing free energy, his work was providing electricity worldwide, which could be tapped into freely, by anyone, anywhere, without powerlines, or meters (killed the deal, no profit). Wireless power transmission would really have changed the world, and always wondered if he could have made it happen. The electricity still needed to be generated, it wasn't free to produce, just for people to use. When I see over unity and Tesla together, I know it's BS.

Guess I'll have to Google 'Carbon Free Rotational Power'. Kind of dread it anymore, Google keeps pushing that Climate Change crap, must really hate me. Google is a tool of the devil, trying to convert me to climatology...
17-03-2019 10:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
IBdaMann wrote:
@ Into the Night - that would be fission, not fusion. I am not aware of any nuclear bombs that work via fusion. In fact, they cannot because there is no chain reaction to fusion; it just stops. The danger in fusion reactors is only the super hot temperatures, not a nuclear explosion so much.


Our current nuclear stockpile consists of fusion bombs. Fission bombs are used as fuses to set off the fusion part of the bomb. The fission part of the bomb is set off the usual way, by suddenly compressing weapons grade uranium or plutonium into a beryllium core by a shaped charge, creating a shower of neutrons.

These fusion bombs are also called 'H' bombs, instead of 'A' bombs.

They are essentially a brief hunk of Sun delivered by missile. Very nasty.

Controlled fission we have a good handle on. The usual nuclear reactor today can be quite safely operated. Controlled fusion is another problem entirely. Uncontrolled fusion we can do. Controlling it as a power source is the trick.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 10:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: and the 2nd LoT tells us that the inherent inefficiencies will guarantee FAR more hydrocarbons will need to be burned to accomplish the same amount of work than by just burning the hydrocarbons directly.

This is a case whereby understanding the laws of thermodynamics can raise the red flag to a very bad idea.


I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Great teaching moment for someone here...take it away. Thanks!


I happen to love trains (used to work on one, though it was a diesel oil fired steam locomotive on that line).

Diesel electric locomotives are just a large diesel engine that is used to generate electric power, rather than to turn the traction wheels (the driver wheels) on the locomotive directly. The power is routed to the traction motors through electronic rather than mechanical controls, like the steam locomotives used.

The arrangement is quite efficient. The electric power is simply used as a medium to power the traction motors. The locomotive runs on diesel oil, which is kept in tanks along the sides of the locomotive (you can see them near the base of the beast). The whole contraption is easier to build than trying to mechanically connect the diesel engine to the wheels directly, especially when you consider the power available. Basically, almost the entire bulk of the locomotive is the diesel engine. The electronics, including the rectifiers, take up a small space. The rest is a small cabin for the engineer.

Trains also use electric power for other things, such as light, heat, and automation. Such locomotives are easily coupled together to work as a team for steep grades or to handle long trains. Steam locomotives weren't so easy at this, since each one has to cycle it's thrust to be synchronized with any teamed locomotive, or the coupling between them is overstressed while one pushes and the other is loafing. If it was done, it was done mechanically. Steam locomotives also require a 'tender' car, which carries the fuel and water to supply the engine.

Diesel electrics are smooth power. They can easily be teamed up with simple synchronization signals passed through the couplings. They can handle larger trains because of this smoother power (couplings take a beating!). Further, no tender car is required. These engines can be operated by a single engineer, even if multiple engines are teamed together, and the rest of the train crew is not really necessary anymore (which is why you don't see a caboose on a train much anymore.). Further, this smooth power generates must less slip on the traction wheels. They last longer. They don't have to use the tires like the steam locomotives did (yes, steam locomotives have tires. They are steel, not rubber.).

Currently, they are the 2nd most efficient type of engine we build. The most efficient engine currently built is the jet engine.

Best efficiency for any engine is pretty well dependent on the difference between the hot part of the engine and the cold part of the engine. The greater the difference, the more efficient the engine is. This is a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

All engines have internal friction and points of wasted energy in them. By utilizing a large temperature difference, the wasted energy becomes a smaller percentage of the total energy produced by the engine.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 11:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Here's your bonus info.

Diesel engines do not require a moderator in the fuel. The oil itself is slow enough burning to simply not need it.

Gasoline burns very quickly. To use it in an engine of any serious power, you must have a moderator put into the gasoline. The purpose of the moderator is to make the fuel burn worse (more slowly). We used to use (and still do for certain applications) tetra-ethyl lead as the moderator. Now we use ethanol for most engines. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons, ranging from chains 7 (heptane) carbon atoms long. There also a few chains that are 8 long (octane). There some that are longer, including up to C11. The longer the chain, the slower it burns.

If you made all gasoline out of octane and higher, you would have 100 octane gasoline (100% octane or higher chains). This high octane doesn't burn better, it burns [i][worse/i]. It is used in high powered engines because they have a high compression ratio.

During the compression cycle of an engine, you heat the air (according to PV=nRT, the ideal gas law). This heating can be sufficient to ignite the fuel air mixture in the cylinder before the piston is near enough to top dead center. This type of ignition is an explosion, rather than a smooth burn, and you hear this explosion as the 'ping' in an engine. If an engine is pinging, use higher octane fuel. That engine needs slower burning fuel.

Raw gasoline, however, uses heptanes. These burn too easily, so a chemical is added (the moderator) that makes the heptanes burn more like octanes. Adding more of this chemical makes the fuel burn more slowly.

Tetra-ethyl lead (or TEL for short) has the advantage in that it is cheap (or was), and the lead would help to lubricate the internal parts of the engine. Lead does appear in the exhaust, but it is spread over the ground to join the lead in the soil that is naturally there.

Because of needless environmental fears, TEL was banned for most engines. Further, the catalytic converters requjired on engines today are poisoned by TEL (it destroys the catalyst). Therefore ethanol is now used instead.

Ethanol can come from many plants, but corn is the usual source. The government spends massive subsidies to farmers to grow more corn. Ethanol is more expensive than TEL, and you need more of it to get the same effect.

Ethanol, however, has no lubricating properties for the engine. It also is corrosive to many gasket materials used with gasoline. The ethanol is also hygroscopic. It likes to pick up and retain any water or water vapor. This induces rust and corrosion more easily in fuel components of the engine. This is why these components are made out of aluminum and plastic now, with very little steel.

Ethanol has another disadvantage. It vaporizes out and does what is called 'phase separation' from the gasoline when put under reduced pressure conditions. This makes it pretty useless for aircraft use, unless the aircraft engine is using a fuel injection system (most small aircraft don't). In addition, ethanol is incompatible with the cork gaskets used on these engines and aircraft fuel components.

Therefore TEL is still used as the moderator for small aircraft. Ethanol won't work under the conditions these aircraft fly in.

Things like lawnmowers, chainsaws, and other small gas motors really don't care about the moderator. The compression ratio on these engines are so bad they won't ping no matter what. Many are also two cycle engines, which use a lubricating oil as the moderator (the two cycle oil you have to mix in).

Gasoline is a great fuel. You get more BTU by volume than any other type of fuel. Small aircraft use it because they have limited sized fuel tanks, and the small amount they DO carry is not a weight problem.

Kerosene is also a great fuel. You get more BTU by weight than any other type of fuel. Large aircraft use kerosene because they use large tanks and carry heavy loads. The weight of the fuel becomes more important than the space it takes up.

Diesel oil, heating fuel, and bunker oil are all heavier oils. They can produce a lot of BTU, but they are heavy. They are better suited where weight and space are not big considerations, but cost is. You will find this stuff in ships, oil heated homes and businesses, and of course diesel engines such as the diesel-electric locomotive, trucks, and some cars.

Diesel engines have a very high compression ratio. It's high enough that the compression alone can ignite even diesel fuel. Thus, no spark plug is necessary. Only a glow plug to get the cylinder hot enough to allow the engine to start.

Each grade of oil has its best application depending on cost, weight, and volume of the fuel tank. There is no 'best' oil product. Refineries have tricks to produce more of the right grade for market demands than from just depending solely on the raw distillation process they use to separate out the different hydrocarbons from each other in crude oil.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 11:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?


Despite their scary size on the freeway when you driving next to them, tractor trailers are actually small vehicles. Trucks and 'heavy' equipment is also a small vehicle. (Train engineers laugh at such toys!).

The diesel electric locomotive can haul a tremendous amount of weight. It routinely handles loads that are 400 times what a tractor trailer rig can carry. It will even carry tractor trailer rigs!

Further, use of electricity as the medium is better on the traction wheels than direct linkage. Remember these wheels are on steel rails. Rolling resistance is quite low, but it also means traction to get things going is also quite low! Smoother power is the key here.

If you ever get the change, watch how a long train starts moving in the yard. It's a VERY slow start. This is good. You can't just 'step on it', or you'll rip the couplings right out of the cars! First, you have to 'stretch' the entire train. A coupler is a fairly loose connection. They must be stressed to pull the train one at a time. As a train starts, you will hear a series of bangs running down the length of the train as each coupler accepts the load. That smooth power is a real useful feature of the diesel electric locomotive!


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 11:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?

Humanity is simply waiting for you to transition the world to that paradigm. You're the first to realize this oversight.


Not really an oversight. For smaller vehicles, such as tractor-trailer rigs, you need faster acceleration and you aren't moving as much load. A direct mechanical connection to the drive wheels has the advantage here.

For ships at sea, they DO sometimes convert to electrical power for the driveshafts to the propellers. These tend to be newer ships, and carry huge loads. They take a long time to get started. They also take a long time to stop. Don't get in their way, even if you're a sailboat. Those things simply can't do anything about it.

The direct connection to the propeller shaft works well too. Remember an ocean going vessel doesn't have to team up engines. They can each work quite independently of the others.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 11:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wow! That was a weird, wild ride... I was just curious about 'Carbon Free Rotational Power', never heard of it before. I've had a strange interest in free energy and perpetual motion gadgets most of my adult life. I don't believe either is possible, but it's still interesting to listen to the sales pitch. Guess, my interest in free energy, came not long after studying the works of Nikola Tesla. He did a lot of cool stuff, mostly the high voltage experiments interested me. He never made any claims of producing free energy, his work was providing electricity worldwide, which could be tapped into freely, by anyone, anywhere, without powerlines, or meters (killed the deal, no profit). Wireless power transmission would really have changed the world, and always wondered if he could have made it happen. The electricity still needed to be generated, it wasn't free to produce, just for people to use. When I see over unity and Tesla together, I know it's BS.

Guess I'll have to Google 'Carbon Free Rotational Power'. Kind of dread it anymore, Google keeps pushing that Climate Change crap, must really hate me. Google is a tool of the devil, trying to convert me to climatology...


Heh. There ARE other search engines. DuckDuckGo is a good example.


The Parrot Killer
17-03-2019 22:45
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?


ITN wrote: Despite their scary size on the freeway when you driving next to them, tractor trailers are actually small vehicles. Trucks and 'heavy' equipment is also a small vehicle. (Train engineers laugh at such toys!).

The diesel electric locomotive can haul a tremendous amount of weight. It routinely handles loads that are 400 times what a tractor trailer rig can carry. It will even carry tractor trailer rigs!

Further, use of electricity as the medium is better on the traction wheels than direct linkage. Remember these wheels are on steel rails. Rolling resistance is quite low, but it also means traction to get things going is also quite low! Smoother power is the key here.

Yeah that make sense. A friend of mine put in 7 years at ADM Railcar in Cedar Rapids Ia where they maintain/repair the freight cars. He was a trackmobile driver which is essentially a small engine designed to juggle cars in and out of the shop for repair. He will confirm that rainy days can get a bit sketchy in the yard.


If you ever get the change, watch how a long train starts moving in the yard. It's a VERY slow start. This is good. You can't just 'step on it', or you'll rip the couplings right out of the cars! First, you have to 'stretch' the entire train. A coupler is a fairly loose connection. They must be stressed to pull the train one at a time. As a train starts, you will hear a series of bangs running down the length of the train as each coupler accepts the load. That smooth power is a real useful feature of the diesel electric locomotive!

OK this brings up another question that has been bugging me for years. A train car coupler can either be pulled or pushed. My question has to do with engines in the front and rear of the line. With the loose connection, there seems no way that a front and rear power source can both be creating force on all the cars, all the time. Are the front or rear engines just in transport? If not it would seem like a waste of fuel.

This thread is officially off the rails
17-03-2019 22:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?

Humanity is simply waiting for you to transition the world to that paradigm. You're the first to realize this oversight.


HA! Don't think so.
18-03-2019 03:01
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?


ITN wrote: Despite their scary size on the freeway when you driving next to them, tractor trailers are actually small vehicles. Trucks and 'heavy' equipment is also a small vehicle. (Train engineers laugh at such toys!).

The diesel electric locomotive can haul a tremendous amount of weight. It routinely handles loads that are 400 times what a tractor trailer rig can carry. It will even carry tractor trailer rigs!

Further, use of electricity as the medium is better on the traction wheels than direct linkage. Remember these wheels are on steel rails. Rolling resistance is quite low, but it also means traction to get things going is also quite low! Smoother power is the key here.

Yeah that make sense. A friend of mine put in 7 years at ADM Railcar in Cedar Rapids Ia where they maintain/repair the freight cars. He was a trackmobile driver which is essentially a small engine designed to juggle cars in and out of the shop for repair. He will confirm that rainy days can get a bit sketchy in the yard.


If you ever get the change, watch how a long train starts moving in the yard. It's a VERY slow start. This is good. You can't just 'step on it', or you'll rip the couplings right out of the cars! First, you have to 'stretch' the entire train. A coupler is a fairly loose connection. They must be stressed to pull the train one at a time. As a train starts, you will hear a series of bangs running down the length of the train as each coupler accepts the load. That smooth power is a real useful feature of the diesel electric locomotive!

OK this brings up another question that has been bugging me for years. A train car coupler can either be pulled or pushed. My question has to do with engines in the front and rear of the line. With the loose connection, there seems no way that a front and rear power source can both be creating force on all the cars, all the time. Are the front or rear engines just in transport? If not it would seem like a waste of fuel.

This thread is officially off the rails



The main reason the diesel engine powers a generator is because it eliminates a small problem. The reduction gears needed would be massive assemblies and would waste a lot of power from the engine.
18-03-2019 17:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?


ITN wrote: Despite their scary size on the freeway when you driving next to them, tractor trailers are actually small vehicles. Trucks and 'heavy' equipment is also a small vehicle. (Train engineers laugh at such toys!).

The diesel electric locomotive can haul a tremendous amount of weight. It routinely handles loads that are 400 times what a tractor trailer rig can carry. It will even carry tractor trailer rigs!

Further, use of electricity as the medium is better on the traction wheels than direct linkage. Remember these wheels are on steel rails. Rolling resistance is quite low, but it also means traction to get things going is also quite low! Smoother power is the key here.

Yeah that make sense. A friend of mine put in 7 years at ADM Railcar in Cedar Rapids Ia where they maintain/repair the freight cars. He was a trackmobile driver which is essentially a small engine designed to juggle cars in and out of the shop for repair. He will confirm that rainy days can get a bit sketchy in the yard.

Heh. I'll bet! Many yards have a slope to the tracks to help sort cars. Pushing these things up the sorting grade can get interesting on wet rails.
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you ever get the change, watch how a long train starts moving in the yard. It's a VERY slow start. This is good. You can't just 'step on it', or you'll rip the couplings right out of the cars! First, you have to 'stretch' the entire train. A coupler is a fairly loose connection. They must be stressed to pull the train one at a time. As a train starts, you will hear a series of bangs running down the length of the train as each coupler accepts the load. That smooth power is a real useful feature of the diesel electric locomotive!

OK this brings up another question that has been bugging me for years. A train car coupler can either be pulled or pushed. My question has to do with engines in the front and rear of the line. With the loose connection, there seems no way that a front and rear power source can both be creating force on all the cars, all the time. Are the front or rear engines just in transport? If not it would seem like a waste of fuel.

This thread is officially off the rails


Ah. Makes a nice break from the usual.

Yes. Couplers can be used to push or pull. For a really long train, just pulling on them will rip them right out of the cars, no matter how slow you start. Locomotives are placed at intervals along the train to help relieve the load. Often they are placed at the rear to push. These have to be set a bit lower in power output though, otherwise it will push the whole thing right off the rails at the first turn. Now it's more than just this thread that's off the rails!

Despite the engines in the rear, the couplers are still stretched most of the time instead of compressed. The load on them just isn't as great as engines in the front only.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-03-2019 17:46
18-03-2019 19:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?


ITN wrote: Despite their scary size on the freeway when you driving next to them, tractor trailers are actually small vehicles. Trucks and 'heavy' equipment is also a small vehicle. (Train engineers laugh at such toys!).

The diesel electric locomotive can haul a tremendous amount of weight. It routinely handles loads that are 400 times what a tractor trailer rig can carry. It will even carry tractor trailer rigs!

Further, use of electricity as the medium is better on the traction wheels than direct linkage. Remember these wheels are on steel rails. Rolling resistance is quite low, but it also means traction to get things going is also quite low! Smoother power is the key here.

Yeah that make sense. A friend of mine put in 7 years at ADM Railcar in Cedar Rapids Ia where they maintain/repair the freight cars. He was a trackmobile driver which is essentially a small engine designed to juggle cars in and out of the shop for repair. He will confirm that rainy days can get a bit sketchy in the yard.

Heh. I'll bet! Many yards have a slope to the tracks to help sort cars. Pushing these things up the sorting grade can get interesting on wet rails.
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you ever get the change, watch how a long train starts moving in the yard. It's a VERY slow start. This is good. You can't just 'step on it', or you'll rip the couplings right out of the cars! First, you have to 'stretch' the entire train. A coupler is a fairly loose connection. They must be stressed to pull the train one at a time. As a train starts, you will hear a series of bangs running down the length of the train as each coupler accepts the load. That smooth power is a real useful feature of the diesel electric locomotive!

OK this brings up another question that has been bugging me for years. A train car coupler can either be pulled or pushed. My question has to do with engines in the front and rear of the line. With the loose connection, there seems no way that a front and rear power source can both be creating force on all the cars, all the time. Are the front or rear engines just in transport? If not it would seem like a waste of fuel.

This thread is officially off the rails


Ah. Makes a nice break from the usual.

Yes. Couplers can be used to push or pull. For a really long train, just pulling on them will rip them right out of the cars, no matter how slow you start. Locomotives are placed at intervals along the train to help relieve the load. Often they are placed at the rear to push. These have to be set a bit lower in power output though, otherwise it will push the whole thing right off the rails at the first turn. Now it's more than just this thread that's off the rails!

Despite the engines in the rear, the couplers are still stretched most of the time instead of compressed. The load on them just isn't as great as engines in the front only.

Still don't get how a rear engine can accept any load, ESPECIALLY if it's set at lower output.
As the train starts moving all the couplers are stretched. It accelerates to 50 mph and maintains speed accross the countryside. For the rear engine to accept any load, the couplers somewhere in that line must compress, starting in the rear and moving up. Seems impossible with a rear set at a lower output.
Also, imagine only 2 engines on the tracke, coupled together, set at different output. Would one not drag the other? almost like trying to turn a truck locked in 4wheel drive, one wheel fighting the other wheel because they are trying to turn on the same surface at different speeds?
Engines at intervals would make sense, but never seen it, and we have a lot of rail traffic running through eastern Iowa. Lot of coal through here and a couple of ADM plants....Quaker Oats, PMX, Cargill, ect.
18-03-2019 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:I've always wondered this.....Why then a diesel electric locomotive?

Presumably because diesel is slower-burning than regular unleaded which translates into "better gas mileage" which means less fuel for the same amount of work performed, which means more work performed for the same amount of fuel.

Now for bonus info, ask Into the Night why we don't have regular LEADED gasoline locomotives!


Reasonable enough.....BUT, why not diesel electric tractor trailers, trucks, heavy equipment? Or anything? Why just the train engine?


ITN wrote: Despite their scary size on the freeway when you driving next to them, tractor trailers are actually small vehicles. Trucks and 'heavy' equipment is also a small vehicle. (Train engineers laugh at such toys!).

The diesel electric locomotive can haul a tremendous amount of weight. It routinely handles loads that are 400 times what a tractor trailer rig can carry. It will even carry tractor trailer rigs!

Further, use of electricity as the medium is better on the traction wheels than direct linkage. Remember these wheels are on steel rails. Rolling resistance is quite low, but it also means traction to get things going is also quite low! Smoother power is the key here.

Yeah that make sense. A friend of mine put in 7 years at ADM Railcar in Cedar Rapids Ia where they maintain/repair the freight cars. He was a trackmobile driver which is essentially a small engine designed to juggle cars in and out of the shop for repair. He will confirm that rainy days can get a bit sketchy in the yard.

Heh. I'll bet! Many yards have a slope to the tracks to help sort cars. Pushing these things up the sorting grade can get interesting on wet rails.
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you ever get the change, watch how a long train starts moving in the yard. It's a VERY slow start. This is good. You can't just 'step on it', or you'll rip the couplings right out of the cars! First, you have to 'stretch' the entire train. A coupler is a fairly loose connection. They must be stressed to pull the train one at a time. As a train starts, you will hear a series of bangs running down the length of the train as each coupler accepts the load. That smooth power is a real useful feature of the diesel electric locomotive!

OK this brings up another question that has been bugging me for years. A train car coupler can either be pulled or pushed. My question has to do with engines in the front and rear of the line. With the loose connection, there seems no way that a front and rear power source can both be creating force on all the cars, all the time. Are the front or rear engines just in transport? If not it would seem like a waste of fuel.

This thread is officially off the rails


Ah. Makes a nice break from the usual.

Yes. Couplers can be used to push or pull. For a really long train, just pulling on them will rip them right out of the cars, no matter how slow you start. Locomotives are placed at intervals along the train to help relieve the load. Often they are placed at the rear to push. These have to be set a bit lower in power output though, otherwise it will push the whole thing right off the rails at the first turn. Now it's more than just this thread that's off the rails!

Despite the engines in the rear, the couplers are still stretched most of the time instead of compressed. The load on them just isn't as great as engines in the front only.

Still don't get how a rear engine can accept any load, ESPECIALLY if it's set at lower output.
As the train starts moving all the couplers are stretched. It accelerates to 50 mph and maintains speed accross the countryside. For the rear engine to accept any load, the couplers somewhere in that line must compress, starting in the rear and moving up. Seems impossible with a rear set at a lower output.

You can think of the couplers themselves a bit like springs. The idea is to allow the spring to stretch, but not too far.

A unit in front with 3 cars is pulling against the drag of the 3 cars. Each car being dragged is pulling the load behind it. Not a problem. The 'springs' stretch, and nothing is overloaded.

A unit in front with 100 cars is also pulling against the drag of the cars. ALL the load is put on the front couplers. Putting a unit in the rear can help reduce this load with out actually pushing the train forward. This is essentially the role of the rear units.

Yes, they will put units in the middle for the really long stuff going over up and down grades (common in the West). Out in the plains, things are more or less level, and the extra units are removed. They essentially shuttle back and forth over steep grades.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Also, imagine only 2 engines on the tracke, coupled together, set at different output. Would one not drag the other?

If it were only the 2 engines, yes. The difference is that there are lots of cars in between, each having to drag the next.
GasGuzzler wrote:
almost like trying to turn a truck locked in 4wheel drive, one wheel fighting the other wheel because they are trying to turn on the same surface at different speeds?

No, it actually works. The cars themselves are a part of the load, and also collectively add quite a bit of 'spring' in the entire train.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Engines at intervals would make sense, but never seen it, and we have a lot of rail traffic running through eastern Iowa.

Iowa is pretty flat country. They are not needed there. Out here in our mountainous West, such units are more common.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Lot of coal through here and a couple of ADM plants....Quaker Oats, PMX, Cargill, ect.

All good stuff.



The Parrot Killer
18-03-2019 20:30
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
Explain the "spring" of a couple. That would all make sense but I imagined it as more solid connection with play in it. The series of bangs heard as the line gets moving....is that more the snap of the coupler hitting beyond the spring?
Edited on 18-03-2019 21:04
18-03-2019 20:40
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
18-03-2019 21:06
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
James___ wrote:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Kinda surprised you haven't chimed in and let us all know that ozone is destroying the railway industry.
18-03-2019 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Explain the "spring" of a couple. That would all make sense but I imagined it as more solid connection with play in it. The series of bangs heard as the line gets moving....is that more the snap of the coupler hitting beyond the spring?


Couplers have no actual springs in them (at least the ones in the U.S. don't). They do have play in them. They are metal. The play and the elastic nature of the metal itself is the 'spring'.

The idea is to keep the train stretched most of the time. Knuckles banging back and forth much of the time only damages them.

You don't want to overstress the couplings, however, so a rear unit can relieve some of the load without actually leaving the bulk of the couplings compressed. The ones near the rear units are, of course, but they tend to stay that way. That's OK.

Around the midpoint of such a train, the couplers kind of 'float'. In a turn, they'll stretch.

The length of a 100 car train can vary by several feet depending on how many couplers are compressed or stretched. That several feet is the 'spring' of the train as a whole.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-03-2019 21:34
18-03-2019 21:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Kinda surprised you haven't chimed in and let us all know that ozone is destroying the railway industry.





The Parrot Killer
18-03-2019 21:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1097)
Elastic nature of the metal??!! That's heavy duty shit! It really actually stretches a bit?
18-03-2019 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Elastic nature of the metal??!! That's heavy duty shit! It really actually stretches a bit?


Yup. By several feet over a 100 car train.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Consequences of climate change are arguably worsening:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Global Warming and the consequences - is it real?3215-02-2016 07:57
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact