Steam power was super efficient. Ive always wondered if they could come up with something where a battery powered heater was creating the steam... Like a hybrid but the other way. I dont have much time to play with it myself. The math as to how efficient a stove coil is at running a steam engine is beyond anything I have to offer.
I have a pretty good understanding of internal combustion steam and electric motors though, and can say for sure they went with and stuck with a certain model for certain reasons.
Steam engines from the time where they were made as actual car engines and gasoline engines from the same time frame are really both equally primitive and a lot more serious money and effort have been put into streamlining the gasoline engine. But with the simplest versions the steam cars set all the speed records...
You're literally talking about nuclear power. That steam drives submarines and air craft carriers.
If it was more practical to use gasoline to make steam to turn over pistons in automobiles, it would have been done. Those speed records have been annihilated by non steam internal combustion engines.
You're agreeing with me. That's cool. Nuclear energy is literally a heat driven steam plant I cant say how efficient that would be with steam powered nuclear cars cars though.
Internal combustion has been refined to ridiculous tolerances and steam not so much.
No real life demonstration of a rocket can land it standing up.
I can. It would be terribly impractical to power micro vehicles with nuclear power, and your precious steam.
You think steam hasn't been "refined to ridiculous tolerances" You think nuclear happens and they're not a bit educated about what they heat and how it reacts?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lEr9cPpuAx8
They land them all the time.
Did you just escape from North Korea?
Oh god man. We just went from imaginary fake theory to things you think are real.
Yeah steam engines would probably be better than they were in 1914 if they were developed along side gasoline powered internal combustion engines. There's no way to compare the stuff its just a silly argument.
Landing rockets, or flying anything with a rocket flame aimed consistently downwards and landing gently, isn't demonstratable in any real experiment you can see. Only hollywood technology can edit a video like that.
Take spaceX videos out of the equation for lack of credibility and now you have absolutely zero evidence of anything landing smoothly on a moving target by rocketry.
Videos and pictures that could be edited with openly existing technology aren't scientific evidence.
For it to be scientific evidence you need observable results of a repeatable experiment. There's no demonstration of rockets landing anywhere, outside of videos spaceX puts out. And those videos are sketchy and loaded with anomalies and inconsistencies, and clear evidence of editing. But that's not even the argument here, I can make a video of anything I want. It wouldn't prove anything.
Is it normal that I get really creeped out when I do research on planets?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Steam power was super efficient. Ive always wondered if they could come up with something where a battery powered heater was creating the steam... Like a hybrid but the other way. I dont have much time to play with it myself. The math as to how efficient a stove coil is at running a steam engine is beyond anything I have to offer.
I have a pretty good understanding of internal combustion steam and electric motors though, and can say for sure they went with and stuck with a certain model for certain reasons.
Steam engines from the time where they were made as actual car engines and gasoline engines from the same time frame are really both equally primitive and a lot more serious money and effort have been put into streamlining the gasoline engine. But with the simplest versions the steam cars set all the speed records...
--
Ummitsstillme
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're literally talking about nuclear power. That steam drives submarines and air craft carriers.
If it was more practical to use gasoline to make steam to turn over pistons in automobiles, it would have been done. Those speed records have been annihilated by non steam internal combustion engines.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're agreeing with me. That's cool. Nuclear energy is literally a heat driven steam plant I cant say how efficient that would be with steam powered nuclear cars cars though.
Internal combustion has been refined to ridiculous tolerances and steam not so much.
No real life demonstration of a rocket can land it standing up.
--
Ummitsstillme
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I can. It would be terribly impractical to power micro vehicles with nuclear power, and your precious steam.
You think steam hasn't been "refined to ridiculous tolerances" You think nuclear happens and they're not a bit educated about what they heat and how it reacts?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lEr9cPpuAx8
They land them all the time.
Did you just escape from North Korea?
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh god man. We just went from imaginary fake theory to things you think are real.
Yeah steam engines would probably be better than they were in 1914 if they were developed along side gasoline powered internal combustion engines. There's no way to compare the stuff its just a silly argument.
Landing rockets, or flying anything with a rocket flame aimed consistently downwards and landing gently, isn't demonstratable in any real experiment you can see. Only hollywood technology can edit a video like that.
Take spaceX videos out of the equation for lack of credibility and now you have absolutely zero evidence of anything landing smoothly on a moving target by rocketry.
Wake up. are you still in North Korea?
--
Ummitsstillme
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"If you remove all legitimate scientific evidence and data to the contrary, I am right"
Okay you win.
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Videos and pictures that could be edited with openly existing technology aren't scientific evidence.
For it to be scientific evidence you need observable results of a repeatable experiment. There's no demonstration of rockets landing anywhere, outside of videos spaceX puts out. And those videos are sketchy and loaded with anomalies and inconsistencies, and clear evidence of editing. But that's not even the argument here, I can make a video of anything I want. It wouldn't prove anything.