Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

So I did; how did that happen?  This possibly complicates matters in medieval terms, as we didn't really do feudal and did not adapt well when it was imposed on us.  For disobeying the commands of our rightful King, Edward Longshanks, his archbishop of Canterbury got the pope to excommunicate us en bloc, and I'm not sure this was ever rescinded, in which case we still are, technically and as far as the Catholic church is concerned, and they are the only one that mattered in medieval Europe.  Longshanks, having established his peace on us by force, continued a policy of what we would now describe as apartheid that had been developing since the Norman invasion, that of 'Welshry' and 'Englishry' in the towns and at the markets. 

 

This had come about as an attempt to separate Norman/English living in Wales from having to be subject to the Welsh laws of Hywel Dda, dating from the 9th century.  These differed from English Saxon or Norman laws, in that there were servants but no peasants.  They were based on compensating victims more than punishing offenders; for instance, if you killed a man by manslaughter as opposed to murder which of course carried a death penalty, you were obliged to care for his widow and family as well as your own, something of a deterrent.  Hunting led to many a dispute, as the Welsh law was that, once you'd marked a quarry by shooting at it, it was yours irrespective of whose land you were on when you caught up with it.  Longshanks beefed it up, insisting that in cases where Welsh and English law were in conflict, English law was used, and preventing Welshmen from owning property in the towns, while taxing them and charging them more heavily for market facilities than the English.  The Welsh language had no recourse to English law.

 

Womens' position was different as well, and intermarriage caused legal problems.  Welsh women retained their property on marriage, at least in Wales, even to Englishmen, so abductions of wealthy Welsh spinsters by Englishmen and removal of them to England where they were forced into marriage, at which point their property passed to the husband, were common.  Welsh wives could under Hywellian law divorce their husbands for infidelty, cruelty, and abandonment, but these conditions were only enforceable within Wales, and not to English  husbands, not to Welsh ones.  In places, Welsh common land was enclosed by English landowners.  These abuses were ended in 1485 by Henry Tudor the 7th's Act of Union, which guaranteed Welsh rights as equivalent to English anywhere in England or Wales, but did not address the language issue.  In effect, there were now no Welsh speaking Hywellian courts and those who could not speak English fluently were disadvantaged until the Welsh Language Acts of the 1960s, though they were in later years able to employ the services of English speaking lawyers.

 

But, to quote my countryman Dylan Thomas, 'to be born Welsh is to be born blessed, not with a silver spoon in your mouth but with a song in your heart and poetry in your soul'.  He could get a bit maudlin when he was in his cups, which was mostly, and also stated that 'Wales is the Land of my Fathers.  My Fathers can bl**dy well keep it...'.  Truth is he was on the train to Paddington as soon as he could buy a ticket, and did not come back until the war, and then stayed well clear of Swansea!

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The reason that thorium reactors were dropped was because the products could not be weaponised as easily as uranium reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

There are plenty of other good reasons too - as the complete wikipedia article explains. "Development of breeder reactors in general (including thorium reactors, which are breeders by nature) will increase proliferation concerns." ibid

 

A good overview of the difficulties is given in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

Edited by MikeOxon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with any discussion on nuclear power tech is that it's almost impossible to find reliable information sources. So many/much lies, grinding axes, spin and disinformation. Looking at the authorship of that Guardian article I wouldn't rate it much better than Wikipedia. 

 

I think we can be reasonably certain, though, that nuclear power will never be appropriate for heritage steam operation. Arguably discussion of any alternate power source should include not only the likely effects on passenger numbers, but also the likely effect on volunteer numbers. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

At the risk of sounding naiive, is it possible to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and turn it back into whatever carbon comes out of the ground, so that it can be burnt again?

(Although I guess that it there was such a process, it would be highly energy hungry in its own right?)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

At the risk of sounding naiive, is it possible to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and turn it back into whatever carbon comes out of the ground, so that it can be burnt again?

(Although I guess that it there was such a process, it would be highly energy hungry in its own right?)

Yes, in fact billions of such devices already exist, but people keep declaring them redundant, unnecessary or "in the way" and demolishing them. 

They're called trees.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

At the risk of sounding naiive, is it possible to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and turn it back into whatever carbon comes out of the ground, so that it can be burnt again?

(Although I guess that it there was such a process, it would be highly energy hungry in its own right?)

H Rodent,

 

That is precisely what plants do, surely you have heard of photosynthesis ?

 

The bad news is that it requires huge amounts of power.

 

The good news is that it is solar power, its free and it works best when its not raining.

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

There are plenty of other good reasons too - as the complete wikipedia article explains. "Development of breeder reactors in general (including thorium reactors, which are breeders by nature) will increase proliferation concerns."

 

It looks like the Chinese are on the point of having a prototype MSR operational. https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclear-reactor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Re small nuclear reactors powering steam locos, it should be possible; whether it is desireable is another matter!  The Americans flew a B-36 'Peacemaker' bomber powered by such reactors in the early 50s, and while a B-36 was a big aircraft, the size of the engines is compatible with steam loco fireboxes.  I would imagine the form these would take would be to use the steam to generate electricity with turbines, which is then fed to more or less conventional traction motors, but you could presumably build a Stephensonian reciprocating steam loco if there was some reason to want one.  I am not sufficiently conversant with the physics, but the 'thermal efficiency' deficit of Stephensonial locos is irrelevant IMHO so long as the locomotive is powerful enough to do it's work; it is the hammer-blow aspect of Stephensonian locos that suggests to me that steam turbine electric generation to feed traction motors would  be the way to go!

 

There would be issues, mostly I suspect stemming from the very heavy weight of the power plant, which needs containing in a lead protective box, so axle loading might prevent the concept being realized.  The idea behind the B-36 was to have an a/c capable of delivering a nuclear weapon that could be on patrol in the Arctic for periods of several weeks without needing to land; a major issue would have been fresh water and food for the crews, you'd probably need 3 on shifts.  In the event, the familiar B-52 took on the role, with relief aircraft maintianing the 'deterrent'.  The technology was not further developed and AFAIK the Soviets never attempted it, and the smallest reactors in general use are those for submarines, still far to big for a locomotive.

 

Once the radiactivity is successfully contained in a crash-proof reactor housing, the advantage is that the only emission is clean exhaust water vapour, which condenses into steam and distilled water, with no harmful environmental impact at all.  What is, I think, needed is a lightweight material that has the same or better shielding properties as lea, and because there has as yet been no demand for such a material as lead is adequate for the reactors we have, nobody has ever tried to develop such a lightweight material.

 

If only all that power could be harnessed and put to a peaceful use!  Nuclear reactors small enough to power cars or homes for years on end with no running costs or emissions other than water vapour, presumably fusion rather than fission types, but safety is still the main problem, especially in cars but also homes in eatthquake zones; the containment has to be indestructable.

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

What is, I think, needed is a lightweight material that has the same or better shielding properties as lea, and because there has as yet been no demand for such a material as lead is adequate for the reactors we have, nobody has ever tried to develop such a lightweight material.

Schoolboy physics lessons taught me that lead is used because it is so dense, and you need that density to stop harmful particles such as alpha, beta & gamma emission.

I don't know much more about it, so I stand to be corrected, but I suspect anything capable of giving the requisite degree of protection would necessarily be dense, and therefore heavy.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Schoolboy physics lessons taught me that lead is used because it is so dense, and you need that density to stop harmful particles such as alpha, beta & gamma emission.

I don't know much more about it, so I stand to be corrected, but I suspect anything capable of giving the requisite degree of protection would necessarily be dense, and therefore heavy.

Alpha and Beta would probably be stopped by a normal locomotive body shell. Gamma is the main risk in this context. I've only studied physics as far as A Level, but in a fission reactor there should only be a few radioactive isotopes decaying. I would imagine that it is therefore possible to predict which frequencies of gamma radiation would be emitted in large quantities. If this could be done with sufficient accuracy, could it theoretically be possible to design a molecule whose  structure allows it to absorb those specific frequencies  without having to rely on large amounts of a very dense material? It would probably depend upon how great the range of frequencies emmitted is.

 

Like Rodent I am perfectly happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see it would be theoretically possible to find an alternative to lead - although of course this is not the same as being practically possible, which I suspect it would not be.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, JimC said:

A nuclear reactor will always be best used to power electric trains.

Isn't the problem with nuclear power for anything other than steady state power generation, that it is very slow to ramp up and down?  If you were producing steam for a service from Kings Cross to Leeds, you'd probably need to start adding the boron control rods somewhere South of Stevenage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

the only emission is clean exhaust water vapour, which condenses into steam and distilled water, with no harmful environmental impact at all. 

 

 

Not quite, water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Alpha and Beta would probably be stopped by a normal locomotive body shell. Gamma is the main risk in this context. I've only studied physics as far as A Level, but in a fission reactor there should only be a few radioactive isotopes decaying. I would imagine that it is therefore possible to predict which frequencies of gamma radiation would be emitted in large quantities. If this could be done with sufficient accuracy, could it theoretically be possible to design a molecule whose  structure allows it to absorb those specific frequencies  without having to rely on large amounts of a very dense material? It would probably depend upon how great the range of frequencies emmitted is.

 

Like Rodent I am perfectly happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see it would be theoretically possible to find an alternative to lead - although of course this is not the same as being practically possible, which I suspect it would not be.

Ah yes, isn't Alpha emission the one that goes a few cm in air, and can be stopped by a piece of paper?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2021 at 12:07, BernardTPM said:

Has anyone worked out which causes less pollution? Producing hydrogen or making batteries? Both are nominally 'clean' when in use but both require considerable resources and raw materials to create and would need supporting distribution infrastructure. Batteries would also require safe disposal/recycling at life end.

 

I read an article in the last couple of days (sorry, can't remember the source) which suggested that producing hydrogen was more environmentally damaging than burning oil!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Not quite, water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2!

Hi RJS,

 

The trouble is you cant tell them, they don't want to hear it.

 

Better yet below 150ppm all plants WILL DIE period.

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I read an article in the last couple of days (sorry, can't remember the source) which suggested that producing hydrogen was more environmentally damaging than burning oil!

Bring back that black fossil fuel found in South Wales and Yorkshire .... I think theres enough to last 400 years underground in the UK 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I read an article in the last couple of days (sorry, can't remember the source) which suggested that producing hydrogen was more environmentally damaging than burning oil!

That will be because industrial hydrogen production is from oil.  It's much more energy efficient than production by electrolysis, but does generate greenhouse gases. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Isn't the problem with nuclear power for anything other than steady state power generation, that it is very slow to ramp up and down?  If you were producing steam for a service from Kings Cross to Leeds, you'd probably need to start adding the boron control rods somewhere South of Stevenage.

That is the advantage of thorium, it doesn't require control rods as it only produces energy when it's bombarded by neutrons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...