Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- From: kenney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:18:41 -0600
In article <fj1dfp$1n1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rcp27@xxxxxxxxxxxx (R.C.
Payne) wrote:
[1] One of the big steps forward was when Watt produced a rotating
engine, which presumably would have been done earlier if it could
have been, which leads me to suspect that without Watt parallel
motion and a double acting piston it's just not going to work.
Watt was opposed to the use of strong steam. He also had the problem
that the crank had been patented. One of Watt's assistants actually
designed a steam powered road vehicle which Watt IIRC refused to let him
build anything but a model. It was not until Watt's master patent
expired that the use of HP steam became anything like common.
Another problem was that small stationary steam plants delivering
rotary power had to compete with water power. This was largely free once
the capital cost of establishing the reservoir and wheel had been paid,
which would have been much the same as a steam engine. IIRC Arkwright
stayed with water power for the whole of his life.
Ken Young
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- From: Andrew Robert Breen
- Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- References:
- Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- From: R.C. Payne
- Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- Prev by Date: Navy News Service for Monday, December 03, 2007
- Next by Date: Re: Canadian Navy to buy a China Made Nuclear Sub Hull.
- Previous by thread: Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- Next by thread: Re: Coal to Oil Conversion of Naval Vessels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|