Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151661 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-27 16:43 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-21 14:00 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-09-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Bill Marcum <bill.marcum57@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:04 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 07:51 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 10:31 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-05 12:39 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-05 13:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-05 12:00 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-05 21:59 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 15:57 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:05 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 13:14 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-06 08:28 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2015-10-06 07:23 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-06 15:04 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:49 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-06 17:38 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 22:49 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-07 08:12 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:37 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 14:45 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 23:41 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 09:12 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:26 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-08 16:46 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:22 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 16:47 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-10-06 12:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:33 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:24 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 23:09 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 18:27 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:32 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 22:59 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 13:06 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 23:50 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:55 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:39 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:43 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:40 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 18:21 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-07 00:56 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-10-08 16:55 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-06 14:29 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:44 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:22 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-06 17:49 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:26 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 07:49 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 10:46 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:51 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-07 08:29 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:02 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 13:43 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 16:55 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:07 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 13:49 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:30 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-07 12:41 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 05:34 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:13 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 09:54 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 16:04 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 13:15 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:36 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 18:53 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:30 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:53 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> - 2015-10-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:03 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-09 15:56 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:51 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:17 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 23:14 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:35 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:11 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 13:35 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-08 07:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:08 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-08 13:29 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-08 15:21 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-08 07:55 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 12:27 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-10-06 12:04 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:02 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 22:55 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-07 00:15 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:54 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:26 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:26 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:30 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:24 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:50 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-10-08 16:30 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 12:22 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-05 15:48 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-05 20:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-05 19:37 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-05 18:48 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-21 20:31 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-22 17:09 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-09-27 16:43 -0600
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e40ba14-aba9-4b5a-aba5-7eaa8de295ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152340 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:19:39 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:33:44 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > > > ISTM that mainland China still runs quite a few steam locomotives... Who > > would notice a little more air pollution in mainland China?!! > > Some U.S. tourist lines bought new steam engines from China for their excursion service. > > Last I heard was that China was cutting back on steam, finally catching up. I've heard that *Cuba* has quite a few steam locomotives still in service; movies of them were being offered to steam locomotive fanciers in a mail-order advert I remember seeing somewhere. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn19vus.323.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #152327 |
On 2015-10-06, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: ><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:b9f6439e-accc-40f3-9d23-c1a4a197134d@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> My father was a railroad man, and worked with both steam >>> and diesel. One day he was reminiscing on it all, and any >>> nostalgia he might have had about steam was limited by practical >>> considerations; he was enthusiastic about the advantages of >>> diesel-electric. >> >>Steam locomotives inspire much interest and nostalgia and diesels not quite >>as much. But maintaining and >operating steam engines for museum service >>is extremely expensive and labor intensive. Lots of government >> >regulations. A lot of smaller museums just run diesel engines. > > > ISTM that mainland China still runs quite a few steam locomotives... Who > would notice a little more air pollution in mainland China?!! > South Africa, too, at least up to the end of Aparthied. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 23:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <itpdec-unh.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #152315 |
In article <b9f6439e-accc-40f3-9d23-c1a4a197134d@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> My father was a railroad man, and worked with both steam >> and diesel. One day he was reminiscing on it all, and any >> nostalgia he might have had about steam was limited by practical >> considerations; he was enthusiastic about the advantages of >> diesel-electric. > >Steam locomotives inspire much interest and nostalgia and diesels not quite as much. But >maintaining and operating steam engines for museum service is extremely expensive and >labor intensive. Lots of government regulations. A lot of smaller museums just run >diesel engines. I have two friends & former collegues who are rail afictionados. One of them has taken the steam locomotive certificate, so he can legally drive a steam train on national track. They are allowed as propulsion where the lines are not electrified, and they have portable ATC units to do a temporary install. He participated in the complete teardown and rebuild of two old steam engines over a period of 6 years. It was a draconing achievement for amateurs. Contrast with the other guy who "collects" pre-WW2 electrical locomotives. They also did a rebuild, but 4 people did it in three quarters of a year, including winding the rotor/stators anew and changing the commutators on a 1922 electric locomotive. Also hobbyists. Now they have (well, the ideal organisation they run) a fully operational set of loc and 4 wooden passenger boxcars in original state. They can run on all non-TGV lines with 12-25 kV electricity. And they do. They have regular long-distance museum trips. He was utterly amazed that you could still get all the spare parts for it, including the wooden screws for the instrument panel. 1922 is very early for electric locomotives. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn187rl.3bf.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #152311 |
On 2015-10-06, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-10-06, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <20151006150457.ac49fad5c1415599d61d6c88@eircom.net>, >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:28:28 -0500 >>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>> > >> It took diesel-electric to phase out the old steam giants; >> introduced first in the 1930s, and came in full ca 1950. > > My father was a railroad man, and worked with both steam > and diesel. One day he was reminiscing on it all, and any > nostalgia he might have had about steam was limited by practical > considerations; he was enthusiastic about the advantages of > diesel-electric. > >> Older technology isn't necessarily environmentally friendly. > > "Where there's smoke, there's work!" -- Firesign Theatre > Deisel came in in the 1950's in Ireland, one old lady lived near the railway tracks, "The tea dosn't taste the same since them dazzle trains came " Whole ecosystems changed, wine tasted different, even a small moth that had evolved a darker colouring to match sooty railway surrounds got a nasty suprise. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecc0375b-c4ab-458c-b9c6-5e048ed5355b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152302 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:51:02 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: > They are an unmitigated disaster in terms of energy efficiency and > pollution. The thermal efficiency is well down in single digit > percent, and one trip along an electrified 25kV line can lead to > the need to wash _all_ the isolators along that track to get rid > of leakage currents through the coal dust. And it is a similar > disaster in terms of service, operation and maintenence. The Pennsylvania Railroad had a sprawling electrified network, but still had much steam trackage. Often a train originating on electric tracks but going to a brach line would be steam powered, and it was not unusual for steam trains to run under wire. The Reading Company's through trains and freights were steam powered, but still ran under wire. So, did the electric railroads face insulator problems from the soot of those steam trains? Or did the mainline engines run hot enough to prevent the problem? (Railroad engines were supposed to run with a clear stack--a sooty stack meant inefficient cumbustion and sloppy firing.) I would think that would be a real nuisance and prevent steam trains from running under wire. > It took diesel-electric to phase out the old steam giants; > introduced first in the 1930s, and came in full ca 1950. Once diesel-electric locomotives were perfected, their big advantage over steam was much lower maintenance. A diesel could travel much further before servicing than a steam engine; this mean intermediate support shops could be closed. A second advantage was the diesels could be coupled together as needed for a particular train (though in practice they were often left as four unit sets). A light train needing only one engine could be operated. A very efficient train was the Budd Rail Diesel Car, which consisted of self propelled individual units. Unfortunately, while they reduced losses, they did not make a profit. Light duty branch lines were best served by bus or truck. Ironically, the railroads attempted to do just that, but the regulators said railroads couldn't be in outside businesses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 22:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7bpdec-unh.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #152313 |
In article <ecc0375b-c4ab-458c-b9c6-5e048ed5355b@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:51:02 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: >> They are an unmitigated disaster in terms of energy efficiency and >> pollution. The thermal efficiency is well down in single digit >> percent, and one trip along an electrified 25kV line can lead to >> the need to wash _all_ the isolators along that track to get rid >> of leakage currents through the coal dust. And it is a similar >> disaster in terms of service, operation and maintenence. > > >The Pennsylvania Railroad had a sprawling electrified network, but still had much steam >trackage. Often a train originating on electric tracks but going to a brach line would be >steam powered, and it was not unusual for steam trains to run under wire. > >The Reading Company's through trains and freights were steam powered, but still ran under wire. > >So, did the electric railroads face insulator problems from the soot of those steam >trains? Or did the mainline engines run hot enough to prevent the problem? (Railroad >engines were supposed to run with a clear stack--a sooty stack meant inefficient >cumbustion and sloppy firing.) I would think that would be a real nuisance and prevent >steam trains from running under wire. This depends a lot on the voltage. 750V DC can handle a lot more soot than 25kV AC without leaking anything near as much current. >> It took diesel-electric to phase out the old steam giants; >> introduced first in the 1930s, and came in full ca 1950. > >Once diesel-electric locomotives were perfected, their big advantage over steam was much >lower maintenance. A diesel could travel much further before servicing than a steam >engine; this mean intermediate support shops could be closed. > >A second advantage was the diesels could be coupled together as needed for a particular >train (though in practice they were often left as four unit sets). A light train needing >only one engine could be operated. > >A very efficient train was the Budd Rail Diesel Car, which consisted of self propelled >individual units. Unfortunately, while they reduced losses, they did not make a profit. >Light duty branch lines were best served by bus or truck. Ironically, the railroads >attempted to do just that, but the regulators said railroads couldn't be in outside >businesses. This is unique to the US where the regulators in practice buried the railroads. One thing about diesel was the lower, much lower, fuel consumption. But coal was way cheaper than oil until ca 1950, so YMMV. Also, it is not just maintenence. It is normal operations. A steam engine needs two people, one to operate the engine and one to actually drive; and often 1-2 people to shuffle coal. A diesel can be run by turning the ignition. Barring subzero temperatures a diesel is just started, and allowed to run 5-10 minutes to get properly warm before carrying much load. A steam engine needs lots and lots of preparation, like filling graphite to lubricate the steam moving parts. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b494805e-c3c5-4fb4-9245-bdc42909415a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152335 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:16:17 PM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: > Also, it is not just maintenence. It is normal operations. A steam engine > needs two people, one to operate the engine and one to actually drive; > and often 1-2 people to shuffle coal. A diesel can be run by turning the > ignition. US steam locomotives operated with 2 and sometimes 3 people. One man drove the train, including operating the engine, the other men stoked the coal. Large engines had mechanical coal stokers; their demand for coal was too much for one man to keep up. In the early diesel years, there were so many adjustments needed for the engine and its auxillaries that the fireman had plenty of work to do. It was only later that the fireman on a diesel became superflorous. They did serve as a second set of eyes to confirm signals and were kind of a co-pilot. Toward the end of the steam era they had experiments with turbines, but they didn't work out very well in the railroad environment. I believe almost all ships today are diesel, not steam. In smaller boats, like ferries, steam power was still used in 1950 (e.g. Staten Island Ferry), but replaced by diesels in 1965. > Barring subzero temperatures a diesel is just started, and allowed to > run 5-10 minutes to get properly warm before carrying much load. In the old days diesels took a long time to warm up. It was very common to leave locomotives run all night in the cold; likewise with diesel buses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HN8Rx.48597$X_1.2884@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #152335 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >Also, it is not just maintenence. It is normal operations. A steam engine >needs two people, one to operate the engine and one to actually drive; >and often 1-2 people to shuffle coal. A diesel can be run by turning the >ignition. Although by the end of the steam era, the bulk of the fleet was running on fuel oil, not coal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv1mo5018t9@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152313 |
On 2015-10-06, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > So, did the electric railroads face insulator problems from the soot of > those steam trains? Or did the mainline engines run hot enough to prevent > the problem? (Railroad engines were supposed to run with a clear stack-- > a sooty stack meant inefficient cumbustion and sloppy firing.) I would > think that would be a real nuisance and prevent steam trains from running > under wire. <snip> > A second advantage was the diesels could be coupled together as needed for > a particular train (though in practice they were often left as four unit > sets). A light train needing only one engine could be operated. Steam locomotives could be coupled too. It was a common practice to have spare units at each end of mountain passes to help a train's main unit pull it up and over; at the other end the spares would uncouple and wait for the next train to come along. I inherited a lovely photo from my father of a train pulled by three steam locomotives, working its way up the Crowsnest Pass. They were _not_ running with clear stacks - but the sight of those three columns of smoke blasting out almost makes you feel the ground rumble. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv0unt32qcf@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152293 |
On 2015-10-06, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "Scott Lurndal" wrote: > >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. If there's money to made selling tubes, someone will continue making them. > I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam powered > car? > > Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone else > work out the details. I once read an article like that about the Stanley Steamer. It went into all the advantages of steam, like being able to develop maximum torque at zero RPM (great for starting on hills), and even pointing out the ability to have a hot lunch ready-cooked at your destination by leaving it on the engine block. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 07:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn19jvf.9hs.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #152307 |
On 6 Oct 2015 17:00:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-10-06, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Scott Lurndal" wrote: >> >>> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >>> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >>> eventually. > > If there's money to made selling tubes, someone will continue making them. > >> I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam powered >> car? >> >> Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone else >> work out the details. > > I once read an article like that about the Stanley Steamer. It went into > all the advantages of steam, like being able to develop maximum torque at > zero RPM (great for starting on hills), and even pointing out the ability > to have a hot lunch ready-cooked at your destination by leaving it on the > engine block. > They held the World Land Speed record in 1906 - 127 mph. A couple of Stanley Steamers here in NW UK, we've followed them down the round a couple of times. (Somebody published a cook-book of recipes to cook on your car on a journey - on the exhaust manifold of a normal car though.) -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 10:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn1a0pt.323.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #152378 |
On 2015-10-07, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > On 6 Oct 2015 17:00:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> On 2015-10-06, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > > They held the World Land Speed record in 1906 - 127 mph. > A couple of Stanley Steamers here in NW UK, we've followed them down > the round a couple of times. > > (Somebody published a cook-book of recipes to cook on your car on a > journey - on the exhaust manifold of a normal car though.) > You don't need a cook-book, there are a few examples here of cats getting in beside the car engine, getting caught in belts, and being cooked by the engine. block heat. One lady didn't notice for a few days, which left the job of removing the cats remains very difficult -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 19:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f72gec-93k.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #152383 |
In article <slrnn1a0pt.323.mausg@dmaus.org>, Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >On 2015-10-07, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >> On 6 Oct 2015 17:00:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-06, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> >> They held the World Land Speed record in 1906 - 127 mph. >> A couple of Stanley Steamers here in NW UK, we've followed them down >> the round a couple of times. >> >> (Somebody published a cook-book of recipes to cook on your car on a >> journey - on the exhaust manifold of a normal car though.) >> > >You don't need a cook-book, there are a few examples here of cats getting >in beside the car engine, getting caught in belts, and being cooked by >the engine. block heat. One lady didn't notice for a few days, which >left the job of removing the cats remains very difficult I have had no less than two friends have cats in the engine. In both cases the cat appeared to be unharmed, except that it made a lot of growelling noises that made the driver pull aside; and came out in a streak once the hood was up. One attacked the driver, clawing his hand quite badly in the process of getting out. And making lots of hissing and groweling noises, obviously scared shitless. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <112gec-93k.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #152378 |
In article <slrnn19jvf.9hs.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >On 6 Oct 2015 17:00:45 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> On 2015-10-06, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote: >>> >>>> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >>>> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >>>> eventually. >> >> If there's money to made selling tubes, someone will continue making them. >> >>> I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam powered >>> car? >>> >>> Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone else >>> work out the details. >> >> I once read an article like that about the Stanley Steamer. It went into >> all the advantages of steam, like being able to develop maximum torque at >> zero RPM (great for starting on hills), and even pointing out the ability >> to have a hot lunch ready-cooked at your destination by leaving it on the >> engine block. >> > >They held the World Land Speed record in 1906 - 127 mph. >A couple of Stanley Steamers here in NW UK, we've followed them down >the round a couple of times. > >(Somebody published a cook-book of recipes to cook on your car on a >journey - on the exhaust manifold of a normal car though.) Making low thermal efficiency a plus. Classic steam trains at ~5% and classic gas gussler cars at ~15% would both make very good stoves. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn187gd.3bf.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #152293 |
On 2015-10-06, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "Scott Lurndal" wrote: > >> "Charles Richmond" wrote: > >>>In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company >>>makes >>>tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual >>>triodes. >>>The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >>>potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >>>Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is >>>*not* >>>the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >> >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. > > I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam powered > car? > > Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone else > work out the details. > Stanley steamer, 1920;s or so. Quite popular. The introduction of the self started ounmoded them -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 00:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? |
| Message-ID | <yu6dnaEx1_AcwonLnZ2dnUU78R-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #152293 |
On 06/10/2015 14:28, Osmium wrote: > "Scott Lurndal" wrote: > >> "Charles Richmond" wrote: > >>> In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender >>> company makes >>> tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual >>> triodes. >>> The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >>> potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >>> Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is >>> *not* >>> the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >> >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. > > I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam > powered car? > > Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone else > work out the details. Steam cars have to refuel with water every 30 miles or so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence@cluon.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:55 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? |
| Message-ID | <87d1wpfm03.fsf@cluon.com> |
| In reply to | #152356 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes: > > Steam cars have to refuel with water every 30 miles or so. Later Stanleys and nearly all production Doble cars were condensing engines, capapable of hundreds of miles on a single charge of water. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn17mlp.2re9.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #152292 |
On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:14:59 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >>"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >>news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051357510.4228@darkstar.example.org... >>> >>> [snip...] [snip...] >>> [snip...] >>> >>> I assume the same thing happened in the days of tubes, other than in the >>> very early days, there was a standardization of numbering them. So lots >>> of companies made 12AU7 double triodes. Even if they created something >>> new, they generally fit into the numbering scheme. >>> >> >>In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company makes >>tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual triodes. >>The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >>potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >> >>http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/626807.html >> >> >>Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >>the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. > > As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or > Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes > eventually. Russian, Indian and Chinese tubes are plentiful and there is no sign of production winding down. Many of todays tube guitar amps are made in China, of course...I've just bought a small Laney (a well-known UK maker) amp - an ECC83 (12AX7) into a 6V6 for about 5 Watts out, basically a Fender Champ clone. Designed in the UK, built in China. I use it with a modern copy of a 1948 three-pickup guitar for that authentic 1950's blues sound... -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 15:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv1bmp$lpk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152295 |
"Stan Barr" <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote in message news:slrnn17mlp.2re9.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de... > On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:14:59 GMT, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> > wrote: >> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >>>"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >>>news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051357510.4228@darkstar.example.org... >>>> >>>> [snip...] [snip...] >>>> [snip...] >>>> >>>> I assume the same thing happened in the days of tubes, other than in >>>> the >>>> very early days, there was a standardization of numbering them. So >>>> lots >>>> of companies made 12AU7 double triodes. Even if they created something >>>> new, they generally fit into the numbering scheme. >>>> >>> >>>In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company >>>makes >>>tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual >>>triodes. >>>The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >>>potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >>> >>>http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/626807.html >>> >>> >>>Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is >>>*not* >>>the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >> >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. > > Russian, Indian and Chinese tubes are plentiful and there is no sign of > production winding down. > > Many of todays tube guitar amps are made in China, of course...I've > just bought a small Laney (a well-known UK maker) amp - an ECC83 > (12AX7) into a 6V6 for about 5 Watts out, basically a Fender Champ > clone. Designed in the UK, built in China. I use it with a modern > copy of a 1948 three-pickup guitar for that authentic 1950's blues > sound... > Mesa Boogie, a company in the US that builds guitar amps, sells vacuum tubes (probably made in China) under the Mesa Boogie brand. http://www.mesaboogie.com/ It is interesting that, after viewing the sites that sell vaccuum tubes (valves) online... the advertisements that follow you around on your browser are about vacuum tubes!!! How is that for old meets new??? -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0026cbaa-9b9b-4e1b-8587-798c96316859@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152328 |
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:44:05 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > It is interesting that, after viewing the sites that sell vaccuum tubes > (valves) online... the advertisements that follow you around on your browser > are about vacuum tubes!!! How is that for old meets new??? I bought something over the Internet. What was interesting was that the packing slip appeared to be printed on a traditional line printer, with the 1403 typeface, on multi-ply pre-printed multi-color form paper that was so common in the 1970s. I'd assume someone doing e-commerce would've had a laser printer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web