![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Now, don't get me wrong before I really start in on this post- I like steampunk. I think it's a great aesthetic, and the potential for fantastic and awesome stuff to come out of it is definitely there.
At the same time though, I have to admit that there's some people into the same aesthetic, like any subculture, that really make me wonder if they're coming from anything approaching the same reality as the rest of us. Mostly because I keep seeing the same argument being made in different forums and elsewhere by them, and just about every time I see it, I end up falling out of my chair. Here- let me try to sum it up in a sentence:
"Steampunk is an environmentally positive movement."
Ok, let me get back up in my chair now.
For those not following yet, let me continue- the gist is that steam power is a wonderful, clean energy source, and that those following a "steampunk lifestyle," are actually doing their part to help out the environment, especially if steam technology is getting adapted to take the place of current-day technology.
Sorry, gotta climb back up into the chair again.
Steam technology as a clean energy source- this one gets me damn near every time. Why? Because we're talking about a system that absolutely requires fuel to be burned. In order to make steam, (and if you don't know this part, really, get offline, go find your high school physics teacher, and beg him to kick your ass) you have to heat water. That takes the consumption of fuel at some stage, even if you're doing it via electrolysis. It also depends on keeping that steam in gas form- which means you need to consistently keep it hot. Since no engine has yet been developed that can perfectly store and recycle all the heat from the initial fuel burn, that means you need to keep burning fuel, as heat will eventually be lost out of the system.
And what's the fuel, you may ask? Well, steam tech does have one advantage- just about anything that burns is usable. What's going to be available to most people though is not stuff that's very environmentally friendly- it's the same fuels available back when steam power was truly the high point of technology. Wood. Coal. Big, smoky, gassy, combustibles that, just like before, leave behind tons of particulate in the air. Making the landscape look like an entire crew of chimney-sweeps decided to roll all over it is not exactly what I'd call an environmentally sound move.
Now, don't get me wrong- you can actually engineer a steam engine that burns fuel a lot more efficiently than an internal-combustion engine. You can even build one that has a better exhaust output than internal combustion. But you can't dump thermodynamics by the wayside- fuel has to be consumed- consumption of said fuel creates exhaust, since there is no such animal as a 100% burn fuel.
So until your airship actually has a working cold fusion generator under the hood, and your soot-stains are merely there for cosmetic purposes? Can it. You're about as much of a stalwart of the environment as an Halliburton executive.
In fact- I would seriously love to see someone put their money where their mouth is. Any would-be steampunk engineer reading this want to prove me wrong? By doing more than flapping their fingers at me on the internet? here's a building challenge for you:
(In the spirit of the X-Prize) THE WTF PRIZE!
Build an airship capable of carrying four or more people into flight, and do it with an engine that produces less pollution than a standard internal combustion engine. And by build it, I mean that you, the entrant and pilot, must actually undertake the fabrication and construction of this device. Prefabricated parts may be used for your construction, but pre-built, purchased engines are right out. You must build your propulsion system, not just install it.
This ship must be capable of true directed flight, rather than simple wind-directed flight, so the ship must include a propulsion and navigational system in addition to basic lift.
Build it, fly it to Seattle, and land it safely at the venue location for Steamcon '09. For those already in the area, you need to prove that your airship can sustain flight for more than three hours. On landing, your engine will be inspected by a team of judges to consider the following: fuel type, fuel consumption-power ratio, and exhaust output. This means you will have to present your blueprints as well.
Winners will receive the following:
A metric fuckton of notoriety for landing an airship at a public convention.
Women swooning at your air-piratical feet.
The satisfaction of me apologizing and having to eat my words in public.
Permanent advertising for any of your endeavors via Tormented artifacts, the LXB, etc, etc... (It's not much, but it's something at least.)
if any sponsors want to step forward and offer a prize to this, I'll gladly include them.
...Hell- you built yourself a working airship- what kind of prize do you need when you've got one of those?
Anyone seriously willing to take up this challenge had best contact me, however, in order to make sure I actually put together stuff for this. And also contact the FAA- wouldn't want to see you get shot down for failure to register your aircraft.
At the same time though, I have to admit that there's some people into the same aesthetic, like any subculture, that really make me wonder if they're coming from anything approaching the same reality as the rest of us. Mostly because I keep seeing the same argument being made in different forums and elsewhere by them, and just about every time I see it, I end up falling out of my chair. Here- let me try to sum it up in a sentence:
"Steampunk is an environmentally positive movement."
Ok, let me get back up in my chair now.
For those not following yet, let me continue- the gist is that steam power is a wonderful, clean energy source, and that those following a "steampunk lifestyle," are actually doing their part to help out the environment, especially if steam technology is getting adapted to take the place of current-day technology.
Sorry, gotta climb back up into the chair again.
Steam technology as a clean energy source- this one gets me damn near every time. Why? Because we're talking about a system that absolutely requires fuel to be burned. In order to make steam, (and if you don't know this part, really, get offline, go find your high school physics teacher, and beg him to kick your ass) you have to heat water. That takes the consumption of fuel at some stage, even if you're doing it via electrolysis. It also depends on keeping that steam in gas form- which means you need to consistently keep it hot. Since no engine has yet been developed that can perfectly store and recycle all the heat from the initial fuel burn, that means you need to keep burning fuel, as heat will eventually be lost out of the system.
And what's the fuel, you may ask? Well, steam tech does have one advantage- just about anything that burns is usable. What's going to be available to most people though is not stuff that's very environmentally friendly- it's the same fuels available back when steam power was truly the high point of technology. Wood. Coal. Big, smoky, gassy, combustibles that, just like before, leave behind tons of particulate in the air. Making the landscape look like an entire crew of chimney-sweeps decided to roll all over it is not exactly what I'd call an environmentally sound move.
Now, don't get me wrong- you can actually engineer a steam engine that burns fuel a lot more efficiently than an internal-combustion engine. You can even build one that has a better exhaust output than internal combustion. But you can't dump thermodynamics by the wayside- fuel has to be consumed- consumption of said fuel creates exhaust, since there is no such animal as a 100% burn fuel.
So until your airship actually has a working cold fusion generator under the hood, and your soot-stains are merely there for cosmetic purposes? Can it. You're about as much of a stalwart of the environment as an Halliburton executive.
In fact- I would seriously love to see someone put their money where their mouth is. Any would-be steampunk engineer reading this want to prove me wrong? By doing more than flapping their fingers at me on the internet? here's a building challenge for you:
(In the spirit of the X-Prize) THE WTF PRIZE!
Build an airship capable of carrying four or more people into flight, and do it with an engine that produces less pollution than a standard internal combustion engine. And by build it, I mean that you, the entrant and pilot, must actually undertake the fabrication and construction of this device. Prefabricated parts may be used for your construction, but pre-built, purchased engines are right out. You must build your propulsion system, not just install it.
This ship must be capable of true directed flight, rather than simple wind-directed flight, so the ship must include a propulsion and navigational system in addition to basic lift.
Build it, fly it to Seattle, and land it safely at the venue location for Steamcon '09. For those already in the area, you need to prove that your airship can sustain flight for more than three hours. On landing, your engine will be inspected by a team of judges to consider the following: fuel type, fuel consumption-power ratio, and exhaust output. This means you will have to present your blueprints as well.
Winners will receive the following:
A metric fuckton of notoriety for landing an airship at a public convention.
Women swooning at your air-piratical feet.
The satisfaction of me apologizing and having to eat my words in public.
Permanent advertising for any of your endeavors via Tormented artifacts, the LXB, etc, etc... (It's not much, but it's something at least.)
if any sponsors want to step forward and offer a prize to this, I'll gladly include them.
...Hell- you built yourself a working airship- what kind of prize do you need when you've got one of those?
Anyone seriously willing to take up this challenge had best contact me, however, in order to make sure I actually put together stuff for this. And also contact the FAA- wouldn't want to see you get shot down for failure to register your aircraft.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-17 04:28 pm (UTC)External combustion is more efficient than internal combustion. Your challenge is trivial, assuming someone has the money to throw around.
(Not that I don't almost entirely agree with you, mind. But the math's against you on the challenge part.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-17 04:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 05:25 pm (UTC)But for flight, even more important than thermodynamic efficiency is the weight to power ratio, and you're going to be hard pressed to beat infernal combustion with steam or Stirling.
BTW, I came here via this post:
http://community.livejournal.com/anachrotech/393996.html
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-17 06:15 pm (UTC):)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 08:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-17 07:15 pm (UTC)NUUUUUUUUUKES!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-19 06:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 07:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-19 05:17 am (UTC)Ive never seen *anyone* claim steampunk is positive because of the steam power aspect, because who even uses that? I can think of one, maybe two groups of steampunks I've met who use real steam power. Most steampunks couldn't build a real steam engine if you pointed a gun at their heads and gave them a kit.
The point is about returning to hand crafting rather than factory-created-and-shipped-thousands-of-miles-to-a-distribution-point-and-then stored-and-finally-flown-hundreds-or-thousands-of-miles-again-once-its-sold. It is socially more responsible to buy from craftspeople locally (or at least people who build things like you and me and sell them to small online communities) because it cuts out all that. Plus, artisans working in their shops don't produce the kind of waste that massive factories do. Plus the factories tend to be located in China, where the environmental standards are nearly meaningless due to rampant bribery, and the workers are treated poorly nearing the point of abuse.
There is a lot more to it than that one issue of course, but I fear if I type any more I am simply wasting my time on you again... I just didn't want to see this kind of silly nonsense go uncorrected.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-19 05:04 pm (UTC)This post started as a response to threads like this one over on RPG.net: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=400122 (sorry, but you'll need to have an account there to see that one- I unfortunately can't control that fact).I've also seen similar queries on Whitechapel, among other places. There are people who are making the claims I've listed above- I'm not saying that you're one of them. In fact, I never have up to this point. So, most of your urge to correct me? Can it. Basically, there's some people out there taking a good idea and getting it wrong. You're not one of them, so it doesn't really concern you.
Now, as for the argument that Steampunk has nothing to do with steam power.... um, let me pick myself back up off the ground and get back into the chair again. You are aware of the literary roots of your subculture, right? Steampunk started out being about nothing but steam power, not to mention idealizing the Industrial Revolution (ie, the factory) in general. There's never been a thing in the roots of the genre to even hint at a concept of environmental concern. So, the concept of Steampunk being an environmental ethic as a subculture is ironic in the least, if not downright laughable. Now, I'm not saying it couldn't be applied, and the concept of environmental terrorist is certainly something that could easily fit within steampunk tropes- I'm just saying that there is currently nothing in the literary basis of the subculture to suggest such an ethic.
Now- your statements on hand-crafting versus factory creations. When nine tenths of our own materials came from a factory at some point, how do you justify this argument? Regardless of what we're doing, we're still supporting the factory at some level. Recycled art comes close, but when we're still purchasing (rather than making) our paints, adhesives, wire, fixatives, and the like, we're still buying and using factory-made goods in order to create our art.
Not to mention the economics of the situation. The leather I use? Sure, it came off a cow, but it went through a factory process to get cured and tanned. I wouldn't be able to afford it if it were artisan-produced. Same for my other materials. And unless you're charging a lot more for your work than I think you are, you wouldn't be able to afford your materials either. The only way either of us would be able to afford being artists in an artisan-only system is through the patronage of the wealthy. And returning to a patron-based system is about the last thing we need. I personally like the freedom to be able to create what I want to. So, bless the factory, and it's products. Without those we wouldn't have the freedom to exist as artists.
Of course, there's a lot more to it than just those issues, but as before, you're probably going to be too oversensitized to this reply to actually read through the whole of it, much less think on it before posting any further reply and wasting both your time and mine. I just didn't want to see an argument without any apparent knowledge of western history, economics, or genre go completely unopposed in my own journal-space.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Solar
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-19 08:59 pm (UTC)I'm not saying that steampunk can't be environmentally friendly, but I am saying that the possible green-ness of the movement is not inherent in the movement, it's a choice made by some of the people who participate.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-21 02:07 am (UTC)Plus, you would require a LOT of artisans hand-tooling things to provide the stuff people use now, and each of those artisans would produce waste. And since human training and tolerances vary more than machines do, it'd probably be more, and it'd be decentralized, which would make it harder for collecting the waste for reuse and recycling.
Local production is definitely better, making the plastic crap we do in China and shipping it across the ocean is ridiculous. But that's more an argument against the way things are set up now, rather than an indictment of the factory system as a whole. Local factories would seem to be the best way to address that. For some reasonable description of "local".
I have nothing against artisans hand-crafting stuff, I think it's awesome, and even have some friends who make money off their own creations. But hand-tooling things isn't really a cure-all to our environmental problems, for a lot of reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 04:11 pm (UTC)It's a pretty impressive thing to see, especially from the air.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 04:28 pm (UTC)And no, I hadn't really been thinking of solar much period- I'm in Seattle. What's this sun thing that people keep talking about?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-23 04:07 pm (UTC)For airborne deployment, here are my thoughts:
Transparent airship
Inside: a lightweight parabolic reflector (either trough or dish type, or a compound version of either), say mylar over an alu tri-truss frame, comprising up to half of the internal surface of the canopy. Reflector can be swivelled independently of the 'ship to track the sun. Sunlight is concentrated on the collecting tube/boiler, and steam is fed from their to your hand-tooled, lightweight, brass steam turbine.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 08:38 pm (UTC);)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-21 04:10 am (UTC)/agree
Date: 2008-06-20 08:52 pm (UTC)Aside from that...
Yeah I do recycle a lot of old junk, but I also use new parts, very ungreen chemicals and I make as much trash as I do with making anything else.
Almost any kind of 'art' is going to produce ungreen crap, even if all you use is old junk there are adhesives and welding gasses.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 10:22 pm (UTC)Realistically, however, how many steampunks have a steam-driven lifestyle? For those who don't, that statement is pretty well true. There is a tendency to make, to mend, and to scrounge items from junk/thrift shops. An aesthetic rejection of plastic is still a rejection of plastic.
I have never leapt up and say "I'm steampunk! I'm green!", but I can see where someone saying it might be coming from, and I think it is not as ridiculous a statement as it appears at first glance.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-21 12:16 am (UTC)Orphans.
There is nothing steampunk that can't be solved via the application of sufficient amounts of orphans. Need a major crime ring in central London? Orphans. Need small hands to get into your steam powered giant robot's Marvellous Mechanised Mobility Mechanism and remove a broken spar so your plans of world domination go unhindered? Orphans. Need a plucky hero? Orphan in goggles.
So, having cracked the fundemental building block upon which the revolution is built, let us apply it to the problem.
Now, I'm sure there are people out there who ould be disapointed with me, irate even, should I suggest burning orphans as fuel, so I shall avoid that discussion (although I think it is the most realistic). So, what we do is harness their power in a selection of lage tradmills at the bottom of the ship, somewhere below the bilges. These treadmills, of course, feed straight into the generators that power the Elyctrical elements that heat the water. The best thing is? Runs on gruel and whippings!
A perfect solution to a simple problem!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-21 03:08 am (UTC)Then I read more... And you do bring up some excellent points. :)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:A Reasonable Proposal
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-06-22 12:47 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-21 12:34 pm (UTC)My finace and I started to discuss building an airship just for the hell of it.
Of course, not per your challenge as the math is just not coming together.
But building a working airship could be done. But we have a wedding to pay for first.
I have never heard the enviromentalbit applied to Steampunk. I would think by it's very nature, no one would be a prat enough to say Steampunk was enviromentaly sound movement.
Besides, all the modern Steamies out there are not exactly going back to steam power.So how does eviromentalism even come into it?
Where there's a will.......
Date: 2008-06-21 05:00 pm (UTC)There might very well be a way :)
Something being worked on by some people in New Zeland.
I enjoyed your a post a lot and I am pleased someone has actually pointed this out. After all the Industrial Revolution is meant to be one of the reasons for the Greenhouse Effect, if you are inclined to belive it is a man made problem that is.
Sadly I won't have the money or the resources to build a Rotary engined hydrogen air ship at any point soon but it's a nice idea. :)
Besides I need to finish my Time Machine ;0)
Oh Sorry
Date: 2008-06-21 05:05 pm (UTC)http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-15 10:41 pm (UTC)Just like gluing watch parts to an iPod makes it steampunk.