![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winneganfakeNow, 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: 2008-06-20 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)
Date: 2008-06-20 05:09 pm (UTC)When we remodeled our house a few years ago, I wanted to put panels up, but it was just prohibitively expensive at that time.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 10:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-23 03:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 05:33 pm (UTC)But you don't need to go directly from solar to electricity, as long as you can go from solar to steam, and that goes back to at least 1860.
http://www.solarenergy.com/info_history.html
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 05:35 pm (UTC)And hey! It opened on my birthday!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 11:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-23 04:00 pm (UTC)(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)
Date: 2009-01-23 04:07 pm (UTC)argh
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-23 07:32 pm (UTC)In the meantime welcome! Hang around. Stay for the art show later on.
Now on to your comments- I like the concept you're using, but as I said- Steamcon's here in Seattle. In October- which means that any ship attempting to land and claim the WTF prize will have to deal with heavy cloud cover. While I laud the design concept you've presented for its efficiency, as you said yourself, parabolic reflection for solar power is less than ideal in indirect sunlight. The weather itself would be a severe barrier around here, especially when it comes to takeoff/landing.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-24 11:28 am (UTC)Thankyou for your comments. I'm a member of halfbakery.com (BunsenHoneydew) where blimp and zeppelin designs are aplenty.
I'm wondering if some kind of adaptive surface could be used, to mould itself to the optimum shape for lighting conditions on the fly (so to speak).
In overcast conditions, a flat plate is best. Perhaps a compromise would be a series of tubes (snicker) in parallel, with trough reflectors beneath, rather than a single tube and reflector apparatus. If less than boiling temperatures are obtained, oil as a thermal fluid and a heat exchanger to the boiler might be necessary - more weight and expense and lower speeds, but still doable (at a price).
Can't do much about the wind issues though :-/