|
Post by nazimundo on Aug 4, 2010 17:09:26 GMT
Yes Dag the answer is they kept Polecats to stop rats and mice from eating their grain so you probably would not have stroked their cat if you wanted to keep your fingers, ;D ;D. Polecats were later replaced by domesticated cats as they spread over the world. Alfie
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 4, 2010 18:15:41 GMT
Message from Arney:
"I can excuse Alfie's 'man butter' as he gives such good clues!"
Must admit Alfie that it was all down to Arney and not me! ;D
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 4, 2010 18:29:48 GMT
That is a very interesting one Alfie, do you have any more like that?
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 5, 2010 8:06:34 GMT
Well in the meantime, here is another:
Back in the steam age, you are the engine driver of an express train and as you come out of a tunnel there is a huge rock/landslide in front of you and you cannot stop in time. You slam on the brakes and take off the power but you know that you are going to impact at about 30 mph at least, so what do you and your stoker do next in order to stand a chance of survival?
You have no more than 5 seconds to act or you are dead!
|
|
|
Post by kedigato on Aug 5, 2010 8:28:51 GMT
I was going to say to put the train in reverse, but if the power has been taken off?
I assume there were always these cow-catchers on the front of all of the steam trains, so that would help deflect the rocks.
Then, back in the steam age, I doubt that there were express trains.
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 5, 2010 8:38:57 GMT
First of all it would be a waste of time putting the engine into reverse as the wheels would indeed go backwards with no problem but would have no grip on the rails.
We don't have cow catchers in the UK and in any case this rock is too big!
In the height of the steam age, trains were often doing more than 100 mph, and the world record for steam trains is 126 mph for a regular express train in 1938 on the London to Scotland run by the Mallard. (mikkel's favourite steam engine)
Doubt that there were express trains........how dare you! This was the age when there were no maximum speeds imposed until a terrible accident happened up north and hence the limits now imposed.
|
|
|
Post by nazimundo on Aug 5, 2010 19:35:49 GMT
The obvious answer would be to jump but I somehow think that might be wrong Alfie
|
|
|
Post by kedigato on Aug 5, 2010 20:06:20 GMT
That's the first thing I thought of as well, Alfie, but decided that the captain always goes down with his ship, or in this case, the engine driver with his train.
Next guess - you don't stand a chance of surviving so you say a prayer or call for your guardian angel?
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 5, 2010 20:35:17 GMT
Well to jump out at over 30 mph and onto what? Almost certain death I think! They were trained (sorry) to jump up and hang onto the handrail in the roof of the cab and swing right up into the roof as high and forward as possible. If they didn't do that they would be crushed to death by many tons of coal from the tender and being squashed against the hot boiler is not a good way to go! So they would, and did in many cases die regardless of the effect of the impact.
|
|
|
Post by kedigato on Aug 6, 2010 7:33:47 GMT
Eek!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 7, 2010 10:46:46 GMT
In a tug of war between a modern diesel tractor and a traditional steam traction engine both chained together back to back, which one would win and why? Assuming reasonably equal power for each.
The inevitable against the immovable. ;D
|
|
|
Post by letitia on Aug 26, 2010 10:18:21 GMT
Now Dag are you ready for this? Having looked it up on the net and carefully studied the horsepower/torque ratio. Knowing that Power =torque times RPM and 1HP is equal to 550ft-lbs/sec I have come to the conclusion that I haven't go a clue but I'm going to guess... I think the steam engine would win because it's heavier ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by kedigato on Aug 26, 2010 11:58:02 GMT
I'd forgotten all about this question.
I'm going to say that the diesel tractor would win because by the time the steam engine gets up enough power, the diesel one would have dragged it backwards over the winning line.
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Aug 26, 2010 14:42:40 GMT
You are correct letitia, partly because of the extra weight but mainly because the steam engine didn't have any clutch which proves to be the weakest link in the chain so to speak! Sorry kedi but there is no lag at all in a steam engine and they are surprizingly fast to accelerate and don't need gears or clutch.
Steam trains (and diesel trains for the same reason) only accelerate slowly because the driving wheels don't have a very good grip on the rails, unlike an electric train where the power is evenly distributed along the whole train by having motors in each carriage.
Steam cars were very good performers in their day (not the early ones) but maintenance was very high and also the early ones gave them a bad name so soon became unpopular.
A Stanley steam car won the world speed record at 127 mph and later went on to reach 180 mph in 1906 but never completed the course as it hit a bump at Datona Beach and took off and disintegrated when it hit the ground. After that they were more careful in preparing the sand track.
|
|
|
Post by DAG on Sept 23, 2010 18:11:54 GMT
My rough sketch of an electical symbol for a 'resistor'. When my late father started in electronics there were no ready made parts in those days and so you had to make your own out of raw materials to a large extent. He had to buy resistance wire and make his own resistors. The symbol for a resistor could have been anything, so why this shape?
|
|