In article ,
() wrote:

As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background
information to many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came
to realise that most stuff reported about the tube / strikes /
whatever was at best misleading or inadequate or at worse,
downright lies. As a consequence, I normally treat any newspaper as
a comic on the basis that most of what is printed is irrelevant or
rubbish!

I'm afraid my experience is much the same about anything I know directly
about, sadly. To be fair to journos, this is more because they don't have
time to find out what they need to know than because they can't be arsed
to do so.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:44:33 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 21/04/2011 08:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:24:16 on Thu, 21
Apr 2011, Graeme Wall remarked:
Have a look here
http://districtdave.proboards.com/in...?board=jubilee
for what really happened, though there is a bit of jargon,


I hadn't looked at that site for a while. the first item reads:

It is with great sadness that we have to announce that Dave Maloney,
known to us all as "District Dave" and the first founder of this site,
passed away peacefully at his home this morning following several
months illness.

Dated a little over a month ago. I'm sure it was reported here, or was
it utl?

The latter probably, I'm not subscribed to utl.

I don't recall seeing anything in uk.railway.

On 21/04/2011 09:20, pippa.moran wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 20/04/2011 22:40, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Instead of using traffic lights trains are linked by radio waves which
'talk' to trackside responders. These in turn send a signal to a
computer in the train engine to speed up or stop."

Other than being electric multiple units (which normals wouldn't
understand) and so not having an "engine", isn't that more or less how
it works?


What do mean, no engine? Unless the trains are pulled by horses, or
the passengers have to get out and push, there must be something -
some sort of mechanism or machinery - inside the train to make it
move. In other words, an "engine." How could it move without one?

Gravity has been used, or cables operated by an engine not inside the
train. "Engine" is also used in the sense of "locomotive".

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

wrote in message

In article ,
() wrote:

As a tube driver, and knowing what was what and background
information to many things (as any tube staff would), I soon came
to realise that most stuff reported about the tube / strikes /
whatever was at best misleading or inadequate or at worse,
downright lies. As a consequence, I normally treat any newspaper as
a comic on the basis that most of what is printed is irrelevant or
rubbish!

I'm afraid my experience is much the same about anything I know
directly about, sadly. To be fair to journos, this is more because
they don't have time to find out what they need to know than because
they can't be arsed to do so.

Yes, I've often been interviewed by journalists from the trade press
about my specialist subject (not railways). The UK journos tend to be
worse than their, say, French, German or US equivalents, but better than
the South Africans. More often than not, these days they're new to the
subject and often freelance with just a few hours to research and write
a story with no relevant background to draw on.

Even if they do a reasonably competent job, the sub-editors dumb it down
further, if only by using mixed-case for acronyms. It was better 10 or
20 years ago, but the press now operates on much thinner margins, with
less advertisinng to fund it, and having to compete with free Web
sources (and news groups, of course). Most UK trade magazines have a
skeleton full-time staff, with the gaps filled by freelancers and
correspondents (plus advertorial). The press in non-English speaking
countries suffers less from on-line competition, and consequently has
declined more slowly.

On Apr 21, 7:18*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Capt. Deltic wrote:
On 21 Apr, 09:58, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:33:41 +0100

Graeme Wall wrote:
Pedantically they have motors, not engines. �The latter being those
nasty infernal combustion thingies. �Motors run on nice clean electrickery.

Tell that to Arthur Daley!

To be even more pedantic, an engine generates power, while a motor
consumes power.

What? *What*?

'Generates' power? 'Consumes' power? Has that small matter called the
first law of thermodynamics passed you by?

I assume Uncle Roger means "shaft power" as used in the context of the
second law applied to a control volume (ie work rather than heat).

All any of these devices do is convert energy from one form to another.
They might be coupled to devices capable of storing energy. But whenever
they are in operation, the flows of energy in and out are equal; not all
of the energy coming out will be useful, but it's there. A flow of energy
is power, and so all these devices do is convert power from one form to
another.

An electric motor converts electrical power to mechanical power. An
internal combustion engine converts chemical power - a flow of constant
mass in which the output has a lower chemical potential than the input -
into mechanical power. An external combustion engine - if you were
inclined to exclude the boiler - converts pressure power (which can't be
the right name - aerostatic power?) into mechanical power. They're all
just power converters.

Calling one an engine and one a motor is a matter of convention. It's
preposterous to ascribe a fundamental meaning to the distinction.

The distinction is related to the second law. A motor converts "work"
to other "work" while an engine converts heat to work (and some left
over heat).

Robin

On 21 Apr, 17:36, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/04/2011 15:58, Capt. Deltic wrote:

While we're OT let's have a test of other interests. The diesel
engines include two Oliver Tigers. *Does that mean anything to anyone
in this NG? *No remarks about sad gits going in circles, please.

Dredging my memory, isn't that a very old model aircraft engine?

*From another sad git.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Thanks for confirming my general exoperience that however recherche
the topic, someone on UKR will iknow about it.

Indeed, diesel engines hand made by Mr John Oliver. Which somehow
combined easy starting, good 'throttleability' with lots of power.

not to be confused with the Italian Super Tigre (got one of those
too?.

Death to glow-plugs.

roger

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 03:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
bob wrote:
The distinction is related to the second law. A motor converts "work"
to other "work" while an engine converts heat to work (and some left
over heat).

Internal combustion engines don't convert heat to work. The work is done
by the pressure of the gas from the chemical reaction. Heat is a useless
byproduct of this reaction that has to be got rid of.

B2003

On Apr 22, 3:53*pm, wrote:

Internal combustion engines don't convert heat to work. The work is done
by the pressure of the gas from the chemical reaction. Heat is a useless
byproduct of this reaction that has to be got rid of.

I suggest you study thermodynamics andn especially the Otto Cycle and
the Diesel Cycle.

--
Nick

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
D7666 wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:53=A0pm, wrote:

Internal combustion engines don't convert heat to work. The work is done
by the pressure of the gas from the chemical reaction. Heat is a useless
byproduct of this reaction that has to be got rid of.

I suggest you study thermodynamics andn especially the Otto Cycle and
the Diesel Cycle.

I would suggest you basic physics. A small volume of liquid is converted
into a large volume of gas in a confined space. The fact that heat is
also generated is irrelevant other than the chemical reaction requires it to
be self sustaining. There are plenty of other chemicals you could react in
liquid form that produce heat but no gas - try squirting them in your cylinders
and see how well the engine works.

B2003

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:09:23 -0700, D7666 wrote:

On Apr 22, 3:53Â*pm, wrote:

Internal combustion engines don't convert heat to work. The work is
done by the pressure of the gas from the chemical reaction. Heat is a
useless byproduct of this reaction that has to be got rid of.

I suggest you study thermodynamics andn especially the Otto Cycle and
the Diesel Cycle.

There's a reason they're all collectively known as "heat engines".

And to state that "the work is done by the pressure of the gas" and then
go on to say that "Heat is a useless byproduct" suggests that the very
concept of equations of state (starting with PV = NkT) has passed someone
by.

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself.