Re: Steam engines was Re: COLONIAL WEAPONS

bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:

> Reciprocating steam engines haven't been used commercially or
industrially
> for decades.	Turbines were just so much better (efficiency,
reliability,
> simplicity) that there was no reason to use a reciprocating engine. 
IIRC
> one of the last ships built with a reciprocating steam engine was the
> Titanic (it was also the largest reciprocating engine ever built).
>
> I remember from a History Channel show that the inventor of the steam
> turbine pitched it to the Royal Navy and was turned away.  So he built
a
> ship and showed up at a military regatta or review (I don't remember
> exactly) and demonstrated the superiority of the turbine by proceeding
to
> run away from any ship that tried to catch him.  The Royal Navy (after
they
> calmed down) took notice and started converting their ships to turbine
> engines.

In all fairness, the disadvantage of Parsons' steam turbine was that a
reciprocating
steam engine was a lot easier to match to a propellor.	I think that at
the time,
efficient props spun at 120rpm and efficient turbines whirled at six
thousand.
Fortunately, the important characteristic is turbine blade speed, so you
could reduce the
revs by increasing the radius, but the Lusitania required a turbine
wheel fourteen feet
across and a specially designed propellor for 420 rpm.	 Mercifully,
someone figured out