"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 16/08/2013 07:47, harryagain wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2013 18:18, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 14/08/2013 08:00, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/2013 17:51, harryagain wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/08/13 07:52, Andy Burns wrote:

If the laser generates heat by alpha and beta decay

..and a lot of high energy neutrons IIRC that can transmute
anything
they hit.

article says no neutron decay.

But essentially the mass of waste - esp high level waste so
called -
is
vastly reduced.

especially as each car only starts with 8g of Thorium, amazing to
get
a
200,000 mile 'life' out of it


If it works. Another straw to grasp at.
Drivel.
So what we then get is heat.
So we raise steam and it is actually a steam car?

The steam is used to run a turbine, which is used to generate
electricity,
so it is actually an electric car. Personally, I would prefer it to
be
driven by steam.

Heh, heh. What a load of old ********.
Stop every thirty miles to pick up water?

Only if really badly designed.

BTW, do some research as to why steam locmotives never had
condensers.

Apart from those that were built with condensers you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropo...ailway_A_Class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_A...Class_25_4-8-4

Colin Bignell

You didn't read that link very thoroughly.
It goes on to say they were converted to free exhaust as the design
was
a
failure...

No it doesn't. It says they were converted when electric and
diesel-electric locomotives made them redundant on the desert routes.

It also says:

'The system proved to be extremely efficient and reduced water
consumption
by as much as 90% by using the same water up to eight times over,
giving
the Class 25 locomotive a range of 800 kilometres (500 miles) between
water refills. In addition, the hot recycled feedwater resulted in a
significantly reduced coal consumption'

Another example wher eit was removed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GER_Class_G69

And another failure here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNR_Class_L1

Lots of failures..

Again, locomotives that were converted only after they were moved from
their original duties and there was no longer a need for condensing
apparatus.

Colin Bignell


It was taken off because it was never satisfacory.

Time for a mis-quote from Mandy Rice Davies I think.

If it was satisfacory, they would have left it on

Wrong way around. They add complications and increase maintenance cost, so
are only fitted when they are required. In all the cases you claim they
were removed because they were unsatisfactory, the locomotives had ceased
the duties that needed condensers fitted and they were removed to make the
locomotives simpler to maintain.

and further, all steam
locomotives would have been fitted with condensers.

Simpler and cheaper in most cases just to keep topping up where there are
plentiful water supplies.

They could only be made
to work properly in very cold climates.

The South African locomotives worked very efficiently in a desert.

...
There are almost unsurmountable problems associated with pumpimg very hot
water into steam boilers.
Especially steam locomotive boilers (or cars for that matter)....

No there aren't. You just use hot water pumps instead of injectors. Of
course, that adds to the complexity of the system.

Yes there were. I spent forty years running steam boilers.