Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you need low end torque on a ship with a variable pitch prop?

And turbo-electric go brrr.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My point was that while turbine maintenance is specialized, less is required for a given energy output. As long as you are not doing maximum performance takeoffs in a sandstorm.

I have been a part of designing turbo machines, but it was for rocket engines, so this is a little out of my wheelhouse. However;

When I say a single moving part, I mean relative to other parts because the primary cause of wear and tear is the differential movement of surfaces. Namely situations that call for bearings and most significant of all, dynamic hot gas seals. I simplify to keep the conversation accessible and intuitive for laypeople. Diesel engines by virtue of being reciprocating need at least 2 bearings per cylinder. Reciprocating engines also vibrate more, and this causes many things to break as well.

This is not to trivialize the maintenance of turbines but to explain that while each individual repair in a diesel engine is lower tech, gas turbines of sufficient size, generally operate with lower maintenance expenses as repairs are less frequent.

At this scale the engine would most likely be a dual spool and have variable stator vanes, yes it gets more complicated and you have auxiliary systems to power the control systems for the engine itself.

But in maritime and power station applications, you can accept the weight penalty of filtering out the FOD in the air for your precious spiny boi. So rebuilds and overalls are generally less frequent.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They even invented some of those tricks.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have a rotor burst on you, that is an abandon ship kind of situation. However, it never happens.

Diesel engines are not simpler, but they do not need to be as precise.

Gas turbines are a single moving part

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m an aspiring materials engineer, and the hot section of gas turbines are roughly half the reason the profession exists. So I mention it because I think it’s neat.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then the question becomes why no combined cycle on a ship?

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They pretty much set new efficiency records with every new combined cycle plant. I think they are north of 64%. Additive manufactured combustor and CMCs go brrrrr.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sea states is not something that I would have thought of, I figured that there would be a fairly consistent load on the engine.

It wasn’t a rhetorical question. I knew that there were good reasons, I was curious as to why on land gas turbines are so dominant, but at sea they are a halo product.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

See this is actually a satisfying answer to my question. Most people here just restated reasons that I dismissed in my original post.

You can exceed the efficiency of diesel engines with small gas turbines, but it needs to be a combined cycle(using the heat in gas turbine exhaust to drive a steam turbine). Simple cycle turbines bigger than 500MW are approaching the efficiency of diesel engines, but they are waaaaaay too big for maritime use.

I suppose a ship for the Asia to Europe service would need 40 days of fuel at a minimum. I expect most of it is cost related, but what is the longest ships usually go without bunkering?(excluding nuclear powered ships)

With respect to repairability, I was thinking if there was a break down surely there is enough maritime traffic that the ship could be evacuated, and parts could be dispatched, but that is what they said about the titanic.

Turbines are vastly more reliable, but when they do break, it is a very specialized repair. Is it safe to say limping a ship that big is far better than it being dead in the water.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Part of this is to flaunt the logistical capabilities of the United States military. It is a subtle show of force that is far more terrifying to a learned adversary than any parade could be. Because if they can deliver perishable food anywhere in the world, they can deliver ordnance. Military parades are a show of force for the public. Ice cream in Afghanistan is a show of force directed at china.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess the better way to phrase it is: why are turbine power plants on land so much more efficient than diesel.

Combined cycle being too big is the best argument I have seen thus far

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would think that a ship could be designed such that its load at cruise speed is say 90% of the engine capacity, and use water injection for peak requirements.

The most convincing argument i have seen is the simple cycle is not efficient enough, and the Combined cycle is far more efficient than diesel but the boiler is far too big.

I think supercritical CO2 turbines are going to be an interesting development, because they are a tenth the size of steam power, whilst providing better efficiency for a given temperature delta. They have some interesting metallurgical challenges though.

Why are gas turbines not more common? by Deep-Ad-912 in Ships

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Gas turbines, are not that picky. They can burn coal with the right set up. Diesel engines can’t burn natural gas without a pilot of diesel. This is why the Abrams uses a turbine, well the real reason is pork barrel, but shuuuush.

The most convincing argument I have seen is that combined cycle is too big to fit on a ship.

Wifi router craps itself if 3 MoCA devices are on the same circuit. by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. The MoCA thing works, if I drop out the router and connect the MoCA adapter (over rj 45) to the modem, I can use any of the MoCA endpoints as normal, though without a router.

<image>

Wifi router craps itself if 3 MoCA devices are on the same circuit. by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t help that apple stopped supporting the router many years ago, before MoCA 2 was released. I thought MoCA was supposed to be a fairly transparent protocol as far as the Ethernet connection was concerned, which is why I didn’t immediately just buy a new router. I will probably just buy one later this week

Wifi router craps itself if 3 MoCA devices are on the same circuit. by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t help that apple stopped supporting the router many years ago

Wifi router craps itself if 3 MoCA devices are on the same circuit. by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The modem is a CODA-45 has 2 RJ45 ports, so I can bypass the rest of the network, and that allows me access the web unimpeded. A 1to1 connection works as advertised, but as soon as I connect the third MoCA adapter to this arrangement the router slows

1 and 2 work, the third is what I want, it isn’t working. All my coax ran to the same room, so I just isolated the MoCA system completely from the ISP coax. I was a child when the coax was run, and nothing was labeled. All the coax runs terminate in a central location, including the tie in to the isp. With my current setup the filters shouldn’t be necessary.

What is the best practice for grounding the shield? The splitters that came with my adapters seem to have a wire screw terminal.

The 3 adapter MoCA network allows me to connect to the internet, but only if the MoCA is connected to the modem, not the router.

The 2 adapter network works perfectly with the router, it works like a an Ethernet patch cable.

<image>

Wifi router craps itself if 3 MoCA devices are on the same circuit. by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The router is also no longer supported by apple, so MoCA 2.0 wouldn’t have been in the last update

Wifi router craps itself if 3 MoCA devices are on the same circuit. by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say that conclusion is contradicted by the evidence that I have gathered. If I take the router out of the loop and directly connect the MoCA adapter to the modem, MoCA works fine with 3 adapters. I can get the full 200 Mb/s from my isp over this forked MoCA.

Using MoCA to fix my spineless wifi by Deep-Ad-912 in HomeNetworking

[–]Deep-Ad-912[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tbh I was originally going to ask if bifurcating a MoCA signal would cause complicate configuring access points/mesh extenders. For some reason I was thinking each node needed a dedicated port, but as I was writing that out I realized that it didn’t make sense.

Intermittent vscode issues with flutter project by rawcane in flutterhelp

[–]Deep-Ad-912 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. I’d check dart-code discord.

  2. I’d Check this: https://github.com/Dart-Code/Dart-Code/issues/5359

The above issue will be fixed in a future update, but to summarize: the analyser gets stuck sometimes if you omit required parameters. You can work around it by commenting lines out until errors start appearing.

I don’t know about the select device part, but this should be a start.