Mercury was used for a lot of things in medicine other than mercurochrome. Some of the earliest VD "cures" contained mercury. Antiseptic solutions used in surgeries like Betadine is today. In fact, sailors would go by the medical officer's station and have their privates painted with a blue tincture of mercury sulphate before heading off ship for a night of booze and carousing with the native ladies, hence the term "Blue Balls" came to be. It was also considered to be the number one cause of suicide in dentists from handling it daily to make the mercury silver amalgam to fill teeth with.

 

The sales of Johnson & Johnson Band-Aids tripled that year... They did make quaint Pop Top Chains though. Something popular for dorm decoration. In 1969 there was an off brand of "keg" beer that came in a widemouthed 12oz bottle with one of those tear-off aluminum caps. It didn't last long and other than the curiosity factor had no appeal as the beer was terrible.
View attachment 267069

Mickey’s Big Mouth!

 

The local 'Craft' beer people like to use those.

The ones I was talking about were much eariler, just before they came out with the twist off crown. Didn't know though that they are still in use.

 

The origin of "gps told me to turn into a river".

 

View attachment 267036

I dug a ring-pull up in the garden last week.
But do you remember the earlier ones? They had two slots in the "ring" part either side of the rivet.
If the two parts were detached from each other, and holding the tab between thumb and forefinger and inserting the tab into the slot in the ring and using the tab as a spring, it was possible to launch the "ring" across the room at some speed.

 

 

I know I already talked about steam engines but this is on another level.

 

With a small fusion reactor for heat generation that car could be the future.

 

I came from a long line of steam engineers starting back in the 1700's from Scotland. I also worked at a steam powered chemical plant. We generated 700PSI steam from waste wood chip fired boilers and fed that to a double pressure turbine connected to a 3.5 MW generator. Our plant steam was 250 PSI from the 2nd stage of the turbine and used for mostly pumps and boilers. We also reduced the pressure and used 125PSI for tracing insulated product lines. The product was wood resin which melts well above ~150°F. Lots of leaky steam traps to drain the condensate which was pumped back to the boilers. Jay kept throwing pressure numbers around confusing me. Once said "high pressure 200PSI" which isn't considered high pressure and then later was saying 750-800PSI which is incredible for that small a boiler. I think he was talking about the boiler temps. Also not mentioned was licensing for steam operators which is usually required unless autos are exempted. They started requiring that after so many boilers exploded. They still had some steam piston pumps in use at the plant when I left ~2005. And as long as it kept working why spend the money to convert it for electric.

 

I came from a long line of steam engineers starting back in the 1700's from Scotland. I also worked at a steam powered chemical plant. We generated 700PSI steam from waste wood chip fired boilers and fed that to a double pressure turbine connected to a 3.5 MW generator. Our plant steam was 250 PSI from the 2nd stage of the turbine and used for mostly pumps and boilers. We also reduced the pressure and used 125PSI for tracing insulated product lines. The product was wood resin which melts well above ~150°F. Lots of leaky steam traps to drain the condensate which was pumped back to the boilers. Jay kept throwing pressure numbers around confusing me. Once said "high pressure 200PSI" which isn't considered high pressure and then later was saying 750-800PSI which is incredible for that small a boiler. I think he was talking about the boiler temps. Also not mentioned was licensing for steam operators which is usually required unless autos are exempted. They started requiring that after so many boilers exploded. They still had some steam piston pumps in use at the plant when I left ~2005. And as long as it kept working why spend the money to convert it for electric.

With a small fusion reactor for heat generation that car could be the future.

I am fixated with steam power. I think it was abandoned too soon. I was a bit disappointed that Jay didn't discuss the kind of fuel Doble car uses or its fuel economy. I did like that he touched on the fact that with ICE you are trying to shed as much heat as possible, while with the steam engine you're trying to keep as much as you can.

I have read that internal combustion engines can't get more than 30-40% thermal efficiency. I suspect that a fusion reactor isn't even needed; if gasoline or diesel were used as heat input to a steam cycle, I think our cars could be much more efficient. Instead of puking 60-70% of the available energy out of a radiator into the atmosphere, we could contain all that energy and use 98% of it, injecting only as much fuel as the system needs to maintain temperature.

I must be wrong though, since nobody has tried to do it for the past 97 years. I would like to know why I'm wrong though. Can't get past "if it works for submarines and nuclear plants, it should work for cars." Jay's video did point out some the sticking points for steam power as it applies to cars, but I think we have the technology now to address them.

 

I am fixated with steam power. I think it was abandoned too soon. I was a bit disappointed that Jay didn't discuss the kind of fuel Doble car uses or its fuel economy. I did like that he touched on the fact that with ICE you are trying to shed as much heat as possible, while with the steam engine you're trying to keep as much as you can.

I have read that internal combustion engines can't get more than 30-40% thermal efficiency. I suspect that a fusion reactor isn't even needed; if gasoline or diesel were used as heat input to a steam cycle, I think our cars could be much more efficient. Instead of puking 60-70% of the available energy out of a radiator into the atmosphere, we could contain all that energy and use 98% of it, injecting only as much fuel as the system needs to maintain temperature.

I must be wrong though, since nobody has tried to do it for the past 97 years. I would like to know why I'm wrong though. Can't get past "if it works for submarines and nuclear plants, it should work for cars." Jay's video did point out some the sticking points for steam power as it applies to cars, but I think we have the technology now to address them.

Steam power has not been abandoned, it just was superseded on the small scale, must work instantly applications like a personal car. With fusion or other types of always on energy sources, steam as the power transfer agent would be possible and maybe practical in a far future transportation market.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/how-electricity-is-generated.php

Steam turbines are used to generate the majority of the world’s electricity and they accounted for about 44% of U.S. electricity generation in 2020. Most steam turbines have a boiler in which a fuel is burned to produce hot water and steam in a heat exchanger, and the steam powers a turbine that drives a generator. Nuclear power reactors use nuclear fuel rods to produce steam. Solar thermal power plants and most geothermal power plants use steam turbines. Most of the largest U.S. electric power plants use steam turbines.

 

Yeah, I noticed he kind of skipped over fuel but he did mention gas stations and that there was a venturi involved so I would guess low octane gas, kerosene or even #2 fuel oil/diesel fuel. The biggest problem is the safety one as boiler tubes get eroded over time and then tend to rupture at pressure. That and the damage from an accident causing a steam rupture. I did like the torque figures and that there was no clutch or transmission used. Over the years at the plant, we had a few guys get cooked from steam ruptures and die. I keep see blurbs about how great it would be to use Hydrogen and just shake my head. You can't keep that stuff bottled up and it autoignites when released.

 

Yeah, I noticed he kind of skipped over fuel but he did mention gas stations and that there was a venturi involved so I would guess low octane gas, kerosene or even #2 fuel oil/diesel fuel. The biggest problem is the safety one as boiler tubes get eroded over time and then tend to rupture at pressure. That and the damage from an accident causing a steam rupture. I did like the torque figures and that there was no clutch or transmission used. Over the years at the plant, we had a few guys get cooked from steam ruptures and die. I keep see blurbs about how great it would be to use Hydrogen and just shake my head. You can't keep that stuff bottled up and it autoignites when released.

https://wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?183513

general
engine:	2 × 600 psi (4.1 MPa) boilers, one geared steam turbine, one shaft,, 2 screws
armament:	4 × 3 in (76 mm) / 50 caliber AA guns, (modifications) 2 × Phalanx CIWS
power:	22000 s.h.p.
speed:	22 knots

I bunked above one of the ships main steam boilers powered from DFM. I already know what hell feels like before the blast doors closed during a main space engine fire. Our sister ship had a boiler explosion in port that rained firebricks on the pier. It's designed to vent up the stack instead of blowing up the ship. Steam is dangerous and fascinating.

 

Dad was an engineering officer on Liberty ships. They had 3 oil-fired boilers and I'm not sure what pressure. They had one triple expansion piston engine and screw. In convoy they could sail on 2 boilers but if one blew a tube (which was all too common) they had to quickly get the 3rd boiler online or get left behind for the Wolf Packs of German U-Boats. They did keep the 3rd boiler in a hot ready state. So any boiler problems had to repaired fast. They would throw an asbestos blanket into the boiler and tie a rope to one of the Jr. engineers. He had 15 minutes before they would pull him out and send another in. Due to the pace of the convoy they were always pushing the boilers and blowing tubes. He used to joke that he didn't sail across the Atlantic, he waded because the Liberty ships were notorious for leaking. Steam had its day but marine propulsion has moved to gensets and electric motors. On the Frigate size ships they use a pair of aircraft turbojet engines now. Top speed is classified but it is above their stated 45 knots. That is hauling ass in a ship! There are still a lot of huge piston engine powered ships in use but they run on oil now instead of steam.

 

I've seen these big boys go flank speed. Nuclear powered Steam is cool.

 

45+ knots on a carrier is truely unbelievable they can accelerate that mass to that velocity. Isn’t the new class electric?

 

45+ knots on a carrier is truely unbelievable they can accelerate that mass to that velocity. Isn’t the new class electric?

USS Nimitz.

United States
History
Propulsion	2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors (HEU 93.5%) 4 × steam turbines 4 × shafts 260,000 shp (194 MW)
Speed	31.5 knots (58.3 km/h; 36.2 mph)
Range	Unlimited distance; 20–25 years

Her official speed figures are classified (closer to 40 knots).

 

Nope the new class

 

Nope the new class

They use stream to turn the generators for the electric drive. That's not necessarily better for max speed or reliability.

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2017/05/how-not-to-build-ship-uss-ford

Electrical Problems

Aircraft carriers require a lot of power. Earlier carriers used nuclear reactor-generated steam to drive two of the most power-hungry systems on board: the steam turbines that turn the propellers and the steam catapults that launch the planes. The Ford-class ships retained steam turbines for propulsion, but rather than piping steam from the reactors to power major ship systems directly, it uses steam to turn four main turbine generators (MTG) to generate electricity for the systems like the new electromagnetic catapults. Generating and managing the massive amount of electricity the ship needs has been a significant contributor to its budget and schedule troubles.

To feed these massive electrical demands, as well as the ship’s expanded electronics, the Ford’s four generators were designed to provide triple the total electrical power provided by the two generators on the Nimitz class—13,800 versus 4,160 volts. These new ultra-high voltages pose substantial risks such as increased safety problems and increased electrical arcing and failure rates, particularly in humid salt atmospheres. They are also much more fragile than legacy systems, which can make the ship far easier to cripple in battle. Repairing damage to these systems often requires them to be powered down, which could impact other systems that didn’t sustain damage. The possibility that these risks could require substantial ship modification or render the Ford unsuitable for combat cannot be assessed until the completion of operational testing in 2020.

 

​