What happened ? ...

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

[nightjar]

Interesting to see a 1950s view of the future.

[Harry Bloomfield Esq]

Jim GM4DHJ ... formulated the question :

The future is never an updated, more futuristic version of the present. Some things race ahead, others take backward steps. Trouble is so many things can get in the way, like the present fad for global warming and the pandemic, forcing plans to be changed.

[Chris Hogg]

Didn't Rover make a prototype gas turbine car as well? ISTR seeing the one and only model in the Science Museum many, many decades ago. I think one of the problems was how not to incinerate the car behind, or burn a hole in the tarmac, when stuck in a traffic jam!

Ah yes, here it is

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

Well look at supersonic airliners? There is nothing in principal stopping the industry making a bigger version of Concorde, indeed that was the original idea, but with all the problems of pollution, higher than expected running costs, the damage to the Ozone layer and supersonic booms over inhabited areas, nothing much came of it in the end. Brian

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

Tomorrowsworld also demonstrated a fuel cell powered electric car back in the day. The high heat generated and the low range seemed to be insurmountable problems, yet they used Fuel cells to power the lunar expeditions, but there they presumable had the tanks of the right gasses already there and the bi product was h2O. I don't think they built an M25 in space yet. Brian

[nightjar]

I was looking more at the way the film portrayed the whole concept of the future, as seen from the 1950s.

The real problem with gas turbines for road transport is that, while they are much more efficient than ICEs, they don't like varying loads. Leyland tried them out in lorries, which spend long periods at a steady speed, but that wasn't a great success. They still needed to drive in towns at either end.

The best application I have seen was the the Jaguar concept hybrid car, which used two miniature gas turbines to charge the batteries. The turbines got to run at a steady load, while electric motors dealt with the variable loads called for in driving, which is something they are rather good at.

[nightjar]

I was under the impression that the banning of Concorde flights across America was the main stumbling block. It was seen as a threat to American aircraft manufacturing, after both Boeing and Lockheed failed to produce SSTs of their own.

[Andrew]

British Rail had a gas turbine 'leaves on the line remover'.

Unfortunately it blew away all the ballast too (plus all the stuff dumped from passing trains toilets) and quite a lot went through the windows of lineside houses.

[charles]

It wasn't just the USA that didn't want supersonic flights.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not really. The main problem with gas turbines is spool up times.

[nightjar]

Yes, but it was the USA where they expected to make money.

[newshound]

But you don't need the power to weight ratio that you have in planes, so the stresses are lower and less need for inspection. Marine and OCGT power plant is comparatively cheap. Oil rigs seem to use GTs rather than diesel for on-site power (perhaps they run them directly on gas, although I guess that might need scrubbing on some wells)

[newshound]

Except that at the time, US manufacturers were looking at SST too. It was easier for them to cut and run as the costs became apparent; the political agreement between the UK and France left no scope for one side to back out (as Harold Wilson wanted to, IIRC).

[nightjar]

All aircraft engines get regular inspections. It is quiet critical if they stop working in mid-air, particularly on single engine aircraft. A broken down car is rather less of a problem.

Marine and OCGT

[Tim Streater]

Yes, pity we didn't scrap Concord and keep TSR2.

[ARW]

By the same Youtube poster

[Steve Walker]

I was involved in the production and testing of the GTs for Shell Gannet A in the 1990s.

There was a 1.2 MW diesel (the Black Start Package) using a hydraulic starter powered from Nitrogen bladder accumulators. There were three accumulators and if it had not started after three attempts, they could be pumped back up to pressure by hand. Once the BSP was running, it provided power for the control systems and a hydraulic supply for the GT starter.

Each generator set actually consisted of a Rolls-Royce RB-211, exhausting into a Dresser-Rand DR61 (IIRC) turbine and that drove a Brush ac generator. There were two identical generator sets (11 kV,

3-phase, 60Hz, 24 MW each).

If one set was running and the rig was producing, then the second set could start on gas from the well, but if there was no gas production, they would start on diesel and then switch over to gas when possible.

At the factory, we could only test at part load on gas (our boiler could only vaporise our LNG supply fast enough for about 6.5 MW), but at full load, on diesel, each set used 120 litres per minute! We burnt a quarter of a million litres of diesel while testing the pair!

They were specced to allow a 10 MW motor to start with one generator running and a 16 MW generator to start (with the 10 MW motor already running) with both generators running - although in both cases, the voltage and frequency dips were far larger than allowed on a mains supply.

You are right about the stresses and inspections. The expectation was that each set would run for 3 years at a time between stopping for servicing!

[JNugent]

I too remember seeing that Rover car in the Science Museum, over fifty years ago now.

I was more interested in Stephenson's Rocket...!

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

Well that was only because of what you overfly and the boom and pollution. If it was easy to stop this, then you could do longer hall flights. In Concorde, the fuel you could take was only just enough, but Boeing seemed to be saying that double the size was actually better in this respect. Also the newer design of engines would not need the fuel wasting reheat to get it off the ground. Brian