491
Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
491 points (100.0% liked)
196
17503 readers
684 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hmm. Suppose you were building a nuclear locomotive. (Setting aside, for the moment, whether this is a good idea.) Would nuke→turbine→electricity→motor be more efficient than just using the rotation of the turbine to move the train?
It can't be, right?
Diesel engine > generator > motor is frequently used for trains nowadays. Transmissions can be super inefficient, especially with discrete gear ratios
This is only true for locomotives really. Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) often use hydraulic transmissions. Here's an example railcar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/Line_VLocity
It's possible that controlling the rotation would be significantly more difficult without the extra conversion.