Talk:Advanced steam technology

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Scope

We have to decide whether we are talking about modern steam locomotives or modern steam technology in general. At the moment, this is not abundantly clear.--John of Paris (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

The final sentence of the lead paragraph is confusing. Does it refer to 'modern steam' engines in general, or Porta's railway locomotives specifically?

Also, where does the term 'modern steam' originate, and how should it be capitalised/puntuated? I can see scope for misunderstanding (eg "modern steam power plant", a steam power plant that is modern (whatever that implies!) vs "'modern steam' power plant" (eg), being a power plant that incorporates 'modern steam' principles and technology. Or am I reading too much into this?

EdJogg (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I've been asking them on the External combustion engine page the same question. They are pushing that term as if it had been around throughout the last century, whereas it's hard to trace it back beyond the 70s and now as you see, it has become an "engineering definition". But we may be pushing "Modern steam" in a similarly spurious way. Seems to have come out of the woodwork with Waller's Institute of Mechanical Mechanical Engineers lecture [1]. Even in that case it does not only apply to steam locomotives because he discusses new engines for old paddle steamers and one is working successfully on Lake Leman. The important thing here is that boiler is automatic and the steamer can be worked by a crew of three instead of the normal five. Same thing for the rack engine — one-man operation — two men for the whole train. In my opinion that rack engine design is quite simply a masterpiece. Will get back on all that as it's important.--John of Paris (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That edit... I'd never have guessed it in a month of Sundays! Thanks for correcting it! EdJogg (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , as I said, it was badly written. But as you see in the foregoing paragraph, we're discussing steam in general, whereas Porta concentrated entirely on Stephensonian locomotives, although do I know he was working on a steam bus project for Buenos Aires just before his death. Been trying to find out more about that over the last five years, but it it seems to be cloaked in secrecy.

Going back to your first question, it probably should be capitalised Modern Steam or Advanced Steam Technology as it does seem to be developing into a movement in which perhaps not all those working on steam projects would recognise themselves as members - IAV and their successors, certainly not. However when you look at all their literature, it leaps to the eye that they are all moving in the same general direction: for all of them steam is their medium and in spite of radical differences in their approach, are all attacking the same problems albeit in widely differing ways. Probably this is not an article for Wikipedia (yet) as it needs an original approach to put it over clearly. However, as I have always said, what bothers me is the fact that an intelligent WP general reader, curious to know what a steam engine actually is will mainly get "hot sources & cold sinks" thrown at him from one side and railfan chat from the other - and is likely to go away none the wiser and probably even more confused than before. — Sorry, but that's my honest opinion.--John of Paris (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Steam or 'modern steam'?

As mentioned in the previous section, the term Modern Steam has been adopted by a number of parties involved in the development of advanced steam technology.

This poses us editors a few problems. When used in-line, the phrase is open to mis-emphasis (compare "modern steam engine" with "modern steam engine), unless suitable embellishments are provided. Adding single quotes nicely gets round the problem, but may be frowned upon when combined with a wikilink ('modern steam'), since the link may be considered to make the quotes redundant. Alternatively, the term could be capitalised (Modern Steam), but this can look odd, and mixed case (Modern steam) introduces further emphasis issues.

I have checked inward links to this article, adjusting them to employ the quoted term 'modern steam' where it is used in-line, but leaving 'See also' links to use the default (mixed case) article title. Portals and user pages have been ignored.

Within the article, I have used the fully-capitalised term Modern Steam exclusively. Unfortunately, having done so I now think it looks rather odd in places.

While this minor formatting problem would normally not be an issue – as the term in question would be in widespread use – here there is the real danger that whatever format we decide to use could influence other people's usage in the future.

I am now thinking that the best approach within the article is to use the quoted 'modern steam' form, and allow the world to decide on the need for capitalisation independently!

(If we're lucky, the term advanced steam technology, which needs neither quote nor capital, will take hold instead, and the problem will go away!)

EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best solution and if we decide to rename it "advanced steam technology", which I for one have nothing against, we'd better not waste too much time in moving the article as these problems have the nasty habit of getting worse fast!

As for those later paragraphs, they were already in the article before I started working on it and I hadn't got round to serious editing. I don't usually touch texts already there until I've thought about them for a bit, which means that for a time an article can look a bit chopped-up.--John of Paris (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with "Advanced steam technology". Biscuittin (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone with the, er, 'consensus' (!) and renamed the article as suggested. I have adjusted most of the terminology within, but would appreciate assistance in confirming that the new wording still makes sense. I am particularly concerned about 'Potential solutions...', which contains a very convoluted sentence, and 'History', where my change of yesterday ('last 20 years' --> 'since the 1970's') is still subject to confirmation.

[Update] Inward links have now been updated to suit. (Again, Portal, Talk and Archive pages have been left alone.)

EdJogg (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Update again] I've added some n-dashes to the 55-word sentence, and I think this solves the problem!

EdJogg (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tornado advanced steam?

Tornado is certainly "modern steam" but is it "advanced steam"? It is basically a conventional locomotive but with some modifications listed at LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado#Changes_from_original. Biscuittin (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, posted it twice. Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the first one, for clarity. This second one contained the same, and more, information. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado still has essentially the same boiler arrangement as the originals, doesn't it? In which case it couldn't really be counted as 'Advanced'. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thermodynamically it's no different from the originals. There's a lot of improved metallurgy, quite a bit of constructional difference (welding rather than riveting), interchangeable off-the-shelf components used for small bearings etc. and more electrics. No real change to the design though. Duke of Gloucester had more change during its rebuild than Tornado did in a scratch build. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Advanced steam technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Advanced steam technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.amovis.de/en/kompetenzen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advanced steam technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power plants

Somewhere it's worth mentioning that most nuclear power plants use steam. There's a lot of innovation underway with new designs:

If you prefer to skip over nuclear and remain focused on non-nuclear, you can always retitle the article and keep the content as is.

Also, there are solar plants that make power using steam: Solar thermal energy —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]