Join Date: Apr 2006
Thanked 181 Times in 178 Posts
Rep Power: 13
"This of course is known as a Deisel electric which is used by the big cruise ships and locomotives... it is more energy effieceint than a straight gas or deisel engine, thats why they use it. "
It *can* be more efficient, if you deem "efficient" to mean "suitable for a specific purpose" rather than "more work per unit of energy". The dual conversion will always be less efficient than single (direct) conversion. But locomotives need 100% torque from a dead stop, which diesel engines simple can't provide. Diesel-electric gives them the option of 100% torque from the electric motor. Then again, that's also why *steam* was a better way to run locomotives, same 100% torque all the way.
There are also long comments about how GE killed the steam locomotive, when in fact the triple and quad-conversion steam turbine engines were more efficient, more economical, more reliable, and less expensive overall. But cheap sales and the marketing of "clean, not old dirty ashes" killed the steam engine in the RR business. It was very successful marketing.
Now, if Solomon would only have the courage to put a Hobbs meter in their systems and offer a warranty that was *longer* than the average combustion motor, instead of barely meeting the middle ground, that might get them more sales. If their "better" and more "reliable" and "simpler" system really could meet those claims.