NationStates

Rich and Corporations wrote:

United States of PA wrote:
Fair point, but diesels are still better at least in my opinion for reasons such as the fact they they have closed the power density scale, are almost as multifuel, cheaper iirc etc.

At this point its just arguing semantics. No engine is going to smoke like that BMPV-64 unless something is seriously wrong, you cannot argue that.

Actually with every new generation of turbines and diesels, turbines become fairly close to the fuel efficiency of previous generation diesels, and diesels become fairly close to the power density of the previous generation of turbines. But I'm certain a gap still exists.

And diesels need special equipment to be fueled with natural gas, while my tanks only need different fuel tanks.

I didn't even see the BMPV-64 video and I wasn't really factoring that into my arguments.

Spark Plugs + Special fuel lines and storage iirc are the big ones. Its a $20,000 conversion from a 1988 Caterpillar 3406B to do it. Hardly bank breaking.

United States of PA wrote:

Rich and Corporations wrote:Actually with every new generation of turbines and diesels, turbines become fairly close to the fuel efficiency of previous generation diesels, and diesels become fairly close to the power density of the previous generation of turbines. But I'm certain a gap still exists.

And diesels need special equipment to be fueled with natural gas, while my tanks only need different fuel tanks.

I didn't even see the BMPV-64 video and I wasn't really factoring that into my arguments.

Spark Plugs + Special fuel lines and storage iirc are the big ones. Its a $20,000 conversion from a 1988 Caterpillar 3406B to do it. Hardly bank breaking.

Yes, but you still can't run 100% on natural gas or alternatively 100% on diesel.

Running on natural gas is more trouble than it's worth.

The Kievan People wrote:Running on natural gas is more trouble than it's worth.

Yes, but it is a substantial potential source of fuel energy.

Important when conducting multi-million tonnes of armored breakthroughs and living off the land.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

United States of PA wrote:
Fair point, but diesels are still better at least in my opinion for reasons such as the fact they they have closed the power density scale, are almost as multifuel, cheaper iirc etc.

At this point its just arguing semantics. No engine is going to smoke like that BMPV-64 unless something is seriously wrong, you cannot argue that.

Actually with every new generation of turbines and diesels, turbines become fairly close to the fuel efficiency of previous generation diesels, and diesels become fairly close to the power density of the previous generation of turbines. But I'm certain a gap still exists.

And diesels need special equipment to be fueled with natural gas, while my tanks only need different fuel tanks.

I didn't even see the BMPV-64 video and I wasn't really factoring that into my arguments.

Watch the video I linked. Even if you think it is normal for clouds of exhaust, I think that you would find the scale worrying.

You need a separate fuel storage (liquid natural gas is something you will find just about nowhere that isn't a LNG terminal and requires even more special equipment) system just for natural gas. The space it takes up would be put to far better use just storing more liquid fuel.

As Kiev said, there isnt really a actual point. Your going to drastically reduce both fuel efficiency and power output (NG has lower BTU Density than diesel , i'd give you numbers off hand but my book with them isnt with me), is more troublesome to transport/store.

Use it to provide electricity and stuff, leave the rest to Diesel/Multifuel Engines.

The Kievan People wrote:You need a separate fuel storage (liquid natural gas is something you will find just about nowhere that isn't a LNG terminal and requires even more special equipment) system just for natural gas. The space it takes up would be put to far better use just storing more liquid fuel.

why LNG? I'll probably end up using CNG. I doubt particles of gasoline or diesel will disrupt a CNG fuel flow greatly either.

I know NG has lower density, but it's a rather common fuel source for heating.

If you replaced the CNG tanks you would need with conventional fuel tanks, your vehicles range would increase enormously and keeping supplied becomes that much easier.

The operational benefits of being able to refuel more frequently are outweighed by the benefits of needing to refuel less often.

Edit: Really, when it comes to any alternative fuel that cannot share the same tanks as gasoline/diesel, you always need to think about how much potential gas you could be carrying in that space and whether the benefit of flexibility if really more useful than more gas. Generally it isn't. This is as true for batteries as it is for CNG.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

Vitaphone Racing wrote: Two videos of old tanks starting up proves all diesels emit giant pillars of smoke.

the leopard 2 is old?
but it's australia's main battle tank?

I would really like a source on this, seeing as the Army's site names the Abrams.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

Vitaphone Racing wrote: Two videos of old tanks starting up proves all diesels emit giant pillars of smoke.

the leopard 2 is old?
but it's australia's main battle tank?

The fact you just said the Leopard 2 is Australia's main battle tank highlights exactly why nobody should ever take you seriously.

Stay cool R&C.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

Vitaphone Racing wrote: Two videos of old tanks starting up proves all diesels emit giant pillars of smoke.

the leopard 2 is old?
but it's australia's main battle tank?

Sorry?

And what you're saying proves nothing. In fact, if you look at the Bundeswehr's Leopard 2A6s, they're all recipients of progressive upgrades from far earlier marks of the Leopard 2 built rather a while ago - they *are* old tanks, really.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

Vitaphone Racing wrote: Two videos of old tanks starting up proves all diesels emit giant pillars of smoke.

:lol: the leopard 2 is old?
but it's australia's main battle tank?

But that's fucking wrong

The moments when i wish i could "like" comments lol

Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

Val Nube wrote:Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

It's ended up making me giggle, if that makes you feel any better.

Anemos Major wrote:

Val Nube wrote:Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

It's ended up making me giggle, if that makes you feel any better.

"Like"

Val Nube wrote:Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

It's R&C spouting bullshit again, it's really nothing unusual

Registug wrote:

Val Nube wrote:Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

It's R&C spouting bullshit again, it's really nothing unusual

I take offense at that.

I usually know what I'm talking about.

Val Nube wrote:Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

Welcome to the NS military spergfest!

Lemanrussland wrote:

Val Nube wrote:Man. When I asked my question, I just meant to get an answer or two. I didn't intend to start a shitstorm over this.

Welcome to the NS military spergfest!

Seriously. Maybe I'll just join you on your ice ball. Is Russ back yet, or is he still missing?

So basically, we've determined that the IFV was badly maintained, and that's why there was smoke like everywhere. Then we've also determined from RandC that... Diesel engines at normal operational standards... don't have that much smoke output.

Which then proves the first point.

Pretty much.

The only way that engine should ever act like than when it is properly maintained is when it if effing cold out. no way to tell from the video.

Kouralia wrote:So basically, we've determined that the IFV was badly maintained, and that's why there was smoke like everywhere.

The T-64 used as the basis for the conversion likely came out of a scrapyard Ukrainian Army depot.

Lemanrussland wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:I'd personally call vehicles HIFVs which are either derived from battle tanks or of approximate protection while carrying troops.

I would call vehicles like the Namer (at least in the APC configuration) and Achzarit HAPCs, and a vehicle like the BTR-T an HIFV, as it has a 30mm autocannon.

I'd still consider them HIFVs, since the significant protection level presumably would allow the vehicle to fight in close with enemy forces, or take strike and be able to continue operating.
After all, both the Achzarit and Namer can take autocannon and missile with a sufficient RWS platform. The Namer definitely can.