Hahahaha, too true! Good one Gav.

Brian

Along with maybe Ed McCord and Argee

Big gasturbines have been suggested, and were installed in test vehicles, but due to their huge fuel consumption they are not very efficient. They are also not suited for stop-go-stop-go operations.

---

Remko

Ocean Traders Scale Models Facebook Group

Turbines are pretty finicky in less then ideal conditions. Hot air temperature, dust and stop and go operations are all detrimental to their performance. Union Pacific ran some 4500 HP and 8500 HP (locomotive) turbines in the '50s, but never achieved satisfactory economic results. Turbines are VERY expensive to maintain/repair. The airlines have good success because they run in very cold temperatures (better fuel efficiency,) clean air (no abrasion/corrosion) and at maximum rpm for long durations.

That may have been the case in the 50's, however gas turbines have come a long way in the 50+ years since.

Hot air, dust and stop-go operations are detrimental to ANY type of engine whether it be gas turbine or cyclic, as they are both ultimately gas generators. I do however, tend to agree with you about dust though due to the large volumes of air required for a gas turbine. It is difficult to filter efficiently for the volumes required, although ships and oil/gas platforms have great success even with this taken into consideration and therefore should not present too much of an issue. As I suggested previously it would be easy to operate the gas turbine at a fixed speed, coupled to an electric generator, which would rule out the majority of the stop-start operation.

I disagree that airlines have good success due to the reasons you gave such as very cold temperatures, because it is in fact more difficult to operate in these conditions due to very low density of air, which, although good for the aerodynamics of the aircraft it is not good for the combustion of fuel, hence the turbomachinery has to work harder to obtain the volumetric efficiency required to produce a given output.

Also, aircraft gas turbines do NOT operate at maximum RPM for long durations. Max RPM occurs at take off when the maximum amount of stress is experienced by the turbomachinery. Cruise in flight where the aircraft operates for the majority of its operational life, requires engines to run at lower speed conditions for a number of reasons (wear, velocity, fuel consumption etc.......)

It depends on the orebodies we are dealing with - we've been bioleaching for years in the copper industry, and have even done some in situ stuff. Some (usually higher grade) ores just simply aren't amenable to SXEW processes. That said, I do actually forecast a return underground for some good orebodies - easier on the eye for the environmental lobby.

actually wayne i was thinking of doing a model of the cat 797 with 5th wheel coal bowl trailer and a cat 797 with a triple axle towhaul lowboy maybe

Thats an interesting idea. Cat had tested a model 786 in the mid 60's that was only a 240 capacity but had two engines running at each end. Only four were produced in that configuration though but it makes you wonder what they could do with the larger trucks such as the 797. I'll try to get a picture up later its a very interesting looking machine.

-Josh

Just got back from a week with Jimmy McCarty (Mr VIMS) and we did our best to get him pissed up till all hours and extract all the future information but his lips were well sealed but we all got talking ourselves and majority of us believed the way of the future was not bigger trucks but autonomous (operator free) wheelbarrows (don't even have a cab) just a big bath tub for product and a guided route. What a minesite would save in wage bills and we are in the middle of a boom so it will burst eventually and who will have wanted to have heavily invested in the technology just as it slumped. Just my thoughts and the future will tell the real story!

It's a nice idea, but I can see a few issues that would pretty much prohibit the use of nuclear power. I'll only touch on a couple points, but a rather important couple points anyhow. First off, with all of the nutjobs running around out there, do you really think the government is going to ok having all of the fuel for the reactors unsecured running around? Second, have you seen some of the rocket scientists they have running these things? Some of them actually think they are driving bumper cars. Third, I'm not sure a power plant and all of the generating equipment that would be needed could be made small, but powerful enough to actually fit and work. The Mister Fusion you saw in one of the Back to the future movies is probably a couple years off yet. Fourth, nuclear reactors are probably a bit sensitive to dirt and dust, not to mention vibration.....and trust me, haul trucks have boat loads of all three. So as nice of an idea as it seems, it really would be the wrong application for them.



That's also a good question Wayne. Basically, it comes down to versatility. They need too much room to maneuver, and larger hoppers to unload into. They are more prone to getting stuck in soft conditions and harder to control in slippery conditions. The shops would need to be larger to accommodate them, and in general, they would not be as flexible as the operation changes. Even the big coal mines that run tractor drawn units still usually have to run rear dump machines to do all of the development work. So instead of needing two fleets of trucks, it's easier and more cost effective to run one fleet that will do more.

Brian