this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
265 points (100.0% liked)
196
669 readers
72 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't technically nuclear power also be considered Steampunk?
Meaning there is no difference between Steampunk and Atompunk?
Nah, key difference is that in atompunk, the energy is typically converted into electricity.
A big part of steampunk is the pipes moving steam to the contraptions, compared to wires moving electricity.
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.
I remember playing flash game years ago that was about WW1 dog fights in nuclear powered steam biplanes.