• Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    22 days ago

    Wouldn’t technically nuclear power also be considered Steampunk?

    Meaning there is no difference between Steampunk and Atompunk?

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      22 days ago

      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.

      • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        That raises the question: are the Voyager probes (or anything with an RTG) considered Atompunk, or do they need random bits of sheet metal welded on to meet the aesthetic first?

      • Malgas@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        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?

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          Diesel engine > generator > motor is frequently used for trains nowadays. Transmissions can be super inefficient, especially with discrete gear ratios