Angel number 333 represents the essence of the Trinity. This includes the three symbols of the mind, body, and spirit. Also, this bears the meaning of the “Jesus connection” or the “Ascended Master’s connection.” Ultimately, your guardian angels and the presence of universal energies are heavily surrounding you.
Thus, overflowing energy and power are inevitable for you. Besides, there is an increase in your growth and confidence at this point in your life. So, you should focus on accepting your inner truths. Moreover, you should start gravitating towards your purpose when seeing a repeating 333.
Coral sand
...
...
In the Bible, the number 3 signifies the Trinity, that is, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It shows that God exists in three forms. According to 333 meaning in the Bible, there are three aspects of time well articulated in the Holy Book. These aspects of time include the past, the present, and the future.
Desert sand
The Bible also articulates the number 333 with the concept of humans, that is, the body, the mind, and the soul. God existed even before the creation of time, and he created us with a consciousness that makes us who we are. God the Son represents Jesus Christ, who died for our sins so that salvation may be readily available to us.
Quartz sand
...
...
In the Gospel Books of the Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it is recorded that Jesus Christ died on the cross at the age of 33.
Angel number 333 symbolism is that of growth. Also, this can also mean you are in the midst of a synthesis. Or, it can also mean being in the process of self-growth.
Moreover, maturity comes with personal growth. Therefore, accept some of your mistakes and forgive yourself for some unwise decisions you might have made in the past.
Besides, you need this to move and make room for the increase of abundance in your life. Moreover, this is also a reason to eliminate some things out of your life. Consequently, they may be things that are not fruitful or bringing you much pleasure.
Number 333 is one of encouragement and making the right choices in life. The number 333 in relationships indicates that it is time for you to make serious changes and choices in your love life.
The 34 mm $50 Fine Silver Coin – Hare (2016) designed by Emily Damstra
It is time for you to take action and control your life on the right path. It is not worth it to stay in an abusive relationship when you can make changes that favor you. Love is a good thing, but it is not good when people are getting hurt over it.
https://www.facebook.com/vuonlan.mocchau
You have been thinking of moving in with your partner. This will happen over time with the guidance of your guardian angel. Your relationship will grow, and you and your partner will flourish.
You will also learn how to appreciate each other once you start living together. Accept all manner of love in your life since this number is leading you to abundant love.
Friends and relatives will show you love in the way that you have never experienced before. Also, romantic love is not the only thing that you should focus on. Love the people around you just as you love yourself. Love is something that never ends. Your angels will guide you in this journey, and you shall surely come out victorious at the end of the day.
On the other hand, Angel Number 333 is a message your guardians are sending you. Therefore, it serves as a reminder that you’re due for an increase in a specific area of your life. Moreover, some of these areas may include love, peace, or financial blessings. Also, it means that all these might be in store for you. So, all you need to do is to reach an equilibrium of balance in your mind, body, and spirit.
Thus, the meaning of 333 reveals that this number is one of joy and happiness. Seeing 333 shows that happiness and joy are just around the corner. The life we live in this world needs to be joyful, happy, and adventurous.
However, we at times live in a world which is full of grief and dark moments and days due to our liking. We tend to focus more on the bad than enjoy that which has been granted unto us by God. God wants us to live our full lives and leave the worrying to Him since He assures us of peace.
This angel number assures you of happiness and joy if you accept God’s will in your life. Do not take life seriously all the time. At times you need to take a break from all the stress that comes with work and family and enjoy life to the fullest. Your guardian angel will give you the strength and ability to take one step at a time while you live a stress-free life.
Also, this angel number manifests in your life to show you that joy can be experienced even in the worst of situations. Angels will walk with you, and with prayer, God will also be by your side to bring you the happiness you deserve.
Angel number 333 stands for encouragement and assistance. The angels are in your midst, to help and assure you of your plan that lies ahead. When you come across the angel number 333, it always means that your prayers are getting answers and responses from the divine world. This divine message stresses the principle of growth. The three areas of the holy trinity: mind, body, and spirit—must be attended to and progressively worked. Some, if not all of these areas need reconstruction.
When saying reconstruction, this can mean adding to or taking away from any area that is creating an imbalance to this trinity. You might be thinking too negatively, causing you to lack in spiritual growth. Or you suffer from fatigue and might not have as much strength, and you might need to exercise more or eat healthier.
Thus, these areas need attention and handling by you. Even though God or Universal Energy, along with the assistance of angels are with you, you still need to do all the work. 333, is a sign showing you that you need to reconnect with your inner purpose and the needs of your soul.
Angels use angel numbers to communicate with us. Seeing 333 reveals to you that divine message is being transmitted to you. 333 Angel Number reveals that it is associated with self-confidence and universal energies. These energies manifest as positive ones and not negative. The power you possess will go a long way in making your life worth living. You will grow daily spiritually with the influence of your guardian angel. Your guardian angel is urging you to work hard to make the best out of all the opportunities that present themselves to you.
Every day you have the opportunity to grow. Growth at this point in your life is continuous. The manifestation of this number assures you that your growth will lead to something great if you are optimistic and determined. Maturity is your portion if you only embrace it and apply it in your daily life.
Thus, this is a good time for you to own up to all the mistakes that you have done in the past. Grow up and forgive all those who wrong you. Forget all bad things and focus on good things. Number three gives you hope, and encouragement to grow in every sphere of your life.
https://www.sunsigns.org/angel-number-333-meaning/
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/andrew-carnegie-s-secret-to-achieving-riches-in-life
Andrew Carnegie Secret To Riches In Life
___________________________________________________
Step #1. Have A Definite Major Purpose.
What Is The Most Important Thing You Would Like To Accomplish In Your Lifetime?
Try To Define It In One Paragraph, Even If You Have To Keep Rewriting It A Hundred Times Until It Gets As Clear As Possible.
It Has To Be The Most Important Thing In Your Life.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Definite Major Purpose Was To Win Independence For India From Their British Rulers. He Succeeded.
Dr. Martin Luther King’s Was Equality And The End Of Oppression For Black People.
Doctor Jonas Salk’s Was To Find The Cure And End For Polio.
Thomas Edison’s Was The Incandescent Light Bulb.
What Is Yours?
If You Don’t Currently Have What You Feel Is A Definite Major Purpose, Then Have A Definite Major Purpose To Find Your Definite Major Purpose.
Napoleon Hill Said: “Success Is The Development Of Your Powers To Get Whatever You Want From Life - Without Violating The Rights Of Others In Any Way”
So Make Sure Your DMP Is Noble And Righteous – And That It Will Not Violate The Rights Of Others In Any Way
It Has To Be Something You Want So Bad That You Think About It All Of The Time.
___________________________________________________
Step #2. Be Willing To Stake Your Entire Existence On Achieving It.
Don’t Quit. There Are Many Starters In Life, But Very Few Finishers – When The Going Gets Tough They Quit.
A Person With A Definite Major Purpose Never Gives Up No Matter How Long And Tough The Road Is; Instead, They Become More Determined.
Jack London Was Rejected Over 600 Times Before He Finally Sold His First Piece Of Writing.
Thomas Edison Actually Failed Over 9,999 Times Before He Perfected The Incandescent Light Bulb, And Over 5,000 Times Before He Perfected The World’s First Phonograph Record Player. There Will Be Times When Everything In You Will Tell You To Quit – To Stop Trying, But If You Hang In There, Eventually, You Will – You Must Succeed.
Quitters Never Win And Winners Never Quit.
Persistence Is The Power To Hold On In Spite Of Everything - To Endure.
It’s The Ability To Face Defeat Repeatedly Without Giving Up—To Push On Even In The Face Of Great Difficulty Or Danger.
Persistence Means Taking Pains To Overcome Every Obstacle, To Do All That Is Necessary To Reach Your Goals. You Win, Because You Refuse To Become Discouraged By Your Defeats. Those Who Conquer Are Those Who Endure.
___________________________________________________
Step #3. Keep Intensifying Your Desire.
There Are Many “Firemen” In Life That Will Come Along And Try To Put Your Fire Of Desire Out. They Will Give You All Kinds Of Reasons Why Your Idea Or Goal Won’t Work And Tell You To Give It Up, Forget It, Or Tell You, “You Can’t Do It.”
You Have To Eat It, Sleep It, Walk It, Talk It, And Concentrate On It Until It Becomes A Red-Hot Flaming, Burning, And Obsessional Desire That Will Eventually Mow Down All Of The Opposition You Will Face Throughout Each Day.
If You Don’t, Your Sizzle Of Desire Will Fizzle Down To Nothing.
I’m Not Suggesting That You Stop Talking To Or Seeing Your Family And Friends – What I’m Saying Is To Keep Focused Day And Night, Seven Days A Week.
This Will Bring Into Play: The Law Of Harmonious Attraction.
Your Burning Desire Becomes A Magnet.
You Will Attract That Which You Need; The Ideas And Plans, The Money You Need, And The People You Need To Help You.
They Will Eventually Gravitate Toward Your Desire.
Very Few People Know How To Desire With Sufficient Intensity.
They Don’t Know What It Is To Feel And Manifest That: Intense – Eager – Longing – Craving – Insistent – Demanding - Ravenous Desire - Which Is Akin To The Persistence - Insistent – Ardent - Overwhelming - Desire - Of The Drowning Man - For A Breath Of Air -- Of The Shipwrecked Or Desert-Lost Man -- For A Drink Of Water; -- Of The Famished Man -- For Bread And Meat…. Intensity – (Deeply Felt) - Eager – (Enthusiastic Or Anxious) - Longing – (To Desire Urgently) – Aching, Craving, Dreaming, Hankering, Hungering, Itching, Lusting, Pining, Sighing, Thirsting, Yearning.
Ravenous – (Very Hungry, Famished, Starved, Starving) I Want It, I Need It, And I Can’t Live Without It (A Love, A Drug, A Drink, Money, Recognition – Some People Die For It – Some Kill For It)
___________________________________________________
Step #4. Have Bulldog Determination And Perseverance That Will Eventually Mow Down All Opposition.
Expect Lots Of Problems, Adversities And Discouragement Along The Way.
Go Around It – Go Over It – Go Under It – Or Dig A Hole Through It – But Don’t Ever Turn Back.
Make Your Definite Major Purpose The Dominating Thought In Your Mind. It Is A Known Fact That People Who Have Had Great Achievement – Formed The Habit Of Making An “Obsession” Of Their Definite Major Purpose.
Andrew Carnegie Said To Put All Of Your Eggs In One Basket And Then Watch The Basket.
Andrew Carnegie’s Definite Major Purpose, Which He Wrote Down At An Early Age And Kept In His Desk, Was To Earn As Much Money As He Can In Life And Then, In The End, To Set Up The Carnegie Foundation To Give It All Away To Worthy Causes.
Even After His Death Long Ago, The Carnegie Foundation Is Still Giving Away Millions Every Year To Help Mankind.
Persistence Is The Power To Hold On In Spite Of Everything - To Endure. ----- It’s The Ability To Face Defeat Repeatedly Without Giving Up ---- To Push On Even In The Face Of Great Difficulty Or Danger. Persistence Means Taking Pains To Overcome Every Obstacle, To Do All That Is Necessary To Reach Your Goals. You Win, Because You Refuse To Become Discouraged By Your Defeats.
Those Who Conquer Are Those Who Endure.
Determination
By James Allen
“You Will Be What You Will To Be;
Let Failure Find Its False Content
In That Poor Word, ‘Environment,’
But Spirit Scorns It, And Is Free.
“It Masters Time, It Conquers Space;
It Cows That Boastful Trickster, Chance,
And Bids The Tyrant Circumstance
Uncrown, And Fill A Servant’s Place.
“The Human Will, That Force Unseen,
The Offspring Of A Deathless Soul,
Can Hew A Way To Any Goal,
Though Walls Of Granite Intervene.
“Be Not Impatient In Delay,
But Wait As One Who Understands;
When Spirit Rises And Commands,
The Gods Are Ready To Obey.”
___________________________________________________
Step #5 Of The Carnegie Secret. You Have To Keep Backing Your Burning Desire - By Bombarding Your Mind Throughout Each Day With Powerful Affirmations Of Enduring Faith.
Example: “I Have Complete Faith In Infinite Intelligence And I Know That I Am Achieving My Goals”
“Whatever My Mind Can Conceive – And Believe – It Can Achieve”
“I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me”
In The Book, Think And Grow Rich, Read The Self-Confidence Formula In The Chapter On Faith - Every Day - Until It Sinks In – And As You Read Your Goal Every Day Practice Seeing Feeling And Believing Yourself Already In Possession Of Your Goal.
___________________________________________________
Step #6 Of The Carnegie Secret. In Think And Grow Rich - Follow To The Letter – Napoleon Hill’s Six Ways To Turn Desires Into Gold - The Method By Which Desire For Riches Can Be Transmuted Into Its Financial Equivalent, Consists Of Six Definite, Practical Steps:
First: Fix In Your Mind The Exact Amount Of Money You Desire.
It Is Not Sufficient Merely To Say, “I Want Plenty Of Money.” Be Definite As To The Amount. (There Is A Psychological Reason For Definiteness Which Will Be Described In A Subsequent Chapter.)
Second: Determine Exactly What You Intend To Give In Return For The Money You Desire.
There Is No Such Reality As “Something For Nothing.”
(From Think And Grow Rich)
I Bargained In Life For A Penny
And Life Would Pay No More
However I Begged At Evening
When Counted My Scanty Store
For Life Is A Just Employer
He Give You What You Ask
But Once You Have Set The Wages
Why – You Must Bair The Task
I Worked For A Menial’s Hire
Only To Learn Dismayed
That Any Wag I Would Have Asked
Life Would Gladly Paid
Third: Establish A Definite Date When You Intend To Possess The Money You Desire.
Fourth: Create A Definite Plan For Carrying Out Your Desire, And Begin At Once, Whether You Are Ready Or Not To Put This Plan Into Action.
Vietnam Museum of Ethnology
Fifth: Write Out A Clear, Concise Statement Of The Amount Of Money You Intend To Acquire, Name The Time Limit For Its Acquisition, State What You Intend To Give In Return For The Money, And Describe Clearly The Plan Through Which You Intend To Accumulate It.
Sixth: Read Your Written Statement Aloud, Twice Daily, Once Just Before Retiring At Night, And Once After Arising In The Morning.
As You Read – See And Feel And Believe Yourself Already In Possession Of The Money.
(Do All These Steps And Read Them Every Day Or Throw Away The Entire Formula.)
The End
In 1973, a book claiming that plants were sentient beings that feel emotions, prefer classical music to rock and roll, and can respond to the unspoken thoughts of humans hundreds of miles away landed on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. “The Secret Life of Plants,” by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, presented a beguiling mashup of legitimate plant science, quack experiments, and mystical nature worship that captured the public imagination at a time when New Age thinking was seeping into the mainstream.
The most memorable passages described the experiments of a former C.I.A. polygraph expert named Cleve Backster, who, in 1966, on a whim, hooked up a galvanometer to the leaf of a dracaena, a houseplant that he kept in his office. To his astonishment, Backster found that simply by imagining the dracaena being set on fire he could make it rouse the needle of the polygraph machine, registering a surge of electrical activity suggesting that the plant felt stress. “Could the plant have been reading his mind?” the authors ask. “Backster felt like running into the street and shouting to the world, ‘Plants can think!’ ”
Backster and his collaborators went on to hook up polygraph machines to dozens of plants, including lettuces, onions, oranges, and bananas. He claimed that plants reacted to the thoughts (good or ill) of humans in close proximity and, in the case of humans familiar to them, over a great distance. In one experiment designed to test plant memory, Backster found that a plant that had witnessed the murder (by stomping) of another plant could pick out the killer from a lineup of six suspects, registering a surge of electrical activity when the murderer was brought before it.
Backster’s plants also displayed a strong aversion to interspecies violence. Some had a stressful response when an egg was cracked in their presence, or when live shrimp were dropped into boiling water, an experiment that Backster wrote up for the International Journal of Parapsychology, in 1968.
In the ensuing years, several legitimate plant scientists tried to reproduce the “Backster effect” without success. Much of the science in “The Secret Life of Plants” has been discredited. But the book had made its mark on the culture. Americans began talking to their plants and playing Mozart for them, and no doubt many still do. This might seem harmless enough; there will probably always be a strain of romanticism running through our thinking about plants. (Luther Burbank and George Washington Carver both reputedly talked to, and listened to, the plants they did such brilliant work with.)
But in the view of many plant scientists “The Secret Life of Plants” has done lasting damage to their field. According to Daniel Chamovitz, an Israeli biologist who is the author of the recent book “What a Plant Knows,” Tompkins and Bird “stymied important research on plant behavior as scientists became wary of any studies that hinted at parallels between animal senses and plant senses.”
Others contend that “The Secret Life of Plants” led to “self-censorship” among researchers seeking to explore the “possible homologies between neurobiology and phytobiology”; that is, the possibility that plants are much more intelligent and much more like us than most people think—capable of cognition, communication, information processing, computation, learning, and memory.
The quotation about self-censorship appeared in a controversial 2006 article in Trends in Plant Science proposing a new field of inquiry that the authors, perhaps somewhat recklessly, elected to call “plant neurobiology.” The six authors—among them Eric D. Brenner, an American plant molecular biologist; Stefano Mancuso, an Italian plant physiologist; František Baluška, a Slovak cell biologist; and Elizabeth Van Volkenburgh, an American plant biologist—argued that the sophisticated behaviors observed in plants cannot at present be completely explained by familiar genetic and biochemical mechanisms.
Plants are able to sense and optimally respond to so many environmental variables—light, water, gravity, temperature, soil structure, nutrients, toxins, microbes, herbivores, chemical signals from other plants—that there may exist some brainlike information- processing system to integrate the data and coördinate a plant’s behavioral response. The authors pointed out that electrical and chemical signalling systems have been identified in plants which are homologous to those found in the nervous systems of animals. They also noted that neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate have been found in plants, though their role remains unclear.
Hence the need for plant neurobiology, a new field “aimed at understanding how plants perceive their circumstances and respond to environmental input in an integrated fashion.” The article argued that plants exhibit intelligence, defined by the authors as “an intrinsic ability to process information from both abiotic and biotic stimuli that allows optimal decisions about future activities in a given environment.” Shortly before the article’s publication, the Society for Plant Neurobiology held its first meeting, in Florence, in 2005. A new scientific journal, with the less tendentious title Plant Signaling & Behavior, appeared the following year.
Depending on whom you talk to in the plant sciences today, the field of plant neurobiology represents either a radical new paradigm in our understanding of life or a slide back down into the murky scientific waters last stirred up by “The Secret Life of Plants.” Its proponents believe that we must stop regarding plants as passive objects—the mute, immobile furniture of our world—and begin to treat them as protagonists in their own dramas, highly skilled in the ways of contending in nature.
They would challenge contemporary biology’s reductive focus on cells and genes and return our attention to the organism and its behavior in the environment. It is only human arrogance, and the fact that the lives of plants unfold in what amounts to a much slower dimension of time, that keep us from appreciating their intelligence and consequent success. Plants dominate every terrestrial environment, composing ninety-nine per cent of the biomass on earth. By comparison, humans and all the other animals are, in the words of one plant neurobiologist, “just traces.”
Many plant scientists have pushed back hard against the nascent field, beginning with a tart, dismissive letter in response to the Brenner manifesto, signed by thirty-six prominent plant scientists (Alpi et al., in the literature) and published in Trends in Plant Science. “We begin by stating simply that there is no evidence for structures such as neurons, synapses or a brain in plants,” the authors wrote. No such claim had actually been made—the manifesto had spoken only of “homologous” structures—but the use of the word “neurobiology” in the absence of actual neurons was apparently more than many scientists could bear.
“Yes, plants have both short- and long-term electrical signalling, and they use some neurotransmitter-like chemicals as chemical signals,” Lincoln Taiz, an emeritus professor of plant physiology at U.C. Santa Cruz and one of the signers of the Alpi letter, told me. “But the mechanisms are quite different from those of true nervous systems.” Taiz says that the writings of the plant neurobiologists suffer from “over-interpretation of data, teleology, anthropomorphizing, philosophizing, and wild speculations.”
He is confident that eventually the plant behaviors we can’t yet account for will be explained by the action of chemical or electrical pathways, without recourse to “animism.” Clifford Slayman, a professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale, who also signed the Alpi letter (and who helped discredit Tompkins and Bird), was even more blunt. “ ‘Plant intelligence’ is a foolish distraction, not a new paradigm,” he wrote in a recent e-mail.
Slayman has referred to the Alpi letter as “the last serious confrontation between the scientific community and the nuthouse on these issues.” Scientists seldom use such language when talking about their colleagues to a journalist, but this issue generates strong feelings, perhaps because it smudges the sharp line separating the animal kingdom from the plant kingdom.
The controversy is less about the remarkable discoveries of recent plant science than about how to interpret and name them: whether behaviors observed in plants which look very much like learning, memory, decision-making, and intelligence deserve to be called by those terms or whether those words should be reserved exclusively for creatures with brains.
No one I spoke to in the loose, interdisciplinary group of scientists working on plant intelligence claims that plants have telekinetic powers or feel emotions. Nor does anyone believe that we will locate a walnut-shaped organ somewhere in plants which processes sensory data and directs plant behavior.
More likely, in the scientists’ view, intelligence in plants resembles that exhibited in insect colonies, where it is thought to be an emergent property of a great many mindless individuals organized in a network. Much of the research on plant intelligence has been inspired by the new science of networks, distributed computing, and swarm behavior, which has demonstrated some of the ways in which remarkably brainy behavior can emerge in the absence of actual brains.
“If you are a plant, having a brain is not an advantage,” Stefano Mancuso points out. Mancuso is perhaps the field’s most impassioned spokesman for the plant point of view. A slight, bearded Calabrian in his late forties, he comes across more like a humanities professor than like a scientist. When I visited him earlier this year at the International Laboratory of Plant Neurobiology, at the University of Florence, he told me that his conviction that humans grossly underestimate plants has its origins in a science-fiction story he remembers reading as a teen-ager.
A race of aliens living in a radically sped-up dimension of time arrive on Earth and, unable to detect any movement in humans, come to the logical conclusion that we are “inert material” with which they may do as they please. The aliens proceed ruthlessly to exploit us. (Mancuso subsequently wrote to say that the story he recounted was actually a mangled recollection of an early “Star Trek” episode called “Wink of an Eye.”)
In Mancuso’s view, our “fetishization” of neurons, as well as our tendency to equate behavior with mobility, keeps us from appreciating what plants can do. For instance, since plants can’t run away and frequently get eaten, it serves them well not to have any irreplaceable organs. “A plant has a modular design, so it can lose up to ninety per cent of its body without being killed,” he said. “There’s nothing like that in the animal world. It creates a resilience.”
Indeed, many of the most impressive capabilities of plants can be traced to their unique existential predicament as beings rooted to the ground and therefore unable to pick up and move when they need something or when conditions turn unfavorable. The “sessile life style,” as plant biologists term it, calls for an extensive and nuanced understanding of one’s immediate environment, since the plant has to find everything it needs, and has to defend itself, while remaining fixed in place. A highly developed sensory apparatus is required to locate food and identify threats.
Plants have evolved between fifteen and twenty distinct senses, including analogues of our five: smell and taste (they sense and respond to chemicals in the air or on their bodies); sight (they react differently to various wavelengths of light as well as to shadow); touch (a vine or a root “knows” when it encounters a solid object); and, it has been discovered, sound.
In a recent experiment, Heidi Appel, a chemical ecologist at the University of Missouri, found that, when she played a recording of a caterpillar chomping a leaf for a plant that hadn’t been touched, the sound primed the plant’s genetic machinery to produce defense chemicals. Another experiment, done in Mancuso’s lab and not yet published, found that plant roots would seek out a buried pipe through which water was flowing even if the exterior of the pipe was dry, which suggested that plants somehow “hear” the sound of flowing water.
The sensory capabilities of plant roots fascinated Charles Darwin, who in his later years became increasingly passionate about plants; he and his son Francis performed scores of ingenious experiments on plants. Many involved the root, or radicle, of young plants, which the Darwins demonstrated could sense light, moisture, gravity, pressure, and several other environmental qualities, and then determine the optimal trajectory for the root’s growth.
The last sentence of Darwin’s 1880 book, “The Power of Movement in Plants,” has assumed scriptural authority for some plant neurobiologists: “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle . . . having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense organs and directing the several movements.”
Darwin was asking us to think of the plant as a kind of upside-down animal, with its main sensory organs and “brain” on the bottom, underground, and its sexual organs on top. “Why did we buy such huge furniture?”
Scientists have since found that the tips of plant roots, in addition to sensing gravity, moisture, light, pressure, and hardness, can also sense volume, nitrogen, phosphorus, salt, various toxins, microbes, and chemical signals from neighboring plants.
Roots about to encounter an impenetrable obstacle or a toxic substance change course before they make contact with it. Roots can tell whether nearby roots are self or other and, if other, kin or stranger. Normally, plants compete for root space with strangers, but, when researchers put four closely related Great Lakes sea-rocket plants (Cakile edentula) in the same pot, the plants restrained their usual competitive behaviors and shared resources.
Somehow, a plant gathers and integrates all this information about its environment, and then “decides”—some scientists deploy the quotation marks, indicating metaphor at work; others drop them—in precisely what direction to deploy its roots or its leaves.
Once the definition of “behavior” expands to include such things as a shift in the trajectory of a root, a reallocation of resources, or the emission of a powerful chemical, plants begin to look like much more active agents, responding to environmental cues in ways more subtle or adaptive than the word “instinct” would suggest.
“Plants perceive competitors and grow away from them,” Rick Karban, a plant ecologist at U.C. Davis, explained, when I asked him for an example of plant decision-making. “They are more leery of actual vegetation than they are of inanimate objects, and they respond to potential competitors before actually being shaded by them.” These are sophisticated behaviors, but, like most plant behaviors, to an animal they’re either invisible or really, really slow.
The sessile life style also helps account for plants’ extraordinary gift for biochemistry, which far exceeds that of animals and, arguably, of human chemists. (Many drugs, from aspirin to opiates, derive from compounds designed by plants.) Unable to run away, plants deploy a complex molecular vocabulary to signal distress, deter or poison enemies, and recruit animals to perform various services for them.
A recent study in Science found that the caffeine produced by many plants may function not only as a defense chemical, as had previously been thought, but in some cases as a psychoactive drug in their nectar. The caffeine encourages bees to remember a particular plant and return to it, making them more faithful and effective pollinators.
One of the most productive areas of plant research in recent years has been plant signalling. Since the early nineteen- eighties, it has been known that when a plant’s leaves are infected or chewed by insects they emit volatile chemicals that signal other leaves to mount a defense. Sometimes this warning signal contains information about the identity of the insect, gleaned from the taste of its saliva.
Depending on the plant and the attacker, the defense might involve altering the leaf’s flavor or texture, or producing toxins or other compounds that render the plant’s flesh less digestible to herbivores. When antelopes browse acacia trees, the leaves produce tannins that make them unappetizing and difficult to digest. When food is scarce and acacias are overbrowsed, it has been reported, the trees produce sufficient amounts of toxin to kill the animals.
Perhaps the cleverest instance of plant signalling involves two insect species, the first in the role of pest and the second as its exterminator. Several species, including corn and lima beans, emit a chemical distress call when attacked by caterpillars. Parasitic wasps some distance away lock in on that scent, follow it to the afflicted plant, and proceed to slowly destroy the caterpillars. Scientists call these insects “plant bodyguards.”
Plants speak in a chemical vocabulary we can’t directly perceive or comprehend. The first important discoveries in plant communication were made in the lab in the nineteen-eighties, by isolating plants and their chemical emissions in Plexiglas chambers, but Rick Karban, the U.C. Davis ecologist, and others have set themselves the messier task of studying how plants exchange chemical signals outdoors, in a natural setting.
Recently, I visited Karban’s study plot at the University of California’s Sagehen Creek Field Station, a few miles outside Truckee. On a sun-flooded hillside high in the Sierras, he introduced me to the ninety-nine sagebrush plants—low, slow-growing gray-green shrubs marked with plastic flags—that he and his colleagues have kept under close surveillance for more than a decade.
Karban, a fifty-nine-year-old former New Yorker, is slender, with a thatch of white curls barely contained by a floppy hat. He has shown that when sagebrush leaves are clipped in the spring—simulating an insect attack that triggers the release of volatile chemicals—both the clipped plant and its unclipped neighbors suffer significantly less insect damage over the season.
Karban believes that the plant is alerting all its leaves to the presence of a pest, but its neighbors pick up the signal, too, and gird themselves against attack. “We think the sagebrush are basically eavesdropping on one another,” Karban said. He found that the more closely related the plants the more likely they are to respond to the chemical signal, suggesting that plants may display a form of kin recognition. Helping out your relatives is a good way to improve the odds that your genes will survive.
The field work and data collection that go into making these discoveries are painstaking in the extreme. At the bottom of a meadow raked by the slanted light of late summer, two collaborators from Japan, Kaori Shiojiri and Satomi Ishizaki, worked in the shade of a small pine, squatting over branches of sagebrush that Karban had tagged and cut. Using clickers, they counted every trident-shaped leaf on every branch, and then counted and recorded every instance of leaf damage, one column for insect bites, another for disease.
At the top of the meadow, another collaborator, James Blande, a chemical ecologist from England, tied plastic bags around sagebrush stems and inflated the bags with filtered air. After waiting twenty minutes for the leaves to emit their volatiles, he pumped the air through a metal cylinder containing an absorbent material that collected the chemical emissions. At the lab, a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer would yield a list of the compounds collected—more than a hundred in all.
Blande offered to let me put my nose in one of the bags; the air was powerfully aromatic, with a scent closer to aftershave than to perfume. Gazing across the meadow of sagebrush, I found it difficult to imagine the invisible chemical chatter, including the calls of distress, going on all around—or that these motionless plants were engaged in any kind of “behavior” at all.
Research on plant communication may someday benefit farmers and their crops. Plant-distress chemicals could be used to prime plant defenses, reducing the need for pesticides. Jack Schultz, a chemical ecologist at the University of Missouri, who did some of the pioneering work on plant signalling in the early nineteen-eighties, is helping to develop a mechanical “nose” that, attached to a tractor and driven through a field, could help farmers identify plants under insect attack, allowing them to spray pesticides only when and where they are needed.
“This is where we practice our warning shots.” Karban told me that, in the nineteen-eighties, people working on plant communication faced some of the same outrage that scientists working on plant intelligence (a term he cautiously accepts) do today.
“This stuff has been enormously contentious,” he says, referring to the early days of research into plant communication, work that is now generally accepted. “It took me years to get some of these papers published. People would literally be screaming at one another at scientific meetings.” He added, “Plant scientists in general are incredibly conservative. We all think we want to hear novel ideas, but we don’t, not really.”
I first met Karban at a scientific meeting in Vancouver last July, when he presented a paper titled “Plant Communication and Kin Recognition in Sagebrush.” The meeting would have been the sixth gathering of the Society for Plant Neurobiology, if not for the fact that, under pressure from certain quarters of the scientific establishment, the group’s name had been changed four years earlier to the less provocative Society for Plant Signaling and Behavior.
The plant biologist Elizabeth Van Volkenburgh, of the University of Washington, who was one of the founders of the society, told me that the name had been changed after a lively internal debate; she felt that jettisoning “neurobiology” was probably for the best. “I was told by someone at the National Science Foundation that the N.S.F. would never fund anything with the words ‘plant neurobiology’ in it.
He said, and I quote, ‘ “Neuro” belongs to animals.’ ” (An N.S.F. spokesperson said that, while the society is not eligible for funding by the foundation’s neurobiology program, “the N.S.F. does not have a boycott of any sort against the society.”) Two of the society’s co-founders, Stefano Mancuso and František Baluška, argued strenuously against the name change, and continue to use the term “plant neurobiology” in their own work and in the names of their labs.
The meeting consisted of three days of PowerPoint presentations delivered in a large, modern lecture hall at the University of British Columbia before a hundred or so scientists. Most of the papers were highly technical presentations on plant signalling—the kind of incremental science that takes place comfortably within the confines of an established scientific paradigm, which plant signalling has become. But a handful of speakers presented work very much within the new paradigm of plant intelligence, and they elicited strong reactions.
The most controversial presentation was “Animal-Like Learning in Mimosa Pudica,” an unpublished paper by Monica Gagliano, a thirty-seven-year-old animal ecologist at the University of Western Australia who was working in Mancuso’s lab in Florence. Gagliano, who is tall, with long brown hair parted in the middle, based her experiment on a set of protocols commonly used to test learning in animals.
She focussed on an elementary type of learning called “habituation,” in which an experimental subject is taught to ignore an irrelevant stimulus. “Habituation enables an organism to focus on the important information, while filtering out the rubbish,” Gagliano explained to the audience of plant scientists. How long does it take the animal to recognize that a stimulus is “rubbish,” and then how long will it remember what it has learned? Gagliano’s experimental question was bracing: Could the same thing be done with a plant?
Mimosa pudica, also called the “sensitive plant,” is that rare plant species with a behavior so speedy and visible that animals can observe it; the Venus flytrap is another. When the fernlike leaves of the mimosa are touched, they instantly fold up, presumably to frighten insects. The mimosa also collapses its leaves when the plant is dropped or jostled.
Gagliano potted fifty-six mimosa plants and rigged a system to drop them from a height of fifteen centimetres every five seconds. Each “training session” involved sixty drops. She reported that some of the mimosas started to reopen their leaves after just four, five, or six drops, as if they had concluded that the stimulus could be safely ignored. “By the end, they were completely open,” Gagliano said to the audience. “They couldn’t care less anymore.”
Was it just fatigue? Apparently not: when the plants were shaken, they again closed up. “ ‘Oh, this is something new,’ ” Gagliano said, imagining these events from the plants’ point of view. “You see, you want to be attuned to something new coming in. Then we went back to the drops, and they didn’t respond.” Gagliano reported that she retested her plants after a week and found that they continued to disregard the drop stimulus, indicating that they “remembered” what they had learned.
Even after twenty-eight days, the lesson had not been forgotten. She reminded her colleagues that, in similar experiments with bees, the insects forgot what they had learned after just forty-eight hours. Gagliano concluded by suggesting that “brains and neurons are a sophisticated solution but not a necessary requirement for learning,” and that there is “some unifying mechanism across living systems that can process information and learn.”
A lively exchange followed. Someone objected that dropping a plant was not a relevant trigger, since that doesn’t happen in nature. Gagliano pointed out that electric shock, an equally artificial trigger, is often used in animal-learning experiments. Another scientist suggested that perhaps her plants were not habituated, just tuckered out. She argued that twenty-eight days would be plenty of time to rebuild their energy reserves.
On my way out of the lecture hall, I bumped into Fred Sack, a prominent botanist at the University of British Columbia. I asked him what he thought of Gagliano’s presentation. “Bullshit,” he replied. He explained that the word “learning” implied a brain and should be reserved for animals: “Animals can exhibit learning, but plants evolve adaptations.” He was making a distinction between behavioral changes that occur within the lifetime of an organism and those which arise across generations. At lunch, I sat with a Russian scientist, who was equally dismissive. “It’s not learning,” he said. “So there’s nothing to discuss.”
Later that afternoon, Gagliano seemed both stung by some of the reactions to her presentation and defiant. Adaptation is far too slow a process to explain the behavior she had observed, she told me. “How can they be adapted to something they have never experienced in their real world?” She noted that some of her plants learned faster than others, evidence that “this is not an innate or programmed response.”
Many of the scientists in her audience were just getting used to the ideas of plant “behavior” and “memory” (terms that even Fred Sack said he was willing to accept); using words like “learning” and “intelligence” in plants struck them, in Sack’s words, as “inappropriate” and “just weird.” When I described the experiment to Lincoln Taiz, he suggested the words “habituation” or “desensitization” would be more appropriate than “learning.”
Gagliano said that her mimosa paper had been rejected by ten journals: “None of the reviewers had problems with the data.” Instead, they balked at the language she used to describe the data. But she didn’t want to change it. “Unless we use the same language to describe the same behavior”—exhibited by plants and animals—“we can’t compare it,” she said.
Rick Karban consoled Gagliano after her talk. “I went through the same thing, just getting totally hammered,” he told her. “But you’re doing good work. The system is just not ready.” When I asked him what he thought of Gagliano’s paper, he said, “I don’t know if she’s got everything nailed down, but it’s a very cool idea that deserves to get out there and be discussed. I hope she doesn’t get discouraged.”
Scientists are often uncomfortable talking about the role of metaphor and imagination in their work, yet scientific progress often depends on both. “Metaphors help stimulate the investigative imagination of good scientists,” the British plant scientist Anthony Trewavas wrote in a spirited response to the Alpi letter denouncing plant neurobiology.
“Plant neurobiology” is obviously a metaphor—plants don’t possess the type of excitable, communicative cells we call neurons. Yet the introduction of the term has raised a series of questions and inspired a set of experiments that promise to deepen our understanding not only of plants but potentially also of brains. If there are other ways of processing information, other kinds of cells and cell networks that can somehow give rise to intelligent behavior, then we may be more inclined to ask, with Mancuso, “What’s so special about neurons?”
Mancuso is the poet-philosopher of the movement, determined to win for plants the recognition they deserve and, perhaps, bring humans down a peg in the process. His somewhat grandly named International Laboratory of Plant Neurobiology, a few miles outside Florence, occupies a modest suite of labs and offices in a low-slung modern building. Here a handful of collaborators and graduate students work on the experiments Mancuso devises to test the intelligence of plants.
Giving a tour of the labs, he showed me maize plants, grown under lights, that were being taught to ignore shadows; a poplar sapling hooked up to a galvanometer to measure its response to air pollution; and a chamber in which a PTR-TOF machine—an advanced kind of mass spectrometer—continuously read all the volatiles emitted by a succession of plants, from poplars and tobacco plants to peppers and olive trees.
“We are making a dictionary of each species’ entire chemical vocabulary,” he explained. He estimates that a plant has three thousand chemicals in its vocabulary, while, he said with a smile, “the average student has only seven hundred words.”
Mancuso is fiercely devoted to plants—a scientist needs to “love” his subject in order to do it justice, he says. He is also gentle and unassuming, even when what he is saying is outrageous. In the corner of his office sits a forlorn Ficus benjamina, or weeping fig, and on the walls are photographs of Mancuso in an astronaut’s jumpsuit floating in the cabin of a zero- gravity aircraft; he has collaborated with the European Space Agency, which has supported his research on plant behavior in micro- and hyper-gravity.
(One of his experiments was carried on board the last flight of the space shuttle Endeavor, in May of 2011.) A decade ago, Mancuso persuaded a Florentine bank foundation to underwrite much of his research and help launch the Society for Plant Neurobiology; his lab also receives grants from the European Union.
Early in our conversation, I asked Mancuso for his definition of “intelligence.” Spending so much time with the plant neurobiologists, I could feel my grasp on the word getting less sure. It turns out that I am not alone: philosophers and psychologists have been arguing over the definition of intelligence for at least a century, and whatever consensus there may once have been has been rapidly slipping away.
Most definitions of intelligence fall into one of two categories. The first is worded so that intelligence requires a brain; the definition refers to intrinsic mental qualities such as reason, judgment, and abstract thought. The second category, less brain-bound and metaphysical, stresses behavior, defining intelligence as the ability to respond in optimal ways to the challenges presented by one’s environment and circumstances. Not surprisingly, the plant neurobiologists jump into this second camp.
“I define it very simply,” Mancuso said. “Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.” In place of a brain, “what I am looking for is a distributed sort of intelligence, as we see in the swarming of birds.” In a flock, each bird has only to follow a few simple rules, such as maintaining a prescribed distance from its neighbor, yet the collective effect of a great many birds executing a simple algorithm is a complex and supremely well-coördinated behavior.
Mancuso’s hypothesis is that something similar is at work in plants, with their thousands of root tips playing the role of the individual birds—gathering and assessing data from the environment and responding in local but coördinated ways that benefit the entire organism.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant
A discussion came up recently, in H.sie’s Realistic U-boat sticky thread, about:
i) how long the oxygen in a U-boat lasted before it became necessary to add compressed air;
ii) how long the compressed air supply lasted before it became all used up.
There appears to be no definitive answer to these questions available, either on the Internet, or in standard books on the U -boat war, or even in books about U-boat manufacture. Since the answer is of considerable general interest, including to naval historians, I asked the same questions to an old U- boatman that I knew. The U-boatman was a real sailor in the U-boat arm in the Second World War, and is now about 90 years old. He carried out one war patrol as a midshipman on the ‘milk-cow’ U 461, and subsequently was an officer on a VIIC U-boat. I have given his reply below, in the original German:
The writer makes the excellent point that it is impossible to say how long the compressed air flasks would last to provide for the crew, since they were used also to blow tanks to surface the U-boat.
However, since my German is not fluent, and there are many users of SubSim who are fluent in both German and English, and since the naval officer’s response about air supply in a U-boat is probably the only personal experience that has ever been- / ever will be- reported, I should like to ask if any native German speaker can provide an exact translation into English of the German. Be very careful about it! Your reply may be used in reference sources, such as Wikipedia.
My translation:
“In order to answer your questions correctly, I have looked through my literature-at-hand about U-boats. Nowhere have I found an answer to your questions. Therefore, I can report to you only from my own experience.
“How long a U-boat could travel underwater depended very much on the consumption of oxygen. Only those crew-members were at their stations who were necessary, and the remainder lay in their bunks. The oxygen lasted longer, than if the whole crew was in action. Even so, oxygen was already added after a few hours, or only after about 12 hours. [I think this last sentence is an idiom, and I cannot translate it exactly.]
“The compressed-air flasks had 30 atmospheres, so that we could surface theoretically from 300 meters. The boats were built for 100 gravities with triple security. However, no commander would dive voluntarily deeper than 200 meters.
“How long we could remain submerged, depended less on the oxygen-supply than on the batteries. Even with the ‘thriftiest’ trip, these lasted usually only 18-20 hours, then they were empty and we had to surface to reload the batteries.
“Whether the compressed-air supply was sufficient, depended on how often the U-boat dived. The compressed air was required for blowing [water out of the ballast tanks], and every blowing reduced the compressed air supply. For all these reasons, the 2nd World War U-boat was actually only a submersible, not a submarine. Only the Type XXI and XXIII, which at first could be introduced only singly, were real submarines.
“I hope that I have helped you with these statements.”
Yes there are certain points in the translation that need fine tuning IMO
Here is how I understand some of the relevant sentences should be in english, with some additional comments in brackets to better illustrate the meanings:
“How long a U-boat could travel underwater depended very much on the crew's oxygen consumption. If (Or "when") only the (minimum) necessary crew-members were at their stations (The minimum stations that had to be manned necessarily for the uboat to be under control), and the remainder lay in their bunks, then the oxygen lasted longer, than if the whole crew was in action. Depending on that, oxygen was already added after a few hours, or only after about 12 hours
It is my understanding that with full crew in normal activities, pure oxygen had to be added after only a few hours, and at barebones crew situation, only after 12 hours.
Sadly it is not clarified if normal compressed air was added first for breathing, before pure oxygen, but it seems to imply that it was not used for that purpose. Probably because normal air would add oxygen and dillute the proportion of CO2, but not restoring the correct and ordinary proportion of oxygen in the air, which can only be done both by adding Oxygen and by absorbing CO2 with chemicals.
We know however as you already reasoned. that UBoats could cross the Bay of Biscay submerged for long periods, and I see it pointless to asume that BDU would order them to do so if the Oxigen supply was exhausted in little time. So I guess that the key is probably in that the compressed oxygen reserve in the UBoat was larger than what we thought, maybe because of number of bottles carried or most probably because of higher compression than what we considered.
The compressor in each boat, would replenish the lost or used compressed air. Right? And it worked only along with the Diesel. So what was it's refill ratio?
Really interesting post by the real Uboat fella but it is off slightly.He is mixing up compressed air with compressed oxygen.Stiebler,I think what you guys have accomplished is perfect now that you can choose what you want the air supply to be like. Thanks for this feedback, and especially to Hitman for improvement/clarification of my translation.
I've mentioned in H.sie's sticky thread, that my U-boat friend is an intelligent man, who would certainly have volunteered information about use of compressed oxygen, if he knew of it (or, perhaps, if he remembered it).
I wrote again to my friendly and helpful U-boat officer (let us name him: Guenther Paas), asking specifically about the use of compressed oxygen in U-boats. Again, for reference purposes in future encylopaedias, I attach his reply in its original German, and underneath my very literal translation.
My translation is this: "It is correct that on board the submarines, besides the compressed air-bottles, had also bottles with pure oxygen. Both bottle-types had a pressure of 20 atmospheres = Bar. The compressed air-bottles were used for blowing when surfacing.
The bottles with pure oxygen were required if the boat was an extended time under water and the oxygen in the boat came to an end. As I have already reported to you, the air spent through the breath of the crewmembers is absorbed through potash- cartridges, that were positioned on the inner hull.
The potash-cartridges keep back the carbon-dioxide and the oxygen-poor air comes back into the inside of the boat. If the oxygen in the air became progressively less, through over-long underwater -patrol and the crewmembers started to "japsen" and to snatch after air, oxygen was released from the oxygen-bottles and they could breathe normally again.
"Despite queries, at Horst Bredow [owner of the well known U-boat Archive] and old U-boat sailors, no one could tell me how many compressed air-bottles and how many oxygen-bottles the boats had on board. Therefore I do not know also for how long the oxygen-supplies were enough. From my own experience I can say, that the batteries became empty with extended underwater- patrol and we had to surface. That the oxygen from the bottles came to an end, I have not experienced."
In summary, no one now knows, but exhaustion of the U-boat batteries was the determining factor in when to surface.
Great topic! May I ask a question?
Bateries were a vital resource.
Why in SH3 we can recharge them in 6 hours
while at SH5 it takes almost 12h?
I will not mention SH4, in wich you deplete a
XXI´ batteries cruising at 2 Knt, in a smaller time than
a type IIa in SH3 cruisng at the same speed...
"Despite queries, at Horst Bredow [owner of the well known U-boat Archive] and old U-boat sailors, no one could tell me how many compressed air-bottles and how many oxygen-bottles the boats had on board. Therefore I do not know also for how long the oxygen-supplies were enough. From my own experience I can say, that the batteries became empty with extended underwater- patrol and we had to surface. That the oxygen from the bottles came to an end, I have not experienced."
Again very interesting and authentic reply :up: To better put it into its proper historical frame, can we know in which period Mr. Paas served?
I suspect that early to mid war crews didn't suffer the limitations that late war crews suffered when it comes to endurance underwater. The logic says that if Mr. Paas is still alive, he will probably have served in late war, but knowing it can help us clarify better the whole thing. :hmmm:
When did Lt Paas serve? Good question. He was a midshipman aboard U-tanker U 461 in 1942 (one full war patrol to mid-Atlantic), then to officer training school, then appointed to a new VIIC U-boat in 1944. He participated in the usual six-month sea-training with the boat, including the tactical exercises against training convoys (and presumably including schnorchel training - I'm not sure about that), then was removed from the U-boat with serious illness. He was still in hospital at the end of the war, in 1945.
Clearly, Lt Paas would have received much experience with the daily details of running an attack U-boat during his intensive training period on his VIIC.
@U-Falke:
I do not know why the devs chose different recharging times for batteries in their different U-boat simulations. Possibly to make game-play more interesting for the casual player?
@Everyone:
Could we please keep this thread on-topic, for the benefit of any future researcher trying to discover authentic eye-witness information about U-boats? That is why I started this thread. Many thanks.
Do you know how long it took until they surfaced because of the batteries and at what speed they usually travelled submerged? From what I gathered elsewhere battery lifetimes varied a lot depending on age, speed (obviously),...
In addition, I don't think that they surfaced when the batteries were already almost empty. I guess they always wanted to keep some reserves in order to have enough power to escape in case of being attacked.
I can answer your questions immediately, with information previously obtained from Guenther Paas for a study that I did at his request on the sinking of U 461. (He was not aboard U 461 when it was sunk.) The original information about batteries came from Paas' chief engineer on the VIIC boat.
U-boat batteries could be charged in two ways:
1. Trickle (slow) charge. This was only practical at base, but gave a higher capacity to the battery when fully charged.
2. Fast charge by gearing from the diesel engines. This was used at sea. Fully charged was at lower capapcity (lower amps available) than from the slow charge.
U-boat commanders were always nervous about the state of their batteries, and surfaced to re-charge whenever safe to do so. However, it was not considered 'safe' in sea areas that were regularly patrolled by Allied aircraft, when the boats would surface only at night.
At certain times of the war, and particularly in the Bay of Biscay at two different times in mid 1943, orders were given by BdU explicity to remain submerged at all times, except to surface at night for the minimum time needed to recharge batteries.
As you have said, time for recharge depended on the depletion of their batteries and their state of repair. U-boats would proceed underwater for normal passage at 2 kts (sometimes a little slower, depending on battery capacity), when the batteries would last more than 24 hours. However, no sane commander would wish to exhaust the batteries, so all would try to recharge at least once per day.
Relevant to this topic, U 461 was sunk by air attack on the surface in the Bay of Biscay when its sister tanker U 462 was forced to surface prematurely during their underwater cruise as a result of defective batteries. (At least, that is one story, although it is more probable that both tankers and their U-escort actually surfaced in compliance with current standing orders: at that time to recharge batteries on the surface and to defend against air attacks with combined flak guns. But U 462 had been complaining of defective batteries of 2-3 months.)
"It is correct that on board the submarines, besides the compressed air-bottles, had also bottles with pure oxygen. Both bottle-types had a pressure of 20 atmospheres = Bar. The compressed air-bottles were used for blowing when surfacing. The bottles with pure oxygen were required if the boat was an extended time under water and the oxygen in the boat came to an end.
:hmmm: 20 atms of pressure air means a submarine can't blow it's ballast tanks in depths over 200m. Doing so results a backflow, as sea water rushes into air tank. One-way valve can prevent it but also air won't be transfered to ballast tank either.
:hmmm:Gas welding kit which uses mixture of acetylene/oxygen has oxygen pressure of 200 atms and it was around during ww2.
:hmmm: 20 atms of pressure air means a submarine can't blow it's ballast tanks in depths over 200m...Maybe a typo.
In his first post Stiebler wrote about 30 atm...
I've read again the first reply of Guenther Paas. He mentions that in most cases the batteries lasted only 18-20 hours with 'sparsamste Fahrt' (most economical speed?) and that at least after 12 hours oxygen/air had to be added (it's not clear whether air or oxygen is meant). I think, the current numbers in h.sie's mod are not too far off from this. Maybe the remaining difference is that at first compressed air was added not oxygen and that in many cases the Chief Engineer waited until the crew gasped for air (as G. Paas mentions in his second reply) :06:
The numbers in h.sie's mod are based on the values given in the original VIIC handbook. There it's mentioned that the oxygen level should not drop below 17.5%. However, I can imagine that back then many commanders/chief engineers didn't care much about the number, but waited until the crew really suffered.
Has anyone access to patrol logs from the Norway campaign? I've read that during this campaign some crews had problems with their oxygen supply.
@Oblt Strand, SSB:
Lt Paas says in his two different accounts:
30 atmospheres for compressed air.
20 atmospheres for compressed oxygen.
@LGN1:
It would appear from Paas' first account that his idea of 'sparsamste Fahrt' was faster than 2kts; probably 3 kts. The concept of 'most economical speed' (to conserve power/fuel) is meaningless for batteries, since their nature ensures that 'the slower the speed, the much-longer they last'. If any vehicle can travel 100 miles at 10 km/hr on electric batteries, it will travel much further than 200 miles at 5 km/hr. That is the nature of battery discharge (assuming lead-acid batteries, as used in U-boats). Therefore sparsamste Fahrt must refer to 'most economical speed considering a) rate of progress; b) time before recharging'.
I forgot to mention battery charging times in my previous post.
Assuming batteries completely depleted:
Slow recharging at base took up to 24 hours.
Fast recharging at sea took 6-8 hours.
(Source: engineer on Paas's VIIC U-boat)
It would have taken U 462 five hours to recharge completely depleted batteries at 10 kts. Faster speeds would have caused faster recharging, but would also cause the batteries to over-heat, and this could not be attempted. (Source: F. Schmidt, maschinist, U 462)
Because of this long recharging time for a depleted battery, it was the custom to take every opportunity to recharge batteries when safe, as previously stated.
Schnorchel boats were a special case. Because they rarely returned to the surface, they had to schnorchel to recharge batteries and to refresh the air. War diaries show that normal practice was a 'short schnorchel' to refresh air, and a 'long schnorchel' to recharge batteries, both usually at night.
When you refer to the Norwegian campaign, when U-boats ran short on air, do you mean the campaign of 1940, or the schnorchel campaign of late 1944-1945 of boats based in Norway?
@Oblt Strand, SSB:
Lt Paas says in his two different accounts:
30 atmospheres for compressed air.
20 atmospheres for compressed oxygen...
..."It is correct that on board the submarines, besides the compressed air-bottles, had also bottles with pure oxygen. Both bottle-types had a pressure of 20 atmospheres = Bar..." :hmmm:
Yes, you are correct, he seems to have changed his mind a little from the first communication.
After a short look in my books, there seems to be a bit of confusion here...
I am quite sure that the high pressure air system actually had 205 atü = 205 bar.
For the oxygen bottles I found 150 atü (for Type XXI).
Data for Type IXC:
- High pressure air: 5840 l in 16 bottles @205 atü
- High pressure compressors: 1x 8,5 l/min @205 atü Diesel, 1x 14 l/min @205 atü electric
- Oxygen: 650 l in 13 bottles
Data for Type XXI:
- High pressure air: 7660 l in 23 bottles @205 atü
- High pressure compressors: 2x 10 l/min @200 atü Diesel, 1x 16 l/min @200 atü electric
- Oxygen: 1500 l in 30 bottles @150 atü
(U-2513, U-3008: 1200 l in 24 bottles, U-2540: 1150 l in 23 bottles)
- Some more oxygen in chemically bound form ("IG-Briketts")
Some general data for Type XXI (probably partly also valid for other types):
- Soda lime cardridges were used if CO2-level went above 1,5% (after about 11 hours if crew was not very active)
- Enough soda lime for about 19-23 days was on board)
- Oxygen was added if oxygen level dropped to 17% (after about 27 hours if crew was not very active)
- Oxygen supplies lasted for about 150 hours / 6 days
EDIT: Verification:
Type IX high pressure system: http://www.uboatarchive.net/DesignStudiesTypeIXC-S49.htm
Type IX CO2 removal / oxygen system: http://www.uboatarchive.net/DesignStudiesTypeIXC-S38.htm
Type XXI high pressure system: http://www.uboatarchive.net/DesignStudiesTypeXXI-S49.htm
Type XXI CO2 removal / oxygen system: http://www.uboatarchive.net/DesignStudiesTypeXXI-S38.htm
That is extremely valuable information, JayDee, and the U-boatArchive.net references are clearly to near-contemporary (1946) American reports taken from seized German documents.
This information must be much more accurate than that remembered by survivors after the passage of 60 years.
Eg, for the Type IX boats, "For oxygen renewal a total of 13 flasks, each containing 50 liters of oxygen under 160 atmospheres (2275 p.s.i.) pressure, are installed. 44 sets of emergency breathing apparatus are carried on board."
Could you please tell me the titles of your books? I'm always looking for good books about u-boats (operations and technical data) and I'm wondering whether you can recommend some books I don't know yet. Thanks!
PS: The VIIC handbook mentions 10 oxygen bottles with 50ltr and 150atü. Unfortunately, this data does not help us much because we don't know accurately the volume of the boats and the oxygen consumption of the crew :-?
@Stiebler: I meant the 1940 Norway campaign (Weserübung).
The next ones are more a reference if you want to built a model of a certain uboat, lots of pictures, some plans, some technical data, but not a lot of text. Not available in English IIRC. These are the ones I have:
The VIIC handbook mentions 10 oxygen bottles with 50ltr and 150atü. Unfortunately, this data does not help us much because we don't know accurately the volume of the boats and the oxygen consumption of the crew :-?
Sorry, I can only help with some vague volumes...
Pressure hull of Type IXC: 748,35 m³ (- 72,94 m³ of internal fuel / oil / trim water tanks IF these are full, - unknown volume of internal installations: "x")
Same data for IXC/40: 761,50 m³ (- 76,37 m³ - "x")
For VIIC: 674 m³ (- (97,73 m³ + volume of Tauchzelle 3, unknown to me) - "x")
For XXI: 1161 m³, or 898 m³ with all internal installations. Sadly, I don't know if these 263 m³ or about 23% include any (full) tanks, or if it is just the internal installations, machinery etc. (and therefore the "x" in the calculations above).
Could we please keep this thread on-topic, for the benefit of any future researcher trying to discover authentic eye-witness information about U-boats? That is why I started this thread. Many thanks.
I'm sorry, but it is a categorical imperative to keep it afloat (almost kantian meaning).
Look at this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljr_t22oOmM
They talk about high pressure and low pressure system. High pressure was used in big depth, low pressure system was used in small depths, but both systems was suplied from the same high pressure tanks, low pressure was created from high pressure by pressure dividing valve.
Yes, of course this movie is about US submarines, but in german it was principialy done in the same way. Maybe values of used pressure was a bit different.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/ThreadNecromancy_zpsd74b39b6.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/ThreadNecromancy_zpsd74b39b6.jpg.html)
Steve, I think Ligne Maginot was intentionally necroposting to resurrect this thread. It's a very interesting and useful thread. I never would have searched for it, because I didn't know that such information existed. But I was glad to see it and learn from it. Information like this, especially the first-person recollection, is precious and easily lost. I realize SubSim has to pay for bandwidth, but IMO, this was a worthwhile use. To stand behind my words, I just kicked in another sawbuck. Maybe Steve in his infinite wisdom already knew this information, but I don't. Nor the new members. If there is a problem, for my next subscription, I will pay double.
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/archive/index.php/t-185993.html
Nazi Germany’s military was arguably the most technological advanced fighting force in the world during WW2, however its meal system was surprisingly old fashion.
As the Germans advanced (or retreated) there was a long line of support vehicles/personal that made up the rear echelon, this included field kitchens. Nicknamed Gulaschkanone (Goulash Cannon) by the Germans because of its chimney, they were essentially huge wood/coal feed stoves & vats (usually horse-drawn). These mobile kitchens made almost everything a soldier would have in his daily diet: ( stew, soup, bread, coffee, etc ). The kitchens would be situated behind or near the frontline, units would then rotate through for their meals, if that wasn't possible runners would carry the meals in insulated containers to their units.
The OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht)(German High Command) prescribed each meal according to the soldier’s branch, assignment, & theater of operations, so each meal varied. Also German troops were encouraged to “ live off the land”, thus they took what they needed from the civilian population, again contributing to the varied meals. However here’s a generalized menu a soldier on the front could expect:
Breakfast:
Bread with some type of spread ( animal fat, jam, honey, etc)
Preserved meat ( hard sausage, canned meat, meat paste, etc )
Ersatz (substitute) coffee, usually consisted of acorns, almonds, chicory, grain etc or anything similar that could be grounded up. Officers had greater access to real caffeinated coffee, but it was still a rare luxury.
Lunch:
Was the largest meal of the day & the only hot meal soldiers received from the field kitchen.
Stew or soup consisting of some type of fresh vegetable ( potatoes, peas, beans, etc ) & fresh protein ( beef, pork, fish, etc). If no fresh vegetables were available pickled, canned, or scraps were utilized. If no protein was available animal fat, bone broth or canned meat was added as a substitute. Bread & coffee/coffee substitute would also accompany the meal when available.
Here are some very detailed recipes: WWII German Ration Recipes
Dinner:
Mainly consisted of leftovers from the day’s past meals.
Bread with cheese, spread, & maybe some type of preserved meat if available( sausage, meat paste etc ).
Some type of sweets: ( condensed milk, powdered pudding, etc ). And of course coffee or ersatz coffee.
German troops also received a daily cigarette ration (6–7 cigarettes) and a small amount of alcohol when available ( beer, wine, schnapps, etc). Additionally fresh fruits & vegetables were given out when available. Overall the diet of a German soldier is pretty straightforward: bread, stew, coffee. However remember a soldier could take what he needed from the civilian population ( eggs, milk, fruit, etc ); soldiers could also purchase products & goods from vendors thus greatly varying their diet.
I was going to finish off here since this is gettting pretty long, but what the heck read on if you’re still interested.
In addition to the meals field kitchens prepared the Wehrmacht also had something called “iron rations”, which came in 2 varieties. The first is called eiserne Portionen ( “Full” Iron Ration ), it was carried with the field kitchen wagons/vehicles & was meant to be used for emergencies only. If a field kitchen couldn’t receive or forage for supplies to prepare the day’s meals they would bust out their iron rations. Consisted of:
Canned meat ( beef, pork, chicken, turkey, etc )
Hard bread or crackers
Erbswurst ( pea soup )
Coffee or coffee substitute
Sugar & salt
The second is the halb-eiserne Portion (Half Iron Ration). It was carried with soldiers in their packs & was meant to be consumed if they couldn’t receive meals from a field kitchen. Consisted of only the canned meat & crackers/hard bread. Lastly I ll talk about the Nahkampfpäckchen and the Großkampfpäckchen ( no idea what the translation is, sorry ). The Germans were very impressed by the American pre-packaged “K” rations, one lightweight box provided one varied meal ( unlike their own iron ration which was only meat & crackers ), thus the Nahkampfpäckchen and Großkampfpäckchen were born.
The contents varied because of war time shortages & its late introduction, but it usually consisted of:
Biscuits
Fruit bars
Candy ( hard candy, chocolate, etc )
Cigarettes
These packages were very popular with the troops because of the stimulants ( sugar & nicotine ), but also because it had much more variety compared to canned meat & crackers.
British Army in 1944 - several options, Chicken, Tuna, Ham or Spam
British WW II 24-Hour Rations – Spam
These rations were issued to British troops beginning in 1944, just before D-Day. This version contains a tinned pork product much like Spam, one of the seven original versions of the ration. Here is a list of the items you will receive.
1 tin of a Spam-like product,
1 pack of "Biscuits, Plain" (Hard Bread/Crackers),
1 block "Chocolate, Vitamin Fortified",
1 sachet of "Boiled Sweets",
2 Tea Blocks (late war Tea-Milk-Sugar Combo),
1 pack of "Biscuit, Sweet",
1 pack of plain matches,
1 pack of Latrine Paper,
1 Pack of Oatmeal, Instant,
2 packets of Meat Broth,
2 packs of Chewing Gum,
1 pack of Sugar Tablets,
1 Instruction and Menu Sheet
Australian Army WW2
1 Tin of Corned Beef (better known as 'Bully Beef' to friend and foe alike).
2 Packs of Arnott's Plain Biscuits (These are military biscuits and not fancies (3 ounces each)
1 Tin of Tuna
3 packs of WEET BIX,
1 Roll of Steam Rollers Mints
1 pack of Indian "Sun" waterproof matches
German Army - 1944
Bread, soup, margarine/butter, Schoko-Kola, 1 or 2 cans of Iron Ration meat (200gm Spam, horsemeat or pork), canned vegetables, salt, ersatz coffee
The short version is that it depended greatly on which nation you are talking about and under what conditions. U.S. troops ate very well when in a rear area, where there was refrigeration. This was the “A” ration, which included all the good things Americans liked to eat at the time: Fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, bread, etc.
When deployed for combat, if field kitchens could be set up, they ate “B” rations, which included canned meat, fruit, and vegetables. It was nutritious but monotonous.
In front-line conditions, American troops lived on “C” and “K” rations. “C” rations kept body and soul together but were pretty monotonous. Spam became a pejorative for a lot of troops, and the powdered lemonade, meant to provide vitamin C, was highly acidic and unpleasant. “K” rations were intended only for short-term use and were fairly dreadful.
Both “C” and “K” rations included both a bread and a meat component, which was very highly processed in “K” rations. The “D” ration was an emergency ration consisting of fairly bitter chocolate and oat flour; bitter so the troops would not regard it as a treat rather than for use in emergency only. It was so hard (so that it would stand up to high tenperature) that soldiers had to gnaw on it or cut shavings off with a knife to eat it.
Other armies had inferior rations to the Americans. Commonwealth rations were similar to American rations but more monotonous, and they included bully beef, which Americans loathed when they were in a situation where allies had to share rations. On the other hand, the marmalade ration was coveted by some (not all) Americans and became a basis for trade in parts of the European theater.
The Japanese had miserable rations and starvation killed more Japanese troops than American bullets. Rice was the main food item, but it was polished rice lacking vitamins; the Japanese tried to compensate by adding pearled barley, but the troops hated it and often picked it out — to their own detriment. Some canned meat was supplied, and occasionally canned vegetables, but Japanese soldiers were expected for forage for any fresh items.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JhKTKsdlB8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TbblBA4oqTY
WWII rations are fairly well documented. Soldiers far from the front lines (in training camps, resting between missions, etc.) were fed from canteens that offered regular cooked foods of the type offered usually by military canteens (that is quite unpalatable but still not lacking nourishment).
On the field there could be three different situations.
In quieter sections of if the front line was well-established and not in fast movement, a field kitchen was built either from scrap materials (with some new, reusable materials brought in by the armies) like the British soldiers are doing in the first part of this film, some on wheels to be moved rapidly across the fields, like this soviet kitchen car (the interesting part starts at about minute 7). Usually what came out of these kitchens was stews of various types.
Italian soldiers received pretty often minestrone soup with hardtack, sometimes spezzatino (a simple meat stew with tomato and vegetables) or similar hardy fare that could be cooked fairly fast and with a wide array of ingredients. Russian soldiers often got kulesh, a savory porridge with vegetables and meats, Germans would get gulash, etc.
In actions by them most armies offered packed rations like the infamous K rations, which included canned meats, hardtack, bouillon cubes, tea or coffee, candies (for fast energy) but also sigarettes and often alchool. In particular, the Soviet rations always incuded vodka: during the battle at Stalingrad rations were parachuted on the front lines in the city: while food rations were tied under the airplane and dropped with very little care, the alchool was launched from the cabin and with great care!
Most commonly the rations were supplied with food that could be sourced and scrounged locally. This included buying, stealing, and estorting. While in friendly areas soldiers would be sometimes offered food from the local populatio, if they had any, or they could buy or barter food. While in enemy territory the most common way of sourcing food was simply estorting it with the brute strength fro the local population. In both cases, some stealing had to be kept into consideration.
No army was above this kind of behavior: even the best fed armies (like the US’) suffered from boring, uninspired food that kept you alive but didn’t do much for the morale. So whenever they could find a way to add some tasty treat to their meals the soldiers took advantage of it. If a unit stumbled on an enemy farm, its livestock would quickly be turned into roast or stew for the soldiers. Also the pack animals (horses and mules) could, in case of necessity, be turned into food.
A final note on the various resistance forces. Partisans could not count on any kind of rations brought to them by any country. They usually relied on the population who gave them food. In Italy, and in other countries where there were strong partisan brigades too, those who offered food for the fighters were compensated with an IOU, usually crudely printed, bearing serial numbers and the signatures of the commander and of the political commissioner of the brigade. These IOU were later repaid by the republican government after the war.
Most brigades like the Cichero in which my grandfather fought, all food and other goods were to be repaid this way. Even so, my grandfather remembers times when all they had to eat were a handful of dried chestnuts. In one instance the brigade held a fascist prisoner who complained that they were starving him, so my grandfather offeret to swap his meal with the fascist’s: it was the same exact amount of dried chestnuts. Also, on August 27th 1944 (the day of his 19th birthday) my grandfather along with the rest of his unit was hiding from a large manhunt by the Nazis in a corn fiend and for two days all he had for food was still unripe corn.
As David Fred mentioned K-rats were “to go” to food for every G.I. And every serviceman alive instantly knows what a P-38 is, even 50 or 70 years later. The small hole in the P-38 is for you to string it along with your dog tags on that bathroom stopper chain you wear around your neck.
Also worn there was a “church key”. For those younger Quora users let me explain: “once upon a time there were NO rip tabs or pull tabs and the soda cans and beer cans came in very tough STEEL cans”. That is what the church key did, it was to punch two holes in opposite directions on a steel can. The steel can...(more)
There is absolutely no correct answer to this question.
A soldiers rations absolutely depended up which army he was in; where the soldier was stationed (cold weather demands more calories); what the supply situation was in the country he was fighting for; what the logistical situation was in his army (could the army get rations to him); the culture of the country he was fighting for (potato, bread, or rice as the starch/calories); the knowledge of human nutritional needs of the country he fought for (Japan was especially bad here-even very high ranking officers often had nutrition related di...(more)
David Fred, Spent time "studying" war. Dad served in USMC 4th Marine Div
Answered Jan 3, 2017 · Author has 9.1k answers and 9.7m answer views
Originally Answered: What did the soldier in WW2 eat?
K Rations, or if available, regular food. K Rats besides food had a pack of cigarettes, waterproof matches, maybe a Hershey bar or gum, and a condom. Like their successor C Rations, they will keep you alive, providing your daily caloric requirements, and were edible, just.
The best thing in there was the P-38 can opener.
K-ration - Wikipedia
Edit One: I should point out that Thessalonians were US soldiers. There are anecdotal stories about German POWs, who were normally fed “normal” food while in their own units, complaining that KRats defied the Geneva Convention, which requires POWs to be fed the same as the capturing troops. They didn't believe our troops ate this awful stuff on a day to day basis, and thought they were being given low quality “"POWER food”
One of the reasons civilians were rationed was to provide soldiers with the necessary calories the dieticians stipulated they should have. Soldiers in barracks were fed a wholesome diet of mixed meats and vegetables, along with a dessert, every night. In combat the front line soldier was fed from the cookhouse if possible but when that wasn’t practical were issued rations which largely consisted of tins or packets. On occasion they could also forage for game or extras from the locals.
The Bully Beef scandal which Ethan touches on was largely faced in the desert campaign, not in the European theatre post
David Fred covered it, We had C’s when I was in, ditto for the smokes, gum, matches and P-38’s, but never remember getting a condom. The beef steak and potatoes were best, the white bread we used to slit with a knife then pour in some AV-Gas 115–145 and use it for a stove. There were rumors that they were spiked with saltpeter, maybe that’s why we didn’t get a condom.
War II soldiers diet consisted mostly of beef vegetables and hardtack at least this is what the generals wanted you to believe.
In reality at the end of the war and on the front lines rations were reduced to a meager 6 oz of “bully beef” which we now know as corned beef this was also supplied with whatever vegetables and potatoes and hardtack that they could find.
https://www.quora.com/What-did-soldiers-in-WW2-eat
It is hard to imagine injecting spray of fuels at several thousands rpm. How is it possible to pump liquid fuel at such high frequency?
On a four cycle (four stroke) engine with sequential port fuel injection, the fuel injectors fire at 1/2 the rate of the RPM (ie: 3000 rpm engine speed equates to 1500 injector pulses per minute), which just happens to be the same speed at which the spark plug for a single cylinder fires. Four factors allow the injector to operate at this speed.
The first is, electricity moves at the speed of light. This gives the injector an advantage over the speed of the engine. When designing the injector, the engineer needs to think about the harmonics of the injector. This means the injector must be able to close fast enough to completely shut off the flow of fuel at the maximum speed at which it is meant to operate.
This is done by putting in the right size and weight of spring. To open it, an electromagnet is used. This can move a hunk of metal, while not at the speed of light, very fast. The Engine Control Unit (ECU) will tell the injector to stay open for a period of time (called the pulse width), which in conjunction with the next two factors, allows the proper amount of fuel to enter with consideration to the operating needs of the engine (speed, load, etc.).
The second part of this equation is the orifice size of the injector. This allows a certain amount of fuel to be injected at any given time.
The third part is the pressure at which the fuel is introduced into the system. If all else stays the same (pulse width, injector size, etc.), as you increase the fuel pressure, the amount of fuel which passes through the injector increases. For instance (and these are arbitrary numbers), if a fuel system is under 30psi pressure and an injector is rated at 30 pounds per hour rate, if you increase the pressure to 45psi (1.5 times the normal pressure), you could expect to see a rate of 45 pounds per hour come out of the injector. There is a point at which this will become moot, as a given orifice can only flow so much fuel, but that is another story.
The fourth part of our tale is this: it really doesn't take much fuel to run an individual cylinder of an engine. If a small four cylinder engine gets 40mpg, how many actual revolutions of the engine does it take to get it down the road? Let's break down the math. Let's assume our small make believe car running down the road at 60mph does so with an engine speed of 2000 rpm. The 60mph equates to one mile every minute.
So every mile you travel, your injector is only firing 1000 times, or almost 17 times per second. This really isn't all that fast, when you consider most motion pictures run at 24 frames per second and the eye can see at a frequency of ~60Hz. What does all this mean? The injector does not need to be open for very long nor does it even need to be opened very far to allow enough fuel to get into the cylinder to allow it to operate.
https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/9863/fuel-injection-mechanism
Early History of the Diesel Engine. Abstract: In the 1890s, Rudolf Diesel invented an efficient, compression ignition, internal combustion engine that bears his name. Early diesel engines were large and operated at low speeds due to the limitations of their compressed air-assisted fuel injection systems.
The basic difference between a diesel engine and a gasoline engine is that in a diesel engine, the fuel is sprayed into the combustion chambers through fuel injector nozzles just when the air in each chamber has been placed under such great pressure that it's hot enough to ignite the fuel spontaneously.
The largest flow of German immigration to America occurred between 1820 and World War I, during which time nearly six million Germans immigrated to the United States. ... Following the Revolutions of 1848 in the German states, a wave of political refugees fled to America, who became known as Forty-Eighters.
The world's cleanest, quietest, most efficient diesel engines continuously optimize fuel injection. i-ART places a pressure sensor in each injector - a world first - to launch the next generation of diesel engines. In 1893, Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine in Germany. Soon, they replaced steam engines across the globe. Later, Clean Diesels were introduced with less CO2 emissions. Now, breakthrough i-ART technology is driving the next stage of diesel evolution.
Diesel engines ignite fuel by injecting it into compressed air, making fuel injection timing and amount a crucial part of diesel engine performance. Precise control of fuel injection then, is the key to maximizing engine performance. A miniature pressure sensor in each injector monitors injection activity.
As fuel injection occurs up to 1,000 times per second, i-ART technology accurately measures the fluctuation of fuel pressure and temperature in each injector. To deliver optimal control of the injection amount of and timing. The results? Clean, quiet, fuel efficient performance that ranks among the highest in the world.
https://www.denso.com/global/en/innovation/story/i-art/
The engine that bears his name set off a new chapter in the Industrial Revolution, but German engineer Rudolf Diesel (1858– 1913), who grew up in France, initially thought his invention would help small businesses and artisans, not industrialists. In truth, diesel engines are commonplace in vehicles of all types, especially those that have to pull heavy loads (trucks or trains) or do a lot of work, such as on a farm or in a power plant.
Rudolf Diesel was born in Paris, France, in 1858. His parents were Bavarian immigrants. At the outbreak of the Franco-German War, the family was deported to England in 1870. From there, Diesel went to Germany to study at the Munich Polytechnic Institute, where he excelled in engineering. After graduation he was employed as a refrigerator engineer in Paris, at Linde Ice Machine Company, beginning in 1880. He had studied thermodynamics under Carl von Linde, head of the company, in Munich.
His true love lay in engine design, however, and over the next few years he began exploring a number of ideas. One concerned finding a way to help small businesses compete with big industries, which had the money to harness the power of steam engines. Another was how to use the laws of thermodynamics to create a more efficient engine. In his mind, building a better engine would help the little guy, the independent artisans, and entrepreneurs.
In 1890 he took a job heading the engineering department of the same refrigeration firm in its Berlin location, and during his off time (to keep his patents) would experiment with his engine designs. He was aided in the development of his designs by Maschinenfabrik Augsburg, which is now MAN Diesel, and Friedrich Krupp AG, which is now ThyssenKrupp.
Rudolf Diesel designed many heat engines, including a solar-powered air engine. In 1892 he applied for a patent and received a development patent for his diesel engine. In 1893 he published a paper describing an engine with combustion within a cylinder, the internal combustion engine. In Augsburg, Germany, on August 10, 1893, Rudolf Diesel's prime model, a single 10 -foot iron cylinder with a flywheel at its base, ran on its own power for the first time. He received a patent there for the engine that same year and a patent for an improvement.
Rudolf Diesel designed many heat engines, including a solar-powered air engine. In 1892 he applied for a patent and received a development patent for his diesel engine. In 1893 he published a paper describing an engine with combustion within a cylinder, the internal combustion engine. In Augsburg, Germany, on August 10, 1893, Rudolf Diesel's prime model, a single 10 -foot iron cylinder with a flywheel at its base, ran on its own power for the first time. He received a patent there for the engine that same year and a patent for an improvement.
Diesel spent two more years making improvements and in 1896 demonstrated another model with the theoretical efficiency of 75 percent, in contrast to the 10 percent efficiency of the steam engine or other early internal combustion engines. Work continued on developing a production model. In 1898 Rudolf Diesel was granted U.S. patent #608,845 for an internal combustion engine.
Rudolf Diesel's inventions have three points in common: They relate to heat transference by natural physical processes or laws, they involve markedly creative mechanical design, and they were initially motivated by the inventor's concept of sociological needs—by finding a way to enable independent craftsmen and artisans to compete with large industry.
That last goal didn’t exactly pan out as Diesel expected. His invention could be used by small businesses, but the industrialists embraced it eagerly as well. His engine took off immediately, with applications far and wide that spurred the Industrial Revolution's rapid development.
Following his death, diesel engines became common in automobiles, trucks (starting in the 1920s), ships (after World War II), trains (starting in the 1930s), and more—and they still are. The diesel engines of today are refined and improved versions of Rudolf Diesel's original concept.
His engines have been used to power pipelines, electric and water plants, automobiles and trucks, and marine craft, and soon after were used in mines, oil fields, factories, and transoceanic shipping. More efficient, more powerful engines allowed boats to be bigger and more goods to be sold overseas.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rudolf-diesel-diesel-engine-1991648
Welcome to the Wild West of forums!
To the new users here:
This is an unmoderated forum. This basically means that any discussion can go off topic and off the rails very quickly and there is no one to stop it.
There are a lot of very knowledgeable people on here but their comments can get drowned out by off topic or disruptive comments.
There is no search function. The only way to search is to go to google and put in site:forums.tesla.com search-term
You will see terms like “Troll”, and “Astroturfer”. Very basically, Troll’s are people who disrupt and distract the conversation just to upset people. “Astroturfer” is a more complex term as it relates to this forum, but in essence it is someone with ulterior motives.
The following are hopefully some helpful ideas if you would like to help keep this forum on topic and helpful to both yourself and others.
1. Read this, https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/please-read-first-posting-forums as it is the only official Tesla statement about behavior.
2. Please try to stay on topic as much as possible. What is the topic, it is what the OP(Original Post/er) wrote in their original post.
3. There are people who purposely get the discussion off topic just to disrupt the forum. Please try to not engage with them, no matter how much they egg you or anyone on. If you engage with them they will just keep going and going and going.
4. Try not to get too frustrated if someone tells you to read the manual, especially if you are “just trying to get a quick answer”. You can get the manual online in PDF format. You can actually SEARCH in a PDF unlike this forum.
5. If you ask a question about power, efficiency, battery degradation or anything similar, be prepared for a lot of technical information. Also be prepared for some users to make statements but not be able back them up with facts that you can verify.
6. If you don’t know the difference between kW and kWh, please acknowledge that fact and accept assistance on learning about the sometimes complex subject.
Disrupters will still disrupt, but we can try and not give them more fuel to continue disrupting. Disclaimer: I am not a Tesla employee. I do own an LR RWD Model 3(Obsidian Black) and I do own TSLA stock. I also am not perfect.
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/forum-decorum-0
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.