Alternative destroyer propulsion?
Yama
engagements. From those, and reading of other WW2 naval battle descriptions, I couldn't help
noticing how terribly vulnerable steam turbines were to battle damage. Particularly this seem to manifest in
destroyers, which were sometimes put to jeopardy by mere shrapnel damage from near-misses. Not to mention
that bursting steam pipes tended to cause gruesome injuries or death to personnel working in machinery spaces.
So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to avoid such risk other than having
sufficiently large & well-protected ship? Would it have been feasible, for example, to built a
destroyer with diesel propulsion? Obviously speed would have suffered, but if the ship could manage say, 31 knots,
it would be still sufficient for most purposes. Would the diesels been less vulnerable at all? If the answer
is no, then the whole exercise is of course pointless.
Germans obviously used diesel propulsion for pocket battleships and seriously considered it for 'true' battleships
as well.
Eugene Griessel
<tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:
>Recently I read up O'Hara's "Struggle for Middle Sea" which contained a lot of detailed writeups of surface
>engagements. From those, and reading of other WW2 naval battle descriptions, I couldn't help
>noticing how terribly vulnerable steam turbines were to battle damage. Particularly this seem to manifest in
>destroyers, which were sometimes put to jeopardy by mere shrapnel damage from near-misses. Not to mention
>that bursting steam pipes tended to cause gruesome injuries or death to personnel working in machinery spaces.
>
>So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to avoid such risk other than having
>sufficiently large & well-protected ship? Would it have been feasible, for example, to built a
>destroyer with diesel propulsion? Obviously speed would have suffered, but if the ship could manage say, 31 knots,
>it would be still sufficient for most purposes. Would the diesels been less vulnerable at all? If the answer
>is no, then the whole exercise is of course pointless.
A question with a complex answer. Machinery spaces are always
vulnerable to battle damage and even damage to the non prime moving
components can be fatal. Given an average WW2 destroyer and modern
medium speed diesels one could probably get away with about a third of
the space required for a steam plant for the same horsepower. This
means a smaller area to hit to negate the propulsion -which would mean
a theoretically better survival probability. But when 8 inch bricks
are coming through the engineroom or boilerroom it matters little what
machines one has there - the day is definitely on the way to being
spoiled.
Eugene L Griessel
There are none so creative as a government statistician.
Keith Willshaw
"Yama" <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote in message
news:i1fmcs$44g$1...@news.oulu.fi...
There were a number of Diesel powered escorts built such as the Evarts
class but they pretty much topped out at 19-20 knots. The medium speed
diesel engines of the day were just not powerful enough, the Evarts class
ships used 4 engines to get enough power for 19 knots. Steam persisted
in fast ships until the marine gas turbine came along.
Graf Spee used 8 MAN diesels giving around 54,000 SHP for 28 knots.
The diesels gave her an excellent range but she was slow compared
with large steam powered cruisers. It was damage to the fuel treatment
system of Graf Spee that convinced her captain he could not reach
home after the battle of the river plate.
The USS Salem which was similar in displacement had 120,000 shp
and was capable of 33 knots
Keith
Jack Linthicum
Then there is the obverse, trying to create a steam turbine power
system for a small patrol craft. U.S.. Teakettle, aka You're in the
Navy Now, with an all-star cast. Note the stage show accompanying.
February 24, 1951
THE SCREEN IN REVIEW; 'U.S.S. Teakettle,' Fox Comedy About Navy Men
Starring Gary Cooper, at Roxy
By BOSLEY CROWTHER
Published: February 24, 1951
Unless you are ready to venture the likelihood of cracking your ribs
or blowing a gasket in laughing, then you'd better be careful how you
approach "U. S. S. Teakettle," which came to the Roxy yesterday. For
it seems only fair to warn you that this farce about Navy men—or,
rather, a bunch of landlubbers who have to test a new steam-engine in
a small patrol craft—is the most explosively funny service picture
that has come along since the nickelodeon versions of the sinking of
the battleship Maine.
That sounds like a tall endorsement, but we ask you particularly to
note the adverb which modifies "funny"—the key and significant word.
For the core of the humor in this picture is the suspense with which
everyone awaits the inevitable explosion of the contraption and the
dilemmas attendant thereon. Anyone who has ever worked a gadget he
didn't understand, especially a fairly powerful gadget, will
appreciate fully the plight.
There is no use attempting to diagram the sequence of events or even
the course of this howling excursion with the Navy, based upon a New
Yorker story that John W. Hazard wrote. Suffice it to say that the
humor begins to bubble and boil from the point that a "ninety-day
wonder," Lieutenant Harkness, goes aboard his first ship, the PC 1168,
and continues to gather steam from there. For not only is the
lieutenant as green as the grass in May, but his three officers are
greener than he is and the crew is as fresh as summer corn. And,
furthermore, the wily chief boatswain, who is one of the only two old
hands in the ship, whispers ominously to the skipper, "Wait'll you see
that THING in the engine-room!"
As we say, it is that THING in the engine-room around which the
picture revolves—that THING being a maze of valves and pistons which
bang like blacksmiths and hiss like snakes. Keeping it operating—heck,
keeping it together!—is a full-time superhuman job, and it is from the
heroic improvisations and despairs of the crew that much fun spurts.
But Richard Murphy, who wrote the screen play, and Henry Hathaway, who
directed the show, have seen to it that many consequent happenings pop
with hilarity and joy—such as the desperate campaign of recouping the
crew's badly shattered morale by putting a man in the base boxing
tournament and the confusion that develops therefrom.
That should be enough to tease you. Only let it further be said that
Mr. Murphy must know his Navy and his Navy men from boot camp to the
admiral's room. Such an assembly of seagoing greenhorns and regular
Navy "brass," barking at and stumbling over one another, could not be
found outside a wartime Navy base. And such natively funny
conversations and charmingly abusive repartee could only have been
assembled by a gent with a reportorial ear.
To dish it out, Mr. Hathaway has a wonderfully able cast, headed up by
Gary Cooper as the skipper of the teakettle tub. But Mr. Cooper is no
better than his juniors, who are brashly and breezily played by Eddie
Albert, Richard Erdman and the delightfully cynical Jack Webb. Millard
Mitchell as the fate-tormented boatswain and Ray Collins as the
admiral in charge of this crazy experimental project heat up the
hilarity, too. As assorted crew members of the bucket, Jack Warden,
Harvey Lembeck, Henry Slate, Charles Tannen and Charles Buchinski
deserve particular mention here, while a decent job of acting the
skipper's wife is turned in by Jane Greer.
Through Twentieth Century-Fox, which made this sparkler, they are
contributing the best comedy of the year. It all boils down to a nice
question of which will burst first—the "Teakettle's" engine or your
sides.
The Three Ritz Brothers head the stage show at the Roxy, which also
includes Gale Robbins and the Maxellos.
U. S. S. TEAKETTLE, screen play by Richard Murphy, from an article in
the New Yorker by John W. Hazard; directed by Henry Hathaway; produced
by Fred Kohlmar for Twentieth Century-Fox.
Lieut. John Harkness . . . . . Gary Cooper
Ellie . . . . . Jane Greer
Chief B'swain's Mate Larrabee . . . . . Millard Mitchell
Lieut. Bill Barron . . . . . Eddie Albert
Commander Reynolds . . . . . John McIntire
Admiral Tennant . . . . . Ray Collins
Captain Eliot . . . . . Harry von Zell
Ensign Anthony Barbo . . . . . Jack Webb
Ensign Chuck Dorrance . . . . . Richard Erdman
Norelli . . . . . Harvey Lembeck
Ryan . . . . . Henry Slate
Port Commander . . . . . Ed Begley
Houlihan . . . . . Charles Tannen
Wascylewski . . . . . Charles Buchinski
Morse . . . . . Jack Warden
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9507EEDF1E3EEF3BBC4C51DFB466838A649EDE
Yama
: A question with a complex answer. Machinery spaces are always
: vulnerable to battle damage and even damage to the non prime moving
: components can be fatal. Given an average WW2 destroyer and modern
: medium speed diesels one could probably get away with about a third of
: the space required for a steam plant for the same horsepower. This
: means a smaller area to hit to negate the propulsion -which would mean
: a theoretically better survival probability. But when 8 inch bricks
: are coming through the engineroom or boilerroom it matters little what
: machines one has there - the day is definitely on the way to being
: spoiled.
As I understand it, major drawback of the diesels is/was bulk. When Finns
pondered propulsion choices for their coast defence ships, steam turbines
took by far least space, and diesel-electric (which was eventually
selected) took the most...
Based on anecdotes, it seemed to me that steam turbines with all their piping etc.
were particularly vulnerable to battle damage and problem was exacerbated on ships
like cruisers and destroyers with lots of machinery and weak armour. So I thought
that if other forms of propulsion were somewhat less vulnerable, it would
reduce the danger of ship being disabled by "fluke" hit, even if it obviously
would make little difference in case of a direct hit.
Keith Willshaw
"Yama" <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote in message
news:i1fu7k$5bj$1...@news.oulu.fi...
With good design you could get a lot of redundancy built in to a
steam plant. With multiple boilers at least two turbines and
a well designed piping system ships could take quite a
lot of damage and still maintain some level of power.
A lot of ships that took heavy damage were able to maintain some way.
At the battle of the River Plate HMS Exeter was hit several times by
11" shells but was able to maintain power.
Keith
Yama
: With good design you could get a lot of redundancy built in to a
: steam plant. With multiple boilers at least two turbines and
: a well designed piping system ships could take quite a
: lot of damage and still maintain some level of power.
: A lot of ships that took heavy damage were able to maintain some way.
: At the battle of the River Plate HMS Exeter was hit several times by
: 11" shells but was able to maintain power.
But on Battle of the Java Sea, she was knocked out of the battle line by
a dud 8" shell... :(
Keith Willshaw
"Yama" <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote in message
news:i1g3dv$65i$1...@news.oulu.fi...
Hardly a dud , the shell exploded INSIDE a boiler and wrecked 6
of the 8 boilers. More the classic golden BB in fact. That said she
did manage to maintain 11 knots which was subsequently raised
to 15 knots within a short period. Within 24 hours she could maintain
25 knots. She was lost when the remaining boiler room was hit.
Keith
Dennis
> There were a number of Diesel powered escorts built such as the Evarts
> class but they pretty much topped out at 19-20 knots. The medium
> speed diesel engines of the day were just not powerful enough, the
> Evarts class ships used 4 engines to get enough power for 19 knots.
> Steam persisted in fast ships until the marine gas turbine came along.
>
> Graf Spee used 8 MAN diesels giving around 54,000 SHP for 28 knots.
> The diesels gave her an excellent range but she was slow compared
> with large steam powered cruisers. It was damage to the fuel treatment
> system of Graf Spee that convinced her captain he could not reach
> home after the battle of the river plate.
Question: could you build a satisfactory smaller warship today with diesel-
only propulsion, using *up-to-date* diesels?
Gas turbines would also seem to be quite susceptible to battle damage! The
blades are just as much so, I think the RPM's are much higher, and there's
a huge air intake.
I get the impression that superheated steam is much more dangerous than
saturated steam. What's the truth?
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> There were a number of Diesel powered escorts built such as the Evarts
>> class but they pretty much topped out at 19-20 knots. The medium
>> speed diesel engines of the day were just not powerful enough, the
>> Evarts class ships used 4 engines to get enough power for 19 knots.
>> Steam persisted in fast ships until the marine gas turbine came along.
>>
>> Graf Spee used 8 MAN diesels giving around 54,000 SHP for 28 knots.
>> The diesels gave her an excellent range but she was slow compared
>> with large steam powered cruisers. It was damage to the fuel treatment
>> system of Graf Spee that convinced her captain he could not reach
>> home after the battle of the river plate.
>
>Question: could you build a satisfactory smaller warship today with diesel-
>only propulsion, using *up-to-date* diesels?
Certainly. It's been many years since I was involved with the things
but MAN and Pielstick and others make/made very useful medium speed
diesels with a high power to weight ratio and a low volume. I worked
with MAN 1000 horsepower per cylinder medium speeds - and they were
available in various sizes up to 24 cylinder IIRC. You could fit two
of those into a WW2 destroyer's engine room and dispense with two
boiler rooms and a gearroom and still have more than 40000 hp
available.
Went and dug out my MAN 52/55 manual out to put some figures to
things. An 18 cylinder - 18000 hp - V model of the 1970s would take up
38 foot of space, stand 12 feet high , 13 foot wide and weigh 168
tons. You would probably need a gearbox too unless you designed the
props to run at around 500 rpm. Stick another 10 foot or so on for
that, in length. Unfortunately I do not have dimensions for the other
cylinder configurations.
I am pretty sure there have been improvements over the last 40 years
in this field.
>
>Gas turbines would also seem to be quite susceptible to battle damage! The
>blades are just as much so, I think the RPM's are much higher, and there's
>a huge air intake.
Any prime mover is susceptible to damage. A gas turbine and a modern
diesel are just a smaller target than a steam plant. Hit a diesel and
you would probably damage a lot of high pressure fuel piping which
would be the end of the engine for a while.
>
>I get the impression that superheated steam is much more dangerous than
>saturated steam. What's the truth?
Superheated steam is invisible and will cut you in half - saturated
steam can be seen and will severely scald you. Take your pick, any
steam plant has both types wandering about. I still have a scar on my
right hand where a minor superheated steam leak at a valve gland
neatly excised a few inches of flesh.
Eugene L Griessel
An absurdity so colossal, that it took on the air of a great truth.
Keith Willshaw
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:d03o36ls3rtho8vqf...@4ax.com...
The other thing to remember is that modern electric drive ships
allow you to distribute the prime movers around the ship.
The type 23 frigates have the diesel engines on
the main deck level to provide better sound isolation
when sub hunting. It also makes an engine change something
that can be done in almost any dockyard.
Keith
>>
>>I get the impression that superheated steam is much more dangerous than
>>saturated steam. What's the truth?
>
> Superheated steam is invisible and will cut you in half - saturated
> steam can be seen and will severely scald you. Take your pick, any
> steam plant has both types wandering about. I still have a scar on my
> right hand where a minor superheated steam leak at a valve gland
> neatly excised a few inches of flesh.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
Steam with a high degree of superheat is scary stuff all right.
You normally knew pretty quickly if you had a major leak
as the noise of escaping steam was indescribably loud.
We'd go looking for it with a yardbrush and you would know
you had found it when the bristles (and often the broom head)
disappeared.
Eugene Griessel
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The other thing to remember is that modern electric drive ships
>allow you to distribute the prime movers around the ship.
>The type 23 frigates have the diesel engines on
>the main deck level to provide better sound isolation
>when sub hunting. It also makes an engine change something
>that can be done in almost any dockyard.
Not only that - almost any source of electric power can be switched to
the prime movers in emergency - even that of the auxiliary diesel
generators which trend to be sited far from the main engine rooms for
safety.
The need for speed, as required by WW2 destroyers for tactical use, is
somewhat diminished in modern warships, very few of which can outrun
modern anti-ship missiles. Even then a lot of the speed of destroyers
was more myth than reality - I served, briefly, on a WW2 "W" class
destroyer supposedly capable of 36 knots. I do not think the vessel
had ever exceeded 32 knots in its entire career. Officer of note -
Prince Philip had once been the XO of it. By the time I got to it it
had undergone much remodelling and carried a pair of Wasps but it's
tonnage was not much increased over it's 1944 tonnage due to the loss
of several gun mountings.
Eugene L Griessel
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to avoid such
> risk other than having
> sufficiently large & well-protected ship?
Check out the US WW2 destroyer escorts. They used multiple powerplants
due to construction constraints. Also Germany produced designs for
diesel powered destroyers which were never built. Possibly because
before turbo-charging power weight ratios were wrong.
Ken Young
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ba2c3c71-f912-4c6a...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 12, 2:20 pm, Yama <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:
> Then there is the obverse, trying to create a steam turbine power
> system for a small patrol craft. U.S.. Teakettle, aka You're in the
> Navy Now, with an all-star cast. Note the stage show accompanying.
The RN had a class of steam powered Gun Boats during WW2.
Displacing 175 tons and 145ft long they had two Metrovick steam turbines
that could deliver around 8,000 shp giving a speed of 35 knots when new
although as extra armour and weapons were added this dropped to 30 knots.
Armed with a 3" gun, two 6 pounders, 2x20mm Oerlikons and
two torpedo tubes they were the heavy hitters of coastal forces.
The downside was that range was limited and as with all steam powered
vessels you needed more time to prepare for sea than did a motor boat.
As a result only 7 SGB's were actually built.
Keith
Alex Potter
> As a result only 7 SGB's were actually built.
I've been unable to find a photograph of the type, except this one, of
the wreck of SGB7:
<http://www.channeldiving.com/Diving_Charters/Normandie/SGB8.jpg>
<http://www.naval-history.net/WW2BritishLosses3Coastal.htm#sgb>
--
Alex
Jack Linthicum
> In article <i1fmcs$44...@news.oulu.fi>, tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi (Yama)
I am starting to wonder if Germany lost WWII because of bad math.
Roger Conroy
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wPidnY4BsrmVqaHR...@giganews.com...
So then why would they then not simply use a turbochargerd engine?
Peter Skelton
THere's a picture in Jane's.
A google image search for HMS Grey Wolf brought up a few small
images of her and her sisters.
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
"Alex Potter" <spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i1hgo9$d14$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
There is a picture of SGB 9 at
http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/SGB%209%20HMS%20Grey%20Goose.jpg
and more pics at
http://rn-coastalforcesveterans.com/page50.html
http://www.northwoodvillage.org.uk/Communities/Common/Images/HtmlTextBoxUserImages/John%20Groves/Grey%20Goose%20600x.jpg
Keith
Alex Potter
> There is a picture of SGB 9 at
>
> http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/SGB%209%20HMS%20Grey%20Goose.jpg
>
> and more pics at
>
> http://rn-coastalforcesveterans.com/page50.html
> http://www.northwoodvillage.org.uk/Communities/Common/Images/
HtmlTextBoxUserImages/John%20Groves/Grey%20Goose%20600x.jpg
Many thanks.
--
Alex
Dennis
All of this makes it sound to me like all diesel engines with electric
drive would be an ideal system for a warship, unless it's nuclear of
course. You wouldn't really need gas turbines.
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Entropy isn't what it used to be.
It's increased, it always does, as you might recall.
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
If you look at those vessels fitted with CODOG you'll find they spend
the greater part of their lives running on diesels and only flash up
the GT to impress the taxpayers from time to time.
Eugene L Griessel
Learning to dislike children at an early age saves a lot of expense
and aggravation later in life.
Keith Willshaw
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DB47AE7D189Cts...@130.133.4.11...
The thing is that the power needed to propel a warship
through the water is not linear so they made to use 3 times
the power to 30 knots as that needed for 24.
Since they tend not to be tearing around at top speed very
often it makes more sense to use the bulky but efficient
diesels for cruising and have a couple of relatively small
GT's for sprinting.
Keith
scott s.
news:sRL_n.161797$tH4.141958@hurricane:
> With good design you could get a lot of redundancy built in to a
> steam plant. With multiple boilers at least two turbines and
> a well designed piping system ships could take quite a
> lot of damage and still maintain some level of power.
>
> A lot of ships that took heavy damage were able to maintain some
> way. At the battle of the River Plate HMS Exeter was hit several
> times by 11" shells but was able to maintain power.
>
I agree that the redundancy available with steam power is an advantage
is survivability. In addition, steam power can readily be used for
other shipboard applications besides main propulsion. A better
comparison I think would be DC motor drives.
scott s.
.
Dennis
>> All of this makes it sound to me like all diesel engines with electric
>> drive would be an ideal system for a warship, unless it's nuclear of
>> course. You wouldn't really need gas turbines.
>
> The thing is that the power needed to propel a warship
> through the water is not linear so they made to use 3 times
> the power to 30 knots as that needed for 24.
>
> Since they tend not to be tearing around at top speed very
> often it makes more sense to use the bulky but efficient
> diesels for cruising and have a couple of relatively small
> GT's for sprinting.
Yes!
However, see Eugene's post. Bearing in mind that actual combat situations
aren't frequent these days.
Question: when do you need the sprint speed? Especially if it's "only" 4-5
knots more than max. cruising speed?
During tactical maneuvers during combat? If so, the GT's make sense.
If you need to sprint a long ways to get to an area of operations, to "git
thar first with the most," like Russians from the Baltic to the Gulf of
Aden to hit Somali pirates, then you'll need to unrep fuel en route, maybe
more than once. Is the extra 4-5 knots worth it?
I'm asking, I honestly don't know.
Dennis
Keith Willshaw
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DB49D4E268B8ts...@130.133.4.11...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>>> All of this makes it sound to me like all diesel engines with electric
>>> drive would be an ideal system for a warship, unless it's nuclear of
>>> course. You wouldn't really need gas turbines.
>>
>> The thing is that the power needed to propel a warship
>> through the water is not linear so they made to use 3 times
>> the power to 30 knots as that needed for 24.
>>
>> Since they tend not to be tearing around at top speed very
>> often it makes more sense to use the bulky but efficient
>> diesels for cruising and have a couple of relatively small
>> GT's for sprinting.
>
> Yes!
>
> However, see Eugene's post. Bearing in mind that actual combat situations
> aren't frequent these days.
>
> Question: when do you need the sprint speed? Especially if it's "only"
> 4-5
> knots more than max. cruising speed?
>
> During tactical maneuvers during combat? If so, the GT's make sense.
>
That's basically it. If you are in a stern chase that 4 or 5 knots can make
all the difference as it can when trying to get to a reported
incident.
> If you need to sprint a long ways to get to an area of operations, to "git
> thar first with the most," like Russians from the Baltic to the Gulf of
> Aden to hit Somali pirates, then you'll need to unrep fuel en route, maybe
> more than once. Is the extra 4-5 knots worth it?
>
That really depends on how urgent the reposition is, it
is hard to make a general case. However if you are
escorting a carrier battle group you'd better be able
to keep up :)
> I'm asking, I honestly don't know.
>
> Dennis
>
Keith
William Hamblen
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The USS Salem which was similar in displacement
The Salem was 1/3 larger than the Graf Spee. You get better than 1/3
more capability for 1/3 more displacement.
Bud
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>If you need to sprint a long ways to get to an area of operations, to "git
>thar first with the most," like Russians from the Baltic to the Gulf of
>Aden to hit Somali pirates, then you'll need to unrep fuel en route, maybe
>more than once. Is the extra 4-5 knots worth it?
If you are going a long way then you either need prepositioned
tankers, ports of call or you take a tanker with you. The time you
lose refuelling - ie putting into port, slowing down to tanker speed
or keeping up with your tanker will easily negate the extra few knots
going balls to the wall will gain you. Better not to strain the
machines and do a nice economical cruising speed with fewer
refuellings as a result. If you go 5000 nautical miles at 22 knots it
will take you nine and a half days. At 30 knots it will take you 7
days. Few situations are so desperate that 2 and a half days are
going to be that critical. Especially as at 30 knots you probably
will have to refuel while at 22 you could make it without. No
prepostioned tankers means a detour into a port. You will lose time
doing it. In the end it will really not matter - if you have a crisis
building up that far away you better have ships there before the dung
hits the air agitator. Or allow the boys in blue to sort it out in
the initial stages.
Eugene L Griessel
You can have Peace. Or you can have Freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once.
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
The four to five knots represents about a third of the ships
horsepower. As an example, an old A:I destroyer would do 18 knots
on one boiler, about 27 on two and about thirty-two on three.
(Those are service speeds, not trial.) The "extra" power
represents the ability to take damage and still perform at the
lower speed.
Peter Skelton
Gernot Hassenpflug
Jack> On Jul 13, 5:38 am, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article <i1fmcs$44...@news.oulu.fi>, tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi
>> (Yama)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to avoid
>> such > risk other than having > sufficiently large &
>> well-protected ship?
>>
>> Check out the US WW2 destroyer escorts. They used multiple
>> powerplants due to construction constraints. Also Germany
>> produced designs for diesel powered destroyers which were never
>> built. Possibly because before turbo-charging power weight ratios
>> were wrong.
>>
>> Ken Young
Jack> I am starting to wonder if Germany lost WWII because of bad
Jack> math.
And lack of basic language skills like comprehension: sort of like the
sports commentator who noted that "The World Cup is a truly
International Event". Indeed!
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Pentium DualCore E2180 2GHz, Asus P5, 4GiB RAM
17" Eizo screen, nVidia G94 GeForce 9600 GT
GNU/linux Debian unstable/2.6.32-2-bigmem SMP
Kerryn Offord
>>>>>> "Jack" == Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> Jack> On Jul 13, 5:38 am, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >> In article <i1fmcs$44...@news.oulu.fi>, tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi
> >> (Yama)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to avoid
> >> such > risk other than having > sufficiently large &
> >> well-protected ship?
> >>
> >> Check out the US WW2 destroyer escorts. They used multiple
> >> powerplants due to construction constraints. Also Germany
> >> produced designs for diesel powered destroyers which were never
> >> built. Possibly because before turbo-charging power weight ratios
> >> were wrong.
> >>
> >> Ken Young
>
> Jack> I am starting to wonder if Germany lost WWII because of bad
> Jack> math.
>
> And lack of basic language skills like comprehension: sort of like the
> sports commentator who noted that "The World Cup is a truly
> International Event". Indeed!
Maybe they were thinking of the American "world Series" competitions...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Dennis
>>Question: when do you need the sprint speed? Especially if it's
>>"only" 4-5 knots more than max. cruising speed?
>>
>>During tactical maneuvers during combat? If so, the GT's make sense.
>>
>>If you need to sprint a long ways to get to an area of operations, to
>>"git thar first with the most," like Russians from the Baltic to the
>>Gulf of Aden to hit Somali pirates, then you'll need to unrep fuel en
>>route, maybe more than once. Is the extra 4-5 knots worth it?
>>
>>I'm asking, I honestly don't know.
>>
>
> The four to five knots represents about a third of the ships
> horsepower. As an example, an old A:I destroyer would do 18 knots
> on one boiler, about 27 on two and about thirty-two on three.
> (Those are service speeds, not trial.) The "extra" power
> represents the ability to take damage and still perform at the
> lower speed.
Ah yes, that too! Backup power if you lose one or more whatever.
I visited the French frigate La Fayette a couple of years ago when she
called in New Orleans. She had four diesels and nothing else. She had no
ASW mission at all - no torps, for instance. Her top rated speed is 25
knots. It seems a bit odd for a ship with an anti-drug and anti-terrorist
mission.
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
>I visited the French frigate La Fayette a couple of years ago when she
>called in New Orleans. She had four diesels and nothing else. She had no
>ASW mission at all - no torps, for instance. Her top rated speed is 25
>knots. It seems a bit odd for a ship with an anti-drug and anti-terrorist
>mission.
She carries a helicopter. All that is needed for the anti-drug,
anti-terrorist, anti-pirate missions. None of which are her primary
missions. Equipping her with A/S weapons is a few hours work - if
required. Why carry A/S torpedoes (which do extend the maintenance
load) when outside of wartime there is absolutely no call for them?
Eugene L Griessel
Teamwork is essential. It allows you to blame somebody else.
Eugene Griessel
Turbo blowers and turbo chargers go back some ways in diesel engine
designs - to the 1920s I believe. They are not the same thing
however. The one is generally a scavenge system used on two stroke
diesels primarily to clear exhaust gasses from the cylinder and the
other puts air under pressure into the cylinder thus increasing the
amount of fuel that can be combusted. (In some ways either system
performs some of the functions of the other - but let's not go into
that now!) The early days of marine diesels - espcially the slower
and heavier models was plagued by a lot of experimental design work,
especially in combustion efficiency - that things rarely stood still
long enough to solidify into a reliable production engine. Early slow
and medium speed marine diesels were thus often plagued by
unreliability and were looked at with a jaundiced eye by many. They
only truly reached their potential around about the sixties when they
were good enough to start ousting the old trustworthy steam plants.
Especially in the field of medium speed diesels it took a long time to
gain confidence in the marine area. The big old cathedral engines
were more trustworthy earlier on - they ran slower and disaster
happened more slowly with the result that one could often stop and
repair the engine before it chewed itself to bits. However to get
back to turbocharging - it is not an all round panacea. Most diesels
in naval use need to vary speed fairly frequently and have a high
power output. But most run, for a large part of the time, below
optimum speeds. Thus a turbocharger is not giving its best because
the exhaust gasses needed to run it are relatively low pressure. In
more recent years this has been solved by sequential turbocharging -
but the technology to do that did not exist back in the pre-WW2
period.
Eugene L Griessel
Though your mansion may contain 7000 rooms - at night you can only use 6 feet of space.
Roger Conroy
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:yol39vm...@asahi-net.or.jp...
>>>>>> "Jack" == Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> Jack> On Jul 13, 5:38 am, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >> In article <i1fmcs$44...@news.oulu.fi>, tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi
> >> (Yama)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to avoid
> >> such > risk other than having > sufficiently large &
> >> well-protected ship?
> >>
> >> Check out the US WW2 destroyer escorts. They used multiple
> >> powerplants due to construction constraints. Also Germany
> >> produced designs for diesel powered destroyers which were never
> >> built. Possibly because before turbo-charging power weight ratios
> >> were wrong.
> >>
> >> Ken Young
>
> Jack> I am starting to wonder if Germany lost WWII because of bad
> Jack> math.
>
> And lack of basic language skills like comprehension: sort of like the
> sports commentator who noted that "The World Cup is a truly
> International Event". Indeed!
>
If his audience was American it does need to be explained. They have "world"
sports events without any foreign participation (except maybe one or two
Canuck teams).
Gernot Hassenpflug
Roger> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
Roger> news:yol39vm...@asahi-net.or.jp...
>>>>>>> "Jack" == Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> writes:
>>
Jack> On Jul 13, 5:38 am, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >> In article <i1fmcs$44...@news.oulu.fi>, tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi
>> >> (Yama)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > So that raises my curiosity, was there any alternative to
>> avoid >> such > risk other than having > sufficiently large & >>
>> well-protected ship?
>> >>
>> >> Check out the US WW2 destroyer escorts. They used multiple >>
>> powerplants due to construction constraints. Also Germany >>
>> produced designs for diesel powered destroyers which were never
>> >> built. Possibly because before turbo-charging power weight
>> ratios >> were wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Ken Young
>>
Jack> I am starting to wonder if Germany lost WWII because of bad
Jack> math.
>>
>> And lack of basic language skills like comprehension: sort of
>> like the sports commentator who noted that "The World Cup is a
>> truly International Event". Indeed!
>>
If his audience was American it does need to be explained. They have "world"
Roger> sports events without any foreign participation (except maybe
Roger> one or two Canuck teams).
See what I mean :-) Just like the Germans LOL
Yama
: Went and dug out my MAN 52/55 manual out to put some figures to
: things. An 18 cylinder - 18000 hp - V model of the 1970s would take up
: 38 foot of space, stand 12 feet high , 13 foot wide and weigh 168
: tons. You would probably need a gearbox too unless you designed the
: props to run at around 500 rpm. Stick another 10 foot or so on for
: that, in length. Unfortunately I do not have dimensions for the other
: cylinder configurations.
Hmm. For way of comparison of late '20s technology, propulsion space required for old ILMARINEN
(Finnish Coast defence ship) was 2 metres high, 3.5 metres wide and 25 metres long.
Total weight was 203 tons, breakdown:
Diesels 75 tons
Generators and dynamos 60 tons
Propeller engines 68 tons
As can be seen, electric transmission actually took up much more weight & space than
the diesel engines themselver. All this developed around 4000 horsepower, enough to propel the
ship to ~15 knots.
Yama
: Hardly a dud , the shell exploded INSIDE a boiler and wrecked 6
: of the 8 boilers. More the classic golden BB in fact. That said she
: did manage to maintain 11 knots which was subsequently raised
: to 15 knots within a short period. Within 24 hours she could maintain
: 25 knots. She was lost when the remaining boiler room was hit.
Hmm, some sources claim that the shell was indeed a dud, but it cut (IIRC)
a vital steam pipe, causing a steam explosion which knocked the machinery
offline.
In her final battle couple of days later, Exeter was hit again in the machinery,
this time fatally.
Keith Willshaw
"William Hamblen" <william...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mmup36h4793mhugj0...@4ax.com...
Fair comment I was thinking Salem was 17,000 tons full load displacement
and Graf Spee was 16,200 but it turns out 17,000 for Salem
was standard displacement. My fault for not checking.
Keith
Dennis
Wow! Consider how bad diesel engines of that era sucked, too.
Dennis
Paul J. Adam
<tsalagi...@hotmail.com> writes
>Question: when do you need the sprint speed? Especially if it's "only" 4-5
>knots more than max. cruising speed?
For some ships there's a big difference: 12kt on diesel cruise (round
the world on one tank of fuel) vs "28+kt" max chat on both gas turbines
(out of fuel in under a day). With options like "sided boost" with one
GT up giving you 20+ knots and the diesels doing hotel load.
You want the speed when you're moving to shoulder FIAC aside, or rushing
up to goalkeeping position on a HVU/MEU, or getting to an ASMD course
and speed, or keeping enough speed of advance to make your torpedo
countermeasure manoeuvre effective, or trying to get from A to B in a
hurry in a short timescale - in almost every case, minutes not hours.
(Recall that no matter what your propulsion, claimed top speeds are
elusive and short-lived: boilers need to be cleaned, turbines need their
compressors washed, and so it goes)
>If you need to sprint a long ways to get to an area of operations, to "git
>thar first with the most," like Russians from the Baltic to the Gulf of
>Aden to hit Somali pirates, then you'll need to unrep fuel en route, maybe
>more than once. Is the extra 4-5 knots worth it?
In that case, no. Warships aren't designed to do "28+ knots" for days,
or even for many hours. Like many cars, the headline top speed matters
less than acceleration from a near-standing start.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Eugene Griessel
<ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <Xns9DB49D4E268B8ts...@130.133.4.11>, Dennis
><tsalagi...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Question: when do you need the sprint speed? Especially if it's "only" 4-5
>>knots more than max. cruising speed?
>
>For some ships there's a big difference: 12kt on diesel cruise (round
>the world on one tank of fuel) vs "28+kt" max chat on both gas turbines
>(out of fuel in under a day). With options like "sided boost" with one
>GT up giving you 20+ knots and the diesels doing hotel load.
>
>
>You want the speed when you're moving to shoulder FIAC aside, or rushing
>up to goalkeeping position on a HVU/MEU, or getting to an ASMD course
>and speed, or keeping enough speed of advance to make your torpedo
>countermeasure manoeuvre effective, or trying to get from A to B in a
>hurry in a short timescale - in almost every case, minutes not hours.
>(Recall that no matter what your propulsion, claimed top speeds are
>elusive and short-lived: boilers need to be cleaned, turbines need their
>compressors washed, and so it goes)
I was most impressed, I think it was in the eighties, when somebody
quoted a new warship's sustained top speed as being with X amount of
months of hull growth and Y months since engine overhaul at Z tonnage.
Don't think anyone has been that crazy for years - people prefer an
absolute maximum achieved under the absolute optimum conditions -
knowing full well that it would never be achieved under service
conditions. I recall the Iranian SAAM class vessels when new passing
through Simon's Town on delivery. Everyone was mighty impressed with
the quoted 42 knots top speed. They all ignored the rider that it
would empty the fuel tanks in 48 minutes doing that.
Gimme a hull that will do 18 -20 knots, sustained, in force 8 or 9
conditions rather - because sure as God made little apples the day you
are really going to need that sort of speed in an emergency those
weather conditions will be prevailing ....
Eugene L Griessel
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL
Dennis
> You want the speed when you're moving to shoulder FIAC aside, or
> rushing up to goalkeeping position on a HVU/MEU, or getting to an ASMD
> course and speed, or keeping enough speed of advance to make your
> torpedo countermeasure manoeuvre effective, or trying to get from A to
> B in a hurry in a short timescale - in almost every case, minutes not
> hours. (Recall that no matter what your propulsion, claimed top speeds
> are elusive and short-lived: boilers need to be cleaned, turbines need
> their compressors washed, and so it goes)
That's something I've wondered about steam propulsion. ISTR that it takes
a while to get a boiler up to "speed" even if it's hot, which it'd have to
be when you cracked it on. I know GT's give you almost instant speed; the
utility companies on land use them for peak power. Dunno about diesels. I
know it takes a while to get a big one going if it's cold, but I don't know
about extra speed if it's already online.
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
Not really - but it matters what sort of layout you have. In the
older ships you may have had several sets of boilers and when cruising
some of those are "banked" and it takes time to bring them on line.
But with a standard one bolier one turbine layout it can be worked up
to full steam output pretty quickly. A few minutes.
Eugene L Griessel
My pessimism extends to the point of even suspecting the sincerity
of other pessimists.
Keith Willshaw
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DB5DAF7B825Bts...@130.133.4.11...
With steam plant its getting the turbines warm that is
the problem when starting from cold.
On land based plant you have a small jacking motor that keeps
the thing moving and you pass enough steam in to keep it warm
so you can go on line at shortish notice. Modern boilers
react pretty quickly to demands for extra steam.
That said pretty much the only steam plant still in service
uses nuclear reactors for steam generation.
Keith
Roger Conroy
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rbz%n.138167$sD7.115150@hurricane...
Which immediately begs the question:
How quickly can a naval nuclear powerplant "accelerate" from say 30% (or
whatever they run when just cruising comfortably) up to 100%?
Keith Willshaw
"Roger Conroy" <roger...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1mjpc$vq4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
If I told you that I'd have to kill you :)
Land based nuclear power plants can ramp up from 30% to 100%
pretty quickly to meet rising demand and they are typically much larger
with lower power densities than naval nuclear power plants.
All the reactor is doing is boiling water after all
Keith
Roger Conroy
"Keith Willshaw" <keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1ml9i$bkm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Eugene Griessel
In theory one could get a reactor super critical as fast as one could
extract the control rods. The trick is to do it without causing
damage to the plant. And I am pretty sure naval reactors would have
controls preventing the rapid removal of rods from the core. Even
diesel engines have mechanisms preventing one from slamming the
throttle fully forward and expecting the engine to immedately leap up
to top revs.
Eugene L Griessel
Without doubt the greatest injury was done by basing morals on myth, for
sooner or later myth is recognised for what it is, and disappears. Then
morality loses the foundation on which it has been built. Lord Samuel
Keith Willshaw
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:cgnt365h7bhgcm9k3...@4ax.com...
Most modern reactor designs are pretty much self regulating.
As you pull more steam the core temperature drops, which
leads to a reactivity increase and an increase in the steam
generation rate. Good reactor management practise is to
avoid rapid start ups and shut downs for fairly complex
reasons involving the fission process but in extremis you
are talking (a few) minutes as long as the system is warmed through
Keith
Eugene Griessel
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>With steam plant its getting the turbines warm that is
>the problem when starting from cold.
On a type 12 frigate, Babcock & Wilcox Y100 boilers, we used to start
flashing up 4 hours before we moved. It could be done quicker, in
"high emergencies", 1 hour and 20 minutes was the quoted time, but
this would likely put strain on things. Warming the turbines through
was not really an issue - they were put on the turning motors about an
hour after the boilers were lit and steam cracked though to them to
get them up to temp and three hours to do that was ample time for
small turbines. Most of the hassle was in the auxiliaries. When one
flashed the first boiler, on diesel, a small electric pump supplied
fuel to a 300 pounds per hour burner. Once you got some steam going a
larger recip steam pump needed to be started so that one could light a
1200 pound per hour burner. Then the second boiler could be flashed
once pressure could be maintained on the fuel. Later the turbine pump
could be brought on line so that the 2400 pound per hour burners could
be used. Getting the turbo alternators running, the steam driven
blowers (one started off with small electric fans) and dozens of small
quirky little steam installations took up much of the time.
I will not even go into the vagaries of admiralty 3 drum boilers and
their anciliaries! Used to start those with a hand pump, two ratings
sweating away for about 20 minutes to deliver fuel before enough wet
steam was available to drive a steam pump.... (ah, them was the days,
he reminisces fondly, wiping a tear from his rheumy old eye!)
All of these procedures were made infinitely more interesting when one
started from cold without shore electricity and steam.
Eugene L Griessel
Experts are people who have stopped thinking - they know!
Keith Willshaw
Yes I have seen small package boilers on refineries that provided
similiar problems. In the case of large onshore power plants
most of the auxillaries were simply electrically powered and
you could rely on electricty off the grid or from large standby diesels.
The really big turbines (660 MW) on the other hand wanted
a thorough warming through and if there was any possibility that
they may need to be brought on line you kept them warmed
over and turning on the jacking motors.
Coal fired plant was a lot more problematic of course as you
had to make sure you had enough pulverisers on line
as well as the ash removal system working. Lets not even
get into the whole soot blower thing.
Did I ever tell you how much I HATE coal fired power plants :)
Keith
Roger Conroy
Isn't there supposed to be a little Primus stove involved at the beginning?
Eugene Griessel
<keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Did I ever tell you how much I HATE coal fired power plants :)
Did I ever tell you how much I hate steam installations per se ...
Eugene L Griessel
If you put bullshit into a computer, nothing comes out
but bullshit. But this bullshit, having passed through a
very expensive machine, is somehow enobled, and no one dares
to criticize it.
vaughn
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rbz%n.138167$sD7.115150@hurricane...
>
> uses nuclear reactors for steam generation.
Unfortunatly incorrect. They are still building coal power plants all over the
world.
Vaughn
Eugene Griessel
I think he was referring to naval use.
Richard Casady
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That said pretty much the only steam plant still in service
>uses nuclear reactors for steam generation.
The Lake Michigan auto ferry Badger not only uses steam, but coal
fired and piston engines. A pair of four cylinder Uniflows.
Casady
Keith Willshaw
"vaughn" <vaugh...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:i1msan$3ug$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I was referring to naval use.
On land based platforms I have seen steam plants that run on some
really weird fuels.
There is one down the road that uses straw from the stables
used by the studfarms at Newmarket
Another runs on waste from the sugar refinery at Bury St Edmunds
The worst was a plant in Kent that ran on a foul muck from
Venezuela called orimulsion
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fdut36tbq5a7m7psf...@4ax.com...
There are still a couple of Paddle Wheel Steamers in service in UK
waters, the Wavereley is one and there are is one that does trips
out of Chatham but these are akin to steam locos on preserved
railway lines and dont represent commercial or military use.
Keith
Peter Skelton
It is techniucally feasible to get steam out of a nuclear plant
about as fast as the propellors can absorb it without excessive
cavitation. On American carriers I am told that the torque
capacity of the shaft is the limiting factor, in a submarine it
is moise-making.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
The Trillium, a side-wheel ferry built in 1910 is still used for
cruises and overload transportation from the city to Toronto
Island. Built 1910, retired 1957, rebuilt 1976. Original engines,
now converted to burn diesel.
Peter Skelton
Andrew Robert Breen
Waverley is an oil-burner, and has been for many years (yes, I know you
know this Keith, but I'm adding it for clarification). Not sure about
Kingswear Castle, mind...
On a smaller scale, VIC 32 (one time Admiralty victualling inshore craft
no.32, essentially a Clyde puffer) is still most certainly a coal-burner
(plus any wood that's going...), and she's still running trips and cruises
on the west coast of Scotland.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Thomas Womack
Keith Willshaw <keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On land based platforms I have seen steam plants that run on some
>really weird fuels.
>
>There is one down the road that uses straw from the stables
>used by the studfarms at Newmarket
Drax has a plan to build three 290MW biomass-fired power plants,
though as far as I can see the biomass in question is imported
wood-chips.
Tom
Keith Willshaw
"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:gik3h7x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
> In article <i1n2ut$r1t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Keith Willshaw <keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:fdut36tbq5a7m7psf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:57:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>>> <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That said pretty much the only steam plant still in service
>>>>uses nuclear reactors for steam generation.
>>>
>>> The Lake Michigan auto ferry Badger not only uses steam, but coal
>>> fired and piston engines. A pair of four cylinder Uniflows.
>>>
>>> Casady
>>
>>There are still a couple of Paddle Wheel Steamers in service in UK
>>waters, the Wavereley is one and there are is one that does trips
>>out of Chatham but these are akin to steam locos on preserved
>>railway lines and dont represent commercial or military use.
>
> Waverley is an oil-burner, and has been for many years (yes, I know you
> know this Keith, but I'm adding it for clarification). Not sure about
> Kingswear Castle, mind...
>
I was on the Kingswear Castle a couple of years back and
given the (small) amount of smoke I'd suspect she burns
a light oil fuel.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"Andrew Robert Breen" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:gik3h7x...@news.aber.ac.uk...
>> In article <i1n2ut$r1t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Keith Willshaw <keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:fdut36tbq5a7m7psf...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:57:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>>>> <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That said pretty much the only steam plant still in service
>>>>>uses nuclear reactors for steam generation.
>>>>
>>>> The Lake Michigan auto ferry Badger not only uses steam, but coal
>>>> fired and piston engines. A pair of four cylinder Uniflows.
>>>>
>>>> Casady
>>>
>>>There are still a couple of Paddle Wheel Steamers in service in UK
>>>waters, the Wavereley is one and there are is one that does trips
>>>out of Chatham but these are akin to steam locos on preserved
>>>railway lines and dont represent commercial or military use.
>>
>> Waverley is an oil-burner, and has been for many years (yes, I know you
>> know this Keith, but I'm adding it for clarification). Not sure about
>> Kingswear Castle, mind...
>>
>
>I was on the Kingswear Castle a couple of years back and
>given the (small) amount of smoke I'd suspect she burns
>a light oil fuel.
According to the website it is coal-fired and for a suitable fee
enthusiasts are allowed to stoke it.
Eugene L Griessel
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Jeffrey Hamilton
I'm just going to flesh this post a little bit for Peter, seeing as I was
raised in Toronto, I know most of the players.
I do remember Trillium as an abondoned hulk on Toronto Island in the eaerly
1960's, she looked kind of delapidated but I definately did board and
inspect her. We (kids) used to go to the Island occasionally on a summer
weekend for a day getaway, instead of sitting in the local theatre (matinee)
or the usual restaurant (chips 'n gravy and a cherry coke, please).
A small article with a picture on Trillium's one hundreth birthday. June 18
1910.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/07/14/14713526.html
Another one with a bunch of good photos.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/825336--trillium-ferry-boat-celebrates-100th-birthday
A wiki page that shows the usual route The Trillium runs, plus has some
decent pictures and a brief history of Toronto's ferry system and the ships
that have plied it.
cheers.....Jeff
Keith Willshaw
"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:0tku3651nv60q4t4s...@4ax.com...
Given that it operates in a smoke control zone I wonder if
they are firing it with coke or some other smokeless
solid fuel such as furnacite.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Doesn't say.
http://www.kingswearcastle.co.uk/courses.html
Eugene L Griessel
Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.
scott s.
news:nk4u36lceg48o8bgv...@4ax.com:
Sounds about right. I don't think it's that often they have to do
a rod "shim". Standard drill during the ORSE was to have a casualty
requiring a SCRAM followed by a "fast reactor start up" FRSU.
On conventional steeam plant with modern boiler controls it is
possible to drag a boiler off line, or pop safeties if the
throttleman is too agressive, but with reasonable care it isn't
an issue. If all boilers are steaming it might be difficult to
remain stopped for too long without pulling some burners though.
On conventional CVs it was normal in flight ops to have one fireroom
aligned to just the cats.
On the DD963 class at least, shaft torque was a limiting factor
as well.
scott s.
.
Jeffrey Hamilton
I just hate when I do that. Here is the Wiki page, sorry folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Island_ferry_services
cheers.....Jeff
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Coal fired plant was a lot more problematic of course as you
> had to make sure you had enough pulverisers on line
> as well as the ash removal system working. Lets not even
> get into the whole soot blower thing.
>
> Did I ever tell you how much I HATE coal fired power plants :)
Do not worry. We can always go back to coal powered railway trains.
Andrew Swallow
Eugene Griessel
Possibly the lowest thermally efficient devices available. Hardly
likely.
Eugene L Griessel
Of all the strange crimes that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing--with 'obscenity' and
'indecent exposure' fighting it out for second and third place.
David E. Powell
combined, with batteries that can charge when the engine is idle in
port, from shore power etc. allowing for extra burst speed or quiet
cruise.
Keith Willshaw
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:075a3515-3999-4874...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
In a sense any fossil fuel IS a battery as it stores solar energy produced
millions of years ago. The batteries we have are barely adequate to
move lightweight cars a few miles and are horrifically expensive.
The stare of the art would have to move on considerably before that
was a viable option.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:BzP%n.14262$0A5....@newsfe22.iad...
>
> I just hate when I do that. Here is the Wiki page, sorry folks.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Island_ferry_services
>
> cheers.....Jeff
>
The entry that has me spmewhat bemused is that about the Luella
Single deck single ended paddle steamer, with a capacity of 122 passengers.
Built by W. Armour & Company and John Doty Engine Company. Accidentally
scrapped 1934
How do you accidentally scrap a ferry ?
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:15:44 +0100, Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On 15/07/2010 11:57, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>{snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Coal fired plant was a lot more problematic of course as you
>>> had to make sure you had enough pulverisers on line
>>> as well as the ash removal system working. Lets not even
>>> get into the whole soot blower thing.
>>>
>>> Did I ever tell you how much I HATE coal fired power plants :)
>>
>>Do not worry. We can always go back to coal powered railway trains.
>
> Possibly the lowest thermally efficient devices available. Hardly
> likely.
>
At least one was built a couple of years ago
There is a Swiss company building oil fired steam locomotives
using modern technology which are suitable for one man
working with much lower maintenance costs.
They are mainly targetting the tourist railway market.
Keith
Eugene Griessel
Just before SAR&H abandoned steam a young engineer converted one,
using fairly simple techniques, into a far more efficient loco. The
thing became known as "the Red Devil" but was too late to reverse the
trend.
Hey someone even has a page about it:
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/wardale.html
Eugene L Griessel
If you think talk is cheap, try hiring a lawyer.
Roger Conroy
Has anyone ever built a loco with a steam turbine engine?
Dennis
That's essentially what diesel-electric submarines are! How well does that
work? Not very.
Dennis
Alex Potter
> Has anyone ever built a loco with a steam turbine engine?
ISTR that there was a cutaway drawing of such a beast in the Eagle, in
the early 1950s. Of course, I could be mis-remembering...
--
Alex
Dennis
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:57:55 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> <keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Did I ever tell you how much I HATE coal fired power plants :)
>
> Did I ever tell you how much I hate steam installations per se ...
Not a bit surprising!
Re other folks comments about the thermal efficiency of old steam tech:
When I read about 19th- and early 20th century steam technology, it gives
me the creeps to think about the thermal inefficiency! Older steam
locomotives, the Cornish engines for draining mines and polders, etc. Agh!
No wonder ships are all on diesels now. It did take a while to develop
satisfactory marine diesel engines.
I know there are some problems with starting big diesels up from cold.
Dennis
Dennis
> On land based platforms I have seen steam plants that run on some
> really weird fuels.
>
> There is one down the road that uses straw from the stables
> used by the studfarms at Newmarket
>
> Another runs on waste from the sugar refinery at Bury St Edmunds
>
> The worst was a plant in Kent that ran on a foul muck from
> Venezuela called orimulsion
Those are the cases where it makes some sense!
I was looking on the net some time ago for small, hobbyist-scale
reciprocating engines. I saw a company in Australia that had some if you
wanted to burn whatever to make some power in the outback. It could make
sense.
I also saw a project to convert an old diesel to steam recip, to use with a
solar collector. They showed performance curves, using around 600 psi
steam. Superheating made a huge efficiency difference for the engine.
However, 600 psi superheated steam is mighty dangerous! Think of that in
the Third World. They might know how to could handle it, for all I know.
Dennis
Dennis
>>> Waverley is an oil-burner, and has been for many years (yes, I know
>>> you know this Keith, but I'm adding it for clarification). Not sure
>>> about Kingswear Castle, mind...
>>
>>I was on the Kingswear Castle a couple of years back and
>>given the (small) amount of smoke I'd suspect she burns
>>a light oil fuel.
>
> According to the website it is coal-fired and for a suitable fee
> enthusiasts are allowed to stoke it.
Ah, how times change! Think of the times where blokes were paid a measely
amount for the privilege, and prayed they could do something else.
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
SAR&H once experimented with condensor locos in the Karoo (where water
is a problem). As the exhaust steam is usually used to blow the smoke
out the chimney these trains were fitted with electric fans to do the
job. I seem to recall the experiment was not successful and the locos
were reconfigured as ordinary puffer trains.
There is no reason that locos should not be powered by steam turbines
- but a turbine is far more complex and less responsive to immediate
load demands. Probably would have a higher maintenance load too. And
would still be pretty inefficient due to size and other constraints
(such as condensing).
Eugene L Griessel
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts
of 'loyalty' and 'duty'. Whenever these twin concepts fall into
disrepute-get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is
too late to save that society. It is doomed.
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
One of my favourite folk tunes is "Song of the Iron Road" by Ewan
MacColl. It has these lines:
When you've done your time at the loco shed
and had your share of trouble
On the old footplate, you're the driver's mate
And you're married to a lousy shovel
It's check the water, check the tools and chuck
the blooming coal in
Give the gauge a wipe, check injector pipe, now it's
Swing your shovel at the double, give her rock
watch the clock
Steam rising, sweat running, back aching, bone shaking
Fireman, fireman, keep her rolling
When you've shoveled a million tons of coal
some ten or twelve years later
And your only dream is of raising steam
Then they hand to you your drivers papers
The iron road is a hard road and the work is never ending
Working night and day on the iron way, we're the
Loco drivers, early riser, lodging turners, mile burners
Eleven quid a week earners
We're the boys that keep 'em rolling
Alistair Gunn
> Has anyone ever built a loco with a steam turbine engine?
Quite a few people have, both direct drive and turbo-electric :-
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive>
It seems that the LMS Turbomotive was perhaps the best of the breed?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Turbomotive>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Richard Casady
<roger...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Has anyone ever built a loco with a steam turbine engine?
Some US RR, Pennsylvania RR I think, built an experimental one just
after WWII.
Casady
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:35:57 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
>
> >Has anyone ever built a loco with a steam turbine engine?
>
> Some US RR, Pennsylvania RR I think, built an experimental one just
> after WWII.
>
> Casady
1944
From wiki
United States
The single S2, #6200, in a PRR promotional image.
The Pennsylvania Railroad used the largest direct-drive steam turbine
locomotive in the world. Built by Baldwin Locomotive Works, the S2
Turbine, c/n 70900, was delivered to Pennsylvania Railroad in
September 1944. It was originally designed as a 4-8-4, but due to
shortages of lightweight materials during World War II, the S2 became
the only locomotive ever built with a 6-8-6 wheel arrangement. PRR
#6200, the S2 turbine, had a maximum power output of 6,900 HP (5.1 MW)
and was capable of speeds over 100 mph (160 km/h). With the tender,
the unit was approximately 123 feet (37 m) long. The steam turbine was
a modified marine unit. While the gearing system was simpler than a
generator, it had a fatal flaw: the turbine was inefficient at slow
speeds. Below about 40 mph (64 km/h) the turbine used enormous amounts
of steam and fuel. At high speeds, however, the S2 could propel heavy
trains almost effortlessly and efficiently. The smooth turbine drive
put far less stress on the track than a normal piston-driven
locomotive. However, poor efficiency at slow speeds doomed this
turbine, and with diesel-electrics being introduced, no more S2s were
built. The locomotive was retired in 1949 and scrapped in May, 1952.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive
others
Eugene Griessel
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The Pennsylvania Railroad used the largest direct-drive steam turbine
>locomotive in the world. Built by Baldwin Locomotive Works, the S2
Where is doc Breen? If he were monitoring this thread we could have
taken advantage of his vast encyclopaedic knowledge of anything with
iron tyres.
Eugene L Griessel
A diamond is just a lump of coal that made good under pressure.
Alex Potter
> It seems that the LMS Turbomotive was perhaps the best of the breed?
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Turbomotive>
I can't reach the picture link on that page, unfortunately, but looking
at google images' thumbnails, it seems to have been the cutaway drawing I
mentioned earlier.
--
Alex
Alan Lothian
<keithw...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Most modern reactor designs are pretty much self regulating.
> As you pull more steam the core temperature drops, which
> leads to a reactivity increase and an increase in the steam
> generation rate. Good reactor management practise is to
> avoid rapid start ups and shut downs for fairly complex
> reasons involving the fission process but in extremis you
> are talking (a few) minutes as long as the system is warmed through
>
> Keith
Well, if you really want flash steam... (following nonsense provoked by
Quatorze Juillet fireworks)..
1. Buy a small (15kt would be about right, but it may depend on
availability) nuke from your local Pakistani terrorist supplier. He may
insist on being paid in gold or some other tiresome substance unrelated
to your credit card balance. In advance, too.
2. (You may wish to reverse steps 1 and 2) Build a large swimming pool,
at least 50 ft deep. In fact, try to borrow one of the RN's deep diving
tanks; impossible, though, they'd never take the money and you'd never
get the thing, even empty, on to the back of a truck. Still, might be
worth a try, what with the state of the nutty budget after the Defence
Review. Best to assume, though, that you'll have to dig it yourself.
Illegal immigrants and shovels both plentiful and cheap, neither of
which qualities apply to the RN these days.
3. Connect nuclear device to very, very long electrical cord. You may
have to do some research on this yourself, since your nice Pakistani
supplier's instructions probably just include a copy of the Koran, some
fulminate of mercury and a hammer. Lower gently to bottom of pool.
3a. Almost forgot this bit. Afterthought, what? Hence the 3a bit.
Jolly important though. Fill swimming pool very very full of water.
Easier to put the nuke in first, and you might be able to get a good,
off-peak deal from your local water company.
4. Set off nuke, using a good general knowledge of 19th-century
electrical theory. Don't look at it.
5. Deal with steam. Hot stuff. Wouldn't work without 3a above, that's
for sure.
May not work too well in a marine boiler room, mind you. Never been
properly tested.
Interesting differential equations available for those who like to
think them up, involving depth of water (hence pressure) diameter of
pool (hence time for thrust to develop under d.o.w. above) and thrust
itself, expressed as some sort of ridiculously complicated fraction of
yield. One way or another, you get a lot of steam. Biologically pure,
too, if you're interested in powering up about five million autoclaves.
I will spare you all the tale of the sterlized chainsaw and the field
amputation. (Trick is to do it fast: a sterlized. oil=free chainsaw
seizes up remarkably quickly. Axe works better, but requires more
training.)
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
Frequent absences due to allure of French nurses
Eugene Griessel
wrote:
Typical Lothian complicated method snipped.
Drill two holes a few feet apart - keep drilling till you hit mantle.
(BP should have some cheap rigs going on HP right now). Pour water
down one hole, get gushing steam out of other. Piece of old tacky! In
fact if you move to Iceland you don't even have to drill that deep if
you choose your location carefully. Bits of New Zealand work well
too.
Eugene L Griessel
'Look, Tonto, Indians! We might be in for trouble.'
'What you mean, 'we', white man?'
Paul J. Adam
<tsalagi...@hotmail.com> writes
There are a great many ships on the seabed, and many dead crew, that
would dispute the notion that DE boats aren't dangerous or effective.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Eugene Griessel
Yes, well, effective as war machines maybe, but are they effective as
efficient energy users and producers?
Eugene L Griessel
Be silent, wretch, and think not here allow'd
That worst of tyrants, an usurping crowd - The Illiad.
Dennis
> Dennis writes
>>David E. Powell wrote:
>>> Here's a crazy one - Hybrid technology. Batteries and fossil fuel
>>> combined, with batteries that can charge when the engine is idle in
>>> port, from shore power etc. allowing for extra burst speed or quiet
>>> cruise.
>>
>>That's essentially what diesel-electric submarines are! How well does
>>that work? Not very.
>
> There are a great many ships on the seabed, and many dead crew, that
> would dispute the notion that DE boats aren't dangerous or effective.
For that purpose, indeed!!! But on surface vessels as a replacement system
with diesel engines for cruising and GT's for sprints? Hardly.
Dennis
dott.Piergiorgio
> Interesting differential equations available for those who like to
> think them up, involving depth of water (hence pressure) diameter of
> pool (hence time for thrust to develop under d.o.w. above) and thrust
> itself, expressed as some sort of ridiculously complicated fraction of
> yield. One way or another, you get a lot of steam. Biologically pure,
> too, if you're interested in powering up about five million autoclaves.
> I will spare you all the tale of the sterlized chainsaw and the field
> amputation. (Trick is to do it fast: a sterlized. oil=free chainsaw
> seizes up remarkably quickly. Axe works better, but requires more
> training.)
well, sterilization or not, the light will be provided by the amputee
himself, provided his name is Giovanni delle Bande Nere ;)
and, obSMN: the same-named very light cruiser seems known to have
difficulties in cleaning hammocks;as a fact, was known inside the Regia
Marina as the "Brande nere" (literally, "black hammocks") because, well,
when the supposedly washed hammocks was put topside for drying, they
shows a rather dark hue (and on the top of that, she was fitted for flag
ship, no wonder that the later series of Condottieri has at least *two*
units fitted as flagship...)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Keith Willshaw
"Roger Conroy" <roger...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1q1pj$p2v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Several have been built , the problem has always been the complex
system needed to transmit the power to the wheels. Both electrical
and mechanical drive methods were tried, none were very satisfactory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive
The LMS Turbomotive stayed in service for 11 years but was eventually
rebuilt as a standard unit.
Keith
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DB77A0D0FC58ts...@130.133.4.11...
600 lb is not too bad, its when you get 1200 lb and above the fun
really starts.
Keith