| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Invernahaille
|
 Posted -
26/06/2006
:
04:02
|
Edited by - Invernahaille on 10 April 2007 04:41:19
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 06:18
Good, I thought that was what I had, The Bible! Very comprehensive and accurate. A joy to skim through it.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk  |
Invernahaille
|
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 01:07
Glad to hear you enjoyed it, Stanley.
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 17:16
A question for the engineers. When the change from steam power to oil occurred in warships which navies did it first, and was it all ships or certain types before others? To what extent did it affect the performance of the ships and thus their competitiveness?
|
Bradders
|
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 17:47
I have a feeling that my next question might not be too smart , but here goes ......
I'm wondering if ships have ever been switched from coal fired boilers to oil fired ( a bit like our Aga) therefore continuing to be powered by steam.
.....and what is a "Steam turbine " ?
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Invernahaille
|
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 22:28
Tizer,
I am asuming you meant change over from coal to oil. Thomo, will probably answer this one better than I can. He being an ex grey funnel man. Interesting question though.
|
Invernahaille
|
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 22:40
Bradders,
Most ships if not too old were converted from coal to either oil or gas. BP Tankers and a few others were fuelled by the gasses that were generated by the crude oil they carried in their holds.
A steam turbine is an engine which converts thermal energy into a rotary motion. In principle a little like a jet engine. The turbine has blades like a jet engine, however the blades on a jet engine compress air to be ignited by aviation fuel which causes expansion and provides thrust. Steam is fed into the turbine and as it expands to escape it turns the blades giving it a rotational force.
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 06:56
Change from coal to oil firing was post WW1 as Middle East oil became widely available. I don't know the exact date but it would be about 1920 I reckon. However you won't be surprised to hear I have a book... 'Short History of Marine Engineering' by E C Smith, published Cambridge 1937. He says that the use of oil fuel was roughly contiguous with the advent of steam turbines in place of the old up and downers, reciprocating engines. On April 3 1884 Charles Algernon Parsons took out his ground breaking patent for a steam turbine, developed it an at the Spthead Review on June 26th 1897 he gatecrashed with the Turbinia which was so fast no navy ships could catch it.In July 1914 at the same review all the most important ships present had steam turbines. The first ship was the VIPER, a twn screw Torpedo boat destroyer in June 1898.First turbine driven Atlantic liner was the Carmania in 1905. First dreadnought was in 1905 also.
The first oil-fired shps for the navy were being built in 1906, small boats at first but rapidly becoming the standard fuel. Experiments in burning liqid fuel under ships boilers went back as far as 1834 and true oil-firing experiments were made by British and us navies in the 1860s. In 1898 the Admiralty tried Kermode's burners in the destroyer SURLY. James Melrose and George Fryer were two naval officers who did the experiments at Haslar between 1902 and 1905 which led to the adoption of oil as a fuel.By 1920 many ships had been convereted and it was the standard for all new builds.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Tizer
|
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 09:48
"Tizer, I am assuming you meant change over from coal to oil."
Yes, thanks for the correction - my question was badly phrased! I'd been looking at photos the fleet in WWI with the long plumes of black smoke revealing their presence over the horizon and it started me thinking about when and how it all changed. Thanks to both of you for the clarifications.
|
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt
2021 Posts
|
|
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 21:58
Thank you Invernahaille, and yes I have a response. Not one generated by reading books however, just a general knowledge of the subject being fifth generation grey funnel. The change from coal to oil did not happen overnight, in respect of warships in WW1 as new vessels were built the use of oil as fuel gradually replaced coal. My Fathers ship was the Orion Class Battleship HMS Thunderer and I recall his stories of the hardships that this entailed. His ship was quite new at the outbreak of war having been launched in 1911 but as the war progressed newer ships arrived on the scene that were oil fired, this extended their capabilities and efficiency. By the start of WW2 very few ships were coal fired. The oil used is known as Furnace Fuel Oil or FFO, thick and very smelly and when cold about the same constituency as porridge. Before it can be used it has to be heated or it will not pass through the sprayers, this process thins the FFO until it is more like the diesel we know today. FFO was itself replaced by diesel oil for use in furnaces, this meant that in operations where both steam and diesel engined vessels were operating together they could be supplied by a single tanker. The main reason that the then Royal Yacht Brittania in her other guise as a hospital ship could not take part in the Falkland war was that she was an FFO ship and would have required another ship to supply her. Diesel is the common fuel for surface ships and some submarines, and whilst no longer used for main engine steam generation it is used in the gas turbines and auxiliary machinery. The only other fuels that tankers now carry are small amounts of petrol for outboard motors and aircraft fuels such as Avgas and Avcat. The only true steam vessels that are still with our fleet are the nuclear submarines in which the traditional boiler arrangement has been replaced by a nuclear reactor, same steam, different and much cleaner source, also very efficient, and yes quieter. To fully appreciate the lot of a Marine Engineer there is no substitute for having been one, it can be damned hard and difficult work, it also requires some very diverse applications of the thinking process, at the end of the day though it brings a certain satisfaction.
thomo |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 06:45
"Not one generated by reading books however"
They can nevertheless be useful Peter. All part of the rich tapestry of knowledge.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt
2021 Posts
|
|
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 14:17
Is it so wrong for me to point out that most of the rich tapestry of my knowledge on this subject was not achieved by reading books on the subject, rather that it was gained by having good tuition, an enquiring mind, good practical skills mostly self acquired and a genuine interest in what I was hoping to accomplish. Yes as a junior rating I was given books, blank ones, these I had to fill in in the shape of drawings and text based on my own observations of my particular marine engineering environment. When joining a ship for the first time I had to familiarise myself with all of the systems on board and very quickly too, my writings and drawings were under constant scrutiny and all of this had to be done in tandem with my onboard duties. Multiply this with the diverse range of vessels that I served on and you can see that I did a lot of writing and drawing. Of course there are many good books on this subject, the best of which were probably written by someone doing just what I did and others written by enthusiastic engineers who had designed such systems.
thomo |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 07:23
Quite Peter, that was my point. The book was written by Engineer Captain Edgar C Smith an immensely qualified naval man, Published for Babcox and Wilcox by Cambridge University Press with all that implies. A wonderful book written from exoerience and one I would trust. Well worth getting hold of.
I've found a copy on Bookfinder for you. LINK HERE £14 and well worth it, I promise you'll enjoy it. Much of it is about the Royal Navy and attitudes to change. Hard to find info like this today even on the Internet.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Invernahaille
|
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 14:11
Thats, interesting Thomo.
Most junior engineers, used to have notebooks (and I dont mean the computerised ones) when on board vessels. I think the idea was that although there were more senior engineers on board who you could ask, it would save time if you found out for yourself. I spent many an hour underneat the footplates, on top of the DB tanks, tracing pipework and valves etc.
When I joined Ellerman lines they had around a hundred ships, and these were broken down into classes, (Sister Ships).
The idea was that you made notes for future reference to use when joining another ship of the same class.
Also, I understand what you are saying about academic work. However, you need a really thorough knowledge of the principles, so that when it comes time to improvise, you know what you can get away with, without endangering your ship even further.
Quote for today. There are no Aetheist on a sinking ship.
|
Invernahaille
|
Posted - 14/12/2010 : 23:52
The City of Lancaster, berthed at No9 Dock Trafford Park (Salford Docks) in 1970. Note the funnel, the top half is removed at Eastham Locks, so that the ship can navigate under the bridges on the Manchester Ship Canal.
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 15/12/2010 : 05:31
I once saw a ship take down wires across the canal with the mast as it entered the big lock at Warrington.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Marine Engineers
