WW2 German Propulsion

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (seasick) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:51:57 GMT

Wasn't the best source of hot air in NAZI Germany the Fuhrer himself?

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:50:49 GMT

Overboard is the last option, Potable is preferred.

Mike

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:36:01 GMT

Mike
During WW2 we neva dumped over board,into feedwater or potable tanks it was too much work to make water to go back into the sea!did a stint on #1 evap as a fill in P/O TOO MUCH Work besides boilers were my thing so back to "B" division

NUFF SAID

BOBC

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:20:20 GMT

The distillate spec for a Naval Distilling Plant is .065 PPM. Anything over that is either dumped to the sea or used to make Potable Water. the spec for boiler water is either .08 or .1 PPM.

Mike

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Throd) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:38:01 GMT

Actually I was trying to compare the salinity level that BOBC59 was told was acceptable for feed and compare it to the salinity levels used in the modern UK domestic plant, just out of curiosity. However since I've never used grains I was baffled by what they actually represented in terms I understand.
If it was grains per barrel then 0.5 grains = 0.25 ppm Salt
1f it was grains per gallon the 0.5 grains = 8 ppm Salt

I have to keep my boiler drums at below 0.2 grains...

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:18:05 GMT

The Brits had to clean the inside of the tubes and steam drums due to scale. Every Navy has to one time or other clean the outside of the tubes and I know that can be performed at sea.

The regular dockings the Brits did were for scale cleaning and so far as I know that cannot be done at sea as it requires Chemical shocking and water lancing.

Us Engineering Laboratory Technician types went to 7 weeks of school for boiler chemistry and 5 more for Radcon. I can still see the...

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:46:15 GMT

Jlyons
I had forgotten that we were strickly residule cut back good ole navy special or civilian use was #5 fuel oil also it was high sulphur content geez I was oil king as well but it was 60 yrs ago can i use that as an xcuze pls and the believe button I'd neva question ole boss Hayes he was always called boss neva chief I'd do anything that guy told me no question asked and without hesitation! blind trust nope! just believed in him as a leader

NUFF SAID

BOBC

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (jlyons97) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:28:02 GMT

Fermi2 wrote:
The purpose of water chemistry. If they were cleaning 600# boilers every 600 hours during the 40s it was due to a PM.
Now the 1200# Plants that jylons speaks of might have the need to do so.

Mike

I recall the waterside cleaning was the same in both plants. However, my career overlapped the distillate fuel era. BOBC was the NSFO (navy special fuel oil; crude cut with...

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:15:00 GMT

it was not that often no way near that often

nuff said

bobc

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:13:37 GMT

The purpose of water chemistry. If they were cleaning 600# boilers every 600 hours during the 40s it was due to a PM.
Now the 1200# Plants that jylons speaks of might have the need to do so.

Mike

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:30:41 GMT

really not that often dont forget we werent at hook too often if one had a brick problem then a complete fireside was done! most times it was just a surface clean hadda have some thing for the on report guys to do Mamie did a lot of steaming in her short time in service over a 1/4 million miles really waterside were a quickie no more n 1 -2 passes thru, the one time I really remember is when we did all 8 complete water side fireside rebrick replace tubes if needed it was like we rebuilt all...

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:58:56 GMT

How often did you clean boilers? My guess is not much for scale but more often for surface deposits from combustion.

Mike

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:52:19 GMT

also as p/o always tried to maintain "0" hardness in boiler water as possible good ole boiler compound! ole boss Hayes would not allow anything else hey he was my chief that meant GOD he ranked above all and I mean all

NUFF SAID
BOB

for the uneducated chief petty officers are the backbone of any navy bar none

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:46:03 GMT

You cleaned tubes every 600 hours whether you needed to or not. I remember having to clean this strainer from the discharge of the RFTP (Reserve Feed Transfer Pump) every 30 days as a PM. Now this strainer processed the cleanest water in the entire engineering spaces and not once did I ever find anything in it, but for 26 months I cleaned it. We were on 4 shift rotation so this PM came up everytime I stood ERLL on nights.

Mike

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:40:28 GMT

THROD wrote
Sorry I'm metric - no idea what a grain is.
now are u not being idiotic surely even brits know what a grain of salt is metric smetric give me a break

NUFF SAID

BOB

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:38:49 GMT

"The former to clean the outside of the tubes, the latter the inside. BOBC had already touched on how much fun this was. Note ship's force did this in Mamie and indeed all ships - no going into Liverpool like HMS Compass Rose for a 'boiler clean' done by a civilian work force."

I have read lots of accounts of RN/RAN boiler cleans in out of the way anchorages by the ships company in WII. Accounts of Med service usually dwell on the lack of time for boiler cleans...

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:23:50 GMT

First on, last off, and usually the highest casualty rate of a sinking vessel. I'm a proud snipe.

VIVA LA SNIPE!!!

Mike

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (BOBC 59) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:16:48 GMT

Nothing to read between da lines it was feed water or potable water and neva did we eva have to use sea water for showers can the brits say that? Iv'e heard some horror stories in new caladonia from the aussies visiting ship about salt water showers and no butter had a few brit snipes visit. one of the 1st thing they commmeneted on was available fresh water on our ship and I can neva remember eva being critical on feed water oh by the way snipe is not a deogartary expression it a honor to...

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:36:50 GMT

Throd wrote:
Actually Fermi you said "what the various nations had" not what the US had. Looking at JLyons post - if the US needed to descale their boilers every 600 hours (6 weeks continuous steaming) how often did the RN have to? I'd forgotten about fireside cleaning - in modern domestic it is only every outage. The condenser leakage was also a good point - nowadays we use titanium which is much less leaky....

Re: WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (Fermi2) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:27:23 GMT

Jylons hits on an excellent point, when dealing with high pressures and temperatures things happen a LOT quicker and not necessarily linearly. The plant acts more dynamically. A Steam leak on a 1200# plant will put out roughly 1.4 times the steam as a 600 pound plant. The higher temperature will accelerate chemical reactions.

Water from Evaps comes out pure but it's stored in tanks that are made of carbon steel and are part of the ships structure. The longer the reserve...

WW2 German Propulsion

feeds@yuku.com (miketr) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:53:01 GMT

The USN vs RN BB thread got me wondering. Why did the Germans have such bad problems with some of their warships propulsion? Just lack of experience or was there something wrong with the design. The CA's and destroyers with their 600º C boilers (I think they had 600º C boilers) had all sorts of problems while the larger ships like Bismarck or the twins didn't have such problems. Bismarck had 450º C boilers what did Gneisenau and Scharnhorst have? For that matter any info on what...