WW2 German Propulsion

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
tassilo27		#11	[-]
Posts: 75 (25-Jan-2008 22:52:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If this doesn't end up on the NavWeaps Technical Board, it would be a travesty. On Kirov (Admiral Ushakov now I think), wasn't the nuclear reactor used for cruising and the electronics gear and the boilers for flank speed? The reactor wasn't powerful enough to power all the electronics AND get a twenty-thousand ton ship to move at 30 knots?
miketr		#12	[-]
Posts: 2819 (25-Jan-2008 23:00:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	7: No. Given the highest temperature in most nuke plants is about 636 F and the highest in a Superheated Boilercan be greater than 100 a nuke plant hardly has any heat signature at all. ??? I was asking about the raw physical size of a nuclear power plant. I understand that nukes generate less heat, thats why the Russians went with the oil boilers too so they could get superheat. Michael
Fermi2	In Short	#13	[-]
Posts: 3135 (25-Jan-2008 23:07:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	tassilo27 wrote: If this doesn't end up on the NavWeaps Technical Board, it would be a travesty. On Kirov (Admiral Ushakov now I think), wasn't the nuclear reactor used for cruising and the electronics gear and the boilers for flank speed? The reactor wasn't powerful enough to power all the electronics AND get a twenty-thousand ton ship to move at 30 knots? No
Fermi2	Mike	#14	[-]
Posts: 3136 (25-Jan-2008 23:11:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	No, the reactors themselves aren't so much volume intensive as weight intensive. Tour the Machinery Spaces of a WW2 BB and you'll see how much space a boiler room occupies. Also, Reactors have shields both above and around the Reactor Compartment, while these are radiation shields they knock down thermal signature a lot. As for the actual engine rooms, they aren't laid out hugely different than regular steam plants. Mike
BOBC 59		#15	[-]
Posts: 1048 (25-Jan-2008 23:20:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Fremi alot what u said was taught at USN Boiler & turbine Lab at phila navy yard i was sent there when I made F1/c learened alot to bring back to mamie helped me alotit was amazing how my mind kicked in back to 1942 gee thanx for the kudos on boiler firing if ya had a heavy throttle man u was in deep caca packing valves omg what fun and water chemisrty lots know not of what u speak words that i long forgot economizers, bottom blow,water hardness salinityand the boatswians nite mare permissin to blow tubes # 3 fireroom sir it was hot there at da soot blower it was dry steam too those chain got mity hot, cleaning water side of econimizer was not the most pleasant job thanx fer da memories nuff said BOBC only thing auto control was Boss Hayes For those that fought for it,Freedom has a taste and meaning ,The protected will never know.
Fermi2	Anytime Bob	#16	[-]
Posts: 3138 (25-Jan-2008 23:27:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	While I never operated boilers under the conditions you did, was I close???? It amazes me these days how Operators and Engineers cannot trouble shoot or operate without a computer. One thing I bet we both have in common. Removing Packing from a Valve only to find out the guy who "SWORE" he drained the pipe actually never checked it drained OR used a drain that's above the valve you are repacking. I took a Boiler Room shower once When I was an Operator at Fermi back in 1991 we had heating boilers, they were D Type Boilers we ran at about 100 Pounds, they were about 25 feet high. The stack went out the roof. The Plant Operators (Guys in the field and out in the plant) had to go to the boiler house once a shift to inspect the boilers, and open the inspection port to check burner pattern to make sure none of the burner gun ports were clogged. I loved those rare occasions when Engineering had to go on the roof for the emissions testing. I never once passed up the opportunity to blow soot when they were up there I gotta admit, my pre reactor operator/senior reactor operator days sure were fun! Mike Last Edited By: Fermi2 25-Jan-2008 23:33:12. Edited 1 times.
BOBC 59		#17	[-]
Posts: 1050 (26-Jan-2008 01:58:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	YEA real Close NUFF SAID BOBC For those that fought for it,Freedom has a taste and meaning ,The protected will never know.
hoist40		#18	[-]
Posts: 974 (26-Jan-2008 03:16:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Looking at say an old railroad steam engine boiler thats all the tubes inside it, those are the superheater? Just a slight clarification. 19th-century locomotives did not have superheaters but many steam railroad locomotives after 1905-1910 did have superheaters. Almost all the locomotives had fire tube boilers but on the superheated ones many of the upper tubes were enlarged and U shaped superheated pipes were inserted. The boilers went up to 300 psi, the most the fire tube boilers could handle, while early superheaters gave 150 to 200 degrees superheat while later ones went up to 350 degrees causing the steam to be at 700 to 800 degrees which was the most the lubrication in the cylinders could handle. So depending on how old your old railroad steam engine boiler is then it might or might not have a superheater.
Fermi2	Thanks hoist	#19	[-]
Posts: 3144 (26-Jan-2008 04:52:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I stand corrected sir!
robertf2		#20	[-]
Posts: 313 (26-Jan-2008 10:37:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	hoist40 wrote: Looking at say an old railroad steam engine boiler thats all the tubes inside it, those are the superheater? Just a slight clarification. 19th-century locomotives did not have superheaters but many steam railroad locomotives after 1905-1910 did have superheaters. Almost all the locomotives had fire tube boilers but on the superheated ones many of the upper tubes were enlarged and U shaped superheated pipes were inserted. The boilers went up to 300 psi, the most the fire tube boilers could handle, while early superheaters gave 150 to 200 degrees superheat while later ones went up to 350 degrees causing the steam to be at 700 to 800 degrees which was the most the lubrication in the cylinders could handle. So depending on how old your old railroad steam engine boiler is then it might or might not have a superheater. Interesting. I have read accounts that state that pre World war one VTE engines used more or less saturated steam as they needed condensation for lubricant as lubricants of the day were vegetable or animal products and could not be used to lubricate cylinders as they would cook inside the cylinders leaving hard and gummy deposits. Did these locomotives used mineral lubricants? I was under the impression that mineral lubricants did not come into wide scale use until after World War one?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

WW2 German Propulsion

Quick Reply