Re: Firebrand
So for higher working pressures would the increase in weight be
fairly modest, with the extra weight only being incurred in the
thicker walled boiler tubes, and piping to the engine? So that power
may be increased, but weight not by much?
In any case Bolger seems to wring speed from power that most cannot.
PCB says that Firebrand gets no lift from engine power, so it is not
planing but in displacement hull speed mode.
From 'John's Boat Site' Calculations Page
http://www.johnsboat.com/calcs-web.htmlfor an SFD steam,
displacement hulled launch, an approximation for Firebrand at 12kts:
Hull Speed= 1.34sqrt(LWL)= 1.34sqrt~24= 1.34 x ~4.9= ~6.6
SL Ratio for Required Horse Power: Hull Speed/sqrtLWL= 12/~4.9= ~2.45
Pounds Per Horsepower= ~122.5 (interpolating between 2.4 & 2.5 in
John's table)
Required Horsepower= Weight / Pounds Per Horsepower= 1120/122.5=
~9.1HP.
Firebrand had only 6HP available, so for the Bolger hull
conventional reckoning must breakdown. Bolger was able to have
Firebrand beat his client's rival's boat speed, and achieve 12kts
with 2/3 the horsepower than usual for a displacement hull. And
Bolger says "a 15HP outboard would drive the hull the same speed or
better (on account of being so much lighter), but "'tain't as sweet
as steam." So they say" How about a 15HP steam engine(ignoring extra
weight)?
Working back to find the speed achieved with 15 HP:
1120 designed displacement lbs /15HP = 74.6 Pounds Per Horsepower
= ~75 PPH
After extrapolating John's table: 75 Pounds Per Horsepower gives an
approximate reading for an SL ratio of 3. Using this SL ratio:
Speed= sqrtLWL x SL ratio= 4.9 x 3 = 14.7kts or _similar speed_, but
if a certain speed was achieved with 2/3 the usual horsepower then
perhaps a certain horsepower can achieve 3/2 the usual speed, or
14.7 x 3/2 = ~22kts. Better speed. (The similar hulled 20'LOA Viper
got 18mph (15.6kts) on 12HP)
Graeme
fairly modest, with the extra weight only being incurred in the
thicker walled boiler tubes, and piping to the engine? So that power
may be increased, but weight not by much?
In any case Bolger seems to wring speed from power that most cannot.
PCB says that Firebrand gets no lift from engine power, so it is not
planing but in displacement hull speed mode.
From 'John's Boat Site' Calculations Page
http://www.johnsboat.com/calcs-web.htmlfor an SFD steam,
displacement hulled launch, an approximation for Firebrand at 12kts:
Hull Speed= 1.34sqrt(LWL)= 1.34sqrt~24= 1.34 x ~4.9= ~6.6
SL Ratio for Required Horse Power: Hull Speed/sqrtLWL= 12/~4.9= ~2.45
Pounds Per Horsepower= ~122.5 (interpolating between 2.4 & 2.5 in
John's table)
Required Horsepower= Weight / Pounds Per Horsepower= 1120/122.5=
~9.1HP.
Firebrand had only 6HP available, so for the Bolger hull
conventional reckoning must breakdown. Bolger was able to have
Firebrand beat his client's rival's boat speed, and achieve 12kts
with 2/3 the horsepower than usual for a displacement hull. And
Bolger says "a 15HP outboard would drive the hull the same speed or
better (on account of being so much lighter), but "'tain't as sweet
as steam." So they say" How about a 15HP steam engine(ignoring extra
weight)?
Working back to find the speed achieved with 15 HP:
1120 designed displacement lbs /15HP = 74.6 Pounds Per Horsepower
= ~75 PPH
After extrapolating John's table: 75 Pounds Per Horsepower gives an
approximate reading for an SL ratio of 3. Using this SL ratio:
Speed= sqrtLWL x SL ratio= 4.9 x 3 = 14.7kts or _similar speed_, but
if a certain speed was achieved with 2/3 the usual horsepower then
perhaps a certain horsepower can achieve 3/2 the usual speed, or
14.7 x 3/2 = ~22kts. Better speed. (The similar hulled 20'LOA Viper
got 18mph (15.6kts) on 12HP)
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@...> wrote:
> Figuring the strain on the metal is done by calculating the area
that the gas is acting on and then dividing that force by the area
of metal, so, yes, a small diameter tube requires less strength in
its walls. The rupturing force and the sidewall strength are
all "per linear inch of tube."
> Roger
Yes, BUT, the hydraulic fluid and diesel fuel you cite are not expansive gases. Containing steam or air is different than water or hydraulic fluid and the SAE standards are different for those system. With steam, once the rupture starts, the gas continues to expand and do damage. I don't believe that the water decomposes and then recombines, but it's not necessary. Blast, heat, and shrapnel are a sufficient hazard. The father of one of my co-workers lost both his legs to a rusty old air tank he'd salvaged.
Figuring the strain on the metal is done by calculating the area that the gas is acting on and then dividing that force by the area of metal, so, yes, a small diameter tube requires less strength in its walls. The rupturing force and the sidewall strength are all "per linear inch of tube."
The big boilers you mention are almost certainly water tube boilers, so only the mud drums and expansion headers are bigger (and stronger). I believe the fire tube boilers used on steam locomotives maxed out at 200 or 300 psi. Both they and the Stanley boiler used the tubes as stays to help the fire box and smoke box resist the forces.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
Figuring the strain on the metal is done by calculating the area that the gas is acting on and then dividing that force by the area of metal, so, yes, a small diameter tube requires less strength in its walls. The rupturing force and the sidewall strength are all "per linear inch of tube."
The big boilers you mention are almost certainly water tube boilers, so only the mud drums and expansion headers are bigger (and stronger). I believe the fire tube boilers used on steam locomotives maxed out at 200 or 300 psi. Both they and the Stanley boiler used the tubes as stays to help the fire box and smoke box resist the forces.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Firebrand
As Pcb says a small boiler can stand a lot more pressure than a big
one. In a 6 inch diameter boiler 1900 lbs. is not a lot of pressure
reinforce rubber hoses stand at least 3000 lbs and maybe three times
that I don't know any more. Diesel fuel injectors run under 3000 lbs
pressure and the tubing is very thin. In a two hundred and fifty gallon
boiler their are thousands of square inches so it's 1900 lbs times the
number of square inches and thats a lot of total pressure. That tank
needs to be pretty thick. There has always been an argument that in
super heated steam when the boiler explodes that there may be a sudden
seperation of Oxegen and hydrogen thus an explosion of those two as
well as steam expansion. I'm sure that that this has all been decided
by now and the argument put to rest. Old time engineers argued that the
power of the explosion was way out of proportion to the steam pressure
and expansion. As a kid growing up in the 30's and 40's and having
several licenced enginnrs in the neighborhood this was a topic argued on
a regular basis.
Doug
derbyrm wrote:
>
> I wonder if that would be an actual limit, or a practical one based on
> the SAE tests for pressure vessels. The latter requires that one test
> (with water, not steam) at 3x working pressure plus 100 psi. For a 600
> psi boiler, that would require 1900 psi to test.
>
> Roger
>derbyrm@...
> <mailto:derbyrm%40NOSPAMinsightbbNOSPAM.com>
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm<http://home.insightbb.com/%7Ederbyrm>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon & Wanda(Tink)
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:19 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Firebrand
>
> I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
> limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
>
> Jon
>
> >
> > After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
> > boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
> > to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
> > as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
> > in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
> > has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
> > do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
> > enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
> > scary.)
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Based on the idea that a small boiler can stand a lot of pressure then a
tube boiler can also stand a lot of pressure. The tubes are maybe 2
inches in diameter so they can be fairly thin. The outside of the boiler
has no pressure it at all only heat. This is the only reason that it is
practical for ships to have high pressure boilers. A big boiler twenty
feet in diameter would be so thick a ship cpuld hardly carry it.
Doug.
Doug wrote:
tube boiler can also stand a lot of pressure. The tubes are maybe 2
inches in diameter so they can be fairly thin. The outside of the boiler
has no pressure it at all only heat. This is the only reason that it is
practical for ships to have high pressure boilers. A big boiler twenty
feet in diameter would be so thick a ship cpuld hardly carry it.
Doug.
Doug wrote:
>
> As Pcb says a small boiler can stand a lot more pressure than a big
> one. In a 6 inch diameter boiler 1900 lbs. is not a lot of pressure
> reinforce rubber hoses stand at least 3000 lbs and maybe three times
> that I don't know any more. Diesel fuel injectors run under 3000 lbs
> pressure and the tubing is very thin. In a two hundred and fifty gallon
> boiler their are thousands of square inches so it's 1900 lbs times the
> number of square inches and thats a lot of total pressure. That tank
> needs to be pretty thick. There has always been an argument that in
> super heated steam when the boiler explodes that there may be a sudden
> seperation of Oxegen and hydrogen thus an explosion of those two as
> well as steam expansion. I'm sure that that this has all been decided
> by now and the argument put to rest. Old time engineers argued that the
> power of the explosion was way out of proportion to the steam pressure
> and expansion. As a kid growing up in the 30's and 40's and having
> several licenced enginnrs in the neighborhood this was a topic argued on
> a regular basis.
>
> Doug
>
> derbyrm wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if that would be an actual limit, or a practical one based on
> > the SAE tests for pressure vessels. The latter requires that one test
> > (with water, not steam) at 3x working pressure plus 100 psi. For a 600
> > psi boiler, that would require 1900 psi to test.
> >
> > Roger
> >derbyrm@...
> <mailto:derbyrm%40NOSPAMinsightbbNOSPAM.com>
> > <mailto:derbyrm%40NOSPAMinsightbbNOSPAM.com>
> >http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
> <http://home.insightbb.com/%7Ederbyrm>
> <http://home.insightbb.com/%7Ederbyrm
> <http://home.insightbb.com/%7Ederbyrm>>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jon & Wanda(Tink)
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:19 AM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: Firebrand
> >
> > I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
> > limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > >
> > > After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
> > > boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
> > > to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
> > > as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
> > > in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
> > > has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
> > > do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
> > > enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
> > > scary.)
> > >
> > > Graeme
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
As Pcb says a small boiler can stand a lot more pressure than a big
one. In a 6 inch diameter boiler 1900 lbs. is not a lot of pressure
reinforce rubber hoses stand at least 3000 lbs and maybe three times
that I don't know any more. Diesel fuel injectors run under 3000 lbs
pressure and the tubing is very thin. In a two hundred and fifty gallon
boiler their are thousands of square inches so it's 1900 lbs times the
number of square inches and thats a lot of total pressure. That tank
needs to be pretty thick. There has always been an argument that in
super heated steam when the boiler explodes that there may be a sudden
seperation of Oxegen and hydrogen thus an explosion of those two as
well as steam expansion. I'm sure that that this has all been decided
by now and the argument put to rest. Old time engineers argued that the
power of the explosion was way out of proportion to the steam pressure
and expansion. As a kid growing up in the 30's and 40's and having
several licenced enginnrs in the neighborhood this was a topic argued on
a regular basis.
Doug
derbyrm wrote:
one. In a 6 inch diameter boiler 1900 lbs. is not a lot of pressure
reinforce rubber hoses stand at least 3000 lbs and maybe three times
that I don't know any more. Diesel fuel injectors run under 3000 lbs
pressure and the tubing is very thin. In a two hundred and fifty gallon
boiler their are thousands of square inches so it's 1900 lbs times the
number of square inches and thats a lot of total pressure. That tank
needs to be pretty thick. There has always been an argument that in
super heated steam when the boiler explodes that there may be a sudden
seperation of Oxegen and hydrogen thus an explosion of those two as
well as steam expansion. I'm sure that that this has all been decided
by now and the argument put to rest. Old time engineers argued that the
power of the explosion was way out of proportion to the steam pressure
and expansion. As a kid growing up in the 30's and 40's and having
several licenced enginnrs in the neighborhood this was a topic argued on
a regular basis.
Doug
derbyrm wrote:
>
> I wonder if that would be an actual limit, or a practical one based on
> the SAE tests for pressure vessels. The latter requires that one test
> (with water, not steam) at 3x working pressure plus 100 psi. For a 600
> psi boiler, that would require 1900 psi to test.
>
> Roger
>derbyrm@...
> <mailto:derbyrm%40NOSPAMinsightbbNOSPAM.com>
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm<http://home.insightbb.com/%7Ederbyrm>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon & Wanda(Tink)
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:19 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Firebrand
>
> I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
> limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
>
> Jon
>
> >
> > After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
> > boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
> > to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
> > as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
> > in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
> > has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
> > do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
> > enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
> > scary.)
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ... the ship boilers that PCB thoughtFor what it is worth, if anyone wants to read more of PCB's thoughts
about ship boilers, he writes about boilers in the sailing raceboats
which feature prominently in his book Schorpieon, ISBN 0941997006.
Steam boilers come in two flavors, water tube and fire tube. The water tube units bring up their pressure quickly from a cold start, but they have to be sized for the maximum horsepower the system needs. Fire tube boilers act as accumulators with a mass of water waiting to flash into steam when needed. For the relatively steady load of a boat, the water tube units do well. For the widely varied loads of an automobile, the fire tube has major advantages since it can be sized to the average load.
That said, the Stanley brothers had only two explosions in the history of their company. One was in their test pit when they were considering whether they might reduce the three layers of piano wire wrapping to two. After replacing all the windows in the neighborhood of their plant, they stuck with three layers. The second occurred when a local blacksmith salvaged a boiler from their scrap heap. They'd removed the piano wire, so he used strap iron. Bad idea. In one speed test in Daytona Beach, the primitive body shape of their racer became airborne and disintegrated. The boiler rolled hissing into the surf, but it did not explode. Theirs was a fire tube boiler.
I once spent a couple of years doing a paper design for a modern steam car. I could afford it as long as it stayed on paper, but moving, babies, wife ... . The tales above came from a wonderful book called "Story of a Stanley Steamer" by Woodford.
If one's a machinist and is willing to be part of the black gang, a steam plant would be fun. (For the politically correct, the term black gang has nothing to do with their genetics, only their hygiene.)
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
That said, the Stanley brothers had only two explosions in the history of their company. One was in their test pit when they were considering whether they might reduce the three layers of piano wire wrapping to two. After replacing all the windows in the neighborhood of their plant, they stuck with three layers. The second occurred when a local blacksmith salvaged a boiler from their scrap heap. They'd removed the piano wire, so he used strap iron. Bad idea. In one speed test in Daytona Beach, the primitive body shape of their racer became airborne and disintegrated. The boiler rolled hissing into the surf, but it did not explode. Theirs was a fire tube boiler.
I once spent a couple of years doing a paper design for a modern steam car. I could afford it as long as it stayed on paper, but moving, babies, wife ... . The tales above came from a wonderful book called "Story of a Stanley Steamer" by Woodford.
If one's a machinist and is willing to be part of the black gang, a steam plant would be fun. (For the politically correct, the term black gang has nothing to do with their genetics, only their hygiene.)
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: graeme19121984
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:45 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Firebrand
Seems a very sensible regulation for personal and public safety.
Sometimes I've been worried by a pressure cooker on a stove, and pay
close attention to them, and they only work at 1 Atmosphere (14psi and
~120degrees C, I think).
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@...>
wrote:
>
> I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
> limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
>
> Jon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I thought those little boat engines ran on very low pressure maybe 50
lbs.or less or something like that.
Doug
graeme19121984 wrote:
lbs.or less or something like that.
Doug
graeme19121984 wrote:
>
> Seems a very sensible regulation for personal and public safety.
> Sometimes I've been worried by a pressure cooker on a stove, and pay
> close attention to them, and they only work at 1 Atmosphere (14psi and
> ~120degrees C, I think).
>
> Cheers
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>, "Jon
> & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
> > limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
> >
> > Jon
>
>
Seems a very sensible regulation for personal and public safety.
Sometimes I've been worried by a pressure cooker on a stove, and pay
close attention to them, and they only work at 1 Atmosphere (14psi and
~120degrees C, I think).
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@...>
wrote:
Sometimes I've been worried by a pressure cooker on a stove, and pay
close attention to them, and they only work at 1 Atmosphere (14psi and
~120degrees C, I think).
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@...>
wrote:
>
> I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
> limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
>
> Jon
Wow, that would be 3700psi test for the ship boilers that PCB thought
ought be bested in a small boiler. Unless I really knew the operator
was competent, and maybe even then, I'd like to ride up the back of
the boat, thanks.
Seriously, this would seem to mean that the small boiler would have to
be relatively very heavy in construction for its output in comparison
to the large one? And wouldn't the small boat performance be seriously
hampered then by the weight increasing disproportionately more than
the power?
Firebrand was a kind of Sneakeasy hull that was meant to float in a
planing attitude without enough power to actually lift onto the plane.
Engine efficiency notwithstanding if the powerplant weight rose out of
line with actual power delivered, then even if the hull were made
larger to float it would'nt boat performance be less.
Graeme
ought be bested in a small boiler. Unless I really knew the operator
was competent, and maybe even then, I'd like to ride up the back of
the boat, thanks.
Seriously, this would seem to mean that the small boiler would have to
be relatively very heavy in construction for its output in comparison
to the large one? And wouldn't the small boat performance be seriously
hampered then by the weight increasing disproportionately more than
the power?
Firebrand was a kind of Sneakeasy hull that was meant to float in a
planing attitude without enough power to actually lift onto the plane.
Engine efficiency notwithstanding if the powerplant weight rose out of
line with actual power delivered, then even if the hull were made
larger to float it would'nt boat performance be less.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if that would be an actual limit, or a practical one based
on the SAE tests for pressure vessels. The latter requires that one
test (with water, not steam) at 3x working pressure plus 100 psi. For
a 600 psi boiler, that would require 1900 psi to test.
I wonder if that would be an actual limit, or a practical one based on the SAE tests for pressure vessels. The latter requires that one test (with water, not steam) at 3x working pressure plus 100 psi. For a 600 psi boiler, that would require 1900 psi to test.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon & Wanda(Tink)
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:19 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Firebrand
I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
Jon
>
> After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
> boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
> to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
> as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
> in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
> has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
> do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
> enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
> scary.)
>
> Graeme
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I beleave in the US that boilers for privet boats like lanches is
limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
Jon
limited in what PSI it can have and is something like 150 or 250PSI.
Jon
>
> After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
> boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
> to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
> as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
> in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
> has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
> do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
> enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
> scary.)
>
> Graeme
>
PCB laments the inefficiency of contemporary steamers limping along
with 250psi boilers when discussing steam launches in his commentary
on Firebrand #388, Chapter 9, 30-Odd Boats, p 53. He mentions
Stanley steam automobiles of 70 years ago (this in 1982) operating
at 600psi, so when he wrote of destroyers, including the Brisbane, I
thought for a moment that he could be referring to an early 20th
century ship type including the HMAS Brisbane (l). December 1916 -
June 1936. A light cruiser, though he said destroyer. I guess she
was coal fired with reciprocating triple expansion engines.
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/brisbane1.htmlThis ship
would have gone to the breakers when PCB was a boy, but if he had an
interest in steam and shipping he would have been of an age to
understand something then of her class.
However, most of the 1200psi boiler pressure ships he is referring
to would appear to have been built through the sixties, not that
far from his locale. He says they have had long service lives
(though said to be troublesome). As their service life seems only
recently ended he had that quite right.
For instance, after her bridge and a gun mount were removed for
permanent display, HMAS Brisbane (ll) was sunk not far from here off
the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, last year to create a dive-wreck. It
is a protected site, so should make an interesting dive for a long
time.http://hmas-brisbane.mysunshinecoast.com.au/
The "Charles Francis Adams" he wrote of would be the first of her
class, the Charles F. Adams class destroyer. I guess oil fired, and
with double or triple expansion turbine engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Adams_class_destroyer
The three he mentions are:
1. FGS Rommel (The "Irwin (sic) Rommel") (D187)
May 1970 - September 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGS_Rommel_%28D187%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCtjens_class_destroyer
2. USS Charles F Adams (DDG-2)
September 1960 - November 1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Charles_F._Adams_%28DDG-2%29
3. HMAS Brisbane (ll) (D41)
December 1967 - July 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Brisbane_(D-41)
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4909/feature/feature
01.htm
After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
scary.)
Graeme
with 250psi boilers when discussing steam launches in his commentary
on Firebrand #388, Chapter 9, 30-Odd Boats, p 53. He mentions
Stanley steam automobiles of 70 years ago (this in 1982) operating
at 600psi, so when he wrote of destroyers, including the Brisbane, I
thought for a moment that he could be referring to an early 20th
century ship type including the HMAS Brisbane (l). December 1916 -
June 1936. A light cruiser, though he said destroyer. I guess she
was coal fired with reciprocating triple expansion engines.
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/brisbane1.htmlThis ship
would have gone to the breakers when PCB was a boy, but if he had an
interest in steam and shipping he would have been of an age to
understand something then of her class.
However, most of the 1200psi boiler pressure ships he is referring
to would appear to have been built through the sixties, not that
far from his locale. He says they have had long service lives
(though said to be troublesome). As their service life seems only
recently ended he had that quite right.
For instance, after her bridge and a gun mount were removed for
permanent display, HMAS Brisbane (ll) was sunk not far from here off
the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, last year to create a dive-wreck. It
is a protected site, so should make an interesting dive for a long
time.http://hmas-brisbane.mysunshinecoast.com.au/
The "Charles Francis Adams" he wrote of would be the first of her
class, the Charles F. Adams class destroyer. I guess oil fired, and
with double or triple expansion turbine engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Adams_class_destroyer
The three he mentions are:
1. FGS Rommel (The "Irwin (sic) Rommel") (D187)
May 1970 - September 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGS_Rommel_%28D187%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCtjens_class_destroyer
2. USS Charles F Adams (DDG-2)
September 1960 - November 1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Charles_F._Adams_%28DDG-2%29
3. HMAS Brisbane (ll) (D41)
December 1967 - July 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Brisbane_(D-41)
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4909/feature/feature
01.htm
After considering these ships PCB posits the thought that a small
boiler ought to carry more pressure than a big one. This, similarly
to the definitive resolution of other ideas posed elsewhere, such
as, what is the best design of anchor, or that an anchor suspended
in bottomless water ought perform better than surface sea anchors,
has not as yet I think been published by him. Ought a small boiler
do this? (The low pressure engines in small boats seem dangerous
enough to me! Rhythmically fascinating and musical, but a little
scary.)
Graeme