DSK wrote:

Rick wrote:

One could reasonably assume that the plant was designed to accomodate
the loss of the turbine and the condenser could operate at the vacuum
required to allow full power from the recips.


Sure, but for how long? It's a liner, designed to maneuver with the aid
of tugs. Warships have far greater ability to steam in maneuvers, but at
the cost of efficiency & space. A liner has to make money.


At that time the reliability of the turbine was in question so that the
plant was designed to run without it indefinitely. If I recall, the
bearings proved to be a problem on a sister ship.

Cheers

Nav wrote:
At that time the reliability of the turbine was in question so that the
plant was designed to run without it indefinitely.

Oh really? Perhaps you can produce a reference to that?

Doesn't matter, steam turbines had been in service for some years
before. It wasn't an issue of reliability *at all*. The issue was cost.
The Royal Navy subsidized the construction of the Mauretania and the
Lusitania, both of which were in service several years before the
Olympic & Titanic were designed. Another smaller issue Harlan & Wolff's
relative inexperience with an all-turbine plant of that size.


... If I recall, the
bearings proved to be a problem on a sister ship.

Care to produce a cite on that? Or did you just pull that out of thin
air, like almost everything else you've said so far in this thread and
many others?

Next you'll be claiming that you know more about the Constit... oops, I
mean the Titanic's steam plant than anybody else!

The real question: why am I bothering to attempt a discussion with such
a loony-tunes?

DSK

DSK wrote:
Nav wrote:

At that time the reliability of the turbine was in question so that
the plant was designed to run without it indefinitely.


Oh really? Perhaps you can produce a reference to that?

Yes. http://www.dellamente.com Here you a

"Harland & Wolff were quite limited technically, with only their own
experience to draw on. They were aware of the power and economy the
turbine offered, although still unsure of its reliability, and chose to
play it safe ..."

Or is this another site that knows less than you about the Titanic?


... If I recall, the bearings proved to be a problem on a sister ship.


Care to produce a cite on that? Or did you just pull that out of thin
air, like almost everything else you've said so far in this thread and
many others?


Good lord. Are you seriously suggesting that turbine bearing failure did
not occur in that era? I'd say that your behaviour is exposing your true
nature quite nicely -just for the record.

Cheers

Nav wrote:
Yes. http://www.dellamente.com Here you a

"Harland & Wolff were quite limited technically, with only their own
experience to draw on. They were aware of the power and economy the
turbine offered, although still unsure of its reliability, and chose to
play it safe ..."

Or is this another site that knows less than you about the Titanic?

It conflicts with what I've read about the design parameters laid out
for the Olympic class ships and discussion between Bruce Ismay (do you
even know who he is without Google?) and Lord Pirrie. I suggest you look
further. An excellent start would be to ask the question directly on the
Encyclopedia Titanica engineering forum.

I don't think you will, because I don't think you're interested in the
answer. You seem to be more interested in Jaxlike posturing and posing.
Certainly, a person with training in naval architecture would be able to
figure out prop slip, and would probably know where to find a good
reference to condensate depression.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

Yes. http://www.dellamente.com Here you a

"Harland & Wolff were quite limited technically, with only their own
experience to draw on. They were aware of the power and economy the
turbine offered, although still unsure of its reliability, and chose
to play it safe ..."

Or is this another site that knows less than you about the Titanic?


It conflicts with what I've read about the design parameters laid out
for the Olympic class ships and discussion between Bruce Ismay (do you
even know who he is without Google?) and Lord Pirrie. I suggest you look
further. An excellent start would be to ask the question directly on the
Encyclopedia Titanica engineering forum.

I don't think you will, because I don't think you're interested in the
answer. You seem to be more interested in Jaxlike posturing and posing.
Certainly, a person with training in naval architecture would be able to
figure out prop slip, and would probably know where to find a good
reference to condensate depression.



Now THAT'S posturing!

Cheers

Nav wrote:

I don't think you will, because I don't think you're interested in the
answer. You seem to be more interested in Jaxlike posturing and
posing. Certainly, a person with training in naval architecture would
be able to figure out prop slip, and would probably know where to find
a good reference to condensate depression.


That is a bit unfair, Nav, prop slip is all over the board (+ or -)
depending on weather, load, currents and any number of things effecting
the hull ... even down to how good the helmsman is.

Rick

Rick, I didn't write that -Doug did.

Cheers

Rick wrote:
Nav wrote:

I don't think you will, because I don't think you're interested in
the answer. You seem to be more interested in Jaxlike posturing and
posing. Certainly, a person with training in naval architecture would
be able to figure out prop slip, and would probably know where to
find a good reference to condensate depression.



That is a bit unfair, Nav, prop slip is all over the board (+ or -)
depending on weather, load, currents and any number of things effecting
the hull ... even down to how good the helmsman is.

Rick