NO - The next post will be some links for you to try and learn from:
HEAVY FUEL OIL 101!~
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/progra...vyFuel_2_E.htm
http://www.steamesteem.com/index.html?boilers_fuel_oil
http://www.steamesteem.com/index.html?fuels
http://www.steamesteem.com/index.html?controls

You NO NOTHING about these things and you should learn from those of us
that are educated. You are willfully stupid and that is the worst thing
anyone could be

What kind of moronic
question is that?
One directed to a moron!
Yes I have walked down the beaches in Bermuda and had
tar stick to my feet but if you think that is heavy fuel that is like
comparing fresh coffee to the goop sitting in a coffee pot for a month.

Where do you think that "tar" comes from?

Learn some basic chemistry if you even know what chemistry is.

Look up my last name and then look back 1959 - 1969 Dow Chemical's
top management. When you read through the Vice Presidents you might
find something interesting. Then, come back to me with an off group
email and I will send you a little information about few awards I
achieved and where to confirm that information. Then you can eat my
shorts. - You just stepped in a big pile!

"when was the last time you worked on a ship?" I am a retired
engineer. I worked for a company that did contract work for the US
Navy. I have been on PLENTY of ships in Norfolk. No of course I dont
know what fuel oil is how could I???


You don't know what it is and I don't believe you have had any time on
a big ship, 9or at least anywhere near the fuel system. You seem to
think it is the same thing as light diesel. It gets thick and that is
why you need to steam it. Read all about it at the links I posted in
the previous response. You really should make sure you feet are tied
down next time you open you flapper.


I'm so stupid I dont even know
what a ship is.

You're right about that!

You never did answer my question though and you wont. But I will ask
it again. Do you really think the US Navy and the US military would use
ships that require an entire 7 day period to get underway?? They would
be sitting ducks.

BOZO- I was talking about a medical ship leaving Boston. You should
learn to read! The ship uses HEAVY FUEL OIL and had been SHUT DOWN
before its call!
Yes I am so stupid I dont even know I am stupid, My wife tells me
that every day but at least I dont prove it almost daily on this
newsgroup as you do to my once amusement, and now aggravation.

You're a loser caught in your own crap. It's hard to believe that
anyone with your mentality could be married. I, by the way, don't make
a habit of posting 4 times in a row. I would think that even you would
be able to sum it up in at least 2 posts. Even better, you rant about
the same things in the other posts. You claim the heavy fuel oil dose
not need to be thinned? Try learning something before you try and teach
it. Here are a few words from one of the links I posted -
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/progra...vyFuel_2_E.htm
"HFO is a low-grade fuel primarily used in industrial boilers and other
direct source heating applications (i.e., blast furnaces). It is also
used as a principal fuel in marine applications in large diesel
engines. Given its high boiling point and tar-like consistency, HFO
typically requires heating before it can be moved through pipes or
dispensed into a boiler or other heating vessel to be burned.

HFO is the least expensive of the refined oil fuels and can only be
used by facilities that have preheating capabilities. HFO is typically
high in sulphur and other impurities that are released into the air
when the fuel is burned.

All you had to do was type in HFO or heavy fuel oil into google and you
would never have made such an ass out of yourself! Some "engineer" you
must have been. You are willfully stupid and arrogant to boot., You are
the lowest form of life on this planet in my eyes and you are a
laughable joke to anyone that knows what HFO is or what an engineer is
supposed to know. If you were an engineer for anyone, I am sure you
were fired in the first day of work.
You also claimed that nearly all navy ships use turbine gas. Many navy
ships are contracted from the merchant marines and are not Navy at all.
They are whatever they are and some are even steam drive - yes you
read that right. There is a ship that supplies basses in the Maldives
area that runs off of steam. One of my best friends was a real engineer
about a real boat there that runs off of steam. That was why he took
the job, for the experience. But, then again, I don't recall saying
anything about a Navy ship anyway. You just thought that ships run off
of diesel since that is all you have seen in your little marina.

I wish you should read what I wrote before you include me with that
idiot.

The reference was to a hospital boat that runs on HFO, had been shut
down as a non-op, and in fact only had portside insurance on it. My
statement was that the media was complaining that it took nearly a week
to get it going. Anyone that knows ships knows that you have to first,
get orders/charters/papers or whatever. Second, you need to get a crew.
Lastly, you have to start it up and run the checklist before you set
sail. A week is very fast to do all that, don't you think?

Please don't say you disagree with that.

Putz, your post was about taking a week to fire up the piston engines
with fuel oil, nothing about orders, charters, papers or "whatever"
checklist lol. you just proved your self a idiot to two people. as far
as Doug King he can call me a idiot all he wants I worked on the LM
2500 . You need to know when to quit palm tree, even a idiot knows when
to lay down when hes been hit to many times.

You said:
"You know what? That doesn't include the MSC ships (pre-positioned
supplies) nor the hospital ships, all of which have steam plants. " Yes
your right but.
I said:
Nearly all navy surface combat ships use General Electric LM2500 gas
turbine engines for main propulsion and the VAST majority of naval
ships use similar gas turnbine engines" that means the VAST majority. not all, MSC ships and hospital ships are a small % of the fleet.

palmtreedreamer wrote:
The reference was to a hospital boat that runs on HFO

Sorry but according to NAVSEA there are no naval ships in US service
that burn HFO or bunker oil. Haven't been since the early 1980s.



... My
statement was that the media was complaining that it took nearly a week
to get it going.

AFAIk the complaints were that it took a week for the orders to be cut.

... Anyone that knows ships knows that you have to first,
get orders/charters/papers or whatever.

On many steam ships, first you have to wrap up ongoing repairs and
off-line maintenance. That's one big reason why steam ships are out of
favor nowadays.


... A week is very fast to do all that, don't you think?


Shucks, the destroyers I steamed for Uncle Sam occasionally got under
way with two hours notice. On one memorable occasion (which I'd rather
forget) we went from a complete tear-down of all 4 boilers to getting
underway within 30 hours.

As a civilian contractor on MSC ships, I often worked on the big steam
plants and conducted training for the crews. A week to get underway...
unless there was a really serious problem... would produce a blast from
the top brass... if this is what happened, the contractor should be
dropped and made to pay a non-performance penalty.

On Topic- anybody ever think of cruising in a steam boat? At one point I
was contemplating putting a small steam plant in an old sailboat I
owned, burn trash for fuel!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Again, you should read. Go BACK and read what I wrote. You've been
answered. How many times are you going to ask the same question? Do you
think that posting it many times will make you look smarter? - I take
that back. At this point, anything would make you look smarter.

Meye5 wrote:
... as far
as Doug King he can call me a idiot all he wants

No, I don't *want* you be an idiot. You just seem to have the talent for it.

... I worked on the LM
2500 .

I never said you didn't. Congratulations.

But why does it matter when the ship(s) in question are steam powered?

DSK

that's right. it took a week to fire up the boat and get it going. I
wasn't the captain or reporter. I made a statement about the press
making a big deal about how long it took to get a ship moving and I
added my 2 cents about why. You are still trying to qualify your
stupidity. You chase me from post to post in group to group. You're one
sicko and should seek help.

Sorry but according to NAVSEA there are no naval ships in US service
that burn HFO or bunker oil. Haven't been since the early 1980s. "

sorry indeed. You must know every medical boat there is then and all of
them must be navy.

"AFAIk the complaints were that it took a week for the orders to be
cut""

Not the same ship-
"On many steam ships, first you have to wrap up ongoing repairs and
off-line maintenance. That's one big reason why steam ships are out of
favor nowadays. "
yes - so?

"Shucks, the destroyers I steamed for Uncle Sam occasionally got under
way with two hours notice. On one memorable occasion (which I'd rather
forget) we went from a complete tear-down of all 4 boilers to getting
underway within 30 hours. "

You're trying to tell me that a mothballed ship can go from nothing to
underway in 30 hours? Get real!

'As a civilian contractor on MSC ships, I often worked on the big steam
plants and conducted training for the crews. A week to get underway...
unless there was a really serious problem... would produce a blast from
the top brass... if this is what happened, the contractor should be
dropped and made to pay a non-performance penalty."

Again, you must not get the picture. The ship in question was non-op.
Not just at port. Is there any way you can really say you think a ship
that has been sitting, doing nothing, with no crew, without any
insurance, can sail that fast? I think you are missing something - no I
am sure of it. I am not slamming you here, I don't think I would have
read through that long flame either but read this now. The ship was
non-op when call to service!