Palmtree dreamer writes:
"I wonder if anyone knows that
WHOLE WEEK to fire up the engines on a ship that uses heavy fuel oil!
Fist you get the pony generator up, then you get the main generator up
when the pony is warm enough, then you get the steam fired up that
flows down the pipes and heats the heavy fuel oil. Finally, after about
a week, the oil is thin enough to run through the pipes to get to the
cylinders".

???

Not on any steam ship I've ever been on. The ships that still burn
bunker oil (a minority, since the low price of it is more than offset by
increased boiler maintenance) fire up a "donkey boiler" first to provide
steam to heat the ready service tank (can take a few hours but always
less than 6 AFAIK), then fire up the main boilers and bring them on line
(can take an hour or two).

Most steam ships burn a variant of higher grade fuel very similar to
marine diesel. In fact, US Navy steam ships *do* burn marine diesel fuel.



Meye5 wrote:
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

You know what? That doesn't include the MSC ships (pre-positioned
supplies) nor the hospital ships, all of which have steam plants.

In short, you're both stupid clowns who don't know half as much as you
think you know.

Good bye.

Doug King, ex-BT1(SW)
that means steam engineer

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.

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.

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

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!

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. "

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

Sigh. How to begin, when it's clear that you know so very little about
the subject?

Maybe from this angle... how many hospital ships do you suppose the U.S.
has? Sure, we've got a big Navy, but how many? A thousand? A hundred? Ten?

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../ship-hos.html

The answer is two. Both are operated under Navy authority by civilian
contractors. So it isn't hard to guess what ship they're talking about
and what kind of propulsion plant it has.


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

Second, there is a big difference between "mothballed" and an active
duty ship that doesn't happen to be underway at the moment. The web site
cited above says that the ships can be "fully activated" in five days
and from my own experience, that seems likely to be a contracted
maximum. In other words, Uncle Sam knows that we might need these ships
on short notice, and so they pay contractors (like me, except that I'm
not in that particular type of engineering any more... too many nights
away from home) to keep the ships maintained, do repairs when needed,
and keep a small crew active.

Third, that's five days from the time orders are cut.

Now, a question of judgement: when is the time to order a hospital ship
to active status & to begin steaming towards a disaster area? When the
disaster is a hurricane which gives perhaps a week's warning, maybe the
time to get these things in motion is *before* it actually hits, hmmm?
Or do you think it's better to wait 4 or 6 days after it hits, just to
be sure?

... I think you are missing something

Think what you like. I've been there, done that, and you obviouosly
don't have a clue.

Bye.

Oh wait, one last bit of advice... better google these things in the
future, it's very easy to get a few basic facts before you plunge off
the deep end.

DSK

"Oh wait, one last bit of advice... better google these things in the
future, it's very easy to get a few basic facts before you plunge off
the deep end. " I agree, if your going to argue about
ANYTHING at least get some basic facts right , googling helps Putz,,
especially if your arquing against several people who have actual
expertise. YOu remind me this neighbor kid who is 12 and is an
"expert" on everything. Kid cant even drive a car yet but he is an
expert on them. oh well. You cant arque with a idiot so I let the kid
think he knows more.

palmtreedreamer wrote:
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.



You should think twice before saying "read what I wrote," it generally
makes you look like even more of an idiot. You said that the ship was
in Boston, but there are no Navy facilities in Boston, other than the
SS Constitution museum area. It is possible that one of the hospital
ships was in for a visit, but I certainly would have noticed if there
was a navy ship of any type "shut down as a non-op" in Boston.

Perhaps this is the story you're thinking of:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true