Battleship TEXAS, What The Heck Is The Recirculate System?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Pull your geek hats back on. I keep going back to the fuel system because of its shear size and complexity. It also required a high degree of skill and attention to detail to operate properly. When describing it in previous videos, I intentionally left out half of the fuel system in order to keep the message fairly simple. I will be largely righting that wrong here.
Tom, I wish I had someone like you as a teacher when I was in school. You can make a subject as complex as the fuel oil system easy to understand. Thank you.
Thanks Tom! I totally geeked out on this! Great presentation. Subbed! BTW, I knew the late Don Stratton, USS Arizona survivor. He was a long time customer at our family pharmacy & a friend of my father & grandfather, both pharmacists.
Very Cool video and a very nice job explaining it all.
This wasn't the Tom Scott I was expecting, but it was the Tom Scott I needed. 🙂👍
As Mick Jagger sang, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need!”
Incredibly complicated but extremely clever. I wonder, if Texas were fully operational tomorrow, could she be crewed with the skilled people needed to operate such a system?
I love your videos!
Any chance you could take one of the machines shop?
Sorry, but I don't have any usable footage of the machine shop and it isn't possible for me to shoot any new footage now.
The amount of engineering required to build these ships is mind boggling and all 100 years ago.
The time you put into your videos is incredibly appreciated. Your knowledge and ability to communicate concepts about the ship have given me such a greater respect for BB35.
That was an easy-to-follow explanation. It explained a topic that I never even knew existed.
Modern Navy Oil King. I was "The Oil King" USS Supply AOE-6 (Feb 1996-Oct 1998). Today when people talk about fuels they think of the thin fuels (Diesel or gasoline)used today when Texas was built heavy bunker fuel was used (thickness of molasse when cold). An additional function of the return ring was to allow warming of the tank thus thinning the thick bunker fuel oil. The low suction could be used to strip the tank when contamination (water or sediment) was found or to consolidate tanks. Some fuel oil tanks are also used as ballast tanks and are required to be filled according to the sequencing chart as tanks are emptied to maintain proper ship trim.
Thanks for your experienced comments. For timing reasons, I neglected to mention that warming the fuel tank was a positive byproduct of recirculating fuel. Needless to say, it progressively reduced demand on the booster pumps and heater requirements as it warmed. I'm also glad that you brought up ballasting empty tanks with water. A number of them on Texas were to be ballasted with water once they were empty during what was called "ballast conditions". However, it couldn't be done. A memo written by Captain Baker during WWII stated that it wasn't possible to flood tanks regardless of what procedure demanded because none of them had flooding or stripping lines. The memo describes a situation when a large amount of the ship's fuel had been consumed to refuel destroyers while escorting a convoy. This not only affected the ship's trim, but also degraded her anti-torpedo defenses. As a compromise solution, he ordered a number of the external torpedo blisters flooded to correct trim, but at the cost of continued compromise to torpedo protection. The memo was basically a request for lines to be installed; however, we've never found any response to it, but we assume it was denied since there is no sign of their existence in any of the ship's fuel tanks.
@@tomscotttheolderone364one way they could have been filled would have been the tank top that would have allowed the vapors from the heavy fuel to permeate the entire ship though. Another class ship Perry Class Frigates had a void midship that was filled via the tank top. We also used that fresh water to do a ship wash down when returning to HomePort.
Thankyou for another informative video Tom. It certainly shows the complexity of the ship and what it takes to operate it, all manual operations and calculations not just press a button and a computer does it for you. Certainly yours and Ryan from battleship NJ are two of the best channels on UA-cam.
Fantastic explanations. These Texas videos are the best of their kind on the web.
You said it, Clyde! If Tom did his own graphics for the example tank on this as it appears, along with the editing, this wasn’t a small time investment.
Outstanding video Sir, Thank You!
Thats awesome seeing how it all work, and the diagrams. Being in the mechanical trade I love these technical videos about how these ships actually function.
I am amazed at how complex the system was on the Battleship Texas was. Texas was a experimental platform for a lot of new equipment. I often wonder if my dad had any experience with the Battleship Texas when he was in the Pacific. He joined the USMC the day after Pearl Harbor. Just graduated from High School in Texas. He would have been 100 years old this February. My best friend dad was in the Army and was a Sargent for a motar crew in the Pacific too.
Tom, great work. You are without a doubt one of the most underrated channels on YT. You are phenomenal at presenting complex systems in a clear and concise way.
Thank you, that's a very kind thing to say!
I love learning the little minutia like this.
Amazing how somthing simple lile a fuel tank....isnt!!! Terrific explanation and graphics!!!
I’ve crawled my fair share of marine tanks (steam, motor, gas turbine plants), but have never heard of a jet ring. Good stuff!
Thanks!
Me either and I was Oil King on 3 ships!! Must have been done away with before WWII.
I’m thinking of a couple possible scenarios:
1. Jet ring was not as effective in operation as originally intended by the naval machinery design engineers of the time. Bunker C is heavy stuff.
2. Jet ring was too effective. Not only did it scour away FO tank sediment, but it also had an erosion effect on the tank top area in way of the assembly. Tanks often have doubler plates, or thicker scantling, near the suction pipes to counter erosion, induced by vortices… imagine what a nonstop barrage of flowing Bunker C can do with the increased flow rate of the jet nozzles. Again, Bunker C is heavy stuff.
3. I’m just blowing steam here with no idea.
Sounds like the "fuel oil" system and the system aboard the U.S.S. Missouri should be on display for each generation of propulsion engineers, and reliable diesel engines, be retrofitted for U.S.S. Texas, U.S.S. Missouri, and legacy class Battleships of each era for fund raise voyages, and the old original propulsion systems, be for those that want to see the original system function for everyone to appreciate. The amount of manpower, staffing, and fuel required would be exhaustive to operate in today's economy. But on display for tours and how each system operated would be fine.. Titanic's Engines, and Boilers, as well as U.S.S. Lexington.. In the case of coastal defense, or shallow water engagement of gunboats and ships, a diesel powered U.S.S. Texas (North Carolina Class) would be perfect! :) imho. (:
Mostly accurate... as an Oil and Water King on my first two ships as a BT and then a GSM. I was lucky enough to Not use the old type cruces!
The fuel systems were totally different thruout my career!
My 9 yr old son and I just toured the USS NC last week week while on our annual vacation to Carolina Beach. I visited it once before about 30 years ago. We both watch every video you produce and thanks to those videos, we had a good idea of what we were looking at. Several people started following us as pointed to things. I let them know of your youtube site which several said they would visit. Thank you for your excellent videos!
Thanks for the very kind words!
My initial naval training in the 70's was on 600lb and 1200lb steam plants. Watching this is instantly familiar and soothing. Steam is from eras gone by now. Thanks. b.
Without disregarding the loss of life, I never considered how much fuel and oil a sinking battleship might spew into the water, like a crushed bug.
This recirculate system was done away with on later ships.
Steam coils were put in each storage tank at the bottom to heat to about 120 deg F.
This oil was pumped to a service tank that held the fuel to be used that day,
On the way to the burners it was heated to the proper temperature using a fuel oil heater depending on type of oil around 180-210 def F.
Thanks for the comment. In Texas' case, the Navy avoided the complexity and steam consumption of a steam heating system at the time that she was updated from coal fired to oil fired boilers. The only exceptions were the emergency tanks located in the double bottom and the service tanks. While bunker C was the fuel of choice, it was too viscous to reliably pump at many temperatures without the steam heating that you mentioned. Their solution was to lower viscosity prior to loading it on the ship by diluting it with diesel fuel, resulting in the creation of Navy Special Fuel.
I cheated a little in the video by not mentioning the ship's service tanks. There were four of them that fuel preheated to about 100 degrees was stored in. I did this to keep the video focused on the recirculate system and tank operation. In Texas' case, the tanks were continuously kept topped off by the feed system as oil was consumed from them by the boilers, so their existence didn't substantially change the description of the rest of the system. The preheated fuel was heated to its final temperature of 180-210 degrees after it left the service tanks and immediately before entering the boiler burners. The effect was that the tanks mainly acted as a buffer to provide smooth, continuous feed to the boilers when switching tanks, rerouting feed due to damage, or when resolving any major problems with fuel or feed anywhere in the system.
I did not know that Navy Special was so low in viscosity
If did not have to be heated.
The WWII battleships like NJ , Iowa etc had steam coils and Zi thought they used NSFO.
By the way I think after the first BB was reactivated only the 1980’s
They stopped repairing the steam coils in the tanks And eliminated the oil heating system as they
Had foolishly changed to
DFM by then.
Supposedly saving 10 percent of cost of shipyard work!
Giving a marine boiler DFM instead of bunker C or NSFO is like giving a drunken wino the best Vintage liquor!
Sure it will work but why pay 3 times more !
Thank you for the excellent explanation,
@@josephpadula2283 Point well taken. In spite of its nastiness and viscosity, the beauty of bunker c was that it was essentially a waste product of the oil refining process, so it was cheap and plentiful. At one time, the entire fleet relied upon it, but perhaps demand for it dropped enough by the '80's to make maintaining an infrastructure that handled it wasn't worthwhile. Thus, the change to DFM. Anyway, that's my guess.
Entire merchant world fleet still uses bunker C now called HFO or a Navy Special like fuel called IFO,
A cut down intermediate fuel oil.
The Navy changed to simplify logistics just Before the 1973 spike in fuel prices
But never admitted the mistake
And went back..,
Story was also told the labor to clean the boilers was too high but merchant ships did not go inside with a wire brush like the poor BT’s had to in the Navy!
Water washing boiler interiors was invented around WWII and that handled cleanings for the Merchant boilers.
@@josephpadula2283 We used JP5 as much as DFM. That way the oilers only had to carry one type of fuel.
3:45 Interesting. Seems obvious & simple once somebody points it out to you, but I never considered water hammer as an issue with feed oil before. I guess I tend to be just a little boresighted as a firefighter 😉
you have to take you hat off to designers (yeah i know i say this a lot) the system itself is not so complex when you think of just one fuel cell, but add into the mix another 90 odd, then it must be a nightmare for the crew and their Oil King, and being on top of your game, pressing all the right buttons, opening and closing valves at the correct time to complete tasks when required, knowing where all the pipes go, and which do what and more importantly when - i know these tasks are drilled and drilled into crews so they become completely automated, BUT doesn't it make you wonder how many times you report to the Captain apologising for putting an empty fuel tank on line and an engine running dry, Oops - i guess these are soon rectified when the engine room shouts at you, but i bet some of those boys had some stories to tell, a number of Ooops stories haha
i often think this when i hear of a ship has run aground or something, Ooops someone got shouted at
did i see something that fuel tanks once empty were filled with sea water to maintain ballast on the ship to maintain its trim, or am i imagining it?
The more I learn, the more I realize how ignorant I am. Nuclear powered warships are steam-powered vessels but as this video demonstrates the steam plant is not a simple engine. On occasion I'll challenge someone to fabricate a boat from what they can buy at a home improvement store. Just a boat. Sails and engine optional.
Man, that takes me back to qualifying for Engineering Officer of the Watch.
I found your stuff by watching videos from the 30s on locomotive boilers. Those old videos give a depth of info most modern stuff lacks. I suspect that people who really want to know how ships like the Texas run will still be watching your stuff in the 21 teens
Tom didn't mention that whenever a men enters a tank for any reason, there must be a crew member posted at the entrance to watch over him and ensure the man inside is not overcome by fumes. If there is enough carbon monoxide settled at the bottom, it can take only a minute or so to be asphyxiated. The man at the top must be ready to rescue the man below. He is called the "tank watch".
amazing, I never thought about all that plumbing. Imagine the mess from a torpedo or aerial bomb.
I look at this like an over grown game of musical chairs.
Love your videos Tom. Thank you very much.
This is the stuff I love about this subject. The details of this are fascinating to me. I work on diesel power grnerating equipment and marine engines. This ship must have diesel generators for auxiliary or emergency power. You may have done a video on these already. If not, I would really enjoy that.
I enjoy working on older equipment. I have worked on some from the era of USS Texas. the main engines on her are something I must see. Thanks!
Here you go! ua-cam.com/video/f1NpPnPJMUc/v-deo.html
A very complicated system.
Great explanation again Tom! 👏
First, thanks for breaking the old gal down like this, I love it. I work in oil and gas, and I can say that its fun to me to see how they solved the problems we still contend with today. But man I would not want to be the first one to enter that confined space, even after 24 hours of blowing. Is there any info on how they dealt with H2S? Steaming and blowing from the top would only push the gas to the bottom of the tank and I don't see any air return. Did they drop an air suction line to the bottom or what? Or, like at Pearl Harbor during the recovery phase, did they just man up and go in there after signing their life insurance form?
Thanks for the comments and questions. I'm sorry, but I don't have answers to your questions regarding methods of ventilating the tanks and H2S. I mainly rely upon historic Navy manuals for my information that were in use during the ship's career. I think it's reasonable to assume that there were clear written procedures in place that dealt with these issues, but I have not seen them.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Thanks for the reply. From what little I can gather, I know during the recovery of the damaged ships at Pearl, they just kind of stumbled in there and lost lives, both from CO2 and H2S. But I thought at the time that it had to do with the sense of urgency, an acceptance of risk, and to a degree, ignorance, or a combo of all three. But after looking at these diagrams, I'm thinking more ignorance than the other two. It's only speculation on my part, but I don't think they understood the dangers. Either way, thanks for the information, Tom. It's neat little window into how they did things back then.
i like trains but ships are nice too
I'm assuming there were at least two fuel trunks, since one of them could have been damaged and inoperable for a period of time. This got me wondering how the tank cleaning really worked. If you are pumping steam in and expecting to get unusable trash and water out, you sure don't want to be pumping that into the main operating fuel trunk. This makes me think that they would use the other trunk for the cleaning residue and have a valve (or many) on the trunk that would dump the contents overboard. But that potentially left some of the trash you didn't want in the main fuel trunk. So was there a third trunk used for the wash residue, to keep it out of parts of the main fuel system?
Thanks for the comments! There are two fuel mains; one running along the starboard side and one on the port. There were cross connects in all three boiler rooms that could provide fuel from either side if one was damaged. The only problem would be losing the use of fuel tanks on the damaged side until repairs were made. Even then, there was a fuel transfer system that could pump fuel up from undamaged sections, across to the other side and into tanks as they emptied. In fact, that would be very desirable since emptying tanks on only one side could seriously affect the ship's trim. As far as pumping residue off the ship and cleaning the mains, that was not a serious problem. First, cleaning or repairing tanks would most likely be done at a port facility or shipyard. I cannot think of any compelling reason to do this while at sea since there were usually plenty of tanks containing good fuel that could be brought on line and bad ones isolated until you get home. Cleaning the system would be done by pumping residue into the main then into the refueling system. This consisted of a relay tank on the third deck and lines to the main deck that would be run in reverse so that contaminants were pumped up to the tank, then off the ship. It could then be processed on shore. By the way, fuel was commonly run in reverse that way when at sea. Battleships typically had huge fuel reserves that were used to refuel shorter range escorts like destroyers. As far as waste, they would never pump that stuff into the water unless there was an emergency reason to do so. Cleaning residue out of the mains would be simple enough. You could just pump some fresh oil through the main to purge it and send it off board. That fuel wasn't wasted since they could strain and de-water it, then return it to storage.
Settling tank, even with the rocking and rolling underway heavy stuff and water settle out. As long as you get out the water, a boiler will consume just about anything. By regs you are supposed to cycle out burner nozzles after so many hours.
@@jamespollock2500 There are storage boxes with burner tips already made up for that, plus some with larger orifices if they needed to increase firing rate beyond normal limits. This would have been done as described in my previous video that partially covered boiler room damage control measures.
Learnt more about oil tank operation that I ever wanted :) Thanks, Tom!
You bet!
What a funny coincidence! New Jersey just uploaded a video on THIER boilers too!
I would assume that the steam out line you would not be using super heated steam?
You're right for two reasons. First, there's no use for the extra energy in super heated steam when steaming out tanks. Next, the ship's boilers couldn't produce it. The engines could not use superheat, so the superheaters were removed from the boilers shortly after they were installed in 1926.
The photographs add a lot to the explanation, beyond what we get from engineering drawings.
Once again proving the educational value of having a museum ship instead of sending it off to be scrapped or sunk as a target. Now we have photographs, drawings AND the ability to see and touch it for ourselves.
So if the Oil King decided to use fuel from a certain tank, someone would physically have to visit that tank and turn the valve?
Yes, they would have to physically open or close a tank's feed and recirculate valves from a location on third deck that was very close to the tank's location. It was complicated, but wasn't as physically difficult to operate as you may think. The most commonly used tanks extended along a length of about 150 feet fore and aft of the boiler rooms, so they weren't too far away from the where fuel was needed. Less frequently used tanks extended along a length of more than 350 feet. The most commonly used tanks held fuel that could last several days when steaming at a cruising speed of 8-12 knots. When in combat, the vast majority of the system was shut down and only 6 tanks, called battle tanks, were used. These could provide fuel for operating up to a day before requiring changing or refilling, which could happen without interrupting service. This greatly simplified operation and allowed the oil king and his team to concentrate on other things. If there were problems, members of the engineering crew under the oil king's control were stationed along the third deck and in constant telephone communication so that they could immediately react to a problem. Junior officers were also stationed there to supervise and confirm that commands were properly executed.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 Wow, in an age where we press buttons and see valves move on screens this sounds much harder to operate/co-ordinate. Thank you for your encyclopic knowledge and sharing it with us! :)
very cool
Did that air line serve the purpose of pumping cooled exhaust fumes into the tank for its anti-explosion effects, or was that not a consideration on the TX?
There were no air lines to the fuel tanks. The tanks were sealed and the ambient temperature fuel produced very little in the way of explosive fumes, so there was no real need to purge or fill them with inert gasses.
Sorry, let me change that a little. There were air escape lines running to all fuel tanks. However, these were simply meant to equalize air pressure as fuel was pumped in or out of them. The lines all lead to the outside at main deck level or higher.
I like to think that a hero of mine, Admiral George Melville , helped figure a lot of these problems out.
I would certainly agree with you! There's no doubt that he was a giant upon whose shoulders other men stood, including Charles Dyson!
Have you read, "In the Kingdom of Ice" , about the Jeannette expedition? That was how I was introduced to George Melville. It is a fantastic read that you won't put down.
what was the process to fill oil tanks with water for ballast?
They were supposed to have the ability to flood fuel tanks, but there are no signs of the pipes and valves required to do it. This was confirmed by a memo written by Captain Baker during WWII saying they had depleted a large amount of their fuel by refueling a couple of destroyers while on convoy duty. They were not able to comply to the need due to the lack of flooding and stripping lines in the tanks, so he ordered flooding some of the external torpedo blisters. In the memo was a request to install the needed equipment, but there was no sign that the request was granted.
neat
Can the engines ever be started again? I wonder what the engine room was like while running? Was the oil used refined first?
The engines will never run again for a variety of reasons. The fuel oil used to fire the boilers was very thick, nasty stuff that was left over in the refining process after lighter distillates were recovered from crude oil, such as gasoline, light and heavy lubricating oils, and diesel fuel.
@@tomscotttheolderone364
Well that’s a shame. I heard those engines were close to the same ones on the Titanic. What about firing the 14 inch guns?
@@robertbruce6998 Other than the two ships' engines being reciprocating steam designs, there are a number of significant differences between them. As far as the guns, no, they will never fire again. They required constant service and maintenance when the ship was in service that hasn't been done in more than 75 years.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 well I saw where all of the smaller guns were being restored. To it just seems a shame not one of the 14 inch guns could not be restored. So the turrets will never move again either? Just doesn’t seem right.
x92 !!!
Now that is a whole lot of pipe fitting work!
Thanks so much for the video Tom.
Glad you liked it!
You do great work, I am entertained, and informed. Please message me if the drawings you show are digitized, it would be like a dream to see the prints for a ship like Texas.
Here is a link to an online archive of over 3,000 digitized prints. texashistory.unt.edu/search/?q=battleship+texas&t=fulltext&fq=untl_collection%3ABTXBP
did the oil king have a small testing lab similar to the Iowas? I think it was Iowa that put out a video of their lab and the duties their oil king had to do to test for impurities on basically every fluid on the ship
The oil king on Texas had a locker in the aft portion of drying room 4 on the third deck. However, it stayed cool in spite of that since it was inside one of the boiler air intake trunks. The main function was to test viscosity in order to select appropriate burner tip plates and pump pressure. Testing while at condition one was pretty continuous, especially if they were switching tanks. So, portable test kits were placed in each boiler room to be able to accomplish that.
I did not know that Navy Special was so low in viscosity
It did not have to be heated.
The WWII battleships like NJ , Iowa etc had steam coils and I thought they used NSFO also.
By the way I think after the first BB was reactivated in the 1980’s
They stopped repairing the steam coils in the tanks of the later ships And eliminated the oil heating system as they
Had foolishly changed to
DFM by then.Diesel Fuel Marine. Why pay for high cetane number needed for diesel but not boilers?
Supposedly saving 10 percent of cost of shipyard work by not fixing the system.
Giving a marine boiler DFM instead of bunker C or NSFO is like giving a drunken wino the best Vintage liquor!
Sure it will work but why pay 3 times more !
Thank you for the excellent explanation.
Dfm cut out cleaning firesides to 1800 hours, think NFSO was 600 hours
John,
Were you a BT?
What I was pointing out was The Merchant steam ships with boilers from Babcock and Wilcox, combustion Engineering etc using worse fuel, true bunker C not NSFO , did Not clean the fireside’s
On hours at all!
We water washed the boilers not put poor BT’s into a boiler with a wire brush.
I know navy boilers had a higher Heat Release Rate, volume of boiler combustion space Vs pounds of steam produced,
But it was crazy what they did and the money wasted after switching
To DFM.
@@josephpadula2283Retired as a BTC (SW) back in 95. 7 ships, 18 years sea duty. Mostly B&W. Atype, Mtype and D type 400psi to 1275.
John,
You where the exact person I imagined being forced to comply
With directives by officers that knew nothing about boilers.
Unless you had a Mustang
They had no idea of what was going on other than implimenting what the NSTM said.
There is no cross polllinization everyone is Navy.
Meanwhile shore Power plants and merchant ships were improving.
As I have said many times Admiral Rickover knew engineering and made his officers learn it too.
I am not anti Navy just the Surface
Engineering program is not good.
Do you think shore power plants and merchant ships have non engineers in charge?
A degree in engineering that some officers have do Not make you a chief engineer.
It is a license to learn and when your next tour is non engineering it is a ticket punch not a career.
The Navy Enlisted carry the ball
But don’t have good coaching!
I wish I knew to look for all these valves when I was on the hard hat tour.
Unfortunately, seeing them during a Hard Hat Tour wasn't possible because you didn't go into areas where they could be accessed. Plus, none of them in the video can be seen without opening very heavy armored deck hatches over the voids or unbolting manhole covers over the tanks. I never saw them until a couple of years ago when most of them were opened for inspection purposes. Also, most of the fuel valves in the boiler rooms, where you did go, weren't visible because they were under the grating that you stood on while in the room.
@@tomscotttheolderone364 it's a shame because I love learning about stuff like this.
Yours and battleship NJs UA-cam channels are awesome.