How Do You Track Which Boilers and Engines are Active? 

Funny thing it’s still the standard we make shit so good it sets a precedent

All those reduction gears where owned and maintained by GE

@@BALOYBEACHBUM Westinghouse, Hardie-Tynes, and a few others made them, too.

The Navy had a special way of running the boiler with young seamen which wouldn't be used with a more experienced regular crew. The Navy way = one guy who knows the equipment very well and shouts orders to other, younger men who repeats them and follows them.

I don't about the 80s but when this ship was launched in 1942 it was state of the art. When they reactived the ship in the 80s it would have been way to expensive too completely redesign the shipboatd status boards so they kept the old ones going. In the end it makes sense since they only really kept using this for about 9 or 10 years.

Yes, analogue is an incorrect term for the statusboards shown. Manual is indeed a far better term for how they operate. And hand operated isn't a bad term either. Since analog implies automation in updating the status. Even if some basic stuff like pressure can quite easily be transported via hydraulic lines for a distributed view of the current pressure. Similar story for other readings. And pulleys have been a staple for status boards for a long time. Though, that they didn't use more status lights is interesting. Simple on/off indicators for various things, even if it just is a switchboard in the associated mechanical space. (and this would then be a digital system, since the signal is either on or off. (Even if most people incorrectly think digital means it is computer control.))

The shore power fed to the ship is still distributed thru the main switchboards. They don’t rewire the whole ship, not feasible. So that board is showing current volts and hz’s being fed to ship.

Back then the focus was, how can we make it work and be reliable as hell? Everything else waa second to that.

Funny

Which is how it is done if it was done in a power plant from the early 60s until today.

Two guys which listens constantly to orders between the decision makers, and then modify the board at updates. The target tracking/plotting group in the CIC does it the same way - they listen to what the radar observers and other sensors say.

@@TheStefanskoglund1 that sounds like an opportunity for human error to me...

@@carmatic ?? How do you believe the RAF planed and decided which squadron should deal with that part of the enemy's aircrafts in the Battle of Britain ? A lot of auxiliaries moving aircraft silhouetes on a big wall and a group of captains and air marshals deciding together what to do.

@@TheStefanskoglund1 but that is in a war room, it is a cohesive situation where a mistake by one person would be caught in real-time by everyone else but a switch board in an engineering space would be attended by less people, and you have no choice but to trust the last person who updated it, without necessarily seeing what they actually did

MAIN CONTROL, the place the Engineering office of the watch and associated staff was located in #3 engine room. This is where all engineering operations were routed thru.

Sorry, cold iron boilers are still pretty hot!!!

@@richcruse2689 Well, I guess you could put an electronic sensor on it and wire it into the status board.

I was Munitions in the Air Force, and I can remember one of the self-test to ensure a missile test set was functional was to push the "Self Test" button. If all the lights lit, you were good to go, at least electronically. For either pneumatic or hydraulic self test (depending on which test set being checked), there was another series of test to perform. Thanks for queuing memories from the past!

@@josephstevens9888 Thanks for your service! What base or bases were you at? I was at Griffiss AFB, NY; Grissom AFB, IN; Pruem AS West Germany; and Ellsworth AFB, SD. We did not have a "master" self test for the system. We did have a self test program for the drawer tester. It wasn't one step. We got so that we could do it from memory, but NOT when we were doing a QC Eval. Then you had to dig out the manual and go slow step by step. Self test only checked out about half of the circuits. It did check all of the lights!

@@klsc8510 After Basic Training at Lackland, I was sent to Munitions Specialist Course at Lowry AFB in Denver. Then I was sent to a 18-month tour at Kadena AB, Okinawa. At Kadena I spent the first year working in the 20MM shop (I still can smell gun grease on my hands!), and the final six months in the Missile shop maintaining AIM-7M Sparrow and AIM-9P & L Sidewinders. Then I PCS'ed to Nellis AFB outside Las Vegas where I spent two years assigned to Munitions Storage - as well as some other shops as well. After four years I transitioned to the Air Guard at Selfridge ANGB, Michigan where I spent another eighteen years performing all aspects of the Munitions field. Then I transitioned to the First Sergeant role for six years, and wrapped up my military spending another six years as human resource and career advisor at Wing HQ. In all, both Active and Guard time (my Air Guard years were peppered with deployments to the SW Asia AOR while on Federal Orders) I have 33 years of total Federal service. I retired in 2015. KLS&C 85 - thank you for sharing your experiences while in the Air Force, and thank you sir for your service to the nation. God Bless and may you and your family have a wonderful Christmas season!

@@josephstevens9888 Thanks for your service! Are you still in Michigan? After my almost 13 years active Air Force, my CO at Ellsworth didn't like me. Maybe because I didn't drink? He broke more rules pushing me out than I did in my time in. After 16 years being out, I was recruited to join the Army Guard Signal Company in Kalamazoo. That was 2000. In 2003, we got the big invite to play in the sand box of Iraq in 2003-04. The Company was detached from Michigan to join a Signal Battalion from Iowa. In short during our time in Iraq, we showed the Army how Signal is done. Not bad for a bunch of old Soldiers! I retired in January, 2009 with 21 years of combined service time. I did get to fly on many Air Force aircraft. The best was an incentive flight out of Grissom AFB in the KC-135 landing at Travis AFB for the long weekend. I got to watch air refuelings of RF-4s and a C-5 at night. I got to fly the boom for a bit. That was May 1979. Like you, I enjoyed my time in uniform. I am now a member of American Legion Post 84 in Otsego, MI. I have ship and airplane models I have built in the Post's WWII curio. One funny story about a test button. I was in the Bomb Wing Command Post at Ellsworth doing a weekly PMI on the Alert Receive Panel. Part of that was to test the bright red light and klaxon horn in the panel. Per the -6, I alerted both the officer and NCO on duty that I was going to do the test. They concurred. I pushed the test button. The red light flashed, the horn sounded, and an alert crew member doing something in the battle staff room jumped up ready to run to his truck to go to his plane. The officer controller jumped up waving his arms and yelled, "It is only a test!" The alert crewman sat back down and resumed doing what he was there for. The officer apologized telling me I did nothing wrong. He had forgotten about the alert crewman in the battle staff room!

I cannot be certain on my answer but I would say that the Iowa's would have had a water treatment plant on board as boilers use a lot of water and no way could they store enough water to feed those boilers on a cruise.

Definetely desalination plant. Like every steam powered seagoing ship. This could never be possible to take such volume of feedwater from shore. There is a lot in the topic on this channel. Also check "Tom Scot, the older one" as he describes battleship Texas power plant and desalination facilities in great detail.

she did,there is even a video about it. the us navy called them stills . think over 100k gallons a day it could produce

@@tomnewham1269 The boiler feed water is very pure - you don't want losses of that due to leaks. The condensers must be in such a shape so that you for example don't get salt water in the boiler. That is real bad. And i dont think the normal stills is good enough to produce feed water - drinking water is something else.

Yes, she did always have evaporators for making fresh water. Video on that: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mHkwt6ugZkk.html

At least, according to the guages, 60 cycle AC for main power as it is easier to take voltages up and down for equipment. Otherwise it would make the generation system too complicated to have generators with different voltages.

460 volts, 60 hz. Yes we cross connected and had sync meters to synchronize them. I believe the video on SSTG’s discusses it. If you want more info, I operated SSTG 1&2 on BB-62 during her final westpac. I would be happy to answer any other questions I can.

@@richcruse2689 I was thinking in that range, but not sure enought to answer. On aircraft we had 115/208 400 HZ 3 phase power.

@@richcruse2689 I have a whole pile of questions if you don't mind! What was the typical power draw of the ship? How many generators would run when cruising vs at battle stations/with turrets powered? Were the turret motors the highest draw electrical items? Would the emergency diesels ever be synced to the turbogenerators or was there a complete seperate emergency power bus? Could the diesels run things like turrets/steering gear pumps in an emergency power loss situation? I am sure I will think of more...

@@TheThethinker101 I will answer what I can. Generally we had a few states. Normal underway steaming. Generally we would have two SSTG’s parrelled forward, two aft, with one in standby forward one aft. As a general rule, basic underway steaming 3 generators could supply all the ship. Keep in mind this is not battle conditions though. We could, and sometimes, parralled port and starboard, two gens port, two starboard with one in standby in each area. I understood in actual wartime footing, although I never saw this, we were supposed to operate all boilers, all engines, and all generators, this will allow for maximum operation in case of damage. In this case, each engine room would disconnect and feed power to there section. This prevent much loss in case of loss of engine rooms or boilers, so most flexibility. In port “Aux” steaming, 1 boiler online, 1 engine jacking over and keeping warm, 2 generators for that engine room feeding power to the whole ship. There was limits to this, however, we could rotate and elevate a turret in this situation. Diesels we’re only in case of emergency, we never partelled them to SSTG’s there was no need that I ever found. If we needed mor generation, we could cross connect steam and bring up another set of gens pretty fast. We actually had an emergence once where we started and generator from cold, to ready to load in under 5 min. That was VERY fast, and bypassed some basic protocols, but we needed the generator, so it was ignored. Emergency gens would provide what was needed. First was generally engineering, to get restarted. It would supply steering, however, without engines running it would not matter much. Interesting enough, we could keep the boilers and engines running without power, everything had steam operated pumps/back ups. EDG’s fed power to lights, navigation, and what ever else the electrician on the watch was asked to feed.

She has that. Look for the film there they visit the rear beside the prop shafts.

We visit that here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2cVDdFuA9AY.html

Yep, the “Ouija board” where cutouts of aircraft have little bits and bobs to indicate their status. Different colored nuts denoted fueled, armed, running, and chained down. Interesting little system

@@johnbeauvais3159 Thanks. That's what I was thinking of. The KISS principle in action.

@@randyogburn2498 the USS Midway has a nice display of what the various parts mean, they cal it “Pinology”

They've tried to modernise several times but nothing works as well, it's simple to use and easy to visualise.

@@mstevens113 To do something like that and which supports multiple users at the same time and still making the system responsive is a hard problem. The other thing is this: a big user of it is the flat top boss ie the officer which decides who/how and then an aircraft can be moved. He/She has their eyes on the real deck, changes to the board and back constantly which means that a computerized board would have to be very bright.

To the 1st question: Steam, no. Gas turbines proved to be more economical than steam. It's one reason they replaced steam.

Boilers with that power and pressure is that. Is is much easier to make cylindrical pressure vessels.

Unfortunately this one won't be live streamed, but maybe the next one!

Heavy bunker oil

@@mrnoodley Thanks

2nd set of boards setup - That looks like a main steam piping in the way. - one reply - Normans question. for Surface Ships - with time the enlisted had their ESWS - Enlisted Surface Warfare Qual. NO Idea Now, but in the 1980s that could vary quite a bit between ships - Wonder if anyone had a book developed for the Battleships for the ESWS qualification in the 1980s.

Ships have magnetic field about them. The metal they are made of combined with the magnetic fields of the earth will induce that field in the ships hull. The equipment inside also generates fields as it operates. They all add up. Degaussing is a method to reduce the magnetic field about the ship. The goal in WW2 is to reduce it far enough to keep magnetic triggered mines from being attracted to the ship. In the northern hemisphere you want a positive bias and in the southern a negative. Big ships can carry the equipment to maintain the field on board. Small ships don't have the space and get 'wiped' by an external source. Well not as effective. The effect can last for a longer time by not following a straight course. Most CRT tubes used the same principal at startup to set a neutral bias for the fly transformer.

One of our earliest videos was on degaussing: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KjFOY1uXDtI.html