Discussion:
Nuclear steam
Add Reply
Tony Cooper
2017-04-19 14:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."

The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-19 16:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
It's definitely steaming. The water is heated to make steam by
nuclear reactors, not coal fires.
--
Jerry Friedman
Adam Funk
2017-04-20 12:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
It's definitely steaming. The water is heated to make steam by
nuclear reactors, not coal fires.
Except in those 1970s nuclear pacemakers, where the radium directly
heated a thermopile.
--
Some people just have hatred built into them. I don’t know if there
is anything we can do for them... The right wingers of our country
might just have bad genetics. And I’m saying that as a transvestite.
--- Eddie Izzard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-19 17:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:47:30 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Yes.
But how about this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=0

“We’re sending an armada,” Mr. Trump said to Fox News last Tuesday
afternoon.

The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the three
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *sailing*
in the opposite direction, ...

Where were the "sails"?

Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
pensive hamster
2017-04-19 17:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=0
“We’re sending an armada,” Mr. Trump said to Fox News last Tuesday
afternoon.
The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the three
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *sailing*
in the opposite direction, ...
Where were the "sails"?
Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
Also, "armada" is a bit questionable. I would have thought you
need more than four ships for an armada.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-19 17:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:37:27 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=0
“We’re sending an armada,” Mr. Trump said to Fox News last Tuesday
afternoon.
The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the three
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *sailing*
in the opposite direction, ...
Where were the "sails"?
Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
Also, "armada" is a bit questionable. I would have thought you
need more than four ships for an armada.
At least they are armed. "armada" is very often used to refer to a
collection of vessels even when they are not armed.

The OED lists that use:

More generally: any (large) fleet of ships, boats, etc.; a flotilla.

1625 S. Purchas Pilgrimes I. ii. vii. 98 An Armado of three and
twenty small shippes, made like Ice-sleads.
1675 Mistaken Husband iv. iv. 41 You..whose rich Uncle died
lately, and left you an Armado of rich Indian Ships.
1851 Littell's Living Age 4 Oct. 42/1 There was a whole armada
of yachts at Ryde on Friday.
<etc.>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2017-04-19 18:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:37:27 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=0
“We’re sending an armada,” Mr. Trump said to Fox News last Tuesday
afternoon.
The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the three
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *sailing*
in the opposite direction, ...
Where were the "sails"?
Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
Also, "armada" is a bit questionable. I would have thought you
need more than four ships for an armada.
At least they are armed. "armada" is very often used to refer to a
collection of vessels even when they are not armed.
More generally: any (large) fleet of ships, boats, etc.; a flotilla.
Isn't a flotilla a *small* fleet?

"Flotzilla" would indicate a big one, but probably not in the 17th
century.
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated,
while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
-- G. K. Chesterton
b***@aol.com
2017-04-19 18:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:37:27 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=0
“We’re sending an armada,” Mr. Trump said to Fox News last Tuesday
afternoon.
The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the three
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *sailing*
in the opposite direction, ...
Where were the "sails"?
Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
Also, "armada" is a bit questionable. I would have thought you
need more than four ships for an armada.
At least they are armed. "armada" is very often used to refer to a
collection of vessels even when they are not armed.
More generally: any (large) fleet of ships, boats, etc.; a flotilla.
Isn't a flotilla a *small* fleet?
"Flotzilla" would indicate a big one,
But still a small one for French-speaking Québécois.
Post by Quinn C
but probably not in the 17th century.
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated,
while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
-- G. K. Chesterton
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-19 19:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:37:27 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Car=
l
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and=
are
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess=
it
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
may be "steaming".
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-nort=
h-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=3D0
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
=E2=80=9CWe=E2=80=99re sending an armada,=E2=80=9D Mr. Trump sa=
id to Fox News last Tuesday
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
afternoon.
The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the thre=
e
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *saili=
ng*
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by pensive hamster
in the opposite direction, ...
Where were the "sails"?
Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
Also, "armada" is a bit questionable. I would have thought you
need more than four ships for an armada.
At least they are armed. "armada" is very often used to refer to a
collection of vessels even when they are not armed.
More generally: any (large) fleet of ships, boats, etc.; a flotil=
la.
Post by Quinn C
Isn't a flotilla a *small* fleet?
Sounds like a bit broken off the ship floating aimlessly.
Post by Quinn C
"Flotzilla" would indicate a big one, but probably not in the 17th
century.
Sounds like a large imitation monster.

-- =

Women are like dog shit, the older they get the easier they are to pick =
up.
The Peeler
2017-04-19 19:36:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:14:41 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Quinn C
Isn't a flotilla a *small* fleet?
Sounds like a bit broken off the ship floating aimlessly.
Post by Quinn C
"Flotzilla" would indicate a big one, but probably not in the 17th
century.
Sounds like a large imitation monster.
You always sound like a complete idiot. ALWAYS!
--
Phil Lee adressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are too stupid to be wasting oxygen."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-20 21:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/asia/aircraft-carrier-north-korea-carl-vinson.html?_r=0
“We’re sending an armada,” Mr. Trump said to Fox News last Tuesday
afternoon.
The problem was that the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the three
-> other warships in its strike force were that very moment *sailing*
in the opposite direction, ...
Where were the "sails"?
Of course the crew, regardless of the method of propulsion, are
"sailors".
Also, "armada" is a bit questionable. I would have thought you
need more than four ships for an armada.
Is it only 4 ships?
I always assumed that such a fleet would be accompanied by fuelling and
store ships if they're expecting to be at sea for any length of time.
(I realise the carrier doesn't need additional fuel, but the escort
vessels do.)
--
Sam Plusnet
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-19 19:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
--
When a clock is hungry, it goes back four seconds.
The Peeler
2017-04-19 19:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:15:32 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional
steam ships. I thought
There's the snag again, Birdbrain!
--
Pelican to Birdbrain Macaw:
"Ok. I'm persuaded . You are an idiot."
MID: <obru31$nao$***@dont-email.me>
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-19 21:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
--
Jerry Friedman
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-19 21:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
Is there a verb for nuclearing along?
--
Does a pedometer detect child molesters?
The Peeler
2017-04-19 22:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:49:41 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Is there a verb for nuclearing along?
Your questions are as retarded as your statements, Birdbrain!
--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
sociopathic world:
"I like driving fast and scaring people".
"If the guy behind me has his lights on too bright. I let him past
then tailgate him with my full beam on until he switches his off".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)
Rich Ulrich
2017-04-19 22:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
If they are not going directly from one place to another,
I suppose they are screwing around.


But serious, "steaming" certainly fits better when you can see
the white vapor, as you can for steamships or steam trains.
--
Rich Ulrich
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-19 23:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
If they are not going directly from one place to another,
I suppose they are screwing around.
But serious, "steaming" certainly fits better when you can see
the white vapor, as you can for steamships or steam trains.
Or an angry wife.
--
The record of having had intercourse the most frequently goes to a boy who was recorded to have had intercourse about 52,000 times over a period of 30 years. This means he had intercourse on average 33.3 times a week.
The Peeler
2017-04-19 23:23:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:13:29 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Or an angry wife.
Driveling idiot!
--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"If I don't get AC for this summer, I'm going to frighten my neighbours
again by walking around naked."
MID: <***@red.lan>
GordonD
2017-04-22 15:00:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:38:29 +0100, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:47:30 +0100, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and
are
Post by Tony Cooper
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the
traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated
electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with
electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
If they are not going directly from one place to another,
I suppose they are screwing around.
But serious, "steaming" certainly fits better when you can see
the white vapor, as you can for steamships or steam trains.
Or an angry wife.
Who may be angry because you've come home steaming.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-22 15:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:38:29 +0100, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:47:30 +0100, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and
are
Post by Tony Cooper
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the
traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated
electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with
electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
If they are not going directly from one place to another,
I suppose they are screwing around.
But serious, "steaming" certainly fits better when you can see
the white vapor, as you can for steamships or steam trains.
Or an angry wife.
Who may be angry because you've come home steaming.
Then she should join in and stop being such a spoilsport.
--
A girl phoned me the other day and said, "Come on over, there's nobody home."
I went over. Nobody was home.
The Peeler
2017-04-22 15:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:07:27 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by GordonD
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Or an angry wife.
Who may be angry because you've come home steaming.
Then she should join in and stop being such a spoilsport.
Don't talk about things you haven't the foggiest about (like women), you
miserable social misfit!
--
Kerr Mudd-John about Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"It's like arguing with a demented frog."
MID: <***@dell3100.workgroup>
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-22 17:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:38:29 +0100, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:47:30 +0100, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and
are
Post by Tony Cooper
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the
traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated
electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with
electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
If they are not going directly from one place to another,
I suppose they are screwing around.
But serious, "steaming" certainly fits better when you can see
the white vapor, as you can for steamships or steam trains.
Or an angry wife.
Who may be angry because you've come home steaming.
The angry wife may also be steaming.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-22 17:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by GordonD
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:38:29 +0100, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:51 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:47:30 +0100, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and
are
Post by Tony Cooper
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the
traditional steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated
electricity through a steam turbine, then propelled themselves with
electric motors.
Maybe some do, but according to Wikipedia, the /Nimitz/-class
aircraft carriers use steam turbines to power the propellers
directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier
If they are not going directly from one place to another,
I suppose they are screwing around.
But serious, "steaming" certainly fits better when you can see
the white vapor, as you can for steamships or steam trains.
Or an angry wife.
Who may be angry because you've come home steaming.
The angry wife may also be steaming.
It's always best to have the same BAC for all those involved. Mind you, it's quite funny when your friend is drunker than you and tries to start a fight with you.
--
Why is Michael Jackson's album entitled "Bad?"
Because he couldn't spell "Pathetic."
The Peeler
2017-04-22 19:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:25:18 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The angry wife may also be steaming.
It's always best to have the same BAC for all those involved. Mind you,
it's quite funny when your friend is drunker than you and tries to start
a fight with you.
You DON'T have a "friend" or even a "wife", you abnormal social misfit!
That's why you have six cats and several parrots to talk to ...and your
despicable sick trolling on Usenet!
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "deep thinking":
"Do you play musical instruments like that? No. Why would I want several
notes instead of one? That would be like playing the piano with parkinsons
disease."
MID: <***@red.lan>
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-20 09:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional
steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam
turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Not at that power level.
It can be done for a submarine,

Jan
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-20 10:03:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional
steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam
turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Not at that power level.
It can be done for a submarine,
Eh? It works for diesel-electric trains.
--
It's not what you wear. It's how you take it off.
The Peeler
2017-04-20 10:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:03:35 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by J. J. Lodder
Not at that power level.
It can be done for a submarine,
Eh? It works for diesel-electric trains.
You've been provided with the answer already, endlessly driveling idiot!
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"Nothing beats a proper loo brush."
MID: <***@red.lan>
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-04-20 10:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional
steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam
turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Not at that power level.
It can be done for a submarine,
I've seen plenty films where Russian subs have huge banks of batteries. Or are they just for silent running?
--
It's not what you wear. It's how you take it off.
The Peeler
2017-04-20 10:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:04:04 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by J. J. Lodder
Not at that power level.
It can be done for a submarine,
I've seen plenty films where Russian subs have huge banks of batteries.
Or are they just for silent running?
You don't give up easily, eh, you pesky attention whore?
--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
sociopathic world:
"I don't give a shit about the law".
"Fuck the law".
"It's only illegal is you get caught".
"Something being illegal does not matter".
"The law is irrelevant".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-21 08:15:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Technically, yes. But most people only say steaming for the traditional
steam ships. I thought nuclear ones generated electricity through a steam
turbine, then propelled themselves with electric motors.
Not at that power level.
It can be done for a submarine,
I've seen plenty films where Russian subs have huge banks of batteries.
Or are they just for silent running?
According to wikip
"The Russian, US and British navies rely on steam turbine propulsion,
while the French and Chinese ships use the turbine to generate
electricity for propulsion (turbo-electric transmission)."

Perhaps they had some left-over footage from a WWII movie?

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-20 09:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.

The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,

Jan
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-20 10:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Jan
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Adam Funk
2017-04-20 12:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
When it's invisible?
--
Slade was the coolest band in England. They were the kind of guys
that would push your car out of a ditch. --- Alice Cooper
charles
2017-04-20 12:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
When it's invisible?
other way round, surely? if I remember the lectures I attended in 1960
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Adam Funk
2017-04-21 14:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
When it's invisible?
other way round, surely? if I remember the lectures I attended in 1960
Is "steam" scientifically defined? I'm going by common use, where
"steam" is the visible stuff coming out of a kettle or pan of boiling
water.
--
The human brain, weighing about three pounds, has the computing
power of nearly one billion laptops. The brain has been credited
with notable accomplishments such as the Magna Carta, Special
Relativity, and Hee Haw. [Science Museum of Virginia]
charles
2017-04-21 14:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
When it's invisible?
other way round, surely? if I remember the lectures I attended in 1960
Is "steam" scientifically defined? I'm going by common use, where
"steam" is the visible stuff coming out of a kettle or pan of boiling
water.
It was certainly defined in engineering terms, but since I'd didn't get
involved in that branch of engineering, I haven't kept up.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-21 18:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
When it's invisible?
other way round, surely? if I remember the lectures I attended in 1960
Is "steam" scientifically defined? I'm going by common use, where
"steam" is the visible stuff coming out of a kettle or pan of boiling
water.
This matches what I remember from way, way, back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

Steam is water in the gas phase, which is formed when water boils.
Steam is invisible; however, "steam" often refers to wet steam, the
visible mist or aerosol of water droplets formed as this water
vapour condenses.

And, OED:

6.
a. The vapour into which water is converted when heated. In popular
language, applied to the visible vapour which floats in the air in
the form of a white cloud or mist, and which consists of minute
globules or vesicles of liquid water suspended in a mixture of
gaseous water and air. (Also sometimes applied to the vapour arising
from other liquids when heated.)

In modern scientific and technical language, applied only to water
in the form of an invisible gas.

The invisible ‘steam’, in the modern scientific sense, is, when
its temperature is lowered, converted into the white vapour called
‘steam’ in popular language, and this under continued cooling,
becomes ‘water’ in the liquid form.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-21 19:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
When it's invisible?
other way round, surely? if I remember the lectures I attended in 1960
Is "steam" scientifically defined? I'm going by common use, where
"steam" is the visible stuff coming out of a kettle or pan of boiling
water.
Even horses can steam,

Jan
Paul Wolff
2017-04-21 21:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Adam Funk
Is "steam" scientifically defined? I'm going by common use, where
"steam" is the visible stuff coming out of a kettle or pan of boiling
water.
Even horses can steam,
I dare say, but the question was about the scientific terminology.

Looking back to when I was an apprentice scientist, I don't remember the
word "steam" being used unless low temperatures and primitive situations
were under discussion. The obvious place to look would be in phase
diagrams, which for water were surely based on the traditional solid,
liquid and vapour, not ice, water and steam (and ice-nine having only
just been invented in those days).

Essentially, "steam" is not a scientist's word. It belongs to engineers,
especially Victorian engineers (is there a Melbourne Harbour Bridge?).
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2017-04-23 11:42:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Adam Funk
Is "steam" scientifically defined? I'm going by common use, where
"steam" is the visible stuff coming out of a kettle or pan of boiling
water.
Even horses can steam,
I dare say, but the question was about the scientific terminology.
Looking back to when I was an apprentice scientist, I don't remember the
word "steam" being used unless low temperatures and primitive situations
were under discussion. The obvious place to look would be in phase
diagrams, which for water were surely based on the traditional solid,
liquid and vapour, not ice, water and steam (and ice-nine having only
just been invented in those days).
Essentially, "steam" is not a scientist's word. It belongs to engineers,
especially Victorian engineers (is there a Melbourne Harbour Bridge?).
You might be right; but to engineers steam is the invisible gas, not the
visible vapour. That is, the engineering definition does not agree with
the popular definition.

Occasionally in popular literature one meets the term "live steam",
which means genuine steam as defined in engineering and science: steam
at greater than 100 degrees (at standard pressure; the boiling point
does vary with pressure).
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-04-24 15:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[ ... ]
You might be right; but to engineers steam is the invisible gas, not the
visible vapour.
My brother-in-law worked for some time as an engineer in a power
station (in your very own city of Newcastle). He commented once that
leaking steam (in your sense) was vastly more dangerous than leaking
steam (in the popular sense), not only because it's much hotter, but
also because you can't see it.
That is, the engineering definition does not agree with
the popular definition.
Occasionally in popular literature one meets the term "live steam",
which means genuine steam as defined in engineering and science: steam
at greater than 100 degrees (at standard pressure; the boiling point
does vary with pressure).
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2017-04-24 16:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[ ... ]
You might be right; but to engineers steam is the invisible gas, not the
visible vapour.
My brother-in-law worked for some time as an engineer in a power station
(in your very own city of Newcastle). He commented once that leaking
steam (in your sense) was vastly more dangerous than leaking steam (in
the popular sense), not only because it's much hotter, but also because
you can't see it.
A power station in the very centre of Newcastle? That would have to be
the Zaara Street power station. According to Wikipedia

"Zaara Street Power Station was demolished in 1978, and all railway
facilities in the vicinity were redeveloped into what is now known as
The Foreshore. No traces of the power station have survived on the site."

I arrived in Newcastle in 1969. I knew about the power station, of
course, but in my day Zaara Street was mostly known as the location of a
brothel.

These days that area is known as the "East End". Many people will tell
you of the "heritage values" of the oldest part of Newcastle. For many
others, though, it is the location of the "Supercars" hoon races that
will make Newcastle famous. I hope that there are no tourists in the
city at the time of the race, because it has a potential for wrecking
the reputation of Newcastle.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2017-04-24 19:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For many others, though, it is the location of the "Supercars" hoon
races that will make Newcastle [in Australia] famous.
Hoon?
--
Mark Brader "How many pessimists end up by desiring
Toronto the things they fear, in order to prove
***@vex.net that they are right." -- Robert Mallet
Tony Cooper
2017-04-24 20:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For many others, though, it is the location of the "Supercars" hoon
races that will make Newcastle [in Australia] famous.
Hoon?
Dollars to doughnuts Google will explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2017-04-24 17:03:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
You might be right; but to engineers steam is the invisible gas, not the
visible vapour.
My brother-in-law worked for some time as an engineer in a power
station (in your very own city of Newcastle). He commented once that
leaking steam (in your sense) was vastly more dangerous than leaking
steam (in the popular sense), not only because it's much hotter, but
also because you can't see it.
Not that you have to be an engineer to know that - my mother told
me the same with regard to the kettle on the stove.
--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt
John Varela
2017-04-21 01:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:46:19 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Jan
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
Steam is water vapor. The kind of white cloud that is commonly
referred to as steam is actually droplets of liquid water condensed
from steam/water vapor. Like on a cold morning when you can see your
breath.
--
John Varela
Mark Brader
2017-04-21 02:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
Steam is water vapor. The kind of white cloud that is commonly
referred to as steam is actually droplets of liquid water...
You mean: "'Steam' has two meanings. One of them is water vapor..."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "When you say 'non-trivial', can you
***@vex.net quantify that for me?" --Kate Hamilton
Richard Heathfield
2017-04-21 07:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
Steam is water vapor. The kind of white cloud that is commonly
referred to as steam is actually droplets of liquid water...
You mean: "'Steam' has two meanings. One of them is water vapor..."
Or rather, "water vapor" I'll accept the uectomy in a spirit of
fostering international relations, but I cannot agree that a word
actually /is/ water vapor, 'u' or no 'u' (even though it could
conceivably be written using water vapor). Some indication is required
that you are mentioning the term, not using it.

The other meaning to which you refer is presumably, to borrow John
Varela's phrase (as I myself am no harmless drudge), "the kind of white
cloud that is [...] actually droplets of liquid water..."

But, Mark! /Two/ meanings? Those surely /are/ two meanings, yes. But
there are others, such as, say, "energy" or "dynamism" in the colloquial
sense (as in "her opponent's campaign has run out of steam"). In fact,
thesaurus.com lists no fewer than eleven synonyms /just for the noun/.

And we also have verbs: "to cook in a particular way", as in "don't
steam the pudding so much that the water boils dry", and as in "to
proceed across water using an engine [originally, of course, a steam
engine] for motive power", as in "three ships will steam across the
Atlantic tomorrow".

We even have an adjective: "steam pudding", for example, is the kind of
pudding that you steam in order to prepare it for eating.

Two? /Two/? Pah, sir! Pah!

Oh, and fie, as well.

"More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong." - John Hollingsworth
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Mark Brader
2017-04-21 07:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But, Mark! /Two/ meanings? Those surely /are/ two meanings, yes. But...
"More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong." - John Hollingsworth
See also below.
--
Mark Brader | "I do have an idea ... based on the quite obvious fact
Toronto | that the number two is ridiculous and can't exist."
***@vex.net | -- Ben Denison (Isaac Asimov, "The Gods Themselves")
Richard Heathfield
2017-04-21 07:41:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
But, Mark! /Two/ meanings? Those surely /are/ two meanings, yes. But...
"More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong." - John Hollingsworth
See also below.
*applause*

Well played, that man!
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Quinn C
2017-04-21 18:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
Steam is water vapor. The kind of white cloud that is commonly
referred to as steam is actually droplets of liquid water...
You mean: "'Steam' has two meanings. One of them is water vapor..."
Or rather, "water vapor" I'll accept the uectomy in a spirit of
fostering international relations, but I cannot agree that a word
actually /is/ water vapor, 'u' or no 'u' (even though it could
conceivably be written using water vapor). Some indication is required
that you are mentioning the term, not using it.
But he was referring to the meaning, and the meaning is not
words. "Steam" can have the same meaning as "water vapor", but the
meaning is not "water vapor".
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
John Varela
2017-04-21 20:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:21:21 UTC, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
Steam is water vapor. The kind of white cloud that is commonly
referred to as steam is actually droplets of liquid water...
You mean: "'Steam' has two meanings. One of them is water vapor..."
Or rather, "water vapor" I'll accept the uectomy in a spirit of
fostering international relations, but I cannot agree that a word
actually /is/ water vapor, 'u' or no 'u' (even though it could
conceivably be written using water vapor). Some indication is required
that you are mentioning the term, not using it.
But he was referring to the meaning, and the meaning is not
words. "Steam" can have the same meaning as "water vapor", but the
meaning is not "water vapor".
My statement was correct. Check your dictionary. Better yet, take a
course in thermodynamics. Take three or four if necessary.
--
John Varela
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 20:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:21:21 UTC, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Which raises the question: When does steam become water vapour?
Steam is water vapor. The kind of white cloud that is commonly
referred to as steam is actually droplets of liquid water...
You mean: "'Steam' has two meanings. One of them is water vapor..."
Or rather, "water vapor" I'll accept the uectomy in a spirit of
fostering international relations, but I cannot agree that a word
actually /is/ water vapor, 'u' or no 'u' (even though it could
conceivably be written using water vapor). Some indication is required
that you are mentioning the term, not using it.
But he was referring to the meaning, and the meaning is not
words. "Steam" can have the same meaning as "water vapor", but the
meaning is not "water vapor".
My statement was correct. Check your dictionary. Better yet, take a
course in thermodynamics. Take three or four if necessary.
You're not picking the same nits.

/dps
Rich Ulrich
2017-04-20 16:45:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)

When did the condenser-technology get established?
--
Rich Ulrich
pensive hamster
2017-04-20 18:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
When did the condenser-technology get established?
Fairly early on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt_steam_engine

'...The Watt steam engine, developed sporadically from 1763 to 1775,
was an improvement on the design of the Newcomen engine and was
a key point in the Industrial Revolution.

'Watt's two most important improvements were the separate condenser
and rotary motion.[2][3] The separate condenser, located external to the
cylinder, condensed steam without cooling the piston and cylinder walls
as did the internal spray in Newcomen's engine. Watt's engine's efficiency
was more than double that of the Newcomen engine.[4] Rotary motion
was more suitable for industrial power than the oscillating beam of
Newcomen's engine. ...'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_steam_engine

'... This article deals mainly with marine steam engines of the
reciprocating type, which were in use from the inception of the steamboat
in the early 19th century to their last years of large-scale manufacture
during World War II. Reciprocating steam engines were progressively
replaced in marine applications during the 20th century by steam turbines
and marine diesel engines. ...'

It gets quite complicated after that, with numerous different designs of
engine. You'd have to be a bit of a steam enthusiast to want to read the
whole article.
Rich Ulrich
2017-04-20 23:03:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
When did the condenser-technology get established?
Fairly early on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt_steam_engine
'...The Watt steam engine, developed sporadically from 1763 to 1775,
was an improvement on the design of the Newcomen engine and was
a key point in the Industrial Revolution.
'Watt's two most important improvements were the separate condenser
and rotary motion.[2][3] The separate condenser, located external to the
cylinder, condensed steam without cooling the piston and cylinder walls
as did the internal spray in Newcomen's engine. Watt's engine's efficiency
was more than double that of the Newcomen engine.[4] Rotary motion
was more suitable for industrial power than the oscillating beam of
Newcomen's engine. ...'
Thanks. I think I had read it before, without really grasping it,
that Watt's engine used vacuum for the power stroke, rather
than steam pressure, and /that/ was one of his important
contributions. That means that condensation was essential.

However, that does not rid me of the notion that some steam
was released as part of the cycle. What accounts for the
"choo-choo" sound? And, didn't the smoke or steam emerge
as puffs, rather than as a continous stream? ( My Lionel toy
train set let me put drops into a "smoke stack" and it "puffed".)
Post by pensive hamster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_steam_engine
'... This article deals mainly with marine steam engines of the
reciprocating type, which were in use from the inception of the steamboat
in the early 19th century to their last years of large-scale manufacture
during World War II. Reciprocating steam engines were progressively
replaced in marine applications during the 20th century by steam turbines
and marine diesel engines. ...'
It gets quite complicated after that, with numerous different designs of
engine. You'd have to be a bit of a steam enthusiast to want to read the
whole article.
--
Rich Ulrich
Mark Brader
2017-04-20 23:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
Thanks. I think I had read it before, without really grasping it,
that Watt's engine used vacuum for the power stroke, rather
than steam pressure,
True.
Post by Rich Ulrich
and /that/ was one of his important contributions.
No, Newcomen's engine did the same.
Post by Rich Ulrich
That means that condensation was essential.
True, and it meant that the hazard in case of an explosion was less
than later when steam pressure was used.
Post by Rich Ulrich
However, that does not rid me of the notion that some steam
was released as part of the cycle. What accounts for the
"choo-choo" sound? And, didn't the smoke or steam emerge
as puffs, rather than as a continous stream?
I've never seen or heard an engine to Watt's original design operating,
and I doubt that you have either.

By the time people were building steam locomotives for trains, they
were using positive pressure in the cylinders and the steam was
exhausted to the air. The following design had already became more
or less standard by about 1830:

* The boiler has a "firebox" at one end where the fuel is burned.

* At the other end is a "smokebox", with the chimney at the top.

* The boiler is penetrated lengthwise by a number of "fire tubes",
which are open to the firebox and the smokebox.

* At the completion of each piston stroke, the expanded steam is
directed to a "blast pipe", a nozzle pointing upwards into the
smokebox.

* Through the Bernoulli effect, this sucks the hot gases from
the firebox forward into the smokebox, thus heating the boiler
along its length; and the harder the engine is working, the
more this is true.

The chuffing sound is made by the released steam, I think mostly at
the blast pipe.

Steam locomotives that condensed the steam were rare; they were
only built for special applications, such as on what is now the
London Underground.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I wish to God these calculations had been
***@vex.net | executed by steam!" -- Charles Babbage, 1821

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Rich Ulrich
2017-04-21 03:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
Thanks. I think I had read it before, without really grasping it,
that Watt's engine used vacuum for the power stroke, rather
than steam pressure,
True.
Post by Rich Ulrich
and /that/ was one of his important contributions.
No, Newcomen's engine did the same.
Post by Rich Ulrich
That means that condensation was essential.
True, and it meant that the hazard in case of an explosion was less
than later when steam pressure was used.
Post by Rich Ulrich
However, that does not rid me of the notion that some steam
was released as part of the cycle. What accounts for the
"choo-choo" sound? And, didn't the smoke or steam emerge
as puffs, rather than as a continous stream?
I've never seen or heard an engine to Watt's original design operating,
and I doubt that you have either.
By the time people were building steam locomotives for trains, they
were using positive pressure in the cylinders and the steam was
exhausted to the air. The following design had already became more
* The boiler has a "firebox" at one end where the fuel is burned.
* At the other end is a "smokebox", with the chimney at the top.
* The boiler is penetrated lengthwise by a number of "fire tubes",
which are open to the firebox and the smokebox.
* At the completion of each piston stroke, the expanded steam is
directed to a "blast pipe", a nozzle pointing upwards into the
smokebox.
* Through the Bernoulli effect, this sucks the hot gases from
the firebox forward into the smokebox, thus heating the boiler
along its length; and the harder the engine is working, the
more this is true.
The chuffing sound is made by the released steam, I think mostly at
the blast pipe.
Good -- they /were/ releasing steam. After posting earlier, I
remembered an old Western movie or two where a local station had
an elevated water tank in use to "re-fuel" the engine.

And movies showing a pressure guage for the mounting pressures.

But the early engineers clearly were not ignoring the possibilities of
condensors, for whatever purpose, even from the start.
Post by Mark Brader
Steam locomotives that condensed the steam were rare; they were
only built for special applications, such as on what is now the
London Underground.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-21 09:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:24:06 -0400, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
Thanks. I think I had read it before, without really grasping it,
that Watt's engine used vacuum for the power stroke, rather
than steam pressure,
True.
Post by Rich Ulrich
and /that/ was one of his important contributions.
No, Newcomen's engine did the same.
Post by Rich Ulrich
That means that condensation was essential.
True, and it meant that the hazard in case of an explosion was less
than later when steam pressure was used.
Post by Rich Ulrich
However, that does not rid me of the notion that some steam
was released as part of the cycle. What accounts for the
"choo-choo" sound? And, didn't the smoke or steam emerge
as puffs, rather than as a continous stream?
I've never seen or heard an engine to Watt's original design operating,
and I doubt that you have either.
By the time people were building steam locomotives for trains, they
were using positive pressure in the cylinders and the steam was
exhausted to the air. The following design had already became more
* The boiler has a "firebox" at one end where the fuel is burned.
* At the other end is a "smokebox", with the chimney at the top.
* The boiler is penetrated lengthwise by a number of "fire tubes",
which are open to the firebox and the smokebox.
* At the completion of each piston stroke, the expanded steam is
directed to a "blast pipe", a nozzle pointing upwards into the
smokebox.
* Through the Bernoulli effect, this sucks the hot gases from
the firebox forward into the smokebox, thus heating the boiler
along its length; and the harder the engine is working, the
more this is true.
The chuffing sound is made by the released steam, I think mostly at
the blast pipe.
Good -- they /were/ releasing steam. After posting earlier, I
remembered an old Western movie or two where a local station had
an elevated water tank in use to "re-fuel" the engine.
Very common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crane

It was (is?) possible for a locomotive to have its water topped up
without stopping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_pan

A "track pan" (American terminology) or "water trough" (British
terminology) is a device to enable a steam railway locomotive to
replenish its water supply while in motion. It consists of a long
trough filled with water, lying between the rails. When a steam
locomotive passes over the trough, a water scoop can be lowered, and
the speed of forward motion forces water into the scoop, up the
scoop pipe and into the tanks or locomotive tender.
Post by Rich Ulrich
And movies showing a pressure guage for the mounting pressures.
But the early engineers clearly were not ignoring the possibilities of
condensors, for whatever purpose, even from the start.
Post by Mark Brader
Steam locomotives that condensed the steam were rare; they were
only built for special applications, such as on what is now the
London Underground.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-21 10:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:24:06 -0400, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Rich Ulrich
Thanks. I think I had read it before, without really grasping it,
that Watt's engine used vacuum for the power stroke, rather
than steam pressure,
True.
Post by Rich Ulrich
and /that/ was one of his important contributions.
No, Newcomen's engine did the same.
Post by Rich Ulrich
That means that condensation was essential.
True, and it meant that the hazard in case of an explosion was less
than later when steam pressure was used.
Post by Rich Ulrich
However, that does not rid me of the notion that some steam
was released as part of the cycle. What accounts for the
"choo-choo" sound? And, didn't the smoke or steam emerge
as puffs, rather than as a continous stream?
I've never seen or heard an engine to Watt's original design operating,
and I doubt that you have either.
By the time people were building steam locomotives for trains, they
were using positive pressure in the cylinders and the steam was
exhausted to the air. The following design had already became more
* The boiler has a "firebox" at one end where the fuel is burned.
* At the other end is a "smokebox", with the chimney at the top.
* The boiler is penetrated lengthwise by a number of "fire tubes",
which are open to the firebox and the smokebox.
* At the completion of each piston stroke, the expanded steam is
directed to a "blast pipe", a nozzle pointing upwards into the
smokebox.
* Through the Bernoulli effect, this sucks the hot gases from
the firebox forward into the smokebox, thus heating the boiler
along its length; and the harder the engine is working, the
more this is true.
The chuffing sound is made by the released steam, I think mostly at
the blast pipe.
Good -- they /were/ releasing steam. After posting earlier, I
remembered an old Western movie or two where a local station had
an elevated water tank in use to "re-fuel" the engine.
Very common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crane
It was (is?) possible for a locomotive to have its water topped up
without stopping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_pan
A "track pan" (American terminology) or "water trough" (British
terminology) is a device to enable a steam railway locomotive to
replenish its water supply while in motion. It consists of a long
trough filled with water, lying between the rails. When a steam
locomotive passes over the trough, a water scoop can be lowered, and
the speed of forward motion forces water into the scoop, up the
scoop pipe and into the tanks or locomotive tender.
It would seem that Mr Bernouilli and his law
were unknown to the engineers involved,
so they had to reinvent it by experiment,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2017-04-21 01:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Efficient steam engines run the water/steam in a closed cycle, so you
shouldn't see any steam leaking out.

Railway locomotives are, or at least were, the most visible kind of
steam engine as far as the general public is concerned, so they are the
public image of steam engines. They are, however, atypical steam
engines, in that they release the steam to the atmosphere rather than
running it through a condenser. They are the odd ones out.

Have you noticed that thermal power stations are usually located beside
lakes or other big bodies of water? That's because they use non-leaky
steam engines.

The reason steam locomotives use an inefficient power cycle is that they
don't have access to a body of water to cool the steam.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-21 07:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Efficient steam engines run the water/steam in a closed cycle, so you
shouldn't see any steam leaking out.
Railway locomotives are, or at least were, the most visible kind of
steam engine as far as the general public is concerned, so they are the
public image of steam engines. They are, however, atypical steam
engines, in that they release the steam to the atmosphere rather than
running it through a condenser. They are the odd ones out.
Have you noticed that thermal power stations are usually located beside
lakes or other big bodies of water? That's because they use non-leaky
steam engines.
Some (esp. nuclear) power stations go one step further,
and use open cooling towers.
The huge clouds of water vapour above them
(under suitable circumstances visible from 50 km away)
is not steam from the power cycle.
They need a lot of cooling because they are thermally inefficient.
Post by Peter Moylan
The reason steam locomotives use an inefficient power cycle is that they
don't have access to a body of water to cool the steam.
And the railways did have access to cheap coal.
They transported more coal than anything else.
Condensing locomotives have been built for various reasons,
such use in places with a shortage of water.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_steam_locomotive>

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-21 07:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
It was steam in contrast to sail.
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
They also had an inexhaustible supply of cooling water,
and coal was expensive, so I don't think so.

Looking at an artists impression of it confirms the idea.
<https://fineartamerica.com/featured/a-midnight-race-on-the-mississippi-
currier-and-ives.html>
When racing they had flame coming out of the smoke stacks, not steam.
The white plumes are steam whistles.
For the real thing you can ook at Natchez

(not the original racing one)
Post by Rich Ulrich
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
When did the condenser-technology get established?
With James Watt. It was the key invention
that made steam engines competitive for general purpose use
by giving them an acceptable effficiency.

Jan
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 20:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Rich Ulrich
When did the condenser-technology get established?
With James Watt. It was the key invention
that made steam engines competitive for general purpose use
by giving them an acceptable effficiency.
According to one of the things I read
(probably in the Whiccup article cited upthread)
Watt's engine used 75% less coal than Newcomen's,
partly by not having to reheat the piston cylinder each input stroke.

He also used low-pressure steam to turn his atmospheric pressure engine
into the double acting engine; he developed his parallel motion (linkage)
to be able to push as well as pull the walking beam.

/dps
Janet
2017-04-21 13:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer

Loading Image...

https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6


As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley

"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room

The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."

Janet.
Katy Jennison
2017-04-21 14:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
If that's the view from your kitchen window ... I don't suppose you do
B&B, do you?
--
Katy Jennison
Janet
2017-04-21 17:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <odd6ev$1s5$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@spamtrap.kjennison.com
says...
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
If that's the view from your kitchen window ...
well, this is

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N05/33338985754/in/dateposted-
public/

I don't suppose you do
Post by Katy Jennison
B&B, do you?
Used to but not any more.

Janet
Katy Jennison
2017-04-21 18:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
If that's the view from your kitchen window ...
well, this is
public/
I don't suppose you do
Post by Katy Jennison
B&B, do you?
Used to but not any more.
Pity! Wonderful picture.
--
Katy Jennison
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-21 20:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
If that's the view from your kitchen window ...
well, this is
public/
I don't suppose you do
Post by Katy Jennison
B&B, do you?
Used to but not any more.
Pity! Wonderful picture.
Looking at the next picture in the sequence, isn't that Pilot Gig rather
off-course?
--
Sam Plusnet
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 20:33:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
If that's the view from your kitchen window ...
well, this is
public/
I don't suppose you do
Post by Katy Jennison
B&B, do you?
Used to but not any more.
Pity! Wonderful picture.
Looking at the next picture in the sequence, isn't that Pilot Gig rather
off-course?
I like the picture "WaverlyInBrodick", a bit to the right of the first.

And there seems to be some vigorous plantlife in "Ceanothus1"

(Lock Ness didn't look like that on a January day half a generation ago)

/dps
Janet
2017-04-21 20:46:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
Post by Katy Jennison
If that's the view from your kitchen window ...
well, this is
public/
I don't suppose you do
Post by Katy Jennison
B&B, do you?
Used to but not any more.
Pity! Wonderful picture.
Looking at the next picture in the sequence, isn't that Pilot Gig rather
off-course?
:-) That's a St Ayles skiff.

http://scottishcoastalrowing.org/2016/09/19/seabhag-arrans-second-skiff/

Janet
Sam Plusnet
2017-04-22 22:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Janet
Post by Katy Jennison
If that's the view from your kitchen window ...
well, this is
public/
I don't suppose you do
Post by Katy Jennison
B&B, do you?
Used to but not any more.
Pity! Wonderful picture.
Looking at the next picture in the sequence, isn't that Pilot Gig rather
off-course?
:-) That's a St Ayles skiff.
http://scottishcoastalrowing.org/2016/09/19/seabhag-arrans-second-skiff/
Ah! 4 oars.
I mistook it for a Cornish Pilot Gig (50% extra).
My mistake.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-21 19:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
An even bigger and older one is 'De Majesteit' (E. The Majesty) at 82 m,
originally built for Rhine cruises, (1925)
now a floating restaurant and party boat, based in Rotterdam.
Not quite seaworthy, but up to cruising in the estuaries.
The only wikip page on her is in German
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Majesteit>

The problem of manouvrability has been solved
by adding an electrically driven bow thruster
and a thrust rudder.

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-24 09:52:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)

Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================

How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.

Can anyone here elucidate?

Jan
charles
2017-04-24 10:13:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)
Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================
How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.
Can anyone here elucidate?
my only comment is the the Waverley is an "ocean going" vessel. As such it
has to be able to cope with significant waves. That might well have been a
factor in its design.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-24 19:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by charles
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)
Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================
How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.
Can anyone here elucidate?
my only comment is the the Waverley is an "ocean going" vessel. As such it
has to be able to cope with significant waves. That might well have been a
factor in its design.
Wikipedia doesn't say so, the claim is 'seaworthy'.
'Ocean-going' may be an exaggeration.
She seems to be a coaster, at least in practice
and may have a seaworthyness certificate as a coaster only.

Jan
charles
2017-04-24 19:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Wikipedia doesn't say so, the claim is 'seaworthy'.
'Ocean-going' may be an exaggeration.
She seems to be a coaster, at least in practice
and may have a seaworthyness certificate as a coaster only.
OK I quoted from memory. Their own description is "seagoing".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-24 17:33:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)
Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================
How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.
Can anyone here elucidate?
No, but I can imagine that the passengers crowding to one side of the
ship sank one wheel deeper and lifted one partly out of the water, making
changes in angular speeds of the wheels, forces, and torques. I can also
imagine that some crews were surprised and reacted badly to some of those
changes. But that's the closest I can get.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2017-04-24 19:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)
Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================
How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.
Can anyone here elucidate?
No, but I can imagine that the passengers crowding to one side of the
ship sank one wheel deeper and lifted one partly out of the water, making
changes in angular speeds of the wheels, forces, and torques. I can also
imagine that some crews were surprised and reacted badly to some of those
changes. But that's the closest I can get.
The paddlewheel on the low side, if driven hard,
will reinforce the capsizing moment.
(in particular if you drive it hard against a restraining mooring line)

So it seems to me that the possibility of decoupling the wheels
should help to avoid the problem.
With ridgidly coupled wheels the only remedy is
to stop the driving power altogether.
With independently driven wheels otoh it is possible
to disengage the low side wheel.

You may be right that an additional control
may cause more room for handling error,

Jan
Rich Ulrich
2017-04-24 17:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)
Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================
How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.
Can anyone here elucidate?
If you take a corner too fast in a car, you can "roll" it - the
inside wheels lift off the ground. There's your vertical force
in action, from the forward momentum which is braked at
the bottom (by tires for the car, by water for the ferry).

For a ferry, the passengers are already lowering the side
that the turn would also tend to submerge. So they locked
the paddles together to ensure that the turn while nearing
the pier must be gentle.
--
Rich Ulrich
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-24 20:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Janet
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Classical steam ships were not 'steaming' either.
What comes out of the funnel is smoke, not steam.
In all cases the steam goes into a condenser.
I feel let down. If steam ships don't visibly "steam", then
that description of them is based on ignorance. At least,
it feels that way to me.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The only things that really steamed were the steam locomotives,
Surely, the early riverboats with paddlewheels must have
steamed, given their huge, available suppy of fresh water.
(I can see the problem for steam vessels in salt water.)
This is the last sea-going paddle steamer
http://images2.mygola.com/ps-waverley-in-brodick-bay_1214539_m.jpg
https://tinyurl.com/m8nhvk6
As frequently seen from my kitchen window. She doesn't emit steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley
"Waverley is powered by a three-crank diagonal triple-expansion marine
steam engine built by Rankin & Blackmore, Engineers, Eagle Foundry,
Greenock, Scotland. It is rated at 2,100 IHP and achieved a trial speed
of 18.37 knots (34.02 km/h; 21.14 mph) at 57.8 rpm. Passengers can watch
these engines from passageways on either side of the engine room
The main crank is solidly attached to both paddle wheels so they cannot
turn independently of each other. The Waverley therefore has a much
larger turning circle than modern ferries."
Your remark intrigued me,
so I wondered why they would have built Waverley that way.
In the 19th century paddlewheel tugs survived for some time
(despite losing dramatically from a propellor driven tug
in a much published ompetition)
precisely because having indepent drive made them more manouvrable.
(they could turn on their axis, which is clumsy with a propellor)
Wikip does provide an answer, but unfortunately I don't understand it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer>
========================================================================
European sidewheelers, such as the PS Waverley, connect the wheels with
solid drive shafts that limit maneuverability and give the craft a wide
turning radius. Some were built with paddle clutches that disengage one
or both paddles so they can turn independently. However, wisdom gained
from early experience with sidewheelers deemed that they be operated
with clutches out, or as solid shaft vessels. Crews noticed that as
ships approached the dock, passengers moved to the side of the ship
ready to disembark. The shift in weight, added to independent movements
of the paddles, could lead to imbalance and potential capsizing. Paddle
tugs were frequently operated with clutches in, as the lack of
passengers aboard meant that independent paddle movement could be used
safely and the added maneuverability exploited to the full.
========================================================================
How does having independent drive on the paddles lead to capsizing?
I would have thought that paddle wheels do not give rise
to significant vertical forces.
The padle going in lifts the side, at coming out it drags down.
Can anyone here elucidate?
If you take a corner too fast in a car, you can "roll" it - the
inside wheels lift off the ground. There's your vertical force
in action, from the forward momentum which is braked at
the bottom (by tires for the car, by water for the ferry).
Cars tend to roll because the force that makes the car turn is friction
with the road, which is below the center of gravity. I'd assume
steamboats are built and ballasted so that the forces that make them
turn are at about the right height in relation to the center of
gravity, center of buoyancy, and whatever else is relevant. But I
know nothing about naval architecture.
Post by Rich Ulrich
For a ferry, the passengers are already lowering the side
that the turn would also tend to submerge. So they locked
the paddles together to ensure that the turn while nearing
the pier must be gentle.
I can see that enforcing gentle turns might help.
--
Jerry Friedman
r***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 09:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
In certain navigation-at-sea contexts, "steaming" is a generic term for a vessel making way under power (as opposed to sail or oars, or whatever), regardless of whether the power source is a steam engine or not.

Robin
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 20:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
In certain navigation-at-sea contexts, "steaming" is a generic term
for a vessel making way under power (as opposed to sail or oars, or whatever),
regardless of whether the power source is a steam engine or not.
Generic terms were being run through the nit mill to generate this thread.

/dps
Robert Bannister
2017-04-24 00:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Would "sailing" be better?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Tony Cooper
2017-04-24 00:27:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:19:52 +0800, Robert Bannister
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Would "sailing" be better?
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2017-04-24 01:09:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".

It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "When you say 'non-trivial', can you
***@vex.net quantify that for me?" --Kate Hamilton

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-24 09:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.

The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-24 11:53:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
... such as happened with the Primates, where we found that the "Great Apes" is
no longer a single node in the classificatory tree.
Charles Bishop
2017-04-24 13:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
--
charles
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-24 15:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
A new theory suggests that the Titanic's hull was weakened because the coal in the bins
(which were against the hull) had been slow-burning since before she was launched.
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
Are you suggesting that "cruise missile" and/or "nuclear(-powered) submarine" are retronyms?

It would be the other way around: if we started talking about "unguided missiles"
or "oil(-powered) submarines," _those_ would be retronyms.
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-24 20:29:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
A new theory suggests that the Titanic's hull was weakened because the coal in the bins
(which were against the hull) had been slow-burning since before she was launched.
Is that a case of getting a lower-grade of coal than was specified?
One of those compromises to avoid missing sailing dates?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
Are you suggesting that "cruise missile" and/or "nuclear(-powered) submarine" are retronyms?
It would be the other way around: if we started talking about "unguided missiles"
or "oil(-powered) submarines," _those_ would be retronyms.
S/oil-/diesel-/, m'lad. And it was the "electric guitar" of its day.


The first submarine (arguably, /Turtle/) was human powered. By WWI they were gas[oline]-powered on the surface,
electrically powered when submerged.
By WWII the gas had been replaced by diesel
for both safety and efficiency.

[There were, at various times, arrangements tried
using a snorkel to provide air to the engine(s),
which of course limited diving depth
but did provide an extended submerged range.]

[[It seems a modern missle sub is long enough that it's length
about matches it's safe dive depth.
WiPee says an /Ohio/-class boomer is 560 ft long,
and it's test depth is about 800 ft.
But the older /Benjamin Franklin/ class was 425 ft
with a test depth of 1300 feet,
so there is variation making the match more like 2x length.]]

/dps
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-24 20:39:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
A new theory suggests that the Titanic's hull was weakened because the coal in the bins
(which were against the hull) had been slow-burning since before she was launched.
Is that a case of getting a lower-grade of coal than was specified?
One of those compromises to avoid missing sailing dates?
I heard it on the radio a while ago: the idea was that the coal bin somehow caught
fire and even though at least some people knew it, they weren't able to stop it and
wouldn't have realized that it might become a seaworthiness problem.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
Are you suggesting that "cruise missile" and/or "nuclear(-powered) submarine" are retronyms?
It would be the other way around: if we started talking about "unguided missiles"
or "oil(-powered) submarines," _those_ would be retronyms.
S/oil-/diesel-/, m'lad. And it was the "electric guitar" of its day.
Diesel is a petroleum product, no? Hence "oil" was used generically.
Post by s***@gmail.com
The first submarine (arguably, /Turtle/) was human powered. By WWI they were gas[oline]-powered on the surface,
electrically powered when submerged.
By WWII the gas had been replaced by diesel
for both safety and efficiency.
[There were, at various times, arrangements tried
using a snorkel to provide air to the engine(s),
which of course limited diving depth
but did provide an extended submerged range.]
[[It seems a modern missle sub is long enough that it's length
about matches it's safe dive depth.
WiPee says an /Ohio/-class boomer is 560 ft long,
and it's test depth is about 800 ft.
But the older /Benjamin Franklin/ class was 425 ft
with a test depth of 1300 feet,
so there is variation making the match more like 2x length.]]
s***@gmail.com
2017-04-24 20:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
A new theory suggests that the Titanic's hull was weakened because the coal in the bins
(which were against the hull) had been slow-burning since before she was launched.
Is that a case of getting a lower-grade of coal than was specified?
One of those compromises to avoid missing sailing dates?
I heard it on the radio a while ago: the idea was that the coal bin somehow caught
fire and even though at least some people knew it, they weren't able to stop it and
wouldn't have realized that it might become a seaworthiness problem
I was thinking that the grade of coal would relate to spontaneous combustion
and/or smoldering issues.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
Are you suggesting that "cruise missile" and/or "nuclear(-powered) submarine" are retronyms?
It would be the other way around: if we started talking about "unguided missiles"
or "oil(-powered) submarines," _those_ would be retronyms.
S/oil-/diesel-/, m'lad. And it was the "electric guitar" of its day.
Diesel is a petroleum product, no? Hence "oil" was used generically.
An oil-fired boat is very different from a diesel-powered boat
(viz also oil-fired locomotives like SP 4449 and UP 844 vs diesel-powered).
Generics should be used with caution,
perhaps consulting a physician first.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gmail.com
The first submarine (arguably, /Turtle/) was human powered. By WWI they were gas[oline]-powered on the surface,
electrically powered when submerged.
By WWII the gas had been replaced by diesel
for both safety and efficiency.
[There were, at various times, arrangements tried
using a snorkel to provide air to the engine(s),
which of course limited diving depth
but did provide an extended submerged range.]
[[It seems a modern missle sub is long enough that it's length
about matches it's safe dive depth.
WiPee says an /Ohio/-class boomer is 560 ft long,
and it's test depth is about 800 ft.
But the older /Benjamin Franklin/ class was 425 ft
with a test depth of 1300 feet,
so there is variation making the match more like 2x length.]]
/dps "sometimes 3x, but not any deeper"

J. J. Lodder
2017-04-24 19:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
But of course.
An acoustic guitar is an electric guitar unplugged,

JAN
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-24 20:34:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Charles Bishop
Of course the acoustic guitar came after the electric guitar.
But of course.
An acoustic guitar is an electric guitar unplugged,
Er -- no. While you can attach a pickup to a(n acoustic) guitar, an unplugged electric
guitar is just a wooden plank with strings stretched across it and can barely be heard
a meter or two away.
David Kleinecke
2017-04-24 18:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
This reminds me of the recent discussion about "ballistic", "cruise",
etc, missiles and why they are so named.
The naming is not derived from an objective "taxonomy" or
classification. It is an evolutionary process. When a new type of
missile or means of propulsion of a ship is introduced it is named
according to what distinguishes it from other, pre-existing, systems.
There is not a systematic review of the sytems, new and old, which might
result in a reclassification and a logical renaming of all of them.
Like olive sizes?
Adam Funk
2017-04-24 10:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
You have nuclear-powered locomotives?!?
--
I understand about indecision
But I don't care if I get behind
People living in competition
All I want is to have my peace of mind ---Boston
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-24 12:04:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
The thing that struck me about the usage is that the ship is usually
referred to as a nuclear-powered vessel. It didn't occur to me that
steam turbines would be part of the drive train.
It's an interesting point. A ship like the Titanic would be described
as "steam-powered", never "fire-powered". At most we might refer to
the specific fuel burned in the fire and call it "coal-burning". Yet
simply replacing the fires with a nuclear reactor changes the usual
description to "nuclear-powered".
It's somewhat similar with steam locomotives, too.
You have nuclear-powered locomotives?!?
Shh! That's supposed to be a secret!
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Lewis
2017-04-24 06:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Tony Cooper
From today's newspaper: "U.S. officials said Tuesday that the Carl
Vinson and its accompanying vessels are now steaming northward and are
expected to arrive in the Sea of Japan next week."
The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class supercarrier, is powered by 2
Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors and 4 steam turbines, so I guess it
may be "steaming".
Would "sailing" be better?
The reactors don't drive the vessel, they heat the water to produce the
steam to feed the turbines.
--
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
Loading...