What did ocean-going steamships do for water? Did they carry enough to carry them across, or did they just boil seawater? Perhaps they did something clever?
(Mom always said curiousity would get me in trouble.)
Dunno what subs did, but we had a de-saltating plant on the tub I was on. Sometimes the drinking, cooking, water was a little salty.
But…
Our boilers used pure unadulterated water, kept clean by big deaerating tanks, and other cleansing apparatus. The steam was condensed in big salt water cooled condensers and then cleansed and sent back to the boilers again. It was a continuous cycle, adding water occasionally that was lost due to leaking valves, etc.
jb
Tom Ruby said:
What did ocean-going steamships do for water? Did they carry enough to carry them across, or did they just boil seawater? Perhaps they did something clever?(Mom always said curiousity would get me in trouble.)
Most used a distillery or condensor set up to provide bolier water and domestic water for the passengers.
Nick
Stills.
Our dismal boats had them, ran them all the time they could.
Lots of heat, most water was for the batteries!
Showers were low on the list.
641 Foxtrots (Russkie) had 2 very small emergency stills just for battery water, unless they were export boats, like to India or Cuba, then they had proper stills.
20-second fresh water shower once a week.
However, on the surface, all the salt-water showers you wanted to take in the shower just forward of the urinal and crapper in the sail, port side aft.
The turned on the fire pumps, and 27-degree North Atlantic or North Pacific (or whatever the temperature was) was what you got.
Our Nuke boats, stills ran all the time, had all the fresh water you wanted.
Quartergaskets and Sonar Girls took most of it just before they secured the maneuvering watch inbound.
Tom
Early steamboats used seawater IN the boilers, but this was problematic as you can imagine. Foam, sediment buildup, salt corrosion, boiler life in these early steamers was measured in single digit years not decades. This actually continued right up to and after the US civil war, afterwords shipbuilding technology improved to carry needed fresh water in holding tanks built into the ships hull, and on board condensors to recondense steam back into water allowed discontinuation of sea water in the boilers. This lead to a dramatic increase in reliablity of steamboats. Stills to seperate domestic fresh water are relativley new, only becoming common during the last 50 years, before that, it was simply easier to pump holding tanks full of fresh water at each port.
I’ve seen steam launches (~24 foot…) running one cylinder engines that had three options.
1.) Water from tank, filling regularly.
2.) Water from outboard … when used in lake, river, or other fresh water situation
3.) Exhaust steam run through “primitive” condensor, usually a pipe from stern to bow below the water, and then into the supply tank. As the steam cools in the pipe with the heat transferring to the outside water, it also provides vacuum on the engine side. Later arrangements had more advanced coils and check valves so that the cool and condense was more complete and the vacuum was fully applied to the engine.
I found it an interesting “change in philosophy” … I asked the fellow who built such a boat why the exhaust steam wasn’t blown up the stack to create draft on the fire, and thereby make a hotter fire, and thereby more steam … he laughed, and remarked that I’d put in enough coal to go to Long Island and back instead of just around the lake for a few hours, and that running the fire on an exhaust draft would just make the safety blow all night… marine steam on that scale is a lot different than trying to move a locomotive! Lots more like powering a boat with a pot bellied stove… put in some hard coal, cover the grate, close the door, and don’t ever poke it, or draft on it … only add more coal as it actually starts to burn through, and out.
Also spent some time in the engine room of a somewhat larger steamboat, and the philosophy was largely the same. Was a water tube boiler, and exhaust steam was condensed and re-used (and therefore there really wasn’t under most circumstances, any exhaust noise or plume) and while the fireman (or whatever you call him on a boat… the stoker? the engineer?) had his work cut out for him, it wasn’t anything like trying to keep up with a locomotive… basically you “make up” your fire, and then simply tend it to make sure it keeps going for the trip, or enough of it that the engine turns for the whole trip. We actually came in to the dock with the fire more or less out, and running on the residual steam. The other thing is, under most marine circumstances, once you’re underway, the engine runs more or less at a constant speed most of the time, and beyond answering the bell (Stop, Forward, Reverse, “More”) there isn’t a lot of throttle changes excpet at the end points of the voyage. Very different from a fireman on a locomotive who has to not only communicate with the engineman, but anticipate what comes next to avoid too much fire and the safety blowing constantly, or too little fire and running out of steam altogether.
Matthew (OV)
Interesting.
Thanks for satisfying curiousity.