Wave

A public service announcement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s a hoax.

Preparing for sea.

That is, the engineering side of getting a vessel’s propulsion and steering systems ready for sea. How things change.

Lets take the case of an improved RFA Fort class vessel of about twenty years of age, and a Wave class of approximately five years of age.

The Fort class vessel.

Ensure that there is enough spinning reserve being generated from the diesel generators. (Although the vessel allegedly had a power management system I prefer to call it a mismanagement system).

Head three levels down to the bottom of the engine room.

Turn both engines on turning gear for two complete revolutions each.

Disengage turning gear.

Kick over engines on air without fuel.

Close all 32 indicator cocks.

Put safety caps on cocks.

Turn on fuel and run both engines ahead and astern on fuel from local position next to the engines.

Test local telegraphs with the bridge Officer.

Test clutches and shaft brakes locally.

Remember to switch control of engines to remote.

Go to control room. (Out of breath)

Test telegraphs with Bridge.

Go round the back of the manoeuvring console and reset electric governors. (Don’t leave this step out, Things could get frightening otherwise).

Test clutches and brakes in manual MCR control.

Test engines ahead and astern in manual control.

Test engines , clutches and brakes in MCR auto control.

Test Engines, clutches, and brakes, in Bridge control.

Head off down to the steering flat.

Test all 4 humungous electro-hydraulic steering motors in local manual control.

Test all four steering motors in push button local control.

Pass control to the bridge and have it all tested from there..

Go back to the MCR and wipe sweat from your brow. Approximate time for this as a lone engineer evolution. (If done properly) 1 1/2 hours at least..

The Wave class vessel.

Put kettle on.

From the MCR, test telegraphs with the bridge.

Contact the systems engineer in the sychroconverter room and tell him to do likewise.

Make tea.

Place cursor over one of the  harmonic filters and “click*

Start main motors with a judicious “click” on the right place on the screen.

Use tiny little lever to test the propeller rotates ahead and astern.

Contact systems engineer and tell him to do the same.

Swig tea.

On completion pass control to the bridge and get the officer of the day to do the same.

Swig more tea.

“Click” on bow thruster and stern thruster start, and test from MCR and bridge.

Tea’s still hot.

Nip down to the steering flat and test the two motors in the same way as the Fort class.

Go back to the MCR. Time taken. About the time it takes for the tea to go from piping hot, to warm.

This post is just to show that technology is changing the way we do things in the field of marine engineering. The order of testing I’ve written maybe slightly wrong but the time taken is the thrust of this post. (we all get old).

ED’s Note:

The first vessel had a twin engine, twin screw, direct drive setup operating through gearboxes and clutches.

The second vessel was a diesel electric, single screw system. The primary source of power was a power management system powering two DC motors attached to a single shaft.

Footnote: Sadly the RFA Fort George has now been scrapped and cut up for razor blades.

PS. Another Filthy Engineer. Give me a clue to your identity if you’re reading this. Just give me the first letter of your surname. You can contact me anyway at Niklowe@gmail.com.

Pie in the sea

The government will today be called on to increase its support for wave and tidal power in a new report from MPs warning the UK is at risk of repeating mistakes which allowed the country to lose its early lead in the developing wind power industry.

MPs on the Commons' Energy and Climate Change Committee (ECC) on Monday released a report on the future of marine renewables, which will claim the UK could become a leading exporter of wave and tidal power equipment and expertise if the government adopts a more visionary approach to developing marine energy.

Oh that’ll work well then. As my one reader will recall, (Hi Mrs FE) the author of this poorly written blog was a marine engineer for some 43 years. I know from bitter experience how corrosive sea water is. Many a time I’ve been called to fix a salt water leak from a corroded  pipe. Especially when you are at the North of Norway in the middle of winter and it’s at two in the morning.

I envisage that these turbines will be vastly more costly than above water wind turbines.

1)  Wind turbines only have to be weather-proof. Submersed turbines have to be waterproof to the depth they are subjected to. What are the materials to be used in the manufacture? What paint coating will they use to protect against marine growth? After all they would be foolish to use a cheap coating. It’s somewhat difficult to re-paint underwater.

2) You have to place and secure them underwater. Somewhat expensive in my mind. You’ll need divers and submersibles for that.

3) Ditto connection of cables.

4) Maintenance. This always seems to be left out of the equation when these schemes are floated in front of our lords and masters. How do you change a gearbox bearing underwater? In fact how due you change the oil in the gearbox?

5) has anyone assessed a failure rate and what to do when one or more fail? Considering that seaborne wind turbines appear to have an effective life of eight years rather than the twenty touted by the industry.

6) The one in the picture above is designed to swivel. How long before the swivel bearing seizes due to salt water seepage.

Anything I’ve forgotten? 

You get my point I hope.

The reason why I wrote this post is the “My dick is bigger than your dick” mentality by our politicians when it concerns being “Green”.

But the report warns that an overly cautious approach to deployment may allow other less risk-averse countries to steal the UK's lead.

and

The ECC report will issue a series of recommendations designed to ensure the UK retains its leading position, including clarifying how much revenue support marine power can expect to receive beyond 2017 as soon as possible.

and more

"Britannia really could rule the waves when it comes to marine renewable energy," said committee chairman Tim Yeo. "We are extremely well placed to lead the world in wave and tidal technologies, which could potentially bring significant benefits in manufacturing and jobs, as well an abundant supply of reliable low-carbon electricity."

The question I’d like to put to Tim Yeo (I refuse to call him honourable. MPs’ lost that honorific due to the expenses scandal), why do you want to destroy the UK’s competiveness by hiking up energy prices to obscene levels?

Dear reader (Bugger, Mrs FE has gone to bed), what would you prefer? A cheap energy source supplying your needs, or one that threatens you to a life of fuel poverty and rolling blackouts. I know which one I prefer.

 

 

.

Good does not mean expensive.

In relation to my last post about the expensive MRA4 debacle, I cannot understand why we always seem to go for expensive weapons systems suited for the cold war, that has been over for some time.

Now I was at sea for a considerable number of years and saw a tendency for the ordering  of very expensive high tech warships but few in number. The problem as I see it, is that those ships cannot patrol all our vested interests. To give you an example we had one Frigate/Destroyer and a support Tanker in the Caribbean undergoing counter drug operations, disaster relief, and protection for our Dependencies. We had another small warship in the Falklands along with a support tanker.

Now we have one minor war vessel in the Falklands, most of the time no warship in the Caribbean, and one support tanker trying to cover both areas.

In the past after the Falklands conflict we normally had a Type 21 Frigate and a cheap and cheerful Rover class tanker in each area of operation.

This gets me to  the point I would like to make. Why don’t we either build/buy some cheap and cheerful frigates armed with a gun on the front, a point defence missile system, and a reasonable anti submarine detection system.

Another idea would be to build more “Wave Class” Auxiliary Oilers (AO) which have proved themselves in the Caribbean by the very fact that with their fuel capacity, their facility to carry a Law Enforcement Detachment  Team from the US coastguard, Helicopter, weapons, etc, they have become a range extender for the coalition in the fight against drugs. (Incidentally I was on an AO out in the Caribbean, where we intercepted 32 Tonnes of Cocaine being shipped to Europe). Present armament Two 30mm powered mounts, two Mk 48 miniguns, and five GPMGs. Plus active decoy systems, ECM, and ESM. Plus the provision to fit CIWS phalanx.

Pic is of a minigun.

Armament could be enhanced by buying something like THIS. That would be quite sufficient.

Lets think numbers, rather mine’s bigger than yours.

And don’t get me started on Eurofighter Typhoon.