Naval Engines - Rotate that shaft!

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@andrewduguid1103]

You've been waiting to use this title haven't you?

[@crispico4727]

Who owns the rights to warships? If I wanted to manufacture and sell a model of battleship Prince of Wales would I need a permit? What about aircraft carrier Prince of wales?

[@RhodeIslandWildlife]

King Kong vs Godzilla was not a particularly good film but you might enjoy the first battle. A small carrier group gets caught in the crossfire.

[@bificommander7472]

Back in the Scharnhorst video, you mentioned that they were armed with 11 inch guns because they lost the ability to make 15 inch weapons. While real life not being an RTS with always unlocked technology is true, I'm curious exactly what the Germans lacked to make 15 inch weapons. Or more amusingly phrased, if they'd changed the scales on their 11 inch blueprints so everything, including barrel thickness and such, was 36% bigger and send that to the manufacturer... what would have gone horribly wrong?

[@ukaszgrzesik7231]

Can we expect episode dedicated to history and development of watertight compartments in ships? Is it true that Chinese sailing ships had them first? If not, who was first to implement that feature? And when it became common?

[@L0stEngineer]

I don't know how you handle the pressure of churning out so much content, but I do enjoy that you're always full steam ahead.

[@guy13356]

Clap clap clap

[@patricklenigan4309]

he probably works on multiple videos at the same time.

[@Sabactus]

/groan..."Take your upvote/like and GTFO."

[@barrydysert2974]

He must vent that pressure into hundreds of expansion cylinders! Lucky us!:-) 🖖

[@simontist]

Maybe it's his way of venting?

[@davidbrennan660]

One for us “Black Gang” Enginner types.... thanks Drach Hurrah for Wednesday.

[@JuStsme0nE123]

My favourite is Naval boilers, but I went "oh yes. OH YES!" when I saw this title and I have yet to watch it so.... I'm stoked!

[@bowlingman8931]

Roel Zloot of course the boiler guy is stoked lol

[@77thTrombone]

Before anyone gets up-in-arms, the _black_ reference refers to coal dust & soot.

[@larrytrail2865]

@@JuStsme0nE123 (Groans at the pun) Drach I'm sure will appreciate the humor- the rest of us will just glare at you

[@davidbrennan660]

@@77thTrombone we got our own mess as well in a decent sized Ship as well...... .

[@slytlygufy]

"Stop giggling there in the back." Superb, Sir!

[@highlypolishedturd7947]

I wasn't giggling until he said it...

[@rackstraw]

Jacking Gear!

[@barrydysert2974]

Here Here!:-) 🖖

[@garrettcrayton4493]

Pretty sure this is the first sex joke on this channel, and I'm lowkey hoping it wasn't the last (he nailed that delivery)

[@highlypolishedturd7947]

@@garrettcrayton4493 There was a Drydock somewhere in the upper 60's, but less than 70, that got a little bit of commentary during the intro.

[@sagebrushbob2321]

In my 21 years as a naval engineering chief, I served on ships with steam plants ranging from 200 PSi, to 600 psi, up to 1200 psi and loved all of them. However, I still favor the 1200 psi superheated turbine plants of the 1955-1975 era US destroyers. They were like hot-blooded race horses: a bit finickey and high-maintenance systems, but nothing else had so much power squeezed into such a small space. Changing periscope lights on top of an operating 1200 psi superheated boiler is something that has to be experienced to be believed...

[@chrishartcher4894]

What is a periscope light??

[@Loweko1170]

@@chrishartcher4894 A boiler periscope is a little optical mount set into the boiler assembly to let the crew observe the gases inside the smokestack. Presumably this one had a light in it that needed to be replaced. Hopefully it was mounted clear of the boiler casing and smokestack, but you'd still be worryingly close to a Very Hot Thing.

[@natedunn51]

You know it's a mighty engine what you are more scared of it than the enemy

[@77thTrombone]

@@Loweko1170 right. The periscopes let the watchstanders on the boilerfronts see if they're making black smoke (bad!) or white smoke (really bad!) Both cases are a result of poor air/fuel combustion. No smoke is the goal for post WWII ships. Black smoke soots up the boiler tubes and reduces heat transfer. (This in turn leads to the boiler techs working long days over weekends to clean up the firesides after the plant shuts down in port, as the dry, dusty soot is easier to clean before condensation starts collecting on it & making it muddy.) White smoke is explosive. Since the periscopes are looking at the combustion gasses leaving each boiler, before the exhaust gets channeled up the stack, there is no natural light, so a backlight is needed. On the ships I was on, the periscopes viewing ports were 3-4 inches in diameter-you didn't need to have your face pressed up against them to see there view. Typically they were oriented so the lead BT on watch could keep an eye on them.

[@jujenho]

@@77thTrombone The evils of black smoke are clear, but why is white smoke explosive?

[@hairy-dairyman]

As a kid, the only family holiday we could afford was going to Echuca in Victoria. Our aunty had a house out of town we could use on her property. It was just big enough for 4 families to have a room each. We would take a ride on the paddle steamers that still run on the murry River. I think it was one of the few times the owner of the steamer had seen 15 kids and 3 fathers all watching his every move, bugging him with questions and not the country as it passed by. It started a mechanical fascination in us kids that has led to three heavy plant mechanics, two farmers that restore old tractors, an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a printing press mechanic, a deep drilling specialist geologist, a jet engineering professor and a hydro power plant maintenance manager. 4 of us are fire-fighters as well. I hope it also led to some proud parents as well.

[@kenoliver8913]

Ah, as a teenager I helped restore one of those Murray paddlewheelers to working condition. Even then they were over 80 years old - while it was all properly certified (by the railroad authority IIRC!) we were all a little afraid of that boiler ...

[@Melody_Raventress]

Awesome how one small event helped change so many...

[@BazilRat]

​​@@Melody_RaventressAnd as 4 of them are firefighters, several saved too

[@overboss9599]

oh boy it's Drach time ladies and gentlemen.

[@JackBWatkins]

That’s what Mrs. Drach said!!

[@riderstrano783]

36:53 I can personally attest to this being supremely helpful, as while moving between ports a while back, the fireboat took air into one of its engine’s water cooling lines. This necessitated the shutting down of that engine, but since we have diesel electric drive, we were able to throw a switch on the main board and keep both shafts turning. I might add that we were designed and built with our diesel electric system in 1938

[@SolarWebsite]

I once saw a Damen ASD Tug 2810 Hybrid move away from the quay under electric power (without, at first, knowing what it was) and was astonished by the silence and lack of diesel exhaust fumes. Looks like cool technology with a lot of potential for future development. www.damen.com/-/media/New-Corporate-Damen/Images/News/2014/01/Dutch_Navy_to_buy_tugboats_in_cooperation_with_FMV_Sweden/Damen_ASD_Tug_2810_Hybrid.pdf

[@77thTrombone]

@Rider Strano - What 1938 fireboat are you running along the coast? p.s. your user pic does not align well with your diesel-electric fireboat story.

[@riderstrano783]

@@77thTrombone the boat I volunteer aboard is the museum ship Fire Fighter. She operated in the FDNY fleet from 1938 (the year the steam engine in the picture is from) all the way until 2010. The boat is still fully operational and moves from port to port at the eastern end of Long Island sound

[@dylantowers9367]

I work on a depot that maintains diesel-electric trains, which are pretty much the same principle. Cars can power-share to adjacent cars if one of the diesel engines fails.

[@uralbob1]

Love those good old girls!

[@mackenziebeeney3764]

“A burnt out electrical motor would be far easier to repair with spare parts, than a turbine that had stripped its blades and probably explosively disassembled itself” brilliant.

[@kevincrosby1760]

True, but it doesn't matter much if that failed turbine happened to be driving the generator that feed the motors....

[@rachelberkhahn9612]

Double acting cylinders unlocked! Turbine reduction gears unlocked! This tech tree has some head scratcher moments when viewed in retrospect.

[@F14thunderhawk]

Expensive and Rare are pretty good at stopping technological advancement.

[@theleva7]

So, should we wait for video on screws titled "You spin me right round"?

[@lizardb8694]

Wait until we get "boiling water the HARD way" episode - ATOM is your friend and propells floaty bathtubs - cause and effect reversal of mental exercise titled splitting the atom by using the hammer.

[@johnbuchman4854]

Blended, not shaken nor stirred...

[@benholroyd5221]

We're all screwed?

[@CaRteh99]

@@johnbuchman4854 q

[@gfodale]

"A Day Of Screwing Around"? maybe?

[@rvincentsogrub9975]

Just as I was thinking, "I already watch the Boilers video, The Shells video a while ago... I wonder when Drach is going to made an Engine Video." Then this pops up.

[@alltat]

There's one about armor too!

[@simontist]

Next up: plumbing?

[@jujenho]

Don't forger Wiring.

[@JimmyMon666]

When you were a Machinist Mate in the U.S. Navy and you still watch this video. :-) What can I say, I'm devoted. Though the stuff I worked on was much newer than this. Even though my ship was built in 1962 and based off of 50's nuclear technology (Enterprise CVN65).

[@lloydevans2900]

A small note about the engines on the Titanic: These were technically quadruple expansion, with the first three expansions happening in cylinders - each engine having one high pressure cylinder, one intermediate pressure cylinder and two low pressure cylinders. There were two of these engines, driving the port and starboard propeller shafts, and both were reversible, though not through a gearbox: Reversing required stopping the engine and then engaging a small "barring engine" to flip the angle of the connecting rods such that when the engine was restarted, the crankshaft would be turning in the opposite direction. The final steam expansion was through a dedicated low pressure turbine, which took steam at around 5 psi (completely useless to any piston engine) and expanded this to almost no pressure at all. This drove the central propeller shaft, which could not be reversed, though engaging it was optional - the steam exiting the two main engines could bypass the turbine altogether and be sent directly to the condenser, albeit wasting any power it could generate and hence making the ship somewhat less efficient as a result. Interestingly enough, the Titanic and its sister ships were fitted with several smaller high pressure and high speed steam turbines, solely for generating electrical power for lighting, heating, and other "hotel services" aboard. It actually had more generating capacity of this type than was required for normal operations: The extra turbogenerators were reserved for driving emergency bilge pumps and electric winches for lowering lifeboats. As the ship was sinking, some of the engineering crew heroically kept the forward-most boilers stoked up to provide steam pressure to keep the generators going, without which it would have sunk a little quicker (anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes, depending on who you ask), and in all likelihood enabled all of the lifeboats to be launched successfully. Those smaller turbines were probably still spinning away as the ship sank, and took some of the engineers down with it.

[@NashmanNash]

Well..technically Titanic took ALL her engineers with her

[@hunterbear2421]

@@NashmanNash i think a couple survived. but survived because they were on break or something like that. do you know in the electical room of the titanic was basicy a sealed box in the rear of the ship. so they were most likey alive and still trying to keep power flowing while the ship sank and plob was still alive for some of the way down

[@hunterbear2421]

@Off Road Guy no not really, being buried alive would mean you would die from lack of oxygen they got smashed to death when the ship broke apart plob the most painless death on the ship

[@Melody_Raventress]

Thank you for sharing this. My daily dose of heroism. Helps to refresh my heart for humanity.

[@markbeale7390]

Triple expansion, 2 low pressure cylinders same diameter, reverse obtained through stevensons linkage,accuated by ahead/astern eccentrics not the crankshaft ok.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Drach: "Today we take a _quick_ tour...." Is 44 minutes long. *[Grabs some snacks]*

[@Starsky3022]

I mean, that probably still is only a quick tour :D

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

We been blessed

[@davidbrennan660]

You sometimes just have to get all “Isaac Arthur “ about video in relation to drinks and snacks.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

At 43:30, "That completes our brief look at..."

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

You have seen the lengths of some of his Drydocks? His 5 minute guides, the time limit in the title is more an guideline than a rule!

[@JessWLStuart]

My Grandfather, who was an engineer aboard USS Iowa in WWII, mentioned the large diesel engines on the Graph Spee caused vibration issues with Graph Spee's rangefinders.

[@richardm3023]

I think the salt water had an effect on them as well.

[@nomad8723]

Depending on the style of engine and the harmonics of the ship, there can exist speed(s) wherein the vibrations from the diesel engines (or steam reciprocating engine) begin constructively interfering with the hull itself. A ship operating in this range can actually shake itself to pieces, popping rivets and working bolts loose, among other things. Modern merchant vessels have the same issue as well and the solution is simple: Do not run at those speeds except to quickly reach the speeds above and below. This is not an issue for turbine driven vessels (gas turbine or steam turbine) as the operating frequency is in the tens of thousands of RPM, and thus too high frequency to constructively interfere, as the range of RPMs that generate this effect is normally somewhere from 60-80, depending on the ship.

[@Shinzon23]

*Graf Spee

[@albertoswald8461]

Diesel sucks!! Steam rules!!!😁

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

She's curently moored in the port of Los Angeles. My father and a couple of my brothers visited her after my grandmother's funeral... By her size and relevance to American power projection, I was absolutely impressed, even into my lifetime, as she saw action in 91' against Iraqi fortifications.

[@billharm6006]

FYI... Regarding steam propulsion plant startup time... in the past (distant, USN) I participated in an evolution that went from "cold iron" to "answering bells on all engines" in 34 minutes. We were moving briskly to make it happen (Yes. Operational considerations did require us to get underway ASAP). Stresses due to temperature differentials and rate-of-change of temperature (pretty much the same thing) were our most limiting factors (Yes. We consciously considered such factors during plant evolutions. If you break the plant, the startup time becomes excessive).

[@kevincrosby1760]

Not only hard on the Plant, but hard on the navigator and quartermaster as well. It will take about 24 hours for the gyrocompass(s) to spin up and settle out enough to be accurate, longer if you introduce pitch, roll, and course changes while it is attempting to do so. Nav charts are oriented to TRUE North. A Gyrocompass indicates true North. Absent the Gyrocompass and GPS, navigation relies on the magnetic compass. Unfortunately, there is a deviation of several degrees between TRUE North and MAGNETIC North. This deviation changes based upon where you are at, the geological composition of the earth at your location, and a few other factors which I have long since forgotten. The deviation in degrees between true and magnetic north is noted on the Nav charts. When using a modern chart to plot a course, each and every course change or correction requires that the deviation be calculated and accounted for to obtain the proper magnetic heading. Although the navigation team members are trained to do this when necessary, it is still a headache. The same goat rope ensues when the gyrocompass goes down while underway. The major difference here (from personal experience) is that it gives you the opportunity to see a full-bird Captain burst into the IC Shop in robe and slippers and use rather salty terms to indicate his desire to know exactly "what #$$^#%#@ direction the @#%#$%^% pointy end is facing"...NOT the best midwatch I ever stood. You mentioned distant past? The casualty was due to the sudden failure of a 12AX7 VACUUM TUBE in the Gyro Control Cabinet...in 1988 or so. In fairness, just about EVERY issue with the Sperry Mark 19 ended up being being a failure of a 12AX7 vacuum tube...which is why I remember that detail 35 years later. When the Gyro alarm went off, you didn't even bother with looking at the diagnostics panel, you just slammed the cabinet door open and started looking down the rows for the tube that had lost its happy little orange glow. The wonders of 1968 technology.

[@eddievhfan1984]

@@kevincrosby1760 Is the gyro kept running off shore power to avoid spindown then?

[@sorakagodess]

i just love how u can enter a video about naval engines and end it knowing about so many others interesting things, and with a certain depth at that

[@PaulJurczak]

14:32 Gearing up doesn't divide the power, it divides the torque. There are some transmitted power losses, but they are in general not proportional to the gear ratio. The same applies to gearing down the steam turbine at 34:33: more torque, not more power.

[@davidharner5865]

TorQue is a method of measuring force, different than horsepower, but measuring a similar phenomenon, unlike pounds (weight) and kilograms (mass), which measure entirely unrelated things.

[@jamesharding3459]

@@davidharner5865 Here on Earth, slugs* and pounds are functionally interchangeable. *Imperial unit for mass

[@TakeMeToChurchill]

Excellent as always! Minor nitpick: when talking about double-acting engines you mention that steam is admitted to different sides of the cylinder depending where the cylinder head is. Think you mean “piston” - if the cylinder head’s moving you’ve got other problems!

[@jayg1438]

Agreed. I had a Pontiac Sunbird with a moving cylinder head engine. It was not a success.

[@Lucas12v]

I noticed that too.

[@railsaroundsouthjersey]

All the cylinder head’s move, but that is not what he is talking about, Its A “piston” !!

[@chicken69tenders]

He has confused the piston with the head in nearly every instance

[@pantherplatform]

Depending on where the cylinder head is. Is that like inline or v or opposed?

[@MIck-M]

I went to see a Corvette in Australia HMAS Castlemaine (because my grandfather was an officer on its sister ship etc). When they found that out I got an extra cool tour of the engine room and absolutely every pipe and cylinder explained - even the entire start up process and water management systems. It was a thing of beauty for sure. A very special day for me.

[@Axel0204]

Ah, steam plants. My life for 8 years on a submarine. (As some are aware, but many are not, a nuclear powered ship is simply a traditional steam turbine propulsion plant that replaces fuel oil with a nuclear reactor as the heat input for the boilers)

[@HansLemurson]

Are these direct-drive or turbo-electric?

[@cerad7304]

@@HansLemurson Can't speak for the last couple of decades but most US Navy submarines had a couple of steam driven turbines with reduction gears to turn one shaft. They did make one direct drive submarine (USS Narwhal) which had one huge turbine directly coupled to the single drive shaft. We are talking an engine maybe 10 times the diameter of a typical turbine. Worked quite well in practice (very quiet without the reduction gears) though eventually operator error pretty much destroyed the engine while warming up.

[@MrFinalresistance]

Last time I was this early, the 2nd Pacific Squadron still had a full supply of binoculars

[@BeefSupreme115]

And they're gone already!

[@truckerallikatuk]

@@BeefSupreme115 It was those blasted Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea again!

[@Rocky1987TheRock]

@@truckerallikatuk Kamchatka: Did I hear Torpedoboats?

[@icemule]

Ok that was funny.

[@j3dwin]

And there really were Japanese torpedo boats at the Dogger Banks

[@theblackbear211]

Nicely done. From someone who's actually operated machinery from the period you cover - and not in a museum setting.

[@Thorbrook]

I haft to say. this is the absolute best channel ever on KZbin. for learning about navy ships.

[@railgap]

Thank you William Shatner.

[@ivanstrydom8417]

I read: ''Rate that shaft.'' And seeing that title on the internest , the first thing that came to mind was ;'' OH MYYY'' 16:48 AHH! So my judgement was correct!!

[@darkwingeagle]

We will giggle if we want to.

[@tyree9055]

I'm still giggling... lol 😅👍

[@myparceltape1169]

I missed the shaft and thrust blocks.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

Best part of Wednesday is .... another episode that I will watch .., at least 7 times before next Wednesday .. Thanks Drach ...!

[@vtr0104]

Can you imagine, some people today won't even buy a car if it has under a hundred HP, and these guys were moving 200 ton boats on less. I know the speed wasn't comparable, but it's amazing to think how much you can actually do with mechanical power.

[@huseyinuguralacatli5064]

ships do not climb hills

[@lithobreak3812]

​@@huseyinuguralacatli5064not with that attitude

[@jamesharding3459]

I would consider sub-100 hp to be borderline underpowered for ordinary driving. My (relatively small) car has something like 110, and accelerating to merge onto a freeway often requires firewalling the gas pedal and revving concerningly close to the red line.

[@Eulemunin]

Love the rum ration. Understanding the basics of ship technology is very much informative.

[@MyMongo100]

Hi I love this channel and I'm a turbine engineer responsible for about 3.4 GW of large steam turbines. It never occurred to me that it was the vibration effect on range finders that sold turbines to the RN. I thought it was the performance of Charles Parsons vessel Turbinia interrupting and basically burning up the fleet naval review that alerted the RN to the far higher power density available in a turbine compared to a triple expansion engine. I have to point out the following 1)turbines are either reaction or impulse or the like? actually most turbines are a mixture of the two the degree of reaction (enthalpy drop across stationary stage/ enthalpy drop across rotating stage varies and impulse turbines tend to have low pressure stages with a higher degree of reaction. 2) when you loop steam back into the turbine this is after first sending it back through the boiler, this is called reheat, unimaginatively. 3) cavitation was a big problem for the Turbinia, this was overcome by having multiple screws on each propshaft

[@mitchelloates9406]

The US Navy became quite the practitioner of turbo-electric drive during the 1910's and 20's. After the Spanish-American War, one of the primary requirements for US capital ships became an 8000 nautical mile cruising range - based on being able to steam from the US West Coast to the Philippines in time of war. The USN had quite the time trying to develop a turbine setup that satisfied them from an efficiency and reliability standpoint, which explains why they kept reverting to Vertical Triple Expansion engines in some ships, all the way up to the Oklahoma - which also to some part explains their insistence on a 21 knot fleet speed. They hadn't as yet developed a suitable geared reduction turbine setup, so the one option that seemed to answer all their requirements was turbo-electric drive. Several of the latter series of Standard battleships used turbo-electric drive. And the planned 1920's South Dakota class battleships and Lexington class battlecruisers were slated to have the same type system - which the converted carriers Lexington and Saratoga inherited.

[@Melody_Raventress]

Lady Lex and Sister Sarah were two of the great carriers of WW2.

[@dougjb7848]

I really appreciate how Drach’s content has expanded into multiple facets of naval history, and how everything he generates is perfectly balanced between condensed and complete. His humor may be dry, but he never sounds gassed or pressured, and I always feel like my knowledge has been propelled forward after I listen to his output.

[@MrGhendri]

The sound of a steam turbine engine room at flank speed is indescribable. I miss it terribly. Thanks for the video.

[@kevincrosby1760]

I don't miss it. I still hear it when the room is quiet. Actually, from the frequency of my tinnitus it's either the SSTGs or the Forced Draft Blowers...propulsion turbines had a lower pitch.

[@richardm3023]

You should do a video on USS Wolverine and USS Sable. Paddle wheeled aircraft carriers that operated on Lake Michigan during WW II. Thousands of Navy fliers did their carrier training off those decks.

[@sundiver137]

I think he has one in the works. Seeing as he still has to finish the series on Nelson and a few others it may be awhile.

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

I wonder if anyone ever thought of trying a sail-powered aircraft carrier? Now THAT sounds like fun.

[@Piromanofeliz]

@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912 maybe a floatplane carrier... That sounds almost half reasonable.

[@andrewfletcher8701]

My inner engineer leapt for joy at seeing this in my watch list yesterday. Another excellent and informative video. Thanks Drach.

[@philip48230]

Again what on the surface is a dull topic … your presentation turns out to be absolutely fascinating and amazingly understandable. Well done

[@mebeasensei]

Isn’t it remarkable that sailing ships continued to evolve all the way to the opening of the Panama Canal in 1910. The best cargo sailing ships were built between 1900-1910. They were efficient, requiring crews of 1 person per 200 tons of cargo, were sailed economically at a speed matching steam ships, and actually used tiny steam ‘donkey’ engines to drive the winches that hauled in and let go the yards, which by then were all made of steel, as were the hulls of the ships.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

"1 person per 200 tons of cargo" still works out to over a hundred crew for a reasonably-sized cargo ship, though...

[@Melody_Raventress]

A few survive, the Moshulu in Philadelphia is one such.

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@vikkimcdonough6153 G'day, Your idea of a "Reasonable Sized Cargo Ship" Is my idea of a Fossil Carbon burning Selfish Ecologically-Suicidal Megalomaniacal and Psychotically Stupid Idea... The Realisation of which Has now almost completely Destroyed the Biosphere. Sailing Ships built of Steel burn Coal while being manufactured, from smelted mined Ore... But at least they didn't Guzzle Coal or Oil, Nor fart Carbon Dioxidein order to move at all...; The Sailing Ships were a whole lot Less Insane a concept to make into Reality. In point of Actual FACT. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@hanzzel6086]

​@@vikkimcdonough6153Which is probably still similar to (or better than) a steam ship of the time (due to all the stokers and mechanics).

[@santiago5388]

Alas, my list of your videos to watch or watch again had grown, as my day is too tight to sit 44 minutes hand see this. Thanks for the vid man

[@Shinzon23]

Watch it on your phone whilst working

[@Zeppflyer]

Working in this field, I've been looking forward to this video for a long time now!

[@sadwingsraging3044]

This is most definitely the more pleasant experience when compared to the other _shaftings_ I have had in my life.

[@Frostfly]

Internal combustion engines being named as such makes much more sense when you know that Steam engines are External Combustion engines.

[@Sigma-xb6kn]

But steam engines don't need combustion, just a heat source. There were even locomotives which used electricity to generate steam.

[@Frostfly]

@@Sigma-xb6kn tell that to james watt. The name is still correct.

[@jamesharding3459]

​@@Sigma-xb6kn But think of how inefficient that was.... **angry engineer noises**

[@jamesharding3459]

@@asbestosfibers1325 Electricity to generate steam? Electric motors can get extremely good energy efficiency, steam, less so. Mostly because of all the energy lost in transferring electrical energy to steam and then to mechanical motion.

[@hunterbear2421]

@@jamesharding3459 they also used embers in the box inorder to keep going without power i heard it could keep traveling for upwards of 15 minutes without power due to the fact they used embers. which is interesting so it was actually more effcient then it being without the embers

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

Also worth noting that turbo-electric allowed much finer sub-division of engineering spaces - this becomes quite evident when looking at the US Standard battleships.

[@archibaldlarid3587]

Wednesday is always better with a Rum Ration. Love this kind of stuff, as a historian and a mechanic, this tickles all my fancies.

[@skipd9164]

In the early 80s I worked in the GE gear plant in Lynn MASS. They were a major supplier of gearing for USN submarines, all they way up to carriers. I also was part of the RD team that created the high speed reduction gearing to be installed in ARLEIGH BURKE class destroyers. GE put the first gas turbine and reduction gearing together as a unit. There were turbines on other ships but never one actually designed together. I actually machined the major body for all gearing and other parts to go on. The gear plant had all large machines and as a young machinist i was amazed at the size of parts. The gear plant is gone like most ge plants

[@dropdead234]

*Explosive Disassembly*. That's the name of my new Punk Fusion Jazz Southern Blues Bluegrass band. Our first album, "Stickin' It To The Man Blues," comes out next week. There's only three songs on it, but it's tfour hours long.

[@sundiver137]

Do you know "Smoke on the Stairway to Freebird Layla"?

[@humancattoy7767]

As the grandson of a Machinist Mate aboard the U.S.S. Mississippi, you have put a smile on my face.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

32:47 - The terrible efficiency of turbines at lower speeds was also a major part of why steam-turbine power never caught on for locomotives, since these spend lots of time at low speed for various reasons and steam locos were almost-universally direct-drive (no gearboxes or generators).

[@ripwednesdayadams]

I love that you knew I would get a chuckle at “longer power st were fully prepared for those of us

[@Kellen6795]

Drach since this is a "Quick Tour" I expect there to be a long version in a few months!

[@kevinlawton7758]

"...than a turbine that had stripped it's blades and had probably explosively disassembled itself." Typical Drachinifel - Love it!!

[@jannegrey]

I will just add that one big advantage of Diesel engines is that they don't have massively lower efficiency at let's say 60 or even 30 percent of power. Whereas with Turbine - you pretty much need that 90+ percent. So if you were going for ship that could be reasonably fast, but also could have long range - Diesel (depending on size of the ship of course) would be preferable. Thanks Drach!

[@merafirewing6591]

Prefer the Steam power engines over diesel engines.

[@jannegrey]

@@merafirewing6591 They are fun

[@jims4539]

Have given this some thought - Thank you for your video intro volume. A lot of the channels I watch blast the into music, yours is there but not annoying. Thanks.

[@billradford2128]

That was a very informative general view of propulsion. Thankyou. I am very interested in the 550 ML coastal patrol boats used in the UK during WW1. They were made by the ELCO company in the USA, were wooden with a 3 lb Hotchkiss gun and depth charges to discourage submarines. My grandfather served in ML167 as CPO in the engine room and while I have gathered a lot of information for a detailed model I suspect you can access even more! Anyway I can only hope.

[@wildancrazy159]

This is a very interesting subject and with the added wonderful voice and obvious knowledge it just makes it perfect. Great job my friend as always!

[@jayg1438]

Yay! I love the tech development videos. Would love to see these put into a playlist. thanks!

[@davidvavra9113]

Turbo electric reminds me of USS Lexington helping to light Tacoma, Washington for a few months in the late 1920s

[@mattsback3679]

Been waiting a while for this one, the one on naval boilers had gotten me excited.

[@T.Watts89]

Omg.... I just so happen to be off work today!! Never get to be this early and boy is it a treat!!

[@bartfoster1311]

This should get us going today!

[@jerrytugable]

Excellent video right up my alley, thanks for your work. I visited Charlie Parsons' Turbinia in Newcastle, quite a historic piece of machinery!

[@Xino6804]

For as big and powerful as our carriers are, they are still steamships at heart.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

The American ones at least... Ours cruise on diesels and sprint on jet engines, but all electrified.

[@L0stEngineer]

You have to admit, the A4W reactor is one helluva boiler.

[@Alpostpone]

@@L0stEngineer Stokers shoveling that sweet shiny _atomic coal._

[@gerardmdelaney]

@@Alpostpone Look at Ming the Merciless' power plants in the old Flash Gordon serials from the 30's: sweating gangs of stokers shoveling radium into the furnaces.

[@Crazymoniker]

Almost everything discovered by science boils down to a single question posed by engineers: "Can we boil water with it? Yes? Good, hook it up to a steam turbine!"

[@davidlewis9068]

That was a very nice brief look at steam to rotation very nicely done too.

[@MacMcNurgle]

I'm not particularly a fan of the naval tradition. I like tanks and things that fly; like tanks with wings. But the author is knowledgeable and entertaining. A winning combination. Almost like tanks, with wings ... Thank you sir.

[@ceterfo]

I do not believe this is the first time I have come to your videos at 3:00 in the morning. Love your stuff.

[@PNurmi]

Wondering about the when and how thrust bearings were developed.

[@kenoliver8913]

Yep. Also gears were a major technical barrier to early geared turbine use too - many an experimental ship stripped helical teeth.

[@hughboyd2904]

What a fascinating topic. Bravo Mr Drachinifel!

[@johnbuchman4854]

So, how did the Lexington and Saratoga's Turbo-Electric propulsion system fair during their actual service?

[@easyjdier]

Great timing on this video! My buddy and I were just talking about ship power trains last weekend and you answered some questions we had! Thank you!

[@elsieesq]

Excellent as usual. A very good channel but when you were describing side lever engines and similar you mentioned “cylinder head” when I think you meant “piston”. Keep up the good work!

[@DeltaV2TLI]

Surely Drach is a tech priest if he possess such amazing knowledge! Bless the Omnissiah!

[@TheNecromancer6666]

I think the only warship with quadrupel expansion engines was the SMS Blücher, the last major Piston powered warship was the Texas if I recall correctly. She had two Four cylinder triple expansion engines.

[@iansadler4309]

Can't find my "British and German warships of WWI" now, but if memory serves, le Fleming says one class of British cruisers used quad-expansion engines.

[@TheNecromancer6666]

@@iansadler4309 Likely the late Armored ones? Like the Duke of Edinburghs. I just Reader up on it. The late Armored cruisers, Duke of Edinburgh, Minotaur and Warrior classes, of the Royal Navy all had 4 cylinder engines. But only triple Expansion.

[@comradeautukov977]

This video has combined two of my interests steam power and military history now I've got some research to do before my mental notes fade

[@warhead_beast7661]

To anyone who wants do see an old paddlewheel Streamer in motion visit Dresden most of the "White fleet" of the Elbe Steamers were build in the late 1870s

[@old_guard2431]

Well done - adding some stuff that I would not have expected in a 45 minute presentation, more in the nature of footnotes. : Largest were the diesel-electric Wind-Class icebreakers derived from a Swedish design at 6,500 tons. Five were built for the Coast Guard (one of which was sent to the Soviets as Lend-Lease), and two for the Navy. They were built in anticipation of significant conflict in the Antarctic and Arctic, which never really materialized. As with classes mentioned above the engines were repurposed railroad and industrial diesels meaning there had to be a lot of them (6 - 1,600 hp Fairbanks-Morse for the icebreakers). I served on the final survivor, USCGC Burton Island (former USS Burton Island) which was decommissioned 1978 after 4 consecutive Arctic and Antarctic deployments. Heavily armed including 2 - 5"/38 twin mounts, depth charges and numerous anti-aircraft guns, armaments were stripped progressively after the end of WWII, and with the Antarctic Treaty we had nothing left but 6 Cal. 50 Browning M2s. : Navy Edsall, Cannon, Evert, and Claude Jones. These were mostly smaller ships - 1,500 - 2,000 tons - with modest high speeds adequate for convoy escort. The Coast Guard inherited 11 Edsall class after the war, but they were mostly gone by 1954 or so. . The Barnegat Class (311', 2500 tons) used 4 Fairbanks-Morse direct reversible engine, 1,600 HP each for about 20 knots. The Coast Guard inherited 11 which were decomissioned in 1973-74 at the end of the Ocean Station program. . LSTs and the like. destroyer escort, 306' LOA and 1,740 tons, with twin screws good for about 24 - 26 knots. Coast Guard destroyer escort/high-endurance cutters. Although about the same displacement as the Rudderow they only had a single shaft, good for about 17 knots. They were built for the Coast Guard to replace ships sent to the U.K. under Lend-Lease, many somehow surviving to 1973-74. The system was notorious for losing excitation to the main motor, and with only one shaft that meant the anchors were primary maneuvering equipment.

[@adamdubin1276]

You missed one of the best star trek references possible... "Make us go"

[@jimtalbott9535]

After the latest April First video, I image Drach must let his manna rebuild.

[@kc4cvh]

You can't push 'er any faster Jim, she'll blow up!

[@WesleyHarcourtSTEAMandMORE]

Another wonderful video. Well researched. Thank you for taking your time to understand and accurately articulate the components related to steam engines. Call me a pedant, but it frustrates me to no end when people pretend to know what they're talking about and do not take the ten seconds to do the internet research....

[@lezardvaleth2304]

I like it when Drach talks dirty.

[@kencreten7308]

5 minutes?!?!? More like 45 min. of awesomeness! Thanks.

[@mikeday5776]

Really terrific. I did wonder if you would tell the “Terbinia” story, but the piece certainly didn’t seem to lack for its absence. Really well done 👍

[@gymmaniac]

Me too, just the one photo sneaked in.

[@lacai527]

i was like cool lets sweet short history of steam engines, 44 MINUTES! got time for 10 gonna watch it later! seems like good quality!

[@donjones4719]

They never should have stopped putting a full set of masts and sails on as back-up. Although that would make for very difficult carrier landings.

[@zebra288]

Not if you put the deck on top of the masts, centre of gravity be dammed.

[@BeefSupreme115]

Y'know, i wonder if it's even *physically possible* to move a Nimitz-class carrier solely using sails. Probably not!

[@mohdafnanazmi1674]

@@BeefSupreme115 I am pretty sure you can move the nimitz carrier with the wind But slowly

[@SolarWebsite]

@@BeefSupreme115 It might be possible with modern materials and huge sails, but probably not very fast. Also, in practice it wouldn't be the Nimitz aircraft carrier anymore, but maybe the Nimitz not-entirely-clear-what-it-could-be-useful-for-flat-topped-military-ship. Interesting thought experiment though.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

You know, things went downhill since fire and the wheel had been invented.

[@jonminer9891]

Very well done. I couldn't understand all the drawings, but I could understand the explanations. It will be interesting to see the ways that cavitation became a problem, and how it was solved. Thanks for sharing! Stay Healthy!

[@Welshman2008]

I find this stanza from “The Last Shanty/A Sailor Ain’t A Sailor” appropriate to the content of this video. They gave us an engine that first went up and down Then with more technology the engine went around We know our steam and diesels but what's a mainyard for? A stoker ain't a stoker with a shovel anymore

[@jamesharding3459]

I understood that reference. I rather like that song.

[@rodbennett4790]

Fabulous presentation. The best video I've seen on KZbin for some time. Top notch!

[@TheOhgodineedaname]

Been waiting for this!

[@johngreally9599]

Extremely good script. Newbie friendly. Engrossing. Brilliant.

[@TheHighflyerXx]

Here's to another "productive" afternoon 😂

[@jonsouth1545]

i'm meant to be at work

[@gyrene_asea4133]

The suspended arresting gear and catapult systems would be f'n hilarious!

[@muddrudder2656]

your a very well spoken man. I wish you were my history teacher in school. I would have learned a lot more and much more properly

[@Jon651]

It is also worth mentioning in your discussion of turbo-electric drives, the choice to select this type over a direct drive with reduction gears was also due to the extensive time required to cut the reduction gears each shaft needed (one bull gear plus one or more drive gears per shaft). In the early and middle 20th Century, a bull gear required up to 5 years to be completely and properly cut - and the wartime need (combined with the limited number of machining facilities that could do this type of work) meant that turbo-electric drives had to be used more as a matter of absolute need rather than preference, especially on larger ships.

[@skipd9164]

I don't know where you got 5yrs for a bull gear. I worked in the gear division for G E in Lynn MASS. I also was on the RD project for the U.S. NAVY high speed reduction gearing. Used for the ARLEIGH BURKE claass destroyers for DDG 51 and up . My first job was a cnc machinist on a 4 axis horz boring mill. Gear plant was only building on other side of RR tracks and when i went into that building . The first thing i saw was a bull gear getting lowered onto the largest vert turr lathe i ever seen. I don't know the number or carrier but it was CVN Every machine in that build was manual and huge. The actual gear cutting was done on the far side of my building but i don't remember the bay numbers. At the end of my bay they did the test then breakdown and reasable. That was something but couldn't get close. Now the good part. Every machine except small hobbers were old and manual. This is why the gear plant is a vacant lot now. In the old turbine assembly building ( 64 ) they were building and installing the largest 7 axis CNC horizontal boring mill. Because of the inlet from Atlantic Ocean they had to make round footings going over 100 ft deep to bedrock. Like a table with 8 legs. Why because high and low tides effected mach in gear building. The actual machine footing that sat on top of those legs .it was 2 stories deep with all the coponet machine and parts. The 7 axises 1 horz 2 vert 3 comp run index table 4 table could move in and out 5 18in horz ram ? NOT SURE OF SIZE 6 was 6 in horz spindle inside ram 7 you could add attaching comp to end of ram for side cuts inside . Because i was only one that knew about cnc machines. I was hired at the top union rate r 25 with RD classification. Ge was promised 3 ship sets a year after U.S. NAVY excepted them. RON REGAN became president he immediately gave westing house 1 of the 3 and who ever delivered on time got the 3rd. Sorry rambling on i hope i didn't bore you

[@Jon651]

@@skipd9164 I'm sorry but I should have been more clear. In the pre-WWII build-up of naval forces the number of large vessels being ordered were outstripping the production and machining capacity available for large fine-tolerance parts, so estimates for the time required to cut four full sets of reduction gears for each large navy ship ordered (and for proposed future orders) had a lead-in and production time of up to five years per vessel. This was based on the priorities of the US Navy, which began shifting dramatically after Pearl Harbor when aircraft carriers became the dominant capital ship instead of the battleship. This was a primary consideration for the switch to turbo-electric drives instead of direct turbine drives on the upcoming generations of new US battleship construction. Simply put - the turbo-electric plants could be built and put into service faster. Cheers!

[@skipd9164]

@@Jon651 no problem jon. I don't know if want to read the rest of my comment. Many times walking threw the roads that connected buildings. I would think about the mass amount of production and employees that did it. Gear Plant building was built ww2. I was told that most of the shpset came from there. I had the privilege of working on some of the biggest machines i ever seen. In trade school they would be in books. We all realised that we would never have the opportunity. Thats why the day i walked into the Gear Plant, ill leave it at that. Most likely machinist in GE Lynn will never work on large machines. We also made the gearing for the Trident and Sea Wolf

[@skipd9164]

This started 1983

[@stevebriggs9399]

Thank you. I was an MM1/SS. That brought back memories of my study guides for the advancement exams.

[@johnroos5807]

Just checking in!:) Semper Fidelis

[@danielvandersall6756]

Would love to see you do a full review of the Turbinia; particularly the spectacular demonstration.

[@AdmRose]

I hope Drach never runs a sightseeing boat; a three hour tour could take days.

[@thomasharvanek2411]

Or three seasons!

[@ivoryjohnson4662]

Drach can take all the time he want, compared to the mess that’s out there. It’s such a refreshing break. He IMHO is a modern day David Attenborough

[@nauticalwolf6649]

Cool! I hadn’t realized steam engines went into ships so early relatively speaking.

[@oakapple5]

Congratulations on a really informative and well illustrated survey of a big subject! Two little quibbles: Should you have referred to the piston rather than the cylinder head in one or two cases when referring to steam engine configurations? And number 2: As a retired electrical engineer, I have to dispute the statement that electric transmission schemes: ' . .drag the efficiency of energy transmission all the way back down.' Yes - there are some energy losses in electric generators, motors and cabling, but as a % of the throughput power the losses are not too bad, except when operating at very low % of rated power (ie low ship speeds). There are some notable recent examples of electric power transmission schemes being adopted (aircraft carriers), using ac and electronic power converters instead of the dc machines of old.

[@gavinmclaren9416]

Indeed. As an EE I'm sure you are aware that electric power is work, in a thermodynamic sense. The efficiency of electric motors is very high, often >90%, because useful work in the form of electric current is what is supplied to them. The conversion of heat to work is where the Carnot efficiency, as a best case, limits the amount of work that can be extracted from a lump of coal or gallon of oil. The turboelectric drive used in the Lexington or Saratoga operate the generators on a Rankine cycle and they would have operated with a thermodynamic efficiency of about 35%. The rest of the system would have, at ideal conditions run at over 90%. Losses in the electrical side would be greater at turndown conditions. I reckon that a modern system using a combined-cycle gas turbine and good inverter technology would be a hard system to beat.

[@joeyblowey3090]

Like it, love it, gotta have more! Keep em coming Drach, I really appreciate all you do brother!

[@peterides9568]

How about a video on the development of training for sailors and officers? They are pretty key to a ship's operation.

[@darrensmith6999]

(Time index 29:01) You can still see Sir Charles Parsons Turbinia at The Discovery Museum Newcastle upon Tyne , Britain.

[@erikaitsumi3852]

I've been waiting for this since the boiler video. I love battleships

[@roberts2554]

Awesome videos. I love to listen to them while im driving long distances.

[@rem26439]

Time for breakfast with Drach!