Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Butterworthing.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    CHESTER LE STREET
    Posts
    2,326
    Thanks (Given)
    699
    Thanks (Received)
    1255
    Likes (Given)
    12937
    Likes (Received)
    8310

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    If I recall correctly we used to recirculate the settled water back to the heater as it still retained some heat and therefore reduced the load somewhat on the boilers,
    Last edited by Chris Allman; 7th October 2018 at 12:27 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Seaforth L'Pool Merseyside
    Posts
    0
    Thanks (Given)
    635
    Thanks (Received)
    4648
    Likes (Given)
    8886
    Likes (Received)
    10743

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    Story being told on Hamilton a tanker i was on.On some tanker (no name) the Butterworth gear knocked a sheet of rust off the tank bulkhead as this rust slid down the bulkhead it created a spark which in turn created an explosion,possible or just another urban myth.???
    Regards.
    Jim.B.
    CLARITATE DEXTRA

  3. Thanks N/A thanked for this post
  4. #23
    Keith at Tregenna's Avatar
    Keith at Tregenna Guest

    Default Re: Butterworthing.


  5. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    W.A.
    Posts
    23,641
    Thanks (Given)
    12850
    Thanks (Received)
    13719
    Likes (Given)
    19100
    Likes (Received)
    76764

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    To my recollection Keith it was a machine you lowered into a tank and jetted out water under pressure whilst trying to reach every part of the tank. Just like your garden reticulation system if you have one. Used to lower this into the tank to be cleaned at various drops in a tank , I seem to remember it was at 20 and 40 foot drops on the 2 tankers I was on. They being clean products carriers would not have had the deep sludge that crude oil carriers would have had. The tankermen will clarify this better. You were not considered gas free until this had been done and the explosometer lowered and tested for gas. The most dangerous part and time on a tanker was when it was empty and not gas free. jS
    Last edited by j.sabourn; 8th October 2018 at 12:15 AM.

  6. Thanks Chris Allman thanked for this post
  7. #25
    Keith at Tregenna's Avatar
    Keith at Tregenna Guest

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    Sorry was uncertain, if it was a quiz or not.

    Will hold on for an answer.

    K.

  8. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    W.A.
    Posts
    23,641
    Thanks (Given)
    12850
    Thanks (Received)
    13719
    Likes (Given)
    19100
    Likes (Received)
    76764

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    That is your answer hopefully Keith. Others may have more modern versions of the Butterworth system and if so we both can benefit by it . The basics of the inert gas system for tankers it used to be the flu gases that is those from the engine room that went up the funnel were put through a water chamber and converted to either a high or low oxygen content and then passed into the oil tanks to give the tank either an oxygen rich or lack of oxygen to DIminish the prospect of fire and explosion which requires the correct amount of oxygen which any fire has to have.. There again this is 1970 teachings. Today is probably different . JS...PS Keith on the IOW will explain the fire triangle to you if you don’t know , him being an ex firefighter will be one of the first things he learned in the fire service. There you are Keith ( IOW) can we drink during your lecture , I stopped smoking a long time ago so others will have to ask that one. Cheers JS
    Last edited by j.sabourn; 8th October 2018 at 01:04 AM.

  9. Likes happy daze john in oz liked this post
  10. #27
    Keith at Tregenna's Avatar
    Keith at Tregenna Guest

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    Thanks.

    K.

  11. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    W.A.
    Posts
    23,641
    Thanks (Given)
    12850
    Thanks (Received)
    13719
    Likes (Given)
    19100
    Likes (Received)
    76764

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    I think the greatest lack of knowledge I have seen on this site and was totally unnecessary, was that of clearing out of under the forecastle head prior to a Suez Canal transit. The reasons that many believed it was due to a Bolshevik mate or a secretive master and just plain cussedness by others, and this was allowed to fester. A two line explanation that it was to comply with the Suez Canal certification would have saved a lot of malice and ill feeling that a lot of people carried for years. The working of a ship there should be no secrets. Thank God I sailed mainly with people who were only too pleased to impart their knowledge to others. Another one as when there was no shore leave and no reason given, it may have been there was cholera or some other disease ashore and this was not imparted. There were numerous instances on a ship which only took a minute to explain. People are much happier being kept in the picture rather than being shut out. JWS.

  12. Likes happy daze john in oz liked this post
  13. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Waterlooville Hampshire UK
    Posts
    7,068
    Thanks (Given)
    1693
    Thanks (Received)
    3689
    Likes (Given)
    3684
    Likes (Received)
    13348

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Brady View Post
    Story being told on Hamilton a tanker i was on.On some tanker (no name) the Butterworth gear knocked a sheet of rust off the tank bulkhead as this rust slid down the bulkhead it created a spark which in turn created an explosion,possible or just another urban myth.???
    Regards.
    Jim.B.
    the Big Bangs were the Shell Mactra and the King Haaken III if I remember , the Mactra had a hole in the deck that would have swallowed the 8,000 ton cargo ship I was on moored next too it in Durban, the other was in Dakar, we were told that the big tanks had moisture clouds thst were electrically charged and had miniature lightening storms banged the fumes , never heard of scale doing it , but don't see why not
    Rob Page R855150 - British & Commonwealth Shipping ( 1965 - 1973 ) Gulf Oil -( 1973 - 1975 ) Sealink ( 1975 - 1986 )

  14. Thanks happy daze john in oz thanked for this post
    Likes Jim Brady liked this post
  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    CHESTER LE STREET
    Posts
    2,326
    Thanks (Given)
    699
    Thanks (Received)
    1255
    Likes (Given)
    12937
    Likes (Received)
    8310

    Default Re: Butterworthing.

    Quote Originally Posted by robpage View Post
    the Big Bangs were the Shell Mactra and the King Haaken III if I remember , the Mactra had a hole in the deck that would have swallowed the 8,000 ton cargo ship I was on moored next too it in Durban, the other was in Dakar, we were told that the big tanks had moisture clouds thst were electrically charged and had miniature lightening storms banged the fumes , never heard of scale doing it , but don't see why not
    Massive research done by Shell resulted in finding that a static charge had built up in the fixed tank washing machine which discharged to hull when nozzle came close. Also found that the bronze tools that had to be used in hazardous spaces more readily accepted a charge than steel tools and equally as readily discharged. Cable round whole fleet, all Telcon tools to be ditched over the side bearing in mind every ship (about 95 ships in the fleet then) had big sets kept in tailor made boxes, must have been worth a fortune just in scrap value. Just while on subject, I was on site at Shell Stanlow a few years back and their fitters were still using the same tools! just shows how these big companies dont always coordinate.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by j.sabourn View Post
    That is your answer hopefully Keith. Others may have more modern versions of the Butterworth system and if so we both can benefit by it . The basics of the inert gas system for tankers it used to be the flu gases that is those from the engine room that went up the funnel were put through a water chamber and converted to either a high or low oxygen content and then passed into the oil tanks to give the tank either an oxygen rich or lack of oxygen to DIminish the prospect of fire and explosion which requires the correct amount of oxygen which any fire has to have.. There again this is 1970 teachings. Today is probably different . JS...PS Keith on the IOW will explain the fire triangle to you if you don’t know , him being an ex firefighter will be one of the first things he learned in the fire service. There you are Keith ( IOW) can we drink during your lecture , I stopped smoking a long time ago so others will have to ask that one. Cheers JS
    Ha Ha, , reminds me of my first fire fighting course at Shell Stanlow in 1970, believe it or not , they served us jugs of beer at lunchtime. Just the ticket for us as we were on sherbet every night back at the hotel.

  16. Likes N/A, happy daze john in oz liked this post
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •