By registering with our site you will have full instant access to:
268,000 posts on every subject imaginable contributed by 1000's of members worldwide.
25000 photos and videos mainly relating to the British Merchant Navy.
Members experienced in research to help you find out about friends and relatives who served.
The camaraderie of 1000's of ex Merchant Seamen who use the site for recreation & nostalgia.
Here we are all equal whether ex Deck Boy or Commodore of the Fleet.
A wealth of experience and expertise from all departments spanning 70+ years.
It is simple to register and membership is absolutely free.
N.B. If you are going to be requesting help from one of the forums with finding historical details of a relative
please include as much information as possible to help members assist you. We certainly need full names,
date and place of birth / death where possible plus any other details you have such as discharge book numbers etc.
Please post all questions onto the appropriate forum
-
7th October 2018, 10:59 AM
#21
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.
-
7th October 2018, 06:39 PM
#22
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
-
Post Thanks / Like
N/A thanked for this post
-
7th October 2018, 07:31 PM
#23
Re: Butterworthing.
-
8th October 2018, 12:02 AM
#24
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
8th October 2018, 12:07 AM
#25
Re: Butterworthing.
Sorry was uncertain, if it was a quiz or not.
Will hold on for an answer.
K.
-
8th October 2018, 12:29 AM
#26
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
8th October 2018, 01:24 AM
#27
Re: Butterworthing.
-
8th October 2018, 01:47 AM
#28
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
8th October 2018, 03:32 AM
#29
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
8th October 2018, 08:48 AM
#30
Re: Butterworthing.
Originally Posted by
robpage
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 - - -
Originally Posted by
j.sabourn
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like
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
-
Forum Rules