Talk:Spiral watertube boiler

Why 'Climax'?

The genesis of the Lune and Bolsover names is clear, but why Illingworth, and especially, since it almost describes the generic type, why 'Climax'? -- EdJogg (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical 19th century tradename, and widely known as such. Until I started digging the research on this, I hadn't even heard of Morrin. The more numerous version in the 20th century was probably the Lune Valley, as this is a better fit to small steamboat boilers (all the quick warmup advantages, but fewer pipe joints per sq. inch of heating surface), but even these were sometimes mis-described as "Climax type" when they weren't being made by Lune Valley themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about the Illingworth and assume that it's like Bolsover, derived from a maker. I only know it from Harris, who describes it in some detail, but not the maker. It might be listed in some of the marine boiler references - I have a feeling that it was used like the Clarkson boiler for heat-recovery from the exhaust of big diesels. The design also has the feel of a "modern" boiler. Long tubes needing precise shapes seem like the sort of design that appears once seamless-drawn tube is cheap and rolling mills can pre-form the tubes accurately. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have tweaked the text slightly, without implying any actual origin for the name! (It's also in the associated reference, so it should be a safe assertion!)

Pure speculation, but could the name relate to the fast steam-raising capability? ('reaching climax'?)

I remain amazed at the variety of boiler designs you have described, particularly how many are so clearly distinctive even to a layman like me.

EdJogg (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely at the sectioned image, particularly the maker's plate on the inspection door halfway up. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier from the paper original. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spiral watertube boiler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC) The article concentrates on a description and identification of manufacturers. The illustrations are useful, but at the size that can easily be displayed on a computer screen, are too "busy" to make clear the operation of the boiler.[reply]

Also, there is little indication of the performance of the boiler. For example, what was the power output of the largest examples. Were they superseded by superior types? If so, what aspect of their performance lead to the falling out of favor?

Thanks for your review.

This is intended as one of a large series on boiler types (take a look at the category and the list of boiler types, by manufacturer. I'd written this on the assumption that the interested reader would be familiar with the basic operation of a water-tube boiler (Unfortunately water-tube boiler is quite a poor article). It would certainly be possible to expand the operation of the boiler, but my concern is that is likely to end up somewhat duplicated across all the water-tube articles. Do I need to write for the "lay reader" here, even at risk of duplication, rather than assuming they'll have already read a primer?

For illustrations, I'll probably try and draw an Illingworth. In some ways it's the clearest, and as I have little else on it, I should get drawing.

I've a load more material to add for the Lune Valley in steamboats, probably the best known of this group. The larger Climax is more difficult - it fell from favour between the wars, but it's always harder to find good sources describing the decline of a technology, rather than its more interesting ascent. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact approach is up to you. It would certainly be OK to clean up or write articles that introduce a class of boilers to lay readers, and refer to it (or them) in each article. I do think that to be a good article, the article must go beyond mere description and place the boiler in perspective amongst other boilers. For example, was it cheaper but less efficient than its contemporaries? Or maybe it was less efficient but easier to ship broken-down and assemble on site. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illingworth boiler

Harold's boiler was not the spiral type. His drawings were requested by John Walton of Light Steam Power on the IoM to sell in the magazine ads. I have a reduced scan of the main drawing. This is not a boiler which Harold really used, but a concept where there was a top and bottom plate to the drum with four rods through the drum holding the plates in place. Thereby the plates could be removed and the tubes sluiced out and the joints expanded from inside. This is the biggest problem with these central column boilers with a multiplicity of tubes--they are generally unserviceable. I argued that the Field tubes were more serviceable, but he thought they would leak since they weren't usually expanded into place. I personally know of only one boiler has been built but not used. Perhaps you know someone who has run one. It would be interesting to know how it went, because the surface area is small compared to the bulk of the whole thing. Karl A. Petersen, Boise, Idaho, USA.Southsidesquare (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments - I know little of the Illingworth, other than in Harris' book, but I have a moderate stack of Light Steam Power here. Do you know issue dates, so that I can have a look for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limescale

How do you de-scale a boiler with spiral tubes? Biscuittin (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same way as most watertubes.

Don't put any scale in there. Use water treatment to take the chemistry out beforehand.
Get the scale out beforehand. Use preheating by top feed into the steam drum to precipitate the scale as fine particles, which settle out as mud and can be washed out periodically.
Crack the scale off the tubes thermally. More for heat exchangers than for directly fired boilers. Take the water out, apply the heat, put the water back.
Scrub the inside of the tube out by shoving a brush through it. Phosphor bronze to avoid scratching the steel (creates corrosion risers). Some of these are on bendy sticks, some "bullet brushes" have a rubber sealing washer so they can be blown through with a pneumatic brush gun.

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]