vision-master wrote:oiless wrote:Water tube boilers tend to be a lot safer, (less volume of water to flash to steam if there is a failure) but the water treatment is finicky.
Water treatment is finicky with fire tube boilers as well, but not as critical as with water tube boilers. Poor water treatment can scale up the super heat section of a water tube in no time at all.
Hot water boilers to spin a turbine? I know my knowlegde is old school.
No. High pressure steam boilers. Fire tube boilers have a large volume of water in them, (they are basically a big thick walled tank mostly full of water, with fire tubes running through them) water tube boilers have a smaller volume of water in the tubes and the heat source is outside the tubes.
If a fire tube boiler has a shell failure (very uncommon, but it does happen) all the water in it flashes to steam. You end up with an explosion and a large volume of released steam.
If a water tube boiler has a tube failure the results tend not to be as catastrophic, and failures are very rare because tubes are inherently strong and the diameter of the steam drum and mud drums is small.
A disadvantage of water tube boilers is that your water treatment has to be very good.
Advantages: Less chance of dangerous failure, very fast steam time, little refractory to maintain.
I've run a 150hp Cleaver Brookes Model 5 water tube side by side with a 150hp Cleaver Brookes CBW scotch dryback. The dryback takes close to an hour from cold to 125 psig. The water tube takes about 10 minutes from cold to 125 psig. The model 5 holds somewhere around 1300 lbs of water, the dryback something over 8000 lbs.
The dryback is a big heavy monster, the water tube quite compact and light. (By comparison.)
I could be wrong, but I believe the origin of the first water tube designs was probably the push to develop light, fast steaming boilers for steam cars.