Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ConorMacNessa

Are those ships intentionally burning that inefficiently, or was that how it was done back then? An odd sight, to our modern eyes.


5 posted on 12/17/2007 4:45:36 AM PST by gridlock (Of all the pleasures of watching Hillary fail, the sweetest will be watching Bill duck the blame...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: gridlock

I believe that was customary at the time. Many of the ships in the GWF were outdated at the time of the circumnavigation.


8 posted on 12/17/2007 4:58:48 AM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3rd Bn. 5th Marines, RVN 1969. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock

Also, they were coal-burning ships.


9 posted on 12/17/2007 5:01:50 AM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3rd Bn. 5th Marines, RVN 1969. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock

The ships were pre dreadnoughts, that burned coal to produce steam. Had short ranges compared to the later oil burners, thus the great powers needed coaling stations. That is why the US and many other naval powers competed for control of the Pacific Islands to maintain military presence in their overseas colonies (raw materials).


10 posted on 12/17/2007 5:02:47 AM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock

Coal-fired boilers back then.


25 posted on 12/17/2007 5:48:06 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock

All of them should be coal burners, not oil burners. Makes a lot more smoke.


37 posted on 12/17/2007 7:10:36 AM PST by quikdrw (Life is tough....it's even tougher if you are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock

It could be they were “blowing stacks” together for the photo???
Ships periodically “blow stacks” (force air through the exhaust stacks to prevent accumulation of all kinds of nasty stuff) and when they do it is pretty dramatic smoke-wise. When coal burns hot in a fireplace it doesn’t produce a lot of smoke so I wonder if this was done for the photo??

Don’t worry, some FReeper will set us straight.


39 posted on 12/17/2007 7:14:45 AM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson