Front End situation

Yes, but why its use? Fig. 125 on page 305 shows the 12 degree (spread) nozzles with a tip area of 299 cm2 giving an identical vacuum as the 18 degree nozzles with 260 cm2. This in our range of 30kPa blast pressure, 2-3000 Pa vacuum.
Kind regards
Jos

You claim your figures are right for this or that you can figure it out, good, I wish you well with it. Ok I know what mine will do straight out of the box compered to your writings. I have nothing that I wish to prove to you personally. I only have to prove to my clients what possible and they are the ones who I have been delighted by the results. Your postings here and other place's have given me no confidence that you understand enough of my work to critic it and i certainly don't want to compromise my work and reputation when i know what i am doing and can achieve. The one subject I fully understand of impingement and boundary layers as above you will still not accept even after about 15 years of trying to explain, now I have no more time for such matters. I will publish my results when i chose and not when they are demanded. I have enough work without this job to keep me occupied, which means that I have no time for intellectual debates and wars. Your welcome to this project for you to prove what you say. You may well say differently on some of the above and I am sure you will but this is my last word on the subject. It's for you to realise what you say in hardware now, good luck to you.
N.B. Please will you tell us all when there will be a reprint of your book which includes the corrections that Mr Wardale provided you with.

A very long time ago.....I was in college, and a friend who just barely passed a notoriously difficult Organic Chem class wanted my help, which i was happy to provide as there was this little Italian girl in that class.........

Anyhow, I borrowed a couple lab coats and two broadswords from the costume shop, and we walked into the front of the room arguing loudly - ionic or covalent. I think I was ionic. After about 30 seconds of loudness, the broadswords came out and we had at it, until covalent won (it was his show, after all) and he dragged me out.

Unfortunately the professor he wanted to impress (if that's the right word) wasn't in the room at the time. I eventually married and parted with the Italian girl, but that's another story.

Scientific fights can be ugly, or amusing depending on who is in the room at the time.

I don't see this one going anywhere near amusing.

Two smart people with different approaches can both be right and wrong at the same time, and probably are. Hell, ONE smart person.....and we're loaded with them on this forum.

I think if we simply agree to disagree here and move on we can get back to practical exploration of the situation at hand.

Dave

As I see it, it's not so much 'agree to disagree' as that we don't even need "agreement" at this stage. We are still at nearly a brainstorming stage with 110, batting around proposals for what goes in an empty shell of a smokebox. And we will be conducting extensive testing on both the design and the construction at the appropriate time -- still a ways from now.

With respect to 17, if I understand the situation correctly, we are less concerned with the science involved with proportioning a front end as we are with remedying a poor steaming condition. I'd be jsatisfied to fit something designed by someone with empirical experience designing working front ends for power that size ... and then test THAT application to see what is happening. 17 is not a dry run for the 110 project methodology, it's a problem in search of a (reasonably prompt) sollution, which Nigel appears to be very considerately providing.

All the same -- Dave please prioritize attempts to work out those university connections, especially to places that have an interest in programming CFD... ;-}

(Ionic and covalent bonding in ORGO? Well, at least one of you didn't start in with a phony Cockney accent and the other one in Dutch...)

Both standard American midwestern, me with some remaining Pittsburgh thrown in........

I realize the topics are again taking a bit of a break while we do some reading and thinking.......and I have some time tomorrow to put some of what i'm reading into some postings about draft proportioning in oil firing which i think directly speaks to the difficulties in 17.

Aside, does anybody here speak good engineering Dampf Deutsch who might be willing to translate a few pages of text and drawing captions into English?

Dave

Dave

Dave,
I have a friend who may be willing to help on translation. Contact me offlist please.
Michael.

Well, I live in a country that is surrounded by English, French and German speaking
people, we had to learn all of that. I live 10 km from the German border and given the price difference with German gasoline, I fill my cars tank there! Mail it anyway please.
Kind regards
Jos

Nigel Day wrote:......N.B. Please will you tell us all when there will be a reprint of your book which includes the corrections that Mr Wardale provided you with.

1) No comments have been sent to Mr Wardale as his wife died at the time
2) After a Ph.D. examination the thesis text is approved by the examiners of Sheffield University and not prone to any change thereafter.
3) Possibly the thesis, with typos corrected, will become available as an E-book in the future when E-book standards are there and the website is fit for paid downloads
kind regards
Koopmans

While I too look forward to a second edition, there is no need to wait for it if you want the "corrections".

Reviews of the book, which I consider to contain the equivalent of some 'peer-reviewing', are at

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/news/koopmans_book.html

Wardale's comments on the book are available in .pdf format through Martyn Bane, and can be downloaded via this link:

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/dw/wardale-on-koopmans.pdf

As far as I am concerned, printing these two things off (on good paper with a laser printer), enclosing them with my copy of the book, and making some marginal notes to cross-reference would be all that's required.  While it is not the same thing as having bound appendices, it certainly gets the job accomplished to reasonable satisfaction.


I note with some interest a thing that I had forgotten:  Geoff Lambert's observation that there were transcription errors in his translation of Porta's mathematics, in the '90s.  While we are on the general subject of 'corrections', is Nigel using a 'correct' version of the equations, as I presume he is?

Regarding typo errors in the Lempor paper, please note that both webversions of the paper on trainweb and martynbane still contain all typos. Trainweb gives a list of my corrections (2006) but not the ones noted by Wardale.
kind regards
Jos

Nigel Day wrote:N.B. Please will you tell us all when there will be a reprint of your book which includes the corrections that Mr Wardale provided you with.

For those interested, yesterday I mailed 27 pages of answers to David Wardale. If you have the book, take a deep breath and a good look at Fig A.25.12 on page 422 on the equivalence of a double length chimney and a four-orifice front end.
Kind regards
Jos

Additionally the response is on my website:
http://www.thefireburnsmuchbetter.nl/
Click on the Response to.. at the left column
The response contains a large section with my understanding of the actions within
a front-end.
Kind regards
Jos