Engine room systems design parameters (safety.)

That's interesting to know about. Yes, I'd say, in a boat where there isn't enough practical headroom for 'day tanks' (why do they design them like that?) a solenoid valve is certainly an advantage but, and would cut down cranking times etc. but if you think about it, it doesn't actually solve the problem (which will happen one day or another for sure) of a porosity or pinhole at the top of the line allowing air ingress. (Gravity means a small leak 'out' rather than air in'.) But in practical terms, dayboats are rarely used in anger in any seaway anyway.

You probably know that Dutch and German yards, despite having access to the most sophisticated CAD to do E.R. layouts, still in practice leave the actual installations final design to their fitters. I know a lot of these guys and they are still all highly conservative. Would love to know which of them agreed to a valve on a sucker system instead of a day tank.

On the point of providing fuel head alone, I have new-built and retro-fitted a number of systems whereby baby 'day-tanks' ( only needs a few gallons...say enough for an hour. ) are self replenishing, fed by paralleled ticker pumps or, with some generators, their own small cam driven diagram fuel pump direct from the bunkers manifold, and simply fill to an overflow pipe and run back to the same main supply manifold.
Not even 100% sure if it's 'legal', and never been able to get an answer from the suits, but this works, it's pretty much bulletproof and I've used it to solve a range of the usual problems from over-long cranking times to air build-up in the filters to the need for a pre-inspection or pre-settling tank due to dirt and water in the bunker tanks.

So far no problems whatsoever, and happiness from the operators who now feel more in more visible control of what their engines are eating.
But no comments from any of the pimply mob .... who tend to give me a wide berth these days anyway.

Carl,

The foundation of my initial comment is that BASIC safety aboard is now increasingly being sidelined as a result of corruption or cynically hidden agendas within the industry, and in many associated organizations; That due to unwarranted political correctness, nobody seems able any longer to fight back against this and would it ginger up some comment.

If, on your yacht dependent forum, I must not mention this situation, or accept sneering at this proposal, then please do exactly as you wish, and ban me.
Then at least my whole contention would become self-evident.

If some are unable to read serious truths, put bluntly ( but in an obviously tongue in cheek manner ) then poor them.

I wanted to open an OPEN discussion who find the same things. (with engineers only ... that's why it's in the technical section.)
I shall happily be as polite as you like, though accurate accusation is not in itself any rudeness and I see no rudeness in that I have written, except possibly in retort against sarcasm.

(To this end, may I suggest you ask others not to inflict sarcasm, based on evident ignorance, and then expect a weakly polite response?)

It is a fact. The industry has elements within it who/which are now corrupt in the extreme, and some in the most loathsome manner against the loyalty for which they are in fact paid. I see it every day. Recently I innocently accepted an invitation for lunch which I found was, in fact, a sort of celebration at conning another huge lump out of a boat. My invitation was to tie me into this dishonesty.

Where else does one go?

Or is meek politesse, enforced political correctness, unwarranted diplomacy and, now, the threat of censorship, more important that honesty in this industry, as it is in others? Those are the questions.
yes, I'm grumpy at having to ask them.
And now I'm angry at being told it's no longer acceptably polite to be grumpy. When did that happen?

Maybe I should start my own blog, with my own 'rules of correctness', and start naming names and companies .... and publishing photographs ... just before the next PYA meeting would be a good time.

I wonder what the hit rate would be.

Sincerely,

Oh. Then I don't understand. Why-for the solenoid? Must be stupid today.
Yes, obviously I'm talking about 'everything else being equal' such as regular maintenance etc. but, actually I find new installations quite often more 'holy' than old ones.

But mostly I like the comment about 'Dispensations' ...... yes ... I've wondered the same thing exactly. I wonder, if you tried, could one could get a 'material dispensation' for a hole in the hull?

Carl,

That must have taken some time over that. But I shall bow to your evident superiority of strength in this situation, except for one or two small discrepancies. Read this with a smile.

1) You have never, may I suggest, been a marine engineer. Not by most definitions. A rocket scientist, maybe. Or, if you have, only very recently and with very little time, if any, on ships. What is the truth?
2) You erroneously suggest that that I was firing broadsides or showing 'disrespect' to all the commentators. NOT true. Read again.
Kiwi, Roc Diver and AMG's comments were, either, perfectly polite or in the same part-humorous spirit. At least not 'little dog syndrome' attacking or sneeringly sarcastic. As such, they received utterly civilized responses in return...well I hope they thought so.
I don't attack those that respond reasonably. In writing, that would be utter COWARDICE, not something of which I've often been accused.
3) You, I felt snidely, suggest by your last remark that I have actually threatened, by opening a public forum, the commentators, especially two, in this forum. Now that certainly is NOT true, is actually rather an unfair distortion of the entire tenor of the 'debate'. I don't even know them to see. ( Are you speed reading I wonder, for that can often lead to these sort of misunderstandings, and I've noticed in the past you often seem to completely misinterpret the tenor of comments from others as well.)

The rest of your comments can be said to be practically true.
1) We all depend on you for this forum. (I need a smiley bowing deeply here.)
2) I surely do have an infinite lack of knowledge. I'm just a glorified grease-monkey, for God's sake, not an aerospace expert or a marriage counsellor.
3) My repeated contention is still not even understood, it seems, nor my word even supposed to be worth consideration for a second. In fact my comments were worthy of sarcasm. So, yes, precluding those words, there is then no evidence of it. (Of course, were my comments actually erroneous, any old marine engineer would know of evidence to prove me wrong, and would have spoken up....with his evidence no doubt. )
4) As your sentence says 'I AM an engineer and I find ....... similar a raging lunatic.' You have the right to insult me like that.. it's YOUR site, but I can't remember saying anything quite so ragingly and directly rude to anyone myself.
5) Breastfeeding: read last part above again. ( actually, despite it's raging rudeness, you are spot on here. I WAS bottle fed and, apparently, slept in an orange crate for a few months and was guarded by an Alsation, and from whom I learnt the meaning of loyalty.)
6) There was certainly at least ONE other on this thread that WAS actually ignorant of the subject in discussion. But, as I said, ignorance is in itself no reason for disdain or even a sharply worded retort.
But sneering sarcasm certainly is. As the sarcasm came BEFORE my first broadside.............well, you get the point. Remember debating?
7) Obviously not, but you THREATENED to censor me...exactly that. And a threat to censor is, in itself, a preliminary form of censorship. Ask the Chinese. And your definition of a respectable intelligent community would seem to ban your definition of, so called, politically incorrect bluntness or contention of any sort not backed up by immediate documentation to your own satisfaction. You hold the six-gun. But I would suggest that a forum is either free (barring repetitive foul or abusive language etc.) or it is not.
8) Yes. I'm pretty dumb, and the fact that I've written this proves it to me if nobody else. You, on the other hand, 'as a consultant to the Dept. of Defense and Lockheed Aerospace', and having designed this site (which is pretty nicely designed by the way.) must REALLY be pretty clever. I admit it. I don't know you personally so I would never deign to judge. I certainly would never abuse, threaten or correct you. I don't know you and you did not ask me. See?

Anyway, if you feel my comments on your 'forum' are misleading, dishonest, or so politically worrying, or unreasonable, as to be actually unacceptable, then please do feel completely free to delete them and my other details and access as well.

And thank you for providing me with something interesting to do on what would otherwise have been a boring weekend.

Yours sincerely,

[QUOTE='roundthehorn]For anyone confused by the our “very learned colleague,” his very common misspelling of the word Alsation is in fact spelled Alsatian, also known as the German Shepherd.

By the way, orange crate and guard dog, do I detect a modicum of sarcasm on your part? How dare you! This is a respectable forum. [/QUOTE]

I have offended you with my statement about sarcasm. I do apologise. I say this as why else would a man spend so much time in research to argue against a simple factual statement. However, we are in luck on that front.
As an old Royal Portoran, I need waste no time in such research.
It was in the late 1800's that Oscar Wilde used the phrase " Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
And if sarcasm is meant intentionally to hurt a soul, then truly it is a lower form class of amusement, as is any comedic element relying on the discomfort of another. It is offensive and simply bad manners.

The orange box and and the Alsatian story is actually true. The vessel was m.s.Monarch. (later m.s.Mellisande.) on which, apparently from my mother in later years, I was also conceived. I had thought this not in the least sarcastic, just an amusing story, particularly as I was accused of not being breast fed, if such can be termed an accusation. (So, as I was not, it was an irony, not a sarcasm, and a good example of the difference between the two at that.)

However, I am so, so embarrassed about, and must apologise for, my occasional errors of spelling. These surely are worthy of your extremely evident and, again sarcastic, disdain and I shall try to have proof read everything I write in the future so as to avoid such offence.

But if you, or anyone else, can find even small amusement in your shouting from the rooftops about them, at least they are not for nought.

Now I really must stop playing with this, get properly dressed and go to lunch.

Thank you, sincerely, for your moderate comment.
I know it's a bit long (or now more 'long gone' possibly.) , but if you would just read my original statements accurately, and literally, you will see that, as well as making some engineering statements, composed such as to raise an eyebrow, but which are based on my own knowledge, I also ask a number of self moderating questions. Also, the paragraph is in the form of a question. Do you see that?
If you would read the statements I make initially, and literally, you will see that at no time do I say that these rules are written down in any specific place. They are rules of basic fundamental seaworthiness and basic fundamental engineering and, as such, accepted in every shipyard worldwide and a fundamental contractual requirement of most insurance policies.
But that whole point seems to have gone over their heads and, of course, the lowest assumptions of ignorance or self-advancement assumed of me. Even the owner of the site accusses me of ignorance of my own profession!
My original intention, I thought quite positively, was simply to point out an error in course, (Hey, skipper!) to cause some debate and to ask if anyone else in my own discipline would like to discuss it over beer. That was all. Please read it.

Sadly, some responses I received missed the point entirely, were rude, accusatory and ignorantly sarcastic and did not follow the rules of debate in any way and, further, attempted immediately to come to the defence of the yachting industry charlatans.
Well, that was too much and when I made the quite unforgivable, but very Celtic, error in refusing to give up on, or back down from, my original position by repeating it again and again, ad infinitum, while fending off further sarcastic accusation.

Anyway, last night it was explained to me by a chap here that I'm dealing with colonials who, apparently and unlike us, often see immediate disagreement with a statement, rather than questioning or consideration, as a fundamental in debate; who rarely accept anyone's word, even for a second, and will always assume self interest, without explanation or proof in every single step and, finally, whose sense of amusement is most often satisfied from dishing out disdain to, and the discomfort of, others.

So now that I understand that situation, I shall do what I can to placate them in their ire.
I have written to two of the societies as well as to a friend at Lloyds (whose demands often rely on the societies in an case.) and shall reply as and when.

I do hope my efforts to placate all the nay sayers gives some satisfaction.

RESTART:
I make a basic and simple statement below with the purpose of providing a foundation to reiteration of my original point, which I still see as important to bring to light, and as I would like to hear it discussed, in moderation by, hopefully, older professionals and younger career engineers and inspectors, and also to realign this discussion, from petty sneering contradiction, to the positive. Consider this investigative.

Statement: “Were a marine superintendent to build, say, a new 80m passenger carrying commercial vessel, fitted with forced inward E.R. ventilation feeding onto the main engines where parts of the engine were electronically activated, or controlled, instead of extracting and expelling hot air from those areas, it would be considered extremely poor engineering and he’d certainly be told to re-design and replace the entire system.
Were he to present that same vessel with the main engines and critical generators lifting their fuel from below, and without the use of a fully operational and practical ‘day tanks’, one for each power producing unit, that vessel, however beautifully faired and expensive, could not, and would not, be passed by any competent inspector, as seaworthy.” End of statement.

In my experience, however limited, these two factors in E.R. design are so fundamental and necessary that shipbuilders ( M.Sup'nts.s and specialist propulsion engineers etc.) from ALL corners of the world (Scotland, Ireland, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Korea, Brazil, Burma, China, Chile, Normandy ....anywhere you like to look.), NEVER even have to be asked to fit these basic essentials as stated, and also, generally, because they so well understand the reasons for their necessity, they fit them in such a fashion, and with such redundancy, that they do their job very robustly.

My original thread, so derided and sneered at by some, was to make this point by asking the question. 'What happened to these BASIC fundamental rules of construction in the yacht industry?'.. ‘Why is it now almost ubiquitously acceptable NOT to use these BASIC safety systems on many yachts? Does anyone care any longer, or even understand how important they are to the fundamental safety of a power driven vessel? Or that the lack of them renders such a vessel, certainly if viewed from the commercial passenger world, ‘fundamentally unseaworthy’? And, oh yes, that ‘fundamental seaworthiness’ is actually a basic requirement of insurance syndicates.

Finally, and please just assume for a moment that I’m old and hairy enough, and within my professional rights, to ask this embarrassed question; Why do I find more and more ‘vessels’, some of a not inconsiderable size, totally bereft of these fundamentals (and worse!), yet with glossy and extremely expensive certification confirming they are built to some class or other?

Is this such an unworthy question to ask? Are our regulations now SO complex, so political and so turgid that inspectors have forgotten the old fundamentals, or is there another, more cynical, reason?

(any daft or insulting comments suggesting that such systems are not a requirement on power driven vessels will be assumed to have come from another planet.)

Hello Kiwi,
To answer your question, yes. One sees both of the above scenarios, or variations on the theme, as well as half a dozen or more other fundamental mistakes, increasingly regularly and on larger and larger vessels. I can't say it more clearly.
But one hopes you feel, like I do, that this beef is the entire seagoing community's, rather than just mine.

Anyway, had a really lovely lunch this afternoon with a surveyor / adjuster who works for Lloyds register and Lloyds insurers amongst others. I have deep respect for this gentleman who was educated as a lawyer before becoming a seaman, and has a delightfully jaundiced view of bureaucracy.
He's retiring soon, so it didn't take much of a nudge for him to become wonderfully effusive on the subject of certification and the departure from reality in general. We discussed the subject maybe twenty minutes or more and he's promised to dig out some of the older (legible) guidelines. He also told me about one or two things that really make me happy, but which can't really be discussed here.

But I found a more immediate solution that works well.
It seems, after sharing a couple of bottles of red infuriater over 'le menu', and then some D.P. in the afternoon sun, daft plumbing, backward ventilation and spotty auditors simply become much less important!

Marmot. Still missing the point old chap, still unable to decipher a definition and still, quite evidently, not a marine engineer. Sorry mate.
I really am. You are not even on the same planet, and I can't help that.
And also I cannot be held responsible for your being unable clearly to decipher the English language.
Yet still you seem unable to refrain from sarcasm and insult.
So, yet again, your out-of-context, yet intentionally insulting, comment is not worth dignifying with an answer, most especially as I have been warned by the Forum owner against taking swings at other's comments. Sorry.