Talk:Fire-tube boiler

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

A summary of this article appears in boiler.

Mr Who?

Is it too much to ask the inventor's name be mentioned? (Presumably it isn't a state secret.) Trekphiler 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Cornish boiler is attributed to Richard Trevethick and the multitubular boiler to George Stephenson. However, many other people were involved so it's hard to name a single inventor. Biscuittin (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same reading this article. Britannica credits Marc Seguin for this invention, so I took the liberty to mention it: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marc-Seguin-the-Elder

Damien.b (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:S1 boiler.jpg

The image Image:S1 boiler.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"fire-tube", "fire tube" or "firetube"

There seems to be little agreement over the correct punctuation. From a quick Google for "fire-tube" (in quotes -- hoping to force inclusion of the hyphen, but failing!) the use of either a hyphen or a space appears to be pretty random. Professional sites (such as Babcock) seem to favour the hyphenated form, others seem less worried. A separate search for "firetube" generated just under half as many g-hits ('only' 31000 !). (The presence of all three forms in this article rather skews the results as the many WP-mirrors respond...)

My personal thought is that the hyphenated form is correct, since it forces 'fire' and 'tube' to be treated as a single noun; whereas 'firetube' just doesn't look right (and 'watertube' looks worse!).

So, what is the correct terminology to use throughout this article, and hence the correct article title to use?

EdJogg (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen no prevalent usage, my intuitive preference is the same as yours, hyphenated. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues arising from proof-read

I've gradually been proof-reading the article (not finished yet!). I have corrected issues as I have found them, although there are certain points that require 'expert knowledge' (see below).

I have not yet checked that sub-articles (eg Scotch marine boiler, vertical boiler) have an adequate summary here. The sections are OK in themselves, but may not reflect the content of the sub-pages.

There is also the problem of the lack of references, which I cannot address as I have no suitable material in my 'library'. This is a problem that will keep this article from GA status (which it would otherwise be heading towards). It is also important to explain any non-obvious terms for the benefit of the layman -- I may not have found all these yet.

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem text under 'Variations'

There are a few sentences in the 'Variations' section that I cannot resolve.

"Not all shell boilers raise steam; some are designed specifically for heating pressurised water." -- why is this specifically in the 'Water-tubes' section? This is not explained. (Would seem to be a general point about all fire-tube boilers.)

"In homage to the Lancashire design, modern shell boilers can come with a twin furnace design." ('Reverse flame' section) The phrase "in homage to" is troublesome. Was the design 'based on', 'inspired by', or what? ('homage' is probably a bit NPOV). The second half of the sentence doesn't seem to relate to the remainder of the paragraph.

'Reverse flame' section -- needs a diagram for this. Not being a boiler expert, I cannot work out how this one works (which is not a problem I have with the other descriptions).

"...the burner fires into a blind furnace..." ('Reverse flame' section) This needs more explanation: we have not encountered "burners" before (they have previously been called fires or furnaces, and existed on grates) nor the term 'blind furnace'.

Essentially these paragraphs need expanding (and references provided, of course) with any non-obvious terms explained for the benefit of the layman.

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel type not covered

The reference to 'burners' made me realise that NOWHERE do we mention what type of fuel the various designs of boiler are intended to use -- which must be a significant design consideration. The term "grate" implies a solid fuel (as does "ashpan"), whereas "burner" implies non-solid. What about chain grates, automatic stokers, oil burners vs gas burners, coal vs pulverised coal, wood/bagasse/biomass/etc, etc ? I would suggest that a separate section covers these in detail, with each boiler type mentioning what they were designed for. This will cause a bit of a structural problem, since fuel will need to be described first, then fire considerations, and then the different boiler designs. This has the unfortunate effect of giving more emphasis to the burning than the boiler, but unless we have a sub-article about the topic (or a dedicated section somewhere else?) I can't see a way round it.

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General quality issues

Proof-read? This article, and most of them related to steam boilers and locomotives, needs an almost total re-write from scratch, not just copyediting. They suffer from a typical case of wiki-itis for articles of this breadth: the individual paras might be OK in isolation, but there's no coherent overall structure. A succession of factoids have been thrown together over time and they might even fit within the broad scope, but the article has no clear structure and is unreadable to the subject newbie encountering it for the first time. They're just not encyclopedic.

I've recently added the Scotch marine boiler article and I'm planning ones in the near future on haystack and tank boilers (suggestions for better names gratefully received!), locomotive boilers and vertical boilers. Then maybe something on the small road vehicle boilers: Sentinels, White monotubes, small launch boilers etc. Also something on Brotan boilers, if I can find Eastern European refs in English language. The beginnings of these are in my userspace. I'd appreciate it if people held off on copyediting them there, but suggestions through their talk: pages are welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I've got plenty of other things I can be doing! I'm glad we have a knowledgeable person on the case, as I am no expert in the world of boilers. I was coming from the opposite direction (steam engine) and finding that the boiler article was a complete mess (and still is, to some extent), even witnessing the creation of boiler (steam generator) as a content fork as an attempt to sort out the inadequacies. I trust that your efforts will incorporate these two articles (especially as boiler is a Wikipedia 1.0 -identified article), as you clearly have some kind of plan in mind.

As you 'finish' each article, let me know, and I'll cast a second eye over it. We should be able to get a DYK for each one, if we try, so for that reason I'll turn my attention to the Scotch marine boiler for now.

EdJogg (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rough plan was to write a bunch of sub-articles with the limited scope of locomotive boiler, haystack boiler or smaller, then worry about the broad overview later.

I'd also like to do something around Timeline of boiler development or somesuch, as I think that could be a particularly interesting article. It's odd how ships were so advanced with their boilers around 1900 (turbines and watertubes) whilst locomotives lagged so far behind, with stationary steam plants somewhere in between. Most descriptions focus on one field or the other, so there's not much that compares technologies across topics. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a sensible plan and the timeline should work too (my earlier offer still stands). It's much easier writing articles with a small scope, so hopefully the main articles will 'write themselves', although I will mention that boiler is relatively visible, so should be updated as soon as possible.

EdJogg (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell boiler is now live for the major large-flue types. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a bit of a UK bias; most if not all of the examples are from the British Isles; a few US examples wouldn't hurt. Kortoso (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fire-tube boiler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]