Some years back, I became familiar with the work of Sir Charles Parsons. As a kid, I had read of the "Turbinia", but it was during my early career as a mechanical engineer that I came upon more in depth information about the works of Sir Charles Parsons. As is well known, he had developed a practical steam turbine. However, when he tried to use that turbine to drive the screws of the "Turbinia" with no reduction in speed from that of the turbine, he discovered the screws (propellors) were eaten away and had rough surfaces and a lot of the metal was missing. This put Parsons on the trail of cavitation research. In order to learn how cavitation occurs, Parsons built laboratory apparatus to literally see and hear cavitation. This lead to Parsons having to find means of photographing cavitation as it occurred in specimens in a test tank- hence, high speed or stroboscope type of photography.
Realizing at some point that trying to run a ship's screw direct-coupled to a steam turbine was not the most practical thing, Parson went on to research and develop high speed reduction gearing. What was more remarkable was that, for the times, even the early steam turbines had at least as much if not several times the power output of a reciprocating marine engine. The reduction gearing to connect the output of a marine steam turbine to the tailshaft and screw of a ship had to be able to handle both the higher input shaft speeds as well as the higher horsepower.
Another area Parson explored was the dynamic balancing of high speed rotating parts. The steam turbine was revolutionary, not just as a prime mover, but in the adjunct areas requiring development to make the turbine practical.
As my own career evolved, about 1981, I started working on hydroelectric power plants in various ways- design, construction management, and maintenance. Along the way, the performance of the turbine runners ('water wheels') was always a major issue, and there was always a fine line in balancing efficiency and runner performance against cavitation. I came to roost at a large pumped storage hydroelectric plant in August of 1989 and stayed there until I retired in 2013. I got a firsthand look at cavitation erosion on the big turbine runners and wicket gates and stay vanes. On the original turbine runners, which were cast carbon steel and weighed about 90 tons apiece, it was expected that we'd put about 250 lbs of weld metal into each runner every 18 months to try to keep up with cavitation and loss of metal. I developed quite an appreciation for Sir Charles Parsons, not just for his work in developing practical steam turbines, but in so much else.
As for the description of the engine room of a warship with reciprocating engines, I had read this some years earlier. I've visited engine rooms on ore carriers years ago which had triple expansion steam engines. These engines were like workhorses by comparison to those in warships. The engines in the ore carriers seemed to plod along, even at maximum turns (about 70 rpm). However, there was a system of piping and nozzles at each crankshaft main bearing and aimed at the connecting rod big ends. If a bearing started to run hot, raw water from overboard could be sprayed at the hot bearing(s) and the engine kept running. The triple expansion marine engines were all open, and the oiling on them was 'total loss'. There were lubricator boxes up at the level of the cylinders, and these had horse-hair wicks to pick up oil and drip it into distribution tubes to various points on the engine. There were numerous oil cups on moving parts such as eccentrics, valve motion, wrist (gudgeon) pins, and crossheads. An oiler on those engines had to be agile with good reflexes. Oil a reciprocating main engine meant climbing around and feeling the moving parts for 'hot brasses', using one's senses of smell, feel, and sight. Reaching a hand to let a big-end brass or crosshead gently slap it as it passed by was the way bearing temperatures were checked. Filling oil cups and lubricators 'on the fly' was what it was about. Reaching into unguarded moving machinery was what being an oiler on a reciprocating engine entailed. You got spattered with lube oil and condensate from slight leakage at packing glands. You took a paint brush with a longer handle and swabbed the piston and valve rods on the fly with a mixture of steam cylinder oil and graphite.
Meanwhile, the lube oil that passed through the bearings and other working parts wound up in the bilges of the ship, along with water from drip-offs on pump rod glands and similar. The oily water in the bilges was not given a second thought and was pumped overboard. I suspect that final kiss of death for the remaining reciprocating main engines on the Great Lakes came with strict regulations prohibiting the discharge of oily water, and with safety regulations regarding unguarded moving machine parts. I was fortunate to have been around the last of the reciprocating marine engines, however briefly, back in the 1970's.
If a person wandered into engine rooms of ships with reciprocating main engines and then an engine room with steam turbines, the differences are quite profound. A 2500 IHP marine steam engine took up a great deal of space, had a great deal of weight, and a high center of gravity. A steam turbine with its reduction gearing easily had several times that horsepower rating in a lot less space with a much lower center of gravity. I will admit to really liking the old triple expansion and similar marine steam engines. One of the few advantages the recip engines had over steam turbines was maneuverability. A recip engine would be reversed almost instantly to check the motion of the ship or for emergency maneuvering. A recip main engine was also capable of full power in either direction. By comparison, a steam turbine had a few rows of 'astern blading' on the same spindle as the main/ahead blading. To reverse a marine steam turbine, steam to the ahead nozzles had to be shut off, and steam to thje astern blading opened up. It took some time for a marine steam turbine to go from full ahead to full astern. Aside from the time element, the astern blading on most marine steam turbines only delivered about 30% of the shaft horsepower of the ahead blading. In addition, the astern blading, to get a quick reverse, was all impulse blading. Steam consumption when running a marine steam turbine astern (reversed) was quite high. A recip engine had no loss of either available power or high steam consumption running astern. That was likely the only advantage recip engines held over steam turbines.
I also recall seeing nameplates on steam turbines in industrial powerplants. These had some text to the effect that the turbine was licensed by Parsons for use in power generation, but could not be applied to 'aerial craft'. I believe General Electric, in the USA, was an early licensee of Parsons. There were other early developers of steam turbines: Laval, Curtis, and Rateau all coming to mind. I tend to think Parsons was the person who first brought steam turbines into practical use. I also regard Parsons as something of a 'renaissance man' with the research the related fields that he had to identify and develop on a practical basis.
