Talk:Superheater

message: Based on my reading of the article, the damper and the front-end throttle appear to counter-act each other.  The damper seems to lock steam out of the superheater when the throttle is closed, to prevent the superheater parts from overheating, while the front end throttle seems to keep the steam in the superheater when the throttle is closed - wouldn't this reproduce the problem that the damper is meant to eliminate?  Or, if the damper closes first, wouldn't the superheater tubes be empty of steam, eliminating the usefulness of the front-end throttle? --Badger151 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The damper acts on the flue gases outside the superheater elements, not on the steam inside them. Biscuittin (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing puzzles me about the Front-end throttle - what about burst superheater elements? Normally, the escaping steam can be shut off by closing the regulator (throttle). With the Front-end throttle this would not work. Is there an emergency stop valve? Biscuittin (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damper vs front-end throttle 

message: I would like to propose that this is added at the bottom of the main/intro section for the article
Superheaters are also commonplace within power plant boilers for exactly the same reason. However, they are prone to blocking with ash. In many cases standard steam soot blowers struggle to keep this area free from ash build up and now new techniques such as cleaning using sound waves using sonic soot blowers are being employed.
Collieman (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreferenced and possible COI issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Power plant boilers

message: I think this is dubious so I have added a Citation Tag: 
"Another benefit of the front end throttle is that superheated steam is immediately available. With the dome throttle it took quite some time before the super heater actually provided benefits in efficiency. One can think of it in this way: if one opens saturated steam from the boiler to the superheater it goes straight through the superheater units and to the cylinders which doesn't leave much time for the steam to be superheated. With the front-end throttle, steam is in the superheater units while the engine is sitting at the station and that steam is being superheated. Then when the throttle is opened, superheated steam goes to the cylinders immediately".
The delay would only affect the first few piston strokes so, in my judgement, the effect on thermal efficiency would be negligible. Biscuittin (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tag added 

message: The first practical superheater is stated as dating from the 1880s and 1890s. Whilst this may be true for steam locomotives, SS Carnatic (1862) relied on "a considerable degree of superheat" in order to achieve good fuel efficiency from her compound engine. This quote is from:Jarvis, Adrian (1993). "Chapter 9: Alfred Holt and the Compound Engine". In Gardiner, Robert; Greenhill, Dr. Basil. The Advent of Steam - The Merchant Steamship before 1900. Conway Maritime Press Ltd. pp. 158–159. .
Carnactic's superheater would appear to predate the mention in this article by almost 20 years. I suggest that some sort of correction or further research is needed on the early history of the superheater.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first practical superheater??? 

message: Simpler IMO to rename this to superheater (locomotive) when we have sufficient non-locomotive content for a separate article ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The ideal scope would still be superheater though, and the thermodynamics remains the same.  The biggest difference is likely to be locomotive superheaters vs. compounds and turbines. Loco superheating appears around 1900, at just the time that the new electricity plants are starting to move towards turbines.  We need a strong split by sections, but I don't think it's enough to justify splitting. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK, compounding generally didn't fare well (witness all those Webb and Worsdell compounds rebuilt as simples by their successor CMEs), but superheating did. Indeed, the most successful British compounds were also superheated. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, compounding was standard practice for most industries. Don't confuse steam engines and steam locomotives. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not. I was responding to your phrase "locomotive superheaters vs. compounds". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to locomotive superheater or cover non-locomotive superheaters ? 

message: I'm not the person to do it (don't understand all the wiki stuff), but I think it would be great to also mention desuperheaters and link to/create an article called 'Desuperheater'.
Also add language links?
* oververhitter = superheater (:nl:Oververhitter <> Superheater)
* stoomkoeler = desuperheater
M.J.W.B. (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do uou have any sources? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no! Just working on a patent translation (Dutch into English) and am researching these terms. M.J.W.B. (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create 'Desuperheater' article as well?