Talk:Hot blast

Das mit der vorgewärmten Verbrennungsluft kommt schon an das Siemens-Martin verfahren heran. Es wird aber noch nicht hinreichend deutlich, wie und wo die Luft vorgewärmt wird. Bei S.-M. geschah dies mittels erwähnter zweier, abwechselnd benutzter feuerfest ausgekleideter Kanäle für (geheizte) Zuluft und (vorwärmende) Abluft.MbG--79.212.95.229 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English WP: could you please commetn in English, for the benefit of those of us who do not know your lanaguage? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coal or coke?

The article says that the hot blast process enabled the use of coal rather than coke in the blast furnace process for making iron. I don't understand this, as the purpose of coking the coal was to remove impurities that wrecked the quality of the iron, and you still need to tip bulk carbon in to reduce the iron whether the air blast is hot or cold... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

My reverted edit:

Hot blast considerably reduced the fuel consumed by using heat recovered from the smelting process that would otherwise gone to waste. Because of the fuel economy,

While some early hot blast did use air heated with additional fuel, that would not necessarily have saved fuel like regenerative heating did. Also, I did neglect to include the combustion heat of the carbon monoxide: however, I think that is much lower than the regenerative heat. So please explain how I am otherwise wrong. Feel free to use any heat transfer or thermodynamic explanation you have.Phmoreno (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered by the Belford reference right next to the added content. [1]

The first hot blast was provided by heating the blast, using specific ovens (thus more fuel) to do so. This was against the existing and accepted wisdom of the time, that a cold blast was optimal. It was then discovered that using this hot blast was beneficial: the process within the blast furnace improved, to the point that production / fuel was greater, even accounting for the fuel consumed in heating the blast.

Of course, the process was then improved so as to re-use first the heat of the furnace exhaust, later to burn the carbon monoxide in the furnace exhaust as a fuel. This improves overall efficiency, just as you describe.

However, the point is, and this is why the addition was a problem, that hot blast is itself useful, and that this was adopted for its own benefits, many years before heating that blast from the furnace exhaust was. It's not merely about reducing heat loss from the overall process. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gessenhainer?

Article mentions him like we're familiar with his name and patents before providing that info further down. Maybe include that info before mentioning improvements on his system?