|
Q. What atomizer systems are supported by Omega Atomizers? Q. Can I interchange your parts with the OEM items? Q. What materials are used by Omega Atomizers in making these parts? Q. Why are these parts so expensive? Q. Didn't Omega and RPM used to be the same company? Q. What atomizer systems are supported by Omega Atomizers? ^Top A. We make replacement parts for about 15 different stationary and rotating dry scrubber systems including Niro, Alstom/Flakt, Anhydro, Rockwell/CE, Research Cottrell, B&W and others. You can view these systems and the parts we supply elsewhere on the website. Q. What parts do you make? ^Top A. It varies from system to system, but we make complete wheels (discs) including structural components and the sacrificial wear parts like nozzles and wear plates. Additionally, we make drive system components like transmission gears and drive shafts for many systems. Q. Do you stock these parts? ^Top A. We maintain an extensive inventory in order to provide the service our customers demand. Most components are available for immediate delivery, even overnight if required. Q. Can I interchange your parts with the OEM items? ^Top A. This is an important point. Omega Atomizers provides mostly direct replacement parts. A few expendable items have been modified to provide better value. It is important to consider the consequences of straying too far from the original configuration. In 1991 a single nozzle for one large capacity spray dry unit was about $ 1,000.00. The user had only one choice - the OEM. Today, an Omega nozzle that provides superior wear life is about $300.00. Competition is good. If the OEM or an independent supplier makes substantial changes in the basic design of a unit you are back to 1991 with only one choice and ultimately the price will reflect the limited competition. Q. What materials are used by Omega Atomizers in making these parts? ^Top A. The materials used in structural wheel components are selected given the intended service. For most coal burning facilities, 17-4 PH stainless steel is the usual choice. For some eastern coal burners where chlorides are more prominent in the coal, titanium 6A1-4V alloy is used. This titanium alloy is also used in many trash burning applications. Other trash burning systems use a nickel and chromium alloy called hastelloy. These materials also handle most industrial applications where choice is usually driven by corrosion or temperature considerations. Q. Why are these parts so expensive? ^Top A. If you think they are expensive now, you should have seen prices fifteen years ago. At that time the only source for replacement parts was your Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and they were not bashful about asking big prices for this equipment. When Craig Willan brought creditable replacement parts to this industry, he also brought considerable cost savings. That said, there are many reasons that this equipment cannot be cheap. Consider the service environment experienced by these units. It is high speed and therefore high stress. The outside of the wheel sees hot acid gases while the inside is exposed to a caustic chemical environment. So, materials must be strong, resistant to acid and caustic corrosion and the wear parts must resist extreme abrasive action. This is a collection of some of the most difficult service conditions found in industry. Raw material selection and qualification and the manufacturing processes employed must be specific and precise. In addition to attending these details, production quantities are small by most industry standards. Small quantities mean higher prices for raw materials and manufacturing processes. Q. I'm confused about the quality and wear life of nozzles. Omega Atomizers claims boron carbide is the best wear material but I've heard that silicon carbide is better? What really is the best? ^Top A. The answer is more complicated than seems reasonable. Everything being equal, boron carbide is better than silicon carbide because it is harder. In fact, boron carbide is third on the hardness chart behind diamond and cubic boron nitride. However, really good silicon carbide can do well against poor quality boron carbide. Bad silicon carbide can even be bettered by good aluminum oxide. It can be confusing, but there is reason for differing results. All of these ceramic wear materials are made from powder particles. Think of filling the room you are in now with basketballs. If you pack ever basketball you can in the room there is still considerable space left over. So, put some tennis balls in the spaces between the basketballs. Still some space left. Use some ping pong balls - then marbles - then BB's - then... the smallest ball you can imagine until every space is filled. This illustrates the varying "quality" of powder products. Good product has all of the space filled and any measure less than full is inferior to that. A room filled with silicon carbide balls of precisely distributed size will be better than a room filled only with basketballs of boron carbide where lots of space remains. Fill the room with boron carbide balls of precisely distributed sizes, process with the proper pressure and temperature and you have the best wear resistant material available at any reasonable cost. Q. Wheel balance would seem to be important, but my OEM says that initial balance from the factory is all that is required. Should we balance the unit when we replace the nozzles or other wear parts? ^Top A. Balance is important, in fact in some systems it is critical. If nozzles are the only parts being replaced you can maintain balance by matching the weight of nozzles in pairs and placing them in apposing positions in the wheel. However, replacing unmatched nozzles and wear plates or mixing good used components from different wheels often jeopardizes the unit balance condition. If vibration is higher upon putting the rebuilt unit back in service, you have a balance problem. You have a given range of vibration tolerance designed in the system. Lower vibration levels at the start will always be a better condition for longer service runs. Q. Didn't Omega and RPM used to be the same company? ^Top A. Before Craig Willan established Omega Atomizers he was an equal partner in the now defunct company RPM/Omega Technologies which had offices in South Dakota and Texas. In 1996, the other equal partner sued him and the company to dissolve the corporation. This action resulted in court ordered receivership for the considerable assets of the company. To that time, Mr. Willan, from the Texas office, had designed every part, fronted all funds for raw material and manufacture and directed all manufacturing and distribution of every atomizer part produced for sale by RPM/Omega Technologies. Mr. Willan recognized that the service and support established by this effort would no longer be available with the control of these assets in receivership. So, he founded Omega Atomizers in order to continue service to this industry.
|
 |
