How it compares
P-WAVE vs. conventional boiler cleaning
P-Wave generators are a powerful automated alternative to conventional methods, which need to combine with manual explosion cleaning.
| Criterion | P-Wave generator | Manual explosion cleaning | Soot blowers | Rappers / hammers | Other automated explosion cleaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automation | Automatic | Manual campaigns (online at open boiler doors) | Automatic | Automatic | Automatic |
| Physical principle | Supersonic pressure wave generated with propane and highly compressed air | Detonation of solid or gaseous explosives, manually introduced with a lance | Devices generating rotating steam jets hitting the boiler tubes | Devices hitting with a hammer the boiler tubes in order to create a vibration | Acethylene or hydrocarbons or methane+oxygen |
| Detonation / explosives | None | Yes | None | None | Detonation of explosive gases |
| Oxygen cylinders | None | — | None | None | Depends on type of system |
| Tube contact / wear | Contact-free | Contact-free | Erosion risk | Direct impact | Contact-free |
| Operator presence | Not required | Required | Not required | Not required | Not required |
| Reach in open / convective passes | Excellent / Excellent | Good / Good | Not useable / limited | Not useable / limited | Limited / Limited (depending on systems) |
| Operational cost | Low (few consumables) | High (manual campaigns) | Medium (consumption of valuable steam) | Low (few consumables) | Depends on systems |
| Safety | High degree of inherent safety by design | Special care for work with explosives at open boiler doors. | High degree of inherent safety by design | High degree of inherent safety by design | Reduced risk with automation of detonations |
Indicative comparison based on typical operation. Actual results depend on boiler configuration and operating conditions.