Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-14-2016, 03:10 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
City: brisbane
Country: australia
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 35
109,000hp engine

Not really relevant to the engines used in the boats in this forum, but still interesting. What is impressive is the specific fuel consumption compared to typical diesel engines and the efficiency these mammoth engines can achieve

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/01/08/45014/



Configuration Turbocharged two-stroke diesel straight engine, 6 to 14 cylinders
Bore 37.75 inch (960 mm)
Stroke 8.4 feet (2,500 mm)
Displacement 111,063 CI (1,820 litres) per cylinder
Engine speed 22–102 RPM
Mean effective pressure 1.96 MPa @ full load, 1.37 MPa @ maximum efficiency (85% load)
Mean piston speed 8.5 meters per second
Specific fuel consumption 171 g/(kW·h)
Power Up to 5,720 kW per cylinder, 34,320–80,080 kW (46,680–108,920 BHP) total
Torque Up to 7,603,850 newton metres (5,608,310 lbf·ft) @ 102 rpm
Power density 29.6 to 34.8 kW per tonne, 2300 tonnes for the 14-cylinder version
Mass of fuel injected per cylinder per cycle ~160 g (about 6.5 ounces) @ full load(Whole motor uses up to 250 tons of fuel per day.)
Crankshaft weight 300 tons[
Piston weight 5.5 tons
Piston Height 20 feet

__________________
Advertisement

marcoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2016, 06:21 PM   #2
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 727
Its a monsta!
__________________

78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2016, 07:45 PM   #3
Guru
 
hmason's Avatar
 
City: Westport, CT
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Magic
Vessel Model: Grand Banks 46 Europa
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,595
Wouldn't want to be the guy that checks the tire pressures on that trailer.
__________________
Howard
Magic, 1996 Grand Banks Europa
Westport, CT and Stuart, FL
hmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 03:33 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
City: brisbane
Country: australia
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 35
Something else that really surprised me is that 14 of these engines operating all year will emit more pollution than all of the cars in the world combined.

The bunker oil they use is cheap, currently around $262/tonne (I guess when you are using 250 tonnes/day, litres or gallons are just not significant) but the sulphur content of bunker oil is around 2000 times of normal gas/diesel so the sulphur dioxide emissions are huge.
marcoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 06:52 AM   #5
GFC
Guru
 
GFC's Avatar
 
City: Tri Cities, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Beachcomber
Vessel Model: Sea Ray 550 Sedan Bridge
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,327
Yeah, that's a great big engine and all, but what kind of anchor does he use?
__________________
Mike and Tina
Beachcomber 1995 Sea Ray 550 Sedan Bridge
GFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 11:18 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
City: Brandon, MS
Country: United States
Vessel Model: 1986 Sea Ray Seville, 18.5'
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcoh View Post
Something else that really surprised me is that 14 of these engines operating all year will emit more pollution than all of the cars in the world combined.

The bunker oil they use is cheap, currently around $262/tonne (I guess when you are using 250 tonnes/day, litres or gallons are just not significant) but the sulphur content of bunker oil is around 2000 times of normal gas/diesel so the sulphur dioxide emissions are huge.
Still insignificant compared to one volcanic eruption which put out more than all of human history combined.
Warwgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 11:38 AM   #7
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,174
Just played with some numbers. Depending on density of the fuel, came up with about 25 to 27hp per gph. A good little marine engine in the 400hp class at best is 20-21hp per gph. BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 02:10 PM   #8
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,251
"BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect."

Good point , one of the reasons diesels seem to be more efficient than gas , heavy fuel.

The heavy bunker fuel may have sand, pebbles and other items in every ton, and has to be heated just to get it to flow.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 02:59 PM   #9
QB
Senior Member
 
QB's Avatar
 
City: San Diego and Gabriola
Country: USA and Canada
Vessel Name: Skookum Maru
Vessel Model: Ed Monk design #1924
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwgn View Post
Still insignificant compared to one volcanic eruption which put out more than all of human history combined.
What is the source of your information?

Because this: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...20suppdata.pdf

And this: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...sions_0207.pdf

...together indicate that the yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any single volcanic eruption in the last century.
QB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 03:56 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
City: Brandon, MS
Country: United States
Vessel Model: 1986 Sea Ray Seville, 18.5'
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 46
well there ya go, guess I was wrong.
Warwgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 05:38 PM   #11
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by QB View Post
What is the source of your information?

Because this: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...20suppdata.pdf

And this: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...sions_0207.pdf

...together indicate that the yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any single volcanic eruption in the last century.
So "yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any SINGLE volcanic eruption in the last century."

So you are comparing anthro emissions to a single eruption. Are there not hundreds of eruptions worldwide each year? Some going on near continuously? Is that sneaky wording quoted or a mis-type?
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 06:53 PM   #12
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post
Just played with some numbers. Depending on density of the fuel, came up with about 25 to 27hp per gph. A good little marine engine in the 400hp class at best is 20-21hp per gph. BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect.
Funny your should bring this up. Earlier today I went looking at BTU/gal to see what the difference is. #2 diesel is 139,000 btu/gal, and #6 fuel is 152,000/gal. So it accounts for about 10% of the specific fuel consumption improvement, but the rest is the engine. A typical diesel burns around 230 g/kwh, where this monster only burns 171 g/kwh.
__________________
www.MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 06:54 PM   #13
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC View Post
Yeah, that's a great big engine and all, but what kind of anchor does he use?

It IS the anchor.
__________________
www.MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 07:49 PM   #14
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 727
Owner of the tug company I used to work for opined that roughly one gal of fuel is burned per day (24 hours) per horsepower. Some of their bigger tugs are between 3-5000HP so roughly that much fuel a day is burned in gallons, while towing. They have big tanks too. This was nearly 20 years ago mind you.
78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 07:54 PM   #15
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post
So "yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any SINGLE volcanic eruption in the last century."

So you are comparing anthro emissions to a single eruption. Are there not hundreds of eruptions worldwide each year? Some going on near continuously? Is that sneaky wording quoted or a mis-type?
Here you go, from the USGS;

Quote:
Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gotta love the Internet
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 09:26 PM   #16
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,174
We were talking SO2, not CO2.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 09:29 PM   #17
QB
Senior Member
 
QB's Avatar
 
City: San Diego and Gabriola
Country: USA and Canada
Vessel Name: Skookum Maru
Vessel Model: Ed Monk design #1924
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post
So you are comparing anthro emissions to a single eruption. Are there not hundreds of eruptions worldwide each year? Some going on near continuously? Is that sneaky wording quoted or a mis-type?
Ski, I was replying to Warwgn who claimed that "one volcanic eruption put out more than all of human history combined".

Still waiting to hear what his source was for that claim.
QB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 09:42 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Capt. Jon's Avatar
 
City: Alabama
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Waypoint
Vessel Model: Californian 48' CPMY
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 359
But according to USGS, human activities release at least a hundred times more CO2 every year than all the world’s volcanoes combined.

Since this is said human activities I assume (I know it's dangerous) that includes exhaling. Therefore I have pledged to stop breathing for at least one minute every hour. This way I will not be contributing to the excessive Co2.
__________________
Jon
------------------------------------------------
Waypoint's are abstract, often having no obvious relationship to any distinctive features of the real world.
Capt. Jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2016, 10:04 PM   #19
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post
We were talking SO2, not CO2.
My bad...

Quote:
Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources.
Man Versus the Volcano | Volcano World | Oregon State University
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2016, 06:26 AM   #20
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13,891
Back to the engine...

From my marine engineering source.....

Concerning energy content.....

The engine only cares about the weight of the fuel, that is what specific fuel consumption is about. That is why BSFC is given in g/kWh or lb/hph All this talk about gallons is nonsense. Since petroleum volume changes considerably with temperature and a gallon is not the same volume in all countries it is not used to measure power production.

Also a slight correction.....

"BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect."

It has a BTU content of between around 18500 to a bit less than 20000 BTU/LB which is the same as ULSD and maybe a bit less than gasoline.

That engine typically burns what is called IFO 380, an "intermediate fuel oil" which is a mix of heavy fuel oil and a distillate like diesel fuel.

It is thick at room temperature but will usually flow like lube oil. It has a maximum pour point around 30*C or about 85*F and a minimum of around 0*C or 32*F. It is warmed to transfer more easily and is heated to around 250*F to reach about the same viscosity as SAE 40 motor oil just before being delivered to the injectors.

It is most certainly not full of sand, rocks, and pebbles.
__________________

psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012