The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Image of the Day (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   August 30, 2006: World's largest diesel engine (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11609)

Undertoad 08-30-2006 01:31 PM

August 30, 2006: World's largest diesel engine
 
http://cellar.org/2006/world-largest-diesel-engine.jpg

Neatorama had this item a while back and I'm only just now getting it out of the queue. This behemoth is documented in more detail here, but I'll summarize.

This thing is described as the "Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine". Shown above is the engine block and the main shaft, and if you count, you'll find it's a 10 cylinder engine. Built by The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd.

That means this images are not of the very largest engine, because they have a 14 cylinder version. But you get the idea, just mulitply by 1.4.

http://cellar.org/2006/diesel-cyldeck.jpg

The cylinder deck. Each cylinder displaces 1820 liters. Think about this for a moment. When you hear displacement numbers for cars, it's generally in cc. That's a cubic centimeter, otherwise known as a milliliter.

The displacement of all four cylinders of a 1992 Subaru Impreza is 1820 cc. That is 1/1000th of the displacement of one cylinder of this engine.

http://cellar.org/2006/diesel-done.jpg

So a 14-cylinder completed engine has a displacement 14,000 times that of a 1992 Subaru. What do they use this engine for? According to that one page that documents it all...

http://cellar.org/2006/containership.jpg

...to move Subarus! The big engines go on very large container ships, such as the ones used to get cars across the seas. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design, and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.

Total engine weight: 2300 tons
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

That oughta do it.

capnhowdy 08-30-2006 03:50 PM

It takes 1,660 gals of fuel per hr. to feed those 108,920 horses. That is if you don't mash on it too hard.

I don't reckon I can afford that. Oh well.

Very interesting.

milkfish 08-30-2006 05:34 PM

And connect one of these to the driveshaft of a Subaru and it will do Warp Factor 5.

RellikLaerec 08-30-2006 07:03 PM

i like the fact that you can climb down into the crankshaft area with the latters!

xoxoxoBruce 08-30-2006 08:02 PM

They want single engine, single driveshaft/screw, propulsion systems because they take up less interior room and make it easier to stack containers on either side. :cool:

footfootfoot 08-30-2006 08:04 PM

I'm the kind of guy who likes a bit of redundancy, especially at sea. Call me Ishamel.
I mean call me old fashioned. When engine number one conks out, it's nice to have engine number two, even if it is a little putt putt.

xoxoxoBruce 08-30-2006 08:45 PM

Yes, but you have to understand, the people that make these decisions on what will be most profitable, never set foot on the damn things away from the dock.
'Tis not their butt in the sling. :lol:

Ubergeek 08-30-2006 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkfish
And connect one of these to the driveshaft of a Subaru and it will do Warp Factor 5.

Yup... for about... oh... say 1 or 2 seconds... then it will take that poor little Subaru and twist it into something that would best be described as a metal and rubber Twizzler... LOL

5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm?! Talk about towing capacity :eek:

I thought 102rpm sounded pretty tame... then I realized that each of those pistons has got to weight at least a couple of tons. That's a lota metal moving up and down!

Acroyear

xoxoxoBruce 08-30-2006 09:58 PM

Right, at 102 rpm that 38 inch diameter piston is moving at 1666 ft per minute (27.77 ft per second) and making 204 stop/starts, during that minute. :mg:

Bullitt 08-30-2006 11:01 PM

That thing is f***ing huge..
just saying what everyone's thinking

maninthebox 08-31-2006 07:56 PM

Yeah, I can shove that into my Caviler somehow............

onetrack 09-02-2006 07:14 PM

O.K. .. seen this one before (the pics make everyone go a little ga-ga - but EVERYTHING on ships is BIG, ain't it??) .... but what I wanna see is ...... the crankshaft grinder they used to grind the crank ..... and the milling machine they used to face the surfaces of the engine block ..... :eek:

sweetpeapete 11-26-2010 02:45 PM

steam vs diesel
 
I know that sharper minds than mine have determined that these huge diesels are more efficient/cost effective than steam, but I can't see how, I guess.

classicman 11-26-2010 03:50 PM

warning warning ... 4+ year old thread dredged up ...

xoxoxoBruce 11-26-2010 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpeapete (Post 696357)
I know that sharper minds than mine have determined that these huge diesels are more efficient/cost effective than steam, but I can't see how, I guess.

Because you'd need a steam engine near as big and then a boiler, bigass condenser, piping, makeup water treatment and controls. These container ships are all about space, which is why they're using an inline engine and single screw.

Oh, and welcome to the Cellar, pete. :D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.