The World's Most Powerful Diesel Engine 273
trex279 writes "The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the world's most powerful diesel engine built to date. Each cylinder displaces a whopping 111,143 cubic inches (1,820 liters, equivalent to a cube 4 feet on a side) and produces 7,780 horsepower. The engine is about the size of a small building." The engine is intended for use in container ships.
yeah but (Score:2, Funny)
Re:yeah but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yeah but (Score:4, Informative)
Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.
I've seen this web site before, but probably not cited on
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.
And the article also stated at the most efficient setting, the engine is >50% thermal efficient (more than 50% of energy is transferred to motion, rather than heat)
Of course, definitely not a consumer item!
Re:That kind of efficiency is impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversion of heat into any other type of energy achieves it's maximum at 33% (the other 66% heats up the environment, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics).
No, the maximum efficiency for a heat engine [lightandmatter.com] is given by 1-T(low)/T(high) (absolute temperatures), which can be higher than 33%. If you can make T(high) high enough, and T(low) low enough, you can get 99% efficiency, or 99.9% efficiency, or whatever you like.
Arguably, these laws have not been proven, and they can't ever be proven. But they have been unchanged for quite some time now.
No, actually they have been proved, mathematically, within their realm of applicability, and to within the level of statistical certainty that's inherent in them (which is not an issue for a macroscopic device).
A breakthrough like this would not go unnoticed and thanks to my thermodynamics professor I would be the first one to hear about it (he's a nut about engines). So I think that part of the article is something someone tried to spike in to give the engine more of a wow-factor
No, the problem is just that you don't understand thermodynamics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So the engine can go from 3300 C (the SSME combustion temperature) to about 50 C (nozzle exit is way below atmospheric pressure, so the boiling point of water is lower). Efficiency = 1 - 350/3600, >90%.
No, this is just the limit on the efficiency from the laws of thermodynamics. The actual efficiency is certainly much, much lower. Also, there's no way that the exhaust is at 50 C at the point when it loses contact with the nozzle, so the real thermodynamic limit is going to be way less than 90%.
As a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, using that to accelarate am object may have useful or non-useful metrics. But it is hard to call that efficiency, though. (For example, accelarating a stationary object using a rocket engine takes more energy than picking the object up and throwing it. But we still don't try to throw the space shuttle into orbit for some reason...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Suffice it to say, it is a very well established science, and all quite provable both theoretically and in practice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you're joking, but if you look at the cross-section in the article, you'll see that they wisely passed over the hemispherical head for a pent-roof head. They also made the engine incredibly undersquare - it has a 0.38 bore-to-stroke ratio. Diesels require very high compression ratios, and it's worth compromising a redneck's sense of aesthetics to get it.
Japanese, the late great manufacturing power? (Score:2)
Re:Japanese, the late great manufacturing power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no... (Score:2)
Kinda puts a different spin on the whole thing, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers are all wrong (Score:3, Informative)
The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.
Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:
Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length: 89 feet
Height: 44 feet
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Moloch needs fuel... (Score:2)
Life imitating art? (More likely it's just an obvious design, but still.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but... (Score:2, Funny)
(You thought I was going to ask something else, did you?)
Is more powerful more, or less, efficient? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is more powerful more, or less, efficient? (Score:5, Informative)
I also note the article does NOT say 7780 HP, it says 108,920 horsepower at 102 rpm and more importantly, 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm. I knew that 7780 HP was wrong because you can tweak the fire out of a 6 litre chevy diesel and get 1000 HP and 1500 to 2000 lb/ft torque.
Most diesels have a 3/2 to 2/1 ratio of torque over HP, but then most peak in the 2400-3800RPM area, not 102. That is an absurd amount of torque, which is what is needed to twist a prop, after all. At 1,556,002 cubic inches, this is 3.6 lb/ft of torque for every cubic inch, which is similar to the above example of a 6.0L engine (364 cu. in.) getting 1310.4 lb/ft. (stock would be closer to 650-850 lb/ft).
In otherwords, a pretty efficient engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also note the article does NOT say 7780 HP, it says 108,920 horsepower at 102 rpm and more importantly, 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm.
Actually, it does. The submitter's comments expanded upon this quote direct from the article:
The 7780 horses refers to a single cylinder, and 108,920 horses refers to the full 14-cylinder engine.Actually they don't (Score:2)
In fact the most efficient rpm range of the base level Volkswagen 1.9L engine - a very high volume unit - is around 1900-2400 rpm, and that is a small engine.
Furthermore, the torque required to turn a
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about three diesel engines that are each more powerful than this supposedly most powerful diesel engine:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question647.htm [howstuffworks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure anonymous, mannerless fool and coward, they actually run on Diesel as their only fuel. http://www.shockwavejets.com/shockwave.cfm [shockwavejets.com]
The cylinder block yields less than 8K horsepower per cylinder, these jets 12K per turbine. Then mount 14 of them in a block and call it an engine, the jets will weight less and have more power.
Re: (Score:2)
-Isaac
er (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think that the idea of floating breeder reactors or a floating three mile island will hamper that switch. Even though there are military nuke ships.
Re: (Score:2)
So why not let the military handle it?
They have knowedge, expertise and sailors. They could easily design, build and operate a fleet of container ships. This seems like something that falls under the classifcation of a public good, much like the interstate highway system.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's have them handle all transportation: it's a "public good". Let's have the government take over all communications, too. And agriculture and housing. In fact, let's have them take over the entire economy. After all, it worked so well for the USSR...
BTW, whose military did you have in mind? You do know that very few freighters are US registered, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Liberia and Panama, of course!
Re: (Score:2)
This is FUD. Consider the post office (which is cash flow positive) for an obvious conter-example.
Heck, even if their labor and construction costs WERE 4X higher, it might still be justified based solely on the fuel and environmental costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Long past time, but for politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Cost will still be an issue. Modern reactor designs can go without refueling for their entire lifetime, eliminating one huge problem/cost factor.
Also, a nuclear reactor requires more (and more qualified) manning than a diesel engine. Modern cargo ships are operated b
Pebble bed reactor? (Score:2)
Re:er (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, nuclear engines are only seriosly problematic for airplanes (because of "roll-up"), and even that problem could be designed around. People just have an irrational fear of anything nuclear, and we relally need to get past that if we're going to care about CO2.
Bagger 288 (Score:2)
Comparable to 1904 steam engine technology (Score:4, Interesting)
In terms of mere size, this is comparable to steam engines of 1904 [nycsubway.org]. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company (the "IRT" to New Yorkers) built a plant in 1904 with a total output of 132,000 horsepower. The compound steam engines had bigger cylinders than this Diesel; 42 inches and 86 inches, compared to 38 inches for the new marine Diesel.
That was the high point of piston engines. Electrical generation was already converting from pistons to turbines, and even that 1904 IRT plant had a few smaller steam turbines.
There have been much more powerful marine powerplants than this, but they're usually multi-engine turbine systems. There's an annoying tendency in commercial shipping to have only one engine on large ships, which occasionally leads to accidents. [ntsb.gov]
Not even the most powerful engine... (Score:5, Informative)
Great fact-checking to start 2007 with...
Most powerful ?? (Score:2)
CC.
Company history (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulzer_Brothers_Ltd [wikipedia.org].
--Pat
Manufacturer's site has better info (Score:3, Informative)
copyright violation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Searching for the title The most powerful diesel engine in the world" [google.com] shows 545 hits. I've seen this page several times over the last few years- so this isn't exactly new or anything.
This engine does NOT run on diesel fuel!! (Score:2)
(I am not an marine diesel engineer, but, I remember talking to a friend who is. My memory is not what it used to be, so
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're probably right about the compressed air starting system. This reminds me of when I used to mess around with car engines, and one of the conversation pieces the guys had around the shop was a valve with a diameter about 3 times larger than what you'd see on even a very large engine. It had AIR stamped on it, and nothing else. Word from the guys was that some large marine engines use a compressed air starting system, and that the valve was probaby a part of that system. I had no reason to d
Re: (Score:2)
> air starter.
The usual method is to run compressed air into one of the cylinders.
container ships ? (Score:2)
question: diesel vs diesel-electric (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a self confessed Diesel nerd (Score:5, Informative)
Now look at Diesels. The smallest working Diesels are the little glow plug engines that are used to power model aircraft - actually semi-Diesels whose spiritual big daddy is the classical single cylinder 9 litre like the Bolinder. The biggest are these marine monsters with their two-metre throws. But they all are constrained by a few parameters that are broadly the same - the MEP and the mean piston speed.
At the normal running speed of about 100rpm the engine in the article is doing about 6-7 metres per second. At its normal cruising rpm of about 2000, my car engine is doing 33 revs per second * 2 * 90mm stroke - or 6 metres/sec. I haven't checked, but I fully expect that the working MEPs are within the same ballpark. It's nice to see that engines ranging from grammes to kilotonnes are constrained by a simple law based in metallurgy and tribology.
The other nice thing is, that with the exception of the tiny toy engines, all Diesels work more or less the same way, and the direction of change is by downwards replacement - technologies developed for large marine engines find their way ultimately into small engines. Modern auto engines with their electronic solenoid operated injection systems are basically a shrink of the marine technology of the 80s and 90s. Turbochargers also undergo shrinkage as their technology moves from marine to auto use, so we get the variable vane turbocharger turning up on entry level cars.
It would be wrong to force too many analogies, but there are resemblances between Diesel systems development and computer development that are perhaps more than skin deep.
Wrong: truck diesel engine does 12000 Horsepower (Score:2)
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question647.htm [howstuffworks.com]
or not (Score:2)
www.ultimatestupidity.com (Score:2)
Re:Pollution? (Score:5, Informative)
2 cycle engines are very common once you start moving up into the larger diesels. They're very different creatures, though they operate on similar principles. Diesel 2 cycles have separate lube oil in the crankcase, similar to 4-cyc gas engines. Thus, no continuous cloud of semi-burned lube oil coming out. Also, they're all (at least all that I've ever seen) direct injected, meaning fuel is delivered directly to the cylinder once the intake/exhaust ports are closed, thus no unburned fuel flows through.
Since diesel cylinder always get a full air charge, 2 cycle makes since - it's simple, and since you're only flowing air, you don't have the wasted fuel as in a gas 2cyc. As a by-product, you also get twice as much power from the same space as the equivalent 4 cycle at equal rpms. They do have more particulate problems, but these have been resolved well enough in the last few years to meet the new EPA Tier II diesel exhaust requirements.
vary the power output based on amount
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to bear in mind, is that these engines run at very low speed, so there is a lot of time for it to burn cleanly.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember anything right from my Aircraft Piston Engines undergrad course you are correct. All diesels must use fuel injection. Diesel engines use compression ignition, followed by constant pressure droplet combustion, unlike the petrol (gas in USA) engines which use spark ignited (nearly) instantaneous constant volume vapour combustion.
A curious factoid here is that diesel oil has a lower self ignition t
Re: (Score:2)
The heavy fuel oil this beast runs on is much worse than the lube oil in a gas two-stroke. Of course, that's not a problem that comes from being a 2-stroke engine, but from a desire to run on a cheap fuel that has a lot of energy per pound.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Two-stroke gasoline engines use the slightly pressurized fresh air/fuel mixture to force the previous combustion event's exhaust out of the cylinder. Some mixing of the fuel and exhaust is bound to occur, potentially resulting in unburned fuel escaping in the exhaust flow.
In a diesel engine, air and fuel aren't mixed until the actual combustion event, so there's no chance (assuming the engine is tuned properly) of fuel escaping in the exhaust.
Re: (Score:2)
No, and it is quite possible to design clean-running two-cycle gasoline engines.
O RLY? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really believe that it hasn't been done because it can't be done do you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wish there were. The technology certainly exists. A clean-burning 2-stroke gasoline engine just needs 3 major things, direct injection (which already exists) a supercharger (which also exists), and port valves (which are also possible). No major car manufacturer seems interested in selling such an engine, though. Perhaps it's the R&D investment (totally new engine block, cylinder head, and piston top design), or just the fact
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is more of an American attitude. Europe and Japan have a very large market for small city cars where the buyers aren't so concerned about power and really don't give a fig about engine size as long as it works well enough on a test drive. Fuel efficiency and reliability in this market are a lot more important. The costs of developing a new
Re: (Score:2)
Smaller and lighter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pollution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are two stroke diesels as dirty running as two stroke gas engines?
No. The thing that makes gasoline two-stroke engines so dirty is the fact that they are generally valveless, combined with the fact that they burn their own lube oil, deliberately. The goal of a gasoline two-stroke engine is to reduce parts count and weight, which is why they are found on weed whackers, chainsaws, lawn mowers and snowmobiles.
A two-stroke diesel is generally not intended to reduce weight, or parts count, but size. They are not valveless, and they do not burn their lube oil. Once you get up into the 2000HP+ range, it's pretty much the only way to make the engine a manageable size.
This engine is about twice the power of the (also two stroke) engines found on rail locomotives. Those engines take up about 2/3 of the locomotive's length (the other 1/3 is generator) To get the same output in a 4-stroke engine would require an engine twice the physical size. Think about how physically large a locomotive is and contemplate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? Locomotives have in the ballpark of 6.000 hp, while this engine has around 100,000 hp.
Also, look at the photo of the finished engine in the article. That thing is enormous!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A two-stroke diesel of the same output (the EMD 16-710) has twice the displacement (186 litres). This suggests that two-strokes aren't that space-efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary was poorly worded, which led to this incorrect statement.
Figures. I thought it seemed a tad small. I was basing my assumption on a locomotive being around 4000 HP. Clearly, some are larger, some are smaller.
Re:Pollution? (Score:4, Informative)
Two stroke gasoline engines tend to pollute a lot for two reasons:
some
1. They use the incoming fuel/air mixture to push out the exhaust and inevitably some of the unburned fuel goes straight out the exhaust.
2. Most of them use the crankcase to pressurize the incoming fuel/air mixture. This necessitates adding oil to the incoming charge to lubricate the crank and piston.
These aren't issues for diesels because the fuel is injected directly to the combustion chamber after the intake and exhaust ports have closed, and the incoming charge is pressurized by a supercharger rather than the crankcase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The author added something about it being able to play Ogg Vorbis files.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Would it run on biodiesel?
With the usual cuts in output, most likely, yes. (You take a really small cut in engine output when running it on biodiesel, something like 10% or so, but I don't have the figure right in front of me). It's still a diesel engine, just a hell of a lot bigger.
Always-on (Score:2)
Could you brew up enough biodiesel in algae tanks on a supertanker that the ship would be essentially self sufficient? I doubt there would be much room for a lot else, but when you're talking about supertankers, "not much room" is a relative term.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the real question is: if you are carrying oil, do you care? Somehow, I doubt that Big Oil gives a shit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldn't be useful from a commercial perspective of course. From a cultural one, it could be incredible. You could have an entire culture of nomads living on the ocean, never needing to make port. That whole international waters thing could be good too - casino ships?
That was my question: Would it run on biodiesel? (Score:2)
FWIW, I'm helping to start a biodiesel co-op here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Get in touch if A) you see this, and B) care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, the F-250 seems to get about 0.11 hp/kg, while the wartsila gets about 0.04 hp/kg just for the engine (not counting the ship).
I guess that really tells you something about the efficiency of long distance travel.
Re: (Score:2)
it is news because it is an interesting example of the technology in use beyond the desktop and the server.
a look outside your own domain can be very revealing.
Re: (Score:2)
7780*14=108920 - looks right to me
What's wrong with the summary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Large engines often have multiple cylinder configurations so the customer can choose how many they want based on their need, so it's often better to list the power per cylinder than for the entire engine.
Re: (Score:2)
With compressed air, most likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Surely you can have a clutch/gearbox system and spread the power to multiple screws. I wonder that they'd need 93360 horsepower just to turn a single screw?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No but it will run over linux quite easily...