I received this in an e-mail today.
The world's biggest engine is the Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C. It is a turbocharged two stroke diesel engine and it is the most powerful and efficient low revolution engine in the world today.
The Wartsila-Sulser is manufactured by the Aioi Works in Japan and is part of Japans Diesel United Ltd engine manufacturers. Below is an 89 foot long 44 foot wide 12-cylinder DIESEL engine. These large engines are designed to power the world's super oil tankers and large container ships.
Engines are built in 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 cylinder configurations. All the engines are inline. The diameter of each cylinder is 3 foot 2 inches with a stroke of 8 foot 2 inches. The 12 cylinder version weighs in at 2000 metric tons and delivers 90,000 Horsepower at 100 Revolutions per minute (rpm's), with best fuel economy at 53,244 HP at 90rpm.
100,000 HP was actually achieved on a test bed in the workshop with the 14 cylinder model, running the engine flat out at just under 102 RPM.
(http://www.network54.com/Realm/tanker/1.jpg)
(http://www.network54.com/Realm/tanker/2.jpg)
(http://www.network54.com/Realm/tanker/3.jpg)
(http://www.network54.com/Realm/tanker/5.jpg) (http://www.network54.com/Realm/tanker/6.jpg)
(http://www.network54.com/Realm/tanker/4.jpg)
(http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5397/37352230iy6.jpg)
:o
Think I can get one in the S4R?
It'll surely outdo that 24 cyl bike! I didn't notice any torque figures. Would almost think it's unmeasurable... [evil]
UPDATE: 2008 specs say it now has 114,800hp!! [evil] [evil]
5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm torque!
(http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/cross-section.jpg)
Quote from: alfisti on January 22, 2009, 08:07:39 PM
It'll surely outdo that 24 cyl bike! I didn't notice any torque figures. Would almost think it's unmeasurable... [evil]
By my calculation, that would be about 5.2 million ft/lbs. :o
And that's at peak horsepower. So who knows what the peak torque might be.
Quote from: Jobu on January 22, 2009, 08:17:30 PM
By my calculation, that would be about 5.2 million ft/lbs. :o
And that's at peak horsepower. So who knows what the peak torque might be.
Good Guess...
Quote from: alfisti on January 22, 2009, 08:12:11 PM
UPDATE: 2008 specs say it now has 114,800hp!! [evil] [evil]
5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm torque!
(http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/cross-section.jpg)
Quote from: NAKID on January 22, 2009, 08:22:26 PM
Good Guess...
He beat me to it, I guess. But that was an updated horsepower number.
Horsepower, RPM, and torque can always be determined as long as you know two of the three and remember 5252:
HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252 [thumbsup]
So:
tq= (hp x 5252)/rpm
So:
5252 = (Torque x RPM)/HP :P
So:
rpm= (hp x 5252)/tq
geeks...
Quote from: MrIncredible on January 22, 2009, 08:35:17 PM
So:
5252 = (Torque x RPM)/HP :P
[laugh]
Yes. Torque and Horsepower are always the same at 5252 RPM's.
Quote from: Jobu on January 22, 2009, 08:49:25 PM
[laugh]
Yes. Torque and Horsepower are always the same at 5252 RPM's.
I's an engineer.
Quote from: MrIncredible on January 22, 2009, 08:50:54 PM
I's an engineer.
[laugh]
I've met plenty of "engineers" that would have trouble with that one. Of course, they don't own Ducati's either.
Quote from: Jobu on January 22, 2009, 09:06:41 PM
[laugh]
I've met plenty of "engineers" that would have trouble with that one. Of course, they don't own Ducati's either.
I've met plenty of engineers that had trouble with the airplane on a conveyor belt thing. One of them did own a Ducati! [laugh]
Quote from: alfisti on January 22, 2009, 09:16:41 PM
I've met plenty of engineers that had trouble with the airplane on a conveyor belt thing. One of them did own a Ducati! [laugh]
Owning a ducati does`nt mean you are a genius ;D
Quote from: Jobu on January 22, 2009, 08:49:25 PM
[laugh]
Yes. Torque and Horsepower are always the same at 5252 RPM's.
Only using Imperial HP and ft-lb. ;D
Quote from: Speeddog on January 22, 2009, 10:48:57 PM
Only using Imperial HP and ft-lb. ;D
There's another system of measurement out there? :o
Quote100,000 HP was actually achieved on a test bed in the workshop with the 14 cylinder model, running the engine flat out at just under 102 RPM.
And of course they had the world's largest dyno on hand? I sort of question this, how did they manage to load the thing up to 100,000 HP? Something had to absorb a lot of energy. But maybe if you build those engines you have a way to performance test them at the shop.
I worked on similar but smaller engines (only about 50,000 HP each) at a power plant at Rock Fort, outside of Kingston Jamaica. They were made by MAN B&W. To inspect the cylinder walls you went on a walk inside the intake manifold, engine off and cooled down of course. I could walk in the intake manifold completely upright without ducking. The fuel they burn is very similar to roofing tar and needs to be preheated to get it liquid enough to be pumped and flow into the injectors. These engines had turbochargers with 6 foot or so diameter rotors that spun at 10,000 rpm. The contrast between the 103 RPM reciprocating engine and the 10,000 rpm turbocharger was interesting. The turbochargers came unglued twice while I was there and punched holes in the roof, but luckily no one was injured.
There was a steam turbine that ran from waste heat recovered from the Diesel engine exhausts. The engines I worked on would not pass any US EPA requirements as unfortunately there was an ugly brown plume coming from the stacks. Hope these newer ones burn cleaner.
Quote from: Jobu on January 22, 2009, 08:49:25 PM
[laugh]
Yes. Torque and Horsepower are always the same at 5252 RPM's.
Only when you're measuring in dinosaur-age "imperial" units.... There's a _different_ constant for those of us who measure in Newton Metres and KiloWatts...
big
[Edit: and I _should_ have read page two and seen that Speeddog had already made this comment...]
Quote from: bigiain on January 23, 2009, 12:06:26 AM
Only when you're measuring in dinosaur-age "imperial" units.... There's a _different_ constant for those of us who measure in Newton Metres and KiloWatts...
big
[Edit: and I _should_ have read page two and seen that Speeddog had already made this comment...]
kW = (Torque (nm) x RPM)/9549.29
I think the dinosaur unit actually wins in this case (one of the few times that'll happen). Numbers are easy to remember and generally make more sense for big America engines.
Quote from: Jobu on January 23, 2009, 12:52:25 AM
kW = (Torque (nm) x RPM)/9549.29
I think the dinosaur unit actually wins in this case (one of the few times that'll happen). Numbers are easy to remember and generally make more sense for big America engines.
'course, the _truly_ metricated would be using radians per second... [laugh]
big
Quote from: Jobu on January 23, 2009, 12:52:25 AM
kW = (Torque (nm) x RPM)/9549.29
I think the dinosaur unit actually wins in this case (one of the few times that'll happen). Numbers are easy to remember and generally make more sense for big America engines.
For most of us because we are used to the measurement. Kilowatt and Newton meter is used all the time in SAE journals. 1 hp = 0.7456999 kW, 1 ft lb = 1.35582
Quote from: Langanobob on January 22, 2009, 11:28:29 PM
And of course they had the world's largest dyno on hand? I sort of question this, how did they manage to load the thing up to 100,000 HP? Something had to absorb a lot of energy. But maybe if you build those engines you have a way to performance test them at the shop.
I worked on similar but smaller engines (only about 50,000 HP each) at a power plant at Rock Fort, outside of Kingston Jamaica. They were made by MAN B&W. To inspect the cylinder walls you went on a walk inside the intake manifold, engine off and cooled down of course. I could walk in the intake manifold completely upright without ducking. The fuel they burn is very similar to roofing tar and needs to be preheated to get it liquid enough to be pumped and flow into the injectors. These engines had turbochargers with 6 foot or so diameter rotors that spun at 10,000 rpm. The contrast between the 103 RPM reciprocating engine and the 10,000 rpm turbocharger was interesting. The turbochargers came unglued twice while I was there and punched holes in the roof, but luckily no one was injured.
There was a steam turbine that ran from waste heat recovered from the Diesel engine exhausts. The engines I worked on would not pass any US EPA requirements as unfortunately there was an ugly brown plume coming from the stacks. Hope these newer ones burn cleaner.
[/quote No problem maan.......just take a toke on this spliff and evrthing be ok ;D Dolph
Quote from: alfisti on January 22, 2009, 09:16:41 PM
I've met plenty of engineers that had trouble with the airplane on a conveyor belt thing. One of them did own a Ducati! [laugh]
But...no wind=no lift~!
[cheeky]
Quote from: Langanobob on January 22, 2009, 11:28:29 PM
---------------snip--------------
These engines had turbochargers with 6 foot or so diameter rotors that spun at 10,000 rpm.
---------------snip--------------
:o
No wonder they came unglued.
That's F'n nuts, are you sure about that 10,000 rpm?
From the pic (not on a ship), there is a shaft connected to the engine. They probably use a water brake similar to the old Heenan & Freud units.
Quote from: Capo on January 23, 2009, 11:20:35 AM
From the pic (not on a ship), there is a shaft connected to the engine. They probably use a water brake similar to the old Heenan & Freud units.
Yes. Of course. Heenan & Freud.
[laugh] Seriously though, I'm not familiar and a quick search yielded nothing. How does it work?
so....uh....how many gallons per mile?
can you tell i'm not an engineer? [laugh]
Quote from: alfisti on January 23, 2009, 11:29:16 AM
Yes. Of course. Heenan & Freud.
[laugh] Seriously though, I'm not familiar and a quick search yielded nothing. How does it work?
Its basically a water pump
What they don't know about dynamometers is not worth knowing.
http://www.froudehofmann.com/product_family_28.htm (http://www.froudehofmann.com/product_family_28.htm)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1963-Heenan-Froude-Worcester-Ship-Dynamometer-Advert_W0QQitemZ400023218583QQihZ027QQcategoryZ69515QQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1963-Heenan-Froude-Worcester-Ship-Dynamometer-Advert_W0QQitemZ400023218583QQihZ027QQcategoryZ69515QQcmdZViewItem)
QuoteThat's F'n nuts, are you sure about that 10,000 rpm?
Dang, I hate it when this happens. I made that post at midnight-30 and should have thought it through more better. It's been about 9 years and I did some remembering and it was closer to 8,000 RPM (still pretty fast :)) and I'm not sure about the exact 6 foot rotor diameter. It was a big sucker though. If I can find some pictures I'll post them. The rotor was aluminum, I think it was the compressor side that had the problems, and looking at the broken remnants you could see the internal area where the failure started, kind of like a star shaped crack. I'm not a metallurgist but the failure analysis stuff is always interesting. I think the cause was bad forging or bad material. Lots of politics and finger pointing and the manufacturer provided scatter shields like the ones on drag race clutches but there were no further problems.
QuoteNo problem maan.......just take a toke on this spliff and evrthing be ok
;D See you're an old Jamaica hand, either that or you live in NYC :). Try as I could, I never mastered Jamaican Patois, even though it's supposed to be based on Englsih. Lots of fun trying.
Seriously, the Jamaicans I worked with were skilled, serious about their jobs and in general were a lot smarter and harder working than their US power plant operator counterparts. Really enjoyed the Jamaican experience.
OK. So what's so magical about 5252 ? Why is torque and HP the same at that rpm?
Quote from: superjohn on January 23, 2009, 04:01:38 PM
OK. So what's so magical about 5252 ? Why is torque and HP the same at that rpm?
Can't tell you. Secret engineering mystery ;D
Quote from: MrIncredible on January 23, 2009, 04:09:02 PM
Can't tell you. Secret engineering mystery ;D
It's one of those Illuminati stone mason secrets isn't it?
Quote from: superjohn on January 23, 2009, 04:15:28 PM
It's one of those Illuminati stone mason secrets isn't it?
More like, you don't want to get into that level of geekiness. Seriously-we're in our own little world, and it's not pleasant.
HP=TORQUE X RPM / 5252
James Watt determined one horsepower as 150 pounds, 220 feet in one minute.
Convert 150 pounds of force to foot pounds torque.
Assume the force of 150 pounds is "applied" tangentially to a one foot radius circle. This would be 150 foot pounds torque.
Convert 220 feet in one minute to RPM.
The circumference of a one foot(from the assumption above) radius circle is 6.283186 ft. (Pi D)
The distance of 220 feet, divided by 6.283185 feet, equals 35.014 RPM
Factors are one horsepower,150 pounds of force (torque), and 35 RPM.
Constant (X) = 150 ft.lbs. * 35.014 RPM / 1hp
35.014 * 150 / 1 = 5252.1
Therefore the constant is equal to 5252
So then hp = torque * RPM / 5252
Below 5252 rpm any engine's torque number will always be higher than its horsepower number
Above 5252 rpm any engine's horsepower number will always be higher than its torque number
At 5252 rpm the horsepower and torque numbers will be exactly the same.
Quote from: Capo on January 23, 2009, 04:30:06 PM
James Watt determined one horsepower as 150 pounds, 220 feet in one minute.
Most observers familiar with horses and their capabilities estimate that Watt was either a bit optimistic or intended to under promise and over deliver; few horses can maintain that effort for long.
I prefer to use the watt as a unit of power measurement as it is based on physics (one joule of energy per second) rather than observations of a horse.
HP however produces the larger number and that is what people want to see
Quote from: Capo on January 23, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
I prefer to use the watt as a unit of power measurement as it is based on physics (one joule of energy per second) rather than observations of a horse.
HP however produces the larger number and that is what people want to see
Maybe I should start telling people the length of my junk in centimeters. :P
Quote from: MrIncredible on January 23, 2009, 05:00:37 PM
Maybe I should start telling people the length of my junk in centimeters. :P
I do that. That's right ladies. 7.5..... Uh huh...... :'(
Thanks for the explanation Capo. That makes sense. I figured it had something to do with the definition of HP.
Quote from: Capo on January 23, 2009, 04:30:06 PM
HP=TORQUE X RPM / 5252
James Watt determined one horsepower as 150 pounds, 220 feet in one minute.
Convert 150 pounds of force to foot pounds torque.
Assume the force of 150 pounds is "applied" tangentially to a one foot radius circle. This would be 150 foot pounds torque.
Convert 220 feet in one minute to RPM.
The circumference of a one foot(from the assumption above) radius circle is 6.283186 ft. (Pi D)
The distance of 220 feet, divided by 6.283185 feet, equals 35.014 RPM
Factors are one horsepower,150 pounds of force (torque), and 35 RPM.
Constant (X) = 150 ft.lbs. * 35.014 RPM / 1hp
35.014 * 150 / 1 = 5252.1
Therefore the constant is equal to 5252
So then hp = torque * RPM / 5252
Below 5252 rpm any engine's torque number will always be higher than its horsepower number
Above 5252 rpm any engine's horsepower number will always be higher than its torque number
At 5252 rpm the horsepower and torque numbers will be exactly the same.
Backed up by any dyno sheet which will show that the HP and torque curves for any engine always intersect at 5252 RPM. ;)
Quote from: Speedbag on January 23, 2009, 06:12:12 PM
Backed up by any dyno sheet which will show that the HP and torque curves for any engine always intersect at 5252 RPM. ;)
Now there's a man who knows his dyno sheets! [thumbsup] Much dyno experience? I have a bit. Even though it's borderline bench racing I find it exiting finding HP on the dyno during tuning. ;)