OT: Large Transplant?

You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
<http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>


Regards

Richard

> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
> <http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>
>
>

Whats the CO2 emmission level; bet the R Tax is a bit hefty )

RichardB wrote:
> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
> <http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Richard

5 and a half MILLION pounds feet of torque, Jeezuz, would love to see
the size of the halfshafts........

Dave

Dave R wrote:
> RichardB wrote:
>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>>
>> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
>> <http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Richard
>
> 5 and a half MILLION pounds feet of torque, Jeezuz, would love to see
> the size of the halfshafts........
>
> Dave
>
The shafts on big ships I've seen are over 1 metre diameter.

Steve

On 2006-06-18, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> The shafts on big ships I've seen are over 1 metre diameter.

You can see a drive shaft coming out the back of the engine on one of
the pics on the web page, from the scale of the chap near it I'd say
it probably comes up to his waist.. It's a big 'un.

Despite all that the engine looks very simple, and if it wasn't for
the occasional chap standing on it, it'd look like an old vintage car
engine!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:41:21 +0100, RichardB
<rDOTbush@btconnectDOTcom> wrote:

>
>You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>
>http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
><http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>

This is a page update - sadly they seem to have left out the pictures
of the ladders going down into the casing. Pretty impressive all the
same, though.


--
Coming quite soon:
http://www.ulrc.net

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, Steve wrote:

>>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?

Thinking of transplanting how do they get an engine from the works to the
boat it is destined for? 2,300 tonnes is not particulary portable...

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, Steve wrote:
>
>>>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>
> Thinking of transplanting how do they get an engine from the works to the
> boat it is destined for? 2,300 tonnes is not particulary portable...
>
I would guess it is transported in bits and assembled on site - although
some awful big bits get transported by road, usually in the wee hours of
Sunday morning. Another alternative would be the factory is along side a
dock and it can be directly loaded onto a ship - the shipbuilding yard
would certainly have facilities for handling weights of this size.
JD

JD wrote:
> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, Steve wrote:
>>
>>>>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>> Thinking of transplanting how do they get an engine from the works to the
>> boat it is destined for? 2,300 tonnes is not particulary portable...
>>
> I would guess it is transported in bits and assembled on site - although
> some awful big bits get transported by road, usually in the wee hours of
> Sunday morning. Another alternative would be the factory is along side a
> dock and it can be directly loaded onto a ship - the shipbuilding yard
> would certainly have facilities for handling weights of this size.
> JD

I used to work for a shipping company many years ago ... the engines are
fully assembled at the factory (often Switzerland for the Sulzers, as
far as I recall) then dismantled & assembled into the ships after launch
- launch weight is obviously kept as low as possible.

Karen

--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast

Karen Gallagher wrote:

> JD wrote:
>> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>>> Thinking of transplanting how do they get an engine from the works to
>>> the boat it is destined for? 2,300 tonnes is not particulary portable...
>>>
>> I would guess it is transported in bits and assembled on site - although
>> some awful big bits get transported by road, usually in the wee hours of
>> Sunday morning. Another alternative would be the factory is along side a
>> dock and it can be directly loaded onto a ship - the shipbuilding yard
>> would certainly have facilities for handling weights of this size.
>> JD
>
> I used to work for a shipping company many years ago ... the engines are
> fully assembled at the factory (often Switzerland for the Sulzers, as
> far as I recall) then dismantled & assembled into the ships after launch
> - launch weight is obviously kept as low as possible.
>
> Karen
>
That confirms what I would expect.
JD

Dave R wrote:
> RichardB wrote:
>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>>
>> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
>> <http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Richard
>
> 5 and a half MILLION pounds feet of torque, Jeezuz, would love to see
> the size of the halfshafts........

I like the way the fuel consumption is calculated - per *HP* per hour!
I guess it makes it look a little better that way! 1660 gallons
of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting makes the V8 seem
positively frugal!

Matt

Matthew Maddock wrote:

> Dave R wrote:
>> RichardB wrote:
>>> You guys are always transplanting engines. How about this one?
>>>
>>> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
>>> <http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eccsshb/12cyl/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> 5 and a half MILLION pounds feet of torque, Jeezuz, would love to see
>> the size of the halfshafts........
>
> I like the way the fuel consumption is calculated - per *HP* per hour!
> I guess it makes it look a little better that way! 1660 gallons
> of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting makes the V8 seem
> positively frugal!
>
> Matt

Normal method of quoting fuel consumption for marine and stationary engines.
Lets buyers see whether a larger or smaller engine uses less fuel, knowing
how much power is needed - i.e. do we get an engine that is operating near
to maximum power most of the time or a larger one and operate it below
maximum power.
JD

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:57:36 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:

> 1660 gallons of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting

Heavy Fuel Oil not diesel. ISTR that HFO is somewhat thicker and muckier
than nice clean diesel. Probably needs a preheater before injection,
remember these engines rotate slowly, 102rpm (less than 2 revolutions
each second) so you don't need the rapid explosive burn that a car
engine, going at a few thousand rpm, does.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On or around Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:27:08 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:57:36 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:
>
>> 1660 gallons of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting
>
>Heavy Fuel Oil not diesel. ISTR that HFO is somewhat thicker and muckier
>than nice clean diesel. Probably needs a preheater before injection,
>remember these engines rotate slowly, 102rpm (less than 2 revolutions
>each second) so you don't need the rapid explosive burn that a car
>engine, going at a few thousand rpm, does.

yeah, fuel oil is disgusting stuff.

Thing in the notional geographic last time or the time before about
nanotechnology - one of the things they mention is a "filter" which you pass
crude oil through and get diesel out the other side...

's not got it on the online thing though.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The boys are dreaming wicked or of the bucking ranches of the night and
the jollyrodgered sea." Dylan Thomas (1914 - 1953) Under milk wood

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:57:36 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:
>
>> 1660 gallons of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting
>
> Heavy Fuel Oil not diesel. ISTR that HFO is somewhat thicker and muckier

Does HFO not come under the "diesel" umbrella? I'm just asking - I
don't know myself!

Now presumably we are going to get into a discussion of whether diesel
refers to the fuel or the engine design I guess?!

Matt

Matthew Maddock wrote:
> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:57:36 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:
>>
>>> 1660 gallons of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting
>>
>>
>> Heavy Fuel Oil not diesel. ISTR that HFO is somewhat thicker and muckier
>
>
> Does HFO not come under the "diesel" umbrella? I'm just asking - I
> don't know myself!
>
> Now presumably we are going to get into a discussion of whether diesel
> refers to the fuel or the engine design I guess?!
>
> Matt
>
In France, the engine is referred to as Diesel, but the fuel is Gasoil.

Stuart

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:19:28 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:

> Does HFO not come under the "diesel" umbrella?

Not in my book but then I make distinction between kerosene, paraffin,
Jet A1, 28sec heating oil etc.

> Now presumably we are going to get into a discussion of whether diesel
> refers to the fuel or the engine design I guess?!

In the case of the BFO subject of this thread it is the design. Diesel
type engines can be built to burn almost anything that can be "injected"
by some means. I bet with a bit of enginiuty and getting the air/fuel mix
right you could burn coal dust or flour.


--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:19:28 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:
>
>
>>Does HFO not come under the "diesel" umbrella?
>
>
> Not in my book but then I make distinction between kerosene, paraffin,
> Jet A1, 28sec heating oil etc.
>
>
>>Now presumably we are going to get into a discussion of whether diesel
>>refers to the fuel or the engine design I guess?!
>
>
> In the case of the BFO subject of this thread it is the design. Diesel
> type engines can be built to burn almost anything that can be "injected"
> by some means. I bet with a bit of enginiuty and getting the air/fuel mix
> right you could burn coal dust or flour.
>
>
Yep, the original engine design by Herr Diesel burnt coal dust.

Stuart

Matthew Maddock wrote:
> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:57:36 +0100, Matthew Maddock wrote:
>>
>>> 1660 gallons of diesel per hour at the most efficient setting
>>
>> Heavy Fuel Oil not diesel. ISTR that HFO is somewhat thicker and muckier
>
> Does HFO not come under the "diesel" umbrella? I'm just asking - I
> don't know myself!

We did some "forensic" research on an HFO cock up for a marine loss
adjustors a few years ago - where an entire tanker ship of the stuff
froze up so badly they had to dig it out of the tanks. Its horrible
stuff - looks and handles like tarry sand ! The case hung around who
knew what was in the tanks, when they knew it, and was the test they
used the right one to have used under the circumstances.

Steve

size is not important
so my wife tells me...................
sob.