It's all about the cubic inches!

[Orbit]

Fit this into your mini....

[sbutler]

Unreal thats all I can say.

[Orbit]

displacement of 25,480 liters :

[Outbackjack]

Truly amazing, I think it is the same place in Korea where there was a 60 minutes report on a ship building yard there.

[AWD Chaser]

You could just strap down about 8 torana drag cars... lol - funny... looks like a normal engine with tiny people crawling all over it. Kool find.

[Lukeyson]

i was waiting for that link to be posted this week . lol it is every other

[clontarf_x]

Pretty damn impressive, seeing our little engine technology on a much, MUCH larger scale

[Falcon Freak]

Impressive. Interesting to note that the engine speed range is from 92 to 102 RPM. The website implies that the engine was built in Japan. But the writing in the second from last picture is clearly Korean and Chinese.

More information about this engine with metric units

FF

[Jet-Star]

:

[LUXO_8]

Originally Posted by Jesse06

:

perhaps it is, but how about finding the link to where it was previously posted......

[Paull]

I think you will find that the majority of machinery eg Mistubishi main engines, boilers and purifiers, Daihatsu alternators etc etc will all be made in Korea but under license from owners in japan.

The standard procedure for main engine manufacture/installation is to manufacture & assemble locally, put it onto a very large barge and then then float it across the bay to the ship being built and then crane it into position. you simply would never ever think of making something this big and then exporting it from japan to Korea.

At any rate, the majority of ships that I have sailed on have all been made in Japan, however, most of the new ones are mainly made in Korea. This is also very much the case for most new FPSO vessels. Even Modec, worlds largest FPSO owner/ builder/operator which is Japanese owned, makes most of their FPSO's in Korea as well.

Paul

[Quadcams]

Thats one crazy motor, hows the power specs on the 14cyl version.

108,920hp@102rpm

5,608,312lb/ft@102rpm. :

[xagsjoe]

Originally Posted by Lowride260

Thats one crazy motor, hows the power specs on the 14cyl version.

108,920hp@102rpm

5,608,312lb/ft@102rpm. :

I wanna see the dyno they used :nutsycuck

[70caprigt3k]

Imagine the size of the turbo they use.....

[AUIIIXR8]

I move to say that all threads answered with REPOST require a link to the original.

Reposts or not I haven't seen it! Awesome. Just gotta get a truck big enough. I'd actually need 2 of these engines one for the truck and one for the fuel tanker to import the fuel for it.

Sorry Jesse06. Not picking on you.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by AU2XLSV8

I move to say that all threads answered with REPOST require a link to the original.

Reposts or not I haven't seen it! Awesome. Just gotta get a truck big enough. I'd actually need 2 of these engines one for the truck and one for the fuel tanker to import the fuel for it.

Sorry Jesse06. Not picking on you.

I agree.

And phooooar! That is unbelievable!

But is it Euro3 compliant?

[PH47]

Wonder what MPG it gets.. :P

You think WE have an issue with fuel prices!!!

[Paull]

I think fuel comsumption would be in the vicinity of 60 to 100 tonnes of Heavy Fuel Oil per day @ MCR (maximum continuous rating).

Paul

[XR666T]

GOOD GOD that's insane!

[TUF_302]

Holy crap!!!, they make the inline falcon 6 look like a match stick engine!!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by SVO_XR6

Holy crap!!!, they make the inline falcon 6 look like a match stick engine!!

But still it's an inline engine!!

[Van D]

Holy Jebus.

That is all.

[nick81xd]

haha I6 built by ompa lompas lol

[LethalLeigh]

That'd fit in a Mini surely, just lengthen the bonnet a little...

[Wokkas]

Jeeezuz! Have a look at the crankshaft and the journals... Ha ha ha ha.. I'm inlove.



Surely though, a dirty great deisel like that couldn't be anywhere near as efficient and economical as a gas turbine or steam turbine engine....

[Paull]

Originally Posted by Wokkas

Jeeezuz! Have a look at the crankshaft and the journals... Ha ha ha ha.. I'm inlove.



Surely though, a dirty great deisel like that couldn't be anywhere near as efficient and economical as a gas turbine or steam turbine engine....

Your quite wrong on that one. Gas turbines produce a huge amount of energy from a small (physically speaking) unit. However, they burn fuel like no other. Their mechanical efficiency is quite good however their thermodynamic efficiency is absolute crap as all of the heat goes straight out the exhaust.

With respect to steam turbines, you now need to factor in the boilers into the equation. Once again, poor thermodynamic efficiency, hence the useage of Bled steam, exhaust gas economisers, condenser pre-heating etc. Typical power stations will also expand the steam through out the HP, MP and LP turbines, thus increasing efficiency.

However, none of the above come near the thermodynamic efficieny (and thus overall efficiency) of a large Slow Speed diesel engine, hence their popular usage on nearly all merchant ships. Don't forget that warm through times are greatly shortened on motor ships as compared to steam ships. Your workforce also does need to be as skilled as well.

An example of consumption: The last motor ship that I was on produced 16,000 kilowatt and burned 64 tonne of heavy fuel oil per 24 hours at MCR. Whereas on the gas ships (Karratha to Japan), produce 17,000 kilowatts and burn 140 tonne of gas (they burn the cargo) per 24 hours.

Paul

[Wokkas]

Cheers for the info Paul.

I would have thought these days in such large applications, that thermal energy loss in a turbine engine would be less than energy losses in an internal combustion engine. But obviously not.

You sound like you know a thing or two in this area. :

James.

[Paull]

Originally Posted by Wokkas

Cheers for the info Paul.

I would have thought these days in such large applications, that thermal energy loss in a turbine engine would be less than energy losses in an internal combustion engine. But obviously not.

You sound like you know a thing or two in this area. :

James.

James,
Yes, turbines are very good in respect to continous motion, as compared to reciporacating engines. However, as mentioned above, it is the boilers that not only lose heat like nothing else, but it is also the heat transfer. That is, the method of converting the energy from the fuel to that of the water/steam. This is where you lose big time as compared to the energy conversion from igniting the fuel oil in a slow speed diesel engine combsution chamber.

Don't forget that these slow speeds have their fuel heated to 130 degrees celcius and have very good timing systems as to the commencement of injection and completion of injection. So much so that you get a very good flame front and thus, a good clean burn and hence good energy conversion to the piston.

Yes, recips are crap at mechanical losses - stopping every cycle, but it is the overall efficiency that counts. Another way of looking at it is that there are probably less than 100 merchant ships using steam propulsion as against 10's of thousands using diesel engines around the world.

When it comes to large Naval vessels as well land base power stations, this is where steam well and truly comes into its own. Obviously, nuclear energy is all steam based as well.

Paul

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by Paull

Your quite wrong on that one. Gas turbines produce a huge amount of energy from a small (physically speaking) unit. However, they burn fuel like no other. Their mechanical efficiency is quite good however their thermodynamic efficiency is absolute crap as all of the heat goes straight out the exhaust.

With respect to steam turbines, you now need to factor in the boilers into the equation. Once again, poor thermodynamic efficiency, hence the useage of Bled steam, exhaust gas economisers, condenser pre-heating etc. Typical power stations will also expand the steam through out the HP, MP and LP turbines, thus increasing efficiency.

However, none of the above come near the thermodynamic efficieny (and thus overall efficiency) of a large Slow Speed diesel engine, hence their popular usage on nearly all merchant ships. Don't forget that warm through times are greatly shortened on motor ships as compared to steam ships. Your workforce also does need to be as skilled as well.

An example of consumption: The last motor ship that I was on produced 16,000 kilowatt and burned 64 tonne of heavy fuel oil per 24 hours at MCR. Whereas on the gas ships (Karratha to Japan), produce 17,000 kilowatts and burn 140 tonne of gas (they burn the cargo) per 24 hours.

Paul

I use to live up in Karratha (was involved in propate/butane tanks on Burrup), very intresting ships @ woodside.