[Twostep]

Who's got the baddest motor on the planet ? This isn't mine , but it gets my vote for the Mother Of All Motors. A two stroke turbodiesel, used to propel large container ships.

* 112,000 horsepower at 102 (!) RPM
* 5,600,000 lbs/ft torque
* 89 feet long
* Bore 38 inches, stroke 98 inches
* Weighs 4,600,000 pounds (crank weighs 600,000 pounds)

hxxp://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

[#40Fan]

Damn, big flipping motor. Surprised that it can stay turning at 102 rpm's.

[mopar611]

I seen on the Discovery channel a motor so big the crank had to go in 2 pieces and had to be build inside the ship. Probably the same one you are speaking of.

I wonder how much fuel it consumes? I bet alot...

[Twostep]

1660 gallons an hour, it says. Not bad for 11 million cubic inches. For what it's worth, a 747 consumes approximately 3500 gallons an hour.
That diesel is supposed to be the most efficient internal combustion engine ever built.

[smilingjack]

And they are going out of style.

The new means of propelling large boats, like cruise ships, is electric motors. They run diesel generators to make electricity and have electric motors to drive the ships.

[smilingjack]

They are finally developing hydrogen fueled engines, same engine design as gasoline & propane engines, it used Hydrogen instead of for fuel, the by products are carrbon dioxide and water you can drink.

The U. S. Post office in Billings Montana has been using them for over 20 years.

At night they hook the cars up to a machine thay looks like a Pepsi vending machine and it fills up the tanks with hydrogen made from tap water, with electricity.

Ford is developing them for production, now we need more neculear power plants to make it worthwhile,

[Twostep]

Originally Posted by smilingjack

They run diesel generators to make electricity and have electric motors to drive the ships.

Ah - just like trains have been doing for years. They use a V-16 two stroke diesel generator, to power electric motors directly attached to the drive wheels. Supposed to work really well.
As for hydrogen/alternative fueled vehicles, the problem with hydrogen powered/hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is 1) availability and 2) the fact that it takes more energy and creates more pollution to generate the hydrogen itself than it does to just burn gasoline in the first place.

As you said, nuclear powerplant-generated hydrogen would be the only means I can think of that would save energy and create less pollution at the same time. But the way this country goes about building and operating nuke powerplants, good luck.

I think they should go full-out on ethanol-fueled vehicles. The main problem with ethanol is its affinity for water and therefore corrosion, and it's only 50 percent as efficient as gasoline, therefore your MPG drops by half. Right now, a blend of anything over 10 percent (commonly used) creates trouble that they haven't overcome at this time. But, I'd say it's an easier deal than hydrogen fuel cells, by a long shot.

It's gonna happen - something has to happen. We can't just keep using oil at the rate of 7 million barrels a day (US only), let the Middle East keep us by the balls and pollute ourselves to death. And, that oil will run out some day. We can grow a supply of ethanol for a hell of a long time.

[smilingjack]

Originally Posted by Twostep

Ah - just like trains have been doing for years. They use a V-16 two stroke diesel generator, to power electric motors directly attached to the drive wheels. Supposed to work really well.

Exactly the same. Large 250 to 500 ton mining trucks work the same way. diesel electric.

As for hydrogen/alternative fueled vehicles, the problem with hydrogen powered/hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is 1) availability and 2) the fact that it takes more energy and creates more pollution to generate the hydrogen itself than it does to just burn gasoline in the first place.

Not necseearily, it can be made from any electric source, wind, water, conventional fossil fuels, wave power, or nuke. even as a by product of nukes since extreme heat such as found in a reactor breaks water down into oxygen and hydrogen. Just put in a loop to collect it first before cooling the existing reactors.

As you said, nuclear powerplant-generated hydrogen would be the only means I can think of that would save energy and create less pollution at the same time. But the way this country goes about building and operating nuke powerplants, good luck.

I think they should go full-out on ethanol-fueled vehicles. The main problem with ethanol is its affinity for water and therefore corrosion, and it's only 50 percent as efficient as gasoline, therefore your MPG drops by half. Right now, a blend of anything over 10 percent (commonly used) creates trouble that they haven't overcome at this time. But, I'd say it's an easier deal than hydrogen fuel cells, by a long shot.

Yo have to keep it from diluting but alky itself does not cause a bad rust problem, the british used alky for years. It will run in any existing engine if the jets are made larger, it takes more volume of fuel to make the same (less actually) power. I had a M.G. that ran fine on it for a couple of years. You need to use something like castor oil because alky does not have the lubrication properties of gasoline. The castor oi in th alky also prevents the rust.

Hydrogen fuel cells are perfected now, have been for years, they are heavy but safe as a Oxy / Acetaline rig, used the same principal, disolving the flammable in a media.

Burn all that FREE GRAIN we ship to people who would be better off learning birth control or starving, heavens no


It's gonna happen - something has to happen. We can't just keep using oil at the rate of 7 million barrels a day (US only), let the Middle East keep us by the balls and pollute ourselves to death. And, that oil will run out some day. We can grow a supply of ethanol for a hell of a long time.

The alternatives, many of them have been around for years but big business could not make enough money off them.


Ever hear of the offenhauser engine ?

4 cyl, 750 H.P

Why didn't cars have them 50 years ago ? NO FUEL SALES

[mr. ringo]

do you have any head gaskets laying around for a offy?

[smilingjack]

They have been out of production for many years now. And I believe they were custom made back then too. You could probably buy a new ford of chevvy engine for the same price.

[HotRodTodd]

Originally Posted by mr. ringo

do you have any head gaskets laying around for a offy?

FelPro has them, and good ole Mr Gasket can still hook you up.

[smilingjack]

Originally Posted by HotRodTodd

FelPro has them, and good ole Mr Gasket can still hook you up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH good one HRT

or did you fail to read the whole thread

I was talking about Offenhouser ENGINES,

you may be too young to remember them,

they were the # 1 racing engine at the Indy 500 for years

4 cylinders 750 H.P fast fast extra fast

[mr. ringo]

i was just screwing with you offys never had head gaskets. the head and cylinders are one piece. you had to have special made tools to work on the head you had to reach through the cylinders.

[HotRodTodd]

Originally Posted by smilingjack

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH good one HRT

or did you fail to read the whole thread

I was talking about Offenhouser ENGINES,

you may be too young to remember them,

they were the # 1 racing engine at the Indy 500 for years

4 cylinders 750 H.P fast fast extra fast

Yes i am familiar with Offenhouser and i am an old fart. We restored a vintage 1950 sprint car that had an Offy 4cyl motor in it last spring for a collector. It had the same motor 700hp, supposedly purchased from Andy Granatelli (spelling) sometime back in the 60's.
I don't know how many different versions of motors Offy made, but this motor had Offenhouser embossed in all the castings, and it DEFINATELY had a head gasket.
If you call FelPro in Chicago and ask them for thier racing products catalog, they do have a listing for most vintage race motors and the most current ones as well.
If they don't have it, thier specialty products division will make you one. Mr Gasket is also quite willing to help with any obsolete or custom gasket when needed.

sterling engines can save the world....no profit in that though cause everyone knows that he who dies with the most gold....WINS!

In response to twostep about ethanol.. Have you heard of "flex fuel" vehicles that are currently on the market? They are designed to run on either gasoline or E-85, which is a gasoline ethanol blend... But it is far greater than the 10% you are mentioning as common... E-85 is basically exactly what the name sounds like... 85% ethanol... The vehicle can actually tell exactly what blend of fuel you have in the tank as it uses a kind of voltage resistance test to determine the percentage of ethanol.. You are correct in it being less efficient as is has a lower btu per liter potential than gasoline... Todays vehicles have very good evaportive emissions systems on them that basically seal out any chance of any damaging amount of water absorbtion... And corrosion is handled by using different metals in the fuel system.... Same as a straight alcohol car... there are not enough ethanol producing facilities to handle any amount of large demand and the process is still rather costly so is hasn't made a large appearance as of yet... but on a side note biodiesel is big now.. made from basically refined vegetable oil... it shows the most promise yet it terms of mileage, power, and ease of manufacture... the main issues to date are that's is extremely hydroscopic and has poor temperment to extreme cold... I think we should all drive diesels anyway though.... better power.... better fuel economy.... and hell who doesn't like turbochargers???????

[smilingjack]

HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

Make it from water with electricity from a million sources, windmills, solar cells, nukes, use it in existing systems and piplines for heating houses and cooking and with hydrides in cars and trucks with a minor modification of the fuel intake system.

It is a by-product that is now dumped into the atmosphere. USE IT !

A UNLIMITED, RENEWABLE FUEL SUPPLY that does not pollute

[mili]

SJ you say they produce CO2. WHere the hell is C coming from????
Burning H results in H2O nothing more

Yes Nuclear IS the future. Go and read in sciam how you can get almost no nuclear waste reactors built now:
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=...B283414B7F0000

mili

[smilingjack]

Hydrogen vehicle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A hydrogen car is an automobile which uses hydrogen as its primary source of power for locomotion. These cars generally use the hydrogen in one of two methods: combustion or fuel-cell conversion. In combustion, the hydrogen is "burned" in engines in fundamentally the same method as traditional gasoline cars. In fuel-cell conversion, the hydrogen is turned into electricity through fuel cells which then powers electric motors. With either method, the only byproduct from the spent hydrogen is water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no "C" or Carbon Dioxide generated in the process, only H2O is produced as a "by-product.

However the engine takes in "Air" which already contains CO2 in abundance along with other trace gasses, many of which are burned and the "exaust" that comes out the tailpipe is water and (pre-existing) CO2 and surviving trace gases.

So while you can drink the exaust, you can not breathe the gaseous portion until it recombines with the atmosphere replacing the burned Oxygen. .

[t160hq]

CO2 is a by product of the hydrogen production process.

While it's true no CO2 is produced when burning hydrogen as a fuel. It's taken out before burned. So CO2 is still a problem. So it's a flawed solution at best. Not to mention it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen then if you just burned the fuel you used to make the hydrogen. That applies to whatever fuel source you use (gas, coal, or fuel oil). Of course if you use wind or nuclear it will negate the pollution problem for production. But not the co2 by product issue associated with production.

hxxp://www.jmcatalysts.com/pct/marketshome.asp?marketid=27&id=346

t160hq

1997 Chevy 1 ton dually diesel converted to WVO (waste veggy oil) I have put approx. 65,000 miles on it with the conversion and it runs better than ever. Best part is FREE FUEL !!!!!!!

[JT]

WVO, canola and other alternative feuls are awesome, but they're still a hydrocarbon, so they still produce C02. Since you guys are talking about CO2 emmissions I'm gonna go on a small environmental rant. I read in the paper last week that C02 levels in our atmosphere are 27% higher than any time in the last 600,000 years. (based on ice cores drilled in the antarctic) We're definately burning enough fossil feuls right now. Global warming is real folks. The warmer water temps in the Atlantic are what's feuling all the nasty hurricanes as well as changing weather patterns over the entire globe. Don't know what the solution is myself, but we seriously need to start thinking about this and come up with some kind of game plan to deal with it.

[smilingjack]

Originally Posted by t160hq

CO2 is a by product of the hydrogen production process.
While it's true no CO2 is produced when burning hydrogen as a fuel. It's taken out before burned. So CO2 is still a problem. So it's a flawed solution at best. Not to mention it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen then if you just burned the fuel you used to make the hydrogen. That applies to whatever fuel source you use (gas, coal, or fuel oil). Of course if you use wind or nuclear it will negate the pollution problem for production. But not the co2 by product issue associated with production.
hxxp://www.jmcatalysts.com/pct/marketshome.asp?marketid=27&id=346
t160hq

That is only true of that one method of production.
There are several other methods, including the leading current method, Electrolisis which produces only Hydrogen and Oxygen,
Dam thing looks like a vending machine and plugs into the wall. Vents pure Oxygen to the air, like having a big tree in your garage

I wouldn't say CO2 is the biggest issue with fossil fuel combustion gasses.... it's the CO that causes more environmental issues... I would have the say the biggest reason for a global CO2 increase would be moderization and deforrestation... We have thrown off the balance between the oxygen consumers and the oxygen producers.. I can't quite remember the exact statistic, but the rain forrest had an extremely large percentage of worldwide 02 production and CO2 reduction... Although you have to consider.... on the global warming issue...... the earth went from entirely tropical during the dinosaur ages into a global iceage... who's really to say that we are really effecting that much at all.... there is always the possibility that outside any of our influence that regardless of what happens it is just a natural occurance..... just something to consider

[t160hq]

So what about the other side of the problem. Say we do come up with a efficent method of producing hydrogen as a fuel. Producing hydrogen on a industral scale will be sending an lot of oxygen into the air.

I can see the next problem is going to be too much oxygen in the air not enough co2. All the plant life will be dying. Might be worse then a bit of bad weather on the scale of things.

Best to sort this stuff out now instead of a newer bigger problem 100 years down the road.

t160hq

on a side note wasn't he wenkel engine designed to be able to run on hydrogen as a fuel

[keltic]

Originally Posted by smilingjack

The alternatives, many of them have been around for years but big business could not make enough money off them.
Ever hear of the offenhauser engine ?
4 cyl, 750 H.P
Why didn't cars have them 50 years ago ? NO FUEL SALES

Offenhauser, these were remarkable racing engines in their day. However, the keywords are racing and their day. They were not made for the street nor did a 750HP 4cyl Offy have the durability for everyday driving. But as with most things developed for racing they did help innovate the newer more modern engines out there today. As far as fuel economy I don’t think that the Offy engines were ever going to win a prize but if not for them engine technology may not be as far advanced as it is now.
As far as fuel sale go, Oil companies would have loved 750HP Offys in everyday streetcars. I’ll guarantee you they didn’t get 30mpg.

[keltic]

Originally Posted by Iammatt219

on a side note wasn't he wenkel engine designed to be able to run on hydrogen as a fuel

Any internal combustion engine can run on Hydrogen. The biggest problem with that is corrosion and lubrication contamination. Water causes and speeds corrosion in an engine from the cylinder walls to the exhaust pipe. In addition, no set of rings is going to stop water from eventually bleeding into the crankcase and turning your oil into a corrosion bath. That is some of the problems that have to be worked on to make Hydrogen a suitable long-term solution in internal combustion engines. Its also why there is more money being spent on developing hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity and in turn power electric motors for automotive transportation.

[smilingjack]

Originally Posted by t160hq

So what about the other side of the problem. Say we do come up with a efficent method of producing hydrogen as a fuel. Producing hydrogen on a industral scale will be sending an lot of oxygen into the air.
I can see the next problem is going to be too much oxygen in the air not enough co2. All the plant life will be dying. Might be worse then a bit of bad weather on the scale of things.
Best to sort this stuff out now instead of a newer bigger problem 100 years down the road.
t160hq

Wel could use a little more O2 since as the man said we are cutting down the trees that produce it at a alarming rate (so much for a paperless computer society), aand since the O2% is only 18% to 20% it will take a while to increase it, and there are a lot more O2 users every day too.

In addition the hydrogen will be used in processes (internal combustion engines) that will also use the oxygen. In fact it may be more eficent to save the O2 and inject it into the engines like they do with NO2 (nitrous Oxide) now.

Plenty of O2 users and CO2 exhalers around
Thanks to those who do not practice birth control
mostly in Asia and Africa

WORLD POPULATION;
1 billion reached in 1802.
2 billion reached in 1927.
3 billion reached in 1961.
4 billion reached in 1974.
5 billion reached in 1987.
6 billion reached in 1999.
7 billion reached in 2009 ?

BY 2100 how many 1115 billion, 16 billion we will have plenty of problems other than O2 & CO2 to worry about

Problems of the 1800's were solved in the 1900's
Problems of the 1900's were solved in the 2000's
Problems of the 2000's will be solved in the 2100's

Since we will all be dead and gone we will solve the present problems and not worry any more about the next problem than previous generations did

in response to keltic.... Water (H20) is a natural byproduct of all combustion engines.... obviously not as much water from fossil fuels as a hydrogen fuel.. but i wouldn't say that it would cause serious issues.... in fact i would have to say that it would be beneficial... water in the oil in small amounts is common... i would have to say that about 99% of cars driving right now have some in there... at least until the motor comes up to full operating temperature and it is ran through the PCV system through the motor.... now i don't know if you have ever seen a motor apart after a blown head gasket.... but you can tell right away which cylinder had the leak... it is perfectly clean... like brand new... i have actually cured a lot of running issues with cars by simply running water through the motor while it was running.... the only problem i see with it is cylinder wall lubrication although if we were to make a water soluble lubricant.... then it wouldn't be too much of an issue any longer... the one thing that sucks most likely whatever "revolutionary" new fuel we come up with... it will be overpriced with a sea of corruption floating around it just like the major oil companies of today.... we might as well all just lube up... it's better than getting it dry