Further to my 16.33pm post . Water injection has been used to increase power and performance particulary in the world of (tractor pulling) where standard farm tractors or the more sophisticated specials have been built and these engines are double turbocharged to increase power by anything up to 10 TIMES the original spec . They then inject water into the manifold at high pressure to not only greatly increase boost but also to prevent pistons from melting under these extreme conditions .I have been in the earthmoving business for over 50 years and have owned hundreds of diesel engines over the years . My own chief engineer was involved in this sport and he built his own machine using two Russian V12 diesels of 39 litres each and coupled to a home made gearbox and diff. I have stated before on this site that the U S airforce in its early B52s with 8 Pratt and Witney J57 engines had a 1200 gallon water tank in the fuselage and water was injected into all eight engines combustion chambers on take-off to increase thrust ( FACT ) For 25 years I have had a close friend who flew these aircraft for many years)
Not sure that any flash off into steam would give an increase in engine power, but there are positives that will come from from reduced combustion temperatures.
Better cylinder lubrication
Ability to increase engine speed as often a limiting factor is high exhaust temps, due to external cooling parameters in the tropics
With lower exhaust temps, then products such as Vanadium Pentoxide will not be formed, (these manifest as a hard sticky substance) which can gum up exhaust valves and other components and cause hot spots and premature failure.
Improved cooling of the cylinder liners and internal piston surfaces (pistons are cooled internally from a separate cooling circuit)
Very importantly, the water in the fuel reduces the combustion temperaturer by some 100 degrees C and as such suppresses the formation of Thermal NOx.....hence a greener combustion process (without using additional equipment or processes.)
I am not a bit surprised that EGTs are much lower for MSAR2 than HFO this goes along with my view that the water content of MSAR2 will exhaust as steam giving extra power output and dampening the high temperatures of HFO Again just my observation What do you think DPE
Still alongside in Port Gentil, had a run ashore the other night....only local though and still a bit of a blur
Agree with you ArgyII about the GOM, but think once the POC confirmed as successful, then the GOM will come out of the closet, and that will form the '' menage a trois '' (excuse my french) and this should add a solid weight to the SP, strength is what we are looking for, and they dont come much bigger than Aramco and Maersk, each of them being powerful heavyweights
Until recently (the last 4 years) managed to avoid Africa in what is now some 43 years connected with the sea in one form or another, now I have added Liberia, Ghana, Namibia, Gabon and soon will be Nigeria to my Portfolio, the best so far was Namibia followed by Liberia (amazingly enough)
Good to see so many people chipping in with their knowledge of Africa, guess we got a good cross section on the BB
Strike here in Port Gentil still pretty strong and costing us a pretty penny I can say.
Oh just found out the exhaust temperature of MSAR2 is 100 degrees lower than HFO, thats a talking point in another post I guess.
Thanks. So on that basis, if IW believes 99% certainty of LONO success if PoC success, and LONOs won't be over until q1 2015, the PoC success will presumably include any rise pre GOM t/o, and the SP will go flat for 6 months or so.
The GOMs involved are likely to be waiting for a key decision on MSAR2 before considering how many MMU's to install for MSAR and MSAR2 generation before going ahead and producing it for power stations. The Saudi's, however, are already going ahead with production and combustion at a power plant. MMU's are likely to be installed during refinery maintenance time so as to minimise down time and lost revenue.
I anticipate GOM's will start preparing in the region of January to February 2015, which is when I think the LONO will be completed (4000 hours from mid April plus 3 months minimum to incorporate MSAR2 production, unexpected stops during the LONO, engine deconstruction upon 4000 hours runtime, comprehensive analysis, report writing, report critique and ammendments.
I'm going with the assumption that the POC will be successful. The main risk for me was any unexpected problems in phase 1 with getting the fuel to the ship and inputting it for combusiton. I had confidence in the combustion as this has been tested comprehensively on land. The findings for MSAR2 combustion on the ship have so far have been in accordance with the land tests. Why would it be any different for the heavy load testing?
If the POC is successful, Ian Williams is 99% confident that the LONO will be successful. Once this is complete, then the SP will rocket as much speculation for a takeover by a GOM will be entirely valid.
Therefore, between now and year's end I will be topping up monthly.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NETbuilder and Interactive Data.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.