I believe I can lay claim to introducing this debate about a year ago and I am more convinced than ever that my theory on this matter is correct . If I am wrong and there is no benefit from all these experiments of running ships engines on a mix of HFO and water then we shall all be back in the workhouse pronto. I have never once suggested there was any calorific value in water or steam . If you want to know the power of steam just go to an open day at Kempton Park pumping station where there is two massive steam engines that used to pump 19 million gallons of water a day into the Queen Mary reservoir . The same expanding steam powers three separate cylinders . Or go to the River Don engine in Sheffield and that engine could roll 16 inch thick steel plate again a 3 cylinder engine using the same expanding steam in all 3 cylinders . No fuel of any calorific value ever entered the cylinders of these amazing beasts. MSAR is made up of three different commodities . HFO , AN EMULSIFIER and WATER . Maersk are already using HFO, they cant run engines on an emulsifier so our expected millions in profits have to come from the water content of MSAR . I rest my case !!!!!!!! P S The Kempton Park engines weigh 800 tons each . Do go and see them £££££££
One pretreatment option may be ultrasound. When blasted with ultrasonic waves, liquids can undergo a process called acoustic cavitation, in which bubbles form and violently implode. SulphCo is developing small, modular ultrasound desulfurization units based on this effect. The company, located in Sparks, Nev., claims its process can both snap loose sulfur atoms and lighten the crude, resulting in 30 to 50 percent less sulfur and about one third more diesel and kerosene. "If SulphCo's process works, it's an elegant solution to part of our problem
PH, basic point. Where did the steam get its energy? From the combuting oil right, so it matters not if the steam then goes on to 'add' something because it has already taken out energy which reduces power output of the engine. If there are marginal benefits through the presence of steam then its to help with a cleaner burn. If QFI and Maersk come back and confirm your thesis then great because QFI`s profits are based on saving Maersk 10 - 20% over HFO calorie for calorie so if they can use similar quantities of MSAR2 to HFO then the economic case is immediately up to 30% better. If you are saying something similar to this even a quarter of the above then its earth-shattering news in terms of increased profits, let me know if they confirm your thoughts.
Don't ask him to shoot you. I think that we can all agree that the company that PH provided the link to is talking nonsense when they claim that 70% hydrocarbon fuel + 30% water can provide the same energy as 100% hydrocarbon fuel.
If they are correct, the good doctor is either JC come back to earth or he is an alien - is his fuel green per chance?
I cany belive we are still debating this point. PH how does the water in MSAR turn to steam? It uses energy from the combustion process thereby reducing temperature at combustion, this loss of temperature equates to a loss in power as some of that power has been used to boil the water, agreed? Roght so to get the ship over the same distance as it would travel on HFO it needs to burn more MSAR2 to get there, the benefits are all in lower costs and emitions and not extra power, any 'power' gained by expanding steam has already been lost by cooling the combustion. Someone please tell me I`m basically correct or I shall need to contact my old physics prof and ask him to shoot me :)
PH started this conversation by posting a link to possible competition. This competition implied that the 30% water resulted in the same energy as the hydrocarbon fuel. This is clearly imposible. So we are talking about perhaps a 1% improvement in fuel economy from the improved combustion, not 30% improved efficiency due to the energy from water.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
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.