coast concordia and cheerful

[MBT]

There's water, peanuts in melt, take you behind a few slabs and take advantage of it to make you a nice check-up with a lot of x-rays...:finger:

and save on lighting. . .
After a few hours of exposure you probably become fluorescent!

that sadness to make jokes on these shawls...:frown, but absurdity calls nonsense. . .

Let's not cry again.
the worst thing is to see degradation and death because of money. But so much...

 

[Erikilrosso]

You mean I'm supposed to put the money in part to make up for a ship's captain's bullshit belonging to a private company?
Oh, I mean, are we out? ?
If you're going to crash into a car against a wall, the truck to take away the scrap, will you pay for it?
the money, and everyone, to make up the coast of the cruises, and if you don't have them you sell a couple good ships and you pick them up... Did they like the bows? well now they go back to 90° for something really serious.

Bingo! yesterday the government has allocated 5 m for the first intervention on the lily. I think he can't stop there!
have you heard what "der spiegel" thinks of Italian sailors? it would be better to look at them in the mirror... and above all, they looked back.

 

[PierArg]

Bingo! yesterday the government has allocated 5 m for the first intervention on the lily. I think he can't stop there!
have you heard what "der spiegel" thinks of Italian sailors? it would be better to look at them in the mirror... and above all, they looked back.

I mean? the government allocates money for what?
I guess then ask "the account" to the coast...

Could you explain me better? :finger:

Thank you very much

 

[Mike1967]

If not, Commissioner Gabrielli said at the press conference that the costs will be met at the coast.

 

[alex_cm]

You can imagine thousands of these gingilli that solve the seas every day what they get in the air.

is the same fuel as the ferries? (such as those for Sardinian ferries or moby)

It would explain in a plausible way why of the two fingers of anointed in the upper deck behind the comignoli....

 

[Exatem]

I at this point have a curiosity (I hope that the gurus of the naval sector can satisfy it):
which pressures are reached in the marine engine chamber of such dimensions?

This is the data I foundWärtsilä 46
cylinder bore 460 mm
piston stroke 580 mm
cylinder output 1000 kw/cyl
speed 500-514 rpm
mean effective pressure 24.2-24.9 bar
piston speed 9.7, 9.9 m/s
sfoc 173 g/kwh at iso condition

 

[Exatem]

is the same fuel as the ferries? (such as those for Sardinian ferries or moby)

It would explain in a plausible way why of the two fingers of anointed in the upper deck behind the comignoli....

Comignoli?
Comignoli? ? ????Two rounds of keel!

 

[MBT]

Comignoli?
Comignoli? ? ????Two rounds of keel!

but running and kneeling.... :Mad::tongue:

 

[PierArg]

This is the data I foundWärtsilä 46
cylinder bore 460 mm
piston stroke 580 mm
cylinder output 1000 kw/cyl
speed 500-514 rpm
mean effective pressure 24.2-24.9 bar
piston speed 9.7, 9.9 m/s
sfoc 173 g/kwh at iso condition

Forgive my ignorance in this matter. but why are fluids so viscous?
using high density fluids, does not increase load losses and therefore have lower global yields?

I don't know why (I observe my personal and without a logical foundation) I to a fluid so viscous I would associate an equally absurd compression ratio

 

[MBT]

Forgive my ignorance in this matter. but why are fluids so viscous?
using high density fluids, does not increase load losses and therefore have lower global yields?

I don't know why (I observe my personal and without a logical foundation) I to a fluid so viscous I would associate an equally absurd compression ratio

the compression ratio, more than in relation to the density, is in relation to the number of cethane (or octane, in the engines a.c.)

 

[Exatem]

Forgive my ignorance in this matter. but why are fluids so viscous?
using high density fluids, does not increase load losses and therefore have lower global yields?

I don't know why (I observe my personal and without a logical foundation) I to a fluid so viscous I would associate an equally absurd compression ratio

already a reason could be the costs. If you go and read a few posts back, find the odds of the ifo380.
Moreover, being a product placed "low" in the production chain, has a relatively low cost.

 

[PierArg]

the compression ratio, more than in relation to the density, is in relation to the number of cethane (or octane, in the engines a.c.)

Okay, here we are, maybe I explained badly. :tongue:

I do not know why (probably mental gaps) I remembered that there was something that associated the number of cethane with the viscosity of a fluid.

 

[PierArg]

already a reason could be the costs. If you go and read a few posts back, find the odds of the ifo380.
Moreover, being a product placed "low" in the production chain, has a relatively low cost.

ok, but having a high viscosity means that it has an equally high density.
the money that you save on the fuel, are not then "lost" on the weight of the fuel itself that you find heavily on the overall weight of the ship?
alias, the fuel savings I burn it all on consumption...with a less dense fuel the ship would be lighter...and since we are not talking about 60 liters like cars, I think numbers start to become significant. Or do I miss something?

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I do not know why (probably mental gaps) I remembered that there was something that associated the number of cethane with the viscosity of a fluid.

Well, less viscosity, more volatility. but the more a fuel is volatile the lower is its number of cetanus, so we find ourselves.
to understand, the ether lights up before the tar.

ok, but having a high viscosity means that it has an equally high density.

You say that. the mercury is much less viscous, but much more dense than the glass...

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Comignoli?
Comignoli? ? ????Two rounds of keel!

in swimsuit!

 

[Fulvio Romano]

but are ships also going with the exhausted oil used to fry fish or potatoes? looks like tar.. .

I thought right now... Who knows when we will see engines go with banana peel and some cocacola type the delorean return to the future:biggrin:

an old commander, don't ask me what ship, but merchant told me this. They had a headless motor(*), and at least once a day they opened the cylinder and threw in the trash, I mean, just black bags with kitchen waste etc. told me that the engine had never complained.


(*)
I don't know if you know, there is the cylinder with two pistons, one above and one below, and the combustion chamber is between the two pistons when they are at the closest point.

 

[PierArg]

Well, less viscosity, more volatility. but the lower the fuel is the lower the number of cetanus, so we find ourselves....... .

I'm losing. It will be Thursday afternoon!:biggrin:

Maybe you wanted to say more fuel is volatile, higher is his number of cethanes....right?

regarding viscosity:

cinematic viscosity = dynamic visc / density


therefore, the dynamic viscosity increases in density.

 

[MBT]

(*)
I don't know if you know, there is the cylinder with two pistons, one above and one below, and the combustion chamber is between the two pistons when they are at the closest point.

we know, we know. . .

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I'm losing. It will be Thursday afternoon!:biggrin:

Maybe you wanted to say more fuel is volatile, higher is his number of cethanes....right?

Maybe I'm losing myself, but, the greater the number of cetanus, and the less the ability to self-combustion, right? so my sentence before should be correct.

regarding viscosity:

cinematic viscosity = dynamic visc / density


therefore, the dynamic viscosity increases in density.

So what?
by "viscosity" means normally that dynamic, or [l'inverso del] the ability of a fluid to flow. and this has nothing to do with density. the mercury is little viscous, the plastic is very viscous, the glass even more.

However, take water and mercury. have more or less the same viscosity (dynamic) in the sense that if you put them on a sloped plane they run at the same speed. It is true, but because the force to which they are subjected, that of gravity, is a volumetric force, so the denser fluid is "tired" downwards with a total greater "force".

If you put a teaspoon and try to turn, you will notice instead that the effort to mix the mercury is greater than that made for water. Why? because the two materials, while having the same viscosity, have density of verses. the mercury is more "heavy" and therefore the impression is almost as if it were more viscous.
you want to translate into formulas this "sensation", that is the fact that it is viscosity, and the density increase the effort on the teaspoon. then the cinematic viscosity has been invented, which increases both at the increase of dynamic viscosity, and at the decrease of density. You say it was supposed to be the opposite? Well, um, um... but I didn't do the formulas.

therefore at the same dynamic viscosity, water will have a greater cinematic viscosity.

That's all.

 

[PierArg]

Maybe I'm losing myself, but, the greater the number of cetanus, and the less the ability to self-combustion, right? so my sentence before should be correct.


So what?
by "viscosity" means normally that dynamic, or [l'inverso del] the ability of a fluid to flow. and this has nothing to do with density. the mercury is little viscous, the plastic is very viscous, the glass even more.

However, take water and mercury. have more or less the same viscosity (dynamic) in the sense that if you put them on a sloped plane they run at the same speed. It is true, but because the force to which they are subjected, that of gravity, is a volumetric force, so the denser fluid is "tired" downwards with a total greater "force".

If you put a teaspoon and try to turn, you will notice instead that the effort to mix the mercury is greater than that made for water. Why? because the two materials, while having the same viscosity, have density of verses. the mercury is more "heavy" and therefore the impression is almost as if it were more viscous.
you want to translate into formulas this "sensation", that is the fact that it is viscosity, and the density increase the effort on the teaspoon. then the cinematic viscosity has been invented, which increases both at the increase of dynamic viscosity, and at the decrease of density. You say it was supposed to be the opposite? Well, um, um... but I didn't do the formulas.

therefore at the same dynamic viscosity, water will have a greater cinematic viscosity.

That's all.

I knew this:
the more the fuel has a high number of cethane, the greater its readiness to ignition.
then there isindex of cetano, other than Number of swamp, which is related to density and volatility.
the higher the cethan index and the more the fuel will be volatile, alias, the less dense.


Right?