Hi all
You are folks of many interests and much knowledge.
The "Fukushima" mess-up had my thoughts inconclusively jump to "D38".
I heard the entire engine could be passed through the service hatch of
a submarine.
So how could you make a nuclear power station in a tsunami-prone zone
and not end-up with backup generators protected from anything the
reactor building could survive???
Okay the thing which "did them in" was the fuel tanks floating away,
but for goodness sake, if you thought straight with the engines and
gave them a "day tank" so you had at least 24hours to find your way
out of some unexpected event, you'd realise the fuel tanks need to be
away on high ground clear of anything it has ever been known for the
sea to do...

The Fairbanks Morse D38 engines...
Yes I've seen examples in that preserved submarine in San Francisco.
What can be said about them?
I take it they are
* expensive to make
* maybe not the highest power-to-weight given highly turbocharged
4-stroke engines
* very very reliable
* will keep working more than most engines can tolerate wear and
"service excursions"

In other words, I'd take it that, with the "through a small hatch"
characteristic, they would look a good contender for nuclear power
station diesel engine backup...

I look forward to your informed comment with interest.

Rich Smith

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyilb06p37.fsf@void.com...

Hi all
You are folks of many interests and much knowledge.
The "Fukushima" mess-up had my thoughts inconclusively jump to "D38".
I heard the entire engine could be passed through the service hatch of
a submarine.
So how could you make a nuclear power station in a tsunami-prone zone
and not end-up with backup generators protected from anything the
reactor building could survive???
Okay the thing which "did them in" was the fuel tanks floating away,
but for goodness sake, if you thought straight with the engines and
gave them a "day tank" so you had at least 24hours to find your way
out of some unexpected event, you'd realise the fuel tanks need to be
away on high ground clear of anything it has ever been known for the
sea to do...

[[[ In the spirit of Asian numerical lists, the US Army has the 6 P's, Prior
Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance. ]]]

The Fairbanks Morse D38 engines...
Yes I've seen examples in that preserved submarine in San Francisco.
What can be said about them?
I take it they are
* expensive to make
* maybe not the highest power-to-weight given highly turbocharged
4-stroke engines
* very very reliable
* will keep working more than most engines can tolerate wear and
"service excursions"

In other words, I'd take it that, with the "through a small hatch"
characteristic, they would look a good contender for nuclear power
station diesel engine backup...

I look forward to your informed comment with interest.

Rich Smith

----------------------

https://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/diesel/index.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairbanks_Morse_38_8-1/8_diesel_engine

It was intended for locomotive service but was drafted for WW2 subs when the
intended Hooven-Owens-Rentschler (GM) diesel proved unreliable. [name typed
from memory]

The only problem with them I read in submariners' memoirs was a slug of
water into the cylinders bending the connection between the crankshafts. A
huge rogue wave struck while they were running on the surface.

I don't believe the whole crankcase can be replaced through the service
hatch but the cylinder assemblies can. When I toured the USS Maine the
service hatch was partly concealed by a ladder adapter so I couldn't
estimate its size. We went through the missile silos and stopped at the
bulkhead before the reactors, so I couldn't see the engines. Afterwards in
the shops I saw the electric motors though no engines.

The "pancake" Diesels that followed the FM38 are radials stood on end and
possibly could fit. I examined one on the experimental/museum sub Albacore.
They were built a little too lightly for the stresses so the Navy went back
to the larger but reliable FM38. Since the Albacore only went on brief test
missions and was accompanied it used them until the stock was depleted.
https://www.ussalbacore.org/

Much of what I know about WW2 US subs came from here:
https://www.amazon.com/Wahoo-Patrols-Americas-Famous-Submarine/dp/0891415726
and its followup about commanding the USS Tang.

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyilb06p37.fsf@void.com...
....
So how could you make a nuclear power station in a tsunami-prone zone
and not end-up with backup generators protected from anything the
reactor building could survive???
Okay the thing which "did them in" was the fuel tanks floating away,
but for goodness sake, if you thought straight with the engines and
gave them a "day tank" so you had at least 24hours to find your way
out of some unexpected event, you'd realise the fuel tanks need to be
away on high ground clear of anything it has ever been known for the
sea to do...

------------------

The Wiki says that the newer backup generators on higher ground couldn't be
connected to all the reactors because the original switches flooded. Also
Japan's electric grid is split into 50Hz and 60Hz regions that can't
directly interconnect if one goes down.

We keep finding that "thousand-year" events are more common than that. When
researching disasters I keep noticing that reconstructing older ones can be
very difficult because physical evidence was destroyed and everyone involved
was too busy trying to survive to record data. The Titanic Is a good
example, 100 eyewitnesses including ship's officers could produce 120
conflicting versions. The helmsman's story changed every time he told it,
plus the legislators conducting the American inquiry didn't know what
questions to ask, or understand all the answers such as what the "tank top"
is. It's what the crew called the upper layer of the hull's double bottom,
not a separate container as one might think. The British inquiry was meant
to shield the Board of Trade from its outdated lifeboat requirements, not to
reveal uncomfortable evidence. Even the heroic and competent captain of the
rescue ship Carpathia contributed by concealing the 13 mile error in
Titanic's reported position, claiming that he had arrived early because he
had covered the distance at an impossibly high speed.

It came out that Titanic had originally been intended to carry 64 lifeboats
on a new and unfamiliar type of davit that could reach further inboard to
pick up the spares. The unpracticed crew reportedly fumbled with them enough
that the ship sank before the last two lifeboats had been launched. Had they
been provided the embarrassing question of why other large ships didn't have
or need them would have arisen, so like some of Fukushima's problems the
issue was left silent. Titanic's original designer Carlisle who had
specified the 64 lifeboats retired early for unknown reasons, quite possibly
the reduction to 16.