Видео

I’ve had 900psi leaks straight out of the superheater, they still don’t cut a broom. The incident you are referring to wasn’t catastrophic because of the superheat but the volume of steam that leaked

It would be hard I don’t have a steam ship To work with. They all had different personalities too as what was more critical. I ve had plenty of tubes blow you learn how long you can run each size hole for, sometimes it’s a long long time, like weeks. Other times it’s minutes. I’ve had wires melt and kill a boiler. Other boiler still cruising fine. I’ve had wind box fires all kinds of crazy failures, not sure how I’d ever re create them

@@steamman9193 Can you at least name as many of the types of alarms you might get on a steam plant and some of the corrective actions, please?

@@user-bx3hz6wl5m that’s weeks worth of discussion and classes I don’t see that as practical. In simplest terms possible need water add water. Need fire add fire. When in doubt call for help experience is what knows what to do. I’ve had tubes blow out where I have 15 minutes to shut down a boiler and leaks that I could manage for weeks. You have to know your equipment

$0, I made this when I was building my channel requiring views for Monetization from RUclips not the manufacturer. It’s a sincerer and honest review I found a product that had no good English or scientific anything and made a video. It cost me $5 many many years ago and I believe it did work in that vehicle. It definitely does not in my newer vehicle

I’m not happy how it runs so I’m trying to get it right before I make another video. 4 M motors isn’t working well. I had to delete the front carriage and remove wheels from the coal car

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about since too if there was a piece of failed electrical equipment like a transformer it should have been discovered by now. My thought is there was an electrical load not seen since the accident and they haven’t been able to reproduce while stuck

There is nothing to confirm or deny this theory

@@steamman9193 Absolutely! I've been very curious about the smoke. This could be one possible explanation. We'll have to wait until they look over generator #2.

I believe the main engine on Dali is a 2 stroke engine.

@@sirenbleu Not the main, the diesel powered generators.

@@sirenbleu 2 stroke diesels at least modern ones almost always have exhaust valves and ports for intake. But we were discussing generators which are almost always 4 strokes. There is no record released of the Dali main engine attempting to be restarted

So I have doubts there is anything wrong with anything on the switchboard and the need to change anything with it. To put it simply if there was a definite fault there the crew would have immediately identified it to the inspectors as that would be a no fault of their failure. But we don’t have that and by now we should have if it existed. I’m not saying it isn’t possible just not likely

This BT is wye delta start yes the propellor on it is hydraulic variable pitch

More reason than not to only run the number of generators required. Cooling, contamination, turbo charger loading. Etc etc. I don’t truly know why both transformers aren’t used I have never worked on a system like they have but I’d guess it has to do with synchronization or the inability to synchronize transformers

There is a transformer for the different voltages. Same generators

@@steamman9193 the fuel supply stopped the same time the lights went out while the main engine kept turning causing the smoke cause the fuel wasn't lubing the piston or pistons, the timing is suspicious as well as the loss of power 24hrs previous that is new information, not to mention the gas pipeline the dollie has hit underwater that could have been disastrous, wouldn't a breaker have to be manually turned back on going to each transformer and have the contact points been inspected ? At the same time a train overpass is laying on the deck of a barge in Galveston

@@guytelfer1353 you need to go back through the report. The main engine stops and there is no record of it re starting. I’ve never heard of an engine that could billow black smoke when it’s off. And I don’t know where you are going with the rest of it

@steamman9193 someone mentioned a couple weeks ago that the main engine doesn't stop turning right away even if it's not getting fuel or loses electric because it takes a long time to slow down and stop and the propeller has come to a stop before restarting the motor, I'm just sharing conversations but I really don't give 2 shits 1 way or another any outcome to the situation it just looks like you clowns need all the help you can get especially when Biden turned his back on the situation after saying he was going to pay for it obviously he didn't know what he was saying again.

@steamman9193 you need to go back and explain the smoke coming out the stacks because you haven't explained anything we've already heard

Let me join in here; really appreciate that chief Steam man takes the time to reply to many questions and also makes `hands-on´ videos showing engine room & machinery. Bit of a pity that YT software team doesn’t spend bit more effort by e.g. introducing more than one indent level which would help to structure conversations & threads in better way (and possibly avoid recurring questions 😉). But of course, primary YT target of the `comment section´ is to simply create `clicks & likes´ rather than `deep-dive forum discussion´… It’s remarkable once it comes to YT clips dealing with technical topics, there’s always a certain portion of comments where one can notice also experts sharing their knowledge & experience, which I really appreciate and enjoy. I could imagine this must also have been the spirit during the early days of the Internet (with DARPA being one the initiators as far as I know, possibly also other scientific institutions). Like here for the MS Dali incident, I believe it’s beneficial to share experience from maritime experts as well as pro’s from corresponding fields like US Navy chiefs, land-based power grid and aviation, plus safety experts. It’s important to take both mechanical and electrical perspectives into account. Yes, partly it’s speculating and also controversial due to different background & requirements from regulations. But best case everyone can pick up some beneficial insights & learnings, and if there’s differences, trying to understand why and where do they come from.

Would they have been in darkness? My only experience with sea-going vessels was in the US Navy and we had lanterns all throughout the ship so that if we lost electricity those automatically came on (main electricity caused the lanterns to be open-circuit; when power was lost the switched closed and the lanterns came on almost instantaneously). Not sure how different the requirements are for a commercial motor vessel but I would have imagined something similar would be at play.

That isn’t my area of expertise but my understanding is bow thrusters are only effective at low speed. I don’t believe the status of it’s running is in this report to anylze

Ebartonce@gmail.com there is a link somewhere on this RUclips channel

Hence why I sold my last diesel vehicle a few years ago and will probably not buy another one

I plan on doing a high pressure fuel injection pump video when time is right. Unfortunately the report lacks key information on zeroing in on the true cause. Basically the fuel injection pumps I’m focusing on are solely lubricated by the fluid they are pumping hence their susceptibility to wear and getting stuck and are an hours based overhaul or replacement item

So what are your thoughts on this is related to securing the bow thruster and possibly a 3rd generator, then the other generators not being able to adjust to the load? I know it’s hypothetical but it fits very well

@@steamman9193 it's possible... unless we have the fuel system lines to guide us, we will have to wait for full report... but I strongly feel that something went wrong with frequency.... only reason being that the DGs were running, both blackouts were breakers tripping....why?? .

@@sonishankar6008 agreed frequency or voltage tripped the breakers as they should have worked

@@steamman9193 Using the opportunity to have 2 knowledgeable Chiefs in the conversation here; and just for my understanding since I’m quite interested in following all this tech-talk: I’d assume the bow thruster has been used for doing the 180° turn when leaving the pier. So does `securing it´ actually mean bringing it to a stop by controlled reduction of the motor’s RPM (thus also reducing load on the 6600V HV bus accordingly)? And 3rd generator might have been connected during the time when the bow thruster has been active to support with additional electrical power? More generally wrt manoeuvring using bow thrusters: will it make the ship turn around its centre of gravity (which is expected to be somewhere in the middle), also causing stern to move (I would expect this to certain amount except the situation when it is still fixed due to the pier)? Or will stern remain almost constant?

@@NRZ-3Pi10 I can’t comment on the maneuvering characteristics it’s outside my world. Every bow thruster ship I’ve worked requires 3 generators. Or is a separate diesel engine, but Dali was electric. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done with 2 especially due to Dali s very large main generators I just don’t have that information

That’s a far more complicated question than on the surface. You would have to add additional components to regulate flow that would be subject to failure themselves so would it be better? Also in this case it would not have prevented the accident so now we are solving a problem that didn’t exist. I don’t believe the core failure exists with the busses or switchboards

Not sure how they build them differently but yes arcing is a challenge

motors above about 400 HP use high voltage

I am not a marine engineer, or indeed an engineer of any sort - just a pilot who is very interested in how these systems work and the various factors at play in how this accident unfolded. One of the minor things that has bugged me is this description of 6600v to the reefer containers, just doesn't seem right. So I Googled it- all the results I can find show standard reefer containers operating on 3 phase 440v, which makes more sense to me. So - my guess is the NTSB simplified the HV bus feed to reefer containers, and they are perhaps fed through their own dedicated T/R, or pair of them, from the HV bus. The alternative is that it's just an error in the preliminary report, and they are fed from the main LV bus, but are just pictured in the wrong place. And, as commented above, it does seem odd to me that the standard elec config in critical phases of the journey is to have everything tied together rather than split.... But I'm not a marine guy, so I'll defer to those with expertise on this matter.

@@cpazdzior so I don’t have the drawing but it’s likely the container reefers have their own transformers, it’s a better option. grounds in the marine industry are a big problem since the ship itself is grounded. There is a lot of focus on redundancy in the switchboard from non marine people, but we don’t have any indication that there was actually a problem with the switchboard. My theory is the problem is with the generators and they experienced multiple failures

Definitely an area to be investigated but I doubt the problem as the regular heavy oil they burn is much dirtier, plus each engine should have its own filtration so more than 1 becoming a problem at the same isn’t very likely

@@steamman9193 , I figured there was likely some separation and/or redundancy but I'm not a marine engineer. Thanks for the response and clarification.

I really don’t know why they did it for sure. Higher voltages require smaller wires aka save money on construction costs. Personally I wouldn’t put too much effort into any of this as I am highly suspect that there is nothing wrong with the switchboard and breakers at all. It’s far more likely there was a fault with the ships generators and the breakers opened because of that. Having different power or switchboard arrangements wouldn’t have changed that and the accident still occurred. That’s just an educated theory for now though until the final report

Most likely all the generators get their fuel from a single service tank, but with redundant electric feed pumps. And no indication so far this was in any way related to the event, there should have been alarms associated with and discrepancy’s

It’s the way this system is designed. I haven’t worked with a switchboard setup Like this. But before we go too deep down into how it should have been run i say wait until the final findings because i have significant doubts there were any problems with the circuit breakers it’s far more likely they worked as designed and were protecting the system from generation problems

This is the critical question. I wonder if the ship's "operating manual" documents a redundant mode with both buss ties open to be used in critical situations such as entering/leaving port or navigating canals. The configuration as shown in the NTSB document is probably the "open sea" mode where recovery time from single point failures is not time critical.

@@steamman9193 I understand your perspective and we definitely need to wait for the final report. As an EE who does lots of PLC programming and has worked on some redundant systems for large petrochemical plants, the topic intrigues me. I'm curious of the design philosophy behind the overall power distribution system and the bus ties. Like your channel. My son has sailed on the SS Curtis and will be sitting for Coast Guard exams to get 3rd engineer license in a few weeks.

@@dge283 almost definitely not. Bus tie breakers are very common HV and LV switchboards are not. Only once in my career has a bus tie breaker opened and it should have it was protecting the rest of the switchboard and essentially saved it.

@@steamman9193 chief makoi just did a video about the bus ties. I found it interesting. He states the bus ties are more for maintenance purposes and often bolted connections that are not easy to open/close.

It’s going to be awhile before I’m near that tool

It’s not fair to compare to Dali because my main engine is much larger, and not all of this information is in 1 place but Main lube oil motor is 355KW. Cooling water pumps are 65KW each and absolute minimum of 1 salt water and 1 fresh water required. Those are 900 cubic meters/hour

Haha I laugh quietly to myself when people start talking about horsepower and they don’t have 5 digits in their number.

Heavy fuel oil. Hfo it’s towards the bottom of what is left in refining crude oil very thick, and has to be heated to even pump but it lubricates parts very well and has more energy density aka more miles/gallon

@@steamman9193 Sounds like “Bunker C”, the same stuff that merchant marine steamships used.

@@steamman9193 `Chief´, can you help to double confirm, please? I'm aware HFO / MGO needs to be heated for pumping (like you wrote), up to temperatures around 40°C - 50°C. My guess has been around 80°C for injection, but Wiki tells even up to 130°C - 140°C (perhaps this partly comes along while increasing pressure up to 320 bar as per your other reply). Question also targets how heating is done and which bus used for power. I'd expect it is done both electrically as well as using heat from all the big diesel engines via their water cooling system? Good opportunity to expand my broad-band knowledge ...

@@NRZ-3Pi10 this is weeks worth of education. But I’ll try to simplify. Hfo has to be heated how high is based on test results of the fuel. I’m currently burning at 88C but I have had fuels at 155C. Do not heat diesel it gets to thin and wears parts out. Heating is typically done via steam

@@steamman9193 Thanks; also don't expect you to come back with lengthy reply like some of my comments, well, partly `novels` 😂. So steam can be created by oil burner, electric heating or from heat of the engine (but up to 155°C might be a challenge for the latter).

I think failure to split the HV and LV buss will turn out to be the root cause of the failure. Operating with single buss leads to a system that has single point failures that can disable the ship.

I didn’t get into it in this video but I lean heavily on fuel being the main failure because of the heavy black smoke see in the accident videos. A normal breaker trip or engine starting shouldn’t smoke like that. And now that we have the report where the main engine was never started we now know it’s a generator

Thinking on this more a permanent electric fault should have presented itself obviously to the investigation team by now. Even an intermittent fault may have made itself apparent.

@@steamman9193 NTSB preliminary reports states DGR 3 & 4 kept running und thus also keeping HV bus alive. This suggests their fuel pumps connected to HV bus and still working, too. So no shut-down of the generators then; but at least drop to (very?) low-load condition. But when re-connecting TR1 (which might cause additional load in case of defect), that might be quite some heavy duty for DGR 3 & 4 then. That might explain heavy smoke (`black´ appearance to certain amount might also come from missing lighting on that side we see in the port cam video). In addition, like you've mentioned, could also be interesting how DGR3 reacted to this, considering the issues observed while in-port. If DGR3 struggles to support fully, `poor´ DGR4 would have to take all the load then, most likely even to `fight´ against DGR3 ...

@@steamman9193 I am going to have to print out the NTSB (I do have the Electrical Schematic). Smoke could be from the emergency generator starting or DG2. HR1 and LR1 would not open up due to generator issues, that is not their job. As you pointed out, they did open up a bit latter. But at that point they may be the most sophisticated breakers in the system left. Mine as I recall has 4 to 6 trip functions (two of those had to do with the Generator dropping off frequency or reverse power). But DG2 started, closed and ran. While I could see making a case for the 2nd outage being fuel it would not seem likely and DG2 seems to have kept running fine. I had cases where more sophisticated breakers with more settings (vs thermal) and or micro processor controlled tripped upstream leaving the downstream breaker still engaged (in one case it too tripped after a small amount of time but the upstream sensed before that fault first and opened.

@@steamman9193 That is one of my two electrical based theories. We don't know what the CB types and protections on HR1 and LR1 were (yet). A Transformer fault should not trip LR1, but it seems that is a possibility. I never had two high feature breakers one after another let alone across an Xformer bridge, so I can't say that a zark out of the Xformer would send a signal downstream. Equipment ground fault can be interesting and on a ship with its isolated grounding, more so not to mention the other faults.

Marine industry 1,000v is “high voltage” most ships use 440/450 and 220v or 110v

@@steamman9193 that's how it works in my trade too, 600 and under is low voltage ans 1000 and up is high voltage. But for me 480v is high enough to play with! That seems like really high voltage just to run lube pumps with. Not to mention you would always have to have 2 generators running at all times while under way to supply low and high voltage unless they do it with transformers, I guess I don't have any real understanding so I don't get the logic there...

@@shawnbeerens4292 the drawing shows transformers between the different busses that’s what the breakers that tripped are directly for. And there is a secondary that you probably wouldn’t run at the same time but as a backup

@@shawnbeerens4292 In my world it was 24 volt, 120/208 (3 phase) and 480 (technically 460 but 480 out of the main boards). I did a bit of work with 7500 volts under supervision of a HV rated (former lineman) instruction. Ungh. Dead 7500 line jumped a 3 inch gap just on induction through a couple miles of line). I had no issues with 480 but did not want to have to deal with 7500 (and that is weird to have a HV motor mixed with 440 motors as the insulation and isolation is extreme). BT I can see just due to the long run but not anything in an engine room.

@@gregoryschmitz2131 7500 is WAY beyond my pay grade!!

I’m not sure your aviation analogy works. Firstly, they had 1 of 1 propulsion engines online. Second, takeoff is the highest demand made of aircraft engines, as they go flat out to convert a static lump of metal i to something that is flying, before the runway runs out. In contrast, this ship was moving slowly as she navigated through somewhat difficult and restricted waters.

@@DanielsPolitics1 Sure, the analogy does not work when only taking the perspective of propulsion, of course. It does work if you compare 4 diesel generators with 4 jet engines, which also have the task to provide `auxiliary´ power for hydraulics, electricity etc. which is equally important for take-off and during flight. Next and very important analogy is safety & redundancy aspect wrt need for always having full control during the most critical phases of manoeuvring. In case of MS Dali, it’s not about maximum power in this phase, but having the required amount of energy available anytime (!), also in case of failures of single components. In confined waters, the criticality at low speed comes from reduced effectiveness of the rudder if there’s no additional water push (`wash´) from the spinning propeller, so ship movement is mainly governed by its speed and inertia, some amount of rudder, plus currents and effects from wind. NTSB preliminary report says Dali lost main engine and thus propulsion at “about 0125” and approx. 3 ship-lengths before the bridge, at a speed of ~ 9 knots (which means distance of 1 ship-length will be reached after ~ 66s, i.e. only slightly more than 1 minute). It is required that the emergency generator kicks in after 45s latest; video and VDR showed it took almost 1 minute. Means distance of Dali to the bridge was already only 2 ship-lengths when they had first possibility to get some reduced rudder control provided by emergency generator then - but also only 130s to close the distance to the bridge (if speed would remain constant). This is when precious time is lost due to not having redundancy already active. Note that I do not claim the crash into the bridge pillar could have been prevented safely, but split of electrical systems could significantly have reduced the probability at least (especially when main engine still running, providing sufficient propulsion for full effictiveness of rudder control). Further investigation might reveal that it’s combination of failures. One occurring at the HV-to-LV link via transformer TR1, perhaps another one related to DGR3 or it’s fuel system, with the latter possibly could even have been a central problem. If that’s the case, it would be real worst case since both sides of the system would have been affected. So all in all, the blackout obviously hit Dali at worst point in time, without any real chance to re-gain full control over its course as per the configuration of the electrical system (and potential issues with DGR3 or fuel system) … To close with the analogy: plane did neither make the take-off, nor come to a safe stop at the end of the runway.

@@NRZ-3Pi10 It's easy to synchronize 2 diesel generators but extremely difficult to keep 3 or more loaded the same. to add load to a generator that is lagging you must add more speed . like just a little. then the load changes and the system is out of balance again.

@@kennethchristensen7457 Fully understand larger load jumps or drops are generally quite bit of a challenge. But looking in 2 directions: if keeping 3 or more diesel generators synchronised is big problem in the confined environment of a ship, we end up in the question why system has been operating with HVR and LVR cross-tie breakers closed (there's some discussion wrt that with different opinions 😉). On the other hand, in land-based power-grids such `multi-site´ synchronisation is daily business. It's already required within e.g. hydro-power plant with several turbines & generators; and syncing also needs to be done with the power-grid.

I m leaning more towards generation problems and the circuit breakers worked as they should have