Author Topic: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed  (Read 11331 times)

rbk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
I know this is a very basic question, but here goes:
If I'm running an S195 at 1800 rpm using a direct drive system and an ST7.5 head, what will the wattage produced be?  If I increase the speed of the engine to 2000, will the generator produce more wattage (and is it even feasible to turn an ST7.5 head at a speed greater than 1800 rpm)?  Thanks for any help.
Rob

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2006, 02:34:45 AM »
to start with the st head would probably be fine at 2000 rpm, but...

why would you want to?

your frequency will increase to maybe 66 or 67 hz, not sure how your loads are going to like that.

also not sure about voltage regulation, you would likely produce higher voltages, perhaps over 140 volts on the 120 side, and maybe as much as 260 or 280 on the high side.

the simple answer is yes it can be done, and you would likely end up with about a 10% increase in wattage, but at what expense?

unless you have a load that can handle 66 plus hz, and overvoltage, i wouldnt do it.

what are you trying to accomplish?

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

rbk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2006, 02:39:13 AM »
Bob, thanks for the reply.  Just trying to figure out how this generator--electricity thing really works.  I'll be using the S195 for emergency backup power, and just wanted to know what wattage I could get out of the 7.5 head (and whether that head was the way to go, or maybe I'm better off with an ST5 head)?
Rob

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2006, 02:52:41 AM »
i think the st 7.5 is an armload for the 12 hp changfa,

i too have one that i am putting together, it will be belt driven and overdriven to produce 1800 at the head at 1500 engine rpm, i expect maybe 5 kwatt max.

the reason i did this was to more closely match my expected loads at a lower engine speed, less noise, maybe longer engine life. also the engine will be loaded heavier which will enable it to produce more heat and hopefully run at peak efficiency.

also i figure i won't be able to over run the gen head or overload it. hopefully gaining longevity in the process.

if i am correct your engine produces about 9.6 kwatt or so, so i would expect your setup to get you to maybe 6 kwatt generated,

let us know how you do.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

mjn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • My Changfa Generator Project
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2006, 06:10:20 PM »
I have a ChangFa 195 direct coupled to an ST7.5 head.    I can get about 6500 watts max out of the 195.  Above 6500, the engine starts bogging down and producing black smoke.  I'm at 3500 feet elevation, so I'm not getting as much power as somebody running near sealevel.

You could belt drive the generator with the appropriate sized pulleys you could run the engine at 2000 rpm with the generator at 1800.  You 'should' be able to get a few hundred watts more.  However,  the belt drive has more loss than a direct connect drive, so it might end up being a wash.

For backup power, I think this unit is unbeatable.  With only a little bit of load management, I can run the entire house with the exception of the air conditioner.  In my initial tests, I'm using .127 gallons of fuel per Kilo-Watt-Hour of electricity produced.

In any event, don't plan on getting 7500 watts out of a ChangFa 195.
Changfa 195 7.5 kw ST.  WVO conversion http://martin.nile.googlepages.com/
Metro 6/1 DI Listeroid. Pumping water for fire control.
1933 Stover CT-1 hit and miss
1936 Farmall F-12 -- unrestored, still used to mow the field

rgroves

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Flint Hills Diesel
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2006, 06:59:49 PM »
I know this is a very basic question, but here goes:
If I'm running an S195 at 1800 rpm using a direct drive system and an ST7.5 head, what will the wattage produced be?  If I increase the speed of the engine to 2000, will the generator produce more wattage (and is it even feasible to turn an ST7.5 head at a speed greater than 1800 rpm)?  Thanks for any help.
Rob

Please remember that a 195 makes rated power (7.5kw by Changfa's figures)  at 2200 rpm, and by running it at 1800 you are trading about 20 percent of its HP for the benefits of slower speed. That's 1.5 KW.  If you run that engine at rated power, with an efficient belt drive, you'll lose 2 or 3 percent to the belt, but your net gain should be  close to 15 percent in KW output.  Conservatively another 1 KW from the same engine and head combination.

Russell Groves
A country boy can survive - Hank Williams Jr.

mjn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • My Changfa Generator Project
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2006, 11:09:40 PM »

Please remember that a 195 makes rated power (7.5kw by Changfa's figures)  at 2200 rpm,
..snip...

The nameplate on my 195 lists the rated power at 2000 rpm.  I went home at lunch and checked the rpm just to be sure.   I don't know if all of the 195 engines are rated at 2000 or just mine.


On George's website, I saw a Changfa engine rigged to run either belt drive or direct.  The intent was to determine which was more efficient.  I never did see any results.  I've got too many irons in the fire right now, otherwise I would reconfigure mine and run some tests and let everybody know.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 01:31:44 AM by mjn »
Changfa 195 7.5 kw ST.  WVO conversion http://martin.nile.googlepages.com/
Metro 6/1 DI Listeroid. Pumping water for fire control.
1933 Stover CT-1 hit and miss
1936 Farmall F-12 -- unrestored, still used to mow the field

rbk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2006, 01:56:14 AM »
Thanks for the help everyone--looks like the ST7.5 head is the way to go.
Rob

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2006, 02:06:29 AM »
dude, that plate says 1 hour rating 9.7 kw @ 2000 rpm

typically continuous duty (and a generator is about as continuous duty as you can get) is taken as being 80% of that, eg 1600 rpm, power output will NOT be 80% of 9.7 kw, you'll need to dyno or estimate from the manuf graphs.

an experience based guesstimate will say 1.7 kw at 1000 rpm roughly linear up to 2000, so 0.8 kw or 1 bhp per 100 rpm

if that was my engine it would be set to run at 1600 rpm, which would probably be about 6.5 kw
--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

mjn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • My Changfa Generator Project
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2006, 05:42:19 AM »
dude, that plate says 1 hour rating 9.7 kw @ 2000 rpm

typically continuous duty (and a generator is about as continuous duty as you can get) is taken as being 80% of that, eg 1600 rpm, power output will NOT be 80% of 9.7 kw, you'll need to dyno or estimate from the manuf graphs.

an experience based guesstimate will say 1.7 kw at 1000 rpm roughly linear up to 2000, so 0.8 kw or 1 bhp per 100 rpm

if that was my engine it would be set to run at 1600 rpm, which would probably be about 6.5 kw

Funny I never saw that 1h part.  Maybe I saw it, but I did not know what it meant.

What are the downsides to running the engine continuously at 1800 rpm?   Typically my load is in the 3kw range, so running at 1600rpm would probably have enough power, but I would not be able to carry my peak loads.  My peak loads are around 6kw, and only last for a few minutes.


Changfa 195 7.5 kw ST.  WVO conversion http://martin.nile.googlepages.com/
Metro 6/1 DI Listeroid. Pumping water for fire control.
1933 Stover CT-1 hit and miss
1936 Farmall F-12 -- unrestored, still used to mow the field

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2006, 12:55:24 PM »
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/gen-letters/1988/gl88015.html

NRC Seal/Skip Navigation
   Index | Site Map | FAQ | Help | Glossary | Contact Us         Advanced Search
   
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission    
   Home       Who We Are       What We Do       Nuclear Reactors       Nuclear Materials       Radioactive Waste       Facility Info Finder       Public Involvement       Electronic Reading Room    

Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Generic Communications > Generic Letters > 1988 > GL88015

                                UNITED STATES
                        NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

                              September 12 1988

ADDRESSEES:    ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS

SUBJECT:  ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS - INADEQUATE CONTROL OVER DESIGN PROCESSES
          (GENERIC LETTER 88-15)

This generic letter informs licensees of the various problems with
electrical systems being identified with increasing frequency at commercial
power reactors. The following are the types of problems that this letter
addresses: (1) onsite distribution system voltages lower than required for
proper operation of safety equipment, (2) diesel generator loads exceeding
the diesel engine's load carrying capability, (3) diesel generator voltage
regulating systems unable to maintain voltage at a sufficient level to
permit continued operation of safety equipment, (4) overloading of 1E buses
during a LOCA because of interaction of the fire suppression system and
other safety-related systems, (5) lack of proper coordination of protective
devices creating the potential for an unacceptable level of equipment loss
during fault conditions, and (6) electrical distribution system components
outside their design ratings for fault clearing capability creating the
potential for an unacceptable level of equipment loss during fault
conditions. These problems have occurred primarily as a result of inadequate
control over the design process.

The problems described call into question the conformance of electrical
system designs with General Design Criterion (GDC) 1, "Quality Standards and
Regards," and GDC 17, "Electric Power Systems." Such areas of weakness could
be eliminated if licensees would strictly adhere to the provisions of
applicable general design criteria and effectively implement quality
assurance control measures for verifying design adequacy. The electrical
problems that have been identified and that are currently undergoing
corrective review are presented below.

1.   Electrical Distribution System Voltages Less Than the Manufacturer's
     Recommended Limits for Proper Operation of Connected Equipment

As a result of a degraded grid voltage condition discovered in July 1976 at
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 2, the Boston Edison Company made a
design change at its Pilgrim station to provide automatic protection against
degraded grid voltages. In support of this design change, a voltage study
was performed for the plant in 1976. This study was made to assure that
onsite electric distribution system voltages were maintained within
equipment manufacturers' operating specifications. These specifications were
to be maintained notwithstanding fluctuations in the offsite power system's
normal voltage or the onsite systems worst-case load conditions. However, in
January 1988, the licensee reported that an update of the previous voltage
study was performed to reverify the steady state and transient responses of
the electrical system.


8809120085
.

                                    -2-                    September 12 1988

This most recent study showed that for certain voltages at the lower end of
the allowable range of grid voltages, onsite voltages at some electrical
equipment would be lower than the manufacturer's recommended limit. With
voltages below these recommended limits, electric equipment may not have
sufficient capacity or capability to reliably perform their intended safety
function during a design basis event. Thus, the design of the electrical
system was not in full conformance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 17
"Electric Power Systems."

2.   Diesel Generator Loading In Excess of Design Rating

During the original design phase for Florida Power Corporation's Crystal
River Nuclear Plant Unit 3, a load study for determining the proper sizing
of the diesel generators was performed. This study consisted of summing the
connected kilovolt-ampere (Kva) loads and applying an assumed power factor
of 0.8 to determine the kilowatt (Kw) component of the connected loads. The
study indicated that the design basis load requirements would not exceed the
diesel generator's continuous duty rating of 2750 Kw. Sufficient diesel
generator capacity margin was thus considered to be available (up to its
2000-hour rating of 3000 Kw) to supply required loads. On this basis, diesel
generator sizing was found acceptable.

In January 1980, the motor-driven emergency feedwater pump was added to the
plant's design basis auto-start load requirement for one diesel generator. A
supplemental load study was performed and, like the original, assumed a,
power factor of 0.8. The study indicated that the design basis load
requirement would exceed the diesel generator's continuous-duty rating of
2750 Kw and the 2000-hour rating of 3000 Kw. but would not exceed the
30-minute rating of 3300 Kw. In November 1987, the licensee reported that
recent load studies, using actual load power factors of 0.9 versus the
assumed power factor of 0.8 used in earlier studies, indicated a total
design basis load requirement in excess of the diesel generator's 30-minute
rating of 3300 Kw.

In the load studies supporting the original design and the subsequent design
change (i.e., addition of a motor-driven emergency feedwater pump), the
effect that load power factors have on the capacity requirements for the
diesel generator were not adequately considered. The resultant overloading
of the diesel generator did not fully conform to GDC-17 or the guidelines of
Regulatory Guide 1.9 "Selection, Design, and Qualification of
Diesel-Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear
Power Plants."

In addition an associated concern arises from the testing of the diesel
generators. The 30-minute design rating for the Crystal River diesel
generator's is 3300Kw. The 30-minute rating means that the diesel generators
should not be operated for more than a cumulative total time of 30 minutes,
when loaded to above 3000Kw up to a maximum load of 3300Kw. If the time of
operation in this range exceeds 30 minutes, the diesel manufacturer requires
a special maintenance inspection to verity that the diesel has not been
damaged.
.

                                   - 3 -                   September 12 1988

However, the Crystal River technical specifications required testing at
least once every 18 months for 60 minutes at a load equal to or greater than
3000 Kw. In this instance. the diesel generators were tested beyond the
manufacturer's design limit. This could jeopardize their capacity and
capability to reliably perform their intended safety function during a
design basis event.

3.   Inadequate Diesel Generator Response to Actual Loading Conditions

During the original design phase for Consumer Power Company's Palisades
Nuclear Plant, a load study for diesel generators was performed. This study
indicated that the maximum automatically energized design basis load would
not exceed the diesel generator's continuous duty rating of 2500 Kw. On this
basis, the design was found acceptable.

In 1982 a 450-horsepower (HP) auxiliary feedwater pump load was added to the
automatically energized design basis load of diesel generator 1-1. With this
pump and other loads added since plant licensing, a load study indicated
that the automatically energized design basis load was approaching the
diesel generator's continuous duty rating of 2500 Kw. However, this loading
was within the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.9 and was thus considered
acceptable.

Because surveillance testing of the diesel generator's capability to supply
the actual design basis load under full load conditions is not practical,
the licensee (as part of the load study in support of adding the auxiliary
feedwater pump load), used a computer model to simulate diesel generator
response under full load conditions. The computer simulation, using test
data from diesel generator 1-2, indicated that the diesel generator had
sufficient capability to supply its design basis load requirement. A similar
computer simulation using test data from diesel generator 1-1 was not
performed until September 1987. The 1987 computer simulation predicted that
a voltage collapse would occur when the 450-HP auxiliary feedwater pump
(which is the last large 2300 V load to be sequenced on the bus) was started
on the loaded bus supplied by diesel generator 1-1.

For the design change (i.e., the automatic addition of an auxiliary
feedwater pump load). the effect of full load conditions on diesel generator
response for the specific diesel generator was not adequately considered.
The resultant design was not in full conformance with the guidelines of
Regulatory Guide 1.9 and the requirements of GDC-17.

4.   Overloading of 1E Buses Because of Interaction of Fire Suppression and
     Safety-related Systems

On April 14, 1987 an internal TVA Condition Adverse to Quality Report (CAQR)
was prepared for the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant as a result of design
reviews performed to ensure that adequate calculations exist to support the
design basis of the plant. The CAQR addressed calculations of voltage,
current, and load for the class 1E electric power system. Prior to
preparation of the CAQR, the effect of operation of the fire pumps on
safety-related equipment had been ignored. The pumps are powered by class 1E
buses that automatically transfer to the emergency diesel generators on loss
of offsite power.
.

                                   - 4 -                   September 12 1988

During a LOCA, the fire protection heat sensors inside containment will
start the fire pumps if the sensors detect temperatures greater than
212F. Containment temperatures can be greater than 240F during a
LOCA; therefore, starting of the tire pumps would be expected. Ionization
sensors can also start the tire pumps. Starting the fire pumps concurrent
with a LOCA could potentially degrade the voltage of the class 1E buses and
prevent safety-related equipment from performing its intended function. For
these conditions, as demonstrated by testing, the emergency diesel
generators would have been overloaded if a loss of offsite power occurred
coincident with a LOCA.

The root cause of this problem was a design error. The design engineer
realized that a fire concurrent with a LOCA was outside the design basis of
the plant and that containment isolation valves for the fire suppression
system will close when a LOCA is detected. Therefore, the design engineer
failed to recognize the possibility of inadvertent starting of the fire
pumps during a LOCA and the effect of their operation on the normal and
emergency power system.

5.   Inadequate Breaker Coordination

New Jersey Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) contracted to have the
Salem Units 1 and 2 fire protection program audited. The contractor
concluded that a lack of breaker coordination existed at the plant to the
extent that protection of redundant equipment and other associated circuitry
from common mode failures could be compromised. PSE&G evaluated the ability
of the Salem units to safely shut down in the event of any internal or
external hazard in the absence of full breaker coordination. It was
determined that there was insufficient basis to conclude that adequate
protection existed. An NRR inspection team also determined that the licensee
program for the setting and the coordination of electrical protective
devices was inadequate.

On September 6. 1987 a reactor trip and turbine trip occurred at the Duke
Power Company's McGuire nuclear station. These trips resulted directly from
a lack of proper circuit breaker coordination on the plant's onsite
electrical distribution system. To facilitate component maintenance, the
power supply to an auxiliary power panel board was shifted to an alternate
source, a 600 V motor control center (MCC). This MCC also provides power to
a compressor in the plant's instrument air system. A ground fault developed
in the compressor's motor. This fault not only caused the compressor motor's
feeder breaker to open but also caused the feeder breaker to the 600 V MCC
to open. The interruption of power to the MCC precipitated the loss of the
panel board. The turbine control system closed the main turbine throttle,
governor, and intercept valves causing the reactor to trip on high
pressurizer pressure.

Lack of breaker coordination can create the potential for an unacceptable
level of equipment loss during fault conditions. Thus, the designs of these
electrical systems were not fully in conformance with GDC-17.

NRC Information Notice 88-45, "Problems in Protective Relay and Circuit
Breaker Coordination." was issued on July 7, 1988 to highlight the safety
significance of this issue.
.

                                   - 5 -                   September 12 1988

6.   Inadequate Fault Current Interruption Capability

During a 1987 safety system functional inspection, (SSFI) at the H. B.
Robinson plant, the staff determined that the licensee had not ensured that
the circuit breakers in 480-V switchgear and motor control centers serving
engineered safety features circuits were properly sized to permit safe
operation under short circuit conditions. During the inspection, the staff
found that the Westinghouse DB-50 circuit breakers have inadequate fault
current interrupting capability for the duties to which they have been
assigned. A computer generated fault analysis performed by the licensee
showed that for a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with offsite power
available, the short circuit current to which the DB-50 circuit breaker
could be exposed would exceed 59,600 amperes, or 19 percent more than the
breaker's rated interrupting capability.

In addition, the preliminary results of an NRC staff SSFI held at
Consolidated Edison's Indian Point Unit 2 indicated that the Class 1E
circuit breakers and related equipment were inappropriately sized. An NRR
staff review of the licensee's short circuit calculations for the 480-V
distribution system found that for certain fault conditions, symmetrical
short-circuit current would approach 48,700 amperes, which is below the
maximum interrupting rating of Westinghouse-type DB-50 breakers. However,
the available asymmetrical short circuit current would exceed the maximum
momentary capability of the Westinghouse breaker.

Inadequate fault-current interrupting capability can create the potential
for an unacceptable level of equipment loss during fault conditions. Thus,
the electrical system designs were not fully in conformance with GDC-17.

No specific action or written response is required by this letter. If you
have any questions about this matter, please contact one of the technical
contacts listed below or the Regional Administrator of the appropriate
regional office.

                                   Sincerely,


                                   Dennis Crutchfield, Acting Associate
                                     Director for Projects
                                   Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contacts:
Carl Schulten, NRR
(301) 492-1192

John Knox, NRR
(301) 492-3285

Nick Fields, NRR
(301) 492-1173

--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

mjn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • My Changfa Generator Project
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2006, 04:35:30 PM »
Wow that is a lot to read.   I'm sure glad I'm not generating power for a nuclear power plant...

Since I don't have access to the engineers who designed this engine and gave it that 1 hour rating, I am only guessing at the reasoning behind the 1 hour limit.

I am wondering if the 1 hour rating on this engine stems from the fact that it is a hopper cooled design.  Based on experience with this engine before I got rid of the hopper cooling, I am fairly certain that this engine will boil itself dry in about an hour of running at full power.

Other than cooling issues, what would be the reason for a 1 hour rating?
Changfa 195 7.5 kw ST.  WVO conversion http://martin.nile.googlepages.com/
Metro 6/1 DI Listeroid. Pumping water for fire control.
1933 Stover CT-1 hit and miss
1936 Farmall F-12 -- unrestored, still used to mow the field

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2006, 06:03:40 PM »
engine ratings are bugger all to do with cooling.

back in ww2 lots of planes such as the spitfire had a wire across the throttle, you could push through the wire for extra throttle, it was often referred to as "buster"  (bust = break)

the purpose of the wire was the mechanics knew the engine needed not just a full service upon return to the airfield, but a complete strip and rebuild.

engine manufacturers like to talk up the product, so they will always quote maximum power at sea level, and omit mentioning it's sea level or what maximum power really means

stationary engines are quite unlike traction engines, especially cars, say you have a 500 bhp car, to get that 500 bhp you need to be nailing it to the redline in the highest gear possible, indycar with the banked ovals is a good way to do this, so if you have a one hour indycar race lets take a 1985 lola T,

310 cubic inches and 580 bhp, that's a one hour rating.

if you want 10,000 hours out of that 310 cid lump you'll take it back down to 70's oldsmobile delta 88 territory and maybe 200 ponies

at the risk of re-igniting a flame war....

BHP basically = RPM, if you want more BHP you need more RPM, more RPM = exponentially more load on every single component, putting that in human terms is making you walk up the stairs with your wife and kids on your shoulders, you'll likely pop an artery

Kw or KVA is also basically BHP

Fuel consumed (rate of x energy per cc of) is also basically BHP which is basically Kw which is basically RPM

pushing engine ratings means getting your chosen amount of power out of the smallest, lightest and weediest engine you can get, so that's like choosing me (ten stone) to carry your wife and kids upstairs in preference to choosing a pony

a standard built 100 bhp engine will produce about 75-80 bhp on continuous duty without blowing up, it will produce 100 bhp, but not for long, a few hours maybe

the difference between a lister or a heavy marine diesel and a car engine is the former are designed to produce that 75-80 bhp all day and all night for months or years on end, so instead of weighing 300 lbs like the car engine, they will weigh 3000 lbs

Proper commercial generators (diesel) will come with three power ratings, for example

1500 Kw standby
1250 Kw prime
1000 Kw continuous

standby = when the lights go out for 30 minutes
prime = meant to run the load for an hour or few
cont = meant to run from 24 hours to maybe a week

and these will use engines designed at the factory to be continuous RPM

motors which are NOT designed at the factory to be continuous RPM die quickly when run at continuous RPM

the analogy here is you can run 100 metres in 15 seconds easy enough, so you should be able to outrun a fire running at 100 metres every 20 seconds no problem, well how about its a prairie and the nearest fire break is 5 km away, you going to run 5 km in the same speed, eg 1000 seconds? 1000 / 60 = 17 minutes? I think not.
--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

Tom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1746
  • Green power is good.
    • View Profile
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2006, 08:18:03 PM »
Guy thanks again for another cogent post! This brings up a question. I'll be using my 6/1 charging a battery bank and I'll be able to dial in the charge rate via my inverters. What would be a reasonable continuous rate for this engine driving a st5 head?
Tom
2004 Ashwamegh 6/1 #217 - ST5 just over 3k hours.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Basic question on generator produced wattage vs. engine speed
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2006, 08:47:27 PM »
i am not guy obviously, and not sure if your question was directed at him or to the board, so for what it is worth....

i would think that 3.5 kwatt from a ST 5 kwatt head from a 6/1 is doable, much over that may be straining the engine a bit if running long runs. Providing of course your are geared correctly and have the engine running at near rated rpm, if you slow it down much then you will have to figure on less.

seems i have read alot of reference to the 6/1 and a st 5kwatt, do ok at 3500 watts, but begin to smoke over that, so for continuous i would limit it to no more than 3.5 kwatt.

3.5 kwatt battery charging is a butt load of amps at 12 volt (well over 250 amps even with losses), and still pretty serious at 24 volts.

how much battery charging do you need? unless you have a huge battery bank and a serious inverter with massive charging capacity i doubt you will ever strain the 6/1 or the st5 head. Even if you had a massive bank and charger, remember the charge rate tapers back as the batteries recover charge which in turn would reduce the load on the genset.

from an efficiency standpoint would running the engine to power an st head to provide ac to the inverter/charger be more efficient than say a heavy duty alternator with a 4 stage controller. it would seem the latter would be more efficient because of one less conversion stage, but i guess it comes down to what you need, and what you have to work with.

bob g

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info