Author Topic: My God there is some crap going on here.  (Read 89342 times)

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
My God there is some crap going on here.
« on: September 21, 2006, 11:29:26 AM »
Kyrdawg, I'm getting notifications from my email server that you are sending (windows) emails with attachments that are getting binned, if you need to say something to me do it in plain text.

Mounting your lister(oid) the point of the block of concrete is to shift the centre of mass of the engine / block system outside the engine crankcase, the engine crankcase is designed in that shape with that taper to assist in transmission of these forces outside the block, you can hold any differing opinion you like about this, and flexible mounts, but you are wrong, period, do (and show) the math if you are so convinced you are right.

Lister longevity / maintenance cannot be inferred from oil change intervals, a degree in physics and working with Cat diesels doesn't qualify you to speculate crap about how listers work, especially when you cheerfully ignore your degree in physics and conveniently exclude the vectors of the reciprocating and rotating internal components from your analysis and resort to idle speculation that serves no purpose except to support the plan you intend to go ahead with anyway, because it is cheaper and faster than any other method.

External vibration as experienced by a human standing next to rotating machinery is precisely useless and of no relevance whatsoever to internal loading experienced by the system, two simple shafts contra-rotating with equal eccentric weights will show zero external vibration, but be subject to vast internal stresses.

I surgical toy / vibrator motor is essentially a DC motor with an eccentric weight, if you think dangling it on a wire so it can move will make it last longer than clamping it to a vice you need to go back to school and learn some fundamentals.

Claiming something is right 99 different ways does not make it right, it just makes you stupid because it demonstrates 99 times that you refuse to see what it there and prefer to work under an illusion.

The more I step back from this site, the less I am inclined to even watch it now and again, because all I see is more and more of the same old shit, it costs nobody anything to read or post so everyone has zero penalty for shitting on their own doorstep. Kyrdawg and those with no Listers, and those with no years spent working with mechanical systems of all sorts day in and day out, need to be excluded or confined to a rubber room.

F=ma

Force = mass x acceleration

You can calculate mass and you can measure acceleration or force, two out of three gets you the third, there is PRECISELY ZERO THEORY in this, these are LAWS of physics, not THEORIES, acceleration due to gravity at sea leval is always 9.81 metres per second, it doesn't change for a lister or because big oil has a cartel or because your unity free energy device plans says it can.

When you can routinely supress the charge on the proton or unbind the weak and strong nuclear forces you may be able to mess with this stuff, until then, you are talking bullshit.

How do I know you can't do any of these things? You are not a bajillionaire and you have time away from running the planet to post here, because if any of your theories were provable as factual in a laboratory enviornment you would be a God and all the venture capitalists, bankers, industrialists and military types on the planet would be beating a path to your door.

Arches, eiffel tower, dams, all sorts of structures have curves, not to look pretty, but to shift load from one place to another, your listeroid has them too in the shape of the crank case (and the shape of the rockers, but that was another thread eh) and it is that shape for a reason.

Shifting the centre of mass outside the crankcase shifts the vectors of vibration outside the radius of the crankshaft, this is not speculation, it is fact.

If you do not agree or understand it is YOU who are taking the non-default position and claiming the sun revolves around the earth, and so it is YOU who must PROVE your theory, not those of us who adhere to engineering fact.

Magnets on car fuel lines are designed to exploit people like you, by definition, stupid gullible people, who can be very easily persuaded to part with their hard cash for some snake oil bullshit. You are the easiest people in the world to con, because you are all eager participants in your own self delusions.

If I point a gun at your heads and offer you US$10,000 or the bullet to the brain in a series of pass / fail tests, you would all take the chance on proving the sun rises in the easy, gravity works on all masses and densities, conservation of energy and so on, none of you would take the bait on elastic mounts.

This is what always pissed me off, long before the net, people who you know are wrong and who you know don't actually believe they are right to any great extent (they believe it until they are made to prove it, at which point they do not abandon their beliefs, but round upon the person who made them prove it) but still think they have a right to an opinion that should weigh as much as your facts.

You wanna believe evolution is shit and god made the world in 7 days, go right ahead, you want to spend my tax dollars teaching that and you'll be meeting your alleged maker soon enough.

Each one of you bullshit merchants drives away a half a dozen potentially interested people from buying a Lister and experimentting, and you confuse the shit out of 80% of those that remain with your crap. Maybe that is your purpose, maybe you can't stand to see people get on with stuff and achieve things, or maybe you're desperate to be included in some sort of self delusion that your are somehow participating at the bleeding edge and empowering yourselves.

You aren't, you are a pain in the fucking ass, but here is a home truth for you.

I don't just like people like you, I love you, because if any of you were half as good as you think you were, I would have had to find something entirely different to do for a (very good) living,

Status Quo.

My credentials are not in question, because I am not the one claiming that generations of engineers have got it wrong. I am not the one who has to show all my commercially successful engine designs, because I am not claiming that Lister got it wrong. I don't have to show you around jobs I have done and rotating equipment installations, because I am not the one claiming the de-facto standards are wrong.

You lot claim you know better, you come out with the same old tired bullshit, like "well technology has moved on since then" which is a straw man, because the modulus of elasticity of air hasn't changed, nor have the laws of gravity, momemtum, etc etc etc.

Kyrdawg and others, I really wish you would one day actually go out in the real world and put your wallet where your mouth is and buy a listeroid, modify it exactly as you have been telling everyone else to do, then stand next to it, as close as possible... it is only a question of time.

I really am out of here, so long and thanks for all the fish.
--
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.

oldnslow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2006, 07:43:33 PM »
Guy, you can lead a horse to water......
I hope you keep your website up.
Regards,
Emil
Mistakes are the cost of tuition.

slowspeed1953

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2006, 10:24:24 PM »
Guy,

Awesome fuckin post dude! ;)

Peace&Love, Darren

contango

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2006, 01:38:33 AM »
Darren,
STOP- GO AWAY- STOP- SPARE US THE SELF GLOSS- STOP- HAVE A RELEVANT TAKE- STOP- LET US KNOW WHEN YOU ACTUALLY OWN A LISTER(OID)- STOP- FAILING THAT LET US ALL KNOW IF YOU EVER SEE ONE- STOP- GET TO WORK- STOP!- EOM

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2006, 03:22:37 AM »
Damn, seems like everytime i take off for a couple of days, all the fun starts all over again.... and i miss it.

Guy:  (if you are still in attendance :) )

"Mounting your lister(oid) the point of the block of concrete is to shift the centre of mass of the engine / block system outside the engine crankcase, the engine crankcase is designed in that shape with that taper to assist in transmission of these forces outside the block, you can hold any differing opinion you like about this, and flexible mounts, but you are wrong, period, do (and show) the math if you are so convinced you are right."

1. yes bolting your engine to any large mass, rigidly will move the center of mass as you say, but...
the som's are bolted to a cast iron base of far less mass than a ton of concrete, they seem to work pretty smoothly, do they not?  is it likely because of a better quality of dynamic balance vs. the typical listeroid?

2. the shape of the crankcase casting has more to do with transmission of torque or anti torque to the bolts and with the
needed draft angles to remove the core pattern from the molds than to some higher math transmission of vibrations, in my opinion.
the crankcase design is not a radical departure from that which was common for engines of the lister's original class.
i find it hard to believe all of the varied manufactures had the capability to do finite analysis and come up with a design to transmit vibration to the base.  am i wrong? if so how?

3. i would agree that trying to rubber mount the engine proper is an excersize in futility, because of the some basic physic's or geometry... the base is too damn narrow and the torque is simply too high, coupled with a high centerline of the crankshaft.
where i part company on this topic is where and how rubber mounts are to be implimented. forget rubber mounting the engine to the frame, bed or whatever.
one has to build up in some manner a proper base such as the cast unit of the SOM's, this effectively moves the torque action away from the base of the engine and reduces the torque against the rubber mounts.
a steel base could be made with a torque box design that would be very rigid, and having done so be rubber mounted to the floor.

4. all of this is a mute point if the engine in question is poorly balanced, if it has been properly balanced as i am sure the original product was i see no need for 1 ton of concrete.

5. 1 ton of concrete with a poorly balanced listeroid bolted in place, while apparently running just fine, and relatively smoothly is still going to kill itself. my reasoning...
     all of the torque, vibration from reciprocating mass, etc, is transmitted thru the main brgs via the crankshaft, to the case, and from there to the 1 ton concrete block (using the example) which is the weakest link?  the crank and the brgs (assuming the mount bolts don't fail first) followed by the crankcase casting, then by the 1 ton block itself. further.....

    it stands to reason that a rubber mounted poorly balanced engine will last longer than one bolted to a huge block of concrete, reasoning i would submit is ...

take a large hammer a soft piece of metal (babbit if you like) ..
then place it on a rubber mat, and beat on it with the hammer,  conversely ..
place the soft metal on a anvil (our 1 ton block of concrete) and pound on it...

i think you will find that the metal will yield far faster when subjected to forces when achored between to rather large masses,

where am i flawed in this one? please explain.

"Shifting the centre of mass outside the crankcase shifts the vectors of vibration outside the radius of the crankshaft, this is not speculation, it is fact."

i would agree with this statement only in sofar as the SOM is concerned, here the case may be made that the fine engineers at lister did all the finite analysis to determine precisely how to redirect forces from the engine crankcases into the cast base frame.
where i am unclear on is how any engineer can with any sense of certainty prove out the theory of transmission of center of mass away from the crankcase and into the 1 ton block.... reasoning you might ask...

  there is no specific dimension of the 1 ton block, what i mean by specific is exact measurements, consistancy/size/mix of the concrete mix, rebar placement and sizes, specific placement of the engine etc etc.

  should the engineers have spec'd out the block to the nth degree, any deviation from those spec's  could and would alter the perfomance parameters of the 1 ton block for purposes of moving the center of mass, just as a bell made up of slightly differing metallurgy, dimensions etc will ring a different note even if they weigh the same. and....

the sweet spot would only work for a finely balanced engine running at one specific rpm, and

this 1 ton block would have to be sitting on an engineered bedding, or... the whole thing goes either side of center, just as a note on a keyboard goes from flat thru the note to sharp.

where am i wrong here, please enlighten me?

"My credentials are not in question"
 
   no sir they are not i assure you, but i do wish to learn where i can, so i ask questions..

"because I am not the one claiming that generations of engineers have got it wrong"

   i don't think for a moment that they got it wrong, but engineers make comprimises, happens everyday and will continue
to be the norm until the perfect machine is developed, which by the way will never happen.

so where am i going with this?

1. forget thinking that if you have a jackrabbit engine that is so poorly balanced that bolting it to a 1 ton block of anything is going to fix it. yes it will make it tolerable for a time, maybe a very long time. likely tho' it will end up with a much shorter lifespan.

2. if you have a well balanced engine, go ahead a bolt it to whatever you like, if it is secure it will run a very long life based on this parameter only.

3. if you have a jumper, do whatever is within your budget and power to correct the underlieing issues, in other words balance it!

4. if you feel you need the use of rubber isolators then at least do as Guy suggests, do the math!, follow proper engineering
   build a rigid steel frame of torque box design. spread the mounts as wide as possible and use high density mounting materials, forget the soft automotive mounts that are meant for complete vibration and noise transmission.

comeon Guy, i miss the dialog

bob g







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

slowspeed1953

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2006, 05:30:00 AM »
Bob, WOW ;)

Peace&Love :D, Darren

xyzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1038
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2006, 06:02:00 AM »
WOW....all!........I do have an Listeroid...it was a "jackrabbit"....Kangaroo is more like it! Balanced it and now it is a Kitty cat....just purrs....It is mounted on that stuff called rubber....other than tires they didn't use it for much else when the Lister was desgined....A ton of concrete would be a waste under it....Oh and if we listened to all of the law of this and that...lets see the some law said it was imposible to exceed 200mph in the 1/4 mile....something  to do with acceleration....speed of sound...they didn't know what was gonna happen...If some Spaniard really believed the world was flat I wouldn't be here.....hell they didn't even know what the 1st atomic bomb was gonna do....I'll bet half of the listers were never mounted to there exact specification.....Has anyone heard of any grenade stories?....really!....not theory or laws but facts of destruction due to mounting....I would love to hear it!
Vidhata 6/1 portable
Power Solutions portable 6/1
Z482 KUBOTA

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2006, 01:29:06 PM »
Damn, seems like everytime i take off for a couple of days, all the fun starts all over again.... and i miss it.

Guy:  (if you are still in attendance :) )

"Mounting your lister(oid) the point of the block of concrete is to shift the centre of mass of the engine / block system outside the engine crankcase, the engine crankcase is designed in that shape with that taper to assist in transmission of these forces outside the block, you can hold any differing opinion you like about this, and flexible mounts, but you are wrong, period, do (and show) the math if you are so convinced you are right."

1. yes bolting your engine to any large mass, rigidly will move the center of mass as you say, but...
the som's are bolted to a cast iron base of far less mass than a ton of concrete, they seem to work pretty smoothly, do they not?  is it likely because of a better quality of dynamic balance vs. the typical listeroid?

a/ Yes, genuine CS 6/1 was a pretty well balanced and behaved engine, at tickover... at full torque they will thump.

b/ The cast iron base serves a lot of purposes, it aligns everything for starters, listers used different bases for different applications, eg pump driving etc.

Quote
2. the shape of the crankcase casting has more to do with transmission of torque or anti torque to the bolts and with the
needed draft angles to remove the core pattern from the molds than to some higher math transmission of vibrations, in my opinion.
the crankcase design is not a radical departure from that which was common for engines of the lister's original class.
i find it hard to believe all of the varied manufactures had the capability to do finite analysis and come up with a design to transmit vibration to the base.  am i wrong? if so how?

a/ one side of torque goes against the cylinder walls, the other side turns the crank, you get a mainly shearing force on the crankcase base bolts, torque tends to make the crankcase rotate around the crankshaft, there is an excess of metal for the torque generated.

b/ you are right about moulds, but look at the barrel, it too takes 100% of the torque, but it shows almost no taper, the crankcase taper is vastly excessive if the sole purpose was mould / plug removal.

c/ look at the curve in question, it's basically a french curve derived design, as everything was before CAD, the interesting thing is you can draw leading edges of concorde supersonic wings and rolls royce turbine blades with french curves, just because these things were done before CAD, or with nothing more complex than pythagoras or euclid doesn't mean that they can be automatically improved upon today. Note the spiral spokes in early cast flywheels, there was zero cosmetic / aesthetic purpose to spiral spokes, it was NOT done to look nice.

d/ the lister factory and a iron foundry casting crank cases for diesel engines did not just spring up out of no-where (this is why I get so angry today at everything we have thrown away) but were based upon a couple of hundred years of casting iron for gas engines, for steam engines, and so on, when the first diesel block was designed and cast they built upon generations of foundry experience that was already there, the fact that the CS runs on diesel doesn't change the vibes and harmonics, power it on compressed air or steam and they will still be there, so fatigue induced losses were old hat and well understood.

e/ even in the days of pony & trap, listers was less than a day from what was the greatest steam locomotive & railway manufacturing centre in the world, and when aviation came about that was on their doorstep too, so there were VAST amounts of generations deep experience right on their doorstep from which the entire labour pool would be drawn, steam locomotive pisons bear many similarities to a CS crankcase.

f/ everything built back then stood on the shoulders of some other design, yanks into motorcycles will get this with harley, pan / knuck / shovel, try and put a v-rod barrel on a pan...  so no brand new engine designs were born, everything evolved, the CS evolved out of a petrol engine. Nobody talks about all the tens of thousands of failures along the way, but they were incorporated into incremental design changes year by year.


Quote
3. i would agree that trying to rubber mount the engine proper is an excersize in futility, because of the some basic physic's or geometry... the base is too damn narrow and the torque is simply too high, coupled with a high centerline of the crankshaft.
where i part company on this topic is where and how rubber mounts are to be implimented. forget rubber mounting the engine to the frame, bed or whatever.
one has to build up in some manner a proper base such as the cast unit of the SOM's, this effectively moves the torque action away from the base of the engine and reduces the torque against the rubber mounts.
a steel base could be made with a torque box design that would be very rigid, and having done so be rubber mounted to the floor.

I agree with you 100%, were our considerations ONLY that of torque.

lbs of engine per bhp or per ft/lb torque tells you stationary engines are a world away from anything else you ever worked on, doesn't matter if the motive power is steam, or natural gas, or diesel, everything is MASSIVELY built, BUT, flywheel weight as a proportion of total engine weight is not so high, take the traction Listers like the JP series and the flywheels are far more massive.

Lister did do CS engines to be used as traction engines, they were rare (becuase the sump meant you couldn't incline the engine or subject it to any significant acceleration) and those engine had massive flywheels that dwarfed the 2 x 300 lb start-o-matic wheels.... I saw one in the middle east (where there was no wood for fuel) mounted into a steam shovel, it had a single massive flywheel that must have easily weighed 3/4 of a ton, with PTO on the other end of the crank

Quote
4. all of this is a mute point if the engine in question is poorly balanced, if it has been properly balanced as i am sure the original product was i see no need for 1 ton of concrete.

fatigue is a funny thing, you can try and model it in a computer, but you are only modelling it, and if your model doesn't match the results you have to go back and adjust your model, back in the day you went back and adjusted the design.... fatigue doesn't show up (unless you have the design badly wrong) in 5 or 10 thousand hours, it shows up in 20, or 30, or 50 thousand hours, and, bear in mind where these things were sold, when it showed up your VERY expensive (cost as much as a house) product stopped working and stayed that way for perhaps weeks while waiting for a spare part to be shipped out.

The de havilland comet aeroplane is an interesting example of fatigue. (also of the evolutionary school of design that was all there was back then)

Engineering is relatively easy, simple and straightforwards if you can simply omit fatigue and assume that all materials used have unchanging properties throughout their lives.

Quote
5. 1 ton of concrete with a poorly balanced listeroid bolted in place, while apparently running just fine, and relatively smoothly is still going to kill itself. my reasoning...

I agree 100%, a ton of concrete will not compensate for an unbalanced and poorly assembled engine, it will mask it as will loading a pick up truck with imbalanced wheels, no more.

Quote
     all of the torque, vibration from reciprocating mass, etc, is transmitted thru the main brgs via the crankshaft, to the case, and from there to the 1 ton concrete block (using the example) which is the weakest link?  the crank and the brgs (assuming the mount bolts don't fail first) followed by the crankcase casting, then by the 1 ton block itself. further.....

omit the concrete block and it is (in 99% of cases) usually the crankshaft itself that fails at a fillet, and the flipside is if you have a broken crank then 99% of the time you need to look at a fatigue failure induced by (in a stationary engine or machine of any kind) improper mounting.

The crank, bearings, block etc are all designed to handle the torque with ease, the torque is essentially irellevant, vibes from reciprocating masses (mixture of reciprocating and rotating really) in a presumably well assembled engine are the issue here, if they are allowed to work upon the components subject to fatigue then fatigue will happen.

The weakest thing is the crankshaft (cross sectional area compared to the block etc) because it not only is relatively small x section, but unlike say the con rod it is subject to fatigue forces from ALL angles of radius, whereas conron is basically subject to compression and tension only, stay well within tensile / shear / hooke limits and the conrod will last forever.

The only way to cure this is to move these forces away from the crankshaft so they can no longer fatigue it. It is impractical to alter the forced themselves, eg unobtanium pistons with zero mass and untimate strength etc, so the only other thing that you can alter in any vector equation is shifting the centre of mass.

Shedding weight and therefore strength is not an option, so you have to add weight, and you have to add it as an inert block, not a slab that can set up its own sympathetic harmonics.

Ask Mr Belk why nobody ever designed a rifle or handgun where the barrel and therefore recoil was not a straight line to the body, why is it always offset from the grip?

Answer is there are guns made that way, and they are all designed to be mounted to something else, something solid.

Human held guns are designed so the recoil will rotate the weapon, and the recoil itself is angled, bones (when you fall) only break when you load then endwise or snap them in the middle, angle them slightly and they transmit the energy somehwhere else, maybo to a collar bone which will break. And nobody used finite element modelling when designing the original pistol and rifle grips...

Flying buttresses on walls (which have stood for 1000 years) do nothing else except transmit forces along a different path, outside the wall itself.

Mr Belk tells of breaking massive concrete bridge sections by mounting an engine on them and simply running it, WHERE DID THIS ENERGY COME FROM to fatigue and fracture this concrete if it is not being transmitted from inside the engine exactly as I have been saying?

Quote
    it stands to reason that a rubber mounted poorly balanced engine will last longer than one bolted to a huge block of concrete, reasoning i would submit is ...

it stands to reason that if you are doing 30 mph on a motorcycle in a straight line and you wish to turn left you turn the bars and front wheel to face left, try it and you will turn to the right.

it may be impractical to ask you to buy two identical engines and test this, it is not impractical to suggest to you that stationary equipment (listers alone made nearly half a million d engines) manufacturers have already done this test, literally millions of times over, and the answer has always been the same.

if you have time and a couple of thousand bucks to burn buy 20 brand new briggs & stratton engines, bolt the same eccentric to each, rubber mount half of them, and solid mount the other half, run them all to destruction and come back and tell us that literally millions of stationary engines and equipment installers were correct on the one hand, and a few people on a forum who did things because it stood to reason were wrong on the other hand.

there are a couple of people here into electronics, you can buy and assemble for maybe a couple of hundred dollars quite sensetive 3 axis acceleromers, bolt them to your listeroid and start doing data capture, then raise it off the block and insert rubber mounts or flexible mounts of any kind and repeat.

here is a clue, stationary equipment manufacturers are hip to this "new technology" so now they will actually quote acceptable vibration and shock in terms of Gravities and Milliseconds, even for stuff as cheap as computer hard disk drives, but also for an expensive as a new house, as Listers were, stationary engines and equipment.

Guess what, none of them will agree with forum members, all of them will go with the right way.

EVer seen rubber mounted lathes or press brakes?

Quote
take a large hammer a soft piece of metal (babbit if you like) ..
then place it on a rubber mat, and beat on it with the hammer,  conversely ..
place the soft metal on a anvil (our 1 ton block of concrete) and pound on it...

why? it will tell you nothing about fatigue...

here is an opposite example that will also tell you nothing about fatigue.

get two guys to hold up a sheet of glass, throw a chair at it and watch it smash. repeat with a second sheet.

now mount two identical sheets of glass in a double glazing frame and fit to a house, throw the same chair at it and stand back and watch in amazement as the chair bounces back at you leaving the glass unbroken.

Quote
i think you will find that the metal will yield far faster when subjected to forces when achored between to rather large masses,
hammer, anvil, work, how come the fixed anvil remains unchanged but the flexibly mounted in the blacksmiths tong work piece gets deformed?

Quote
where am i flawed in this one? please explain.

fatigue.

read about liqufaction of apparently solid clay, fatigue.

fatigue is not like other stresses or forces.

fatigue makes a mockery or tensile, shear, compressive and other ratings of any material you care to shake a stick at.

Quote
"Shifting the centre of mass outside the crankcase shifts the vectors of vibration outside the radius of the crankshaft, this is not speculation, it is fact."

i would agree with this statement only in sofar as the SOM is concerned, here the case may be made that the fine engineers at lister did all the finite analysis to determine precisely how to redirect forces from the engine crankcases into the cast base frame.
where i am unclear on is how any engineer can with any sense of certainty prove out the theory of transmission of center of mass away from the crankcase and into the 1 ton block.... reasoning you might ask...

it is a fairly simple calculation, but it is based on the pre-supposition that you already have the knowledge and theory in place, I can sit down and do the diagrams and math if you like, but it won't help unless you already understand all the tools being used, which by definition if you did have the actual calculation itself would be self evident.

why can I work and break a piece of fencing wire that in other usage can take enough load to literally rip my arms from my body?

fatigue.

until the cracks appear, the metal is on everything except the electron microscopy level quite unchanged.

when the cracks appear it is game over in an eyeblink.

remember the "liberty ships"

read these three books
Metal Fatigue: Theory and Design. ed. A.F. Madayag, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969.

Materials Science and Engineering, An Introduction. 3rd Edition, William D. Callister, Jr., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.

Mechanical Behavior of Materials Laboratory. N.E. Dowling and R.A. Simonds, University Printing Service, 1995.


Quote
  there is no specific dimension of the 1 ton block, what i mean by specific is exact measurements, consistancy/size/mix of the concrete mix, rebar placement and sizes, specific placement of the engine etc etc.

Lister parameters were quite specific, it's that old rule of thumb again, average (lot of space inside a crankcase) engine mean density and average concrete density don't vary that much.

Quote
  should the engineers have spec'd out the block to the nth degree, any deviation from those spec's  could and would alter the perfomance parameters of the 1 ton block for purposes of moving the center of mass, just as a bell made up of slightly differing metallurgy, dimensions etc will ring a different note even if they weigh the same. and....

"meaningful accuracy", Lister specified the block to within an inch in each dimension, go bigger in any dimension if you like.

Quote
the sweet spot would only work for a finely balanced engine running at one specific rpm, and

the "sweet spot" is focus the fatigue ANYWHERE outside the block / crank radius, we don't care where, as long as it is outside, in the same way that an abdomen hit from a high velocity 50 cal is no less fatal than a head shot, you want that impact momentum anywhere except inside the body / engine.

Quote
this 1 ton block would have to be sitting on an engineered bedding, or... the whole thing goes either side of center, just as a note on a keyboard goes from flat thru the note to sharp.

no, it is not precision, once someone shows you how to make a wooden template to build an arch, and what curve to use, anyone can built an arch and remove the wood and it will stay standing, provided the foundations at each end are good.

that is why nobody "Got" the arch for centuries, they couldn't percieve the idea of the force being transmitted to each side and into the foundation.

Quote
where am i wrong here, please enlighten me?

"My credentials are not in question"
 
   no sir they are not i assure you, but i do wish to learn where i can, so i ask questions..

"because I am not the one claiming that generations of engineers have got it wrong"

   i don't think for a moment that they got it wrong, but engineers make comprimises, happens everyday and will continue
to be the norm until the perfect machine is developed, which by the way will never happen.

so where am i going with this?

1. forget thinking that if you have a jackrabbit engine that is so poorly balanced that bolting it to a 1 ton block of anything is going to fix it. yes it will make it tolerable for a time, maybe a very long time. likely tho' it will end up with a much shorter lifespan.

2 ton (load capacity) pickup truck, 4 very badly balanced wheels, infinte length road to be driven at a steady 50 mph, which will wreck wheel bearings first, the empty truck or the one carrying 2 ton?

Quote
2. if you have a well balanced engine, go ahead a bolt it to whatever you like, if it is secure it will run a very long life based on this parameter only.

yes, excepting fatigue.

fatigue MATTERS when you have an engine designed to do 100,000 hours AND STILL NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR THE END OF ITS SERVICE LIFE.


Quote
3. if you have a jumper, do whatever is within your budget and power to correct the underlieing issues, in other words balance it!

yup

and if you want it to last decades tie it solid to a ton of crete, same as you do with your lathe etc.

Quote
4. if you feel you need the use of rubber isolators then at least do as Guy suggests, do the math!, follow proper engineering
   build a rigid steel frame of torque box design. spread the mounts as wide as possible and use high density mounting materials, forget the soft automotive mounts that are meant for complete vibration and noise transmission.

not exactly, if you still want elastic mounts then bolt the engine solid to the ton of crete and then rubber mount the entire 2 ton shebang, plenty of industrial examples of this practice too.




--
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.

Geno

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2006, 12:56:21 AM »
GOOD thread. It will take a while for it to all sink in. It also highlights the need to seperate the BS from REAL engineers.

My thanks to both of you, Mobile_Bob and GuyFawkes

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2006, 01:26:19 AM »
i will step back and tip my hat to Guy as the one with the sheepskin, i am not a trained engineer, but i have a keen sense of observation and an avid appetite for all i can read on the subject.

and yes when pressed to do so, i can do the math  :)

Guy:

thank you for the responce, it is always educational, often fascinating, and usually fairly easy to follow.

i read your reply earlier this morning and have given it due consideration and careful thought, i likely will follow with a few more
questions. i do have one tho' to start with, (first an observation, followed by a question).

it would appear that your main concern is that of the weak point being the crankshaft breaking thru the journal fillet area out the cheek, do to unrestrained (or rather not moving it thru to the concrete base) vibration and fatigue.

it has been my experience over the years usually cranks break from a few causes.

a. flaw's in the forging or casting

b. incorrect fillet implimentation

c. harmonic faults caused by a failed damper

d. a sharp and sudden shock load either by loading the shaft or dropping the unit.

to my knowledge the lister/oids are not really heavy consumers of crankshafts, in that there are very few reports of failures.
Granted most of the listeroids have not run in excess of 10k hours so there may very well be more as the hours pile up.

usually what i see failing in all sorts of machinery are brg failures do to vibration, most especially on heavily restrained pieces of equipment, and ...

ancillary pieces on those pieces of equipment that are not heavily restrained, ie. brackets, housings, mounts etc.

so the question is,

are you adament in your position that a well balanced machine (engine) will not last as long unless it is rigidly mounted as one that also been well balanced and properly mounted with some form of resilient mount (ie. rubber)?

i would tend to agree on your position that just lag bolting a lister/oid to a couple of railroad ties is likely not a good idea, but would you fault my position that if one was to construct a well made (rigid) steel structure incorporting a "torque box" design would not fair as well as being bolted to a ton of concrete?

i will follow with a few more comments, questions, and observations in the next day or so.

thanks Guy :)

bob g

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

Guy_Incognito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
  • Just a guy, incognito.
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2006, 05:21:49 AM »
Well.

Now that I'm finished my week of shiftwork, and I'm alert and awake and not-nearly-so-argumentative , I realise that I am also not nearly as eloquent as mobile_bob at getting my thoughts and points across.

I'll say that while you have excellent points Guy_F and you've taken pains to explain it further. Better than rtqii did in my thread, anyway. (Sorry, rtqii, you just didn't have me there. My half-asleep argumentativeness didn't really help, either.)

Saying that , however, I have to say that I agree with Bob. My laughable knowledge of physics and Stationary Engines notwithstanding (haha! let's all laugh along) , there should be another solution that involves flexible mounts. My primary goal is as much vibration isolation as possible, relative longevity second, extreme longevity a distant third. Perhaps it will turn out to be overly complex compared to a traditional mount. Whether it turns into a hybrid block-on-mount setup or a couple of old tyres and a bit of rail is not much of concern for me.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2006, 06:41:44 AM »
been giving this whole thing another thunk :)


assuming a well balanced machine (in this case a listeroid), mounting it on a ton of concrete may very well be a proper method for an extended lifecycle of the
engine.  the problem remains one of transmission of noise, vibration, thumping or whatever you want to call it to surrounding structures. this may or may not be an issue
with some, part or all users.  but it is a concern of mine and i hazard a guess that i am not an unusual instance.

Guy:

more on the stationary engine thing, mounting issues , solid versus rubber mount and all that

you mention trying an experiment with 10 briggs and strattons, mounting some rigid and other non rigid, and comparing lifespans of the engines.
 
    this got me to thinking, and perhaps i am talking apples to oranges here but consider the following

the typical 3.5 hp briggs/stratton horizonal shaft engine as has been in production for the last 50 odd years,

it is unusual to find them bolted down to large blocks of concrete, but not at all unusual finding them bolted down to stamped steel mower decks, edgers, and a plethora of other equipment, hardly rigid mounting. and also in small ~2kwatt gensets where they are either directly rubber mounted to the frames or have rubber cushion feet.

usually they die from neglect, poor maintenance, or bad gas, and in some cases worse fates, none of which can be attributed to the use of resilient mounting.


what i am thinking is there are tradeoffs or comprimises when engineering anything, unless money is no object (think government contracts).

this leads me back to concrete as the end all of mounting the listeroid, i can't get to where i need to be with its use, in that there will be sound, vibration, thumping transmitted to the adjoining structures, this is unacceptable for my use.

further the use of concrete while expedient seems to me a comprimise at best, concrete clearly is not nearly as "dead" as gray cast iron.

if i assume that the goal is to move the center of mass, then some form of mathematical excersize is in order to determine where the center of mass is to be relocated, precisely or at the very least away from the engine, and presumably dead center of the block of concrete.  perhaps the lister folks and their calculation and spec's on the ton block of concrete arrived at this point.  i would like to see those calculations, or at least some reference to the fine folks at lister having made those calculations.

should i find reference or be directed to those calculations, it would be fairly easy to conceptualize how to arrive at the same destination using a steel frame that is rubber mounted to the floor.

i know this raises your hackles a bit, and i do not mean offense in pressing the issue.

one of your fellow countryman began thinking out of the box back in the 70's in formulae one, mr. Tyrell i believe.  with his 4 steer wheel design born in a barn out in the woods of your country if i remember correctly.  if anyone knows how to transmit motion, vibration, fatigue points, thumping etc. it is the designers of formula one cars.
to my knowlege while the engines are rigid mounted to the framework (beit tube or mono construction) the engine is still rubber mounted via suspension components and certainly tires. 

it stands to reason that perhaps a steel superstructure could be engineered to accomplish the ton of concrete effect while incorporating the rubber isolation mounts many others are seeking.

what do you think?

is there no way to accomplish the rigid mounting of a ton of concrete and rubber mounting without having to actually use the ton of mud?

maybe i am all wet, but i think it can be done.  no?

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

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2006, 09:30:12 AM »
Bob

1/ Listers have been making these (and other stationary engines) longer than you or I or anyone else can shake a stick at, they went bust because the world changed, and nobody wanted to buy stuff that was built to last at least a human lifetime any more, plus the world changed and everyone went on grid in the developed world which basically eliminated the domestic and near market. Note well, neither of these are changes in engineering or physical properties.... to a certain extent Listers were a buggy whip factory, they still made some of the best quality and craftsmanship buggy whips in the world, but everyone was driving cars...

2/ All engineering is compromise, designing an object is no less of one just because that object is expensive, you need to understand that Lister CS engines were designed to literally last a lifetime, no corners were cut with this criterion, but even so there is still more than one way to skin a rabbit. The Lister factory was down a small lane in hilly english country, and products were shipped by taking them to the local railway station where they were literally manhandled, so shipping weight and size were an issue, and included in the price was a Lister engineer coming to your premises to comisssion the engine.

3/ That compromise meant it made practical sense to specify that a ton+ of concrete was poured at the installation site, instead of adding a ton of iron to the engine at the factory. There is nothing wrong with this practice, but it means you have to accept the Lister CS was designed from the ground up to be mounted solidly to a very large block of concrete, you can do anything you like, but unless you do as Lister intended you are straying away from their tried, tested and true recipe for a lifetime of reliable service.

4/ You lot are not running Listers, you are running clones where corners have been cut solely to save money, Lister plain bearing mains give a very soft, smooth and cushioned ride to the crank, tapered rollers give an unyeilding hard ride to the crank, I cannot quantify how this changes things without experimentation and a lot of analysis of a Listeroid, which I have never laid eyes or hands on, but clearly it will make a difference. There are other important differences throughout too, and they all add up. The CS design camshaft experiences very light loads, low RPM, mild cam profiles, soft valve springs, and the injection and oil pumps draw negligible torque. It may be that were a proper analysis done we would see that a combination of all these factors, plus the lack of a proper mounting, are directly responsible for all these camshaft idler failures.

5/ I stand by everything I said, get and read the books I listed, this isn't pie in the sky, it is fact.

6/ What is coming through now in your post, and what has been evident in everyone else's post, is their true motivations, your primary concern is not actually doing it properly so your grandkids can have a running engine as Lister intended, you ma say you want that, but in fact 5 or 10k hours will do you, so your primary concern is personal comfort and freedom from vibration and noise.

7/ Put your other hat on and you know you have customers who claim they want the job done properly, but who actually want the job done cheap and fast, this makes sense because we have a forum here full of people who think 1200 bucks is a lot to pay for a diesel engine, nobody here is going to shell out for an Arrow. I rest my case. You have all bought cheap, relatively crap, knock off copies of an original classic, deep down you all know this and know you aren't going to get 100k hours out of your engines, but nobody wants to admit they are a tightwad.

8/ Insofar as the clones have departed from the original Lister design, you still, IMHO can't go wrong with doing everything possible to get as close as you can to the originals, and that means mount them on a ton of crete. Especially with the other clone shortcomings such as roller mains etc.

9/ If you don't want vibes then you shouldn't have bought a 1.5 litre single cylinder diesel, now you've got one on the cheap there is no good compounding the self delusion about the quality of the engine by a further self delusion that rubber mounting it is any kind of quality work, even if it does make for human comfort.... I'm wondering how many of you are embarrased at how your listeroid thumps?

10/ If you want human comfort you should not have bought a Listeroid, which is a clone of a Lister, which was a COMMERCIAL product, not intended for domestic use, costing as it did more than many houses of the day.

11/ Starting from where you are all actually at, my suggestion is the following.

a/ Suck it down and accept you did not 100% understand the nature of what you were buying into, it was a learning process.

b/ Suck it down and accept you bought a cheap copy built down to a price, and do what you can to bring it back to spec.

c/ Suck it down and accept the factory knew best, and bolt it solid to a ton of concrete.

d/ If you still want a vibration free life, there are plenty of low tech ways of doing it, even 2 tons of Listeroid and concrete will float on a small barge in a small pool dug into the ground, keep it centred with springs and you'll have zero vibration, hydraulic mounting is not new, or you can go the other way, pour your ton+ into a steel box, and mount the whole two tons on some sort of suspension of your choice, trailer springs will do it for you.

You can all sit back and do nothing and let Mr Belk continue to be your guinea pig, he now has proper mounts, lets see what his experiences are, not theory, but practice.

cheers
--
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.

oldnslow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2006, 06:51:53 PM »
Quote
You have all bought cheap, relatively crap, knock off copies of an original classic, deep down you all know this and know you aren't going to get 100k hours out of your engines, but nobody wants to admit they are a tightwad.

I am a tightwad. Didn't buy the cheapest one but this is a great way to get a big bitch that will  run, because I can make it run. For me this will be a fun thing. Don't buy one if you're a whiner.

Quote
Insofar as the clones have departed from the original Lister design, you still, IMHO can't go wrong with doing everything possible to get as close as you can to the originals, and that means mount them on a ton of crete. Especially with the other clone shortcomings such as roller mains etc.

Some of the roids are getting closer.  I bet there will be plain bearing models available over here eventually. Maybe someone will produce plain bearing carriers for retrofit. 

Mistakes are the cost of tuition.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: My God there is some crap going on here.
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2006, 03:40:41 AM »
ok Guy where do i start?  :)

me thinks you paint with a broad brush and very thin paint!

please don't try and gloss over my efforts to discuss this topic by stuffing me into a preconceived group of folks that you
find tedious to converse with.

i may have taken an opposing side to the arguement, but i would appreciate learning what i can from the discussion, perhaps others will learn a bit in the process.

the way i figure an arguement (discussion not fistfight) is, it is made up of components.  i am not likely to accept an arguement without first analyzing each of those components. bottom line each component of an arguement has to hold its own, or "wash" so to speak.

before i go any further, i would also like to go on the record and state

a.  i am no more a cheap bastard than the next guy, but... just because something costs more is no measure of quality

b. i had no blind spots to the limitations of an indian lister, believe me here, i have enough experience to fully understand what i was about to purchase.  i knew up front that the likelyhood of one of these running anywhere near 50k hours much less 100k hours was a longer shot than winning the lottery.

c. i have stated many times before that the things typically are a 95% proposition, in that they should be blueprinted and balancing is certainly a part of blueprining any engine.

d. (now the hard ball)  the original listers were a series of comprimises and anyone that takes the position that they are the
next coming of christ is out of their minds. are they vastly better than an indian copy? certainly!

now i fully realize i have probably pissed you off with (d) above, if so i am partially sorry :)

now back to the subject.

"1/ Listers have been making these (and other stationary engines) longer than you or I or anyone else can shake a stick at, they went bust because the world changed, and nobody wanted to buy stuff that was built to last at least a human lifetime any more, plus the world changed and everyone went on grid in the developed world which basically eliminated the domestic and near market. Note well, neither of these are changes in engineering or physical properties.... to a certain extent Listers were a buggy whip factory, they still made some of the best quality and craftsmanship buggy whips in the world, but everyone was driving cars..."

     this is a fair statement and i would agree

"2/ All engineering is compromise, designing an object is no less of one just because that object is expensive, you need to understand that Lister CS engines were designed to literally last a lifetime, no corners were cut with this criterion, but even so there is still more than one way to skin a rabbit. The Lister factory was down a small lane in hilly english country, and products were shipped by taking them to the local railway station where they were literally manhandled, so shipping weight and size were an issue, and included in the price was a Lister engineer coming to your premises to comisssion the engine."

    i would agree to most of this statement, with the exception of... "no corners were cut with this criterion"
   corners may not have been cut, but there was certainly an evolution in the engine, most particularly big end oiling.


"3/ That compromise meant it made practical sense to specify that a ton+ of concrete was poured at the installation site, instead of adding a ton of iron to the engine at the factory. There is nothing wrong with this practice, but it means you have to accept the Lister CS was designed from the ground up to be mounted solidly to a very large block of concrete, you can do anything you like, but unless you do as Lister intended you are straying away from their tried, tested and true recipe for a lifetime of reliable service"

    i have no reason to fault this statement, seems reasonable that it was far easier, more expedient, chearper, and predictable using the one ton block of concrete. but....
this does not negate my arguement re: the design, fabrication and implimentation of a steel superstructure with "rubber" mounts.  So far you have made the assersion that it is the wrong thing to do, without supporting your position. perhaps you could direct me to some documentation that lister in its wisdom made recommedations against this approach, based on their research and testing.

"4/ You lot are not running Listers, you are running clones where corners have been cut solely to save money, Lister plain bearing mains give a very soft, smooth and cushioned ride to the crank, tapered rollers give an unyeilding hard ride to the crank, I cannot quantify how this changes things without experimentation and a lot of analysis of a Listeroid, which I have never laid eyes or hands on, but clearly it will make a difference. There are other important differences throughout too, and they all add up. The CS design camshaft experiences very light loads, low RPM, mild cam profiles, soft valve springs, and the injection and oil pumps draw negligible torque. It may be that were a proper analysis done we would see that a combination of all these factors, plus the lack of a proper mounting, are directly responsible for all these camshaft idler failures."

   no we are not working with listers, but copies i agree.. we can all speculate on the rest, but i would suspect it has more to do with quality control of the metallurgy more than any other factors.

"5/ I stand by everything I said, get and read the books I listed, this isn't pie in the sky, it is fact."

    i have no doubt these are excellent books on the various subjects covered, but do they source lister development in particular?  also....
it would seem your contention is that the clone engines are having serious failures such as broken crankshafts etc., to date i am unaware that they have serious failures and flaws. further...
without evidence of a sufficient number of failures attributed to vibration i see no reason to spend alot of time researching topics such as those covered in your suggesting reading list.  what we are talking about here is the mitigation of the transfer of these vibrations to other structures. to summarize

if i have a 1500 dollar listeroid, running on a one ton block, which would i rather sacrifice (using the resilient mounting method)?  possible engine longevity (which has not been proven to be shortened by the use of properly designed rubber mounting) or damage due to cracking of my use of stucco in the surrounding structures, namely my home...  really its not a hard one to decide for me,,, i would gladly kill an original lister with zero hours fresh out of the crate at 10k hours than have issues with the house.
all of this assumes that your assertion that resilient mounting will shorten the life of a lister/oid, which i will ask again for support of that position, where is the beef?

"5/ I stand by everything I said, get and read the books I listed, this isn't pie in the sky, it is fact."

     sorry here, but stating something as fact doesnt make it fact. most especially when used in such a broad sense.
     again break the arguement into its components, support each, and then i will accept each component as fact. i don't think
     this is being unreasonable... am i?

"6/ What is coming through now in your post, and what has been evident in everyone else's post, is their true motivations, your primary concern is not actually doing it properly so your grandkids can have a running engine as Lister intended, you ma say you want that, but in fact 5 or 10k hours will do you, so your primary concern is personal comfort and freedom from vibration and noise."

       yes, you are spot on here, 10k hours will do me just fine,, personal comfort is a minor consideration, freedom from destructive vibration transferred elsewhere is of paramount importance.. but
your assertion that there is only one way of doing it right, seems a bit narrow sighted... i summarily reject the assertion that there is only one way of doing anything "right" .... "right" is a relative term, right for you and right for me can be diametrically opposed,,, then steps in another guy with his "right".... who is wrong?  neither you or i, or the other guy. we are all "right" if the end result suits each individual need,,, no?

"/ Put your other hat on and you know you have customers who claim they want the job done properly, but who actually want the job done cheap and fast, this makes sense because we have a forum here full of people who think 1200 bucks is a lot to pay for a diesel engine, nobody here is going to shell out for an Arrow. I rest my case. You have all bought cheap, relatively crap, knock off copies of an original classic, deep down you all know this and know you aren't going to get 100k hours out of your engines, but nobody wants to admit they are a tightwad."

    I AM A TIGHTASS,, OKAY I ADMIT IT... :) on this engine,,, but you might be pleasantly surprised at another of my projects, that would give the SOM a hell of a run for its money.  further....
this statement doesnt take away from my assertion that i can rubber mount a lister/oid and make it live as long as if bolted to a ton of concrete.

"8/ Insofar as the clones have departed from the original Lister design, you still, IMHO can't go wrong with doing everything possible to get as close as you can to the originals, and that means mount them on a ton of crete. Especially with the other clone shortcomings such as roller mains etc."

    agree'd blueprint to lister standards, balance to lister standards,,, and i you like mount it on a ton of concrete, or...
engineer a superstructure with resilient mounting.  until i can see some documentation that plainly states resilient mounting properly engineered is going to kill the engine it is not fact!


"9/ If you don't want vibes then you shouldn't have bought a 1.5 litre single cylinder diesel, now you've got one on the cheap there is no good compounding the self delusion about the quality of the engine by a further self delusion that rubber mounting it is any kind of quality work, even if it does make for human comfort.... I'm wondering how many of you are embarrased at how your listeroid thumps?"

    don't get me started on this one,,, i currently own approx 27 various diesel engines from 3.5 hp to 28 hp,
also i am not suggesting that one should take a poorly assemble cheap copy, that is horribly out of balance and try to overcome these shortcomings with rubber mounts... what i have said is blueprint/balance it first....

"10/ If you want human comfort you should not have bought a Listeroid, which is a clone of a Lister, which was a COMMERCIAL product, not intended for domestic use, costing as it did more than many houses of the day."

     here again cost has nothing to do with quality.  and again human comfort was a secondary or less consideration at least for me. still skirts the issue of the discussion.

"11/ Starting from where you are all actually at, my suggestion is the following.

a/ Suck it down and accept you did not 100% understand the nature of what you were buying into, it was a learning process"

    i fully understood up front exactly what i was buying, and that was a kit engine, assembled by a bunch of folks in a sand   pit, sitting on the floor, built as cheaply as they could do it.

i have worked extensively with very well engineered diesel engines of various manufacture, i know quality when i see it, and conversely i know substandard when i see that as well.

"b/ Suck it down and accept you bought a cheap copy built down to a price, and do what you can to bring it back to spec."

   of course,,, yup sure did... and sure as heck will do what is needed to bring it to an acceptable level of spec's

"c/ Suck it down and accept the factory knew best, and bolt it solid to a ton of concrete."

    no f*ckin way dude! not until i see supporting doc's from lister showing how they tried and failed with resilient mounting

"d/ If you still want a vibration free life, there are plenty of low tech ways of doing it, even 2 tons of Listeroid and concrete will float on a small barge in a small pool dug into the ground, keep it centred with springs and you'll have zero vibration, hydraulic mounting is not new, or you can go the other way, pour your ton+ into a steel box, and mount the whole two tons on some sort of suspension of your choice, trailer springs will do it for you."

    if i follow your logic here, then lister failed to engineer their engine properly, in that they needed the added structural support to make them live.  can you document that?

"You can all sit back and do nothing and let Mr Belk continue to be your guinea pig, he now has proper mounts, lets see what his experiences are, not theory, but practice."

   fair enough,, what will it prove? we all know that concrete works, what we don't know for a fact is that resilient mounting will kill the engine. further..

10 tons of concrete would not have prevented sand distruction to internal components, i cannot see how a ton of concrete would have extended the life of that engine, he didnt break a crankshaft, he just wore out the brgs. are you going to tell me that had he mounted the engine properly as you say to a ton of concrete it would have  run many times longer? seriously?

tag! your it

bob g




















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