Guy
What is your educational background? Did you graduated from University with an engineering degree? I believe I read one of your posts where you said you were a marine engineer; I am not exactly sure what it means to be a marine engineer. You put yourself out as the resident expert on all things Lister and engineering for that matter, as such I would like to know your background. Do you hold an engineering degree from a University?
Nope, I don't put myself out to be resident expert, I put myself out as being the resident "what about the status quo" and "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" etc.
Qualifications and experience, yeah I can play trumps with them, I don't because I'm not putting myself out to be the resident expert, focus on the message, not the messenger.
I learned everything worth knowing from men and experience, I learned nothing worth knowing in bits of paper, whether they be qualifications or references, if I spout prime bullshit and back it up with a qualification will you buy it?
The message is the bluntest, most deceptive, most dangerous tool in the box is only visible when you look in the mirror.
The message is Lister made literally millions of industrial engine (and did shit more besides, world + dog went to Listers for their expertise and put the lister name on the resulting product) one example of which is the CS 6/1, which will do 100,000 hours and still work as well as the day it did it's first hour.
The message is NOBODY can trump that experience, so where, and I mean it, WHERE does the idea come from that someone can. Where is the proof, where are their qualifications, where is there experience?
There have been many many posts which center around the highly controversial subject of the proper way to mount an engine.
The subject is not in the least controversial.
On the one hand we have literally millions of commercial examples of stationary engines professionally installed, all fastened solidly to concrete blocks.
On the other hand we have a handful of people, none of whom have designed or sold a single stationary engine, who think they know better.
Ironically, the second group attempt to put supporters of the first group to proof.
Guy says that the ONLY proper way to mount a stationary engines is as Lister suggests, with at least cubic yard of concrete.
Guy says no such thing.
Guy quotes listers, and cites every professional stationary engine installation ever done.
NOBODY has yet shown a single example of an official commercial stationary engine manufacturer official documentation describing a permitted flexible mount.
NOBODY
This is NOT "Guy says"
If the theory is sound it should be able to stand up to scrutiny and questions, which should not be seen as challenges of ones knowledge, but as a desire to understand more.
It is not theory, it is the status quo, the de facto accepted standard, the default answer.
the THEORY is using rubber mounts.
NOBODY who suggests using rubber mounts has even been able to describe the math so far, let alone use it to show an area of uncertainty within which it might be practical for a Lister(oid)
I do not accept that there is only ONE correct way to mount a stationary engine….Just because Lister did it “this way”….It must be right. Sorry but I do not give others proxy to think for me.
You are describing a belief system, I was talking about engineering, which is an empirical science which known laws which produces repeatable results time after time.
Belief systems have no place in science.
This is the FUNDAMENTAL problem here, people operate on belief systems, and the instant you challenge them they react as though you want their firstborn.
I don't do belief systems.
Here is a crazy thought; contract with a practicing engineer who specializes in the design and implementation of STATIONARY engine mounting systems. I have done this; I will be receiving a proposal within 2 weeks.
1/ you haven't paid me shit for my opinions, so why the upset?
2/ how do you know your chosen engineer is competent to do what you are paying him for? By definition, the fact that you contracted him is proof you are not able to determine his ability.
3/ what spec did you ask for? Carte blanche? I doubt it. Anything less and you get a nearest fit answer, whatever answer you get will have a waiver.
The engine in question is a 12/1 which by all accounts should be difficult to tame.
Why? Says who?
A twin is inherently easier to tame than a single.
Below is a link to a video clip of the engine running bolted to 2 8” “I” beams which are bolted to a garage slab, each “I” beam weighs 96lbs. There are not even any cross braces, this was just used to test initial balance/stability of the engine, and it ran fine so I left it in place.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4529506396378481680&q=lister+type+engine&hl=en
as you say, seems fine.
My goal in this case is to reduce noise transmission and outside the engine room. I measured the noise level of the engine room at a height of 6’ and 5ft from the near flywheel. The reading was 93db once the engine was up to operating speed. A muffler was used and is exhausted outside the engine room. The walls are untreated (no sheetrock) this will be added later. A reading of 73bd was recorded with the garage door closed 2 ft away from the door I could feel the thump when standing on the apron of the garage.
Scott
The thump from the power stroke will carry a long way, this is an INDUSTRIAL engine, or rather a clone of one, it was never build to go into a house or garage in a domestic setting.
A ton block of concrete won't eliminate the thump completely, it was NEVER MEANT TO, that is NOT THE PURPOSE of the concrete block.
Eliminating the thump completely does not mean you eliminate the original need or purpose of the concrete block.
You claim you do not give others proxy to think for you.
Unless you spend a great deal of time and thought dissecting all your own thought processes you will not realise that the bulk of your "thinking" is not reasoned thought at all, just mental shorthand and regurgitated memes.
Apply logic, in the original meaning of the word, as in occam's razor etc, and you will see the flaws.
Either show me a genuine example of a true stationary engine manufacturer of any note who makes a product similar to a lister or listeroid and who specifies flexible mounts as an acceptable option.
If you are unwilling to do this question why?
Too much work? surely if you are right it cannot be hard to find an example.
Ergo if you cannot find examples easily, you cannot be right.
Then we need to look at the suspicious alignment between the difficulty of the task, and unwillingness to undertake it.
We know it is like sweeping water uphill, but don't want to admit this, so say we can't be assed.
If we know it is like sweeping water uphill, the evidence that we are right is flimsy, to say the least.
If the evidence that we are right is flimsy, no amount of protestation is going to convince anyone except those who know less than us.
So we are back to Freud, it is ego.
I have made available for download on this website all the main start-o-matic and cs official manuals.
They ONLY mentioned the concrete block, NOTHING ELSE, absolutely NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of rubber mounts.
Show me the Lister documentation for the CS series of engines that mentions flexible mounts, or no block of concrete
or
Show me the Listeroud documentation for the CS clones that mention flexible mounts or no block of concrete, though these will carry far far less weight that lister ones)
or
Show me someone who knows more about Listers than Lister themselves who advocates flexible mounts or no block of concrete.
