The Listeroid Chronicles-WMO and Other Listeroid Modifications

[Hugh Conway]

RE: Correlation between longer dipper and higher crankcase temp:

I have noticed same thing. My JKSON 6/1 daily driver has a shorter length dipper than my Dursley 6/1. Both dippers are solid and installed as designed with the edge cutting the oil rather than flat side. The Dursley dipper has about 1/4" clearance from the bottom of the sump. I can't say if there is a difference in oil consumption, as the Dursley is still being broken in, while the JKSON does not need oil added between changes and has just about 1000 hours on it. Of course, one has TRBs  and the other has sleeve bearings, otherwise much the same. The Dursley crankcase temp is significantly warmer after an equal running time.
The dipper in my Dursley was purchased from SEP and was too long to clear the crankcase, so I cut it down to clear. Maybe someone knows the actual correct length of a stock OEM dipper.
Cheers,
Hugh

[EdDee]

Hey Tom/Hugh,

Tom, after the first stuff up with the watery dino, I now bring pretty much all fuel to the boil before I use it, but then again, I am a cheapskate and am using reclaimed oils only... since the first IP problem that is...

Hugh, I took a good look into the crankcase in both of my engines, and after much thinking and scratching my head, I can't see any real benefit to running the dipper in any other orientation other than crossways.... the more splashing around, the better I would think... if you start spewing oil from seals etc, crank vacuum is dodgy and needs attention... either in the rings department or in the vent department... but I cannot honestly see any benefit to less splash lube... if there is a valid reason to limit or lessen it, I certainly cannot see it...

The only reason I can see for shortening the dipper would be to allow a greater oil clearance below it in the sump/weir area to allow for more metal particles to slip into the apron, but, I don't think that a difference in dipper length would influence this greatly, maybe I am wrong though... anybody who has a better idea is welcome to correct me....

As far as I am concerned, when rings are bedded in, I am almost certain that you would need way more oil on the cylinder walls than what the max is that the dipper can put, to cause a problem... but maybe I am wrong.... What I can say though, TM1 is splashing oil around like a kiddy in a paddling pool, so far so good... There is certainly a logic to the angled dipper, throwing oil onto/into a less lubricated area, but with the dipper X ways, there is more than enough oil drenching everything... I just cannot wrap my head around the knife edge approach......

TM1 has a very bad seal between jacket and deck, even with the amount of oil being thrashed around, at full load, with the maximum gas being vented from the cc breather, there is less than a few droplets after a few hours running....

I have seen some long explanations regarding the dippers, but logic still tells me that the more oil flushing around, the better..

Your thoughts?

Regds
Ed

PS.... keep it spinning!

[Hugh Conway]

Re dipper orientation:
I'm no engineering whiz, just use my engines to produce power for my off grid homestead. I set my dippers up as per the original design, figuring they would know best at the factory, especially after all those years of manufacturing. That said, we have seen it done both ways by many on the forum with apparently no ill effects either way. Probably makes little difference, even if the dipper was just cylindrical in shape. If one opens the access door when running, even with the dipper "cutting the oil", I can assure you that there is plenty of oil going to everywhere.....and I do mean everywhere! Ask me how I know
Cheers,
Hugh

[Tom]

With the flat of the dipper facing the oil the oil may foam.

[EdDee]

Hi Guys,

I ran the dipper both ways.... knife on was defs less splash hitting the crank, cam etc, with a much colder crankcase... Flat ways was quite a bit more, crankcase slightly warmer, more splashing obviously... Then made up a longer tube dipper that penetrates the oil and clears weir bottom by about 1/2 inch or so.... That's a real splasher, crankcase gets hot now... I don't think the heat is from threshing the oil either, but rather wicking the heat away by conduction because its hitting everywhere.... it might be a bit excessive, but no ill effects so far... also not enough to foam as yet..

Keep it spinning...

Regs
Ed

[dieselgman]

When the original Lister CS was designed the lubricating oil technology was quite different than today. I am pretty sure that our modern diesel lube oils include a good anti-foaming additive among other things. The purist would most likely prefer the knife-edge approach to dipper installation, but as long as you are not forcing oil out through any seals, rings or gaskets, then not likely any problems either way. These engines do not typically have any heating issues with their lower ends.

dieselgman

[EdDee]

Hi DMan,

Agreed re the anti foaming, and about the dipper too... If this were an original "Show" engine, I would stick to authenticity above non-documented OEM improvements/changes for sure... As to the leakages, the oil penetration from velocity on the seams and gaskets doesn't seem to be a problem at this stage... the oil is defs hitting places it never got to before, so in my opinion, this is a good thing... I do notice, that there is a small amount of seepage on the sliding assemblies, ie cam followers and injector plunger, so far the injector plunger is the only one that has enough oil seepage to cause a few drops to be wiped up at the end of a 5 hour run...no oil out of main seals etc....

On another note - I have a spreadsheet of fuel consumption/power generation/maintenance/downtime/etc that I have been keeping up to date since TM1 went into service(and before) .... would anybody like to download it to see what the numbers are in a real world situation? (for your own info of course...as they are for mine...)

Keep it spinning...

Regds
Ed

[EdDee]

Hi Guys,

Here's some interesting things I picked up about the flywheels on TM2...

I am busy giving him a cursory going over, checking things I specifically had problems with on TM1, as well as any other little bits I notice on the way...

Flywheel balance was a big problem on TM1, so I have started with that and found the following on TM2:


Flywheel 2: 170g or so out of balance - casting flaws on a large section of rim and bad casting flaws in the center boss... up to 10-15mm deep by the looks of it.. See pics:

http://www.warriorpaintball.co.za/private/TM2 Bad Flywheel Casting 20160111


Flywheel 1: 310g out of balance at rim - Rim thickness relatively even - Spoke thickness relatively even... My concern is with a balance error of 310g, this means to me that, there is a 310g or equivalent, void in the material on the "light side" of the flywheel.... This is kinda scary, because this equates to a rather large sand pocket, or somewhat smaller, but not much, porous/missing/void area in the rather heavy, projectile capable, turny bits.....

(Note: TM1 and TM2 are both CBW units, so there is no "cast-in" counter balance weight in the flywheel proper..)

To you gents out there.... Opinions please!!

Keep it spinning....(safely)....

Regds
Ed

[38ac]

310G is a little less than 3 cubic inches of cast iron, 1 1/2 C.I missing on one side and 1 1/2 C.I. too much on the other side.  Internal voids are of course a possibility but it also doesnt take much variance in thickness one side to the other to make that 3 cubic inches if it is spread out over a large area. Just  a bit thin on one side and a bit thick on the other could easily be it.  The first operation after casting is the center hole, then the rim is machined, it would not take much of a miss calculation on the center hole to cause your situation.  I have seen enough holes drilled in flywheel rims to easily make 3 C.I of iron.  Safe or not depends on if the problem is due to core shift, machining error or internal flaws in critical area, There no way for me to make that determination from where I sit.  

[EdDee]

Hi 38Ac,

Well put!! I think you are right about the minor dimensional differences, must admit, I didn't think flywheel one through clearly... Forgot about the 50/50 spread of mass due to a bit of off-center machining/casting....

And the other wheel with the bad voids around the boss and cold pour on the section of rim?

Your comments are appreciated!!

Regds
Ed

[BruceM]

The photos of voids in hub and rim do give me pause and also make one wonder what's in the same casting that's NOT visible.  I don't know cast iron flywheel safety issues well enough...

I hope 38AC and/or Gary (dieselgman) will comment on the relative safety of running these.

[EdDee]

Hi Bruce,

Let's just say that I have been around something about the size of a lister flywheel and only slightly lighter that has let go from an over speed.. Fortunately it was in a controlled test environment, we were speed testing a rather large billet grinding wheel in a dedicated testing machine... that beast only weighed in at about half the weight of a flywheel... damn... my ears start ringing just thinking about it!

I hope 38ac and Gary pop in with their .02 worth.... on the mental exchange rate of experience, their .02 is worth $1000 to me!

Keep it spinning...

Regds
Ed

[mike90045]

.......On another note - I have a spreadsheet of fuel consumption/power generation/maintenance/downtime/etc that I have been keeping up to date since TM1 went into service(and before) .... would anybody like to download it to see what the numbers are in a real world situation? (for your own info of course...as they are for mine...)....

I'd like a copy, is it something you can host on a server, or email to folks ?

[EdDee]

Hi Mike,

If I don't get too snowed under tomorrow,  I will pop it on my server and give a link on this page... I need to clean out some private data from the file first, then its a for away....

Cheers
Ed

[38ac]

Edee ,
I couldn't view those photos earlier when I commented. That flywheel  with that big defect in the rim is very troublesome, I think I would have troubles running that one and most certainly would not ship it to a customer.  You could fashion up a rig to spin it up to RPM maybe 1500 or so??  and if it doesn't KAboom you might get away with it at 800 RPM,, I don't know?? Be sure to set up a video because if it does go the effects will be dramatic!