Lister Engine Forum
Lister Engines => Listeroid Engines => Topic started by: johnny williams on June 17, 2006, 02:16:27 AM
-
Has anyone tried changing the flywheels on a 6/1 to eather the 8 or 10 HP wheels and increasing the RPM's. I know we want to keep thes engines running as slow as possible but this looks like an inexpensive way to get more HP. Thanks for any and all replies.
-
Yes, this can easily be done. I have 10 hp flywheels on the 6/1 at my shop and the heavier flywheels definitely help keep the engine running steadier. I am also building a new version of the serpentine pulleys for the ST generators, what I call the SuperMax line. These also help with the flickering and contribute to steadier running.
All of the GM-90 engines from 6-12 hp have the same stroke, just the liners and pistons are bigger. When the time comes for my first decarb I'll check on the interchangeability of the 6/1 liners and cylinder block with the larger bore liners and pistons.
Mike
-
You can always add a turbocharger. On George B's site at www.utterpower.com there is an article about Andre Dancause (sp?) who lives in Quebec. He added a Turbo from a VW 1.6 to his 6/1, increased the output substantially. He did that a few years ago, I haven't talked to him recently so I don't know if he still has it on, or what the long term effects have been. Have a look on George's site under "articles" I think you will see it there - it's an interesting project.
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
kur dog
Regards
Tim
=========================
Tim, Personal attacks are not allowed or welcome here. If you posts have to modified again, you will get banned
MODERATOR
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Wow! someone is getting pretty upity with darren.. all he did was make some comments on the turbo... and I think the his thoughts are likely spot on.. if you are sizing a turbo.. it's not the size of the engine that matters but the CFM comming out that counts.. and 1/2 of a psi isn't very mucho boosto... Yesterday I just got a RHB3 off of a yanmar TNV84 1.5L...(actually I got the entire engine).. I bought a new engine for a friend's fisshing boat.. (becuse I get them at a discount.. my price was less than 1/2 of the retail) and because I saved him about $3k the deal is I got the old engine.. the original engine got hydrauliced and poked a rod out the side of the CC... I think these use the RHB3 turbo.. (I havn't seen the engine yet) if it is so I may install it on the Lister or a petter just for kicks..
-
BTW if you send a 5-9 PSI boost binto the lister intake you will imediatly blow the head gasket.. I know this because I've done it... I would recomend machining a grove into the head and making a copper ring gasket.. Then use RTV to seal the water passages... That's what I did to keep the higher pressure in..
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Mr Dancause's turbo is a nice safe application with a reasonable boost.
His power increase is documented and although it was not a huge increase it was substantial.
If you want a large turbo boost you will need to lower the compression ratio to prevent engine damage. Then you would lose some efficiency.
I think that Mr. Dancause' outfit is good because: 1) It does not overstress the engine
2) It has full flow oil filteration
3) It has a power increase that justifies the investment
4) It was one of the first with electric start, which I shamelessly copied on my twin
I 'hear' all of you. Fatty has run up against the head gasket problem from a different direction on this application, but we have all discussed the head gasket and possible improvements. That's good.
All this discussion is good. From theoretical (Darren) to hidebound traditionalist (Guy) and all of you in between.
I do like the head gasket solution that does not require machining the original engine. That way it would be easy for anyone to upgrade.
Scott E
-
Kurdog
You need to go back and read the page again because you did not get it the other times. It says he made 5200 watts . you cant
do that with a n.a. engine.
Regards
Tim
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Kurdog
You need to read, if you can
Tim
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Ya' I don't get it ethier... Why is Tim so pissed??? did someone piss in his cereal this moring??? now he's taking it out on Darren.. I'm a little new here so maybe this has been brewing for a while... I don't know... Tim, Darren is obviously somewhat knowledgeable... and he can read... why you got to go and slam him like that? Darren there's a difference between 650 RPM at idle and 650 under power... under power there's more expansion in the exhaust gas.. so while the CFM may be X at 650 on the VW at idle it will be more like Y on the lister at 650 under power.. this is not an apples to apples comparison.. in truth the turbo is likely to offer some boost at 650 on the VW at the same fuel input.. a slightly smaller turbo would obvoiusly work better... I would also suggest some sort of reservour as an accumulator on both the exhaust and the inlet side to even out the pressure impulses caused by the lister's big 1 banger exhaust...
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Dawg;
Time to ask you again - have you bought and run a Lister yet? You hadn't the last time Iasked and yet you STILL feel qualified to dump on people's actual experiences. Please, please - get an engine, run it and try all the things you have advocated, then report back with actual stats - if you do that I promise I'll listen, but not now.
Remember the old phrase - those that can, do, those that can't, teach, or at least attempt to and then get miffed when people point out their obvious shortcomings.
Have a nice day.
-
John....."those that can't, teach".......What a sad reflection on the dedicated people that spend 5 hrs per day, 5 days per week trying to make your children into someone that will be successful in this complicated world. No wonder it's such a hard job with parents like you and that sort of an attitude (which does rub of on your kids whether you like it or not).
Stan
-
How 'bout this as an alternate, learned from my background:
Those that CAN, DO,
Those that CAN'T, Q.C.,
Those that WON'T, AMF!
Kevin
-
Stan;
In this predominently socialist country of mine (Canada) I know a lot of teachers - they are, for the most part, products of an extremely left-wing university system that teaches "the state will look after you" as a Mantra, quickly followed by "someone else will pay". Most of the the teachers I know have absolutley no idea of what is going on in real life and merely perpetuate the "nanny state" thinking. Yes, they may be dedicated, but to what?
If my child was young enough to be going to school now, it would be a private school that would teach discipline and self-sufficiency. Your opinions may differ, but what would I know, I'm just a reasonably sucesseful entrepreneur raised in the British school system and one who actually pays taxes.
-
I've got a stepdaughter, now 20, and well on her way to a good career.
When I first saw her she was 14, quiet, hid in the background.
At 16 she left school. a local school in a fairly rural area, no urban decay here, and a school that has reasonable ratings nationally.
She could draw.
She could write her own name, barely, and read at a similar level.
She had not even heard of long division, much less being able to do it, nor had she heard of algebra.
She knew nothing of history except an opinion piece of a small slice of very recent history, WW2, no tolpuddle martyrs, no 1966, no reformation, no nothing.
She knew nothing of maths or physics or chemistry or biology, the last three being bundled as "science", and consisting of cartoons in a book that, apart from the factual errors littered throughout, appeared to be aimed at six year olds.
She was, in short, fit for a paper round or any job requiring here to say "do you want fries with that", and of course crying when the point of sale machine / till failed to go "beep" or crashed.
I utterly fail to understand what she was doing at school all day every day since the age of five. Certainly her reports and grades lulled her mother into thinking there was not a problem.
At that point I took her under my wing, instead of playstation games for her birthday I bought here a *proper* dictionary and told her to read it, and never ask what a word meant, but look it up and learn it.
The first thing I said to her was "You are not stupid, you are ignorant." look up the definitions.
Now four years later she has worked her way up to being a senior receptionist at a 4 star hotel, part of a privately run chain, her work ethic and attitude has been commended so many times even the MD has written her letters thanking her, after clients had written to him about the levels of service they received at the hotel. The hotel has their eye on her for management, and in her spare time she is studying a degree course BSc in Management and Accounting.
She has learned to cook (no domestic science lessons in school) and learned the value and character of various fresh fruits and vegetanles, and proper butcher meat from a man who can tell you whch fields any particular cut of meat was going "moo" in last week.
She has learned the importance of honesty, especially when it comes to mistakes you have made, diligence, worth ethic, integrity, respectability and much more.
She is a fine young woman and I am secretly very proud of her.
Quite what a score of teachers actually did in 11 years of scholastic (sic) endeavour is quite completely and utterly beyond me.
I can put my hand on my heart and say in all honesty that the only way I can describe it is to label it "child abuse".
Statistically speaking, the probability that she is the one in a million that nobody spotted goes right out the window, because I know many many young people, and they are all similarly crippled for life, while believing the line of bullshit that they have been fed, that they are in fact intelligent and productive members of society.
The girls we are turning out are female, and thus have a use sexually and for breeding the next generation.
The boys we are turning out are male, and thus have a use as cannon fodder or as very very cheap substitutes for high tech factory robots, remembering that the word "robot" actually means (human) worker, and not the mechanical contraption we think of today.
------------------
I could tell you LOTS of stories about teaching, from my lecturer days, that would make your hair curl.
Like the chief of the engineering department (who used to run a small tool hire company and could fix a lawnmower) taking the piss, eg laughing out loud at a "natural" talented lad from a farm who asked if a diesel engine could be a two stroke as well as the petrol engines being used in the example.
I allowed the laughter to die down, and said, to the Head of Department, in front of the entire class.
"Perhaps you would like to give General Motors a call when this lecture is over."
"Errrr, why" was his response
"well, detroit diesels have been making two strokes since long before world war two, they aren't the only one, but they must be one of the biggest, certainly having made millions of two stroke diesel engines for everything from sherman tanks to modern trucks and boats and almost anything else you can shake a stick at, so I am sure they would appreciate an expert like you telling them their products don't exist."
he blustered of course and did the well I didn't know that etc, I insisted he offered the kid an apology, didn't gibe him a choice.
3 days later the dean told me they were overstaffed and didn't need me any more, that asshole is still there, still wrecking minds and careers.
-
Good post Guy that about the way i see it to. Most of the teachers now days are after the money , insurance , retirement,etc,
Regards
Tim
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Guy,
"Too many notes, Mozart." :(
[edit] This is off topic. If you bore easily, then skip the following:
Guy, I've seen the same thing. Came out of college with a BSc in Biology and minor in Chemistry. Wanted to teach science like my dad, mom, sister and grandmother had. Scored 98% on the National Teacher Exam in my subject areas. I substitute taught in three school districts to get known and to get the feel for where I wanted to work. I restricted myself to teaching only science classes (and an occasional math). Generally, 3/4 of the prople teaching biology had degrees in Physical Education, despite alll the propaganda in the media about schools becoming "serious about attracting good science and math teachers."
One class I subbed for consisted of the teacher sitting in the front of the room and directing his students to simply read the textbook for the entire class period. The kids were bored, disappointed, and clearly felt cheated. It wasn't their fault. They were being cheated out of an opportunity to learn. I decided to give them a chalk talk on the subject they were studying, the development of simple vascular plants. When the bell rang at the end of the class period, the students stood and applauded me. I had a tough time remaining my composure.
So next summer when it came around to hiring new teachers, the Principal interviewed me and said, "I've seen you around campus, and heard good things about you from the faculty and even a few students." I thanked him. He continued, "So aside from your background in science and teaching, what sports do you coach?" I told him I wasn't really prepared to coach sports, I just wanted to teach science, and that's all I ever wanted to do. Being just 24 at the time (read: naive) I thought he'd appreciate my honesty, but it was clear that was the wrong response. I didn't get the job, and after essentially the same thing happened two more times, I decided teaching wasn't for me.
So 25 years later I'm working in pharmaceutical R&D, earning more than I ever could have earned teaching, and lookiing forward to a comfortable retirement. I would have preferred to be teaching, even with the harder work, longer hours, lower pay, and poorer insurance and retirement that come with the job.
Halfnuts
-
I agree with you guys on schooling. Once the Socialist States has control, they're only obligation is to keep kids dumb enought that they'll never mature to see the crimes of their government.
While attending school is required by law, I haven't got the option of Expensive Private Schools. So before he went, I spent the time teaching hium myself. At 5 years old, he could read on a 5th grade level, and his math compared to 3rd graders. Being the Downright Violent Rebel sort that I am, I'd have gadly started World War 3 to keep him out. I only sent him in for the social experience. I didn't want him to be the outcast that I am. But it's happening anyway. Most of te teacers at his school are actually quite good at what they do. Often their hands are tied by government rules, but they really love what they do, and are good at it. The criticisms come from other parents who aren't up to snuff, in my book. I'm non-marxist to a point of unemployability, and the parents that know it go out of their way to deride me in front of him. What the teachers are wise enough not to pull (nanny state, no acountability, etc) these parents do.
I want to kick them in the crotch 'till they bleed out their ears. But of course, this would just serve as another example of what a moron I am for opposing the Proletariat...
I just want to move to the middle of nowhere and start my own little country. and I'll need a Lister.... ;-)
-
want a bit more power from a 6/1, build both a tuned exhaust and a tuned intake runner.
actually the lister/oid running at a fixed rpm is a prime candidate for tuned runners.
might get a 6/1 up to as much as 7/1 or a tad better, perhaps as much as an 8/1 if there are other impediments in the runners of
the original castings
prolly comes down to blueprinting the engine, paying close attention to detail, careful balancing etc.
bob g
-
want a bit more power from a 6/1, build both a tuned exhaust and a tuned intake runner.
actually the lister/oid running at a fixed rpm is a prime candidate for tuned runners.
might get a 6/1 up to as much as 7/1 or a tad better, perhaps as much as an 8/1 if there are other impediments in the runners of
the original castings
prolly comes down to blueprinting the engine, paying close attention to detail, careful balancing etc.
bob g
A million bucks says you won't see any significant improvements of the natures mentioned.
1/ you are all talking BHP, BHP is heat, eg fuel, fuel is burnt, some comes out as work, rest comes out as heat, so what you are saying is getting a 6/1 to use the SAME fuel, but reject 1.5 Kw LESS heat.
If you can cut the thermal rejection of a 6/1 by 1.5 Kilowatts, well, WTF are you doing pissing around with listers instead of making your first billion.... a 6/1 is _already_ one of the most efficient IC engines out there, and you boys are talking about making simply VAST levels of improvement
2/ 1 or 2 BHP is nothing clever in a 1600 cc 4 pot diesel already pushing out 75 BHP, it is onlt 1.5 to 3%, 1 or 2 BHP from a 6 BHP 1600 cc single pot is a minor miracle, 15 to 30%, can't be done, not unless you want to throw away 80% of the engine and remanufacture all the parts you just threw away in fancy materials.
3 to 5% you may do, so you get an extra 0.18 to 0.3 BHP, a whole 134 to 223 watts, and the only place you can subtract that from is your total thermal rejection, if your Ac head is 80% efficient a whole 107 to 178 extra watts of AC power, which, given that nobody is being that anal about AC efficiencies anyway, is next to useless.
3/ if you want to up the power, you have to up the fuel consumption, so either supercharging or increased revs, and both take you away from what the 6/1 was supposed to be, so why buy one in the first place?
-
Guy;
Your point 1) was out of context: Mobile-bob DID NOT indicate the same fuel rate. I would presume that he is refering to an increase in the air supply for each combustion event, so when dead racked, the engine won't smoke. With the additional air allowing complete combustion, some increase in peak power would result. Using the words "a tad better, perhaps" (then admittedly hoping for 1 or 2 horsepower gain, a 15% to 33% increase).
So I don't think anyone is denying your point 3) reguarding fuel rate. The rest of your point 3) I agree, souping up a 6/1 (or any Lister-oid) probably is not worth it, better to seek the power you crave in an engine that is known to suppy it..
On the topic of tuned intakes and exhausts, one (1) poster indicated an increase in power from intake tuning, sofar none have indicated any increase from exhaust tuning (that I am aware of). That's not a good statistical body for the result sought, but no reason to avoid trying if you feel the need.
Scott E
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
i certainly was not suggesting that the use of tuned runners in the intake and exhaust is going to make the engine
markedly more efficient, that was not my intent. simply a reply on how to get a bit more power, which you will by getting more air in(increasing vol. eff.) and(reducing pumping losses) but at the expence of adding more fuel.
if a 6/1 burns approx 250 grams/kwatt/hr, then even with these mods an 8/1 is likely going to burn approx 250grams/kwatt/hr.
the question was one of increasing hp, not economy.
i dont think many of us can effect economy to any great extent over the original design.
what is interesting to note, is the apparent similarity of consumption rates based on size of engine.
the cox .049 glow plug engine is very close to the same efficiency as huge ocean going diesel engines.
also on a note about tuned exhaust runners
they end up being many feet long for an engine of this size and rpm.
whatever gains that might occur probably would be negated by frictional losses within the runner.
but in any event the cam spec's have alot to do with any gains that could be attained by tuned runners
irregardless of amount of fuel injected
my assertion that a gain of 15 to 30% is probably overly optimistic, one might be able to get 5 to 10 percent gains tho
even on the original design and original manufacture as there are comprimises that all manufactures have to address.
and runner length is one of those comprimises.
it is hard to sell a stationary engine that has a 10 foot long exhaust and perhaps a 5 foot long intake runner just to eek out another horse of power. far easier to just increase bore, stroke or rpm and keep the runner up close to the engine.
we on the other hand as the end user and failing having the ability to increase either bore, stroke or rpm do in many cases have the ability to add longer runners.
if you don't think they work, check out modern diesel engines, with high velocity exhaust port design, pulse manifolds (exh) and plenum runner intake systems. they sure arent following 80 year old design's.
again for the record, i think one could perhaps make another horse of so, with a carefully blue printed engine, with perhaps tuned runners and careful attention to timeing, but with the addition of more fuel. Efficiency might be improved, but i wouldn't hope for much and in reality wouldn't be my goal with any modifications.
lets face it, trying to increase efficiency (real) by even a percent or two is going to be a monumental achievment, and for most of us unmeasureable.
that is like saving 1 gallon for every one hundred burned, most of us would probably spill more than that during fuel ups and servicing the filters.
sometimes my brain works in circles, so i hope i cleared the air a bit.
in summary, the lister is a solid and proven design that isn't going to be measureably improved by most folks in efficiency, some improvement in power might( i said might) be gained at the expense of more fuel consumed.
bob g
-
i certainly was not suggesting that the use of tuned runners in the intake and exhaust is going to make the engine
markedly more efficient, that was not my intent. simply a reply on how to get a bit more power, which you will by getting more air in(increasing vol. eff.) and(reducing pumping losses) but at the expence of adding more fuel.
if a 6/1 burns approx 250 grams/kwatt/hr, then even with these mods an 8/1 is likely going to burn approx 250grams/kwatt/hr.
the question was one of increasing hp, not economy.
i dont think many of us can effect economy to any great extent over the original design.
what is interesting to note, is the apparent similarity of consumption rates based on size of engine.
the cox .049 glow plug engine is very close to the same efficiency as huge ocean going diesel engines.
ok, more power for more fuel, doable
the efficiency you mention is simple, you are measuring BHP, measure torque and you'll see the differences in engines
bhp is bullshit, a litre of fuel an hour is a far better metric.
-
i used hp in only a generic term
hp is basically a misnomer in my books also.
i used it as a catch all to cover in shorter terms " grams fuel consumed per kwatt hour generated per hour" or "grams/kwatt/hr"
hp is such a joke anymore, maybe it always has been.
for instance
cat now markets a C7 engine that is being used in heavy trucks, it is reported to be 330 hp.
at 7 liters the little engine can't pull an 80,000 lb load at half the road speed of a 3406 cat(approx 14 liter) at the same rated hp.
perhaps the whole discussion should be reworded to be "how can i get my 6/1 lister that produces 3.5 kwatt/hr to make 4.2 kwatt/hr generated?"
actually that might be a better discussion that could be measured by most folks trying to up the output. At least then one could observe a measureable gain using common instuments.
or something like that, follow?
bob g
-
Guy, I think you are wrong on the tuned intake/exhaust issue. However, I am not sure, as I have no such data on Listeroids.
But if I remember correctly, the VE of a listeroid is about 75%. That means there is potential to reach 100% VE with tuned runners.
If you remember correctly, most automotive applications of tuned runners are 4th order. In other words, even more power could be had with runners 2 or 4 times as long as what is currently used.
While it could be absurd in length, a listeroid application specific tuned intake and exhaust would probably enable 100+ VE.
This could result in a substantial power gain.
Chris
-
I just got a chance to get caught up on this discussion... Happy POP's day to all the fathers out there.. I thought about adding my .02 cents bout' scoolin' but I tend to agree with most of what's already been said... Bazck to engines.. I agree with guy and bob and think gaining anything more than a few percent of efficiency requires a different design... combined cycle or recuperation / regeneration are possibilities.. The lister is efficient for a couple of reasons.. the engine turns slow so pumping losses are minimal... and the cylinder is large so heat absorbtion is less than with a smaller cylinder... If you want more power IMO that's easy... the engine is a pump... and the faster it turns the more it pumps... double the RPM to 1300 and 12 HP is possible from the same bore and stroke.. pumping losses are still low at 1300 but the crank and flywheels won't take it.. so far the GM 90 design is the best thing I"ve seen for higher RPM's .. counter weights are much better on the crank than the flywheels.. I also have a design for a 2 crank and 2 flywheel single cylinder engine that would be vibration free...another other option is to keep the RPM's low and add more air / fuel proportionatly... no real sacrifice of efficiency but if you double the inlet pressure I would expect less than half the engine life... even a 3-4 PSI increase would produce some good results... finally why not just increase the bore ... if you do this efficiency is increased and so is the power .. I think larger cylinder / piston can be obtained from india for less than $300.. the bottom line..IMO there's no replacement for displacement..
-
Chris,
Because of the low RPM I bet the VE is more efficient that 75%... I'll bet it's close to 90%.. no data to back this up.. it's just a hunch...
-
Peace&Love , Darren
-
Darren,
Not sure what you ae proposing... I thought we were talking volumetric efficiency.. not thermal efficiency... thermal efficiency is the engines ability to use the heat from combustion.. TE is usually effected by the size of the bore and the comp ratio.. I don't think porting is going to do much for TE.. maybe a little for VE but since this is low RPM my gut says not much.. a proper designed turbo can offer some TE improvements.. (since there is usually some temp drop as the exhaust moves through the turbo).. but the gains are slight at best.. at best engough gain to drive the oil pump for the turbo..
-
This engine has a TE of 50%
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
I believe this is the highest ever TE attained in an IC engine.. It is atributed (for the most part) to the large bore and long stroke...
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
I forgot to mention the uniflow design..
-
Darren,
IMO you're not going to chance the TE very much... it is mostly dictated by the design and the size of the bore and stroke of the engine.. as for the VE that is the # that measures how well the engine uses it's displacement... if you can get all the air in so you have a full 14.7 PSI in the cylinder at the bottom of the intake stroke then you have 100% but that's never the case.. as mentioned I"ve played a bit with the miller atkinson cycle which reduces the displacement but improves the TE a bit since less work goes into the comp stroke and retains the long expansion stroke..
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Any time you create more complete combustion more of the thermal energy of the fuel is being converted in to energy.
Yes I agree.. but honestly most combustion is usually pretty complete.. even a poor injection system burns 95% or more of the fuel injected... anything less and you will have a lot of smoke..
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Peace&Love, Darren
-
Darren the bore and stroke and engine design has everything to do with TE.. the smaller the bore the more heat is absorbed by the engine cylinder.. the bigger the diesel the more efficient it is.. yes you can get 100% charge with a blower but usually blown engines are less efficient than NA's... turbo's don't have the same losses.. a tuned intake can also produce a 100% plus charge... exhaust can help too.. but it is RPM sensitive... again I'll bet the lister is already about 90% VE efficient.. and I'll bet the DI's are about 30-35% thermal efficient...
-
This Sajeet site states the SFC for the DI @ 173 GPH
http://www.satyajeet.com/de1.htm and the SFC for the IDI @197 GPH..
http://www.satyajeet.com/de2.htm
the difference is IDI vs DI.. I think this shows the difference betwen the efficiency of a DI vs IDI... If the numbers are correct the DI engine should be about 35% thermal efficient..
-
NONE OF YOU are using actual calibrated measurements from an actual lister, you are taking someone else's numbers for max injection pump delivery and sticking that in as gospel for fuel consumption, NOBODY has put a flowmeter on the intake but you're talking about volumetric efficiency, NOBODY has metered pre-analysed fuel and total thermal rejection but you're talking about thermal efficiency.
My bet is more than one of you are playing with poxy computer simulation software, which is closed source anayway and you haven't analysed the code, you are typing in made up numbers as though they were gospel, and treating the results as though Moses himself handed them to you on tablets of stone.
Until someone can post photographs of their engine test lab, which even a DIY version of would cost at least 25 thousand bucks, and the same again to calibrate everything, then quite frankly you're all talking bollocks, which I don't have an issue with, unless it is presented as scientific fact, which it is being.
Where the bloody hell does kyrdawg get 30.83 BHP @ 100% Thermal efficiency for a 6/1 if not from out of his ass.
Sorry to be blunt, but there is no other way of saying it, you never saw those numbers or anything approaching them from a 6/1
Volumetric efficiency of a 6/1 will be very high, approaching parity at least, themal efficiency is also very high, approaching 50%, I mean, HE_LLOOOOO, everyone else is talking about their 6/1 running too cold to heat the oil, too cold for WVO, to cold to just plumb a calorifier into the coolant circuit to get all the hit water you could want....
Does anyone do any actual calculation with real numbers, and not stuff they just pulled out of their ass?
I did a spreadsheet MANY years agp so people could calculate engine and prop etc for their boats, one of the very FIRST things it tell you is that althout it only requires a few numbers to set it going, you CANNOT GUESS AT ANY OF THEM, you must KNOW FOR A FACT, else you cannot use the spreadsheet at all.
Here is a scenario, ask Mr Belk
Rifle chambered for 30.06, 24 inch barrel with 7 lands and 6 degree twist, you are stood 150 yards down rang in front of it.
now you lot, you will guess at weight of propellant, guess at type of propellant, guess at weight of bullet, guess at type of bullet, guess at weather conditions, guess at any intervening foliage, guess at what clothing or armour the "target" is wearing, and come out and say the bullet will nail that sucker right between the eyes, all we have to do is blah blah blah and lube the barrel with teflon and lower the modulus of elasticity of air and do it on mars where gravity is lower and make the bullet out of unobtanium and so on.
Mr Belk, who knows what he is talking about, will realise the rifle has no firing pin, no sights anyway, no receiver, no sear pin, kneel down, pick up a rock, put rock in catapult and hit the target dead on.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, some of you should try actually buying, owning, and using a lister for a few thousand hours, before telling everyone else what improvements can be made.
grrrrr.... lol
can I have my grumpy old man award now please.... ::)
-
Sure guy,
you get the reward... I think saying the the lister can have a TE in the 50% range is a stretch... the DI listeroids might be in the low 40's but it's unlikely.. but I'll bet they're all of 35%.. accoding to Sajeet the IDI's use another 35g per kw per HR... your lister with the commet is likely less efficient than the IDI in the sajeet engine.. since you like guesses I'l' say something in the high 20's.. I'll bet I'm not off by much.. the link I provided states .26 lbs per HP per hr equates to a 50% TE... the sajeet site states the DI burns 173 g per hr per HP.. you're a smart guy... why don't you compare these #'s for us?
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
OK here's some #'s comparison...
There's 453.59 grams in a pound..
According to my math and the web site the big engine burns 117 gphp / hr at the most efficient power setting..
compare that to 173 gphp /hr for the DI GM 90..
If 117 grams per hr equates to a TE of 50% then the GM 90 is about 14% less efficient so that's about 36% .. I guess my guess of 35% wasn't too bad..
-
Sure guy,
you get the reward... I think saying the the lister can have a TE in the 50% range is a stretch... the DI listeroids might be in the low 40's but it's unlikely.. but I'll bet they're all of 35%.. accoding to Sajeet the IDI's use another 35g per kw per HR... your lister with the commet is likely less efficient than the IDI in the sajeet engine.. since you like guesses I'l' say something in the high 20's.. I'll bet I'm not off by much.. the link I provided states .26 lbs per HP per hr equates to a 50% TE... the sajeet site states the DI burns 173 g per hr per HP.. you're a smart guy... why don't you compare these #'s for us?
1/ now you're saying "you think" and "you bet", much better, you can think anything you like.
2/ "according to sajeet" which is what is known as hearsay, and certainly doesn't apply to anything else, inc my original lister
3/ comet combustion chamber was not designed to achieve lower efficiency, nor was it ratained for 50 + years of production for this supposed reason, but the exact opposite.
4/ The "numbers" you want me to compare are hearsay, and lacking, eg incomplete, lacking way way way too much information to make any assumptions at all about thermal efficiency, for starters, thermal rejection isn't even mentioned.
-
Who is Mr Belk,and what does he have to do with engines?
I realise I ain't very smart,and we all want our engines to run as efficiently as possible.We eventualy reach a point where the effort ,and expense are not justified by the returns. Simple solution ,if ya want more power from a Lister-Listeroid,buy a bigge one.Too much whooing ,and haaaahhhing over theroreticalpoints that in the long run don't amount to spitting in the dirt as far as real work engines are concerned.
Makes me tired to read it
-
OK here's some #'s comparison...
There's 453.59 grams in a pound..
According to my math and the web site the big engine burns 117 gphp / hr at the most efficient power setting..
compare that to 173 gphp /hr for the DI GM 90..
If 117 grams per hr equates to a TE of 50% then the GM 90 is about 14% less efficient so that's about 36% .. I guess my guess of 35% wasn't too bad..
Here is why you are talking bollocks.
The claimed fuel consumption of 117 grammes per horsepower hour is hearsay, nowhere do you see any charts with the instrument name and make and model and calibration date, for all we know the web site designed pulled them out of his ass.
Your "calculation" for deriving overall thermal efficiency from these numbers is not shown, therefore it is not a calculation, but another number pulled out of someone;s ass, show workings , always. It demonstrates that you have the right formula and know how to use it and havent made any math errors.
What is the specific calorific value of this imaginary fuel? Or is that another number someone has pulled out of their ass?
It is bad enough doing a calculation where one variable is a complete guess, and claiming the result is worth something, doing it when most of the variables are pulled out of your ass is unforgiveable.
-
Who is Mr Belk,and what does he have to do with engines?
I realise I ain't very smart,and we all want our engines to run as efficiently as possible.We eventualy reach a point where the effort ,and expense are not justified by the returns. Simple solution ,if ya want more power from a Lister-Listeroid,buy a bigge one.Too much whooing ,and haaaahhhing over theroreticalpoints that in the long run don't amount to spitting in the dirt as far as real work engines are concerned.
Makes me tired to read it
Mr Belk is a contributor to these forums, in my ignorance I did not realise which Mr Belk he was for many many weeks.
He is an extremely well respected gunsmith, and gunsmithing and internal combustion engines have an awful lot in common.
Actually, how about an explosive starter for a lister based on a 16 gauge blank? Interesting, good way to clear the carbon out too.
-
Now I know ,thanks Guy
Oh No ,gunpowder fueled Listers ,here we go lol
-
Guy,
I gave you some #'s and you're still not happy?
If we can't use#'s from what appear to be creditable scources then the discussion is over... The folks who publised the sajeet site and the one's on the big engine did so for informational purposes.. who in their right mind is going to provide back up data for these #'s... I believe the #'s from sajjet are correct since other listeroid manufacture's use similar #'s.. and I also believe the #'s from the big engine since someone obviously took some time to compile a couple different sfc's.. one at full power and another at maximum efficiency.. you could assume they used heavy fuel which has a little more energy by weight compared to diesel.. but that's not going to effect the sfc much.. and doesn't effect the TE at all since whoever did the calcs took into consideration the energy content of the fuel used.. you want all the data but I'll bet you've never ran your lister and weighed the fuel consumed vs the output.. you are as equiped as anyone to provide the #'s you want.. so I would say that rather than just asking for stuff why don't you go fire up you old lister with the commet and provide some data..
-
BTW it was the cannon that is the orginal IC engine.. only problem is it tosses the piston every time it is fired..
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Hi Darren,
Thanks for doing the calcs.. several manufacteres state SFC of 197 gr / hp / hr for IDI... the #'s I could find for DI are 173 and 177.. It would be interesting to see a comparison from the users between the old comet the newer IDI and the DI sfc's.. I'll put up $10 that the old commet is the least efficient.. (sorry guy)
-
kurdog fatty
how many nours do you all have on lister type engines
Tim
-
Peace&Love, Darren
-
Guys, lets cut the slights and insults. If you don't like what someone has typed, call them on the facts, call them on thier ideas, but leave the personnal attacks and the slurs in the kiddy forums. Too much good information being shared here
-
Thanks for all of the input guys. I have no illusions about makeing the engine X amount of times more efficent nor about getting large amounts of HP from a 6/1. I think my oringinal question was if anyone has replaced the 6HP wheels with 8 or 10 HP wheels and upped the RPM's. I really do love how a simple question can lead to so many answers on so many different subjects, keeps the forum interesting and exciting ;D. Mike I bought my engine from you so I hope to hear about your experences with changing parts to acheive greater HP.
Thanks again Guys
Johnny Williams
-
Guy i follow what you are stateing in as much as how ya going to tell anything without some form of
scientific testing/reporting
i am not sure that it really would take all that much to accomplish, at least in relative terms.
instruments needed
1. temp prob in the coolant so you could test at apples to apples stable temperature, before modification and after.
2. rpm tachometer, so again you would have apples to apples
3. some sort of thermometer on the coolant tank to plot temp rise, vs time, so as to get some sort of data on heat rejection.
4. pyrometer, either laser, infrared, or thermocouple, to further check for heat rejection out the exhaust.
5. a very large plenum not only for the intake but for the exhaust so that pulse waves could be reduced to a point that air flow measurements could be taken. again i don't think it is necessary to have actual airflow precise measurments but rather relative change numbers. this could be done with an anerometer (sp) or a pitot tube and transducer.
6. and genhead and load bank to apply a fixed load.
7. a graduated pipette with a timer to measure fuel consumption vs time.
8. a light meter with a fixed light source might work fairly well for opacity of the exhaust
9. a kwatt meter, or volt meter and amp meter to measure loading.
then useing a spread sheet, one would could plot all the baseline info on a stock unmodified engine, followed by making one mod at a time and rerunning all the tests, and plotting all the results.
i think a crafty individual could amass all the aforementioned bits and pieces, either beg, borrow or purchased for a modest investment.
once having done so, one could get some useful albeit relative numbers or percentage increase or decrease numbers on all sorts of things such as
power increase before and after
fuel consumption increase or decrease
opacity before and after.
heat rejection before and after
and god knows what else could be derived
without at least setting up this group of instruments and following a one change at a time approach i too am hard pressed to accept anyones report on feelings.
it would be interesting to see documented numbers even if relative in nature, on things like
1. changing the muffler, did it increase power or decrease it? did it increase fuel consumption or decrease it? heat rejection increase or decrease? on and on
2. changing to a tuned intake runner, same questions and perhaps different answers.
3. changes in timing, valve settings, injection pressures, piston crown alterations etc.
4. changes in operating temperatures effect on efficiency, power and opacity to name a few
and the list goes on and on.
is this going to tell you how to get a 6/1 to put out 7 hp, probably not. what it might tell you are relative increases as a percentage based on the original base engine.
now that would be useful information if the work results were published along with the open spread sheet so others could review the results.
once having done so, if someone stated that he replaced the oil with soda pop and got an increase of 10% in power production with the same fuel consumption , heat rejection etc. then we could look at it and figure with some certainty that perhaps there is something to using soda pop for lube oil, instead of blowing him off as an obvious idiot. i realize this is a exaggerated example used only to illustrate what i am trying to get across.
bottom line is we need documentation and a scientific approach or it is all just conjecture and pie in the sky.
bob g
-
Jonny,
Congrats..
IMO the sign of a good post is a lively discussion about the topic..
I'm on board with you... I think speeding up the engine is the easiest way to increase the output.. as long as you don't get too crazy with the RPM the pumping losses will be minimal and the efficiency will not change much.. if at all..
Tim I have a few hundred hours on my Listeroid.. I bought it mainly as a test engine to experiment with.. but I have well in excess of 200 thousand hours of diesel engine operation experience... all types of engines... DI.. IDI.. 2 and 4 stroke.. slow speed.. medium and high speed diesels..
Lastly the SFC #'s for IDI and DI engines are not in the same ball park.. I think it would be interesting to compare the SFC's for the old Ricardo Commet, indian IDI and DI engines..
-
Darren
You still havent answered my question. how many hours have you run a lister type engine.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. because theese theroys are not helping theese engines run one second longer. i have run my 10/1 almost 700 hours since April 15. take your theroys over to the mustang forum where they make serious H.P
Tim.
MODERATOR
Tim last warning. Keep the topic above the belt line or you will get a time out. >:(
-
another thought..
one would also have to determine a reasonable margin of error based on equipment used, and also on repeatability of the test results.
perhaps 5 test runs on each setup then take the average, and check it agains the extremes to arrive at a margin of error.
an example might be on consumption 5 runs at 100 grams/kwatt/ hr average and a high of 102 and a low of 98 would indicate a margin of error of ~2%. Based on this info any modification that resulted within the margin of error would be a modification that produced no increase or decrease over the base engine and should probably be dismissed as not showing any promise of improvement. so if changing the muffler resulted in 101 grams/kwatt/hr (falling within the margin of error) one could arrive at the fact that the new muffler while sounding better does not improve efficiency.
it gets pretty hairy trying to conceptualize the arguement, what are other folks thoughts?
bob g
-
"would indicate a margin of error of ~2%"
that should have read +/- 2%
bob g
-
Guy,
I gave you some #'s and you're still not happy?
If we can't use#'s from what appear to be creditable scources then the discussion is over... The folks who publised the sajeet site and the one's on the big engine did so for informational purposes.. who in their right mind is going to provide back up data for these #'s... I believe the #'s from sajjet are correct since other listeroid manufacture's use similar #'s.. and I also believe the #'s from the big engine since someone obviously took some time to compile a couple different sfc's.. one at full power and another at maximum efficiency.. you could assume they used heavy fuel which has a little more energy by weight compared to diesel.. but that's not going to effect the sfc much.. and doesn't effect the TE at all since whoever did the calcs took into consideration the energy content of the fuel used.. you want all the data but I'll bet you've never ran your lister and weighed the fuel consumed vs the output.. you are as equiped as anyone to provide the #'s you want.. so I would say that rather than just asking for stuff why don't you go fire up you old lister with the commet and provide some data..
You gave me numbers, but those numbers were hearsay. That means they are not just useless, but worse than useless, because the ONE SINGLE FACT you can say about those numbers is that you can NOT trust them.
Who in their right mind is going to provide backup for these numbers? Every last sould who expects them to be taken seriously?
If you think differently I'll sell you all the listers you want to 200 bucks a pop, just don't expect me to provide backup on those numbers before I cash the cheque OK.
Yeah you're right, I never did this sort of analysis on my lister, I never tried to power an aircraft with it either, I still know for a fact it doesn't add up. The old "if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here."
I don't have to fire up my lister and take readings to prove anything, because I'm not the one arguing against the status quo, you lot are, you all think you are better engineers than lister and ricardo and so on, and you may well be, all you have to do is prove it.
Here's the trouble though, we have at least one person here who thinks the lister is shit and can be improves, and he doesn't even own a listeroid, much less a lister.
You think the lister can't be any better than the listeroid, you haven't owned a lister, so you have no basis for that assumption, you just think "hell, it's half a century old, so it must be crap and easy to improve upon", you don't stop and look at all the stuff around you that is that old and older, and still used, for no other reason that they got it right back then.
Let's take something as techologically advanced (on the face of it) as a rock, let's take the blacksmiths anvil, now there is an ancient design, so it must be crap, so it will be easy to improve, let's see you do it, a challenge several orders of magnitude simpler than improving a lister.
I'm serious BTW, if I was a lecturer today that would be a task for the students, design and make a better blacksmiths anvil, the abject failure they will all inevitably suffer will teach them more than making a solar powered torch or some other shit they do now.
-
Calculated using the figure of .25gal/hr which is what folks are reporting their usage to be.
138000btu(diesel) X .250 = 34500btu/hr
34500btu X .293 = 10108.5watts
10108.5watts X .00134 = 13.54 horsepower
3200watts X .00134 = 4.288 horsepower
=31.58% te @ .25gal/hr
Peace&Love :D, Darren
what's wrong with this picture?
british thermal units per hour > watts > horsepower
why are you doing this? it doesn't make sense?
=31.58% te @ .25gal/hr
is still a number pulled out of your ass, you have done and shown zero calculations to back this up.
1/ you have picked an arbitrary fuel.
2/ what was atmospheric pressure and humidity?
3/ what was induction vacuum and flow?
4/ what was ambient temperature?
5/ how much thermal rejection through radiation?
6/ how much thermal rejection through convection?
7/ how much thermal radiation through the exhaust?
8/ how much back pressure in the exhaust?
9/ How much energy used in "pumping" the engine gases?
10/ what were oil flows and delta t?
11/ what were coolant flows and delta t?
12/ what were air flows and delta t?
14/ what losses were there to air resistance on the flywheels?
15/ what losses were there to undamped vibration?
you need ALL OF THESE NUMBERS to calculate thermal efficiency.
-
<< snip >>
I'm serious BTW, if I was a lecturer today that would be a task for the students, design and make a better blacksmiths anvil, the abject failure they will all inevitably suffer will teach them more than making a solar powered torch or some other shit they do now.
And if I were a student my first words would be. I am not doing a dam thing until you define "better" in, writing with your signature. :)
-
I dont know if this information is of any use but it comes from a genuine 1971 lister generator brochure.
Fuel consumption LB/BHP/HR =0.5
This is for the 6.1 and 8.1 engines it comes out of a genuine lister brochure can we believe these figures
Mick
-
<< snip >>
I'm serious BTW, if I was a lecturer today that would be a task for the students, design and make a better blacksmiths anvil, the abject failure they will all inevitably suffer will teach them more than making a solar powered torch or some other shit they do now.
And if I were a student my first words would be. I am not doing a dam thing until you define "better" in, writing with your signature. :)
and get 25% of full marks right there.
-
I dont know if this information is of any use but it comes from a genuine 1971 lister generator brochure.
Fuel consumption LB/BHP/HR =0.5
This is for the 6.1 and 8.1 engines it comes out of a genuine lister brochure can we believe these figures
Mick
I'm my experience that is a conservative estimate, we always used to use it to estimate hours available for a ton of fuel, and always had some fuel left over, 250 gallon tank that was.
-
Coming in here, but can anyone tell me if the Sayajeet numbers are using an AL or FE piston for the IDI figure. It makes a difference also what CR's are being used?
-
You gave me numbers, but those numbers were hearsay. That means they are not just useless, but worse than useless, because the ONE SINGLE FACT you can say about those numbers is that you can NOT trust them.
Well most of the idian manufactures have similar number... they list them on their websites as the SFC for each particular model engine.. I don't think they all got together and said OK you use 176 and I'll use 175... to me it looks like they did some testing to come up with the #'s if you don't trust them why don't you come up with your own #'s instead of finding fault with folks who are using them to discuss fuel consumption..
I don't have to fire up my lister and take readings to prove anything, because I'm not the one arguing against the status quo, you lot are, you all think you are better engineers than lister and ricardo and so on, and you may well be, all you have to do is prove it.
I don't see anyone here but you who is contesting the data provided by the manufacturers... I have made the comment that IDI is less efficient than DI... I quoted the manufacture SFC for both .. are you saying you don't think that IDI is less efficient? I always thought that was pretty common knowledge...
You think the lister can't be any better than the listeroid, you haven't owned a lister, so you have no basis for that assumption, you just think "hell, it's half a century old, so it must be crap and easy to improve upon", you don't stop and look at all the stuff around you that is that old and older, and still used, for no other reason that they got it right back then.
I know you love your old lister... and IMO it's a dam fine piece of machinery... If I was burning veggie or waste oil I would prefer the IDI even though it is less efficient.. but it does have other benefits... like more complete combustion which ="s fewer particulates.. now to go on and state that it is also likely better from an efficiency standpoint just isn't true.. I think the Indians took a fine design and improved it from an efficiency standpoint by making it DI.. oh and they also added tapered roller mains ans modern oil seals.. you may have issue with that statement but I believe it to be true.. I would add that if you think your old piece of iron is better than the new stuff the indians make why don't you fire it up and prove it.. as for "you haven't owned a lister, so you have no basis for that assumption" I don't believe that you own a listeroid so I say touche'.. you also have nothing to compare your engine to..
-
This gets to be an amazing arguement to say the least, something like standing in a crowded room of 100 people
all discussing differing subjects, like politics, religion, and gay rights! :)
it gets hard to follow, and very easy to get lost, in the hooopla.
i would agree that it is going to be very near impossible to improve the basic lister design for most of us
mere mortals. we are stuck with what we got, and modifying in part of it is difficult if not impossible.
And to what end, if you can't accurately measure the before product, how you going to tell if you have a
meaningful improvement?
i think lister got it pretty damn right to begin with, and failing having alot of time, specialized machine work, specialized test
equipment and a butt load of money, one is likely not to improve on the original design in any significant way at least in thermal efficiency, fuel consumption, or emmissions.
But here again, i said i "think", and that is all most of you have going for you so far. that is "i think" or "i feel" or " i believe"
basically all being either "theory" " hypothesis" or "conjecture"
i am all ears to the first guy that comes up not only with his theory/hypothesis/conjecture, but a test stand using instrumentation and scientific procedure and analysis to publish actual supporting evidence.
even in the world of scientific investigation the reports are followed by conclusions that are carefully worded such as:
1 according to our findings..... it would appear.....
2. our testing has shown.....
3. more work has to be done.......
4. possibly the results we came up with were caused by something other than what we saw.....
and all sorts of other statements, indicating that perhaps their findings while showing promise may or may not be what
they have found.
only after others have documented similar results independantly does the scientific community accept something as "maybe" being fact.
up till now in this discussion all i see is a bunch of fairly intelligent folks kicking sand in each others face.
Guy: i like your anvil analogy, hard to improve on time proven technology to say the least as it applies to anvils, harder still to find suitable material to build one.
many old engines, such as Bugatti's et al. having roller or ball brg mains and rods, and a plethora of other inovative engineering feets are still hard to improve on today. the biggest improvements came with improved metallurgy, not design.
makes you wonder what guys like them could have done with todays technology.
anyone got the time, space and inclination to set up a proper test bed to test an original and make mod's to retest and get
some useful feedback as to what actually works?
bob g
-
HI Tom,
I think most pistons are AL and the comps are all in the 17-18 to 1 range
-
BTW I went to 6 different indian manufactures and compared SFC #'s... all are within 173-177 range for DI and about 195-198 for IDI..
-
The original Lister design is as close to optimum as you can get by balancing cost and efficiency at time of manufacture.
I think we are lucky to have originals, "clones of the standard" or "super" clones like the Satyajeet GM90 all available for purchase.
Personally, I like the Turbo one like on George B's site. 8) http://www.utterpower.com/turbo_6_1.htm
-
here's an interesting read on where diesel tech is going and some of the efficiencies DI vs IDI
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/august97/features/diesel/diesel.html
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
here's an interesting read on where diesel tech is going and some of the efficiencies DI vs IDI
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/august97/features/diesel/diesel.html
it's bollocks.
you know why?
it's like a magician, never ever watch the hand he wants you to watch, with these "articles" always look at what they don't write about.
Direct Injection beats indirect injection by 15%, yes it does, this has been known for 40 years, but, there are words missing, the whole sentence and the entire truth is
Direct Injection beats indirect injection by 15%, in small bore high revving diesel engines.
Just like
Dual overhead camshafts are much more efficient than pushrod motors
Yes they are, at high revs and smaller bores.
Direct injection is A LOT CHEAPER.
Leaving out the CS valve is A LOT CHEAPER
-
BTW, DI has worse emissions, esp NOx
-
BTW, the "new" engines getting more efficiency are HDI, high direct injection, not the same thing as DI, not just apples and oranges, but apples oranges and pears
-
anyone seriously intersted should read
International Journal of Engine Research
ISSN: 1468-0874
DOI: 10.1243/146808704773564578
Issue: Volume 5, Number 2 / 2004
-
and the current issue come to that
International Journal of Engine Research
ISSN: 1468-0874
Issue: Volume 7, Number 2 / 2006
Investigation of the Early Soot Formation Process in A Transient Spray Flame Via Spectral Measurements of Laser-Induced Emissions pp. 93 - 101
T Aizawa and H Kosaka
Soot Formation in Diesel Fuel Jets Near the Lift-Off Length pp. 103 - 130
L M Pickett and D L Siebers
Exhaust Tuning of Large-Bore, Multicylinder, Two-Stroke, Natural Gas Engines pp. 131 - 141
J Adair, D Olsen, A Kirkpatrick
Flow and Mixture Distribution in a High-Speed Five-Valve Direct Injected Gasoline Engine pp. 143 - 166
N Kampanis, C Arcoumanis, S Kometani, R Kato, H Kinoshita
The Use of Non-Parametric Regression to Investigate the Sensitivities of High-Speed Direct Injection Diesel Emissions and Fuel Consumption to Engine Parameters pp. 167 - 180
Y Liu, F Lu, R D Reitz
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modelling of Residual Fuel Oil Combustion in the Context of Marine Diesel Engines pp. 181 - 199
L Goldsworthy
-
Guy:
i guess i would have to ask, what you call high rev and small bore?
seems like all of the US manufactures currently are producing direct injection engines as their main products.
i don't see fuel mileage decreasing as a result, but
then again perhaps you are correct on large bore very slow rpm engines, all is relative i guess.
would you call a 14 liter 6 cyl engine of approx 5.5 bore and 5 inch stroke rated at 1800rpm a small bore high rpm engine?
i dont work around what i would call monster bore engines that are used in ocean going ships, so perhaps those are the ones
you are referring to?
NOx emmisions are a problem i would agree, but i am not sure that the manufactures are going to go back to precup designs to lower those problems. Rather it would appear they are going full tilt toward DI and other methods to reduce NOx emmissions.
To others:
Even still how are most of us going to apply a technology to what we have existing in the listeroids?
i suppose someone here might fab up a 20,000 psi injection system to a DI listeroid with all the computer controls and sensors. maybe our friends in india are going to do it? ya right!
even if they did, what would we get? An EPA compliant 6/1 that cost 3000 bucks? LOL
the reality is, if you have an original lister, fine, good job, enjoy it.
if not then get a listeroid by hook or crook and enjoy it, if you are so inclined take it down and blue print it. modify things like intake runners, exhaust runner, improve the lube system, install a tstat to keep the temp up to 190 degrees or so, and then enjoy it.
good god this is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear don't you think?
at some point if you want a ferrari, you buy a ferrari.
i for one am just tickled pink to have gotten mine before the ban wiped out stocks, and am saddened that there aren't more available.
for the money there just isn't anything else out there that fills the bill so nicely "as is".
perhaps instead of discussing how to up the power of a 6/1 the discussion should evolve into how to live with what it will produce by means of load management. That would be a useful direction in the discussion that most everyone could directly apply easily, at least far easier than modifying or turbocharging a lister/oid.
damn i love you guys :)
great fun it is coming here
bob g
-
Hi Bob,
I've posted some easy to do things that improve the combustion on the DI listeroid or Petteroid.. it works.. no bull... and you don't need no 20K psi injection pressure.. so it's an easy DYI kind of improvement..
Direct Injection beats indirect injection by 15%, yes it does, this has been known for 40 years, but, there are words missing, the whole sentence and the entire truth is
Direct Injection beats indirect injection by 15%, in small bore high revving diesel engines.
I think Guy is a little confused... IDI has never been common on large engines.. only small ones and it was implemented to improve combustion and reduce noise from combustion knock.. .. DI has almost always been prefered in heavy apps where the diesel cycle is used because of better efficiency.. they didn't use DI in smaller engines because they didn't have the parts to make it work.. now we have better injectors / pumps and the need for higher efficiency.. so the indians implemented DI combustion to the old lister.. Honestly I think Guy is pissed at the indians for messing arround with his beloved limey design.. IMO they made it better.. and IME you can make combustion more complete by modifiying the piston.. as for all the technical papers.. they are writen by folks with opinions.. and no mater how unbiased the opinion of the author eventually make it's way onto the page.. I'm sure those papers are full of good info.. but saying that untill a guy reads them that his opinion is useless is a little over the edge..
BTW IDI engines make lots of Nox too.. Nox can be combated by retarding the timing, reciculating / the exhaust, and cooling the intake charge..
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
is that with or without turbocharging?
lol
bob g
-
Guy:
i guess i would have to ask, what you call high rev and small bore?
seems like all of the US manufactures currently are producing direct injection engines as their main products.
i don't see fuel mileage decreasing as a result, but
then again perhaps you are correct on large bore very slow rpm engines, all is relative i guess.
would you call a 14 liter 6 cyl engine of approx 5.5 bore and 5 inch stroke rated at 1800rpm a small bore high rpm engine?
i dont work around what i would call monster bore engines that are used in ocean going ships, so perhaps those are the ones
you are referring to?
NOx emmisions are a problem i would agree, but i am not sure that the manufactures are going to go back to precup designs to lower those problems. Rather it would appear they are going full tilt toward DI and other methods to reduce NOx emmissions.
smallest bore (IMHO) you can go direct injection is about 600 cc, something like a BMC 2.2 litre, the old one with the in-line pump.
there's the thing see, in-line pumps were good for 2500 rpm, now everyone is making 4k and 5k and 6k rpm diesels so they are using distributor pumps, nothing works in isolation.
in reality small bore is 6 inch down to about 4", medium bore 6" to about 12", and bige bore beyond that.
low rpm was up to about 500, medium speed 500 to 1500, high speed 1500 to 2500, and above 2500 very high speed
small bores have a much higher surface to volume ratio, so they are a bitch to start cold, so they were traditionally indirect injection, electric heater plugs made things like the 500 cc per pot BMC 2.2 possible with direct injection
indirect injection is a lot more expensive to manufacture than direct injection.
cost of building a 4 pot block in 2 litres is pretty close to building one in 8 litres
cost of building a CS head probably equalled the rest of the block and crankcase
lister is a "special case", very low piston speeds, very low specific power per litre, what applies to a 3300 rpm volvo 2000 series doesn't apply to a lister
the 14 litre engine you refer to, yes, I would say small bore high rpm
large bore stuff was found all over the place, just in non traction applications.
traction engines come with a whole different set of rules, and again it screws the pooch when you try to apply them backwards to a stationary engine, stationary engines never ever ever shift their own weight
you can take the rules you learn building mobile cranes and go and build a dockyard crane, but it will be crap compared to the dockyard crane sat next to it
you want mobile you build an air cooled 160 amp welder than one man can lug and it's good for a bit of DIY, it will never prepare you for building a big solid oil filled welder of the same rating that you move on a pallete truck, but which will weld all day and all night as fast as you can feed the operator rods
you want mobile you build a 4" field cannon and start lobbing shells a mile or two away, it will never prepare you for an 18" static cannon that can fire a shell weighing more than the 4" field piece 80 miles over the horizon
perhaps the best example of all, you can spend 20 years building caravans (mobile homes) but it won't teach you shit about building a stone castle, even a small one.
just to ram this point home, you say manufacturers are going full tilt etc re emissions.
really? write down their names on a piece of paper, and cross off the ones making traction engines and leave only the ones making stationary engines, I bet your list has precisely no names left on it.
-
Hi Guy,
Sorry but I feel the need to correct you on a couple of points...
there's the thing see, in-line pumps were good for 2500 rpm, now everyone is making 4k and 5k and 6k rpm diesels so they are using distributor pumps, nothing works in isolation.
This is simply not true... my Benz uses an inline IP and turns 5K... the inline was not abandoned because of a limiting RPM... I have several Bosch design manuals that explain why rotary IP's were developed.. manufactures went to rotary IP to improve consistency of fuel delivery and to reduce cost.. with one piston and a distributor each cylinder gets the same vollume of fuel as the last and next... in fact I'll bet that the imline IP has a much higher RPM potential since with the rotary IP the plunger works 4-6 times faster when compared to inline plunger..
small bores have a much higher surface to volume ratio, so they are a bitch to start cold, so they were traditionally indirect injection, electric heater plugs made things like the 500 cc per pot BMC 2.2 possible with direct injection
IDI was implemnted to improve combustion and higer RPM operation.. it has absolutly nothing to do with ease of starting.. DI engines start easier than IDI... even the small ones... install a GP in a DI and you have an even easier starting engine..
just to ram this point home, you say manufacturers are going full tilt etc re emissions.
really? write down their names on a piece of paper, and cross off the ones making traction engines and leave only the ones making stationary engines, I bet your list has precisely no names left on it.
OK how about CAT and waukesha, wartsila , mitsubishi, GE, just about evey engine manufacturer I can think of who makes an engine ... no matter what the application.. is trying to make an engine with fewer emissions...
-
Here's a link to wartsila..
http://www.wartsila.com/?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=powerplants_en&jsp_type=0§ion=powerplants&content_type=tbd&doc_id=20049299264870&node_id=0
I believe they are seriously trying to lower emissions...
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
I'm not sure that the DI Listeroid is a real DI engine. The piston has a pretty deep bowl instead of a more ideal flat top.
IDI engines are alot more tolerant of injector spray patterns; DI engines need to avoid fuel impingement on the cylinder and piston crown, or they are not significantly better.
Real DI engines with the smaller bore tend to have a vetical injector in the middle of the bore. (CAT, Cummins, Detroit, Bergen) the spray pattern is radial and forms a flat disc shape into the inrushing air caused by squish.
I DO NOT own a Listeroid DI. So this is opinion. I would love to have one to sit next to my IDI 25/2. My engine room would love the variety ::)
A real DI Listeroid would have four valves per cylinder and a central mounted vertical injector. the piston crown whould have a thin squish band and a shallow toroidal hat bowl. The squish ring of the piston might be crennelated or have Fatty inspired tangent troughs to spin the squish. The injector spray would be radial, and very fine, so it would not puddle on the cylinder or piston crown.
The downside is the sensitivity to injector quality. as soon as the injection pattern degrades, there goes the benefits.
The IDI will tolerate third world maintenance and operating proceedures better I think...And sometimes my shop looks more like a third world country ;)
Scott E
-
The listeroid is classic DI in every definition of DI combustion... The shape of the combustion cup can vary.. depth of the bowl doesn't change the fact that it is still DI...
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/head.jpg)
As you can see here
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/listerhead.jpg)
the injector is in the center of the head.. There are 5 holes in the nozzel which disburse the spray laterally.. BTW Scott, you don't need 4 valves to have a DI combustion chamber... it just works better since the injector is in the center fo all the valves.. more valves decrease pumping losses at higher RPM.. this would be a waste of time and add uneeded complexity to the low RPM listeroid..
-
Fattyman;
Thanks, and those are good pictures too.
Scott E
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
Hi Darren,
You can turn up the pressure a bit without imediate dammage.. how long will the IP live at this pressure? who knows.. The pressure is adjustable with a large screw under the cap.. I usually set my listeroid petteroid injectors @ 4K... The higher pressures do improve combustion a bit.. But I think longevity will eventually be a problem..
-
Peace&Love :D, Darren
-
An injector is really just a pressure reliefe valve.. increasing the pressure retards the timing a bit.. I like to run my engine slightly retarded.. there is no adjustment on the IP... the rack adjusts the vollume of fuel delivered..
-
A while back I said I had got an IHI RHB3 turbo... this would be a great little turbo for a petter or lister... a decided to do a little something different... here's some video..
http://s38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/?action=view¤t=tuboturbine.flv
-
A while back I said I had got an IHI RHB3 turbo... this would be a great little turbo for a petter or lister... a decided to do a little something different... here's some video..
http://s38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/fattywagonman/?action=view¤t=tuboturbine.flv
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4648876294155079253&q=turbine
-
I like this one better....
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5437209871684663077&q=turbine
-
Hey fattywagonman, I used to build similar such devices. I made them from much larger turbo's. The biggest of which was pushing 300 pounds of thrust with afterburner.
Chris
-
Hi Cujet,
Very cool... like you I made my first one several years ago .... not for thrust but for power production... 300 lbs of thrust is insane... Lot's of folks still don't know a turbo and a turbine are the same thing... This RHB3 is really small... I plan on installing a generator to make power... and recuperating for better efficiency... and likely annd a gasifier for fuel... I'm hoping for about 1-2 kW...
Speaking of insane.....
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5417019303200331106&q=turbine
-
I think it was Bill Nye who built a gas turbine engine that used a gasifier. He used wood!
Chris
-
Hi Chris,
Actually Mark Nye's turbine was / is just a wood burner... I saw it several years ago and then made mine with a gasifier... Mine is very clean buring.. I sent him some video of it and a description of the gasifier... He called and we talked for a bit then I never heard back from him...