Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Procrustes

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22
16
General Discussion / Re: concrete vs resilient mounting round 2
« on: November 25, 2006, 07:47:49 AM »
" For instance, the engine as a whole could accelerate upwards during the powerstroke and thus create a stress spike in the crankshaft."

why would the engine accelerate upwards on the power stroke?

If it's not accelerating cyclically on its mounts then it will be have an essentially upredicatable acceleration at a given time.

perhaps i am missing what you are trying to support or rather assert.

proper crankcase design (which lister follows in a very classical way) contains all stresses generated within the engine.
only torque action, or antitorque action and vibrations are transmitted outside the crankcase no matter which mounting method you choose.

when ignition takes place you have forces working in two primary ways, one is trying to lift the head off, the other (opposite reaction) is trying to stuff the piston thru the floor, the crankcase contains and manages these stresses, these stresses are the most severe and cyclic stresses placed on an engine and it makes no difference to what it is mounted to. poor design here, means blown head gskts (minor), broken bolts (not so minor) to broken crankcases,failed brgs, broken rods or crankshaft, all by the way are design defficiecies, which lister did not have and listeroids have not shown to have. so clearly the design is proven and sound from and engineering standpoint.

You're right, the crankshaft example was stupidly wrong.  I don't cede my argument though.  I feel certain that a  given Lister will fail sooner if suspended from a spring than if it were affixed to a block.  Most any other kind of mount is a gradation between these two.

the only thing transmitted from ignition are shocks/vibration of the combustion process, which follows vectors straight thru the tapered crankcase into the concrete block, steel frame or mud pie you bolted it down to.  while these stresses can be significant, they have never been an issue with listers, mounted to all sorts of things, and have not shown to be a problem with the listeroids. this is mainly because of the use of cast iron and steel instead of materials that have a finite lifecycle.

You really believe that vibration is not an issue with Listers?  No doubt you will use wooden stakes and rope to mount yours (I hope this doesn't sound as snide as I suspect it does.  Couldn't think of any other way to say it).

i am not sure where you are going with this, or where you would like to go with it.
it has become quite clear that lister spec's all sorts of concrete bases, from 600 lbs to well over a ton, steel bases, cast iron bases, and even mention the use of resilient mounting, none of which have a history of detrimental effect on the longevity of the engine from a catastrophic failure, such as broken crankshafts or cases.

are you saying that listeroids will manifest these problems if not mounted to concrete? if so please explain how and why? with some solid evidence or references

I'm saying Listeroids will be more inclined to stress fractures as they are less rigidly mounted.

cyclic charts of different metals are all well and good, but i think you would agree that how a material is used, and in what quantity along with actual stresses imposed clearly show that if engineered properly  catastrophic failure is dramatically reduced to the point (in the case of a stationary engine) as to not even merit mention.

You are saying that concrete is better, but insignificantly so.  That sounds fair to me.

surely you are not trying to support you position useing a chart on aluminum where a sample piece is subjected to a bending
force and cycled to failure, when an engine that is soundly engineered not only has no such bending force imposed but is made of cast iron and steel (which chart out dramatically different than aluminum even in sample pieces)

Cyclical bending forces are precisely what the crank, flywheel spokes, etc see, right?  I don't understand this objection.

As for iron vs aluminum: non-linear fatigue is non-linear fatigue, whether it's in aluminum or steel or iron or glass.  A rigidly mounted engine can't normally creep beyond a certain point in the fatigue curve, whereas a flexibly mounted engine might.

i can't remember but someone posted something to the effect

"show me two failed crankshafts due to mounting, and i will look at it, show me 4 and perhaps you have a trend..."

so far i have heard of only one broken listeroid crankshaft, and that was reported to me by a dealer in these engines, after selling hundreds of these things.

one broken crankshaft does not a cake make!

i would even go so far as to state that if that broken crank was analized it would show a flaw either in the metallugy or a flaw in the fillet area not being ground properly.

these engines being built as heavy as they are, and at relatively low power densities literally cannot break themselves (if there was not a flaw to start with )  running under rated load/rpm etc.

so what are you saying?

It's not impossible to see fractures in a Lister, that's all you have to accept to see that the block is better, no matter how slightly.

And, what if your engine does have a flaw?

17
General Discussion / Re: concrete vs resilient mounting round 2
« on: November 25, 2006, 04:53:38 AM »
In the "seeking an answer" thread, I recently posted my reasoning for why rigid mounts are better than flexibles.  Few are intrepid enough to wade to the bottom of that one, so I'll repeat myself here.

I believe that most rigid materials degrade non-linearly with stress.  Here's a representative graph of 'brittle aluminum' from wikipedia:


For example, this sample can withstand about 10,000 cycles at 150 MPa stress, but not even one cycle at twice that.  Imagine tapping a glass bottle lightly with a hammer ten times, versus once with ten times the force.  The bottle may remain intact in the first case but shattering under the heavier blow.

With flexible mounts the engine as a whole has a particular acceleration at every point in time.  Given the inherent problems in balancing a one-cylinder engine, this acceleration will be acyclic.  Sometimes the engine's acceleration will offload stress onto the mounts, but other times it will produce an unusually large and compromising stress.  For instance, the engine as a whole could accelerate upwards during the powerstroke and thus create a stress spike in the crankshaft.

18
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 24, 2006, 07:17:08 AM »
what would be interesting is to see the same graph for forged steel (crankshaft) and cast iron (cylinder block)
i think you will find a much different looking graph

I think all structural metals exhibit a non-linear relationship between cycles and stress amplitudes, albeit to different degrees.

but your point is well taken.

i have to tell you though i am a bit disappointed in the failure to find proof of concept or an actual formula (even if it was a generic, seat of the pants thing)

now what are we going to argue about?

Chevy vs Ford?  Emacs vs Vi?

19
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 24, 2006, 05:44:23 AM »
Mea culpa.  The block was RA Lister's standard foundation but it was apparently not a requirement for warranty.

I still believe that a rigid foundation is superior for the CS.  I don't really wish to argue about this any more, but perhaps this will be of interest.  Consider this:



There's a non-linear relationship between stress on a metallic element and its projected lifespan.  Holding an engine rigid assures that you stay on the low end of this scale, ensuring many millions of cycles from the crankshaft et al.  Flexible mounts will sometimes absorb stress, but since the single cylinder is inherently somewhat unbalanced, there will be harmonics that cause undue stress.  For instance the engine as a whole may have upward momentum during the power stroke, thereby stressing the crank as much as many many normal cycles.

20
Some other approaches: user BruceM set up an air tank which runs a Gast air motor which turns a rubber wheel which spins up the flywheel.  He used a foot pedal to engage/disengage the rubber wheel.  Eric at rockymountainpowersource.com has a prototype for an electric motor which turns a rubber wheel which spins up the flywheel.  It auto-disengages, I believe somehow with centripetal force.  Mike Montieth at listeroids.com was cutting ring gears and mounting them onto flywheel for use with automotive starters, but his supplier now does this for him.  A few electric motors, such as those on the genuine start-o-matics, double as starters.

21
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 22, 2006, 09:53:27 PM »
I had a boss once who told me never to talk about sports, politics or religion with clients.  It's a good rule, and one that has brought me peace of mind and equanimity over the course of my life, both professionally and personally.

Are the Yankees a piece of shit or what?

22
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 22, 2006, 06:28:58 PM »
I'm not proformula!  I don't have any position about whether Lister used a formula.  I've sure tried to make that clear.

Actually, ever since the beginning of this discussion, if I had to bet I'd say Lister didn't use a formula, or at best a back-of-the-envelope one.  I didn't bother mentioning this because I don't have any good reason to believe it.  Nevertheless, that's where I'd put my money.

23
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 22, 2006, 05:37:44 PM »
GuyF, Pro and others of the proformula camp:

I'll run home and fetch that shine box now, Bob.

You are joking, right?

24
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 22, 2006, 06:41:39 AM »
Bob: shall I go home and get my fucking shine box then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5S-H4uE0y0

I don't know if you've seen that movie, but there's another funny line: "Looks a little like somebody we know!"

25
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 21, 2006, 11:50:13 PM »
"An engineer could simply have decided, "That's not big enough!", and increased the spec without altering the fact that RA Lister designed the CS for use with a block.  We'll just have to agree to disagree here."

This whole thread was based on the premise that lister used a formula to determine the base dimension, now some engineer just decide it wasnt big enough?
based on what? his feelings? or the fact that the block was not big enough by a factor of 4? ... give me a break!

I never made any assertions about whether Lister used a formula.  My point has always been that you can't infer from the change in block size that the block is not part of the spec.   You stated baldly that your inference is in fact proof, but it simply isn't.

"From my admittedly small knowledge of such things, I flatly disagree.  I've not seen any industrial stationary engines mounted on anything but concrete."

i know of none either, but this does not prove the existance of some higher mathematical formula, but rather should make you wonder why there is no reference to one forthcoming if one did exist!

To my knowledge no one is looking for such a formula.  You are the one who wants it.  I have nothing to prove by presenting this to you.  RA Lister could change their block spec because of what they observed in the field, or because they changed a parameter in their formula or switched to a different formula.  None of these would alter the fact that the block is part of the spec.

"Yet again, I flatly disagree, on the basis of what I said above and also because the concrete block is plainly a part of the schematics that I've seen."

fine, then you explain mathematically the huge disparity in the 5/1 prints showing 600 lbs and the 6/1 showing the need for 2000+ lbs, given the fact that the 5/1 and the 6/1 are the same engine, and for that matter the same as the 3/1.  show me the formula to reconcile the difference!

As above, I just don't care what the formula is.

so far all you have done is regurgitate all the same stuff, you have not come up with any new or sound engineering answers, the fact that concrete has been used forever for the mounting of heavy stationary equipment does not necessarily mean that it is an intregal part of any design.

I'm not making any engineering arguments, Bob.  All I've tried to convince you of is that Lister designed the CS to work with a concrete block.  My reasoning, as you know, is not based on engineering knowledge, it's based in the schematic that RA Lister published, and the fact that all stationary engines seem to use concrete.  IMO "the fact that concrete has been used forever for the mounting of heavy stationary equipment" most certainly does mean that concrete is part of the design.

again i will state based on much research, that all of the internal stresses and vibrations of an engine are addressed and handled within proper crankcase design, lister engines are not atypical in design and show no signs of being deficient in such a way that a concrete base adds anything to their function other than a place to bolt it down to.

I'm not dissing you Bob, but I haven't a clue about your research, so I'd be naive to attach this much weight.

it is ok by me if you want to blindly accept whatever is said to you, and it is ok that we disagree on this topic, and i have no interest in changing yours or anyone elses mind.

what would be interesting though is for those that hold your side of the arguement to come up with something solid to support the claim that lister used a formula to arrive at the spec, and some proof that from an engineering standpoint the block was an intregal part of the design.  for that matter any engine, by any manufacture, same criteria!

for now i am still waiting, still reading, still looking for proof.
to date, still nada, zip, zilch, just a bunch of restatement and shuffling, and kicking sand

My side?  Maybe you think I'm in cahoots with Fawkes and that's why you keep asking me for a formula?  You'll have to ask him.  I'm agnostic about whether there's a formula.  I just don't care much about it.  My position is that RA Lister could have changed the concrete spec for any reason: formula, formula parameter, business, caprice, idiocy, you name it, and the block would still be part of the spec.  As I respect the engine, I respect the block spec.  You can call this blind trust, but that seems harsh to me.  We're all agreed on the merits of the engine design, so I have no qualms about accepting the merits of the mount designed along with the engine.

I'm not trying to prove to you what you seem to think I'm trying to prove.  My argument is this and this alone:

   1) the block is part of the spec
   2) a change in block size does not imply that the block is not part of the spec

I'm baffled that you keep asking me for a formula, and believe you've scored points because I haven't produced it.  I haven't lifted a finger trying to find this formula.

You say that concrete is a part of basically all stationary engine mounts, so IMO that means concrete is a part of the design.  Maybe it's a difference in semantics.

26
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 21, 2006, 06:41:22 AM »
"You didn't address one part of my post: does the fact that the block size changed prove that the block is not part of the engine design?  Yes or no?"
...

... the block changed dimensions radically, so "yes" that would prove it was not part of the design of the engine.

To me that is an extraordinary claim.  An engineer could simply have decided, "That's not big enough!", and increased the spec without altering the fact that RA Lister designed the CS for use with a block.  We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

further i can find no mention of any manufacture ever using the concrete base as an intregal part of an engine design.

the use of the concrete block as an intregal part of the design flies in the face of all that has been published on sound engine design and engineering (at least for purposes of moving a center of mass, center of gravity is another story)

From my admittedly small knowledge of such things, I flatly disagree.  I've not seen any industrial stationary engines mounted on anything but concrete.  Rtgii posted a bunch of pictures here:

http://listerengine.com/smf/index.php?topic=1033.msg13851#msg13851

conversely I know of zero industrial stationary engines mounted on anything else.

proper engine design (and i have no reason to believe that the good folks at lister were incapable of proper design) dictates that all internal forces/stresses etc are to be contained and managed within the structure of the engine proper, eg. the crankcase.

the lister crankcase is typical of design and shows no sign of deficiency that would dictate that a concrete base would improve upon. further...

Yet again, I flatly disagree, on the basis of what I said above and also because the concrete block is plainly a part of the schematics that I've seen.

if by design the lister needed the concrete base to stablize, increase strength, move centers of mass etc. the print would have included an iron or steel bedplate that would have been grouted to the concrete providing a broader contact with the concrete rather than the relative point loading that would lead to abrasion at the mounting bolts over time. for there to be a tranfer of forces to the concrete this connection would have to be very solid and if abrasion occured the engine would exhibit catastrophic failure which has not proven to be the case.

listers overall design is very good, solid and time proven, and was based on popular design as far as basic structure and crankcase design are concerned. for the power density envolved it is hell for stout and has no need for outside strengthening from a concrete base.

Same comments.

from a standpoint of simple, cheap, stable and expedient clearly the concrete base is a good method of mounting, i got no problem with that or its use.

the bottom line here is not whether or not concrete is good, bad or indifferent, or if resilient is good, bad or indifferent.
i just want to see some formulae or reference to the claim that the block has to be, or was a part of the structural design of the engine to begin with.

still looking, still waiting, perhaps i will find it but like granny used to say "maybe so, but i kinda friggin doubt it"

the more i research the further i get from accepting that the yard of concrete is the only way to mount a lister/oid and have an engine that will live longer than if mounted in an alternative (and properly engineered) manner.

bob g

27
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 20, 2006, 11:40:17 PM »
"As an aside, maybe you can explain something to me: is it possible to balance a four-stroke one-cylinder precisely?  In my mind's eye I can't see how it could be smooth at idle and also during the power stroke at full HP."

no i am not suggesting anything like that, just as i am not suggesting that you can balance a single cylinder engine perfectly, but you can attain a very acceptable level
of balance on either engine at a specific rpm.  Because the lister/oid is likely to be running at a specific rpm this information can be relayed to the shop that dynamically balances your assy to be as well balanced as you are willing to pay for at this specific rpm.

no mass produced engine will ever be balanced as well as what you can do on an individual basis (generally speaking), and listeroids are no exception to this.

we have all heard of the listeroid that a guy bought and started on the crate and found it to sit there and chug away, and conversely we have all heard of the guy who started his on the pallet only to have it hop all over the shop and chase him out the  door.  cleary there is some issues related to quality of balance, bolting it to a ton of concrete won't make the hopper a better engine, it is just going to mask the problem.

I was just asking Bob, you would know better than I.  But I don't think you answered my question. I'm not talking about balance differences between different RPM's.  I'm wondering whether balance changes under different loads.  Does it?

as for having it both ways:

Despite what you say below, I still don't know what you figure I'm trying to have both ways.

engine designers do not design engines on dyno's, they design them on paper, with calculations, math and established formula. with enought calculation and input data it is surprizing just how close the final dyno results are to the design. the dyno is used to further refine and and tune the engine and provide testing.

Well sure you can predict anything with enough input data.  But where does input data come from?  Experimentation and measurement, which you are saying is relatively unimportant in engine design.  If you accept the the 'just how close' is extraordinarily important then I agree.  If that weren't so, then all quarter mile dragsters would use virtually the same engine, the optimal one for the application, whereas in reality there is lots of variation. 

engine designers have had all the formula's to design on paper all manner of engines for the last 75+ years. even back then they were within a few percent of design on the dyno. today they can predict to very tight margins any change to an engine result in hp/torque/ fuel consumption etc.

and yes they could engineer a concrete block today, last week or 50 years ago, but funny thing is i can find no mention of any formula to arrive at an engineered solution.
either lister and ever other stationary manufacture had the formula and no it is lost to the sands of time or there was a simple rule of thumb approach used.

i guess like religion and politics, we all choose to believe what we want to

bob g



28
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 20, 2006, 11:13:46 PM »
if you recall i started this thread in the attempt to get to the formula

you will derive from the references that were sent to me and posted at the beginning of this thread one thing and i another.
ten more guys can come in and derive maybe 10 other things, all of which makes no real difference to the question at hand.

we can debate the vargaries and the fineries of the lister prints, and sales text till the cows come home, i am up for it, but i doubt either of us will change the others mind

i posted those two links solely as proof that the assertion that the concrete block was an intergal part of the engine design is problematic.

i have also stated my reasons for seeking the formula and an understanding of the assertion that the block was intregal to the design of the engine, that is one of education and broad applicability beyond its use by me in mounting a listeroid.

without those two links the assertion of there being a formula for determing the spec on a concrete block still had some legs, some hope of getting there, but with them it is losing ground quickly.

I never said there was or was not a 'formula'.  My remarks on the topic have to do with separate disagreements.

again i will state "words have specific meanings" most especially when used in engineering, science, math or law. all of which are in play when applied to listers drawings and sales brochure. i have no doubt that they carefully chose their wording, and in doing so many folks will read what they want to hear into it. it just isnt there!

Well, they also depict the block as part of the blueprint of the engine.  I admit I'm confused by the 'particulars of mounting' statement, I don't exactly know how to reconcile it with the schematic.  The schematic is certainly more straightfoward.  The 'particulars of mounting' is listed under a section called 'Choosing an engine', so perhaps that explains it.

still waiting for the equation/formulae, dont even have to be for a lister!! give me a one for any machine to concrete

As I said before, no, I don't have a formula, nor have I looked for one.  What do you think you are proving?  I really don't understand.  I think the block is part of the design regardless of whether to use a formula to size it.

You didn't address one part of my post: does the fact that the block size changed prove that the block is not part of the engine design?  Yes or no?

29
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 20, 2006, 01:10:24 AM »
you cannot have it both ways either!

What am I trying to have both ways?

if one cannot determine the outcome of aspects of an engine design such as valve timeing, bore stroke ratio, VE etc, then you damn sure cannot determine anything about a concrete block.

But you can't exactly predict the effects of many engine design decisions.  That's what dynos are for.

This is the nature of mathematical forumulas; the more work you put into them, the better the results you are liable to get.  But they're never perfect on anything of any complexity, and thus we perform experiments.  The fianancial "rule of 72" is a mathematical model, and it is useful so long as you don't expect too much from it.

But all this is beside the point.  It doesn't matter how RA LIster came up with their spec, it's still the spec.

and you are missing the point entirely

it has been asserted that lister only specified the use of a ton of concrete, or a yard whichever it was. it was reported that the yard/ton of concrete was an intergal part of the engine design.

Apparently that's wrong, Lister specified the 600# (as you calculated) in at least one place.  This doesn't mean that the block isn't part of the spec.

clearly they provide specifications for both 600 lbs and your ton of concrete, this cannot be mathematically explained with any provable formula, not ever!

How can you say this if you don't know what formula they used?  They could have plugged in a different mean time to failure for instance, for whatever reason.  If they did in fact use such a formula, they apparently changed a parameter between the 5/1 and 6/1.

But maybe they didn't use a formula at all, maybe the field agents said too many engines were failing in manner X, so they simply increased the block spec.  Whatever the case, the block is still part of the spec.

further you miss the mark in that i am not an opponent of the use of concrete, beit 600 #'s or a ton, i simply was looking to find the actual equation, and to date no one includeing yourself has come forward with such formulae, or any reference to lister having used said formulae.

Sorry, no equation here.

quite frankly i don't give a crap what anyone mounts their engine to.

what i do care about is being told to do the math, and not having any proof of an equation ever being used or any reference to an equation.

also i would like to note, that words have meaning, specific meaning

when lister requested the particulars of engine mounting they did not ask for the particulars of engine installation

"mounting" does not equal "installation"

mounting referrs to what the engine is bolted to, and
installation takes into account the soil type, building type and myriad other concerns

I grant this is confusing.  However, as with all Lister specs, the one you referenced shows the block as part of the dimensions of the engine.  It's not a suggestion, it's the spec.  So it makes more sense to reconcile the "particulars of mounting" to it, and not vice versa.

as for you explanation of the difference in 600#s and a ton, being because of altering the spec's of the engine, please how does your accessment carry more water than mine?

You say that a change in the block spec implies that the block is not part of the design.  I just don't see it.

the only spec that could account for the large difference in block weight would have to be one of quality of balance, no other spec would result in the need for that much more concrete.

Maybe they did reduce quality of balance.  What does this prove though?

as for it being a result of being safety concious, here again i take exection, do you have any supporting evidence that the earlier recommendation of 600#'s of concrete being insufficient and causeing property or bodily damage?? i seriously doubt it.

No, I don't.  I don't know or really care why they made the change.

obviously many of you have never worked with a very well balanced machine/engine, one that is properly tuned and set up will run quite nicely sitting flat on the floor.
such an engine is quite a marvel to behold and i have no doubt that the early listers were of this quality.

further i would assert that the A grade engines in later years became the engine of choice for the SOM's

seriously it only makes sense,

I wouldn't know.  I'm not making an assertion about this one way or the other.

As an aside, maybe you can explain something to me: is it possible to balance a four-stroke one-cylinder precisely?  In my mind's eye I can't see how it could be smooth at idle and also during the power stroke at full HP.

there are those on this board that look to lister as if it was designed, machined, assembled by arch angels, and ordained by God. it is not!
it is simply a good engine, and in some cases an excellent engine built by men, ordinary men, that were craftsman to be sure, but ordinary men that ate, slept and shit just
like each one of us.

i tire very easily when there are those that put lister on some pedestal that is beyond question, one should be able to ask any question of any man or company, and get a clear and concise answer,

All I'm saying that RA Lister specified a concrete block, and thus it is part of the engine design.  You don't seem to dispute that all CS specs feature the block, yet you are certain that RA Lister didn't really specify it.

not some crap about "just do the math"

and finally,

i have no doubt that i could build a 6/1 from one of the kits, carefully balancing it either myself or hire it done, detail it properly and have an engine that would run as long as any other listeroid and have it mounted to timbers, 600#s of concrete or even resilient mounted.

i have no more to say on this subject until "someone produces the friggin formulae", anyone supporting the use of concrete as being gospel from god is just full of shit.

bob g

As for 'do the math', you're talking to the wrong person.

The spec says use a concrete block, and you don't deny it.  Yet, you say I'm full of shit for reading the spec literally.  You, on the other hand,  have provided an assortment of reasons for why the spec doesn't actually say what it says.  Not only that, at least twice you've tried to shift the burden of proof onto me.  I have to prove that Lister considered and rejected resilient mounts.  I have to produce Lister's block size equations.  If you doubt the spec, fine, so long as you accept the burden of proof.

30
General Discussion / Re: seeking an answer...
« on: November 19, 2006, 07:39:29 PM »
please take note of the specification print for the 5/1

http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/51P3data.htm

maybe a quarter yard of concrete? you do the math

then read the final paragraph related to mounting here

http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/51P4data.htm

"INSTALLATION:

particulars of engine mounting and type of drive should be stated wherever possible"

clearly the point being made is that the mounting method is anticapated to be determined by the end user, and lister would like to know about it if possible

Bob, I believe the concrete block has become your Moby Dick.

Your argument has two parts.  First is, I believe, "speced block size tripled between the 5/1 and 6/1, and this drastic change cannot explained by a mathematical formula, therefore the block is not an integral part of the engine design."  That simply isn't true.  No doubt their formula involved safety factors and machining tolerances.  Changing either of these variables could account for the discrepancy.  Or it could simply be a mandate from the legal department.  I think we're in agreement about this latter part.

"Particulars of engine mounting" must refer to such things as indoor/outdoor and soil type.  The reason I'm confident about this is that the specs you referenced belie your point: the engine blueprint shows the concrete block as part of the dimensions of the engine.  There isn't the least bit of wiggle room about this, it could not be more stark.  You're exercizing willful disbelief.

the light is fading on this one, rather quickly, how can you continue to  support the assertion that the concrete block was an engineered part of the engine, or had any basis in the original design?

i have asked for a formula, doesnt even have to be from lister, and to date no one has come up with one.

i think it is apparent that i (with a bunch of help from an unnamed individual) have disproven your assertion, which was not incumbent on me to do.

now i want the formula!!!
enough with do the math!
i wanna see the damn formula

checkmate

Awhile ago you stated something to the effect that all aspects of IC engines are determinable via well-known formulas.  I think you will agree that when someone develops a revolutionary piston profile, no one is impressed until they see the dyno numbers, despite whatever the math might say.

Mathematical models are just that, models.  Celestial models improved with Newton then again with Kepler and then again with Einstein, and they aren't perfect yet.

None of us knows how sophisticated and accurate was the math that RA Lister used.  It could have been on the back of an envelope, or it could have been exemplary.  It doesn't matter, because we have seen the results.  This being the case, it is in fact incumbent on you to prove that the block was a suggestion, not part of the design.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22