Hi there unimogr,
Field Marshall wasn't a hot bulb diesel.  Started from cold with a modified shotgun cartridge or hand cranked with a glowing saltpetre wick. No blow lamp needed.  Will burn all sorts of fuel and is a two stroke like the Lanz.
Regards, RAB

I think you wil find that non-detergent oils will clean up by sedimentation much faster (still a long time, though) than detergent based oils, so in case of an engine standing for many years, that oil probably looked clean a loooong time before you found it. 
That is why we used to clean out sumps at overhauls, and, latterly, not change from non-detergent to detergent engine oil without being very careful of the possible consequences. 
Presumably this is due in part to the oil not allowing agglomerates to form and thus thermal changes are adequate to keep the micron and sub-micron particles suspended.   Colloidal suspension we call it, when it will never separate out and will pass through the finest filter medium.  probably not quite there with used engine oil, but close.
Regards, RAB

Guys (and Gals).

If there is a problem with liner protrusion, that is one thing.  Hotator seems to have that sorted/covered.

Now, if there are other problems (as well?), each will need to be addressed in a sensible order.  No point in machining cyliner top to be parallel with bottom if it is the bottom end where the fault lies! No point in changing top face angle if liner seat is not addressed also. Etc,etc.

Re-iterating - there may be different things in need of correction; each case should be considered from an engineering point of view to find the best logical solution, without changing other design parameters.

Regards, RAB

Eady,
Unless you interfere with the cam shaft timing the valves will open when the cam follower is lifted.  The push rods only connect the cam to the valves, movement wise. 
However, whenever the head is removed, the valve clearance will need checking/resetting (and also after re-torquing the head after the initial run).  It is also entirely probable that you have a different thickness of packing gasket under the block (to alter the piston/head clearance).  That will affect the distance between the valve lifters and rocker assembly too.

Valve clearance is a regular service adjustment and should be checked/reset at the service intervals suggested by the engine manufacturer or more often.

Regards, RAB

Getterdone, RCAV, others(?)

one question.........any comments on these two questions?      (Getterdone)

Did I miss a question?

Seriously though are you are mostly all missing a few tricks?

1)  Why generate power to use for nothing most of the time?  1.5 amps might be 18 watts at 12 volts or 180 watts at 120 volts!  BUT, it is all lost power if not needed.  A totally passive element is much better than a non-fail-safe electronic or electrical gizmo.  A static arrangement generally does not need to have the size constraints of a mobile installation.
Remember the old boiler fail-safe system?  A 'fuse' wire (low temperature melting point) over the installation with a brick hanging on the wire - too hot, wire melts, brick crashes down and wakes the operator!  (Well not quite like that, but you get the idea).

2)  Why monitor air flow?  Over-temperature is the important parameter, not air flow, which several(?) of you freely admit in your posts.

3)  Some should be using the heat from the radiator (and the exhaust?) to further lower operating costs or to maximise energy use from the fuel supply.

4)  Some form of reset is required when the set is shut down automatically for a fault condition, so the operator is aware of the failure and doesn't just restart the machine and it needs to be visual to alert the operator (operator would hit knuckles on afore-mentioned brick if they tried to crank the engine?)

My philosophy is the KISS principle.  Keeping things simple generally means easy fixes and fewer false alarms at low cost of installation.

I hope I am not treading on anyone's toes too heavily.  From my limited recent readings, I think RCAV is possibly the joker on the forum - even so, competency is not questioned - and I have been known to make 'tongue in cheek' replies to silly questions

Being in to renewables, sustainables or waste utilisation makes me think about all these little parasitic losses, I guess.

Regards, RAB

    By now you could have gotten another junker radiator and added to, or replaced, your present one (maybe all the junker radiators have been shipped to China to make more imports?).  No power required, has already been made, used and discarded - so no real extra carbon footprint - and would work in a powercut!
Regards, RAB

Don't want to be a killjoy but remember you can't just keep hanging weight on a shaft.  The flywheels mentioned above are probably on shafts with considerably larger cross section area and supported by some serious inboard bearings or bearings on either side, close to the mass in both cases.  Take care.
Regards, RAB

Hi Eady, I'm new here.
I registered because I saw those two micrometer readings and the difference appeared to be 0.05mm, not 0.5mm.  It has taken a few hours to get on and I see someone else has, at last, sorted you!.

A couple of points.  The marks on the big end bearings (previous post) look to me like they were hand scraped - well hand scraped with a machine, perhaps.  That is the way it used to be done before precision bearings arrived on the scene (or not so precise in your case).  Your engine , unfortunately,appears to be made to lower tolenances than the original CS (by Lister) in that the machining is pretty marginal if they are unable to get the crank at right angles to the top crankcase machined surface.    As someone else said, a stright edge and feeler guages are generally enough tech without a high tech micrometer.

The original Lister spec for the squish was simply to set the block (cylinder) height by adding or removing the shim gaskets so that the piston was level with the top of the cylinder when the piston was top dead centre (straight edge, no space for a feeler guage).  Simple as that.  The compressed gasket thickness was the squish.

If you have a wet liner, the original simplicity has been degraded a bit and would need more measurements to ascertain the correct piston height.

Now I am wondering if your engine has taper roller bearings (TRBs) for the main crankshaft suport.  These may be 'adjustable' to get the crank in proper alignment.   Als  

o, if set up  too loose they may indicate different squish readings by the crush method you are using.  Good, these 'oids'.

Adding to the fact that the compression COV (Change Over Valve) has largely been discontinued, and that diffeent fuels are being used (bio diesel and vegetable oils [new and waste])the compression is perhaps a little more important these days than when they just burned lower grade diesel fuels.

I am certainly not an engineer (just a keen enthusiast of old iron) but being older means there is an amount of experience on tap - that is why I registered this morning (was amazed that nobody had noticed your gaffe) .  I usually look at a design and think 'why did they do it that way?'.  There is usually a simple reason considering the technology level of the day.  
For instance, you might wonder why they had a dipper and an oil tray with the main oil sump below.  The oil level in the tray was easy to keep constant for the dipper, even with large losses of oil quantity from the engine, but also the crud from the oil/fuel/ operator had somewhere to settle (main sump) and not circulate around with the oil (which was non detergent in those days [well it was just oil, as detergent oils had not been invented]).  Worked well in all ways - low pressure, limited filtering, copious amounts to the main bearings, regular and constant supply to the big end bearing and splash feed around the rest of the engine.
So my next question is how is your engine's oil supply organised?  I understand the main sump has been at least minimised on some of these 'oids', the oil pump has been removed on some (TRBs don't need it) and others have a high degree of oil filtering using a pressurised system.  Modern day controls can shut down an engine if parameters stray outside limits, but in those days (Britain in 1930s and Middle East market up until middle 80s) relied on low tech methods.  Simplicity and sturdyness to thwart the operator who just oiled it up ocasionally and left it running unattended for long periods.  Don't get me wrong, some engines were operated under fine conditions but the design was rugged and simple to avoid problems with those that were not so caring as we are, or should be, these days.

Sorry for the long intro but if you are not sure, ask.  Just remember they did fine with simple methods and mostly large tolerances back in the 1930s. Just that Listers had proper engineers who solved the problems for the design using 1920s technology and, boy oh boy, they got it right!  Some say the listeroids are progress, some say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  That design has certainly stood the test of time.
Regards, RAB