Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Listeroid Engines / Re: EPA Regulations
« Last post by Tanman on Today at 05:40:28 AM »
Any tips on where to get panels cheap?
Listeroid Engines / Re: EPA Regulations
« Last post by glort on Today at 03:03:44 AM »
SOLAR vs All The Time and Trouble
Running Costs

Solar is far form being without running costs if one is talking about an off grid/ standalone system.

Batteries,  inverters and chargers all have limited lives which must be amortised.
Members here have calculated battery costs over useful life and come up with monthly costs.
The initial setup cost of a solar system is also a number of times higher than the setup cost for a generator.

Fuel costs for a genny are often offset substantially by the use of wsste oils.

I love solar, I just picked up a bunch of 405 w panels ( didnt even know they made them that big and hope to get more tomorrow) BUT, like anything, they have their limitations and proclivities.

I have never heard of an offgrid solar setup that did not have a backup genny but loads of gennys without solar.

For most, I think the ideal setup is a combination. Large solar array, modest charger inverter,  small battery bank, and a very healthy genny that can carry all loads with ease, including things like power tools and welders.

Solar is still going ahead quickly. I bought a heap of 250w panels 6 months ago so i could standardise and upgrade all my smaller wattage panels.
In the last 3 weeks I have picked up nearly 7 kw of  360 and 405w panels, all brand new, all for free. Seem like the 250w panels are soon going to be as obselete as the first 175s i bought  used about 4 years ago.

I have room for the new panels i was saving but as these are all new and compliant i think ill put them up and just replace the others as I go.
Probably going to be a narrow window between the weather being cool enough to get on the roof to put them up and the winter fall off when they are most needed.

My idea is to have a good solar setup in place if i ever want to go off grid and a complementary gen setup to go with it.
Listeroid Engines / Re: EPA Regulations
« Last post by mike90045 on January 25, 2020, 09:25:11 PM »
>  SOLAR vs All The Time and Trouble and Running Costs

except when solar is not:
Listeroid Engines / Re: EPA Regulations
« Last post by LowGear on January 25, 2020, 07:04:21 PM »
SOLAR vs All The Time and Trouble
Running Costs
Everything else / Re: Mid Brusnwick Green Paint -
« Last post by sirpedrosa on January 25, 2020, 05:03:38 PM »
Hi Gentles

Here is the genuine 381C 226:


Generators / Re: A hypothetical generator application
« Last post by scott p on January 25, 2020, 08:27:41 AM »
By the way thanks all for the input.
Listeroid Engines / Re: EPA Regulations
« Last post by glort on January 25, 2020, 06:15:09 AM »

I think you are spot on regarding pricing. I have always thought listers were overpriced in the US particularly with the range of options available.
I also think listers are over valued performance and longevity wise. No doubt they may have been a benchmark 50 years ago but now, all their qualities i can think of are outdone by other engines. When we talk about  new engines being roids, they they have a LOT of shortcomings that need to be corrected before the things are even run!

From what i have read here in multiple accounts, there TBO hours aren't that great either.
I have seen a lot of things like this where the ledgend far excedes real world performance  and the products suitably over priced.

No doubt the things have a certain charm we all love but as straight up workhorses, I think there are cheaper, easier to get and better performers.
Generators / Re: A hypothetical generator application
« Last post by scott p on January 25, 2020, 05:17:49 AM »
Glorks cautious approach

Glorks cautious approach to this hypothetical proposition is well taken. It could easily backfire into a smoking Extravaganza.

     The diodes I have in mind have a back-flow of 1600 volts but I wouldnít trust even that. Fuses (not breakers at this time) too protect the components.
     This application is a sawmill powered by a diesel. Since it is only under a load about half the time because I am  messing around getting ready for the next cut I idle it down. The hydraulic system therefore idles at 300 PSI and is variable under load depending on the log and condition of the saw and can go as high as 1500 PSI. Much beyond that and the relief valve opens.
  The numbers are based on the 30 HP DC motor running under full load. Crude calculations indicate the sawmill needs about twenty HP max, I empathize crude but probably close. I based that on a formula of hp/hydraulic pressure. So realistically the DC motor might never reach full load though I would like to have a good safety margin.
That link is a nice easy to understand explanation of what an accumulator is and does. Basically a hydraulic flywheel. Looks like a properly designed system would be better than a mechanical flywheel. Unfortunately this simple hydraulic system is about the limit of my knowledge concerning hydraulics. What to expect beyond that I donít have a clue.
A couple things I have considered is a flywheel mounted on the saw shaft to carry the hydraulic motor through that initial sudden load when the saw hits the log but it would have to tuned to sync with the system.   
I thought about rigging up say a five HP electric motor with an electric clutch that would be connected through belts to the saw shaft. As I pull up the diesel rpm the clutch activates and away I go. That might work.   
I am much more comfortable with electricity. I thought about the two generators (or twenty 12 volt batteries) long before I decided to go hydraulic but the concept seemed a bit too out side the box compared to a simple hydraulic system.

If I were rich I would most certainly go battery.

Not sure what you mean by (allowing it to sync and freewheel with the mains when it is out of use.) EdDee.

A generator connected to the bus can be brought up to just the bus voltage but no more and it will float. That is it will not add any current to the bus until the governor is tweaked a little like EdDee said.

Would the big engine running as a float be more efficient than running it at a idle?

I can get around 8 HR of sawing for around four gallons of fuel give or take, havenít seriously checked that. I just remember looking at the amount of lumber sawed and the fuel used and being impressed.

Taking this to a serious level canít ignore what has been posted. Forget idling, forget two engines, much more practical rig up the larger engine and go from there at a constant 1800 RPM. If the big engine canít do it then add the smaller one.

General Discussion / Re: Car engine ignition conversion
« Last post by glort on January 25, 2020, 05:14:37 AM »

My thoughts wete that with such a large engine for the power required, it should be possible to have tjem running fairly slow but i guess that depends on how slow.
I have seen charts for industrial diesels that specify power output at certain rpm but not relative to car engines.

I believe on injecter and boosted engines, lower rpm is more economical. Charles lindberg was responsible for discovering how to DOUBLE the range of wwii aircraft.  By running high boost and low rpm fuel economy was doubled which enabled allied aircraft  in the pacific to be able to strike places far further than the enemy could anticipate and was a big factor in the overthrow of the japs.

Injected engines also seem to do better at low rpm. Injection is also very helpful to torque.  A CV carb is about the best in that dept. because it keeps the gas speed up over the jets.
I think  something around 1500 to 2000 rpm would be plenty of speed for the desired load. In a vehicle, the engine can be idling at under 1000rpm and moving the car in a carpark, driving the power steering, the alt and the AC. Not hard to imagine that being 20 hp all up. Carb and basic ignition will knock that around a bit but still i think relatively low rpm will be adequate.

Even though lower revs gives best economy, an engine doing 4000 rpm is still mainly going to be influenced by load. Doesent take much to heep an unladen engine at speed, its the load it has to work against thats the main influence and the efficency.

Don't  mention WRX,s. Seems 90% of people that own them here are wankers.
Turbo Foresters, same engine, similar performance, totally different mentality of the majority of owners.... except the young kids that want to lower and modify them.

No trouble to sell turbo engines, kids are always blowing them up.

I see there are a good number of affordable lpg carbs available. That would add another aspect to the project.
General Discussion / Re: Car engine ignition conversion
« Last post by glort on January 25, 2020, 04:20:30 AM »
Some 4 cylinder Volvo engines used a distributor mounted on the camshaft end. The timing could be advanced or retarded by rotating the distributor.

Pretty much ALL  pre computer / electronic engines had a distributor and rotating it was the way you set the timing.  Even the early electronic ignitions had a dizzy  but replaced the points and condensor.  I did a number of conversions with kits that you put a slotted disk and an optical pickup in the cap to replace the points and condensor. They worked very well giving a noticable performance boost and were no maintence.

I take it you havent had much to do with petrol engines?
Either that or you are a lot younger than me !  Everything had a dizzy when I  was young.  :0)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10