My God there is some crap going on here.

[slowspeed1953]

Hey Bob, Easy killer

Peace&Love , Darren

[Guy_Incognito]

Bob's touched upon the issue that I have trouble defining well enough to keep people from foaming at the mouth.

Engineering is a compromise. Lister had a heap of compromises. How to:

- Mount an engine in a million different locations?
- Keep the cost down to a level where they could sell them?
- But keep the design such that it lasted as long as possible?
- Do it without the added advantage that we have now, namely another 80 years of technology?

So they compromised upon a large solid block and said That It Was So. And good for them too, it's an effective catch-all approach that I imagine stopped a lot of customer complaints about so-called stationary engines chasing them about the place. 

But, here and now, I see lots of things with similar weights and excitation frequencies, all sitting on some sort of resilient mount. You obviously don't solid mount vibratory screens, but there's an application that works at the extreme opposite of a lister engine and does so reliably for many thousands of hours without cracking exciters, or tearing it's subframe to bits (much). Ditto for pumps , large conveyor drives, industrial dewatering centrifuges and many, many other bits of fixed plant.

So I appreciate the simplicity and good engineering - for it's day - of the lister and it's mount. But I wonder if you talked to an 'modern' engineer for one of those industrial bits of gear and said, "I've got a thing weighing 500kg with a couple of flywheels hanging on a shaft with driven frequencies of 5/10Hz, with a fair amount of torque pulses, on a mezzanine level in a factory. How do I mount it to keep the vibration from being transmitted 3 floors up?"

Would he say, "Mount it on the ground on top of a mostly-buried two-ton concrete block." ?

Or would he say, "You should be able to bolt it on a subframe, mount that with some low natural frequency mounts, maybe with a bit more inertial mass if amplitude's an issue." ?

I obviously don't know the answer, though it makes me wonder.

[GuyFawkes]

    i would agree to most of this statement, with the exception of... "no corners were cut with this criterion"
   corners may not have been cut, but there was certainly an evolution in the engine, most particularly big end oiling.

lubricant technology evolved dramatically over the lifetime of the CS, the lube system adapted to suit.

    i have no reason to fault this statement, seems reasonable that it was far easier, more expedient, chearper, and predictable using the one ton block of concrete. but....
this does not negate my arguement re: the design, fabrication and implimentation of a steel superstructure with "rubber" mounts.  So far you have made the assersion that it is the wrong thing to do, without supporting your position. perhaps you could direct me to some documentation that lister in its wisdom made recommedations against this approach, based on their research and testing.

I have answered this point quite specifically numerous times, do the math and the vector analysis, you will see that shifting the centre of mass outside the block makes a dramatic difference.

   no we are not working with listers, but copies i agree.. we can all speculate on the rest, but i would suspect it has more to do with quality control of the metallurgy more than any other factors.

possibly so, possibly not, which is the easiest variable to eliminate, all the QA issues or adding a ton of crete?

    i have no doubt these are excellent books on the various subjects covered, but do they source lister development in particular?  also....
it would seem your contention is that the clone engines are having serious failures such as broken crankshafts etc., to date i am unaware that they have serious failures and flaws. further...
without evidence of a sufficient number of failures attributed to vibration i see no reason to spend alot of time researching topics such as those covered in your suggesting reading list.  what we are talking about here is the mitigation of the transfer of these vibrations to other structures. to summarize

Listers are engines subject to the same physics as everything else, the books cover them.

Saying no broken listeroid cranks from the tiny sample you have with negligible hours is rather like saying next years camaro is the best one ever built, you have to wait 20 years to know that.

     sorry here, but stating something as fact doesnt make it fact. most especially when used in such a broad sense.
     again break the arguement into its components, support each, and then i will accept each component as fact. i don't think
     this is being unreasonable... am i?

I am talking about fatigue being an engineering fact, I am talking about thousands of lifetimes of listers in service as data, if you want verifiable peer reviewable analysis done on a point by point basis to prove all these points then someone is going to have to pay.

the default assumption is that tens of millions of lister installed hours and the bulk of engineering knowledge on fatigue is not faulty or erroneous

    agree'd blueprint to lister standards, balance to lister standards,,, and i you like mount it on a ton of concrete, or...
engineer a superstructure with resilient mounting.  until i can see some documentation that plainly states resilient mounting properly engineered is going to kill the engine it is not fact!

Lister documentation always states the concrete block, and never states resilient mounts, what allows you to discount the single most relevant piece of documentation out there? Do you think Lister just forgot to mention resilient mounts?

"c/ Suck it down and accept the factory knew best, and bolt it solid to a ton of concrete."

    no f*ckin way dude! not until i see supporting doc's from lister showing how they tried and failed with resilient mounting

Do you think if they had succeded they would have simply omitted it from every one of millions of instruction manuals printed?

    if i follow your logic here, then lister failed to engineer their engine properly, in that they needed the added structural support to make them live.  can you document that?

"failed" assumes they tried to do something, and you then move the goalposts about what they may or may not have been aiming for, they built EXACTLY the engine they wanted, and failed at nothing.

The concrete block is an integral part of the design, there is nothing new or exceptional in this, unless you are new to stationary equipment.

"You can all sit back and do nothing and let Mr Belk continue to be your guinea pig, he now has proper mounts, lets see what his experiences are, not theory, but practice."

   fair enough,, what will it prove? we all know that concrete works, what we don't know for a fact is that resilient mounting will kill the engine. further..

wait and see if his engine lasts longer in between rebuilds.
it will

10 tons of concrete would not have prevented sand distruction to internal components, i cannot see how a ton of concrete would have extended the life of that engine, he didnt break a crankshaft, he just wore out the brgs. are you going to tell me that had he mounted the engine properly as you say to a ton of concrete it would have  run many times longer? seriously?
bob g

seriously, yes, or do you think all those force vectors that were designed to be outside the engine operating inside the radius of the crankshaft somehow improved the lubrication and loading on the crank?


like I said, let mr belk be your guinea pig.

if tens of millions of installed hours from Listers won't convince you, perhaps a few thou from mr belk will.

[xyzer]

Engineering is a compromise. Lister had a heap of compromises. How to:

- Keep the cost down to a level where they could sell them?

Cement is cheaper than a good balance job!

[mobile_bob]

"lubricant technology evolved dramatically over the lifetime of the CS, the lube system adapted to suit."

   that assumes they got the design right in the first place, which they clearly did not.  the top hole oiling and top shell
grooves while working on a 3/1 or maybe a 5/1 hardly followed good engineering design.


"do the math and the vector analysis, you will see that shifting the centre of mass outside the block makes a dramatic difference."

absolutely, could not agree more.... if one shifts the center of mass, from the block theortetically that is a good thing, but...
why do you deny me my contension that i too can move the center of mass from the block into a steel structure and use resilient mounts?

"which is the easiest variable to eliminate, all the QA issues or adding a ton of crete?"

obviously a ton of concrete is within most folks capability, but i am still making the assertion that masking problems
with a concrete anchor is not the correct way to do things. it comes off to me lilke someone with a rod knocking in their car just turning up the radio so as not to hear the knocking,,, can't hear it so therefore it is ok?

"Saying no broken listeroid cranks from the tiny sample you have with negligible hours is rather like saying next years camaro is the best one ever built, you have to wait 20 years to know that."

seems a bit like conjecture on top of theory to me,,,   theory in that moving the center of mass is a design criteria, and conjecture as to whether the listeroid cranks may fail over the long haul. or visa versa

"the default assumption is that tens of millions of lister installed hours and the bulk of engineering knowledge on fatigue is not faulty or erroneous"

i may be taking an opposing view to yours on resilient mounting but i am not going to part with you on your statement.


"Lister documentation always states the concrete block, and never states resilient mounts, what allows you to discount the single most relevant piece of documentation out there? Do you think Lister just forgot to mention resilient mounts?"

just because they don't make mention of resilient mounting, does not negate their possible implimentation. what would negate the implimentation would have been some mention from the lister folks about not using resilient mounts.

so i think they forgot to mention them? no.  what is more likely than not is the availability of an approved and engineered mounting system using resilient mounts. it is obvious they never went there, just as every other stationary engine manufacture has done,, they leave it up to the equipment manufacture to engineer and design their own mounting system.
otherwise, folks like waukesha, briggs, wisconsin etc, where resilient mounts are used by some manufactures would have the engine manufactures name stamped on the mounts, which is never the case.

"Do you think if they had succeded they would have simply omitted it from every one of millions of instruction manuals printed?"

no...

but untill i see some reference that they even tried, why am i to assume that they indeed did try?

"The concrete block is an integral part of the design, there is nothing new or exceptional in this, unless you are new to stationary equipment."

i am not new to stationary equipment..

the use of concrete as a structural member of any machine design is a poor choice, the vairables are too great.
mix ratio's, water content, rebar or other supports, aggragate consistancy,type and quality, cure rates, etc  are too numerous, further..
there are countless examples of SOMs with their cast iron bases being lagged down to wood decks, concrete floors and in some cases just sitting there running forever, so i am left to believe that instead of moving the center of mass into the block, the ton of concrete is simply a structural stiffening agent just as the SOM cast iron base is. this i would accept as fact.


"The concrete block is an integral part of the design"

can you provide documentation that the concrete block was indeed an original part of the design, and not something that followed after the design and manufacture of the engine?  i would be fascinated to see reference to this fact, it would be the first mention of any manufacture having done so, that i am aware of.

"wait and see if his engine lasts longer in between rebuilds"

of course it will last longer, for the following reasons

1. the sand will be removed,

2. tolerances will be much tighter,

3. big end oiling issues will be corrected

4. the correct grade of oil will be used

5. etc etc etc.

so how we ever going to know whether these changes are responcible for an increase in longevity over that of using the ton of concrete?  i would submit that the above changes and others will have a dramatically higher impact on lifespan over that of simply using the concrete.

"if tens of millions of installed hours from Listers won't convince you, perhaps a few thou from mr belk will."

we have come full circle again here,  clearly listeroids are not listers.  listeroids can be improved to perhaps the quality of a lister,,, perhaps


after all of this discussion, i still have not seen sound reasoning behind the assertion that a steel structure properly engineered, properly built and implimented would have a detrimental effect on the longevity of the engine reqardless of wheter or not it is a lister or a (brought up to lister standards) listeroid.

by reasoning of the SOM's use of the cast iron base, and in some cases being left to sit on a floor and running for decades, it is apparent that the real factor here (if indeed there is one) is one of stiffening the case of the lister and not the moving of the center of mass.  

you say do the vector analysis,, fine,,, do it on the engine lagged to the ton of concrete,,, yes forces will be moved into the concrete, but then
use the same engine, virtually the same forces at play and bolt it to a som base, now the vectors are all widely different, and cannot be transferred to the concrete as in the first example. clearly they are not being transferred from the engine case, thru the castiron base to the floor if it is just sitting there, or lagged to a wood deck, or even for that matter a thin concrete floor.
which brings me back to the use of a steel torque box design, which in reality is nothing more than a fabricated som base, very rigid, and large enough to spread the torque, weight and other stresses over a larger footprint.

one final question

if as you say, the ton of concrete is needed for a lister/oid to live, then does a som lagged to a wood deck, or left sitting on a concrete floor have a dramatically shorther lifespan?

respectfully

bob g

[GuyFawkes]

"lubricant technology evolved dramatically over the lifetime of the CS, the lube system adapted to suit."

   that assumes they got the design right in the first place, which they clearly did not.  the top hole oiling and top shell
grooves while working on a 3/1 or maybe a 5/1 hardly followed good engineering design.

Bob, my motor is over half a century old, has an unknown exact number of hours on it, but known to be in excess of 50,000 hours, standard dimensions (eg no regrind or bore) throughout, still starts (judging from other threads) easier than your new listeroids, not a whiff of smoke, yadda yadda yadda, And this is something that is "clearly" poor design???

"do the math and the vector analysis, you will see that shifting the centre of mass outside the block makes a dramatic difference."

absolutely, could not agree more.... if one shifts the center of mass, from the block theortetically that is a good thing, but...
why do you deny me my contension that i too can move the center of mass from the block into a steel structure and use resilient mounts?

You CAN use a steel structure to shift the centre of mass, but you aren't, not unless you are using 12" RSJ and building a vertical stand for the Listeroid.  Your Steel frame does not weigh a ton and have a centre of mass that sits nearly two feet below the base of the crankcase, correct.?

"which is the easiest variable to eliminate, all the QA issues or adding a ton of crete?"

obviously a ton of concrete is within most folks capability, but i am still making the assertion that masking problems
with a concrete anchor is not the correct way to do things. it comes off to me lilke someone with a rod knocking in their car just turning up the radio so as not to hear the knocking,,, can't hear it so therefore it is ok?

err, tell me where I suggested anyone should just uncrate their listeroid, sand and all, and just slapping it on a great block of granite would cure everything?

"Saying no broken listeroid cranks from the tiny sample you have with negligible hours is rather like saying next years camaro is the best one ever built, you have to wait 20 years to know that."

seems a bit like conjecture on top of theory to me,,,   theory in that moving the center of mass is a design criteria, and conjecture as to whether the listeroid cranks may fail over the long haul. or visa versa

a/ it isn't theory that moving the centre of mass is a design criteria, it is written in every single lister instruction book, mount it solid on a large block of concrete, no theory there.

b/ Listers and oids are not made from the few materials that do not fatigue, so fatigue will happen if allowed to, and there is nowhere else for it to show up but in the crankshaft assembly, no theory there either.

i am not new to stationary equipment..

the use of concrete as a structural member of any machine design is a poor choice, the vairables are too great.
mix ratio's, water content, rebar or other supports, aggragate consistancy,type and quality, cure rates, etc  are too numerous, further..
there are countless examples of SOMs with their cast iron bases being lagged down to wood decks, concrete floors and in some cases just sitting there running forever, so i am left to believe that instead of moving the center of mass into the block, the ton of concrete is simply a structural stiffening agent just as the SOM cast iron base is. this i would accept as fact.

Apart from my own Start-o-matic which is sat outside on a trolley, and a couple that go to rallies and sit on trolleys and do not work for a living, and my mates which is not yet ready to be installed, I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, seen a start-o-matic or any other kind of CS that was NOT mounted as per lister specs to a solid concrete block, with the sole exception of ONE in a converted steam shovel and ONE mounted on a large steel barge, and that is out of what must be hundreds over near as dammit 40 years.

where are your countless examples coming from?

"The concrete block is an integral part of the design"

can you provide documentation that the concrete block was indeed an original part of the design, and not something that followed after the design and manufacture of the engine?  i would be fascinated to see reference to this fact, it would be the first mention of any manufacture having done so, that i am aware of.

direct straight from Dursley and said in my presence at least twice that I can remember, even before the fire Lister were notorious for not sharing documents, since the fire there can't be many to share, except those given to some strange reason to a couple of authors who themselves keep to NDA's and keep them secret.

after all of this discussion, i still have not seen sound reasoning behind the assertion that a steel structure properly engineered, properly built and implimented would have a detrimental effect on the longevity of the engine reqardless of wheter or not it is a lister or a (brought up to lister standards) listeroid.

I never said you couldn't achieve the same ends, in theory, with steel, or many other things.

by reasoning of the SOM's use of the cast iron base, and in some cases being left to sit on a floor and running for decades, it is apparent that the real factor here (if indeed there is one) is one of stiffening the case of the lister and not the moving of the center of mass. 

where do these "sitting on the floor" listers come from, I have never seen one.... never.

the Lister commissioning engineer, after your engine was delivered to the nearest railway station or port, after you had collected it and taken it to the site, would not commission it unless it was sat on a plinth or block.

these things cost more than houses, you think anyone quibbled about a couple of yards of concrete vs the warranty?

you say do the vector analysis,, fine,,, do it on the engine lagged to the ton of concrete,,, yes forces will be moved into the concrete, but then
use the same engine, virtually the same forces at play and bolt it to a som base, now the vectors are all widely different, and cannot be transferred to the concrete as in the first example. clearly they are not being transferred from the engine case, thru the castiron base to the floor if it is just sitting there, or lagged to a wood deck, or even for that matter a thin concrete floor.
which brings me back to the use of a steel torque box design, which in reality is nothing more than a fabricated som base, very rigid, and large enough to spread the torque, weight and other stresses over a larger footprint.

no it does not, in the same way a 4 ton slab will not, please, if you are interested, read at least one of the books I listed, all will become clear.

you need to shift the centre of mass of Lister + mounting system down below the crankcase ideally, and crank radius minimally, a SOM base does NOT do this.

one final question

if as you say, the ton of concrete is needed for a lister/oid to live, then does a som lagged to a wood deck, or left sitting on a concrete floor have a dramatically shorther lifespan?

define "dramatically"

I posted a picture of a broken crank, given the original design brief was NEVER fail, then ANY failure is a dramatic reduction in lifespan, so say I have another 100,000 hours on mine before I consider a regrind or rebuild, not an unreasonable assumption, but if I run it under load on the trolley it is on now I get 25,000 hours, the loss of 75,000 hours isn't the significant item in that scenario, rebuilding the bottom end is no big deal, breaking the crank is the significant item, cos then it's dead jack and then you have no option but scrap it or do a ground up back to factory spec and fuck the cost.

why risk fucking up a perfectly good piece of machinery just to avoid pouring some concrete?

It is still only 4 bolts to move it, and a few hours to break up the concrete.

labour only, no cost in materials.

why oh why oh why are people so dead set against doing this and making it seem like they are being asked to dig another panama canal?

what could be easier or cheaper than pouring (or breaking up) a yard or two of concrete?

[Guy_Incognito]

"what could be easier or cheaper than pouring (or breaking up) a yard or two of concrete?"

For the breaking up part, just about anything 

But seriously, If I wanted to ,say, take my listeroid down to the dam, then back to the shed for shearing, then off to the house for power generation, then some sort of mobile setup is a lot easier than pouring a few blocks of concrete and unmounting/remounting an engine. I know, a lister is not a mobile thing. But when they cost as much as a house, and you could only afford one engine, what did people do? For that matter, what the heck did they do in days or yore when they adapted large singles into boats that can't float that extra mass?

And how much *is* a replacement crank for a listeroid anyway?

And Guy_F / Bob - I'm still missing the reason why you need to shift the centre of mass away from the crank radius. I don't have the books available (or, frankly, the knowledge in ME) to sort it out myself.

Once you mount it to a rigid block, the only flexing is in the crankshaft due to applied forces from the conrod, right? Nothing else can move much - I mean, relative to the crankshaft and it's bearings? So can anyone tell me what happens to a listeroid and it's crankcase mounted on a lightweight frame than can relatively easily move/orbit around the centre of mass? Do the applied forces / moments on the crankshaft change much due to the orbit of the crankcase? If you take the theoretical and say that the displacement lags 90 deg from the applied force, what does it do?

If you're going to explain, use small words. Diagrams or online references would be good. Pop-up picturebooks would be even better  .

[mobile_bob]

Guy:

before i get started i would like to make a few statements

1. i own only one 25/2 listeroid

2. it will not be pressed into a mission critical service, but rather standby and special purpose uses of limited runtimes

3. i am not opposed to the use of a ton of concrete, for my anticipated use

4. i would suspect that the use of a ton of concrete will suffice the needs for the vast majority of users quite admirably

5. my position in this arguement is simply that the ton of concrete is not necessarily the only right way to mount the engine

6. i appreciate your time and effort in this arguement more than you probably realize, i also appreciate your patience with me
in this discussion.

7. my involvement in this discussion is to further explore the issue, to sort out fact from conjecture, and to learn what i can.

8. i am in no way taking the position that rubber mounting the lister/oid is better than mounting the engine to a block of concrete, but rather an alternative that if properly designed should not be detrimental to the engine.

9. mounting the engine to a specified concrete base i would agree is one way, the recommended way of mounting the engine in question by the manufacture of the oem product.

10. it is my contension that if one was to do the math, and engineer a steel subframe, that is sufficiently rigid to add support to the engine properly, there should be no reason that this subframe could not be mounted on some form of resilient mounts.

my reasoning for #10 above is simply an observation of the two forms of mounting that are common with original listers, one being mounted directly to the concrete base, and the other with the engine mounted to the cast iron base of the SOM.

if one was to do the vector physic's for the concrete block he would find that of course the center of mass will be moved to a specific point within the block at a specific rpm, load, and harmonic. this point will move according to differences in rpm, loading and harmonics. there are also other harmonics that will have specific points within the block as well. this is a given and i will accept that as should any reasonable thinking person.  but...

when applying the same vector physic's to the SOM and its cast iron base things change dramatically, you no longer have simple vectors to work with but the angles all will change when they enter the cast iron base and are distributed to the outer flange of the base, then thru to the base beit concrete, steel, wood or earth.

i cannot reconcile the two vector groups (concrete vs som cast iron), this leaves me with what i would assume to be a reasonable conclusion that the base is basically a stiffening agent, and an agent to distribute the vibration and stresses away from the engine.

the  stresses on the engine  mounts are dramatically higher when bolted to the concrete base as opposed the stesses of the mounting bolts of the SOM to the floor, by reason of spreading out these forces, torques, vibrations, moments etc. so...

clearly rubber mounting the engine to any base is a horrible idea, there simply is too much force involved, and there is no place for these forces to be distributed and reduced by reason of the relatively narrow bolt pattern of the engine. but...

once these forces, torques etc are spread out thru a larger base, they are sufficiently reduced to the point that resilient mounting should cause no problem with longevity of the engine provided that, this subframe is made to be very rigid in all planes. it has to be thought of as part of the engine. and the resilient mounts will have to be such that they work in the frequency of the predominant harmonic, say 10 hz.

alternatively i follow your logic in that one could construct the block of concrete and sit it on a rubber pad, perhaps a high density pad. this should mitigate alot of the vibration that would be transfered thru to other parts of the structure.

now in responce to your comments

"Bob, my motor is over half a century old, has an unknown exact number of hours on it, but known to be in excess of 50,000 hours, standard dimensions (eg no regrind or bore) throughout, still starts (judging from other threads) easier than your new listeroids, not a whiff of smoke, yadda yadda yadda, And this is something that is "clearly" poor design???"

i perhaps overstepped myself a bit here, yes the lister is a fine design, is it perfect? in my opinion no. there are issues with oiling that apparently were not much of an issue if at all with the original lister engines. the overall design is a good and time proven design, what i find fault with are mainly the design of the big end brg with its top oiling and grooves in the top shell of that brg, that design does not follow good design form, but rather a design that is warned against in many text's. yes it worked well in the originals at up to 6 hp, but has problems when applied to higher rpm (1000) and higher power densities (8-12 plus)

"You CAN use a steel structure to shift the centre of mass, but you aren't, not unless you are using 12" RSJ and building a vertical stand for the Listeroid.  Your Steel frame does not weigh a ton and have a centre of mass that sits nearly two feet below the base of the crankcase, correct.?"

you are correct in this statement, but neither does the SOM cast iron base! and..
the SOM setup runs forever too, correct?

"err, tell me where I suggested anyone should just uncrate their listeroid, sand and all, and just slapping it on a great block of granite would cure everything?"

you didnt allude to anything other than Jack Belks experience, who knows how long that engne would have run mounted as it was if it had been properly prepared, cleaned, balanced and blueprinted to near lister spec's.
i took from your example that bolting the engine to a ton of concrete would  have made it run longer. perhaps i misunderstood your meaning?

"a/ it isn't theory that moving the centre of mass is a design criteria, it is written in every single lister instruction book, mount it solid on a large block of concrete, no theory there."

fair enough,, i will take your word for it that it is written that way, but i havent seen evidence of the math to support it.


"b/ Listers and oids are not made from the few materials that do not fatigue, so fatigue will happen if allowed to, and there is nowhere else for it to show up but in the crankshaft assembly, no theory there either."

certainly all materials have fatigue limits,
as for the crankshaft being the only place, certainly not. brgs, bolts, crankcase mounting flanges are a few more spots of concern. i would also submit that at the power densities we are dealing with the crankshaft if filleted properly, made without flaws of decent material, and maintaining proper tolerances should be nearly indistructable, unless some weird harmonic is at play or some other outside force overloads it such as a shock load.

"I never said you couldn't achieve the same ends, in theory, with steel, or many other things"

thank you,,, and i never said that mounting to concrete was the wrong way either.

"these things cost more than houses, you think anyone quibbled about a couple of yards of concrete vs the warranty"

i am certain as death that they didnt argue a bit. who would?, but i am also pretty sure and find it likely that lister worked with at least a few users in mounting the engine in other ways, and warranted the engine as well.

"you need to shift the centre of mass of Lister + mounting system down below the crankcase ideally, and crank radius minimally, a SOM base does NOT do this."

then pray tell how did your SOM last so many years? clearly there is more at play here.

"I posted a picture of a broken crank, given the original design brief was NEVER fail, then ANY failure is a dramatic reduction in lifespan, so say I have another 100,000 hours on mine before I consider a regrind or rebuild, not an unreasonable assumption, but if I run it under load on the trolley it is on now I get 25,000 hours, the loss of 75,000 hours isn't the significant item in that scenario, rebuilding the bottom end is no big deal, breaking the crank is the significant item, cos then it's dead jack and then you have no option but scrap it or do a ground up back to factory spec and fuck the cost.

why risk fucking up a perfectly good piece of machinery just to avoid pouring some concrete?"

now we can agree,,,, if i had an original lister or lister SOM, i would mount it as recommended, on a yard of concrete.
i see no reason to attempt to reengineer what has worked for a very long time, most especially on an original engine. mainly because i have a soft spot for original iron,,, i have no such loyalty to a clone, for a couple of reasons

1. the cost of a lister vs a roid, is quite different, when it comes to broken parts

2. in 50 years, or a hundred the lister will have significant collector value and should be kept as such, the listeroid will never be worth more than when it was new, it will have no appreciable collector value

"your concrete statement"

fair enough,  certainly it is not a big deal for most applications.

finally....

we can agree that the use of concrete is prudent where one can use it he probably should.

now i would like to discuss how in the event that one cannot use concrete or does not want to use concrete what are his options, clearly there are many concerns that have to be addressed.

perhaps now we can move in the direction of determining how best to accomplish this other goal, with the purpose of allowing some mobility, some vibration abatement and with a minimum of stress placed back on the engine itself.  i am fully aware that there is going to be a comprimise here, perhaps one of longevity. but we are talking about a listeroid, not a collector engine.

my thinking is, if it can be determined that such a mounting system can be engineered and built, even if it cuts the lifespan of the engine by 50-75% but enables better utilization of the engine, it is a comprimise alot of folks are going to be willing to make.  and yes i will join you in beating the shit out of anyone contemplating doing such with an original lister

bob g

[GuyFawkes]

if one was to do the vector physic's for the concrete block he would find that of course the center of mass will be moved to a specific point within the block at a specific rpm, load, and harmonic. this point will move according to differences in rpm, loading and harmonics. there are also other harmonics that will have specific points within the block as well. this is a given and i will accept that as should any reasonable thinking person.  but...

when applying the same vector physic's to the SOM and its cast iron base things change dramatically, you no longer have simple vectors to work with but the angles all will change when they enter the cast iron base and are distributed to the outer flange of the base, then thru to the base beit concrete, steel, wood or earth.

the concrete block for an iron base such as SOM or pump base will be correspondingly more massive than a concrete block for a bare CS only.

you are introducing a variable on one side of your argument and then ignoring the effects of that variable on the other.

i cannot reconcile the two vector groups (concrete vs som cast iron), this leaves me with what i would assume to be a reasonable conclusion that the base is basically a stiffening agent, and an agent to distribute the vibration and stresses away from the engine.

the base serves many purposes, most of them "engineering" eg ensuring easy mounting and alignment, the SOM has a larger footprint and therefore a correspondingly larger concrete block.... there is nothing to reconcile as you are looking at literally two different structures, not one.

the  stresses on the engine  mounts are dramatically higher when bolted to the concrete base as opposed the stesses of the mounting bolts of the SOM to the floor, by reason of spreading out these forces, torques, vibrations, moments etc. so...

the stresses on the engine mounts, whether bolted to concrete, the SOM base, a pump base, or a fabricated steed base, are identical, think about it, you did not redesign the crankcase.

clearly rubber mounting the engine to any base is a horrible idea, there simply is too much force involved, and there is no place for these forces to be distributed and reduced by reason of the relatively narrow bolt pattern of the engine. but...

once these forces, torques etc are spread out thru a larger base, they are sufficiently reduced to the point that resilient mounting should cause no problem with longevity of the engine provided that, this subframe is made to be very rigid in all planes. it has to be thought of as part of the engine. and the resilient mounts will have to be such that they work in the frequency of the predominant harmonic, say 10 hz.

you KEEP talking about torque, it isn't an issue, centre of mass of the entire system is the issue, and how it alters the vectors of forces from imbalance in the internal moving components of the engine.

alternatively i follow your logic in that one could construct the block of concrete and sit it on a rubber pad, perhaps a high density pad. this should mitigate alot of the vibration that would be transfered thru to other parts of the structure.

hydraulic mounting (floating in a pool) is quite common and simple and cheap where vibration isolation is desired,

now in responce to your comments

"Bob, my motor is over half a century old, has an unknown exact number of hours on it, but known to be in excess of 50,000 hours, standard dimensions (eg no regrind or bore) throughout, still starts (judging from other threads) easier than your new listeroids, not a whiff of smoke, yadda yadda yadda, And this is something that is "clearly" poor design???"

i perhaps overstepped myself a bit here, yes the lister is a fine design, is it perfect? in my opinion no. there are issues with oiling that apparently were not much of an issue if at all with the original lister engines. the overall design is a good and time proven design, what i find fault with are mainly the design of the big end brg with its top oiling and grooves in the top shell of that brg, that design does not follow good design form, but rather a design that is warned against in many text's. yes it worked well in the originals at up to 6 hp, but has problems when applied to higher rpm (1000) and higher power densities (8-12 plus)

you are doing it again.

the Lister design was first class, someone dicked with it and made a twice the size engine, and that may have issues, the SOLE person to blame here is the person who dicked with the design.

I really don't think you, many other people here, or people who write "many texts" understand the Lister lube system.

THERE IS NO FAILURE MODE FOR SPLASH LUBE, OR FOR OIL RING LUBE.

Got that, it can NEVER go wrong or stop working, as long as there is oil in the crankcase.

As long as there is oil in the crankcase, there is sufficient lubrication to achieve near idefinite lifespans at full load.

The KISS principle taken to the extreme.

Do you not get this, Lister were quite aware of other methods of lubrication, but NOTHING even comes close to the simplicity and resilience of splash and oil ring, if the motor is turning and it has oil, then splash and oil ring will lube everything, there is literally nothing to go wrong and nothing to service or wear out, EVER.

The problem IS NOT higher power densities, the problem is some doofus simply making everything bigger and assuming it will work as well in a 25/2 as it did in a 12/2, that is a basic, simple and fundamental engineering mistake.

That is not listers fault, or a design flaw.

"You CAN use a steel structure to shift the centre of mass, but you aren't, not unless you are using 12" RSJ and building a vertical stand for the Listeroid.  Your Steel frame does not weigh a ton and have a centre of mass that sits nearly two feet below the base of the crankcase, correct.?"

you are correct in this statement, but neither does the SOM cast iron base! and..
the SOM setup runs forever too, correct?

what is this fixation / mind block about the SOM base?

you put the base on a poured concrete block, nobody ran them on the base only, the base is there so the shipped in separate boxes complete system could be assembled and aligned etc fast and easy and properly, pour crete and mount base, cure, then mount engine etc on base.

certainly all materials have fatigue limits,

some dont actually, and some sort of self anneal / heal, quite rare but they do exist, what you normally come acrosss is things like treated titanium alloys, which, provided you stay within certain limits, basically show infinite cyclic immunity to fatigue, eg basically they do not fatigue.

as for the crankshaft being the only place, certainly not. brgs, bolts, crankcase mounting flanges are a few more spots of concern. i would also submit that at the power densities we are dealing with the crankshaft if filleted properly, made without flaws of decent material, and maintaining proper tolerances should be nearly indistructable, unless some weird harmonic is at play or some other outside force overloads it such as a shock load.

"wierd harmonics" are exactly what causes fatigue matey, and wierd harmonics are moved (because you can't eliminate them) by moving the centre of mass, it is those wierd harmonics that tear a big audio speaker to shreds anywhere except inside its massive cabinet, even at low low power ratings, it is those wierd harmonics that shatter glass.

harmonics and fatigue go hand in hand, the fact that you have only just brought them up suggests to me you haven't really got a grip on what fatigue really is, and perhaps my bending wire example didn't help matters.

then pray tell how did your SOM last so many years? clearly there is more at play here.

you see a picture, it impacts your brain, it eliminates all further thought and reasoning, one of the reasons I refuse to tell students things or show them things, instead I lay it out and make them work it out for themselves.

1/ you have seen a picture of my SOm, like many owned by gentleman collectors, from one of whom I purchased mine in feb this year, sat on a wooden trolley with cast iron wheels.

2/ you have some recollection of me saying before estimated hours were IRO 70k, and age was 50+ years.


3/ you put 1 and 2 together and assume it did all those hours under load on that bloody trolley, no fucking way.

I didn't take it off because I knew I was moving, which I have just done, and you will note my ultimate plans has a couple of tons of lead, not concrete, shifting the centre of mass, and just because I happened to show a video of starting ot like that don't mean it ever ran like that, except the gentleman collector I bought it from who was so negligent he allowed it to frost damage, who ran 200 watts worth of 25 watt bulbs off it at show for a few hours a day once or twice a year.

assumptions will kill you.

1. the cost of a lister vs a roid, is quite different, when it comes to broken parts

2. in 50 years, or a hundred the lister will have significant collector value and should be kept as such, the listeroid will never be worth more than when it was new, it will have no appreciable collector value

you're making those assumptions again.....

in 50 or 100 years you have no idea of the value of a working listeroid, it may be worthless except as a curio, or it may be worth a man year of labour.

all it takes is a law banning them, or a law showing up engines with a rated speed slower than tickover on a modern engine, or global economy to work its course and there is no more third world labour to exploit so everything costs its true worth and listeroids cost as much as arrows.

"your concrete statement"

fair enough,  certainly it is not a big deal for most applications.

finally....

we can agree that the use of concrete is prudent where one can use it he probably should.

where on earth can u not use concrete?

now i would like to discuss how in the event that one cannot use concrete or does not want to use concrete what are his options, clearly there are many concerns that have to be addressed.

perhaps now we can move in the direction of determining how best to accomplish this other goal, with the purpose of allowing some mobility, some vibration abatement and with a minimum of stress placed back on the engine itself.  i am fully aware that there is going to be a comprimise here, perhaps one of longevity. but we are talking about a listeroid, not a collector engine.

my thinking is, if it can be determined that such a mounting system can be engineered and built, even if it cuts the lifespan of the engine by 50-75% but enables better utilization of the engine, it is a comprimise alot of folks are going to be willing to make.  and yes i will join you in beating the shit out of anyone contemplating doing such with an original lister

sp mount it on a tank, and fill or empty the tank with a phase change liquid / solid via pump when stationary / moving.

Bob, you telling me you can't make a trailer to carry a lister on a concrete block with jack up legs to save the wheel bearings?


You want mobile, just tow the sucker.

You starting to understand my long term milk float plan now?

just like a self propelled gun, all the benefits of both worlds, none of the drawbacks, except you have more work to do cos you want mobile, not static for the next 4 decades.

[oldnslow]

First, thanks gentlemen for putting a valuable lesson in print for future reference. For those who don't use a block, murphy's law says the crank will snap at a most inconvenient time.

Guy, I gained a clear understanding why the block is necessary but... your milk float was in the back of my mind all the while. How the hell were you going to combine the SOM+block with the float? Ok, you answered my question on that.

One other thing, LEAD. Denser than concrete for sure so now the dimensions of the block can be manipulated.  How do you figure the optimum dimensions when the density of the dampening material increases? What would be the mimimum height? (ie best for towing on a trailer?)

[xyzer]

murphy's law says the crank will snap at a most inconvenient time.

 My God there is some crap going on here....Picking the flyshit out of pepper is what I see.....all of these Listers and oids out there and I am still waiting to see the crankshaft with no manufacturing flaws in a balanced engine that broke due to the mounting procedure!.......get 2 of them to show a trend....4 and I'll go get my cement! Those are the facts that prove more than the interpitation of numbers...when you gotem let me know the price of cement is going up!

[fuddyduddy]

Thank you xyzer,
The level of sh** being flung around re: concrete mounting is near-unbelievable.

Many of the Listeroids putt along very happily on wooden 6X8s or?, at least two or three layers high, and with the crossings not laying on top of the ones underneath.

Those readers here with even a modicum of common sense know that Briggs and Stratton sells far more engines in a year than the total Lister produced, and they run very happily in all sorts of situations for years and years.

Yup, Briggs has been around almost 100 years, sells very inexpensive single cylinder engines using a bare minimum of steel and iron, and if the engines were AT ALL PRONE TO BREAKAGE, DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD SPECIFY CONCRETE MOUNTS??? 

Think about it. 

There are no doubt those situations where concrete mounting is the best solution. There are also many situations where it is not necessary, nor needed, nor even desirable.

[oldnslow]

Hold on you guys don't attack the messenger. You can't have it both ways by saying its OK to mount a Listeroid on skids and support it with some comments about a Briggs or the fact that you haven't seen a broken crank. No offence but:  Who are you anyway? How long have you been around? Are you an engineer? The discussion clearly explains the reasons why the manufacturer recommended the mounting method and why it is necessary. 

If you were going to depend on it 24/7 and work it's ass off You might be interested in knowing these things. I know I am.  What you do with the information is your gig.  Build it your way but don't discount  the facts just because YOU are not doing it. Argue the facts. I learned a ton of information from this thread and it only took 30 minutes to read. I look forward to many more threads like this. Don't fuck that up for the rest of us.   

[xyzer]

Hold on you guys don't attack the messenger. You can't have it both ways by saying its OK to mount a Listeroid on skids and support it with some comments about a Briggs or the fact that you haven't seen a broken crank. No offence but:  Who are you anyway? How long have you been around? Are you an engineer? The discussion clearly explains the reasons why the manufacturer recommended the mounting method and why it is necessary. 

If you were going to depend on it 24/7 and work it's ass off You might be interested in knowing these things. I know I am.  What you do with the information is your gig.  Build it your way but don't discount  the facts just because YOU are not doing it. Argue the facts. I learned a ton of information from this thread and it only took 30 minutes to read. I look forward to many more threads like this. Don't fuck that up for the rest of us.   

Well I've balanced and mounted a listeroid on rubber....have they?...have you? That's who I am!  I've bought and installed a 32 cnc machines and they don't grout and anchor em any more! They set on pads..Ideas change.... I've fixed more engineering f-up's than I can count from nuclear to the shuttle to Hellfire missles....I've been dealing with rotating crap for 40 years..... So?....I ain't no engineer....what does that have to do with it? As I have said before if I was never going to move it I would also mount a "Balanced" Listeriod on a block-o-cement.....A lot less thinking goes on to do that....and if someone can show me that the listeroid was designed to the point it has to be mounted exactly as the manufacturer of 50 years ago says show me the broken shafts!...I deal with facts not what the engineers of 50-70 years ago were thinking .....I know from all of the older machinery I have delt with they were always overbuilt... They didn't load a 3D model in Unigrafics software and run a stress analysis on it! An old engineer told me figure what you need to do the job then go to the next size up....no one will know....to small and you'll never hear the end of it!....If there was a definate problem I'm sure it would have reared its ugly head by now. Bring on the broken shafts...lets see the history....SHOW ME! Thats all! Oh yea...this is what they call a "forum".... I got an opinion also....just not so wordy!.....well maybe this time!

[fuddyduddy]

OK oldnslow,

You said, "Don't fuck that up for the rest of us. "  The truth is, the lightweight from the UK with the big mouth is the one who f***s up many with his one-sided posts.  Tell you what, he does not f*** it up for me.

The fact is, have been doing this sh** for about 50 years. Have put big and small, heavy and light engines on about everything you can think of, and  some you can't. Have "Mickey Moused" hookups beyond belief, and have NEVER  had a crankshaft fail. Have even been a leverman., and THAT engine did not break, either!!! Logging shows, sawmills, odd skid-mouthed  setups, pumps large and small, dredges, etc, etc, etc.  Have operated them on the land, in the water, and in the air.

The Briggs are a VERY fair comparison. Oh, and if you want to compare Listeroids, etc, ask Quinn how f***ing many I own.  (too many...) Along with many others...

BobG and his partner do not lead you astray. Neither does JackBelk. Nor does Quinn, or Russell from Kansas. Or many others.  But take what everyone says with a grain of salt, and do not treat it as pure truth, because in almost all cases, "truth" has many flavors. 

Now, do you want to know something interesting? OK, talked with Dennis E. in Ohio yesterday. He runs twin cylinder Listeroids 24/7, for power generation,   pumping water, and co-gen heat. All on undiluted WVO, filtered, chemically treated, and heated. NEVER has carbon buildup.  Second to the last day of his show for the year, the Ashwamegh 25/2 broke (wore out) a bronze idler pinion. That engine has centers that are off, so it is REALLY hard on the gears. The bronze gear made it just about 5,000 hours, almost the same hours as the T-6 aluminum idler he used before that. His first gear, a grade 5 P.O.S., lasted about 50 hours, and a grade 20 cast gear made it about 200 hours.

Now for those who want to total up the hours, it will tell you something. These are the sort of engines I like to hear about, because it provides info on how they hold up in  really tough situations, even when there are manufacturing deficiencies..

Oh, Dennis also says he will just put in another gear. He says it takes about 20 minutes to install and time. He does not want to mess with an offset idler shaft.