Puppeteer

Author Topic: concrete vs resilient mounting  (Read 44269 times)

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2006, 04:05:30 AM »
i am doing my level best to keep my cool, but my patience is being tested
but that is ok, it has been tested before and it will likely be tested many more times before i croak.

i am really tired of the original lister being put on a pedestal as being the most fantastic of all man's creation.
it is no ferrari, it is no rolex, it is no manhattan project of internal combustion engines.

what it is, is a successful design that had a long production run, yes it was a mass produced engine and as
such had short cuts taken with it as well, anyone that doubts this is clearly lieing to themselves.

last week on this very board a member posted a picture of the assembly line at lister, showing a bellbottom dude
assembling his part of the engine. 

if you look closely you will clearly see the crankshafts have been installed, but nowhere in the picture are the flywheels in view.

any finely balanced engine has to have its flywheels balanced along with the rest of the rotating assembly, such as crankshaft, rod, piston, rings, brgs etc.

anyone that has had the components of his engine balanced by a reputable shop will know that if you replace any part of the rotating assembly the whole thing has to be done again.

also there are reports from folks starting their engine on the crate and having it sit there and purr away, obviously pretty well balanced either by design or accident. and also reports of the engine started on a pallet, trying to jump all over the place and scaring the crap out of the poor guy that got in a hurry to start it,, obviously a poorly balanced engine.

if it will run on a pallet then it will run on resilient mounts, period. Conversely if it jumps all over the shop, then bolting it to concrete is not the solution but a bandaid fix. you can argue theory and math all day, but this is fact.

these engine just like every other production engine of mass production were balanced as well as need be, at a cost.
clearly when you do so there will be a few that fall outside good balance and also a few that are exceptionally balanced.

the ones in the middle are adequately balanced to mount to a concrete block and run forever, even the ones that fell outside the range of acceptable probably ran forever also anchored to concrete.

why did they specify a concrete base, pretty damned apparent to me, and should be apparent to anyone with a reasonable intellect.

also when these engines were first designed and put into place, the normal way to mount them was on a concrete block, didnt make a difference who's engine it was, most everyone mounted to concrete as it was cheap and easy to put in place.
they followed a hundred years of stationary engines being mounted that way, was accepted by the buying public as normal, so why reinvent the wheel.

one should also accept the fact that it was not at all common for end users to have at their disposal arc, mig, tig or other methods of welding up a framework, and while there were rubber mounts they were not as numerous or widely available.

going back to the balance issue, if the original engine was a rolex, and finely crafted and finely balanced, then the flywheels would not be interchangable, and one would not be able to just order up replacements.

in closing,,, the original engine was a fine engine, did its job very well
the listeroids can be made to be very near if not the same quality of an original.

as for mounting,,, if you believe it has to be mounted to concrete, then by all means do so, and god bless you,
i have never argued against this form of mounting, but i assure you that i damn sure could and be able to document my
reasoning against it.

but...
don't tell me that it is the only way a well balanced lister/oid engine can be safely mounted, and further don't tell me the engine life will be shorten because of resilient mounting if it is engineered and implimented properly.

i feel better now

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

xyzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2006, 05:27:04 AM »

i feel better now

bob g

I may not say it in the same terms.....but I agree 100% on the reason why they had a specific mounting method...You pretty much said it all!....now lets balance them thumpers!
Vidhata 6/1 portable
Power Solutions portable 6/1
Z482 KUBOTA

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2006, 05:53:59 AM »
Pro:

"I'll assume you didn't intend to say that I am an idiot and you are not, but you did."

if you took from my statement that i think of you as an idiot, i truely am sorry, that was not my intension.


when i stated:

"you accept as fact because that is what you are told or read, i accept what as fact, only after scrutinizing what i have been told or read."

i was simply trying to illustrate two differing ways of looking at the same information.
believe me i have fallen into the same trap myself many times.

as you are probably aware one of my pet peeves and something that i have spoken against for many years are products
such as desulfators,, if you read the manufactures paperwork, documents etc you will be lead to believe that these things not only work but your expensive batteries will die a horrible and premature death without the use of their machine.

i am not here to say that the folks that manufacture and sell desulfators are on a par with the fine folks at lister, that is quite aside the point.

i just have to use the same level of scrutiny with lister publications that i would with the desulfators or magnets you put on your fuel line, or copper bracelets,

assuming that lister was the premier engine builder of the day, that does not make them above question.
today catapiller is a huge engine builder of world fame and they too make mistakes and omissions in their documentation.

as an example just the other day, when faced with a 3126e cat with electronic control problems with the intake heater
i went to cat to get the schematic,, after analizing the schematic it became apparent that it was flawed, seriously, the system could not function as descibed..
i went to the tech guy who called the factory tech guy, who asked "who the hell is this guy. mobile bob?" what the hell does he know? we have had this in production for the last 8 years! "
when i was given the phone it took exactly 1 minute to show him the flaw!

he got a whole lot nicer to me.

so i don't automatically accept anything in print as being gospel, unless i see moses coming down the mountain with the stone tablets.

what i will accept:

good documentation that will stand up to a modecum of scrutiny at the very least, followed by

other examples of the principle from other sources, if then

i see sound reasoning, by at least 3 sources (not connected to the originator of the claim) to substantiate the claim

then i feel pretty confident that the claim is valid 

short of that, it is just that a "claim"

again i appologize if i implied you to be an idiot

bob g

otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Procrustes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2006, 07:16:53 AM »
I didn't take offense Bob, I pointed it out so the other kids won't think I'm a pussy.

A while ago I ate a large Philly cheese steak and fell asleep on the couch.  I had a vivid dream wherein I was standing in a Dursely breakroom in front of a blackboard.  Seated in front of me was Harry Ricardo and a team of RA Lister engineers.  One of them said dryly, "Tell us how your flexible mounts are better than concrete."  I gave it my best: the promise of the future, the forthcoming advances in mount technology, I even hinted about nanotechnology.  Then out the corner of my eye I noticed a troublemaker in back touch his thumb and index finger together and make a very rude gesture.  They all laughed at me.  Bastards.

Ricardo cleared his throat and stood up, and the others quieted down.  He said, "I have a piece of advice for you."  He called me "young fellow,"  which is a lie but not one I mind hearing.  I was delighted to be in the presence of this great man, and the wait for this pearl of wisdom was long.  It was however worth the wait.  "Keep it in your pants" he said, then he turned and walked away.  Don't try to tell me you haven't learned this lesson the hard way.  He was a great man.

B K Lahey

  • oldcranker
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2006, 10:56:34 AM »
"keep it in your pants" Gord you blokes go on with some crap!! Just fired my J (on skids) no jumping, no vibration, no concrete, no bloody rubber mounts. It's 79 years old, hasn't run for fourty odd, and fired up first go, DONT rubbish Lister to me,
BK
nothing like a good crank!!

Procrustes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2006, 08:20:33 PM »
"keep it in your pants" Gord you blokes go on with some crap!! Just fired my J (on skids) no jumping, no vibration, no concrete, no bloody rubber mounts. It's 79 years old, hasn't run for fourty odd, and fired up first go, DONT rubbish Lister to me,
BK

Who's rubbishing Lister?  The pants remark was joke, and didn't have anything to do with Listers actually.  I started out writing yet another restatement of my position on the mounting issue, and was overcome by the futility of my efforts.  So I wrote something silly instead.  About going on with crap, though: guilty as charged.

Doug

  • Guest
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2006, 11:22:43 PM »
I did a tour of shops today getting quotes for ballancing and amchine work.

Nordic engine here in the Nickel City quoted me between 150-200 CDN for a complete ballance of all the rotating assembly including fly wheel, face plate addapter output shaft and a free polish....

For that kind of money you'd have to be a real cheap fello not to get all you mass spun and checked. Then mount the bugger on solid foundation.....

Doug

xyzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2006, 11:30:05 PM »
I did a tour of shops today getting quotes for ballancing and amchine work.

Nordic engine here in the Nickel City quoted me between 150-200 CDN for a complete ballance of all the rotating assembly including fly wheel, face plate addapter output shaft and a free polish....

For that kind of money you'd have to be a real cheap fello not to get all you mass spun and checked. Then mount the bugger on solid foundation.....

Doug
Best bang for the buck! I'm going to do the same with my second 6/1....turns them into a Honda 6/1...:)
Vidhata 6/1 portable
Power Solutions portable 6/1
Z482 KUBOTA

Doug

  • Guest
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2006, 11:34:39 PM »
I didn't tell them it was a clone but rather an old engine with new parts made in India.....

No one loves a cheap crap clone. But tell a trades person your trying to restore something and ears perk up. Dare I say it a little white lie gets better deals and perhaps a little more sympathy to correct defects.


Doug

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2006, 12:55:16 AM »
Pro:

i regard to "keep it in your pants" story

didnt your momma tell  you not to lick your fingers after you were serviceing the batteries?

i thought i had weird dreams  :)

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Doug

  • Guest
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2006, 02:50:08 AM »
I used to dream about wiring machines in a factory where I worked. I would mumble in my sleep and ,y hands would move.....

My wife would elbo me and tell me I was wiring in my sleep again. I'd thank her for waking me to tell me that and roll over go back to sleep and try and remember where I was before she broke my concentration.

True story.

Doug

SCOTT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2006, 05:00:35 PM »
Can this issue be put to bed now?

Below is my e-mail to the Lister Petter company

Greetings
 I hope you can help me determine the best way to mount one of your engines. The engine in question is a Lister cs 6/1 with a SOM cast iron base. They have not been manufactured for a number of years, but they are quite sought after in the used market. I would very grateful to get the professional opinion of someone from your engineering team as to the best way to mount this engine.
 
I have read that the original mounting system was a cubic yard of concrete. My hope is that technology has advanced to the point where resilient rubber type mounts could be used which would offer the benefit of vibration isolation. I have looked into this type of mounting system, the engineering staff at the various companies say their products can be used, I thought it would be a good idea to check with check with your company first.
 
Best regards
Scott"


Below is the response from the company

Scott,
This as you will appreciate is a very old engine and the only recommendation
that was made by us in those days that I can find was to mount these
solidly.As you rightly say technology has moved on and I do not doubt now
that some form of resilent mounting could be used providing good engineering
practices are adhered to.Although do bear in mind that as the engine only
runs at about 600rpm and really at that speed provided the mounting is flat
and square very little vibration will be produced.
Regards
Phil Downes
Applications Manager

Tel. +44 (0)1453 541068
Mob. +44 (0)7712 085163
Fax. +44 (0)1453 541103


The above is not from the engineer I spoke with, I have not heard from him yet. This is a response from an e-mail I sent to the co from their website link.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 12:02:47 AM by SCOTT »
net metering with a 6/1 in Connecticut
12/1
6/1

Procrustes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2006, 05:51:34 PM »
Can this issue be put to bed now? 
....

Below is the response from the company
...

This as you will appreciate is a very old engine and the only recommendation
that was made by us in those days that I can find
was to mount these
solidly.

He doesn't pretend to be an expert, Scott.  Evidently he didn't take the time to read the manual or couldn't find a copy.  I don't regard that as a strong argument, much less a definitive one.

SCOTT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2006, 06:15:11 PM »
Procrustes
You quote the part of the conversation, which supports your view, while omitting the part below, which does not. 

Quote
“……As you rightly say technology has moved on and I do not doubt now
that some form of resilent mounting could be used providing good engineering
practices are adhered to….”

I don’t think anyone ever said that a big block of concrete was not a suitable mount.  The question was, is it the ONLY suitable mount?  The information is accumulating that says it is possible to mount a Lister type engine on resilient mounts.  This info is from the opinions of two engineers I spoke with, in addition to the opinion of this person at the Lister Petter company.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion; I give more weight to those from people who are experts in their fields, in this case the engineers and this representative of the Lister Petter company.

Take what you want from the reply. 

Procrustes what exactly would you need to see to convince you that a resiliant mount is acceptable, Just curious?

Scott
net metering with a 6/1 in Connecticut
12/1
6/1

Smokey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: concrete vs resilient mounting
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2006, 06:20:09 PM »
In another thread I have listed links to papers dealing with the design of machine foundations.  I have not had a chance
to read them yet so can't say how useful the information is.
The link:   http://listerengine.com/smf/index.php?topic=1097.75

Don't want to "take sides" in the rigid vs resiliant engine mount debate, but only provide information  I found in .pdf
copies of original Lister manuals found on the internet and that I saved.  I have seen the recommended design for the
engine foundation in the manual that came with my Metro 6/1 and suspect that it is the same as the Lister standard
engine foundation, but I would love to see the lister engine bed design drawings.As I  was looking for some information
on the design of the concrete engine foundation recommended by lister  I came across the following in a Lister
publication on the cs series engines:

TITLE:
 Lister Instruction Book and Spare Parts List for types 3 1/2-1, 6-1 & 12-2, book103/1053

ON BACK COVER:
printed in England. S.P.5m-1053.

Quote

Foundations
   Our standard foundation drawings give the dimensions of suitable concrete beds.  These dimensions are
the minimum for a good solid sub-soil and modifications will have to be made where the sub-soil is soft, waterlogged,
or otherwise of a special character.

   Set the engine as level as possible, packing under the Engine feet with thin metal strips, placed as close as
possible to the holding down bolts.

Portable Models
   Place portable models in as level a position as possible.
Unquote

 Noting the last sentence in the quote, it would seem Lister made some CS models that were portable.


In a different manual for the Lister S-O-M

TITLE:
BOOK 312/1052
Instruction Book and Spare Parts List
Lister
A.C.
Start-O-Matic
Electric Generating Plant

On Page 8
Quote

FOUNDATION.
Mount generator set on a concrete block 2' 3" deep including 3" abovefloor level, and 3" wider and longer than the
base plate.  When pouring concrete leave four holes 4" square x 15" deep for holding down bolts.
When the concrete block is hard the set should be levelled up and a grouting mixture of cement and sand worked in
under the bearing surfaces of the base plate.  The bolts should be grouted in but not tightened down until the grouting
has also set hard.

UNQUOTE

Metro 6/1, ST5 Genhead

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito,
"do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it."