Pro:
"Bob, you've laid into folks on this very board for proposing modifications to the 6/1."
i am getting to be an old fart and my memory is as short as something else i have, perhaps you can remind me of my having laid into folks on proposed alterations to their engine, some examples please?
"Speculating whether they're as good as the block is just that, speculation."
you are absolutely right at some level, but good as a block for what purpose?
i have not beat up the use of a block of concrete, and would use one in many instances myself.
i damn sure can speculate that i can get the result i need with the use of resilient mounts as will many folks, any harm in speculation, or working toward that goal?
how far would mankind have gotten if we don't challenge what was done before? how do you further your knowlege of anything if you don't question? how do we know what we are told is the truth if we don't investigate and ask for some level of proof?
" It plainly says to use a block of at least a particular dimension."
oh it does, does it?
" 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."
"These dimensions are the minimum for a good solid sub-soil",
what is good, what is the margin of error? this is subjective and leaves room for interpretation
"modifications will have to be made where the sub-soil is soft, waterlogged,
or otherwise of a special character."
boy that is sure specific as mud, subjective as hell, and no specific details as to how to modify to fit certain conditions, some of which might very well be totally outside the parameters for their suggested specifications, then what?
"Portable Models
Place portable models in as level a position as possible."
what about these portable units? obviously they must have made one or two, did they not warranty those? how did they get around the use of concrete on these? is it not possible that perhaps the portable units were of the upper 10% of the group in being well balanced?
" Lister knew full well about resilient mounts, yet specified the concrete block. What's the obvious conclusion?"
the obvious conclusion can be many
1. they didnt work with the resilient mounts period,
2. they did and found them not to work with average balanced engines
3. they like every other manufacture of engines left it to the end user to work out suitable resilient mounts if they wanted them.
4. etc. put your reason here
obviously there can be no "obvious" conclusion to be drawn.
proofs don't come from "obvious" anything, they come from "facts"
if you have followed this debate closely you will notice that there has been all sorts of assertions
that is what i have a problem with, assertions
it has been asserted that the block of concrete was an intregal part of the original design, i have asked for some documentation to support this claim, to date none have appeared!
it has been asserted that the engineers based the design on moving the center of mass from the engine to within the block of concrete, i have asked for any documentation of this as being fact, even some sort of mention in any book, memoir, anything... to date nothing has
been presented to support this claim!
it has been asserted that the engine will be damage if not mounted to a specific concrete block, again i have asked for some documentation, some mention, some record, newsclip, anything to support this claim, to date nothing!
it has been asserted that the ommission of any word from lister on the use of resilient mounts proves they cannot be used, again some
mention anywhere that supports that they say no dont use them, or any documentation that they tried and failed, how about any mention of anything re. their use or non use?
and on and on.
your side can make assersions, and speculate on why lister spec'd concrete, fair enough
my side therefore can speculate and make assersions, as to the viability of using resilient mounts.
my side of the arguement has not taken a rabid stand against concrete, although the same cannot be said for some members of your camp against the use of resilient mounts.
you dont like 'em fine, don't use them. you dont think they will work then provide some form of reasoning other than the original lister engineers didnt mention their use.
bob g