I said I wasn't going to answer this question any more, but I am, for two reasons.

1/ I have to sit here and wait for someone to turn up so I am bored.

2/ It may be that the root of this problem is one of simple communication.

Go look at

http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection4.html (you have to enable java etc)

Both views show the same thing, one from the centre of mass, one from one body as the centre.

You cannot "see" centre of mass, so you will always, via common sense, see the lower view, which is technically incorrect.

so, to your question, again.

You go and calculate the various vectors and forces acting on your lister cs, newtons second law f=ma etc etc etc etc.

You look at this result from the point of view of the top animation above, not the common sense lower animation.

You will see that many of the forces generated are acting within the radius of the crank, which is not good.

You know from your calculations that all you have to do to alter these various vectors and forces and move them too is alter the centre of mass of the whole shebang.

Easiest way to alter the centre of mass of the whole shebang is add mass externally, easiest way to consistently do that is add concrete.

Your calculations will tell you how much mass you need to add, how far it needs to be from crankshaft axis, and at what bearing.

Factor in density of concrete (or depleted uranium, or lead, or cast iron, or any other suitable material) and you will get dimensions.

========================

The moon is CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING, yet, apparently paradoxically, the moon is travelling at a CONSTANT VELOCITY in its orbit.

If you do not GET this, if you do not GET that acceleration is rate of change of velocity in a given direction, etc you have NOT worked with the math and done force vectors to velocity vectors to acceleration vectors to etc etc etc.

If you have not ever actually done the math you will not ever actually understand the answer.

==========================

ONLY BASIC MATH works like a simple spreadsheet, punch in a few numbers and get an answer out, numbers that make sense.... if it takes ten men working eight hours a day three days to dig a trench six feet deep and three feet wide and sixty feet long how long does it take five men to dig a hole ten feet in diameter and ten feet deep.

this is BASIC MATH.

Ask Mr Belk about ballistics, if you want to hit a target 6000 yards away with an intervening building 300 feet high with a projectile weighing 4 pounds there is only one solution for a given muzzle velocity.

this is NOT BASIC MATH

There are two sorts of people who will actually hit that target in practice.

The ones is forty years of experience.

The ones with ballistic computers, not spreadsheets, ballistic computers.

You are making some FUNDAMENTAL errors here.

i can find math and formulae to determine optimum cam profiles, valve opening, diameters, runner lengths etc.

sure you can, except when you try and use them from base data with real world examples you will NEVER as long as you have a hole in your ass come up with a cam profile that is actually fitted to your sample engine, or valve lift, duration, etc etc.

i can find math and formulae to determine optimum bore to stroke ratio's, con rod ratio's etc

sure you can, if you first ignore reality and define some arbitrary optimum which is anything but....

go on, stick a lister CS into your formulae and see what you get

i can find math and formulae to determine proper dimensions and materials for every component of an engine

sure you can, as long as you dont actually try and build an engine from that data and that data ONLY and do not do anything except stop dead the instant you find a bit of data not produced by your calculations, which in reality will stop you before you even start making the mould to pour the first billet before you even think about machining to size

===========================

Bob, here is a challenge for you. It will take you some time, but it used to be a basic apprentice task.

Get yourself a lump of nearly pure copper at least 1.2 inches in x , y, z dimensions.

You will of course be able to calculate exactly the mass of a perfect one inch cube of this material, and of course you will be able to calculate perfectly the volume.

Using a vice and a file, for nothing else is needed, transform this lump of copper into a perfect one inch cube, accurate to less than 2 thou, it will take you some time, perhaps a full day.

A micrometer will tell you if all three opposing sides are parallel and between 0.998 and 1.002 inches.

A machinists square and silk thread will tell you if it is square.

A displacement flask will tell you if it is between 0.994 and 1.006 cubic inches in volume.

You are not a young apprentice, so it should not take you a week and 5 or 6 wasted pieces of work before you "get" how to do it. You should be able to do it first time in a single day.

WHEN you have done this, you will understand the materials properties of copper in ways that didn't even register on the radar today, even though you almost certainly think you know "enough" about copper.

The MATH is the same, you THINK you understand enough about it because you have found a few forumula of basic math that you think makes sense to you and give you sensible results, even though you have not compared any of them to real world results.

Do you MATH apprenticeship in the same way and the same understanding will dawn, there is no shortcut.

===========================

many years ago I released a freeware marine propeller calculator for displacement hulls based on a spreadsheet, with the various things spread over different pages of the sheet so people could follow the working and learn and not bug me with questions.

I created it after many years in the industry and checked it with a real world sample of three figures (eg hundreds) of actual boats where I knew the data for a fact, the results, as it said, were suprisingly good, but almost never matched what was actually fitted, because I was using all the correct formulae, which neatly omits some tupperware yacht builder wanting to fit a tiny engine to maximise internal cabin volume and a tiny propeller to minimise drag while sailing.

follow the formulae and you can always get off a lee shore, and make hull speed in most seas too.

nobody in recreation boat land follows the formulae

deep sea fishing boats, admiralty pinnaces, things like that match it excellently.

so an analogy of what we have here is a hobby sailor (you) saying you think the trawler hull was never designed to be a part of the engine bed, and until and unless the shipyards who have been building trawlers for generations can show you why you shouldn't use glassed in softwood beams and isolastic mounts to put a trawler engine in your flexible lightweight tupperware hull you ain't buying it, so they point you towards wake factor, block coefficient, analysis pitch, modulus of elasticity of the shaft, and you still claim it ain't a good enough answer.

it IS a good enough answer for THEM, and THEY build trawlers, YOU don't.

=============================

you can put your trawler engine in your tupperware boat, and probably not sink or kill yourself, because you won't be going deep sea fishing

that does NOT make you right and them wrong.

if you try and go deep sea fishing you will, sooner or later, sink and kill yourself

Be honest.

Almost none of you have any requirement for 100,000+ hours major service intervals, a 10,000 hour engine will do you.

LISTER WOULD NO MORE BE IN YOUR BUDGET THAN ARROW IS TODAY.

If you want to do it right do it the lister way and bolt that fucker solid to a big block (not slab) of concrete.

If you want to understand why that is right then sit down and study the math for a few weeks or months and learn it.

there are no other options. there are no shortcuts.

I don't know if mr belk is a seat of the pants gunsmith or if he knows all the math too, it doesn't make any difference, I can learn all the math within a year, and he could still lose me for dead within 60 seconds of starting work, and consider me bloody dangerous within 5 minutes, there are no shortcuts.

studying the math for a year will do one thing and one thing only, it will allow me to understand what he is saying when he says that this part of this gun needs to made just so, there are no shortcuts.

people who are not prepared to study the math and do the apprenticeship have two option, pop into guns-r-us and buy a ruger blackhawk in 44 mag because dirty harry had one and dirty harry is cool, or go to jack with a wad of cash and tell him what sort of shooting they want to do, and end up with a gun for life.

Lister were the same, same thing applies.

there are no shortcuts

now I really am done answering this question.

(until and unless someone demonstrates that they have learned and done the math and then ask a question based upon that)