seeking an answer...

[Procrustes]

I'm not proformula!  I don't have any position about whether Lister used a formula.  I've sure tried to make that clear.

Actually, ever since the beginning of this discussion, if I had to bet I'd say Lister didn't use a formula, or at best a back-of-the-envelope one.  I didn't bother mentioning this because I don't have any good reason to believe it.  Nevertheless, that's where I'd put my money.

[mobile_bob]

Fair enough, point taken there Pro!

how's the view from up on the fence anyway?


hehehe

bob g

[Quinnf]

Since the 3/1, 5/1 and 6/1 all share the same block dimensions, as I'm sure the 10/2 and 12/2 will be found to, once someone comes up with a n installation drawing showing the 12/2, then I think this thread will be pretty well exhausted. 

So we have to think up another controversial subject to pursue to keep interest in this forum up.   

Quinn

[mobile_bob]

Quinn:

to funny...

check back tonight or in the morning, i have been looking at the lister prints, i still have to source the later 6/1 print, but if as suspected i have the
"FORMULA"

"and its mine,,, all mine.... muwwwwaaahahahahaha"

with the formula, geometry, and physics to support the dimensions of the block this should prove to be fun.

what do you wanna bet there will be those to argue the validity?

hell i might even argue with me,

there is nothing wrong with me, wrong with me,,, wrong with me...

bob g

[Procrustes]

I had a boss once who told me never to talk about sports, politics or religion with clients.  It's a good rule, and one that has brought me peace of mind and equanimity over the course of my life, both professionally and personally.

Are the Yankees a piece of shit or what?

[Guy_Incognito]

There was a previous thread with a link to a PDF of a doc from the 1950's that had all the nitty-gritty details for making a solid mount for a piece of machinery.

I only skimmed through it in passing, but from memory :

It took into account differing soil types and loading in lbs/sq inch, mass distribution and block shape and details for determining the mass of concrete need to keep vibration/displacement to an acceptable limit. At the base of all the calculations was the machine manufacturers specs on how much force the machine generates at a certain frequency/RPM. Without those specs, block design simply reverts to "overkill" mode. Which is what I suspect is the case with Lister.

If not, has anyone seen any Lister specs of that type to prove the case that it's a properly engineered block design?
Listeroid specs would be hopeless, you'd never be able to get two machines side by side with equivalent specs. 

[Quinnf]

Well, that and the fact that the Indian manuals blatantly rip off the Brits' work without adding anything noteworthy of their own.  The fact that there is that caveat about soil conditions indicates that nothing's cast in stone, er, concrete.

I'm thinking maybe we should talk about detergent vs. non-detergent oil.  No . . . that's been done.
Darn!

Quinn

[snail]

I'm thinking maybe we should talk about detergent vs. non-detergent oil.  No . . . that's been done.
Darn!

How about BHP versus power? Can't remember how that one finished!

Brian

[listeroil]

1936 LISTER BOOK NO 103 says this
                                                   Fixing
       The Engine should be securely fastened and reasonably level.
       Important Note.  For belt drive always arrange the inside edge of
driving belt as close to Engine bearing as possible. Where "Fast" and
 "Loose" pulleys are used always arrange the pulleys so that the drive is
taken on the side of the pulley nearest to the Engine bearing.
         Attention to the above will prevent undue strain on the bearings due to
overhang.


A slightly later book 103 says this
.
                         Fixing
       The Engine should be securely fastened and reasonably level.
       Important Note.  For belt drive always arrange the inside edge of
driving belt as close to Engine bearing as possible. Where "Fast" and
 "Loose" pulleys are used always arrange the pulleys so that the drive is
taken on the side of the pulley nearest to the Engine bearing.
         Attention to the above will prevent undue strain on the bearings due to
overhang.
                                      EXTRA HEAVY BELT DRIVES

       If the machine which the Engine is to drive makes the use of an exceptionally
heavy or tight driving belt unavoidable, the driving pulley should be supported
between two bearings on an extension shaft with a flexible coupling to connect it
to the engine. Pulley shaft bearings and engine should be mounted on a substantial
steel girder or concrete base.

1952 LISTER BOOK NO 103 says this

                                                     INSTALATION
The Engine must be installed where a generous supply of ftesh air is assured.
A portable electric light is recomended in addition to the fixed lighting of the engine room.
The most convenient hight for the crankshaft is 27in above the ground.
Keep the Exhaust and Water Pipes as short as possible.
Leave a space of about 3 feet all around the Engine for ease of access and maintenance.

Foundations     
       Our standard foundation drawings give the dimensions of suitable concerte beds. These
dimensions are the minimum for a good solid subsoil and modifications will have to be made where
the subsoil is soft water logged or otherwise of a special character.
       Set the Engine as level as possible packing under the Engine feet with thin metal strips, placed
aa close as possible to the holding down bolts.

Portable models
       Place Portable Models in as level position as possible.


1983 LISTER BOOK 103 says this

  INSTALATION
The Engine must be installed where a generous supply of ftesh air is assured.
A portable electric light is recomended in addition to the fixed lighting of the engine room.
The most convenient hight for the crankshaft is 27in above the ground.
Keep the Exhaust and Water Pipes as short as possible.
Leave a space of about 3 feet all around the Engine for ease of access and maintenance.

Foundations     
       Our standard foundation drawings give the dimensions of suitable concerte beds. These
dimensions are the minimum for a good solid subsoil and modifications will have to be made where
the subsoil is soft water logged or otherwise of a special character.
       Set the Engine as level as possible packing under the Engine feet with thin meral strips, placed
aa close as possible to the holding down bolts.

Portable models
       Place Portable Models in as level position as possible.


All the above references are out of genuine lister engine books  from 1936 to 1983 and they dont tell very much but what they do point out is that these engines were used as portable engines They were used in cement mixers during and after the war and lot of other portable applications The size of the concrete block mentioned at
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/51P3data.htm is just for mounting the engine on.

The heavier concrete block is probably for the startomatic units

1952 Startomatic manual for 6hp 650rpm 2.5kw sets says this

FOUNDATION
Mount the generating set on a concrete block 2'  3'' deep. 3'' above floor level and 3''
wider and longer than the baseplate . When pouring the concrete leave four square holes
4'' square x 15'' deep for the 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 baseplate. The bolts should be grouted in
but not tightened down untill the grouting has set hard.

The 1969 Startomatic manual for the 6/1. 3kw sets and  8/1. 4.5kw sets says exactly the same as above. but in the back of the the manual is drawing no 4526EP. This gives the layout of the engine room  and this gives the dimensions for the concrete block. These dimensions are 4' 4'' long 2' 1'' wide and 1'8'' deep including 5'' above the floor. This is totally  different to what it says at the begining of this manual.

Also included in drawing no 4526EP is this note just above the description in the bottom right hand corner

NOTE:-
WHEN FLEXIBLE MOUNTINGS ARE
FITTED FLEXIBLE EXHAUST AND
FUEL PIPES MUST BE USED




INSTRUCTIONS FOR 6/1. 8/1. 12/2 AND 16/2
PUSH BUTTON REMOTE CONTROLLED PLANTS  Says this aswell

Foundation.       A heavy block is required on which to stand the plant.
If a belt driven set is being installed, with seperate beds for engine and
dynamo or other driven machine, the two beds should be connected by a stout
section of re-inforced concrete floor.   Care must be taken to ensure that
the engine bedplate beds evenly on the concrete block. To insure this,
the plant bedplate should be grouted in (i.e. it should be let down on to
a bed of soft mortar).    It is an advantage to place a piece of steel plate
about 3'' x 1/2'' between the engine feet and the concrete block when an engine
alone is installed.   The whole should be grouted as above.
Where a bedplate is not supplied, the engine or plant supports must not
grouted in; this will facilitate easy removal of each component.

Plants and engines should be raised above  floor level on a plinth so that
the crankshaft is about 27'' above the floor for convenience of starting and
maintenance. The concrete used in foundation blocks should be 1 part
cement, 2 parts sand, 3 parts gravel up to 1 1/2''.

Foundation Bolts.          Foundation bolts of combined set should not be tightened
down too much, particularly with fabricated steel bed plates.


I hope this information is of some interest

Mick

[Guy_Incognito]

NOTE:-
WHEN FLEXIBLE MOUNTINGS ARE
FITTED FLEXIBLE EXHAUST AND
FUEL PIPES MUST BE USED

Well, thats certainly pretty interesting.

[mobile_bob]

things that make you go "hmmmmmm"

boy that just about kills this one, i worked last night to arrive at the mathematical formula to explain the concrete base of a 3/1 and a 5/1,
i got the formulae worked out for the depth and length, but have had a bit of trouble working out the width formula

seems like a mute point as Mick's post seems to have lister all over the place with "suggested" mounting.

what is interesting is the fact that lister did take into account sound engineering practice for concrete, with the spec of keeping the mount bolts at least 3 inches
away from the edge of the block.

geometrically the 3/1 and 5/1 concrete block as printed illustrates some interesting things, that i worked out mathematically, but the math does not support their later
recommendation.

from a side view of the engine, if one takes a line (vector) from tdc at a point in the center or the piston, down thru the middle of of the engine mount bolt center and continues the line downward into a block area, what you will find is this line will go to the outer bottom corner of the block, or rather just inside that corner, which would stand to reason that any force sent down that vector would go thru the block to the ground and not out the side of the block.
if another line is drawn from the same point tdc/center of piston thru the other mount bolt it will intersect at the same point  but on the opposite side of the block bottom. which is interesting.

couple that with the relationship between the crankshaft centerheight as installed of 12.5 inches and bolt c/c of 13 
with the mount block they used to keep the same ratio or aspect ratio with the block as part of the engine the block length works out to be 27.5", which is very close to the 28" spec.

to determine block width the line is started from tdc/piston center down thru the center of the main brgs to the bottom of the block, where it comes very close to the edge of the 22" dimension spec by lister,

this clearly indicates that all force vectors are straight line thru the point of origin, thru the main brg centers, down the crankcase and follow the same vectors down thru the bottom of the concrete without exiting the sides of the block, in all aspect, front, side or what ever

this would mean that likely the 15" deep, 22" inch wide, and 28" long concrete block is probably the minimum size for a 3/1, 5/1 6/1 and probably most of the other single cylinders.

or all of this can be explained in mathematical formulae, but it seems to be almost a lost cause at this point.

it would appear now conclusively that lister had a wide variance in recommendation of mounting, including flexible mounting.

interesting indeed,

hell even grouting concerns are all over the board, some stated no cast in bolts, no grouted in bolts , now grout them in and don't torque until set?

and whats the deal with don't torque them down too tight if on a steel frame? what's too tight? whats too loose?

they may and likely was alot of solid engineering in the engine proper, alot of higher math, and equations, but...

seems like the mounting was a bit more seat of the pants, or trial and error, or "run what ya brung"

well i guess i got my answer, just not sure what it is, or whether i learned anything from it.

bob g

[Procrustes]

Mea culpa.  The block was RA Lister's standard foundation but it was apparently not a requirement for warranty.

I still believe that a rigid foundation is superior for the CS.  I don't really wish to argue about this any more, but perhaps this will be of interest.  Consider this:



There's a non-linear relationship between stress on a metallic element and its projected lifespan.  Holding an engine rigid assures that you stay on the low end of this scale, ensuring many millions of cycles from the crankshaft et al.  Flexible mounts will sometimes absorb stress, but since the single cylinder is inherently somewhat unbalanced, there will be harmonics that cause undue stress.  For instance the engine as a whole may have upward momentum during the power stroke, thereby stressing the crank as much as many many normal cycles.

[mobile_bob]

Pro:

thanks for the graph, but please consider the following

aluminum, forged, milled, cast and even in alloys has a dramatically lower life cycle than cast iron or forged steel.

aluminum and its alloys to a lessor extent exhibit rapid decline based on stresses, vibration, bending etc.

what would be interesting is to see the same graph for forged steel (crankshaft) and cast iron (cylinder block)
i think you will find a much different looking graph

but your point is well taken.

i have to tell you though i am a bit disappointed in the failure to find proof of concept or an actual formula (even if it was a generic, seat of the pants thing)

now what are we going to argue about?

bob g

[Procrustes]

what would be interesting is to see the same graph for forged steel (crankshaft) and cast iron (cylinder block)
i think you will find a much different looking graph

I think all structural metals exhibit a non-linear relationship between cycles and stress amplitudes, albeit to different degrees.

but your point is well taken.

i have to tell you though i am a bit disappointed in the failure to find proof of concept or an actual formula (even if it was a generic, seat of the pants thing)

now what are we going to argue about?

Chevy vs Ford?  Emacs vs Vi?

[mobile_bob]

http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/51P3data.htm

equations as follows

step one, determine the depth of the concrete block


Bd=A*5                            Bd= block depth
                                       A=block height above floor


step two, determine the length of concrete block

Bl=(Bd+Ccl)*(Ccl/Mc)                Bl= block length
                                             Bd=block depth
                                             Ccl= crankshaft centerline to base distance
                                             Mc= mounting base of crankcase bolt center to center distance

step three, determine the width of concrete block

Bw= (((Mc-MBc)/Ccl)*Bd)+Mc            Bw= block width
                                                     Mc= mounting base of crankcase bolt center to center distance       
                                                     MBc= main brg center to center distance
                                                     Ccl= crankshaft centerline to base distance
                                                     Bd=block depth
                                             

these formula's give the minimum specifications for the concrete block, there is also an included margin so that force vectors intersect and do not exit out the side or corners but rather within the perimeter of the bottom surface of the concrete block.

have fun with this one guys 
it took a bit of time to arrive at, now to see if it correlates to other block recommendations

i hesitated to publish this but am tired of the subject and it answers my original question, so until someone can explain the specification (of the above linked engine 5/1) with documentation i am done argueing it.
further i am not about to argue applicability to other lister spec's engine mount concrete blocks, God know's how they arrived at the other spec's, perhaps the above equations will suffice to
explain the other engine only concrete mounts, perhaps it won't ,,,  who cares?
my bet is if lister engineered the concrete block for the engine, the engineering went into the earlier efforts and was mangled in later years by other concerns such as the need for more mass to tame engine's that likely were balanced to a lessor standard of their earlier engines. who knows and really at this point who cares.

bob g