Guy:
this may very well be my last attempt to deal with you,
you speak of efficiency, yet you cannot say shit in less than 500 words
I can, but it will be listened to less than doing what I do now...
you seem to place yourself on a lofty perch above us mere mortals, as though you are the only one that knows shit from shinola.
Nope, I have NEVER done that, my self appointed perch is quite low in status, I know I'm not smart enough to overthrow decades of engineering expertise or newtonian physics.
you become indignant and evasive when asked to support your arguement or position, some how you think we should just take you
at your word, and to be asked to prove your word is tantamount to questoning your integrity.
I want people to think for themselves bob, not take my word or anyone elses, don't just accept the second law of thermodynamics, read it, understand it, apply it to everything in your life and see that it can only be correct, 100% correct.
its the symptom of the age, everyone wants to be just given a fish, nobody wants to learn how to fish.
give a man a flame and he can stay warm for a while, set him on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life
(intellectually speaking)
i am truely sorry if i offended you , but thats too friggin bad, and by the way i will match my wrench against yours any day of the week on anything
you so choose to pick. i have no doubt in my mechanical ability, as i am sure you have no doubt in yours. so save your little offhand comments re oxygen and oil.
You haven't offended me, and it was never a pissing contest about skill...
"before I went to college I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one"
you very well may have the advantage of having been educated in engineering, i have not, in as much as i did not go to school to be trained as an engineer.
you don't learn anything in college bob, except maybe how to learn when you leave, learning how to learn is a valuable skill.
where you lost ground with me, and i would think a few more in this group, was over your insistance than
lister only specified teh one ton block of concrete, and that their engines would fail if mounted in any other way.
that isn't what I said, and you know it, go back and read those threads and read exactly what I did say, and not what you think I said or what it suits you to think I said.
sure i asked for proof, none came!
nor should it have, it is not my job to do your legwork for you
i asked for proof of concept, none came
ditto above, it's not my job bob
i asked for a formula, and again none came.
ditto above, not my job
what I did do was give you MORE than enough information to find the answers yourself, you chose not to look that hard, that is not my fault or my concern
hell i set down and worked out the formula myself, and asked you to disprove it
certainly within your means to do so, but as usual , nothing..
you worked out A formula that produced rule of thumb accurate results that more or less fit the real world data you started from.
without wishing to detract from this in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, it still wasn't THE right answer, you couldn't do the sums for a nordberg flat radial from it for example, THE right answer is out there and you had enough info to deduce the formulae from the data you had. eg pistin mass, con rod mass, crank mass, bore, stroke, etc etc etc etc.
i asked you to restate your position on the concrete block dimensions,
nothing again, no comment from you,,, just distance from the subject..
saying, truthfully, that with the sole exception of some gentleman collector stuff and hobby stuff as seen on here, which nicely excludes ALL commercial / industrial stationary engine installations, I have never heard, seen, read, or otherwise encountered any data suggesting there was even one single (stationary) engine anywhere not mounted on a concrete block is NOT "my position"
others posted screeds of images and links backing up this observation
If you disagree with the sum total of observable fact then YOU are the one who needs to explain why, and you explanation cannot include any bogus details that you might claim as fact, eg "new technology" because new technology does not change newtonian physics one iota.
someone i know and respect went to dursley, and went thru the archives
and guess what? you can mount the friggin engine any way you want to
within reason and have no issues with warranty or failure of components.
bob, I used to live 5 minutes up the road from dursley, I have been to the old lister factory, I've even looked through the files a time or two, hell I'm only an hour away now, I never name dropped or claimed deep throat insider info, not because I don't know anyone there because I do, but because that is a bogus way to try to win an argument.
instead I challenged you to show, not hearsay, show, a lister installation manual for the cs series that said anything about anything except a concrete block.
to date, nobody has published dick.
this again is not "my position"
the sun rising in the east is not "my position"
but then we are here, with you on your lofty perch dribbling tidbits of nearly useless stuff.
if it is indeed nearly useless, then it is worth several orders of magnitude more than you paid for it, no?
carbon content of fuel, really? how many are going to reformulate their fuel? show me one! how bout you?
so, when other rant about diesel intending his engines to be run on peanut oil and how big oil subverted this, you don't have a problem?
reformulate my fuel? you mean ignoring the fact that different grades and seasons of fuel are all different formulas anyway, so knowing something about this would allow me to choose the best one?
you mean ignoring the fact that as fuel ages it reformulates itself in the tank / barrel, and methods to rectify this problem?
you mean ignoring the fact that apart from leeching into the pump copper pipe catalytically reformulates fuel (esp true for biodiesel) as it is fed through it?
you mean ignoring the fact that WVO is nothing if not reformulated fuel, so it might be useful to know what end product to aim for rather than trying to reinvent the wheel every batch?
I could go on, but you get the picture
ballistic's, hmmmm, well when i am in need of knowing how far my 54 caliber hawken will pump out a mini ball i will be sure to ask you.
yet again you appear to need to ascribe to me words that I did not say in order to make your argument.
I talked about ball mass going up by the cube, but wad area going up by the square, and the implications of this on ballistics.
the geometry of a piston in a barrel is identical, it is the same math, many gun makers went on to build IC engines, BSA, Birmingham Small Arms, long before they started making motorcycles with the same engineering techniques
oh yes, lets not forget coal as a diesel engine fuel, hell guy do you really think you are the only one that reads history? and is anyone going to
powder coal and inject it here? are you?
there is little point reading history if one is determined not to learn from it.
the point or lesson was that CARBON is the fuel, everything else is a tradeoff, add hydrogen to the carbon to make a hydrocarbon and you have a worse fuel chemically, but a better one mechanically, you now have a liquid that can be atomised under high pressure, but everything apart from the carbon is still unwanted
I ask you how you square the fact that carbon IS the fuel in an internal combustion engine with the "green" carbon economy bullshit, these are the tough questions bob, I ask a lot of tough questions, I rarely if ever get answers, instead I get told I am an arrogant prick sat on a perch.
as for cogeneration, you really show yourself to be somewhat uninformed, you liken this to some overunity, free engergy scheme. if you
don't see the value in it then that is your deficiency.
boats were my thing bob, everything you get over or under ground has to be dealt with on a boat, ventilation, heating, cooling, potable water, hot and cold washing water, waste water and feces and maceration, power generation, motive power, hydraulics, pneumatics, desalination, you name it, self contained cities, just add fuel, and sparingly because bunkers are finite in capacity.
cogeneration isn't new, it is decades old, well understood, standard industrial practice. if you don't cogenerate (in reality trigeneration, quad generation, etc) you go bust in weeks, or maybe even days if the operation is big enough.
my reference to a thoreauvian approach to the efficiency question was simply to get people (you) to think outside of themselves, by placing (self) into the
equation. But i guess you don't appreciate the same tidbits being placed in front of you for inspection either, or are just too superior to allow yourself to be
brought down to such a level of being part of anything, rather everything being a part of you.
bob, today you can buy a days worth of fuel for 15 minutes labour, I never said you can't.
I said elsewhere my home is run on grid power, because I can't get ANYWHERE near their prices doing it myself, economies of scale.
TODAY there is enough oil coming out of the ground to keep all the wheels turning
you can fill in the blanks yourself
it is too late to think about living within your means when you are up to the neck in debt and the banks decide to raise interest rates a couple of points and put you in negative equity land
lets go back to your diatribe on cogeneration, we need an efficient engine for electric production, we need an inefficient engine for heat production.
really? ;duh.... you friggn amaze me with your continued arrogance,,,
arrogance?
it is a factually correct and complete statement.
if you are after cogeneration then you need to take additional complex and expensive steps to regain efficiency
you need an efficient car for economy
you need an inefficient car for performance
you CAN build a car that will do 60 mpg at 50 mph with 4 people on board, like my old peugeot, and which will also do 180 mph and a standing quarter in 12 seconds, but it will make a porsche look cheap
all I am doing is pointing out that SUVs are brainless vehicles that only exist because of a stupid tax system, if that is arrogance then so be it
#1 we have whatever engine we have, beit a changfa, lister/oid, petter/oid, whatever, and as such 99.999 of us will never affect a 1% change in efficiency of our
engine's, that leaves you to do that and show your wonderful results.
that is the point, that is where you are utterly wrong, a rev limiter and limited throttle travel will dramatically increase the efficieny of any car, that can be a physical travel stop, or a light right foot, the effect is the same.
any engine can be run efficiently or inefficiently, fact is fuel is so cheap everyone says it ain't worth their time to be efficient.
see the 200 mpg carburretor
#2 you work with what you have, you measure with what you have, you test with what you have, and you accept what you get,,, period, and yes there will be those
that scream bullshit,,,, but who cares?
if you don't care, don't claim you have beaten the second law of thermodynamics within earshot of someone who knows what it is
#3 if the thing does what you want it to do, then who gives a shit what some cranky old englishman thinks? i know i don't! anyone?
tailor for the emperors new clothes eh, fair enough.
i will check your stall one last time, that is to find one thing
"what is the dimension of the one ton block of concrete?
same answer as always, read the lister installation manual, the one I published for you al to see, or any other one you can find, it gives precise details, and if you think you know better than lister......
as always there is a third way.
third parties who have run listeroids sans block of concrete, and with block of concrete.
you could ask them, except we both know they aren't about to take a jackhammer to their concrete blocks.