Puppeteer

Author Topic: Center bearing lube requirements  (Read 5052 times)

cujet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Lister power rules!
    • View Profile
    • www.cujet.com
Center bearing lube requirements
« on: April 11, 2006, 02:49:29 AM »
My GTC twin has a pressure lubed center bearing (sleeve type). The oil pump is not as reliable as it should be and only produces about 5 PSI average with a peak squirt of about 15 PSI. My thought was to use a funnel installed above the bearing to catch oil and feed the bearing. This would provide sure lubrication at any time the engine is running. The pump could also feed the funnel. This is similar to the original lister design with scuppers to catch splash oil for the bearings.

The pump feeds squirters that lube the TRB's. The TRB setup needs only splash lube and I am certain the pump does nothing to help TRB lifespan.

What do you guys think?

Chris

People who count on their fingers should maintain a discreet silence

SHIPCHIEF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2006, 12:59:40 AM »
How do you mean the center bearing is pressure fed? does the oil discharge tube from the manifold mechanically join to the bearing housing(s)?
On my Ashwamegh the three main bearings are drip fed by the oil tubes coming from the oil distribution manifold. there are cavities above the bearings to collect the oil so it will flow down into the oil hole in the top of the bearing sleeve (or shells in the center bearing). No one else has yet mentioned having a twin with pressure fed main bearings?
I think my engine would lube OK without the oil pump. The throw off from the crank is considerable, and would no doubt get some into the main bearing cavities. If there was a crank scraper made to guide the oil to the main bearings after the dippers throw it, I'm pretty sure it would be plenty. I ran the engine breifly with a plexiglass door so I could see the oil movement. It threw a strong band of oil about 2" wide down the door in front of each connecting rod. (plus other more general splattering)
Rocketboy had an oil pump return spring failure, and the engine ran a good part of one day before he noticed it and fixed it, yet his engine seems undamaged.
I'm using the oil pump for heating and filtering before it goes to the bearings, but I greatly admire the singles that don't have them. I also admire thermosyphon cooling. Anything that uses the laws of physics to advantage is the coolest. Simple engineering with minimum moving parts comes in a close second.
Scott E
Ashwamegh 25/2 & ST12
Lister SR2 10Kw 'Long Edurance' genset on a 10 gallon sump/skid,
Onan 6.5NH in an old Jeager Compressor trailer and a few CCK's

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2006, 02:21:59 AM »
What is it that all engineers strive for in the perfect machine?  No moving parts!
Stan

SHIPCHIEF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2006, 09:42:47 PM »
That's why I greatly admire the Wankle Rotary Engine. It has so few moving parts.
I have a Mazda 13b; 3 primary moving parts in the power section (then the oil pump and pressure regulators, I suppose you could count the thermostat and water pump).
Before WWII sleeve valve engines were all the rage (right Guy?) I had a small glow engine with a rotary sleeve valve in the head. I had to get it 'just because'.
Wankle engines are as close to that as you can get now. They scavenge so well because there is no poppet valve in the gas path thru the ports. Wankle engines never drop a valve or wipe a cam. Never throw a rod eitherĀ  ;) Kinda strange how the 'combustion chamber' moves around the engine...
I guess I like them because they are different, like Listeroids are different too.
Scott E
Ashwamegh 25/2 & ST12
Lister SR2 10Kw 'Long Edurance' genset on a 10 gallon sump/skid,
Onan 6.5NH in an old Jeager Compressor trailer and a few CCK's

Thomas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2006, 10:28:10 PM »
Scot t thay are fun to work on very different. Tom

solarguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2006, 10:47:08 PM »
Dear Esteemed Group,

I'll go ya one better, the acoustic sterling engine.  It has one, or yes, even zero moving parts unless you count the gas molecules.

A google search like so:  +acoustic +sterling +engine -guitar

will generate lots of interesting reading.  I have built a couple of more conventional sterlings, but this is genuinely new.  They say it has possible cogen applications too.

Here's typical link:

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/eng.html

Finest regards,

troy

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2006, 11:54:25 PM »
That's why I greatly admire the Wankle Rotary Engine. It has so few moving parts.
I have a Mazda 13b; 3 primary moving parts in the power section (then the oil pump and pressure regulators, I suppose you could count the thermostat and water pump).
Before WWII sleeve valve engines were all the rage (right Guy?) I had a small glow engine with a rotary sleeve valve in the head. I had to get it 'just because'.

mm, there were a whole series of them, from aspin, rochester, lanchester, corliss, everything from half crankshaft speed to a sixth, but ultimately they all had the same problems, gas sealing and oil consumption, which is the wankels big weakness too, when those vane tips wear you're screwed....

the poppet valve still survives because it has the least gas sealing and oil consumption problems, except for the turbine, which is the best of all worlds, if fuel is unlimited and cheap.

commercial fusion power at unlimited (effectively) capacity used to make hydrogen used to run turbines would be the best of all worlds.

we have other problems first though.

in the 1920's western farmers used to produce about 2000 calories worth of food for every calorie from "industrialisation" used, whether that be tractor fuel, electricity, fertiliser or simply pumped water.

in the 1970's that ratio had dropped to parity, one calorie input for every calorie produced

now in the 2000's we are inputting around 2000 calories per calorie of food produced.

these are facts people, ask any of the farmers on here why it is hard to make a living, it ain't cos of the wage bill.

sure, if you own land that is fertile you can go off grid with your lister, grow canola to get diesel to run the lister and tractor, then you'll have to forego those fertilisers that come in bags and re-learn the old ways and crop rotation, learn food storage and preservation, accept that all foods are now seasonal, and take a massive drop in yield per acre, including your canola crop.

solyent green is people

I think anyone who thinks owning a lister is going to save them from anything other than a temporary outage of a few days, or offers them anything other than a way to cut an existing energy bill by a given percentage, is deluding themselves.

when things get in short supply the best place to be is not sat on top of whatever is in short supply, ask the iraquis today, ask the black slaves of the past (short supply was cheap unskilled labour) ask the native american aboriginals, short supply was land for ranching and railroads and so on.

the only things that can't be taken from you if there is a shortage is some sort of specialist skill, I can trace every single generation of my family history for 1000 years, name every last one of them, we as a family have been everywhere, where the action was, up until the industrial revolution we were hard rock miners (some still were afterwards too, but many took to the new trades that were created)

what owning a lister WILL give you is a set of skills that are as rare as rocking horse shit nowadays.

sure it's no mistake there is a HUGELY disproportionate number or marine engineers on here (eg any forum with more than zero of em) because after all a ship is a self contained civilisation, the only thing they don't do is make their own fuel, literally every last other trade or skill can be found afloat (yeah, even farming, hydrponic style on nuke subs) but the increasing specialisation means there are ever more main propulsion engineers who never touched the HVAC systems, or the potable and waste water systems, or the bunkering systems, or the generator rooms, etc etc etc.

lister gives you all that, and more.

it doesn't have to be economically, financially or energy budget viable, it is teach-yourself-shit-you-cannot-learn-anywhere-else

how many of you have though about going to www.sherline.com and buying a small cnc mill and lathe?

you know what I want to do?

get an old milk float, mount the lister on it, self propelled semi mobile bloody everything.

http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/
--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

cujet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Lister power rules!
    • View Profile
    • www.cujet.com
Re: Center bearing lube requirements
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2006, 01:38:06 AM »
Guy. that was slightly off topic. However you make a good set of points.

I agree that the Listeroid type engine is probably not the ideal engine to go off grid with. There are just too many quality issues.


Chris
People who count on their fingers should maintain a discreet silence