Puppeteer

Author Topic: Upping the HP on a 6/1  (Read 39021 times)

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2006, 06:52:34 AM »
Darren the bore and stroke and engine design has everything to do with TE.. the smaller the bore the more heat is absorbed by the engine cylinder..   the bigger the diesel the more efficient it is.. yes you can get 100% charge with a blower but usually blown engines are less efficient than NA's... turbo's don't have the same losses.. a tuned intake can also produce a 100% plus charge... exhaust can help too..  but it is RPM sensitive... again I'll bet the lister is already about 90% VE efficient..  and I'll bet the DI's are about 30-35% thermal efficient...

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2006, 07:07:28 AM »
This  Sajeet site states the SFC for the DI @ 173 GPH
http://www.satyajeet.com/de1.htm and the SFC for the IDI @197 GPH..
http://www.satyajeet.com/de2.htm
 the difference is IDI vs DI.. I think this shows the difference betwen the efficiency of a DI vs IDI... If the numbers are correct the DI engine should be about 35% thermal efficient.. 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 07:14:56 AM by fattywagonman »

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2006, 02:40:57 PM »
NONE OF YOU are using actual calibrated measurements from an actual lister, you are taking someone else's numbers for max injection pump delivery and sticking that in as gospel for fuel consumption, NOBODY has put a flowmeter on the intake but you're talking about volumetric efficiency, NOBODY has metered pre-analysed fuel and total thermal rejection but you're talking about thermal efficiency.

My bet is more than one of you are playing with poxy computer simulation software, which is closed source anayway and you haven't analysed the code, you are typing in made up numbers as though they were gospel, and treating the results as though Moses himself handed them to you on tablets of stone.

Until someone can post photographs of their engine test lab, which even a DIY version of would cost at least 25 thousand bucks, and the same again to calibrate everything, then quite frankly you're all talking bollocks, which I don't have an issue with, unless it is presented as scientific fact, which it is being.

Where the bloody hell does kyrdawg get 30.83 BHP @ 100% Thermal efficiency for a 6/1 if not from out of his ass.

Sorry to be blunt, but there is no other way of saying it, you never saw those numbers or anything approaching them from a 6/1

Volumetric efficiency of a 6/1 will be very high, approaching parity at least, themal efficiency is also very high, approaching 50%, I mean, HE_LLOOOOO, everyone else is talking about their 6/1 running too cold to heat the oil, too cold for WVO, to cold to just plumb a calorifier into the coolant circuit to get all the hit water you could want....

Does anyone do any actual calculation with real numbers, and not stuff they just pulled out of their ass?

I did a spreadsheet MANY years agp so people could calculate engine and prop etc for their boats, one of the very FIRST things it tell you is that althout it only requires a few numbers to set it going, you CANNOT GUESS AT ANY OF THEM, you must KNOW FOR A FACT, else you cannot use the spreadsheet at all.

Here is a scenario, ask Mr Belk

Rifle chambered for 30.06, 24 inch barrel with 7 lands and 6 degree twist, you are stood 150 yards down rang in front of it.

now you lot, you will guess at weight of propellant, guess at type of propellant, guess at weight of bullet, guess at type of bullet, guess at weather conditions, guess at any intervening foliage, guess at what clothing or armour the "target" is wearing, and come out and say the bullet will nail that sucker right between the eyes, all we have to do is blah blah blah and lube the barrel with teflon and lower the modulus of elasticity of air and do it on mars where gravity is lower and make the bullet out of unobtanium and so on.

Mr Belk, who knows what he is talking about, will realise the rifle has no firing pin, no sights anyway, no receiver, no sear pin, kneel down, pick up a rock, put rock in catapult and hit the target dead on.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, some of you should try actually buying, owning, and using a lister for a few thousand hours, before telling everyone else what improvements can be made.

grrrrr.... lol

can I have my grumpy old man award now please....  ::)
--
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.

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2006, 03:01:17 PM »
Sure guy,
you get the reward... I think saying the the lister can have a TE in the 50% range is a stretch...  the DI listeroids might be in the low 40's but it's unlikely.. but I'll bet they're all of 35%.. accoding to Sajeet the IDI's use another 35g per kw per HR... your lister with the  commet is likely less efficient than the IDI in the sajeet engine.. since you like guesses I'l' say something in the high 20's.. I'll bet I'm not off by much.. the link I provided states .26 lbs per HP per hr equates to a 50% TE... the sajeet site states the DI burns 173 g per hr per HP.. you're a smart guy... why don't you compare these #'s for us?   

kyradawg

  • Guest
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2006, 03:07:37 PM »


Peace&Love :D, Darren
« Last Edit: August 03, 2006, 04:04:46 AM by kyradawg »

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2006, 03:18:43 PM »
OK here's some #'s comparison...
There's 453.59 grams in a pound..
According to my math and the web site the big engine burns 117 gphp / hr at the most efficient power setting..
compare that to 173 gphp /hr for the DI GM 90..
If 117 grams per hr equates to a TE of 50% then the GM 90 is about 14% less efficient so that's about 36% .. I guess my guess of 35% wasn't too bad..

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2006, 03:20:53 PM »
Sure guy,
you get the reward... I think saying the the lister can have a TE in the 50% range is a stretch...  the DI listeroids might be in the low 40's but it's unlikely.. but I'll bet they're all of 35%.. accoding to Sajeet the IDI's use another 35g per kw per HR... your lister with the  commet is likely less efficient than the IDI in the sajeet engine.. since you like guesses I'l' say something in the high 20's.. I'll bet I'm not off by much.. the link I provided states .26 lbs per HP per hr equates to a 50% TE... the sajeet site states the DI burns 173 g per hr per HP.. you're a smart guy... why don't you compare these #'s for us?   

1/ now you're saying "you think" and "you bet", much better, you can think anything you like.

2/ "according to sajeet" which is what is known as hearsay, and certainly doesn't apply to anything else, inc my original lister

3/ comet combustion chamber was not designed to achieve lower efficiency, nor was it ratained for 50 + years of production for this supposed reason, but the exact opposite.

4/ The "numbers" you want me to compare are hearsay, and lacking, eg incomplete, lacking way way way too much information to make any assumptions at all about thermal efficiency, for starters, thermal rejection isn't even mentioned.
--
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.

Dail R H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2006, 03:22:25 PM »
    Who is Mr Belk,and what does he have to do with engines?
   I realise I ain't very smart,and we all want our engines to run as efficiently as possible.We eventualy reach a point where the effort ,and expense are not justified by the returns. Simple solution ,if ya want more power from a Lister-Listeroid,buy a bigge one.Too much whooing ,and haaaahhhing over theroreticalpoints that in the long run don't amount to spitting in the dirt as far as real work engines are concerned.
   Makes me tired to read it

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2006, 03:27:51 PM »
OK here's some #'s comparison...
There's 453.59 grams in a pound..
According to my math and the web site the big engine burns 117 gphp / hr at the most efficient power setting..
compare that to 173 gphp /hr for the DI GM 90..
If 117 grams per hr equates to a TE of 50% then the GM 90 is about 14% less efficient so that's about 36% .. I guess my guess of 35% wasn't too bad..


Here is why you are talking bollocks.

The claimed fuel consumption of 117 grammes per horsepower hour is hearsay, nowhere do you see any charts with the instrument name and make and model and calibration date, for all we know the web site designed pulled them out of his ass.

Your "calculation" for deriving overall thermal efficiency from these numbers is not shown, therefore it is not a calculation, but another number pulled out of someone;s ass, show workings , always. It demonstrates that you have the right formula and know how to use it and havent made any math errors.

What is the specific calorific value of this imaginary fuel? Or is that another number someone has pulled out of their ass?

It is bad enough doing a calculation where one variable is a complete guess, and claiming the result is worth something, doing it when most of the variables are pulled out of your ass is unforgiveable.
--
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.

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2006, 03:31:06 PM »
    Who is Mr Belk,and what does he have to do with engines?
   I realise I ain't very smart,and we all want our engines to run as efficiently as possible.We eventualy reach a point where the effort ,and expense are not justified by the returns. Simple solution ,if ya want more power from a Lister-Listeroid,buy a bigge one.Too much whooing ,and haaaahhhing over theroreticalpoints that in the long run don't amount to spitting in the dirt as far as real work engines are concerned.
   Makes me tired to read it


Mr Belk is a contributor to these forums, in my ignorance I did not realise which Mr Belk he was for many many weeks.

He is an extremely well respected gunsmith, and gunsmithing and internal combustion engines have an awful lot in common.

Actually, how about an explosive starter for a lister based on a 16 gauge blank? Interesting, good way to clear the carbon out too.
--
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.

Dail R H

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2006, 04:00:44 PM »
   Now I know  ,thanks Guy
    Oh No ,gunpowder fueled Listers ,here we go lol

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2006, 04:06:07 PM »
Guy,
I gave you some #'s and you're still not happy?
If we can't use#'s from what appear to be creditable scources then the discussion is over... The folks who publised the sajeet site and the one's on the big engine did so for informational purposes.. who in their right mind is going to provide back up data for these #'s... I believe the #'s from sajjet are correct  since other listeroid manufacture's use similar #'s.. and I also believe the #'s from the big engine since someone  obviously took some time to compile a couple different sfc's.. one at full power and another at maximum efficiency.. you could assume they used heavy fuel which has a little more energy by weight compared to diesel.. but that's not going to effect the sfc much..  and doesn't effect the TE at all since whoever did the calcs took into consideration the energy content of the fuel used..  you want all the data but I'll bet you've never ran your lister and weighed the fuel consumed vs the output.. you are as equiped as anyone to provide the #'s you want.. so I would say that rather than just asking for stuff why don't you go fire up you old lister with the commet and provide some data..    

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #57 on: June 19, 2006, 04:08:45 PM »
BTW it was the cannon that is the orginal IC engine.. only problem is it tosses the piston every time it is fired..

kyradawg

  • Guest
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #58 on: June 19, 2006, 04:21:39 PM »


Peace&Love :D, Darren
« Last Edit: August 03, 2006, 03:57:58 AM by kyradawg »

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Upping the HP on a 6/1
« Reply #59 on: June 19, 2006, 04:37:04 PM »
Hi Darren,
Thanks for doing the calcs.. several manufacteres state SFC of 197 gr / hp / hr for IDI... the #'s I could find for DI are 173 and 177.. It would be interesting to see a comparison from the users between the old comet the newer IDI and the DI sfc's.. I'll put up $10  that the old commet is the least efficient.. (sorry guy)