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..
You gave me numbers, but those numbers were hearsay. That means they are not just useless, but worse than useless, because the ONE SINGLE FACT you can say about those numbers is that you can NOT trust them.
Who in their right mind is going to provide backup for these numbers? Every last sould who expects them to be taken seriously?
If you think differently I'll sell you all the listers you want to 200 bucks a pop, just don't expect me to provide backup on those numbers before I cash the cheque OK.
Yeah you're right, I never did this sort of analysis on my lister, I never tried to power an aircraft with it either, I still know for a fact it doesn't add up. The old "if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here."
I don't have to fire up my lister and take readings to prove anything, because I'm not the one arguing against the status quo, you lot are, you all think you are better engineers than lister and ricardo and so on, and you may well be, all you have to do is prove it.
Here's the trouble though, we have at least one person here who thinks the lister is shit and can be improves, and he doesn't even own a listeroid, much less a lister.
You think the lister can't be any better than the listeroid, you haven't owned a lister, so you have no basis for that assumption, you just think "hell, it's half a century old, so it must be crap and easy to improve upon", you don't stop and look at all the stuff around you that is that old and older, and still used, for no other reason that they got it right back then.
Let's take something as techologically advanced (on the face of it) as a rock, let's take the blacksmiths anvil, now there is an ancient design, so it must be crap, so it will be easy to improve, let's see you do it, a challenge several orders of magnitude simpler than improving a lister.
I'm serious BTW, if I was a lecturer today that would be a task for the students, design and make a better blacksmiths anvil, the abject failure they will all inevitably suffer will teach them more than making a solar powered torch or some other shit they do now.