Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Saving oil....

N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
The interview is out of touch with the
government and business has already
took the lead on oil reduction ,with both
greater use of diesel engines and lighter
weight construction on the
vehicle. Ban gas engines and you cut your vehicle
comsumption cut in half.

Do you mean gasoline engines, or engines running on gas (LPG, natural, etc)?
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Otto cycle engines ....already done that
half way with outlawing two cycle
gasoline engines.

Where have two-cycle gasoline engines been outlawed? Orbital of Australia
pretty well perfected the 2-cycle, meeting California emissions in the early
90s. But no one took it up for some strange reason.
Switch from low sulfur requirement to
the sulfur catalytic convertor
already being made
at this time for diesel engines. In the
same fashion catalytics were started
on four cycle gasoline engines years ago.
You can burn LPG, Natural ,etc in a
water injected gas turbine better than a
gas engine.
In in many cases hitting double the
effeciency of the diesel......and when
the diesel is beating
most hybrid designs on both
emission /fuel economy and actual cost to
purchase.
The turbine technology is already in
place at electric plants
now......moreso than fuel cells
and hydrogen.

Diesel engines are noiser than petrol engines (note: petrol to avoid
confusion), produce particaulates have more metal to them. To make them
peform like a petrol engines compexity is required, like turbo's etc.
Unless you have a Commer TS3:

This remarkable British horizontally opposed disel engine was built from
1954 to 1972.
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/TS3.htm

Commer was taken over by an American company, who not understanding the
advanced design, scrapped it and the even superior 4 piston unit under
development ready for production.
 
A

Astro

Jan 1, 1970
0
got some references for that? I'd be interested in learning more about
that one.
 
G

Gene S. Berkowitz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Based on history, the US auto manufacturers aren't risk takers, and will
not develop lightweight technology.

Moreover, when government (e.g., California), requires higher gas
mileage, the US manufacturers will fight the legislation, rather than
swiftly change their manufacturing process in order to comply.

Eventually, a company (perhaps Diamond Chrysler) will perfect the
lightweight technology, and gain market share for it. Then, the US
manufacturers will jump on the band wagon.

The US government (DOT and DOE) should back lightweight technology by
making a public statement. In addition, research funds should be made
available to refine lightweight auto manufacturing techniques. These
things should be done ASAP. *Write your congressmen and senators.*


...and tax fuel according to octane rating. High octane fuel requires
more feedstock and processing. Most cars do not require > 87 octane
fuel; limiting production and consumption of higher octane fuel
stretches the feedstock.

--Gene
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ed Earl Ross said:
Based on history, the US auto manufacturers aren't risk takers, and will
not develop lightweight technology.

Moreover, when government (e.g., California), requires higher gas
mileage, the US manufacturers will fight the legislation, rather than
swiftly change their manufacturing process in order to comply.

Eventually, a company (perhaps Diamond Chrysler) will perfect the
lightweight technology, and gain market share for it. Then, the US
manufacturers will jump on the band wagon.

The US government (DOT and DOE) should back lightweight technology by
making a public statement. In addition, research funds should be made
available to refine lightweight auto manufacturing techniques. These
things should be done ASAP. *Write your congressmen and senators.*

Just look at European manufacturers. Why is the USA so inward looking?
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Diesel engines are noiser than petrol engines (note: petrol to avoid
confusion), produce particaulates have more metal to them. To make them
peform like a petrol engines compexity is required, like turbo's etc.
Unless you have a Commer TS3:

???????????
Trying to imply the idea the TS3 In not complex, Is a fundamental oxymoron.

I will take a little 4 cylinder ford with turbo any day, instead of that
thing.
 
A

Anthony Matonak

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
....
Combining high efficiency turbines or diesels with hybrid systems and
lightweight vehicles will reduce fuel consumption even more.

Converting over to a more efficient method of transportation than cars
would reduce fuel consumption a heck of a lot more. It could also have
some other benefits in reducing traffic congestion, pollution and land
use.

For example...
http://www.skywebexpress.com/

Anthony
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
N9WOS said:
???????????
Trying to imply the idea the TS3 In not complex, Is a fundamental
oxymoron.

It is so simple it doesn't have a cylinder head or valve gear. It was
"very" powerful for its size, 3 cylinder 3.5 litres, and was economical.
The tope of engine is still made today: The design comes from the Swiss in
the 1930s, then Mercedes Benz made plane engines from the design, then
Commer with trucks for 18 years. Now planes again.

The opposed piston diesel two stoke is not dead. A new version is available
for aero use:
http://www.dair.co.uk/
I will take a little 4 cylinder ford with turbo any day, instead of that
thing.

Give me a TS3 anyway to a modern diesel. The 4 cylinder TS3 was about to
go into production and the development test figures were brilliant. 4
engines survived after the Americans told the Brits to scrap them.

You having laugh when you recommend a Ford. You must be.
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
oxymoron.

It is so simple it doesn't have a cylinder head or valve gear. It was
"very" powerful for its size, 3 cylinder 3.5 litres, and was economical.
The tope of engine is still made today: The design comes from the Swiss
in
the 1930s, then Mercedes Benz made plane engines from the design, then
Commer with trucks for 18 years. Now planes again.

The opposed piston diesel two stoke is not dead. A new version is
available
for aero use:
http://www.dair.co.uk/


Give me a TS3 anyway to a modern diesel. The 4 cylinder TS3 was about to
go into production and the development test figures were brilliant. 4
engines survived after the Americans told the Brits to scrap them.

You having laugh when you recommend a Ford. You must be.

You are stretching the truth.
I never implied that the twin cylinder engine was dead.
In fact, producer of apposed piston engines is alive and well in the US.

The apposed piston engine has been produced by Fairbanks Morse all the way
back to the 1940's
http://exotic.railfan.net/FM.htm
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/
Here is a PDF of one of their current engines.
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/literature/Opposed Piston Tech Spec.pdf

The TS3 engine uses a wacky rocker arm design, instead of the dual
crankshaft design..
It's design gives it many major problem areas that doesn't occur in the
normal design.
It is a compromised design from the start.
Why go with the jury rigged design when you can just build a full dual crank
engine.

The engine you pointed to in the second post is using the dual crankshaft
opposed piston design.
It follows a time tested, no compromise design.
It is far more mechanically stable.
I do see a good future for that type engine,

But the one you originally listed should be,
and has been relegated to history.
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
N9WOS said:
You are stretching the truth.
I never implied that the twin cylinder engine was dead.
In fact, producer of apposed piston engines is alive and well in the US.

The apposed piston engine has been produced by Fairbanks Morse all the way
back to the 1940's
http://exotic.railfan.net/FM.htm
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/
Here is a PDF of one of their current engines.
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/literature/Opposed Piston Tech Spec.pdf

The TS3 engine uses a wacky rocker arm design, instead of the dual
crankshaft design..
It's design gives it many major problem areas that doesn't occur in the
normal design.
It is a compromised design from the start.
Why go with the jury rigged design when you can just build a full dual
crank engine.

The engine you pointed to in the second post is using the dual crankshaft
opposed piston design.
It follows a time tested, no compromise design.
It is far more mechanically stable.
I do see a good future for that type engine,

But the one you originally listed should be,
and has been relegated to history.
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
The apposed piston engine has been produced by Fairbanks Morse all the way

Ow ya....... another thing.

If you do a Google search for "Fairbanks Morse engine" or "FM engine"
You will get a lot of results.

Because that is the proper name for the opposed piston engine..
You know why?
Because they was the one that invented them in the 1930's
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
N9WOS said:
You are stretching the truth.
I never implied that the twin cylinder engine was dead.
In fact, producer of apposed piston engines is alive and well in the US.

The apposed piston engine has been produced by Fairbanks Morse all the way
back to the 1940's
http://exotic.railfan.net/FM.htm
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/
Here is a PDF of one of their current engines.
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/literature/Opposed Piston Tech S
pec.pdf

The TS3 engine uses a wacky rocker arm design, instead of the dual
crankshaft design..
It's design gives it many major problem areas that doesn't occur in the
normal design.
It is a compromised design from the start.
Why go with the jury rigged design when you can just build a full dual crank
engine.

The TS3 truck was made for 18 years and 1000s of them were used all over the
Britsh Commonwealth and outside it too. It was a proven reliable
high-efficiency design.

Two cranks is heavy. Knuckles are not.
The engine you pointed to in the second post is using the dual crankshaft
opposed piston design.
It follows a time tested, no compromise design.
It is far more mechanically stable.
I do see a good future for that type engine,

But the one you originally listed should be,
and has been relegated to history.

Unfortunately it has thanks to Chrysler. A half useless company that were
eventually bought out themsleves by the Germans, so what did they know. If
Chrysler had not bought out Commer the 4 cyl engine would still be around.
The TS3 is still is in extensive use in NZ in boats, etc.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
N9WOS said:
http://www.fairbanksmorse.com/engines/literature/Opposed Piston Tech S
pec.pdf

Ow ya....... another thing.

If you do a Google search for "Fairbanks Morse engine" or "FM engine"
You will get a lot of results.

Because that is the proper name for the opposed piston engine..
You know why?
Because they was the one that invented them in the 1930's

Wrong! My God the Yanks think they invented everything. It was Sulzar
(Swiss). Merc used the design in the Junkers plane, pre-war.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Google English Electric and Deltic. They got it right. Three opposed piston
cylinders in a triangle shape with a crank at each point (3 cranks) The US
Navy used them in patrol boats. Used in trains and boats.

"The Fairbanks Morse Opposed Piston (OP) engine has been designed and
developed for a wide array of electrical power generation and heavy
industrial applications."

It is a static engine, so can have heavy cranks. The TS3 was for road use
and only 3.5 litres, less than most US cars in cc's. Yet could pull
amazingly heavy loads - it was a truck. Hence the lighter knuckles.
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Google English Electric and Deltic. They got it right. Three opposed
piston
cylinders in a triangle shape with a crank at each point (3 cranks) The
US
Navy used them in patrol boats. Used in trains and boats.

I have already seen that type.
Fancy, but not very volumetrically efficient.
The large space in the cylinder triad is totally useless.
"The Fairbanks Morse Opposed Piston (OP) engine has been designed and
developed for a wide array of electrical power generation and heavy
industrial applications."

It is a static engine, so can have heavy cranks. The TS3 was for road use
and only 3.5 litres, less than most US cars in cc's. Yet could pull
amazingly heavy loads - it was a truck. Hence the lighter knuckles.

Take the time actually to look at the engine you are talking about.
You have a 6 lobe crank that is connected to 6 rocker rods.
You have 6 rocker rods that is connected to 6 piston rockers.
You have 6 piston rockers that is connected to 6 primary piston rods.
Which in turn, connects to 6 pistons.

The space taken up by the piston rockers easily equals
the space taken up by a crankshaft.
So you could just have two cranks at each end of the cylinder,
and do away with the lower crank case section.
That will save a boat load of weight.
Probably equal to the weight of one of the three lobe cranks in and off it's
self.

You have to have a 6 lobe crank instead of two three lob cranks.
I don't know if you have rebuilt or worked with engines before,
But the basic required geometry of the crankshaft means that
A three lob crank is far lighter than a six lob crank.
The two three lob cranks will probably be close to
one and a half times the size of one six lob crank.

The entire mass of the six piston rockers and rocker connecting rods
Will not be negligible.
They will be solid steel.
The mass of them will easily equal the weight of a three lobe crank.

And the majority of the weight that crank lobs has to bear
is a result of the constant acceleration and deceleration of reciprocating
parts.
The weight that the actual compression pressure puts on the connecting rods
Is orders of magnitude less than the force it take to move a piston back and
forth
60 times a second.
So all that added acceleration weight from the added piston rockers put on
the crank
in addition to the piston weight will require bigger crank journals, and a
far more
substantial crank to tolerate the added force without fracturing..

The oversized crank will easily equal or exceed the weight of two cranks
that
is directly connected to the pistons with one piston rod.

The main crank journals will have to tolerate far more load.
The rocker pins will have to take 2X the load that the crank takes.
All those parts that are taking close to an order of magnitude more weight
than a normal crank will create a lot more frictional losses, no mater what
type of oil you put in it.
And those frictional losses will pretty much counter any gains in efficiency
you
get from the opposed piston design.
That is why they stated that the things would run great if you keep regular
maintenance on them.
That is because even a slightly substandard oil will cause catastrophic
effects with that much
moving mass.

So, in the end...........
You are adding about the same as 3 (three lobe) crankshaft weights to the
engine by
using that design, as compared to the dual crank design.
You are almost doubling the engine size.
You are reducing the total free running efficiency.


Yes, they used them in pre war planes.

But if you will read the literature,
You will see that FM designed the opposed piston engine in the 1930's
It even says it on that PDF that I linked to.
But they never started full scale production at that time.
They started full scale production in the 1940's for submarines for the war.

But it is safe to say that the word of design concept made it's way around.
And there was a lot of people that tried to put that type of engine in many
things.
Which they did.

If you believe someone else actually invented it, please link to some
literature that proves it?
I would be very interested.
 
N

Nick Pine

Jan 1, 1970
0
N9WOS said:
...You have a 6 lobe crank that is connected to 6 rocker rods.
You have 6 rocker rods that is connected to 6 piston rockers.
You have 6 piston rockers that is connected to 6 primary piston rods.
Which in turn, connects to 6 pistons.

Just a reminder that the topic of alt.solar.thermal is
"direct use of the sun's heat."

Nick
 
N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Just a reminder that the topic of alt.solar.thermal is
"direct use of the sun's heat."

(Twiddles thumbs...)
Sorry.............


:)
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
N9WOS said:
I have already seen that type.
Fancy, but not very volumetrically efficient.
The large space in the cylinder triad is totally useless.

Actually, it was space efficient.
Take the time actually to look at the engine you are talking about.
You have a 6 lobe crank that is connected to 6 rocker rods.
You have 6 rocker rods that is connected to 6 piston rockers.
You have 6 piston rockers that is connected to 6 primary piston rods.
Which in turn, connects to 6 pistons.

The space taken up by the piston rockers easily equals
the space taken up by a crankshaft.
So you could just have two cranks at each end of the cylinder,
and do away with the lower crank case section.
That will save a boat load of weight.
Probably equal to the weight of one of the three lobe cranks in and off it's
self.

You have to have a 6 lobe crank instead of two three lob cranks.
I don't know if you have rebuilt or worked with engines before,
But the basic required geometry of the crankshaft means that
A three lob crank is far lighter than a six lob crank.
The two three lob cranks will probably be close to
one and a half times the size of one six lob crank.

The entire mass of the six piston rockers and rocker connecting rods
Will not be negligible.
They will be solid steel.
The mass of them will easily equal the weight of a three lobe crank.

And the majority of the weight that crank lobs has to bear
is a result of the constant acceleration and deceleration of reciprocating
parts.
The weight that the actual compression pressure puts on the connecting rods
Is orders of magnitude less than the force it take to move a piston back and
forth
60 times a second.
So all that added acceleration weight from the added piston rockers put on
the crank
in addition to the piston weight will require bigger crank journals, and a
far more
substantial crank to tolerate the added force without fracturing..

The oversized crank will easily equal or exceed the weight of two cranks
that
is directly connected to the pistons with one piston rod.

The main crank journals will have to tolerate far more load.
The rocker pins will have to take 2X the load that the crank takes.
All those parts that are taking close to an order of magnitude more weight
than a normal crank will create a lot more frictional losses, no mater what
type of oil you put in it.
And those frictional losses will pretty much counter any gains in efficiency
you
get from the opposed piston design.
That is why they stated that the things would run great if you keep regular
maintenance on them.
That is because even a slightly substandard oil will cause catastrophic
effects with that much
moving mass.

So, in the end...........
You are adding about the same as 3 (three lobe) crankshaft weights to the
engine by
using that design, as compared to the dual crank design.
You are almost doubling the engine size.
You are reducing the total free running efficiency.

The engine was pretty flat, with a low centre of gravity. It fitted under
the cab floor. It was originally degined for self righting lifeboats. It
was small and very powerful....and simple.
Yes, they used them in pre war planes.

But if you will read the literature,
You will see that FM designed the opposed piston engine in the 1930's
It even says it on that PDF that I linked to.
But they never started full scale production at that time.
They started full scale production in the 1940's for submarines for the
war.

Sulzar were the first.
 
Top