Connect with us

Saving oil....

Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by sno, Nov 27, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. sno

    sno Guest

  2. News

    News Guest

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

    News Guest

    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.
    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.
     
  4. Astro

    Astro Guest

    got some references for that? I'd be interested in learning more about
    that one.
     

  5. ...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
     
  6. News

    News Guest

    Just look at European manufacturers. Why is the USA so inward looking?
     
  7. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    Diesel engines are noiser than petrol engines (note: petrol to avoid
    ???????????
    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.
     
  8. Ed Earl Ross wrote:
    ....
    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
     
  9. News

    News Guest

    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.
     
  10. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    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.
     
  11. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

     
  12. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    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
     
  13. News

    News Guest

    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.
    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.
     
  14. News

    News Guest

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

    News Guest

    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.
     
  16. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    I have already seen that type.
    Fancy, but not very volumetrically efficient.
    The large space in the cylinder triad is totally useless.
    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.
     
  17. Nick Pine

    Nick Pine Guest

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

    Nick
     
  18. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    Just a reminder that the topic of alt.solar.thermal is
    (Twiddles thumbs...)
    Sorry.............


    :)
     
  19. News

    News Guest

    Actually, it was space efficient.
    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.
    war.

    Sulzar were the first.
     
  20. News

    News Guest

    True.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-