interesting op engines

[BrendAn]

5 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Revetec had a fabulous website, money and backers behind it, and he promised a major leap in aircraft power units. But despite producing a few prototype engines, and fitting them to road-going trikes, the engine went precisely nowhere.

The inventor had hundreds of interested parties look at his engine and examine the potential - and at the end of the day, it all just faded away and disappeared - like so many thousands of "fantastic new engines" before him.

it happens all the time in a lot of industries but occasionally there is success. like sarichs fuel injection for the orbital engine , the motor went no where but mercury bought the rights for the fuel system and used it on their optimax outboards .  

 

on the sarich thing, i followed a ford laser along stirling highway once which had powered by sarich orbital on it. i think he had a few running around perth for testing.

[facthunter]

IF it was easy to build  extra good aero engines, everyone would have done it ages ago. Vast amount s of money have been spent. You don't HAVE to build the motor to know it's got weaknesses in it. The greatest single leap forward would have been Leaded fuel and the Wright J5 series of engines in the late 20's.  Nev

[onetrack]

Ford produced a batch of Ford Fiestas with the Sarich engine, it was probably a Fiesta you saw, not a Laser. Sarich soon realised his engine had minimal potential to take over the world, so he sold out of Orbital and invested in substantial amounts of premium property, including commercial property, where is where the real money lies, if you want to make a fortune.

 

There's only about three people I can think of who made money out of new engines, one is Clessie Cummins, and the other two are Frank Perkins and Charles Chapman. In each case, they had massive funds behind them, and a long record of failures before final success.

Clessie Cummins had the banker named William Irwin behind him, and Irwin invested multiple millions over 20 or more years before he saw any return on his investment in Cummins.

 

Frank Perkins and Colin Chapman had the backing of several wealthy people, including a very wealthy ex-Army officer who kept pouring huge amounts of funding into Perkins Engines until Perkins turned a profit. WW2 helped both companies make money. It's interesting how all three produced a range of superior diesel engines, and the secret of diesels is in their efficiency, with a high compression ratio - their fuel economy (related to the energy content of diesel), and their vastly higher torque output.

 

The bottom line is that IC engines wear out and emissions increase accordingly. With the current major attention on low emissions, EV's have it all over IC engines, with EV's low emission levels staying low for their entire operating life. 

 

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/engine-history-the-sarich-orbital-engine-sometimes-a-dead-end-can-lead-somewhere/

 

https://www.afr.com/politics/how-the-sarich-vision-stalled-19960927-j8jj1

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by onetrack

[BrendAn]

4 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Ford produced a batch of Ford Fiestas with the Sarich engine, it was probably a Fiesta you saw, not a Laser. Sarich soon realised his engine had minimal potential to take over the world, so he sold out of Orbital and invested in substantial amounts of premium property, including commercial property, where is where the real money lies, if you want to make a fortune.

 

There's only about three people I can think of who made money out of new engines, one is Clessie Cummins, and the other two are Frank Perkins and Charles Chapman. In each case, they had massive funds behind them, and a long record of failures before final success.

Clessie Cummins had the banker named William Irwin behind him, and Irwin invested multiple millions over 20 or more years before he saw any return on his investment in Cummins.

 

Frank Perkins and Colin Chapman had the backing of several wealthy people, including a very wealthy ex-Army officer who kept pouring huge amounts of funding into Perkins Engines until Perkins turned a profit. WW2 helped both companies make money. It's interesting how all three produced a range of superior diesel engines, and the secret of diesels is in their efficiency, with a high compression ratio - their fuel economy (related to the energy content of diesel), and their vastly higher torque output.

 

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/engine-history-the-sarich-orbital-engine-sometimes-a-dead-end-can-lead-somewhere/

 

https://www.afr.com/politics/how-the-sarich-vision-stalled-19960927-j8jj1

 

i think your forgetting ford, general motors and a lots of others ,  the detroit diesel was far better than cummins in the early days and imagine how many 671's must have been produced for the war effort. cat and cummins didn't catch up to detroit until the mid seventies in trucks.

[onetrack]

Ford got Caterpillar to produce their first "heavy duty" truck engine in 1967 - the 1100 series, later to become the Cat 3208. Ford called it the "Ford V636", with "636" being the cubic inches. Up until then, Ford produced mostly smaller industrial diesels - but they did install their 6 cylinder diesels such as the 590E, 360 and 380 in their 5-8 ton trucks.

The Ford 360 and 380 diesels and the 6.6L and 7.8L diesels were too small to have much impact on the heavy truck market, but they did power a fair amount of Ford ag equipment. The Ford 7.3L diesel was an IH/Navistar design, so no kudos to Ford there. The 6.0L Powerstroke is an unreliable money pit, and not popular.

When Ford built "heavy duty" trucks, they were either powered by by Ford petrol engines or Cummins or GM diesel engines. Ford got out of the heavy duty truck-building business 25 years ago.

 

GM did make some serious money out of GM/Detroit diesels, and the GM diesel was the brainchild of Charles Kettering - who was one of GM's engineering bosses, and who had tens of millions of GM funding to play with.

Even then, it took Kettering around 10 years to perfect the GM/Detroit 2 stroke Diesel, and it was WW2 that secured the GM Diesel reputation in the marine environment.

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by onetrack

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

There's simply not enough efficiency gain in a swashplate engine to provide a major leap over current engines. I note that he he doesn't mention any thermal efficiency percentages of this swashplate engine, it would still be struggling to reach 40% thermal efficiency at energy conversion. A couple of low speed, conventional heavy duty truck and marine engines have just cracked a little over 50% thermal efficiency - but battery and electric motor efficiencies are gaining rapidly on IC engines.

 

https://transportoperator.co.uk/2020/10/31/diesel-breaks-50-efficiency-barrier/

electric motors always were ahead; we had electric buses in our cities in the 30s, and diesel eletric trains have dominated country lines from the steam days with Power Station Electric in the Cities and some Queensland mines. We need to see the simple data; power curve, torque curve, fuel map. Then we han just run the equations and see what applications it would work in. Failure per 100 engines would tell us how reliable it would be. Figures or just a dream.

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

Ford got Caterpillar to produce their first "heavy duty" truck engine in 1967 - the 1100 series, later to become the Cat 3208. Ford called it the "Ford V636", with "636" being the cubic inches. Up until then, Ford produced mostly smaller industrial diesels - but they did install their 6 cylinder diesels such as the 590E, 360 and 380 in their 5-8 ton trucks.

The Ford 360 and 380 diesels and the 6.6L and 7.8L diesels were too small to have much impact on the heavy truck market, but they did power a fair amount of Ford ag equipment. The Ford 7.3L diesel was an IH/Navistar design, so no kudos to Ford there. The 6.0L Powerstroke is an unreliable money pit, and not popular.

When Ford built "heavy duty" trucks, they were either powered by by Ford petrol engines or Cummins or GM diesel engines. Ford got out of the heavy duty truck-building business 25 years ago.

 

GM did make some serious money out of GM/Detroit diesels, and the GM diesel was the brainchild of Charles Kettering - who was one of GM's engineering bosses, and who had tens of millions of GM funding to play with.

Even then, it took Kettering around 10 years to perfect the GM/Detroit 2 stroke Diesel, and it was WW2 that secured the GM Diesel reputation in the marine environment.

 

sorry. with ford and gm i was thinking about all engines car and truck. how many chev and ford v8's have been sold over the years let alone all the 4 and 6 cylinders

[facthunter]

The big V8 is as American as Apple Pie. The casting of the "one piece " Ford block was  a big step forward in the early 30's. Smooth and quiet power for the Masses.. Chevs 6 came out in 1929 but was meant for the 28 model. "international". but not ready in time.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

Someone who popped up on this site again a couple of days ago once strung us along for months, perhaps it was years, with a new engine he was developing. Did the same with a plane. It pays to be skeptical.

[danny_galaga]

I really feel it's too late in history to didn't too much time and money reinventing the wheel. Best thing is incremental improvements of reciprocal engines. The last bastion for them will be ships I reckon. 

[Blueadventures]

6 hours ago, onetrack said:

Ford got Caterpillar to produce their first "heavy duty" truck engine in 1967 - the 1100 series, later to become the Cat 3208. Ford called it the "Ford V636", with "636" being the cubic inches. Up until then, Ford produced mostly smaller industrial diesels - but they did install their 6 cylinder diesels such as the 590E, 360 and 380 in their 5-8 ton trucks.

The Ford 360 and 380 diesels and the 6.6L and 7.8L diesels were too small to have much impact on the heavy truck market, but they did power a fair amount of Ford ag equipment. The Ford 7.3L diesel was an IH/Navistar design, so no kudos to Ford there. The 6.0L Powerstroke is an unreliable money pit, and not popular.

When Ford built "heavy duty" trucks, they were either powered by by Ford petrol engines or Cummins or GM diesel engines. Ford got out of the heavy duty truck-building business 25 years ago.

 

GM did make some serious money out of GM/Detroit diesels, and the GM diesel was the brainchild of Charles Kettering - who was one of GM's engineering bosses, and who had tens of millions of GM funding to play with.

Even then, it took Kettering around 10 years to perfect the GM/Detroit 2 stroke Diesel, and it was WW2 that secured the GM Diesel reputation in the marine environment.

 

Also Ford produced the smaller 6 inline 2700 series engines; were popular and rebuilt some years ago.  Cheers and thanks for history info.

[spenaroo]

On 29/06/2023 at 8:29 PM, danny_galaga said:

I really feel it's too late in history to didn't too much time and money reinventing the wheel. Best thing is incremental improvements of reciprocal engines. The last bastion for them will be ships I reckon. 

nah, they are similar to trains now.
run electric propulsion through the azimuth pods.
use a turbine to generate the electricity.

[danny_galaga]

On 03/07/2023 at 10:55 AM, spenaroo said:

nah, they are similar to trains now.
run electric propulsion through the azimuth pods.
use a turbine to generate the electricity.

I'm actually surprised ALL ships aren't gas turbine. But there's heaps that still use reciprocal engines. Just googling around now, it looks like MOST still use reciprocating engines.

 

So I stand by my initial statement 🙂

[facthunter]

Superlong strokes turbo charged are probably the cheapest Fuelled motor. Turbines wouldn't get close.  Nev

[Area-51]

On 29/06/2023 at 8:16 PM, pmccarthy said:

Someone who popped up on this site again a couple of days ago once strung us along for months, perhaps it was years, with a new engine he was developing. Did the same with a plane. It pays to be skeptical.

It was not me, but I declare that if people wish to embellish me with a few bags of cash, bullion, and high grade plutonium first then I may give it some thought over a plate of fresh donuts before disappearing back into the ether!!! 😃 hurry, opportunity ends soon!!!! 🍩

[facthunter]

IF they bag the reciprocating motor for the energy it uses to stop and start pistons, stop reading straight away. Nev

[onetrack]

Area-51 - You're off the hook, I think pmccarthy was referring to a certain contributor who is based in China, and who not only tried to convince us he can personally and solely design and produce a brand new all-metal ultralight design for around $30K - but he always regales us with his stories of how fabulous life is in China, how dirt cheap everything is (including factories that are rent-free for years), how China poses zero threat to Australia, and how the media feed us garbage on the true situation within China!

Well he might be right on the last point, but I believe all the rest of his stories can be taken with a grain of salt!

 

You probably need to go live in China full time to fulfill your desires as regards the substantial personal embellishments. However, I'd suggest having photos of the local Party Secretary in bed with his secretary will help you achieve that aim! - and just don't get rich enough, or powerful enough, to pose a threat to Xi Jinping, and you'll do very nicely!

[Area-51]

25 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Area-51 - You're off the hook, I think pmccarthy was referring to a certain contributor who is based in China, and who not only tried to convince us he can personally and solely design and produce a brand new all-metal ultralight design for around $30K - but he always regales us with his stories of how fabulous life is in China, how dirt cheap everything is (including factories that are rent-free for years), how China poses zero threat to Australia, and how the media feed us garbage on the true situation within China!

Well he might be right on the last point, but I believe all the rest of his stories can be taken with a grain of salt!

 

You probably need to go live in China full time to fulfill your desires as regards the substantial personal embellishments. However, I'd suggest having photos of the local Party Secretary in bed with his secretary will help you achieve that aim! - and just don't get rich enough, or powerful enough, to pose a threat to Xi Jinping, and you'll do very nicely!

Ok, thanks for the pre

mission briefing 😊

 

China is actually a great place to experience; great food great people. It is not one single culture but a basket of hundreds. Like anywhere you should know the local rules and customs, be polite and respectful and a great time will be had.

[spacesailor]

But ! .

No milk , for your tea and mostly no sugar. 

 And not a lot of meat . That we Australians enjoy .

spacesailor

[Area-51]

3 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

But ! .

No milk , for your tea and mostly no sugar. 

 And not a lot of meat . That we Australians enjoy .

spacesailor

This is true; that's why westerners have such a challenging time roaming around the planet; they expect too much will be the same as it is at home 😊

[facthunter]

Why go to foreign Countries and the ask for Australian food?. You get that here. What you get from the overseas experience depends on the effort YOU make to get the REAL THING and fit in.  Nev

[onetrack]

If every Chinese person demanded a T-bone steak for dinner, I doubt whether the entire worlds population of cattle would be enough to satisfy the demand. Thus, they have to have a diet that is low on meat levels.

 

Interestingly, an Elmore-based gent who runs an agricultural business that includes an auction house and a web platform for the sale and trading of agricultural items - and who sends out a nightly missive with his recent thoughts and experiences - advised last week that his Australian-based Indian website builder had temporarily re-located to India around 3-4 months ago.

 

He had originally planned to return to Australia after several months - but then in recent days, he advised the ag business gent, that he had changed his plans, and was now intending to reside full-time in India.

 

The reasons he gave, were -

1. The cost of living in India was vastly lower than Australia. He claimed he could get enough food to keep him satisfied for a week for $10. No doubt, meat was not a major constituent in his diet for that kind of money.

2. He stated that good quality, full internet access was around $4 a month. Compare that to Australian internet and telecommunications prices.

3. He stated that the development and money-making opportunities were vastly greater for him in India (I trust that didn't include scam-organisation money-making schemes), and that he could progress far more quickly as regards wealth and position in India, than he ever could in Australia.

No doubt the sheer size of the market in India is the major reason why he sees greater opportunity there - but there is a general lack of understanding in the rest of the world, as to how fast India is developing in many areas.

I guess family, cultural, and relationship ties could also have played a big part in this gents decision to return to the land of his birth - but the factors he mentioned are obviously also important factors.

[Area-51]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

If every Chinese person demanded a T-bone steak for dinner, I doubt whether the entire worlds population of cattle would be enough to satisfy the demand. Thus, they have to have a diet that is low on meat levels.

 

Interestingly, an Elmore-based gent who runs an agricultural business that includes an auction house and a web platform for the sale and trading of agricultural items - and who sends out a nightly missive with his recent thoughts and experiences - advised last week that his Australian-based Indian website builder had temporarily re-located to India around 3-4 months ago.

 

He had originally planned to return to Australia after several months - but then in recent days, he advised the ag business gent, that he had changed his plans, and was now intending to reside full-time in India.

 

The reasons he gave, were -

1. The cost of living in India was vastly lower than Australia. He claimed he could get enough food to keep him satisfied for a week for $10. No doubt, meat was not a major constituent in his diet for that kind of money.

2. He stated that good quality, full internet access was around $4 a month. Compare that to Australian internet and telecommunications prices.

3. He stated that the development and money-making opportunities were vastly greater for him in India (I trust that didn't include scam-organisation money-making schemes), and that he could progress far more quickly as regards wealth and position in India, than he ever could in Australia.

No doubt the sheer size of the market in India is the major reason why he sees greater opportunity there - but there is a general lack of understanding in the rest of the world, as to how fast India is developing in many areas.

I guess family, cultural, and relationship ties could also have played a big part in this gents decision to return to the land of his birth - but the factors he mentioned are obviously also important factors.

There is a general lack of knowledge within western countries as to how fast and productive the rest of the world really is. The default view on every occasion we are presented by the media in the west is that this rate of development is a "threat to national security". Then low and behold a conflict will break out and the chances of further development destroyed. Seems to happen very often; most odd; most odd 🤔

[pmccarthy]

I have spent some time in India on many visits and find it a vibrant place where people work hard on their business opportunities. It is possible to live very well if you have a business income. Friends have a cook, servant and a driver etc. and a nice house which might be modest by Oz standards but would do me.

[facthunter]

Bit hot and polluted and crowded for me.. OZ houses are ridiculously BIG for some stupid reason.   Nev