automotive engine
TimeLord
for marine use.
I was thinking of a small auto diesel for a canal type boat.
Terry K
transmission / engine quite rapidly if it doesn't have a thrust
bearing. Automotive setups do not include a thrust bearing. An in
line thrust bearing may use up more space in the prop shaft area
than you want to give up. Hint: a tapered wheel axle bearing may
serve.
Alignment. Great pains must be taken to enable the engine to be
aligned with the propellor shaft. Adjustable engine mounts may
also incorperate a method for easy engine removal and replacement
without relignment problems if the prop shaft must be replaced
from inside the boat in the case of custom thrust bearing
arrangements.
Cooling. Sea water cooled engines may suffer deposition of salts
if run too hot. A cooler thermostat will be required. This will
upset combustion efficiency. Retuning will be required. This may
involve cam angles, valve timing and wear. Closed fresh water
cooling systems need heat exchanger outside the hull, called a
keel cooler. Automotive radiator systems produce way too much
heat to dissapate inside a close hull, especially considering
that the engine is undercooled for road use, even with a 70mph
airstream to assist the fan, and an adequate rad for full power
heavy duty marine use will be much larger. Some of the waste
engine heat may be used for cabin heating radiators and domestic
hot water via heat exchanger.
Duty cycle. Auto engines are designed for about 25% load factor,
usually idling down the flat road. Marine applications regularly
run at 90% or more, reducing life expectancy considerably. A
larger cooling water pump will be required. Other wear
considerations may apply.
Corrosion. Salt water in the bilge amd spray in the air. Beware.
Wiring is not the only problem. Alumimium auxiliary parts do not
tolerate salt water well. Steel manifold bolts are a bug bear on
cars, much worse on boats. Galvanic corrosion may present
problems.
Exhaust. You will need custom exhaust work. Marine engines
usually use exhaust pipes cooled with injected water, and you
need to consider the possibility that the sea may enter the
system, causing serious problems. Minor exhaust leaks in cars may
not be a problem, while in an enclosed hull the results could be
deadly.
These are a few main points. You will no doubt encounter more
along the way. Good luck.
At least you are using diesel. Petrol brings more problems.
Terry K
--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Reproduction or conveyance for any unauthorised
purpose is THEFT and PLAGIARISM. Abuse is Invasion of privacy
and harassment. Abusers will be prosecuted. -This notice footer
released to public domain. Spamspoof salad by spamchock -
SofDevCo
qs...@hrple.net dybvl...@by.com nakhl...@pdcdbvxqk.org
iyh...@lkg.org fw...@qitu.com uh...@qssiotomgf.net h...@ivrfehv.com
ph...@tayagvvmvfj.com ou...@sycylxbk.com k...@ttbqxqstgsq.com
HLAviation
>transmission / engine quite rapidly if it doesn't have a thrust
>bearing. Automotive setups do not include a thrust bearing.
You don't use an auto transmission, you use a marine gear, and it has the
thrusr bearing. BTW every auto crank I have ever come across has a thrust
bearing, normally integral with the rear main bearing.
TimeLord
thanks
HLAviation
>for marine use.
>I was thinking of a small auto diesel for a canal type boat.
>
Well it depends which you are planning on using, and if you want raw water
cooling, heat exchanger cooling, or keel cooling (my preference runs to keel
cooling). Most popular auto diesels have marinization kits available. The
trickiest part to come up with is the bell housing and drive coupler plate to
attach the marine gear to your engine. If you are a reasonably handy welder
and machinist with basic equipment, you can modify the bell housing available,
although with just a few exceptions, auto diesels have a standard compliant
bellhousing bolt pattern so there should be one available. So now we have a
gear set up, now we need to make a system of mounts to mount the drivetrain to
the engine bed stringers in such a way that we have perfect alignment with the
shaft. Ok now the engine is mounted and connected to the shaft and everything
spins free and true, we need to get fuel to the engine and a return line back
to the tank, as well as getting throttle and shift control to the engine and
gear. Alright we got fuel to the engine, now let's get the burnt by product
out. Cheapest, simplest, and least likely to cause damage to your engine in
the future is to just dry stack the exhaust out and use a regular muffler to
help control the noise, and wrap everything with lagging for safety. You may
also consider winding a few layers of copper tubing around it first for heating
the circulating water for a hot water heat exchanger system for both domestic
hot water and radiant heating systems, but thats a whole other system. Hokay,
back to cooling. The cheapest and simplest, especially when you have a
drystack exaust, is to go raw water. Just get an appropriate sized Jabsco
pump, and plumb it between the water intake thru-hull, and where the radiator
hose plumbs into the engines circulating pump, and from the water outflow
fitting back out the side of the boat. Take the heater core (and A/C) box out
of the car you're scrapping, and hook it all back up in the main occupational
area of the vessel (I usually rig it in the wheelhouse since most of the time
the engine is running and this system works, that's where I'm at). For a heat
exchanger, the circulating pump plumbs onto the two ends of the heat exchanger
core, and the Jabsco pump pumps raw water through the jacket of the same said
heat exchanger. For a keel cooler, the radiator hose leads will hook up to the
ends of the cooler. If there is much lift involved though, you will need a
turbine style boost pump inline as well as the engines circulating pump. If
you use either the heat exchanger or the keel cooler, you don't really need to
modify the engine its self. With brackish or salty raw water you'll want to
put in bronze freeze plugs and find some casting plugs to remove and replace
with pencil zinc plugs. Unless you are getting the engine free, it's usually
cheaper to by a used "pull out" from some one repowering, and just going
through it and installing it.
HLAviation
combinations. The gear box/transmissions are just completely different from
those used in autos, normally with one speed forward and one reverse. Some are
hydraulic, some are mechanical, some have air bag clutches, and we won't even
get into electromotive permutations.
Suffice it to say a marine gear is generally a creature unto its own and can
take various forms.
Martinkeivers
Try looking at one of the marine engine supplier sites for ideas Try Lancing
marine for a start, you can find parts for most of the more popular engines
used. You might want to talk to some other canal boat owners as well, the
type of work a canal boat does is fairly specific and is different for
example to a fishing boat.
Beware, marinising your own engine isn't cheap it will probably be cheaper
to get an engine already marinised and get a good engine to fit the
marinisation parts to.
Regards
Martin
"TimeLord" <Timelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z6kN9.14155$0v3....@news.bellsouth.net...
Habbi
site, they talk about using automoblie engines and transmission with there
drive system. www.dbdmarine.com
"Martinkeivers" <kei...@fascadail.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:au5amm$8lf$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Steve
As previously stated, the automobile transmition is totally (nearly)
worthless for a boat engine.
The gear ratio you want for forward is anywhere from 1:1 to 2:1 and the auto
tranny will give you 1:1 but the problem will be in reverse where the gear
is going to be very low, so low you would have to rev the engine to a very
high rpm to make any progress or stop with reverse.
Then there is the problem of the clutch. You have your hands full with the
wheel and throttles. You are normally standing and a clutch pedal just has
no place in the scheme of things on a boat. You would have trouble getting
the tranny into reverse, even if you did use a clutch, because the prop and
shaft will continue to spin unless you have a shaft brake (another control
to deal with). Those who have used automotive trannys just grind it into
gear.
If you use an automatic tranny, you still have the problem of the reverse
being geared way too low to stop the boat. Plus an automatic requires a lot
of cooling that you can't get in an inclosed engine compartment and a heat
exchanger is just something else to corrode or/and leak. Manual transmisions
also generate some heat that is normally disipated under the car but is
carried away as it moves down the road.
The other major obstical is the exhaust manifolds. You have to have water
cooled manifolds. There is more heat coming off the stock manifolds than you
can imagine. In a car this heat is carried away while moving down the road.
No way for it to escape in a boat (the station wagon effect).
My recommendations is select an auto engine that is already commonly used in
boat or that has a manifold kit available. Marine reverse gears are
available at marine junk yards.
Steve
s/v Good Intentions
John Kohnen
just first gear and reverse, blocking out the other gears. First and reverse
are close in ratio, and they chose a propeller to suit. With a three speed
gearbox it's a straight pull of the gear lever between first and reverse for
a direct shifting box, or you could just use one of the two shift levers on
the side of a column shift box, fixing the second-third lever in the neutral
position permanently. They didn't use the clutch when shifting, just
"crsshed" between the gears. Sure, the gearboxes didn't last all that long
without a thrust bearing, but they were cheap. A friend of mine just picked
up an old Chrysler car engine that had been converted for marine use, along
with its direct shifting gearbox, which dates it to sometime in the thirties.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 07:01:46 -0800 "Steve" <est...@hctc.com> wrote:
>
> As previously stated, the automobile transmition is totally (nearly)
> worthless for a boat engine.
>
> The gear ratio you want for forward is anywhere from 1:1 to 2:1 and the
auto
> tranny will give you 1:1 but the problem will be in reverse where the gear
> is going to be very low, so low you would have to rev the engine to a very
> high rpm to make any progress or stop with reverse.
> ...
--
John <jko...@boat-links.com>
http://www.boat-links.com/
He got hold of the red meat of the language and turned it into hamburgers.
<Richard Gordon on Ernest Hemingway>
P.C.
"John Kohnen" <jko...@boat-links.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Z9CC+wAr...@boat-links.com...
> When automobile engines and gearboxes were common in workboats they used
> just first gear and reverse, blocking out the other gears. First and reverse
> are close in ratio, and they chose a propeller to suit. With a three speed
> gearbox it's a straight pull of the gear lever between first and reverse for
> a direct shifting box, or you could just use one of the two shift levers on
> the side of a column shift box, fixing the second-third lever in the neutral
> position permanently. They didn't use the clutch when shifting, just
> "crsshed" between the gears. Sure, the gearboxes didn't last all that long
> without a thrust bearing, but they were cheap. A friend of mine just picked
> up an old Chrysler car engine that had been converted for marine use, along
> with its direct shifting gearbox, which dates it to sometime in the thirties.
This is the reson there are marine gear boxes ; the last bearing in a car
engine, is simply not made to restand full ahead ,then full reverse and when you
ever heard a gearbox smash by these forces, you know the difference between a
car gearbox and a marine bearbox. ------------ Ok, there are people who don't
care if the engine is simply not made to meet the demands and who don't care
about being splashed around in heavy seas with a broken down gearbox. But from
my point of view, then this is what you ask for ; that the day you realy need
somthing you can trust you are left with the unpleasant backside of saving a few
bucks.
Sure you can make a car engine work in a boat, but this shuld not be the issue,
as what's it's about is reliable pover when _you_ need it.
Still you will anyway lose that much of the pover in a car engine when using it
in a boat, that you could just aswell make the engine run a hydralic system so
you can place a reliable trust bearing and at any time replace the engine with
another, by just attaching it to an oil pump that feed a hydralic motor driving
the propellor.
Car gearboxes are made for cars marine geraboxes are for boats ,and the trust
bearing is not the only issue, as with a boat engine there are a constant trust
not just only when you accelerate. Boat engines are made for this ,they are
constructed for heavy duty where car engines generaly are made for constantly
being forced.
P.C.
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2055.jpg
Carron
>car engines generaly are made for constantlybeing forced.
Per,
I can't believe that EVEN YOU are repeating this old canard from early in the
last century. for over 70 years, except for diesel and large transport engines,
marine engines *HAVE BEEN CAR ENGINES* with only minor modifications to suit
them to a water environment. I have a magazine ad from the 30s showing
marinized Buick engines for sale by Van Blerck.
Have you ever looked into the engine room of a modern runabout, houseboat,
small cruiser, whatever??? You will find a Ford or GM or Volvo car engine in
there. In the 40 or 50s, it might have been a Chrysler, but still a CAR ENGINE.
A damned CAR ENGINE!!!! Do yoiu hear this? A CAR ENGINE!!!!
How many decades will we have to wait to quit hearing this nonsense. Sure, car
engines wear out faster than a transport engine, but they cost 5% of the price
of one... we can afford to wear them out!!! Sthe are SUPPOSED to wear out
quickly. BUT... they are still CAR ENGINES!!!!
They are CAR ENGINES, CAR ENGINES. CAAARRRR EENNNGGGIIINNNNESS Quit saying that
car engines won't stand up in marine use.
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!@!
Cheers and Merry Christmas/Carron
JAXAshby
about the only thing that separated it from the auto engines of the time was
the larger than normal cooling water passages (passages need cleaning less
often that way when raw water cooled) and the block alloy was special to reduce
corrosion in salt water.
auto engines are produced in the millions of units each year. their cost is a
tiny fraction of what the cost would be for limited production, special to the
marine market engines would be.
Stephen Baker
>I can't believe that EVEN YOU are repeating this old canard from early in the
>last century.
<major snip>
>AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!@!
Tell us how you _really_ feel, why dontcha?
;-))
P.C.
"Carron" <step...@aol.comNOJNK> skrev i en meddelelse
news:20021224101442...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> >. Boat engines are made for this ,they areconstructed for heavy duty where
> >car engines generaly are made for constantlybeing forced.
>
> Per,
>
> I can't believe that EVEN YOU are repeating this old canard from early in the
> last century. for over 70 years, except for diesel and large transport
engines,
> marine engines *HAVE BEEN CAR ENGINES* with only minor modifications to suit
> them to a water environment. I have a magazine ad from the 30s showing
> marinized Buick engines for sale by Van Blerck.
Yes, ----- when you want to use a car engine for a boat, you make sure the gear
make this possible, ´this way many car engines been converted into marine
engines, as then you can produce the heavy trust that you need, when it's not
just about accelerating .
In a car the engine are only forced bringing the car up in speed, when this is
reached the engine don't need to produce that much pover all the time , -------
but in a boat the engine must be able to produce it's full potential _all_ the
time.
Sure a lot of car engines are used as boat engines, but let me give you an
example ; in the last big ship I had, there was a 160 Hp Semi-diesel engine with
only two cylindred.
Max revolutions was round 520 rev and slow was round 250 rev. pr. minut. The
weight of the thing was round 6 ton for 160 Hp ; but what horses. To put
another modern even heavy duty engine into this 36 ton vessel, you would need
some 300 Hp. or proberly more, These 160 Hp. was produced with two pistons with
a top arear of the two biggest frying pans you ever seen, and if you had the
piston out of the engine, you could not move it alone, even this was a "modern"
engine with Alu pistons, ----- if it hadn't been updated it would have had iron
pistons and only producing 90 Hp, But _what_ horses.
So from my idear both you and your opponants are right, but I am true ; to make
a modern engine produce the pover a low compression engine can do from you start
it 29 years ahead, you need five modern engines to get worn out while the slow
revolutions of a heavierly build engine will in itself indicate a long life, ---
the arear of the pistons are what force the boat ahead, and the only way to
compensate small piston arear are higher speed caursing a lower gear to maneage
a huge propellor .
Now I had Semi diesels, Lister diesels, Solo petrol, Sabb diesels , Buck Diesels
, all ship diesels allways had a weight tree to 50 times of that of a car
engine, the more slow running the more reliable , -------- but this don't mean a
Perkings or a Merzedes shuld be a bad boat engine both been used in cars, still
for both there are special marine parts and it pay to fit these.
P.C.
Habbi
a load could be eliminated by using a drive system such as
http://www.lancingmarine.com/sternpow.html or one from
www.dbdmarine.com or use a system from www.aquadrive.net to connect the prop
shaft to the transmission and like someone else said size the prop to match
1st and reverse gear.
"P.C." <per.c...@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:3e0884e1$0$35809$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
JAXAshby
many, many decades.
That's you leave the power output on the tranmission end of the engine.
LeGrandeRaoul
<step...@aol.comNOJNK> wrote:
> >. Boat engines are made for this ,they areconstructed for heavy duty where
> >car engines generaly are made for constantlybeing forced.
>
> Per,
>
> I can't believe that EVEN YOU are repeating this old canard from early in the
> last century. for over 70 years, except for diesel and large transport
> engines,
> marine engines *HAVE BEEN CAR ENGINES* with only minor modifications to suit
> them to a water environment. I have a magazine ad from the 30s showing
> marinized Buick engines for sale by Van Blerck.
Ah, Carron.. You need to hang out with the guys in the Antique and
Classic Boat Society (ACBS) a little more and then you will know what a
real gas marine engine is...
*Really* old engines- like a Scripps- are really different inside from
anything I've ever seen in a car. Much heavier components, even when
compared with car engines of their time. Have a look at 'newer' gas
marine engines, like the Chrysler Royal 8 or the Crown 6. The Royal 8
was extremely popular for pleasure boats up to 50 feet and was the
powerplant in the WWII Higgins boats (also various tanks and armored
vehicles as well as stationary applications like generators and pumps.)
There is no engineering reason why you should replace a Royal in your
big boat except that it is worn out and it is cheaper to get a new
diesel rather than rebuild it. Anyone who replaces a real gas marine
engine for 'safety' reasons is a damn fool if they have propane
appliances abourd. If you can keep a boat from exploding with propane,
you certainly can do the same with gasoline.
I get your point, somewhat, Carron. The thing is tht I don't think
many boat owneers actually use their boats.A marinized car engine will
work fine powerwise but it just won't last as long as a real marine
engine. If you don't use the boat much, it will last many years.
Also, the cost of replacement is much lower because car engines are
made in such high numbers. A marinized car engine is a pretty good
choice but, not all marine gas engines are marinized car engines.
Jeff
JAXAshby
>engine for 'safety' reasons is a damn fool if they have propane
>appliances abourd.
I *keep* my Atomic 4 engine as backup in case my propane stove doesn't blow up
first. :-)
it's also quieter, smoother, better smelling and needs less attention than one
of them diesel mutha's.
LeGrandeRaoul
<jaxa...@aol.com> wrote:
I'll agree with ya *this* year because electronic iggys are available
for Atomic-4s now as well as solid-state regulators and the like.
Points needed frequent maintence before and mechanical regulators had
their quirks, too (corrosin control problems with both.) And spark
plugs, too. Electronic iggys and regulators and modern alternators (to
replace generators) solved the few real problems gas engines had.
Quieter and smoother, for sure. Especially in sailboat aux.
applications. Diesels kind of took over in the 100-150 HP catagory.
While I like the Royal and Crown, they are probably the last of the
true marine gas engines and they are almost 50 years old at the newest.
If it was already in the boat, I'd try to keep it- rebuild, modernize
with modern parts where possible, etc.. I wouldn't plan on putting one
in if I was building from scratch.
Steve
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021224114556...@mb-cb.aol.com...
> per, auto engines have had thrust bearings in them. Have for many, many,
many,
> many, many decades.
>
> That's you leave the power output on the tranmission end of the engine.
>
The engine has a Thurst Surface on the the outer main bearings but this is
not a true thrust bearing. It is only intended to keep the crank shaft from
floating out of alignment with the connecting rods. These thrust surfaces
are only a thin babbit plating on the brass bearing shell.
A proper thrust bearing, that can handle the load applied by a large prop,
that matches the engine HP, will be a double set of tappered roller bearing
with a constant flow of oil for lubrication and cooling. On my 25 hp Volvo
diesel, there is a water cooling passage around the thrust bearing housing.
--
My opinion and experience. FWIW
Steve
S/V Good Intentions
JAXAshby
>not a true thrust bearing.
engines always have a thrust bearing appropriate to the hp developed.
Brian D
thrust bearing is in place solely for the purpose of applying pressure
(starting from the clutch pedal, through linkage, on a Y-shaped lever arm)
to the pressure plate, e.g. to release the clutch on a manual transmission.
When the car is driving down the road, the thrust bearing is unused. The
pressure plate and flywheel make a spinning sandwich, between which is a
clutch plate riding on a splined shaft from the transmission. The flywheel
has no bearing associated with it and is through-bolted to the flange on the
end of the crank shaft. There is no forward/back pressure on the end of the
crank shaft. On an automatic transmission, the end of the crank turns the
(internal) front half of the torque converter and the viscosity of the fluid
in the converter transfers torque to the rear half of the torque converter
(think of two cereal bowls facing each other, open sides together and fins
across the inside of the bowls.) Again, there is no forward/back pressure
on the crank shaft and no "thrust bearing" in the engine. Thrust bearings
in cars are an assembled piece of the pressure plate system, in the bell
housing between engine and manual transmission, only. The only 'thrust' in
this case is from your foot when you release the clutch.
Brian
--
- Remove the uppercase NS' characters from my email address
"Steve" <est...@hctc.com> wrote in message
news:v0hesj1...@corp.supernews.com...
JAXAshby
gave a decent description of THROWOUT bearing.
All engines need a thrust bearing to oppose the hp driven out the shaft, to
"push against" if you will.
it's in there. always.
Dazed and Confuzed
true, to hold the crankshaft in place, but not to push a boat with!.
--
Friends help you move. REAL friends help you move bodies.
JAXAshby
>> engines always have a thrust bearing appropriate to the hp developed.
>
>true, to hold the crankshaft in place, but not to push a boat with!.
>
and just what do you think gives the engine something to torque against?
[damn, those physics questions keep getting in the way all the time. D&C must
absolutely HATE physics by now.]
Dazed and Confuzed
think jax, think! Try to concentrate. I know it is the end of the month and you
are low on medication, but try. Try hard. The engine torques against its
bearings, true. But these bearings are not designed for the thrust of a prop. big
difference between the two.
Physics has never been one of your strong points, has it Jax?
FThoma
but I just bought a couple of books:
Small Block Chevie Marine Performance,
and Large Block yadda yadda, the pair
for $25 from Amazon. Not exactly a
howto, but gives considerations and part
numbers for these marine engines. Fun
to read for an old "C" gas dragster.
JAXAshby
one.
engines have thrust bearings ---> because [in words even an idgit like you can
understand] the hp has to push against something <---, that something being the
thrust bearing.
D&C, if you still can't see that, give up. physics ain't your thing.
HLAviation
>can
>understand] the hp has to push against something <---, that something being
>the
>thrust bearing.
>
If you would have stopped with the first four words, your answer would have
been correct, after that your answer has no relevance. In an automotive
application, the thrust bearing does not absorb any forward or rearward thrust
to speak of, the cylindrical part of the bearing absorb the rotational forces,
and the spring shackles or control arms absorb the for and aft lineal forces.
Go back to selling vacuums Jax, and calling me names won't ever prove you right
or superior, it's just bluster & BS. You're no more an engineer than you are a
ladies man Speedo boy. You throw around the word physics like a talisman, yet
are defunct of knowledge of the basic properties of same said discipline.
>D&C, if you still can't see that, give up. physics ain't your thing.
>
It's not yours either.
Dazed and Confuzed
you need an engineering course. It shows.
Dazed and Confuzed
you do realize that the engine (the block, that is) is what "pushes" don't you? The
transmission and rear axle (or transaxle) is the item that "pushes". THe thrust
bearing on a crankshaft is there only to align the crankshaft to the rods. It is
not designed to be pushed against in the manner that you have with a boat. While
you may get away with it in an IO as the thrust is not on the crank, you would not
in a inboard. In fact, even if you used an automotive transmission, you would in
all probability destroy the tailshaft bearings as these aren't designed for
sustained end loads. Some design must be used to take the thrust of the prop.
Obviously, you lack the vision and experience to understand.
Carron
Gee, FT,
I had a friend with a C dragster and it couldn't read a word!!! Bart had to
read to it if he wanted it educated at all :-)
Merry Christmas/Carron
just early morn word play :-)
"LABOR SUGIT"
Thomas Bloomer
>Max revolutions was round 520 rev and slow was round 250 rev. pr. minut.
The
weight of the thing was round 6 ton for 160 Hp ; but what horses.<
That's about 1600 foot/pounds of torque . . . (HP * 5250) / RPM . . . I
think?
--
Tom Bloomer
Hartly, DE
JAXAshby
to prove their even bigger idiots.
geesh and I tried so hard.
JAXAshby
make the explanation understandable by even the most rank of idiots, but I
couldn't sink to your level.
just a question d & c I never expect you to understand, let alone answer. Did
you ever wonder d & c how long an engine lasts if you take the hp off the wrong
end of an engine?
P.C. Ford
>just when one thinks one has made an explanation idiot proof, along comes H-lax
>to prove their even bigger idiots.
Jax,
Would you at least attempt to speak English? Leaving the dubious
syntax of the above sentence, do you think "their" contains a verb?
A portrait of desperation: Sitting alone on Xmas day on front of his
computer, Jax taps out Usenet messages to an audience which is less
than appreciative, his hand flickering periodically down the front of
his crusted speedos.
Dazed and Confuzed
not the same thing. But I am beginning to realize that I am arguing wiht an idiot,
so we are done.
Dazed and Confuzed
JAXAshby
character) thusly:
>> just a question d & c I never expect you to understand, let alone answer.
>Did
>> you ever wonder d & c how long an engine lasts if you take the hp off the
>wrong
>> end of an engine?
>
>not the same thing.
but it is, d & c. At least to the real world.
>But I am beginning to realize that I am arguing wiht an idiot,
>so we are done.
yup, d & c, that dealing with the real world can be a bitch. go smoke some
dope, or however you try to block out reality.
Derek Specht
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021225152454...@mb-fz.aol.com...
You are a very self important and nasty person. Why?
Zero440
>sorry, brian but you misunderstand the purpose of thrust bearing, and in fact
>gave a decent description of THROWOUT bearing.
>
>All engines need a thrust bearing to oppose the hp driven out the shaft, to
>"push against" if you will.
>
>it's in there. always.
Totally wrong. Your answer is total and complete crap, but i'm not
sure if this was deliberate on your part.
I can show you millions of engines with no thrust bearing rated to
support the "output of the hp driven out of the shaft" You could find
one too, maybe when you went for a drive next time.
The highest rated thrust bearing *anywhere* on your road vehicle is
rated for about 30-40% (in a gearbox or rear axle)
On an engine itself the thrust bearing is rated for the clutch load
(unless you have a slush box) and carries maybe 150-200lb max.
--
P.C. Ford
His momma didn't love him?
JAXAshby
deceive others with the intention of causing those others harm.
JAXAshby
not the same thing at all. at all. I repeat, at all.
Stephen Baker
>I truly dislike liars and frauds.
Not a great feeling of self-worth there, Jax.
JAXAshby
Still smarting, I see.
So let me ask you this:
wanna tell again about that boat you claimed you "worked on" (as a designer you
implied, not as someone who sanded the bottom) where the keel fell off and
killed the well-known racer?
Bray Haven
>I truly dislike liars and frauds. Particularly those who purposedly set out
>to
>deceive others with the intention of causing those others harm.
Jax, I thought we all agreed you'd spend more time in therapy after the last
one of these little outbursts. Now get back to your room before the orderlies
catch you on the nice doctor's computer. :o).
GS
JAXAshby
(**)
bray1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (br)
v. brayed, bray·ing, brays
v. intr.
To utter the loud, harsh cry of a donkey.
To sound loudly and harshly: The foghorn brayed all night.
v. tr.
To emit (an utterance or a sound) loudly and harshly.
n.
The loud, harsh cry of a donkey.
A sound resembling that of a donkey: “an endless bray of pointless
jocosity” (Louis Auchincloss).
HLAviation
>
>not the same thing at all. at all. I repeat, at all.
Think about it Jax, the throwout bearing and thrust bearing see the same amount
of force since they provide the sandwich that the clutch is squeezed between,
i.e. the rear flange of the thrust bearing holds the crank from moving forward,
to which is connected the flywheel to which is bolted on the pressure plate
which in turn has its release arms pushed forward by the throwout bearing, ergo
the force applied to the throwout bearing is transfered forwards to the thrust
bearing, but you you knew that already, right? Once again you show that
mechanics and physics is not your forte'. Stick to posing in your speedo
jocks.
JAXAshby
It seems you simply don't understand the reason a thrust bearing exists, but
then it IS a physics issue and that seems very much beyond you.
just accept it, h-lax. you always have a thrust bearing.
Even if you don't have a throwout bearing. the two are not related, other then
they each have the word "bearing" associated with them.
HLAviation
>then it IS a physics issue and that seems very much beyond you.
>
Please oh Jax one, explain how the thrust bearing sees the complete HP output
of the engine as you have previously claimed.
JAXAshby
-- about an "equal and opposite reaction"?
Seems not.
h, give it up. engines have thrust bearings in them, AND because the thrust
bearing is (usually) designed to take the thrust from just one direction
engines (usually) can't be used to take the hp from the other end.
h, please do give this one up. engines have thrust bearings. and thrust
bearings are unrelated to throwout bearings.
Dazed and Confuzed
I'm waiting for his explanation as well
HLAviation
>bearings are unrelated to throwout bearings.
If you look through the record, I always said they had thrust bearings.
>h-lax, what you EVER heard that law of physics mentioning something --
>anything
>-- about an "equal and opposite reaction"?
>
Of course I have, I even gave an example of the thrust bearing being required
for just that reason. I also have assembled enough cars to know that the
propelling force (the reaction of the tires working against the pavement) is
transmitted to the chassis of the car through the rear suspension system, not
through the driveline on through the crankshaft, it doesn't happen, think about
it for a minute. Ungeared Aircraft engines absorb their motive force though the
thrust bearing in the engine, I can't off the top of my head give another
example. In boat applications it's absorbed by the tailshaft bearing of the
gearbox and transmitted through its housing, through the bellhousing, to the
bock of the engine and onwards to the enginebed stringers through the mounts,
eliminating a lateral driving force on the crankshaft itself.
>thrust
>bearings are unrelated to throwout bearings.
They are NOT unrelated, they are very related, actually the thrust bearing is
Required if one is using a throwout bearing as it is used in an automotive
application, otherwise you'll shove a crank throw into a maincap.
JAXAshby
JAXAshby
idgit.
Should I have expected more?
No.
But then hope springs eternal.
David Flew
the appropriate file.
DF
"HLAviation" <hlavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021226202128...@mb-ms.aol.com...
JAXAshby
bearing?
Or is it that you don't care? You already know more about everything than you
can handle?
"Fat, dumb and drunk is no way to go through life, son." unquote.
Brian D
(throwout versus thrust.) My mistake :). Doesn't make JAX any more correct
on there being a "thrust bearing in the engine" for carrying any end loads.
The set of bearings in the engine carry minor end loads associated with
vibration and imperfect spin of the crank (etc), but that's it. Even though
JAX is within a grenade lob of correctness once in a blue moon, I still keep
him in my kill file...as I have for eons. It's bad enough I have to see the
results of his attitude problem showing up in everyone else's posts. For
most, a little brandied eggnog helps the occasional attitude
variations...some people would be best off with antifreeze in the eggnog
instead. Ooops. Better go get my brandy...
Brian
--
- Remove the uppercase NS' characters from my email address
"HLAviation" <hlavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021226183400...@mb-ms.aol.com...
JAXAshby
>(throwout versus thrust.) My mistake :). Doesn't make JAX any more correct
>on there being a "thrust bearing in the engine" for carrying any end loads.
>The set of bearings in the engine carry minor end loads associated with
>vibration and imperfect spin of the crank (etc), but that's it.
it's not the "end" loads, but the entire load.
the hp has to work against *something*, and that something is the thrust
bearing.
Martin Evans
>HLAviation wrote:
>
>> >It seems you simply don't understand the reason a thrust bearing exists, but
>> >then it IS a physics issue and that seems very much beyond you.
>> >
>>
>> Please oh Jax one, explain how the thrust bearing sees the complete HP output
>> of the engine as you have previously claimed.
>
>I'm waiting for his explanation as well
So am I.
In a typical example of say a 100kW (because i'm metric) engine. There
is no thrust bearing that carries load of more than that exerted by
the reaction to the load exerted by the clutch release bearing
(because i'm European), god knows what how anyone got to use a
"throwout bearing" as to me that is something that goes in the
dustbin. The thrust bearings on the crank itself will have to oppose
the force of about 50kg over about 1500mm^2., trivial to do with a
white metal bearing.
On a gearbox, or back axle if you are driving something really
antiquated, you might will see a thrust bearing that is rated much
higher than any clutch release bearing, or by that carried by the
engine thrust bearing.
On a road vehicle engine for instance you will very rarely see a
thrust bearing much larger in rating than the 50kg - 1500mm^2 example
I gave, on an aircraft maybe yes, on a boat (to get this vaguely back
on topic) any major thrust load would be carried outside the engine.
The term "sees the complete HP output of the engine" needs defining
otherwise you are going round in circles and no one proves anything.
With certain engine and transmission configurations there could be a
complete absence of any thrust bearings, how does that work then? Do I
have zero power being transmitted? Is it alchemy?
(further elements of my answer have been snipped before posting for
brevity cos i'm off down the pub before it's too late)
--
JAXAshby
also, do note that throwout bearings and thrust bearings are in now way
related.
Mark Browne
I see the source of your confusion. You don't seem to understand how a
modern piston engine works. Let me help you with this "work against
something" issue.
The engine delivers a rotary output. Relax - take a deep breath, and think
about that a minute. That's right - the shaft turns!
The main bearings are what the crank "pushes against". This is all stuff
INSIDE the engine. If you are having trouble with the terms "crank" and
"main bearings" I can follow up with some links to some simple pictures. You
might have thought that these "main bearings" were called "thrust bearings"
and got all confused. Yes, these "main bearings" have to be able to
withstand the horsepower of the engine. Focus JAX! The little tiny bearing
surface (the thrust bearings) that keep the crank centered on the main
bearings are not sized correctly to handle significant external loads. The
"thrust bearings" and the "main bearings" are not the same thing. Are we
good with that part?
OK, now comes the tricky part. Something OUTSIDE the engine turns the rotary
force into linear motion. Relax. Take a deep breath. I know this must be
upsetting to you. You may want to go take a nap before you read the rest of
this.
Lets work through an example on a boat. I think you may have seen pictures
of one once.
This rotary motion of the engine drives a shaft that drives a screw in the
water. I know that was a lot is one sentence. Focus. I said rotary motion.
The screw interacts with the water to generate a linear force. This idea of
a "screw" is one of the basic machines. It is related to something called an
"inclined plane". Someday I can explain it to you if I have some spare
time.
Settle down - don't wet yourself! The following part is all OUTSIDE the
engine. A good engineer uses a thrust bearing in the prop support to couple
the reaction force to the hull. I know this must be terribly confusing
because I used the term "thrust bearing" again. This "other" thrust bearing
is associated with the prop. If this force, capable of driving the boat
through the water, were to be applied to the engine directly - the little
thrust bearing in the engine would fail!
Focus JAX! Big force - big bearing, little force - little bearing. I would
take some time and explain this concept of bearing loads to you but I am
afraid it would take far to many words for you to follow. After you absorb
the "rotary motion" concept we can move on to other ideas.
I'm sorry if this may be too many words for you in a single e-mail. I am
certain that all these big words and ideas must be swirling around in you
head and confusing you. It's OK, we have all been there. When I was a little
tike I had to struggle with the basics too! If you every do make it aboard a
boat someday ask someone who knows about boats to spend a few minutes and
show you how it all works. You will find that it is really pretty simple.
Maybe they will let you take the helm for a few minutes after the boat is
underway. When you do go for that ride on a real boat make sure to get a
picture and post it for all your friends here on the newsgroup.
Mark Browne
PS. JAX, I took you out of my kill file for Christmas.
I do so love to see the real world from a completely different point of
view.
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021227152521...@mb-mr.aol.com...
JAXAshby
ever might.
so, go on believing in whatever you want.
the real world will be, well, the real world.
enjoy, dude, as I'm sure you will.
Derek Specht
I know you can do better than that.
Come on, give it another go.... take your time, we can wait.
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021227210646...@mb-fy.aol.com...
JAXAshby
>giving up? Growing weary?
what come back? tha dude couldn't even understand that the sun comes up in the
east every last morning? who could teach that dude anything?
Dazed and Confuzed
ROFLMAO!!
Dan, danl, danny boy, Redbeard, actually Greybeard now
sent into the ether:
Hi Mark,
I think you may have gone over his head, understanding wise. It was a
generous effort though. Nice of you to let him out for Christmas. I
on the other hand will never let him out again. I have made a
complete backup so if my comp crashes again I will not lose any
killfiles :<}
Happy Holidays
Dan
Safe Today - Here Tomorrow
Don't Just Say It - Live It
Remove left x for direct reply
Martin Evans
That is absolutely amazing I never knew that. Guess I better throw out
all my text books, that poxy degree and 25 years in engineering and
start with from scratch in the JAX universe which obviously has
fundamentally turned everything upside down.
How can I get an uprated thrust bearing for my car then JAX?
I upped the power by 10% and now it wants to corkscrew down the road,
should I go for more bearing area or build an anti reaction device?
Are my thrust bearings in imminent danger of collapse?
My portable generator with no thrust bearings at all (or even throwout
bearings) has just taken off and is currently flying through the air
at about 60mph, how can I stop it causing innocent but obviously
uninformed physicists some damage?
--
Terry K
I too, paroled the killfile for Christmas. Don't count on
staying out too long. There are not many in there, only the very
worst.
Aren'y we rather obviously arguing about who gets the last word,
and who has the biggest balls? I mean eyeballs, of course;^}
As I see this, we are hung up on:
Auto engines all have thrust bearings, but not big enough to
handle propulsive loads direct from propellor shafts in a boat,
which are handled in an automobile by the suspension system.
Automotively, thrust from the clutch pressure setup is probably
about all you would expect to see, and then, only if the clutch
is engaged. Why do you think automotive drive shafts have splined
couplings? Side thrust on engine output bearings is also a minor
concern in this regard.
With respect to side thrust loads, they are inconsequential if
output shafts are in line and balanced.
A throwout bearing in a manual clutch is loaded only while the
clutch is disengaged.
I hope you people are able to get lives, rather than waste away
here on the net, apparantly doing little else than responding to
those who would fight over such small potatos, especially since
half of you are arguing with the other half, which is seemingly
uninformed, yet continue reflexively, undoubtedly as a result of
testicular disorders producing far more testosterone than can
reasonably be used. This problem is obvious in our politicians,
too, and look where they have gotton us.
I suggest you get involved with volunteer work, give blood, visit
the sick, deliver meals on wheels or something, it will make you
feel good about yourself, regardless of what the worthless who do
nothing think. Get up from your monitors, get some excercise, it
will clear your minds and bowels!
Jax, the sun does not 'come up', the earth revolves under it. In
other words, we 'go under' it. I know you understand.
My best wishes for a happy new year and many more for everyone.
Good luck, and my best regards to all of your families. May we
have peace on earth? I will pray for us all.
In abject humility,
Terry K
"P.C. Ford" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:47:22 GMT, "Derek Specht"
> <derek...@hotmail.ns.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021225152454...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> >| D & C -- who bluntly claims to be both dazed and confused -- writes (in
> >| character) thusly:
> >|
> >| >> just a question d & c I never expect you to understand, let alone answer.
> >| >Did
> >| >> you ever wonder d & c how long an engine lasts if you take the hp off the
> >| >wrong
> >| >> end of an engine?
> >| >
> >| >not the same thing.
> >|
> >| but it is, d & c. At least to the real world.
> >|
> >| >But I am beginning to realize that I am arguing wiht an idiot,
> >| >so we are done.
> >|
> >| yup, d & c, that dealing with the real world can be a bitch. go smoke some
> >| dope, or however you try to block out reality.
> >
> >You are a very self important and nasty person. Why?
>
> His momma didn't love him?
--
Terry K - My email address is MY PROPERTY, and is protected by
copyright legislation. Permission to reproduce it is
specifically denied for mass mailing and unrequested
solicitations. Reproduction or conveyance for any unauthorised
purpose is THEFT and PLAGIARISM. Abuse is Invasion of privacy
and harassment. Abusers will be prosecuted. -This notice footer
released to public domain. Spamspoof salad by spamchock -
SofDevCo
kxqay...@gpwaal.org rfdrc...@jkimlscgcyw.org
eguba...@ow.com g...@gircd.net j...@mkvcw.org
qyxx...@itislawmbtf.com kp...@dpetaayrlf.net
lmogc...@csgmpll.net lgnbv...@xbcfpdpj.com s...@rd.com
JAXAshby
>I think you may have gone over his head, understanding wise.
not at all. It was the most silly butt excuse of an explanation I've seen in a
while.
It would make a junior high school science teacher shake his head and consider
giving up his vocation.
JAXAshby
of the more ill-informed scienctific minds of the early 13th century.
JAXAshby
>
>Auto engines all have thrust bearings, but not big enough to
>handle propulsive loads direct from propellor shafts in a boat,
oh, but they do, for they have thrust bearing "big enough" to handle their hp.
At least as long as you take the hp from the correct end of the engine.
>which are handled in an automobile by the suspension system.
not relevant.
>Automotively, thrust from the clutch pressure setup is probably
>about all you would expect to see, and then, only if the clutch
>is engaged.
ture, but not relevant.
> Why do you think automotive drive shafts have splined
>couplings? Side thrust on engine output bearings is also a minor
>concern in this regard.
very much not true.
>
>With respect to side thrust loads, they are inconsequential if
>output shafts are in line and balanced.
so, why can't you take the hp from the wrong end of the engine? (in most most
cases, those exceptions being when the thrust bearing was designed to take
thrust from either end)
>
>A throwout bearing in a manual clutch is loaded only while the
>clutch is disengaged.
true, but not relevant.
Mark Browne
Everyone here who has read that post understands the "high school level"
thing.
The most important question is: Did YOU get it?
If so then perhaps we can move on to something else.
Mark Browne
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021228174700...@mb-mj.aol.com...
JAXAshby
Murray Harper
Stephen Baker
>YOU GUYS NEED TO GET A LIFE.
Plonk!