Navigation Question
 

guys, you are missing the point. namely, that a modern diesel engine puts out
about 16 hp for each gallon of fuel burned per hour.

you wanna use less fuel, use less hp.

I think your last point is the real issue. How much hp is required to
push a given displacement sailboat to hullspeed in a given set of
conditions? Generally it has been around 2500 rpm in my experience.
Just as I don't generally drive my auto in such a way as to require
all 225 hp, I don't motor in my sailboat in such a way as to require
all 27 hp. I have never calculated my fuel consumption, but 1 gallon
per hour would be WAY high, in my experience. Maybe if my boat was a
barge with a shag carpet on the bottom and an Atomic 4, maybe...:)



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
okay, old fart, here is a fuel rate curve for another engine. It shows,
btw,
the best hp/gallon at near max hp (to be expected, because in a diesel max
torque [best efficiency] rpm is near max hp rpm)

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/perfor02.htm


btw old fart, are *really* trying to say large diesel engines make
horse****
use of diesel fuel to generate each hp output as compared to small diesel
engines? That IS what you said. Did you mean it?

Jax is a LIAR, Jax is a STUPID LIAR,
Jax is so STUPID that he gives fuel usage of a 125 hp engine to try and
prove the fuel usage of a 20 hp Diesel. When was the last time anyone
has seen a Mono Aux traveling a 33 mph?

Jax is a LIAR!! Jax is a TROLLING LIAR!!
Jax is such a STUPID LIAR that he proves himself to be a STUPID LIAR by
just letting him talk (or Post) He and his mentor do not know the
meaning of truth

Jax doesn't even know were he lives; He is a LIAR!!

Jax doesn't know what kind of boat he owns; He is a LIAR

In his own Murky Mensa Mind (LOL) he still doesn't know the location of
the Gulf Stream and tries to Lie his way out of his IGNORANCE.

Trying to reason with a confirmed LIAR is a useless exercise. For this
reason I terminate any farther discussions with;
THE LIAR!!!

Ole Thom

Navigation Question
 

jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But once again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18 hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you have to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons, btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Agreed. Horvath and Bill act stupid to be funny, jax does it to annoy.


Nah, he is genuinely a bit deficient.


Remember his complaints to my ISP? He demonstrated that he cannot tell the
difference between abuse *of* the Internet, and abuse *on* the Internet.

He also demonstrated a genuine inability to comprehend. After all, he fired
off another complaint about the post where I said that *I* was "abuse" at
lanode dot com. I doubt that he will make sense of this post.



Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
10 gallons will go through a finely tuned 10 hp diesel in about 20 hours,
or
about the time, donny, it would take *you* to MOTOR across the English
Channel.
Are you saying *you* ran *your* 20 hp engine at super econo cruiser to
cross?

Jax, my engine is a 30hp (or more precisely 28 point something hp).
Perhaps you could re-do your calculations for a 30 hp engine?


Regards



Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency? The Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours. Even your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim, than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But once again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18 hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you have to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons, btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

okay. 10 gallons of fuel would go through a finely tuned diesel putting out 30
hp in about 15 hours.

btw, why in hell do you have just 10 gallons of fuel for a 30 hp engine? Can't
be you were trying to save weight, for if that were the goal you would have
installed a 20 hp or even a 10 hp engine, and at less cost.

Jax, my engine is a 30hp (or more precisely 28 point something hp).
Perhaps you could re-do your calculations for a 30 hp engine?


Regards



Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

sending purposely spiked emails with malecious code embedded is in fact
considered "abuse". Other people also stated you had done the same to them.
You have no idea how close you came to losing the domain from which you then
made your living.

Remember his complaints to my ISP? He demonstrated that he cannot tell the
difference between abuse *of* the Internet, and abuse *on* the Internet.

Navigation Question
 

jeffies, you are just too stupid to deal with.
yesterday you were claiming you had proof positive that diesels put out upwards
of thirty hp per gallon in just about any condition, and today you are
quibbling that brand spanking new engines operating under laboratory conditions
are claimed by their manufacturers to get just over the 16 hp per gallon I
stated as the norm.

now, go quibble that 16 hp is more like 16 point something hp.

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency? The
Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours. Even
your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim, than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But once
again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18
hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those
numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you have
to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and
laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons,
btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

It wasn't "proof positive," I was simply providing a number given on the Yanmar
spec sheet. At reduced RPM, the HP at the flywheel is much greater than what
is produced at the prop.

And there's a huge difference between 16 hp per gallon and 21 hp per gallon.
Improving fuel efficiency over 25% is nothing to sneeze at. I've never argued
that there isn't a relationship here - only that your number isn't quite right.

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to cruise at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to France and
back.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you are just too stupid to deal with.
yesterday you were claiming you had proof positive that diesels put out
upwards
of thirty hp per gallon in just about any condition, and today you are
quibbling that brand spanking new engines operating under laboratory
conditions
are claimed by their manufacturers to get just over the 16 hp per gallon I
stated as the norm.

now, go quibble that 16 hp is more like 16 point something hp.

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency? The
Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours. Even
your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim, than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But once
again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18
hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those
numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you have
to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and
laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons,
btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

in two of the sciences.

So what was the degree Jocks?

Navigation Question
 

jeff, max fuel efficiency on a diesel (as well as a gas) engine is at max
torque rpm. Run the engine above or below that max and fuel efficiency goes
down. On diesel engine *generally* the max torque rpm will be *around* 85% or
so of max hp rpm. On a gas it will *generally* be *around* 70% or so of max hp
rpm.

in addition, donny's story of the past had him saying he needed the full 10
gallons each way "because he had to get there" or some such, meaning he had a
schedule to keep and he couldn't sail fast enough to "get there" in time.

A *little over* 16 hp per gallon of fuel burned is right where the industry
quotes its fuel consumption rates for water-cooled, 4-cycle diesel engines of
modern design in good to excellent condition.

It wasn't "proof positive," I was simply providing a number given on the
Yanmar
spec sheet. At reduced RPM, the HP at the flywheel is much greater than
what
is produced at the prop.

And there's a huge difference between 16 hp per gallon and 21 hp per gallon.
Improving fuel efficiency over 25% is nothing to sneeze at. I've never
argued
that there isn't a relationship here - only that your number isn't quite
right.

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to cruise
at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of
his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to France
and
back.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you are just too stupid to deal with.
yesterday you were claiming you had proof positive that diesels put out
upwards
of thirty hp per gallon in just about any condition, and today you are
quibbling that brand spanking new engines operating under laboratory
conditions
are claimed by their manufacturers to get just over the 16 hp per gallon I
stated as the norm.

now, go quibble that 16 hp is more like 16 point something hp.

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency? The
Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours.
Even
your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim, than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than
Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But once
again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18
hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those
numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you
have
to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and
laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons,
btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. If you go to the
specs for the engine you mentioned, the Yanmar 4JH30-HTE
http://www.mastry.com/products/4jh3hte.htm
You'll find the best "specific fuel consumption" at about 2500 rpm, compared to
a max rpm of around 3600, or peak torque at 2900 rpm. The Fuel usage, in
grams/hp-hours is 153, which corresponds to almost 21 hp/gal-hours.

Now you can make your claims over and over, but the spec sheet simply don't
support them.

I don't know what Donal's original claim was, and I certainly wouldn't trust you
to repeat it faithfully. Although 10 Imperial Gallons seems small, it isn't
outrageously so - I've been on a number of boats with under 20 gallon tanks. My
first keel boat had a six gallon tank.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, max fuel efficiency on a diesel (as well as a gas) engine is at max
torque rpm. Run the engine above or below that max and fuel efficiency goes
down. On diesel engine *generally* the max torque rpm will be *around* 85% or
so of max hp rpm. On a gas it will *generally* be *around* 70% or so of max
hp
rpm.

in addition, donny's story of the past had him saying he needed the full 10
gallons each way "because he had to get there" or some such, meaning he had a
schedule to keep and he couldn't sail fast enough to "get there" in time.

A *little over* 16 hp per gallon of fuel burned is right where the industry
quotes its fuel consumption rates for water-cooled, 4-cycle diesel engines of
modern design in good to excellent condition.

It wasn't "proof positive," I was simply providing a number given on the
Yanmar
spec sheet. At reduced RPM, the HP at the flywheel is much greater than
what
is produced at the prop.

And there's a huge difference between 16 hp per gallon and 21 hp per gallon.
Improving fuel efficiency over 25% is nothing to sneeze at. I've never
argued
that there isn't a relationship here - only that your number isn't quite
right.

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to cruise
at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of
his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to France
and
back.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you are just too stupid to deal with.
yesterday you were claiming you had proof positive that diesels put out
upwards
of thirty hp per gallon in just about any condition, and today you are
quibbling that brand spanking new engines operating under laboratory
conditions
are claimed by their manufacturers to get just over the 16 hp per gallon I
stated as the norm.

now, go quibble that 16 hp is more like 16 point something hp.

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency? The
Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours.
Even
your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim, than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than
Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But once
again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18
hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those
numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you
have
to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and
laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons,
btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy can be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable number for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that its an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy can be
taken out of a gallon of fuel,

Of course there is.


... and his number of 16 is a reasonable number for
an engine run at WOT.

For some engines, yes. But even for gas turbines, WOT is not the most
efficient operating regime. Diesels are usually at their most efficient
somewhere between 80% and 90% throttle. Gas engines are most efficient
much lower, carburretted engines usually are most efficient close to idle.


... But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

I think what he was trying to say is that there is a relationship
between developed horsepower and fuel consumption, even at reduced
throttle. But of course he didn't say it very clearly and his numbers
are way wrong.



Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that its an
absolute that can never be violated.

At least there is some slight basis in fact for his claim this time.
Usually he is totally off the deep end and insisting on a max share of
abuse.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Navigation Question
 

jeffie, you are a sophist pig. two days ago you were flatly stating that 30 hp
or so per gallon was the norm for a diesel engine in use. now you are reduced
to searching the spec sheets one after another to find a single manufacturer
(with a prior history of exuberence in its claims) listing a single brand new
engine operating under ridgid laboratory conditions with self-reported fuel
figures to "prove" a various from a general statement.

sophist = pig, jeffies.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. If you go to
the
specs for the engine you mentioned, the Yanmar 4JH30-HTE
http://www.mastry.com/products/4jh3hte.htm
You'll find the best "specific fuel consumption" at about 2500 rpm, compared
to
a max rpm of around 3600, or peak torque at 2900 rpm. The Fuel usage, in
grams/hp-hours is 153, which corresponds to almost 21 hp/gal-hours.

Now you can make your claims over and over, but the spec sheet simply don't
support them.

I don't know what Donal's original claim was, and I certainly wouldn't trust
you
to repeat it faithfully. Although 10 Imperial Gallons seems small, it isn't
outrageously so - I've been on a number of boats with under 20 gallon tanks.
My
first keel boat had a six gallon tank.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, max fuel efficiency on a diesel (as well as a gas) engine is at max
torque rpm. Run the engine above or below that max and fuel efficiency
goes
down. On diesel engine *generally* the max torque rpm will be *around* 85%
or
so of max hp rpm. On a gas it will *generally* be *around* 70% or so of
max
hp
rpm.

in addition, donny's story of the past had him saying he needed the full 10
gallons each way "because he had to get there" or some such, meaning he had
a
schedule to keep and he couldn't sail fast enough to "get there" in time.

A *little over* 16 hp per gallon of fuel burned is right where the
industry
quotes its fuel consumption rates for water-cooled, 4-cycle diesel engines
of
modern design in good to excellent condition.

It wasn't "proof positive," I was simply providing a number given on the
Yanmar
spec sheet. At reduced RPM, the HP at the flywheel is much greater than
what
is produced at the prop.

And there's a huge difference between 16 hp per gallon and 21 hp per
gallon.
Improving fuel efficiency over 25% is nothing to sneeze at. I've never
argued
that there isn't a relationship here - only that your number isn't quite
right.

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to
cruise
at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of
his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go
about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to
France
and
back.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you are just too stupid to deal with.
yesterday you were claiming you had proof positive that diesels put out
upwards
of thirty hp per gallon in just about any condition, and today you are
quibbling that brand spanking new engines operating under laboratory
conditions
are claimed by their manufacturers to get just over the 16 hp per gallon
I
stated as the norm.

now, go quibble that 16 hp is more like 16 point something hp.

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency?
The
Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours.
Even
your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim,
than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than
Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But
once
again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18
hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those
numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you
have
to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and
laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial
gallons,
btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

dougies, I need to try to prove to myself that the world is not made up of
people as stupid as you are.

Everytime one of these discussions come up, I see three or four squatheads
totally ignorant in the matter prior to the discussion make a HUGE effort to
prove to one and all they are not dumb, dumb, dumb. Invariably, dougies, you
are right in the thick of it trying, trying, trying to make the world believe
you didn't ride the short bus to school.

It never escapes me that three or four genuine dummys spend entire nights
googling looking for a loophole to shouted to the world that they are not
really stupid. dougies, you are a dog too dumb to know how to hunt.

JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

Jax, you ignorant slut!

You're the one who insisted that we check out the manufacturer's specs - I just
looked for what I assumed Donal had, a Yanmar 2GM20 or 3GM30. They didn't have
the specs for that, so I used their new 30HP engine. If you knew anything about
marine engines you might have protested when I said I used "flywheel"
horsepower, which is going to be much more efficient than prop HP at reduced
rpms. I never said anything about a "norm," I just said the specs didn't seem
to support your claim.

The other engine I cited was simply the engine YOU had referenced in the Mastry
article. You chose to use the fuel efficiency at WOT, I just pointed out that
at 70% rpm (not the 85% you claim) the fuel efficiency is 21 hp/gal-hours.

Sorry Jaxie, first you tell us to look at the specs, now you're claiming the
specs lie. You provided the engine, now you're claiming its an obscure one that
doesn't count. Doesn't your petard ever get sore?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffie, you are a sophist pig. two days ago you were flatly stating that 30
hp
or so per gallon was the norm for a diesel engine in use. now you are reduced
to searching the spec sheets one after another to find a single manufacturer
(with a prior history of exuberence in its claims) listing a single brand new
engine operating under ridgid laboratory conditions with self-reported fuel
figures to "prove" a various from a general statement.

sophist = pig, jeffies.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. If you go to
the
specs for the engine you mentioned, the Yanmar 4JH30-HTE
http://www.mastry.com/products/4jh3hte.htm
You'll find the best "specific fuel consumption" at about 2500 rpm, compared
to
a max rpm of around 3600, or peak torque at 2900 rpm. The Fuel usage, in
grams/hp-hours is 153, which corresponds to almost 21 hp/gal-hours.

Now you can make your claims over and over, but the spec sheet simply don't
support them.

I don't know what Donal's original claim was, and I certainly wouldn't trust
you
to repeat it faithfully. Although 10 Imperial Gallons seems small, it isn't
outrageously so - I've been on a number of boats with under 20 gallon tanks.
My
first keel boat had a six gallon tank.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, max fuel efficiency on a diesel (as well as a gas) engine is at max
torque rpm. Run the engine above or below that max and fuel efficiency
goes
down. On diesel engine *generally* the max torque rpm will be *around* 85%
or
so of max hp rpm. On a gas it will *generally* be *around* 70% or so of
max
hp
rpm.

in addition, donny's story of the past had him saying he needed the full 10
gallons each way "because he had to get there" or some such, meaning he had
a
schedule to keep and he couldn't sail fast enough to "get there" in time.

A *little over* 16 hp per gallon of fuel burned is right where the
industry
quotes its fuel consumption rates for water-cooled, 4-cycle diesel engines
of
modern design in good to excellent condition.

It wasn't "proof positive," I was simply providing a number given on the
Yanmar
spec sheet. At reduced RPM, the HP at the flywheel is much greater than
what
is produced at the prop.

And there's a huge difference between 16 hp per gallon and 21 hp per
gallon.
Improving fuel efficiency over 25% is nothing to sneeze at. I've never
argued
that there isn't a relationship here - only that your number isn't quite
right.

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to
cruise
at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of
his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go
about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to
France
and
back.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you are just too stupid to deal with.
yesterday you were claiming you had proof positive that diesels put out
upwards
of thirty hp per gallon in just about any condition, and today you are
quibbling that brand spanking new engines operating under laboratory
conditions
are claimed by their manufacturers to get just over the 16 hp per gallon
I
stated as the norm.

now, go quibble that 16 hp is more like 16 point something hp.

Then why do you keep providing sources that have better efficiency?
The
Yanmar
you mentioned, according to the Mastry site, is over 20 hp/gal-hours.
Even
your
Indian farm engines were 18 hp/gal-hours. You keep making a claim,
than
providing sources that prove you wrong! You certainly seem dumber than
Old
Thom's farts!


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, give it up. you merely make yourself look a luddite.

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Now you're using de-tuned farm engines to prove your point. But
once
again,
you
screw it up! On the same page they list others that are over 18
hp/gal-hour,
and that's detuned to run at 1500 rpm, and using US gallons. Those
numbers
listed as "Specific Fuel Consumption" is in "grams per HP-hour"; you
have
to
be
capable of a bit of math to properly convert to hp-hours/gallon.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
old fart, here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and
laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial
gallons,
btw)

http://www.lovson.com/engineering.html

Navigation Question
 

JAXAshby wrote:
It never escapes me that three or four genuine dummys spend entire nights
googling looking for a loophole

The many references proving you wrong are now "a loophole"?

What an interesting view of the world you seem to have.

BTW I have not used Google at all for days... but I think I will now, to
see how many times you have used the phrase "rode the short bus" as a
weak insult.


http://www.google.com/groups?as_epq=...ors=JAX Ashby

You're a funny guy, Jaxxie. Even when you're not posing in a Speedo.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

jeffies, the trouble in trying to discuss things with you is that you start
absolutely ignorant, google the hell out of the subject for a couple days,
getting important details 85* out of kilter, eventually start to feel stupid
then blame me for your feelings.

Do keep in mind that *you* claimed early on the 30 hp per gallon was normal,
and even right at the end you had to google through site after site to find a
manufacturer with a rep for exagerating to pick a tiny difference from my
ordinary starting statement.

The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy can
be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable number
for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since
most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that its
an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

boy you dumb clucks sure do have a way to trying to claim you aren't dumb
clucks in the face of all the obvious evidence that shows you are.

no wonder you get lost without three gps's onboard in a bright day in sight of
shore.

Jeff Morris wrote:
The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy
can be
taken out of a gallon of fuel,

Of course there is.


... and his number of 16 is a reasonable number for
an engine run at WOT.

For some engines, yes. But even for gas turbines, WOT is not the most
efficient operating regime. Diesels are usually at their most efficient
somewhere between 80% and 90% throttle. Gas engines are most efficient
much lower, carburretted engines usually are most efficient close to idle.


... But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

I think what he was trying to say is that there is a relationship
between developed horsepower and fuel consumption, even at reduced
throttle. But of course he didn't say it very clearly and his numbers
are way wrong.



Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that its
an
absolute that can never be violated.

At least there is some slight basis in fact for his claim this time.
Usually he is totally off the deep end and insisting on a max share of
abuse.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Navigation Question
 

jeffies, you be stew ped. get used to it.

Jax, you ignorant slut!

btw, your choice of the word "slut" seems to indicate an unexplained need on
your part that will never be fulfilled on my part. Get over it.

Navigation Question... jax's diesel expertise
 

Navigation Question... jax's diesel expertise
 

joe, your Lister is producing 12 hp at 1800 rpm, or using 0.4 gal at the hp it
produces at 1800 rpm? Big difference, unless of course 1800 is max hp rpm for
your Lister.

Jax is not to far off maybe 30% or so, but thats not to bad for a
Mensa genious. My lister 12 HP 2 cly diesel burns 0.4 gallons per hour
under load at constant 1800 RPM's. Thats 8 gallons every 20 hours.

Joe

Navigation Question
 

No need to Google, You said "go to the specs", so just went to the specs from
the dominant supplier of diesels for recreational sailboats, and looked for the
engine closest in size to what Donal might have. Actually, I was looking for
the specs for my engines, but there weren't there. I even admitted there was
room for interpretation in the numbers, but you were too dense to notice that.

You're the one who said "specific fuel consumption figures for brand new engines
operating under laboratory conditions is about 16 hp for each gallon burned per
hour." You then backed this up with an engine that had a SFC of 21
hp/gallons/hour. You picked the engine, not me. You picked the web site, not
me.

Now you're just claiming the specs all lie. You're a real piece of work, jaxie.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, the trouble in trying to discuss things with you is that you start
absolutely ignorant, google the hell out of the subject for a couple days,
getting important details 85* out of kilter, eventually start to feel stupid
then blame me for your feelings.

Do keep in mind that *you* claimed early on the 30 hp per gallon was normal,
and even right at the end you had to google through site after site to find a
manufacturer with a rep for exagerating to pick a tiny difference from my
ordinary starting statement.















The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy can
be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable number
for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since
most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that its
an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
okay. 10 gallons of fuel would go through a finely tuned diesel putting
out 30
hp in about 15 hours.

Excellent!

Now ..... How long should it take me to cross the Channel?
Portsmouth - Cherbourg = 74 miles.



btw, why in hell do you have just 10 gallons of fuel for a 30 hp engine?

That was the standard tank size.



Can't
be you were trying to save weight, for if that were the goal you would
have
installed a 20 hp or even a 10 hp engine, and at less cost.

The standard engine was a 20 hp, the 30 hp was an option. It seemed a
sensible precaution at the time. I was going to take my kids on cross
channel trips. I didn't fancy the idea of very long trips with them. With
hindsight, a 20hp would have been undersized for the boat.

Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
dougies, you inverted your math. try again.

So, Jax. How many US Gallons are there in 19 Imperial Gallons?

What made you think that Doug inverted his maths?


Regards

Donal
--



JAXAshby wrote:
....here is the Lister engine under brand new engine, and laboratory
conditions claiming about 19 hp/gallon/hour (that's Imperial gallons,
btw)

Which would make it closer to 24 gph in US gallons... which would make
your original quoted figure... 'way wrong.

Does posting false info give you some kind of thrill? Are you so
unimportant and so downtrodden that getting people to insult you on the
Internet gives you a sense of importance? WTF *is* wrong with you, Jax?
Not that I actually care, it's sort of just idle curiosity.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
sending purposely spiked emails with malecious code embedded is in fact
considered "abuse". Other people also stated you had done the same to
them.
You have no idea how close you came to losing the domain from which you
then
made your living.

Don't be silly, Jax. You shouldn't tell lies!

You might get asked to prove them.




Remember his complaints to my ISP? He demonstrated that he cannot tell
the
difference between abuse *of* the Internet, and abuse *on* the Internet.


Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
snip

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to
cruise at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of
his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go
about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to
France and
back.

On a flat calm, I can do 74 miles on about 7.5 gallons. If it isn't flat
calm, I usually get assistance from the wind.


Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

jeffies, I also showed a lying sack of squat engine dealer bragging about his
16 hp/gal engine, and another engine dealer bragging about 19 hp/Imp gal.

you wanna play el stew pee doh and go on believing that diesels get 30 or 40 or
50 hp per gallon of fuel (if you run the engine slow enough) go right ahead.
Kindly please do NOT bring an EPIRB along with you when you set off. That
would be unethical on your part. You would be endangering some young coastie
sent out to save your sorry stupid butt.

but, you really do have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fuel onboard. you
know that. leave half of it to home.

No need to Google, You said "go to the specs", so just went to the specs from
the dominant supplier of diesels for recreational sailboats, and looked for
the
engine closest in size to what Donal might have. Actually, I was looking
for
the specs for my engines, but there weren't there. I even admitted there was
room for interpretation in the numbers, but you were too dense to notice
that.

You're the one who said "specific fuel consumption figures for brand new
engines
operating under laboratory conditions is about 16 hp for each gallon burned
per
hour." You then backed this up with an engine that had a SFC of 21
hp/gallons/hour. You picked the engine, not me. You picked the web site,
not
me.

Now you're just claiming the specs all lie. You're a real piece of work,
jaxie.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, the trouble in trying to discuss things with you is that you start
absolutely ignorant, google the hell out of the subject for a couple days,
getting important details 85* out of kilter, eventually start to feel
stupid
then blame me for your feelings.

Do keep in mind that *you* claimed early on the 30 hp per gallon was
normal,
and even right at the end you had to google through site after site to find
a
manufacturer with a rep for exagerating to pick a tiny difference from my
ordinary starting statement.















The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy
can
be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable number
for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since
most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that
its
an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't
worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

At what rpm, which engine, what speed, what's your hull speed?


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
snip

Further your fundamental claim is flawed because Donal's 28 hp engine is
probably run at reduced throttle and actually puts out about 12 hp to
cruise at
80% of hull speed. (I'm just guessing because I don't know the details of
his
boat or engine.) He probably uses slightly over a half gallon to go
about 7
miles. Doing that, 10 Imperial Gallons is plenty to get him over to
France and
back.

On a flat calm, I can do 74 miles on about 7.5 gallons. If it isn't flat
calm, I usually get assistance from the wind.


Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
At what rpm, which engine, what speed, what's your hull speed?

2300, Volvo 30hp, 6 kts , 7.2 (I think)



Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

Time for the meds again, jaxie, reality is slipping away pretty fast!

Just to test you theory that I scoured the 'net in search of an engine that
didn't match your claim, I checked the Westerbeke site for the other diesel I've
used, the 30B. At WOT it gets 17 hp/gal/hour, however, if you back off to 3000
rpm it goes up to 24 hp/gal/hour, and at 2500 rpm it goes up to 30 gal/hp/hour.
Even if you just look at propeller output instead of engine output, the number
is well over the value of 16 you claimed.

As for my "mileage," this discussion started from various claims of actual fuel
usage that you dismissed as silly. I think everyone here is smart enough to
compute their own fuel consumption - you're the only one silly enough to claim
that the spec sheets say everything.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, I also showed a lying sack of squat engine dealer bragging about his
16 hp/gal engine, and another engine dealer bragging about 19 hp/Imp gal.

you wanna play el stew pee doh and go on believing that diesels get 30 or 40
or
50 hp per gallon of fuel (if you run the engine slow enough) go right ahead.
Kindly please do NOT bring an EPIRB along with you when you set off. That
would be unethical on your part. You would be endangering some young coastie
sent out to save your sorry stupid butt.

but, you really do have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fuel onboard. you
know that. leave half of it to home.

No need to Google, You said "go to the specs", so just went to the specs from
the dominant supplier of diesels for recreational sailboats, and looked for
the
engine closest in size to what Donal might have. Actually, I was looking
for
the specs for my engines, but there weren't there. I even admitted there was
room for interpretation in the numbers, but you were too dense to notice
that.

You're the one who said "specific fuel consumption figures for brand new
engines
operating under laboratory conditions is about 16 hp for each gallon burned
per
hour." You then backed this up with an engine that had a SFC of 21
hp/gallons/hour. You picked the engine, not me. You picked the web site,
not
me.

Now you're just claiming the specs all lie. You're a real piece of work,
jaxie.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, the trouble in trying to discuss things with you is that you start
absolutely ignorant, google the hell out of the subject for a couple days,
getting important details 85* out of kilter, eventually start to feel
stupid
then blame me for your feelings.

Do keep in mind that *you* claimed early on the 30 hp per gallon was
normal,
and even right at the end you had to google through site after site to find
a
manufacturer with a rep for exagerating to pick a tiny difference from my
ordinary starting statement.















The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much energy
can
be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable number
for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous, since
most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better. Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that
its
an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16 hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't
worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

On a flat calm, I can do 74 miles on about 7.5 gallons.

Donal

meaning, if you are making 5 knots in calm water you will take 15 hours for the
trip, burning about 9 US gallons of fuel, for about 6/10ths of a gallon/hour
for about 9-1/2 hp.

That's about right.

Or making 6 knots, taking 12 hours and burning 9 US gallons, using about .75
gallons per hour for about 12 hp.

That's about right.

Or making 7.5 knots (rather fast for your size boat) taking 10 hours, burning 9
US gallons, using about .9 gallons/hour for about 15 hp.

Best bet is that you make the 74 miles in about 12 to 15 hours -- or maybe
longer -- in flat calm water.

Navigation Question
 

Now ..... How long should it take me to cross the Channel?
Portsmouth - Cherbourg = 74 miles.


53 hours.

on a good day.

Navigation Question
 

in other words, you are using about 12 hp.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
At what rpm, which engine, what speed, what's your hull speed?

2300, Volvo 30hp, 6 kts , 7.2 (I think)



Regards


Donal
--

Navigation Question
 

jeffies, it is near impossible to discuss things with you, for you are so
ignorant you make mke errors 85* out of kilter and you have no capability to
understand just why you are wrong.

you are not even intelligent even to be considered a sophist. you are just
stupid.

so, leave your fuel at home, leave your EPIRB at home (it would be unethical of
you to own one, let alone take one with you on a boat, for merely having one
onboard means you might endanger the life of a young coastie trying to save
your sorry butt) AND GO TO SEA!! Let Darwin sort it out.

Time for the meds again, jaxie, reality is slipping away pretty fast!

Just to test you theory that I scoured the 'net in search of an engine that
didn't match your claim, I checked the Westerbeke site for the other diesel
I've
used, the 30B. At WOT it gets 17 hp/gal/hour, however, if you back off to
3000
rpm it goes up to 24 hp/gal/hour, and at 2500 rpm it goes up to 30
gal/hp/hour.
Even if you just look at propeller output instead of engine output, the
number
is well over the value of 16 you claimed.

As for my "mileage," this discussion started from various claims of actual
fuel
usage that you dismissed as silly. I think everyone here is smart enough to
compute their own fuel consumption - you're the only one silly enough to
claim
that the spec sheets say everything.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, I also showed a lying sack of squat engine dealer bragging about
his
16 hp/gal engine, and another engine dealer bragging about 19 hp/Imp gal.

you wanna play el stew pee doh and go on believing that diesels get 30 or
40
or
50 hp per gallon of fuel (if you run the engine slow enough) go right
ahead.
Kindly please do NOT bring an EPIRB along with you when you set off. That
would be unethical on your part. You would be endangering some young
coastie
sent out to save your sorry stupid butt.

but, you really do have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fuel onboard.
you
know that. leave half of it to home.

No need to Google, You said "go to the specs", so just went to the specs
from
the dominant supplier of diesels for recreational sailboats, and looked
for
the
engine closest in size to what Donal might have. Actually, I was looking
for
the specs for my engines, but there weren't there. I even admitted there
was
room for interpretation in the numbers, but you were too dense to notice
that.

You're the one who said "specific fuel consumption figures for brand new
engines
operating under laboratory conditions is about 16 hp for each gallon
burned
per
hour." You then backed this up with an engine that had a SFC of 21
hp/gallons/hour. You picked the engine, not me. You picked the web site,
not
me.

Now you're just claiming the specs all lie. You're a real piece of work,
jaxie.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, the trouble in trying to discuss things with you is that you
start
absolutely ignorant, google the hell out of the subject for a couple
days,
getting important details 85* out of kilter, eventually start to feel
stupid
then blame me for your feelings.

Do keep in mind that *you* claimed early on the 30 hp per gallon was
normal,
and even right at the end you had to google through site after site to
find
a
manufacturer with a rep for exagerating to pick a tiny difference from
my
ordinary starting statement.















The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much
energy
can
be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable
number
for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous,
since
most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better.
Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that
its
an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16
hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing
more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing
figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We
all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't
worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game
of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

The why do you bother?



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, it is near impossible to discuss things with you, for you are so
ignorant you make mke errors 85* out of kilter and you have no capability to
understand just why you are wrong.

you are not even intelligent even to be considered a sophist. you are just
stupid.

so, leave your fuel at home, leave your EPIRB at home (it would be unethical
of
you to own one, let alone take one with you on a boat, for merely having one
onboard means you might endanger the life of a young coastie trying to save
your sorry butt) AND GO TO SEA!! Let Darwin sort it out.

Time for the meds again, jaxie, reality is slipping away pretty fast!

Just to test you theory that I scoured the 'net in search of an engine that
didn't match your claim, I checked the Westerbeke site for the other diesel
I've
used, the 30B. At WOT it gets 17 hp/gal/hour, however, if you back off to
3000
rpm it goes up to 24 hp/gal/hour, and at 2500 rpm it goes up to 30
gal/hp/hour.
Even if you just look at propeller output instead of engine output, the
number
is well over the value of 16 you claimed.

As for my "mileage," this discussion started from various claims of actual
fuel
usage that you dismissed as silly. I think everyone here is smart enough to
compute their own fuel consumption - you're the only one silly enough to
claim
that the spec sheets say everything.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, I also showed a lying sack of squat engine dealer bragging about
his
16 hp/gal engine, and another engine dealer bragging about 19 hp/Imp gal.

you wanna play el stew pee doh and go on believing that diesels get 30 or
40
or
50 hp per gallon of fuel (if you run the engine slow enough) go right
ahead.
Kindly please do NOT bring an EPIRB along with you when you set off. That
would be unethical on your part. You would be endangering some young
coastie
sent out to save your sorry stupid butt.

but, you really do have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fuel onboard.
you
know that. leave half of it to home.

No need to Google, You said "go to the specs", so just went to the specs
from
the dominant supplier of diesels for recreational sailboats, and looked
for
the
engine closest in size to what Donal might have. Actually, I was looking
for
the specs for my engines, but there weren't there. I even admitted there
was
room for interpretation in the numbers, but you were too dense to notice
that.

You're the one who said "specific fuel consumption figures for brand new
engines
operating under laboratory conditions is about 16 hp for each gallon
burned
per
hour." You then backed this up with an engine that had a SFC of 21
hp/gallons/hour. You picked the engine, not me. You picked the web site,
not
me.

Now you're just claiming the specs all lie. You're a real piece of work,
jaxie.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, the trouble in trying to discuss things with you is that you
start
absolutely ignorant, google the hell out of the subject for a couple
days,
getting important details 85* out of kilter, eventually start to feel
stupid
then blame me for your feelings.

Do keep in mind that *you* claimed early on the 30 hp per gallon was
normal,
and even right at the end you had to google through site after site to
find
a
manufacturer with a rep for exagerating to pick a tiny difference from
my
ordinary starting statement.















The funny thing is that there really is an upper limit to how much
energy
can
be
taken out of a gallon of fuel, and his number of 16 is a reasonable
number
for
an engine run at WOT. But to claim it as an absolute is ridiculous,
since
most
engines at reduced throttle do better, and some do much better.
Further,
claiming that cruisers always run at the full rated hp is absurd.

Its so typical of jaxie to take a simple "rule of thumb" and claim that
its
an
absolute that can never be violated.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

modern, water-cooled, 4-cycle, brand spanking new diesel engines in
laboratory
conditions use about 1 gallon of fuel for each 16 hp produced.

Well, in this corner, all by himself, we have JAXAshby repeating "16
hp
per gph, 16 16 16" and then we have the rest of the world providing
more
detailed and sensible explanations for a variety of differing
figures.

Jax is right, of course... the whole rest of the world is wrong. We
all
know that and agree, don't we? Of course we do, there there don't
worry...

I'm not sure why Jax enjoys being center man in this perpetual game
of
kick-the-clown.

DSK

Navigation Question
 

Jeff,
On my Univ 18 I go thru a 1x2 step-up transmission. I run very nicely at
2400, turning a 13x13 prop thru the 1x2 transmission AND I get 6 knt on
a Qt of fuel an hour. This is Measured and confirmed. No spec sheet no
calculation., a graduated 1/2 Gal bottle hooked to the engine inlet.

I done this because I didn't believe a engine could perform on that
amount of fuel. It certainly can!!

Ole Thom

Navigation Question... jax's diesel expertise