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