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