|
A suggestion
I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. We all learn from experience, whether our own or others and I feel that a follow up post telling the group what was done and what was the result would be beneficial to all readers. I still don't know if the guy fixed his governor and what he did to repair it. If the guy down the dock has the same problem how will I be able play expert and tell him how to fix it :-) Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. We all learn from experience, whether our own or others and I feel that a follow up post telling the group what was done and what was the result would be beneficial to all readers. I still don't know if the guy fixed his governor and what he did to repair it. If the guy down the dock has the same problem how will I be able play expert and tell him how to fix it :-) Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I certainly intend to document my light upgrade to LEDs, as well as a few other electical upgrades. I like to have a photo history of what I did, not to mention a maintenance record. Obviously, Roger photo-documents his boat changes. Do others? I find them interesting and informative in and of themselves. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
A suggestion
It would be nice Bruce but if someone actually posted an authoritative
solution here that from their experience worked there would be at least 3 or 4 people who would accuse him of being full of crap or being to complex or worse. I was an active participant here for over 7 years and the old AOL OLYC before that. I learned a lot and occasionally contributed a bit but with the influx of people more interested in shooting their mouths off about subjects they know little about and flaming anyone who challenged them we lost several very helpful vendors, at least 3 well known naval architects and engineers and two popular yachting authors. I don't know how a gracious lady like Peggy who, with a wealth of knowledge and no longer any financial interest puts up with the rancor and personal insults. I stopped participating over a year ago because it became a waste of my time and only checked in recently to see how a few of my friends like Wayne, Skip, Lew and even Larry were getting along. It has not taken long to see that the situation has gotten far worse. With that I will bid you gentlemen adieu. I will send invitations to the launching party privately. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com |
A suggestion
On Apr 3, 3:24 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. Sorry not to report back. I certainly would have posted with glee if I had fixed it. All I ended up doing was taking a small access port off that though which I could see, but not remove and measure the springs on the throttle side of the assembly. It all looked lovely in there but there was a little stiffness on the throttle crank itself. So I lubed its axle and worked it a bit. I got one disconcerting "thunk" out of the mechanism, put it all back together and ran it and got the same failure then ran it again and it worked fine... By looking at it I did convince myself that the fault was not in the setting of the torque limiter. The current plan is to take off the gear casing next time I pull the motor and inspect the bushings and springs... Meanwhile I will continue to work around it. Many thanks for your help and mea culpa for my silence. Cheers, -- Tom. |
A suggestion
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:36:04 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote: With that I will bid you gentlemen adieu. I will send invitations to the launching party privately. I look forward to that and will surely attend if at all possible. Unfortunatlely "r.b.c" seems to have acquired a lot of the old "asa" crowd who were never well known for good manners. |
A suggestion
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
It would be nice Bruce but if someone actually posted an authoritative solution here that from their experience worked there would be at least 3 or 4 people who would accuse him of being full of crap or being to complex or worse. I was an active participant here for over 7 years and the old AOL OLYC before that. I learned a lot and occasionally contributed a bit but with the influx of people more interested in shooting their mouths off about subjects they know little about and flaming anyone who challenged them we lost several very helpful vendors, at least 3 well known naval architects and engineers and two popular yachting authors. I don't know how a gracious lady like Peggy who, with a wealth of knowledge and no longer any financial interest puts up with the rancor and personal insults. I stopped participating over a year ago because it became a waste of my time and only checked in recently to see how a few of my friends like Wayne, Skip, Lew and even Larry were getting along. It has not taken long to see that the situation has gotten far worse. With that I will bid you gentlemen adieu. I will send invitations to the launching party privately. Man, Talk about photo docunentation! Nice work. Richard -- (remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne |
A suggestion
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:36:04 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore" wrote: With that I will bid you gentlemen adieu. I will send invitations to the launching party privately. I look forward to that and will surely attend if at all possible. Unfortunatlely "r.b.c" seems to have acquired a lot of the old "asa" crowd who were never well known for good manners. I think asa was originally, and for some decent period, an ok place to chat. I recall when even some of the more strident people, some of whom have turned into deranged people, could actually have a sailing conversation. I began posting here on rbc back in 1996... I believe that was around the time I started posting to asa also. While certainly not one of the first here on rbc, I recall Glenn and others from that time. I also recall that there were some who didn't exactly qualify as having good manner then either. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
A suggestion
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:00:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Apr 3, 3:24 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. Sorry not to report back. I certainly would have posted with glee if I had fixed it. All I ended up doing was taking a small access port off that though which I could see, but not remove and measure the springs on the throttle side of the assembly. It all looked lovely in there but there was a little stiffness on the throttle crank itself. So I lubed its axle and worked it a bit. I got one disconcerting "thunk" out of the mechanism, put it all back together and ran it and got the same failure then ran it again and it worked fine... By looking at it I did convince myself that the fault was not in the setting of the torque limiter. The current plan is to take off the gear casing next time I pull the motor and inspect the bushings and springs... Meanwhile I will continue to work around it. Many thanks for your help and mea culpa for my silence. Cheers, -- Tom. I wasn't "pin pointing" you, sorry if it sounded as though I was, simply using your problem as an example of something that I'd like to learn more about as there are zillions of Yanmar engines and I'd like to know how to fix that problem. I read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:36:04 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote: It would be nice Bruce but if someone actually posted an authoritative solution here that from their experience worked there would be at least 3 or 4 people who would accuse him of being full of crap or being to complex or worse. I was an active participant here for over 7 years and the old AOL OLYC before that. I learned a lot and occasionally contributed a bit but with the influx of people more interested in shooting their mouths off about subjects they know little about and flaming anyone who challenged them we lost several very helpful vendors, at least 3 well known naval architects and engineers and two popular yachting authors. I don't know how a gracious lady like Peggy who, with a wealth of knowledge and no longer any financial interest puts up with the rancor and personal insults. I stopped participating over a year ago because it became a waste of my time and only checked in recently to see how a few of my friends like Wayne, Skip, Lew and even Larry were getting along. It has not taken long to see that the situation has gotten far worse. With that I will bid you gentlemen adieu. I will send invitations to the launching party privately. I tend to agree with you. In fact any post that starts out, "It stands to reason", gets an immediate thump on the delete button - if it "stood to reason" I'd have fixed it already. But I still think that if one actually solves a problem it is worth while to post the solution. Your exertions in casting the ballast keel is worth reading if one plans on doing a similar job, for example. There was a post about epoxying a depth sounder into a glass hull, for example. I did this 10 or more years ago but some people seemed to find it a new technique so perhaps it helped someone. I also find that my kill filing the more rabid denizens in the group I miss nothing and the whole group takes on a more rational appearance. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:50:25 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. We all learn from experience, whether our own or others and I feel that a follow up post telling the group what was done and what was the result would be beneficial to all readers. I still don't know if the guy fixed his governor and what he did to repair it. If the guy down the dock has the same problem how will I be able play expert and tell him how to fix it :-) Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I certainly intend to document my light upgrade to LEDs, as well as a few other electical upgrades. I like to have a photo history of what I did, not to mention a maintenance record. Obviously, Roger photo-documents his boat changes. Do others? I find them interesting and informative in and of themselves. There is a chap down the dock that has just converted his complete lighting system to LED both house and navigation lighting. I have a standing invitation to drop by any evening and see how it looks but haven't made it yet. He is working on running the entire boat on three solar panels. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Lew |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:50:25 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message . .. I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. We all learn from experience, whether our own or others and I feel that a follow up post telling the group what was done and what was the result would be beneficial to all readers. I still don't know if the guy fixed his governor and what he did to repair it. If the guy down the dock has the same problem how will I be able play expert and tell him how to fix it :-) Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I certainly intend to document my light upgrade to LEDs, as well as a few other electical upgrades. I like to have a photo history of what I did, not to mention a maintenance record. Obviously, Roger photo-documents his boat changes. Do others? I find them interesting and informative in and of themselves. There is a chap down the dock that has just converted his complete lighting system to LED both house and navigation lighting. I have a standing invitation to drop by any evening and see how it looks but haven't made it yet. He is working on running the entire boat on three solar panels. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Wow... I guess you could do that or at least get close. I don't think I'll have that extreme need or desire, but you never know. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
A suggestion
Glenn:
Like TV, if you can wade through the BS, there's an occasional gem to be found here that makes checking in from time-to-time worthwhile. Your recent sewing machine thread (!) is a fine example, and the replies to same seem to prove that there are many who visit here that have a lot to contribute Would hate to see you vanish... MW Los Angeles |
A suggestion
On Apr 3, 7:56 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
...there are zillions of Yanmar engines and I'd like to know how to fix that problem. Me, too! I read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. No, it is generally stable at low to medium rpms (say ~850-1100). It may hunt and/or loses power at higher rpms when loaded... Typically it get progressively better as it gets warmer. I think everyone has had a couple of swings at this and I'm not sure if there is much to be gained by going over it all again. But I am listening. And, I will be sure to report back if I fix it. -- Tom. |
A suggestion
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:iMjJj.10032$s27.7854@trnddc02... "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Much better to cut out prolonged idling and get some load on sooner. Start up, and by the time you have checked the exhaust for cooling water, gone forward and cast off the mooring ropes the engine is ready to go. In other words, just long enough to spread some oil around inside the engine. If you cannot get load on for some time then stop the engine until you are ready. |
A suggestion
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:19:58 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Lew And most boat engines need to idle down to about 700 - 800 RPM when shifting to prevent imposing too large a load on the gearbox. By the way, while I was in Singapore I adjusted the governor on a Gardner 6 cyl. engine - 1.500 RPM full throttle. Idle at about 600 RPM. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:01:39 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote: "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:iMjJj.10032$s27.7854@trnddc02... "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Much better to cut out prolonged idling and get some load on sooner. Start up, and by the time you have checked the exhaust for cooling water, gone forward and cast off the mooring ropes the engine is ready to go. In other words, just long enough to spread some oil around inside the engine. If you cannot get load on for some time then stop the engine until you are ready. Actually diesel engines aren't that sensitive. Certainly one should not idle them for long periods - hours, but it does no damage to let an engine idle while you are clearing up the lines or what ever. Ever been into a truck stop on a winter morning and seen the lines of Peterbilt's sitting there idling while the driver is in having breakfast. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. We all learn from experience, whether our own or others and I feel that a follow up post telling the group what was done and what was the result would be beneficial to all readers. I still don't know if the guy fixed his governor and what he did to repair it. If the guy down the dock has the same problem how will I be able play expert and tell him how to fix it :-) Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I agree. I'd like to know about that bloke with the off-Compass but he hasn't posted back as far as I can see. Hoges in WA |
A suggestion
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:16:46 GMT, "Hoges in WA"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . I would like to make the suggestion that individuals who pose questions, especially complex questions like the recent Yanmar governor problem, be encouraged to post the results. What did he/she do and what was the result. We all learn from experience, whether our own or others and I feel that a follow up post telling the group what was done and what was the result would be beneficial to all readers. I still don't know if the guy fixed his governor and what he did to repair it. If the guy down the dock has the same problem how will I be able play expert and tell him how to fix it :-) Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I agree. I'd like to know about that bloke with the off-Compass but he hasn't posted back as far as I can see. Hoges in WA Bruce is right, but IMO boat group posters are more likely to post solutions than auto group posters. Can't count how many "hit-and-run" seekers of help I've seen on the auto groups. They'll provide problem symptoms, get multiple possible solutions, then disappear without ever revealing the fix. I've run into many such dead ends that way. I mentioned here a case of a bad resistor that fixed one fellow's stalling problem. He had taken it to e-mail. A couple weeks later I realized the fix wasn't in the group so I posted our correspondence there after removing his email adder. Maybe it helped somebody. The computer hardware groups are subject to this too, but not as much as the auto groups. Though the Yanmars are fairly common, the hunting problem (if that's what it is) apparently isn't. Having had a couple "almost impossible to diagnose" auto problems that were tangentially related to heat, that's where I'd concentrate the premise of the diagnostic approach. Even knowing nothing of diesel throttle regulation, I assume the fuel pressure/flow inputs and outputs of the governor can be measured, though it might entail some effort and expense to set up the gauges. What controls the governor rpm setting? Electrical tach? Vacuum? Fuel pressure? Too much I don't know about it. I'm a bit surprised that a good Yanmar mechanic hasn't solved the problem, but suspect that one has never been present when the problem occurred. --Vic |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:01:39 +0200, "Edgar" wrote: "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:iMjJj.10032$s27.7854@trnddc02... "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Much better to cut out prolonged idling and get some load on sooner. Start up, and by the time you have checked the exhaust for cooling water, gone forward and cast off the mooring ropes the engine is ready to go. In other words, just long enough to spread some oil around inside the engine. If you cannot get load on for some time then stop the engine until you are ready. Actually diesel engines aren't that sensitive. Certainly one should not idle them for long periods - hours, but it does no damage to let an engine idle while you are clearing up the lines or what ever. Ever been into a truck stop on a winter morning and seen the lines of Peterbilt's sitting there idling while the driver is in having breakfast. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I've had them idle all night... not sure what the idle speed was... wasn't in charge, just a passenger. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
A suggestion
"Capt. JG" wrote in message news:er2dnQ_MYo2s7WvanZ2dnUVZ_uuonZ2d@bayareasolut ions... Actually diesel engines aren't that sensitive. Certainly one should not idle them for long periods - hours, but it does no damage to let an engine idle while you are clearing up the lines or what ever. Ever been into a truck stop on a winter morning and seen the lines of Peterbilt's sitting there idling while the driver is in having breakfast. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I've had them idle all night... not sure what the idle speed was... wasn't in charge, just a passenger. All that guy's post proves is that truck drivers are insensitive to their motors, not that the diesels are insensitive to prolonged idling. Most truck drivers, I suspect, do not have to pay the maintenance costs of the machines they drive. They much prefer to come back to a warm cab after breakfast.. However, it has to be said that those engines are warmed up when they arrive at the truckstop. Idling a cold engine to warm it up is much worse than what they are doing, stupid though it is.. |
A suggestion
"Edgar" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message news:er2dnQ_MYo2s7WvanZ2dnUVZ_uuonZ2d@bayareasolut ions... Actually diesel engines aren't that sensitive. Certainly one should not idle them for long periods - hours, but it does no damage to let an engine idle while you are clearing up the lines or what ever. Ever been into a truck stop on a winter morning and seen the lines of Peterbilt's sitting there idling while the driver is in having breakfast. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) I've had them idle all night... not sure what the idle speed was... wasn't in charge, just a passenger. All that guy's post proves is that truck drivers are insensitive to their motors, not that the diesels are insensitive to prolonged idling. Most truck drivers, I suspect, do not have to pay the maintenance costs of the machines they drive. They much prefer to come back to a warm cab after breakfast.. However, it has to be said that those engines are warmed up when they arrive at the truckstop. Idling a cold engine to warm it up is much worse than what they are doing, stupid though it is.. I don't know about most, but my guess is that a substantial portion of truckers are independents who likely do pay for maintenance. You're right about the warm-up... the engines are already hot from long driving. I can't recall if the driver ever shut the thing off in 3000 miles except to stop for fuel or a bio stop. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
A suggestion
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:49:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote: I don't know about most, but my guess is that a substantial portion of truckers are independents who likely do pay for maintenance. You're right about the warm-up... the engines are already hot from long driving. I can't recall if the driver ever shut the thing off in 3000 miles except to stop for fuel or a bio stop. We once had a post here from a guy who was responsible for diesel maintenance on a fleet of trucks at a gold mine in northern Canada. He said that basically the trucks idled all winter, over 3,000 engine hours each. He said that by spring the engines were mostly junk if I recall correctly. In contrast, a heavy duty diesel in normal service, and with good maintenance, will go 5,000 to 10,000 hours between overhauls. |
A suggestion
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... We once had a post here from a guy who was responsible for diesel maintenance on a fleet of trucks at a gold mine in northern Canada. He said that basically the trucks idled all winter, over 3,000 engine hours each. He said that by spring the engines were mostly junk if I recall correctly. In contrast, a heavy duty diesel in normal service, and with good maintenance, will go 5,000 to 10,000 hours between overhauls. That figures. Many years ago my employers sent me to Canada in the winter to find out how they managed to start diesels on oilrigs in winter. I found that basically they never stopped them and even moved them from place to place still running. I learned some drastic and time consuming methods they had devised to start an engine that had been allowed to get really cold with the oil in the sump turned to thick goo. |
A suggestion
On 2008-04-04 05:01:39 -0400, "Edgar" said:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:iMjJj.10032$s27.7854@trnddc02... "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Much better to cut out prolonged idling and get some load on sooner. Start up, and by the time you have checked the exhaust for cooling water, gone forward and cast off the mooring ropes the engine is ready to go. In other words, just long enough to spread some oil around inside the engine. If you cannot get load on for some time then stop the engine until you are ready. Yours is actually off the original topic (though entirely appropriate for the newsgroup), but exactly describes my techniques over the past 15 or so seasons. It's almost disappointing that those techniques have resulted in zero required adjustments or repairs in over 1000 hours' operation. I do the tests, the tests say "no problem". -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
A suggestion
On 2008-04-04 15:43:09 -0400, Wayne.B said:
We once had a post here from a guy who was responsible for diesel maintenance on a fleet of trucks at a gold mine in northern Canada. He said that basically the trucks idled all winter, over 3,000 engine hours each. He said that by spring the engines were mostly junk if I recall correctly. I'm too lazy/busy to do the implied required search, as following this group is a minor part of my daily activity, but my recollection of that thread and observation of truckers in my own area tells me that keeping the engine idling doesn't significantly add to the engine's demise. In fact, if the engines are shut down in those extremely low temperatures, drastic measures more injurious to to the engines are required to restart them. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
A suggestion
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 22:20:30 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . We once had a post here from a guy who was responsible for diesel maintenance on a fleet of trucks at a gold mine in northern Canada. He said that basically the trucks idled all winter, over 3,000 engine hours each. He said that by spring the engines were mostly junk if I recall correctly. In contrast, a heavy duty diesel in normal service, and with good maintenance, will go 5,000 to 10,000 hours between overhauls. That figures. Many years ago my employers sent me to Canada in the winter to find out how they managed to start diesels on oilrigs in winter. I found that basically they never stopped them and even moved them from place to place still running. I learned some drastic and time consuming methods they had devised to start an engine that had been allowed to get really cold with the oil in the sump turned to thick goo. I never worked up north but we did do some bids with one of the Canadian drilling companies and I had assumed from what they told me that all the winterized rigs had water and oil heaters installed in the engines. Certainly the floor and mast are protected and heated well enough that you can work there. .. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:51:26 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-04-04 05:01:39 -0400, "Edgar" said: "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message news:iMjJj.10032$s27.7854@trnddc02... "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote: read a reference to one of your posts, quoted in part by Roger, that sounded as though the RPM was only unstable at low RPM, I remember something about 1,000 RPM. Most diesels need to idle in the 1300-1500 RPM area in order to generate enough waste heat to prevent "wet-stacking" which will cause glazing of the cylinder walls, creating a VERY expensive repair. Much better to cut out prolonged idling and get some load on sooner. Start up, and by the time you have checked the exhaust for cooling water, gone forward and cast off the mooring ropes the engine is ready to go. In other words, just long enough to spread some oil around inside the engine. If you cannot get load on for some time then stop the engine until you are ready. Yours is actually off the original topic (though entirely appropriate for the newsgroup), but exactly describes my techniques over the past 15 or so seasons. It's almost disappointing that those techniques have resulted in zero required adjustments or repairs in over 1000 hours' operation. I do the tests, the tests say "no problem". The problem is that " Idle" is a relative term. I just finished overhauling the governor for a Gardner engine 6 cylinder engine that turned 1150 RPM at full throttle, and idled at 500 RPM. An 18 Ltr engine producing 170 H.P. A little hard to get it up to the recommended 1300 - 1500 RPM :-) I also saw, but didn't work on, a single cylinder semi-diesel that ran at 200 RPM. I asked the Motor-man how long it had been running and he told me that he had been there for five years and it was running when he got there and never stopped during his stay. Somehow this dire warning not to idle a diesel doesn't seem to apply to some engines. I think that if you substitute "lightly loaded" for "idle" you might more accurately describe the condition. As an aside, I have been fooling with these engines for some 50 or 60 years and the only people I have ever heard talk about not idling diesels are boat people and primarily yacht people. Heavy trucks, drilling rigs, heavy equipment, fishing boats, all frequently idle or run at low power for long periods with no apparent problems. Now I'm not trying to say that yachties don't know what they are talking about but it does seem strange that they seem to be the only people that talk about "not idling engines". I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. A bulldozer, for example will operate at either idle or full throttle all its working life. Generator sets are usually sized to work at about 90% of maximum continuous rating. I installed a 1500 HP compressor engine that was sized to operate at 90% of maximum. That engine, by the way, was overhauled after 5 years of 24 hour a day operation, some 40,000 hours of operation. And that overhaul was done primarily because the plant had to be shut down to replace some piping and the manager decided that as long as the plant was down for a month they "might as well overhaul the engine". My own suspicions are that if you run an engine for long periods at light loads, as many people do when charging batteries you are asking for problems. Particularly if you don't follow that low load period with a period at nearly full power. My own Perkins, overhauled 8 years ago is run at 2,000 RPM to charge batteries and at the same RPM when motoring. Other then that I don't pay any attention to whether it is idling or not. If I'm rigging the mooring lines it idles. It doesn't burn any more oil today then it did just after I overhauled it.... Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... That figures. Many years ago my employers sent me to Canada in the winter to find out how they managed to start diesels on oilrigs in winter. I found that basically they never stopped them and even moved them from place to place still running. I learned some drastic and time consuming methods they had devised to start an engine that had been allowed to get really cold with the oil in the sump turned to thick goo. I never worked up north but we did do some bids with one of the Canadian drilling companies and I had assumed from what they told me that all the winterized rigs had water and oil heaters installed in the engines. Certainly the floor and mast are protected and heated well enough that you can work there. Thet may well do so now. Like I said it was _many_ years ago and things were more basic then.. |
A suggestion
On 2008-04-05 09:48:23 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said:
I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. Talking around the docks, and here, I find that most 'yacht' engines are also either at idle or 80+% of designed revs. I'm a bit unusual that I normally power at less than 80% of the engine's max revs to maximize fuel economy. At 70-75% of max revs, we get 25-30 mpg. 80% has us pushing against hull speed. Full revs push us over hull speed, and I've only done that twice in 15 seasons. Most sailors run at high power when they motor. If they turn the motor on, they're by definition in a hurry. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
A suggestion
"Jere Lull" wrote in message news:2008040520315216807-jerelull@maccom... On 2008-04-05 09:48:23 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said: I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. Talking around the docks, and here, I find that most 'yacht' engines are also either at idle or 80+% of designed revs. I'm a bit unusual that I normally power at less than 80% of the engine's max revs to maximize fuel economy. At 70-75% of max revs, we get 25-30 mpg. 80% has us pushing against hull speed. Full revs push us over hull speed, and I've only done that twice in 15 seasons. Most sailors run at high power when they motor. If they turn the motor on, they're by definition in a hurry. I've noticed another prevalent reason why they start their inboard motors even if they don't need them. They say it's to top off the batteries but I can't help but notice it's more of a security blanket. They feel more secure and safer if the motor is running even when they're sailing. This is especially noticeable in rough weather. There's something about that motor running even in idle that makes them feel better. The binky effect, so to speak! Even at anchor, the minute high winds or threatening dark clouds come up many diesels began to run. They say it's to take the strain off the anchors but that's bull****. It's to take the strain of their paranoid minds. They don't trust their own anchoring jobs! This is a sad statement about how motors actually cause sailors to be sloppy so they rely more on their motors and then they become sloppier so they rely still more on their motors and when the motor dies they are lost, totally lost. This is today's sad state of "sailing." Wilbur Hubbard |
A suggestion
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:31:52 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-04-05 09:48:23 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said: I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. Talking around the docks, and here, I find that most 'yacht' engines are also either at idle or 80+% of designed revs. I'm a bit unusual that I normally power at less than 80% of the engine's max revs to maximize fuel economy. At 70-75% of max revs, we get 25-30 mpg. 80% has us pushing against hull speed. Full revs push us over hull speed, and I've only done that twice in 15 seasons. Most sailors run at high power when they motor. If they turn the motor on, they're by definition in a hurry. Your engine is too big, simple as that :-) By the way, how do you calculate miles per gallon? No tides in the Chesapeake? Over in the dry (N.E. monsoon) season you motor when there isn't any wind, which is usually when the land breeze dies about 11:00 every morning. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... Over in the dry (N.E. monsoon) season you motor when there isn't any wind, which is usually when the land breeze dies about 11:00 every morning. Yah, like you really need to motor when tied up to the dock for the past two years. Nice try, Brucie Boi! Wilbur Hubbard |
A suggestion
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:14:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:31:52 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2008-04-05 09:48:23 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said: I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. Talking around the docks, and here, I find that most 'yacht' engines are also either at idle or 80+% of designed revs. I'm a bit unusual that I normally power at less than 80% of the engine's max revs to maximize fuel economy. At 70-75% of max revs, we get 25-30 mpg. 80% has us pushing against hull speed. Full revs push us over hull speed, and I've only done that twice in 15 seasons. Most sailors run at high power when they motor. If they turn the motor on, they're by definition in a hurry. Your engine is too big, simple as that :-) By the way, how do you calculate miles per gallon? No tides in the Chesapeake? Over in the dry (N.E. monsoon) season you motor when there isn't any wind, which is usually when the land breeze dies about 11:00 every morning. Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) Correction: should have read "over here in the dry...." got in a rush... Your breakfast is on the table! Yup. YOUR breakfast is on the table! Yup. YOUR BREAKFAST IS ON THE TABLE.......... Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
On 2008-04-05 22:14:15 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:31:52 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2008-04-05 09:48:23 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said: I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. Talking around the docks, and here, I find that most 'yacht' engines are also either at idle or 80+% of designed revs. I'm a bit unusual that I normally power at less than 80% of the engine's max revs to maximize fuel economy. At 70-75% of max revs, we get 25-30 mpg. 80% has us pushing against hull speed. Full revs push us over hull speed, and I've only done that twice in 15 seasons. Most sailors run at high power when they motor. If they turn the motor on, they're by definition in a hurry. Your engine is too big, simple as that :-) No disagreement, but it was an engine new to the market. Its predecessor would have been just right, but I liked the idea of the closed-loop fresh-water cooling. I still prefer it, truth be told. By the way, how do you calculate miles per gallon? No tides in the Chesapeake? We have tides, more accurately we have currents that tend towards a full knot southbound in our area, but I'm dividing average speed through the water by average fuel burn. Speed over the ground will vary with the current of course. Over in the dry (N.E. monsoon) season you motor when there isn't any wind, which is usually when the land breeze dies about 11:00 every morning. Exactly. You're in a hurry. Otherwise, you'd wait for the wind to come back. ;-) Nothing wrong with that, since that's why we have auxiliaries, but few sailors power much below hull speed. By dropping the speed a knot or so, consumption drops dramatically. If we have the auxiliary on and in gear, we pull nearly 3 knots at idle. But our most economical speed is about 5 or 5.5 knots. Our theoretical hull speed is 6.65 knots, though Xan is as comfortable at 7+ knots as 5 under sail. Come to think about it, she's more comfortable above that speed than below, but she is a known show-off that delights in breaking the rules. She considers hull speed a suggestion, not a law. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
A suggestion
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:30:44 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2008-04-05 22:14:15 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said: On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:31:52 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2008-04-05 09:48:23 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said: I suspect, but can't prove that yacht engines are seldom run at maximum continuous horsepower settings for any length of time while most commercial engines are. Talking around the docks, and here, I find that most 'yacht' engines are also either at idle or 80+% of designed revs. I'm a bit unusual that I normally power at less than 80% of the engine's max revs to maximize fuel economy. At 70-75% of max revs, we get 25-30 mpg. 80% has us pushing against hull speed. Full revs push us over hull speed, and I've only done that twice in 15 seasons. Most sailors run at high power when they motor. If they turn the motor on, they're by definition in a hurry. Your engine is too big, simple as that :-) No disagreement, but it was an engine new to the market. Its predecessor would have been just right, but I liked the idea of the closed-loop fresh-water cooling. I still prefer it, truth be told. By the way, how do you calculate miles per gallon? No tides in the Chesapeake? We have tides, more accurately we have currents that tend towards a full knot southbound in our area, but I'm dividing average speed through the water by average fuel burn. Speed over the ground will vary with the current of course. That is a legitimate method although a little depressing at times. I was coming up the Malacca straits (with too small a prop) and according to the Knot Log was doing 4 knots. According to the GPS, 1 knot. Not only that but my wife kept saying "when are we getting to ....., Why aren't we going faster...." Not one of my better trips. Not only that but when I took the too small, full feathering, very expensive, propeller off and had it for sale at a "second hand" boat stuff shop the shop got raided by customs who declared the entire stock as smuggled, i.e., not duty paid and my prop got confiscated. Not a good experience at all. Over in the dry (N.E. monsoon) season you motor when there isn't any wind, which is usually when the land breeze dies about 11:00 every morning. Exactly. You're in a hurry. Otherwise, you'd wait for the wind to come back. ;-) The wind will come back tomorrow, about 08:00, for three hours. Nothing wrong with that, since that's why we have auxiliaries, but few sailors power much below hull speed. By dropping the speed a knot or so, consumption drops dramatically. If we have the auxiliary on and in gear, we pull nearly 3 knots at idle. But our most economical speed is about 5 or 5.5 knots. Our theoretical hull speed is 6.65 knots, though Xan is as comfortable at 7+ knots as 5 under sail. Come to think about it, she's more comfortable above that speed than below, but she is a known show-off that delights in breaking the rules. She considers hull speed a suggestion, not a law. Do you sail with only your wife ( or significant other) or do you have a mob aboard? I have a 40 ft. sloop and find it a fine boat for myself and my wife but a bit small for more. Or perhaps I'm a just a grouchy old man. The last passenger I had aboard was a friend of a friend that had helped the friend to bring his boat back to Thailand when the friend was sick. As a result he didn't have the correct stamps in his passport and I was asked to take him back to Malaysia. . I picked the guy up at a remote island and he obviously had been drinking beer for the better part of the day and hadn't bothered to bathe in the past few days. As soon as he came aboard I explained that we slept on the deck as it was too hot down below and even then my wife birched (in Thai) for the two days we had him aboard. No more favors for that "friend". Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) |
A suggestion
On 2008-04-06 08:45:15 -0400, Bruce in Bangkok said:
Do you sail with only your wife ( or significant other) or do you have a mob aboard? I have a 40 ft. sloop and find it a fine boat for myself and my wife but a bit small for more. Or perhaps I'm a just a grouchy old man. We're a bit smaller, but find Xan's about right for the two of us. We rarely take others onboard because our pleasure dome is intended for us two. We need and enjoy the time alone. Being a grouchy old man is disconnected with the size of boat ;-) -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com