Doc Sprocket
*********
Whaddya trying to say, Jim?
Converting engine to 6-stroke
- Thread starter irelandbiker
- Start date
- Status
Desertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
This so called six stroke engine falls under all the scams and B.S. that people suck in everyday! Along with all the snake oil additives and wiz bang devices that are bought everyday by people in the belief that they will indeed save fuel and or increase power etc.
Sometimes you have to use your own brain to weed this stuff aside!!!
Spend the time that is wasted on sh_t like this and find out how things really work and then you can see who is feeding you full of it!!!
Sometimes you have to use your own brain to weed this stuff aside!!!
Spend the time that is wasted on sh_t like this and find out how things really work and then you can see who is feeding you full of it!!!
machinist@large
Active member
I was quoting the approximate weight limit for the tool changer; it's a swing arm machine, so if you get much over that it starts to throw the tools at the end of it's swing stroke. Any tool heavier than that, you need to hand load into the spindle. We also have to move the table over to the side opposite the swing arm as well; that machine is currently the pattern/ pallet tooling machine, and many of the tools in the magazine are over 20" long, counting the tool holder, which means we can't change tools over the workpiece. The guy I replaced tried that; it wasn't pretty. At least the all new swing arm unit works a treat.....
That's also the only HAAS the shop has; we have a pretty eclectic mix of rolling stock, many with different model Fanuc's in the dash. The only controls that we have that are a real PITA to deal with are the Mazak's; apparently that company still suffers under the delusion that inputting a piece of data in two to three different places in the control is more efficent, and less prone to operator error than a control where you only need to input it once is.....
Jim, if you can run a Fanuc, I can have you up to speed on a HAAS control in an hour or so; they give you the option in the parameters to configure the layout to be similar to Fanuc, Heidenhein, Yaskawa, etc., so that you set up the layout more closely to any other systems you have in your plant.
As far as this topic goes..... All I have to say is this...... IF THERE WAS ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO DOING THIS ALL THE TOP AUTO MAKERS would have it figured out BY NOW and we would all have one in the driveway..... Its not gonna happen, not now,not tomorrow, not ever....... just not feasible.....
As Doc implied, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think; don't hold back on us now.....
Amen, brother.
PatDesertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
Just like I always like to say when something arises like this.
There is common sense and then there is nonsense!!!
There is common sense and then there is nonsense!!!
robbie
New member
This is one of the dumbest conversations I've ever participated in. There are so many blind preconceptions involved, it's hard to count them all.
The original question was about the theoretical concept of 6 stroke engines. I don't even know what that means, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. Then we start talking about auto manufacturing, which is subject to countless influences that carry a higher priority than mechanical design. Why do companies pay taxes for building gas guzzlers? Because these models earn sales revenue to pay the taxes plus profit. That's why. I know they could make more efficient cars, because they have, many times. My 1951 Studebaker got better gas mileage than my 1998 Plymouth Voyager does. I have a 1993 Honda Civic that gets way better gas mileage than a new Civic. The manufacturers don't care about efficiency, other than how it effects their profit margin, just like they don't care that the mechanic has to stand on his head to change the spark plugs when the car is a few years old. The number 1 factor in auto design is "What kind of car can we dream up to separate the new car buyer from more dollars, while appeasing the government regulators?"
The number 1 reason why they don't put another system on a car such as methanol, water, or fairy dust, is because new car buyers don't want it, and they are hesitant to do something that will have an unpredictable effect on sales. Also, it is quite likely that there would be no real savings involved in these new systems for various economic, logistical, and practical reasons.
I don't want to insult anybody, but this originated as a topic about theoretical design, which is always interesting, but some people just don't know how to separate that from their own experiences in life, which in this case mainly involve working with mechanical products with no concern for the various influences which lead to their existence. Pure mechanics is fun, and is what most of us do, because that's what we're surrounded with in our lives. Theoretical design is a completely different matter. Most people, including mechanics, encounter a product only after the research and development phase is over and the new product appears. Research and development of a new product is another entirely different matter as well. In addition to actual principles of operation, other things are considered, such as practicality and cost of production and especially market appeal. Why is your car built the way it is built? Certainly not because that's the best way to build it.
Please note that I am not in any way "grasping at straws". I am amazed at the utter lack of communication going on in this conversation. It's more like several different conversations going on at the same time, because some people are talking about design theory, while others are talking about actual products while mis attributing at least 50% of the reason for their design.
Here's a good example of a theory that people tend to have a problem accepting, in my experience. I believe that if we counted in base 8 instead of base 10, most people would be a lot better at math. It appears that people naturally have a tendency to divide and multiply by 2 because of some organic understanding of the concept, but base 10 makes this process complicated to the point that we have some people who are good at math and a lot more who aren't. I think that in base 8, more people would be good at math. This theory may or may not be true, but it occurs to me that a person who teaches math, or a person who uses decimal measurements (such as a machinist) might have a tendency to call this a stupid theory because switching over to base 8 would cause a huge upheaval in society. But that is not what the original proposition was. It was a theory that regardless of what exists today, a world of base 8 would be better.
Similarly, regardless of what goes on under the hood of a Subaru, there may in fact be a different way to run an engine, and it may in fact have certain advantages. Try not to let this get to you personally. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with Slick 50, Engine Honey, Structured Water, or any other device that separates people from their money on a daily basis, and it also has nothing to do with ideas about the oil companies buying patents and burying them, etc. There are far more logical reasons why products are designed the way they are.
Anyway, this forum was designed for people who tinker with off-the-shelf mechanical components, and that's who it attracts. Makes sense. Honestly, I don't have high hopes for this post to be taken as it was intended either......
The original question was about the theoretical concept of 6 stroke engines. I don't even know what that means, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work. Then we start talking about auto manufacturing, which is subject to countless influences that carry a higher priority than mechanical design. Why do companies pay taxes for building gas guzzlers? Because these models earn sales revenue to pay the taxes plus profit. That's why. I know they could make more efficient cars, because they have, many times. My 1951 Studebaker got better gas mileage than my 1998 Plymouth Voyager does. I have a 1993 Honda Civic that gets way better gas mileage than a new Civic. The manufacturers don't care about efficiency, other than how it effects their profit margin, just like they don't care that the mechanic has to stand on his head to change the spark plugs when the car is a few years old. The number 1 factor in auto design is "What kind of car can we dream up to separate the new car buyer from more dollars, while appeasing the government regulators?"
The number 1 reason why they don't put another system on a car such as methanol, water, or fairy dust, is because new car buyers don't want it, and they are hesitant to do something that will have an unpredictable effect on sales. Also, it is quite likely that there would be no real savings involved in these new systems for various economic, logistical, and practical reasons.
I don't want to insult anybody, but this originated as a topic about theoretical design, which is always interesting, but some people just don't know how to separate that from their own experiences in life, which in this case mainly involve working with mechanical products with no concern for the various influences which lead to their existence. Pure mechanics is fun, and is what most of us do, because that's what we're surrounded with in our lives. Theoretical design is a completely different matter. Most people, including mechanics, encounter a product only after the research and development phase is over and the new product appears. Research and development of a new product is another entirely different matter as well. In addition to actual principles of operation, other things are considered, such as practicality and cost of production and especially market appeal. Why is your car built the way it is built? Certainly not because that's the best way to build it.
Please note that I am not in any way "grasping at straws". I am amazed at the utter lack of communication going on in this conversation. It's more like several different conversations going on at the same time, because some people are talking about design theory, while others are talking about actual products while mis attributing at least 50% of the reason for their design.
Here's a good example of a theory that people tend to have a problem accepting, in my experience. I believe that if we counted in base 8 instead of base 10, most people would be a lot better at math. It appears that people naturally have a tendency to divide and multiply by 2 because of some organic understanding of the concept, but base 10 makes this process complicated to the point that we have some people who are good at math and a lot more who aren't. I think that in base 8, more people would be good at math. This theory may or may not be true, but it occurs to me that a person who teaches math, or a person who uses decimal measurements (such as a machinist) might have a tendency to call this a stupid theory because switching over to base 8 would cause a huge upheaval in society. But that is not what the original proposition was. It was a theory that regardless of what exists today, a world of base 8 would be better.
Similarly, regardless of what goes on under the hood of a Subaru, there may in fact be a different way to run an engine, and it may in fact have certain advantages. Try not to let this get to you personally. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with Slick 50, Engine Honey, Structured Water, or any other device that separates people from their money on a daily basis, and it also has nothing to do with ideas about the oil companies buying patents and burying them, etc. There are far more logical reasons why products are designed the way they are.
Anyway, this forum was designed for people who tinker with off-the-shelf mechanical components, and that's who it attracts. Makes sense. Honestly, I don't have high hopes for this post to be taken as it was intended either......
hehe, robbie.. this is getting really funnny...
since the one person I know building engines from scratch is desertduler.
talk about preconceptions huh?
'sid
since the one person I know building engines from scratch is desertduler.
talk about preconceptions huh?
'sid
robbie
New member
Lots of people build engines from scratch. Most scratch builders simply copy well known practice. Do you know anybody involved in design theory?
You apparently don't understand the difference between theoretical discussions and automotive design factors. That's funny.
You apparently don't understand the difference between theoretical discussions and automotive design factors. That's funny.
robbie
New member
I'd also like to point out that I actually don't claim to know whether it would be beneficial, effective or practical to run an engine with water injection, or with six strokes for that matter. I am not making the claim that some technology is being suppressed or that the big companies are holding us down and making us buy more gasoline, or any of those silly things. The main point here is that some people understand that no matter how things are done there could be another way to do it, and it takes a lot of work to figure it out. Other people believe that whatever exists is pretty much the way it has to be. If you don't get that, then therein lies the problem.
Poboy kartman
Senior Moments Member
No Robbie, I think we get it. What you are missing is when theory overlaps with known technology and you ignore the known effects of altering the known technology in a way that has already been done- you're not talking theory anymore- you're just wrong.
Hmmmmmm- as if you didn't have enough worms to try and put back in the can. An 8 based math? Once again, lets step back from conjecture and into reality. The 10 based system has a name- metrics. The 8 based system is what we use. 8 one eights make an inch. It takes 4 cups to make a quart. We use a 10 base system to manage our money. Is that confusing to you?
But how about adding 3/4" and 5/8" together? Gotta convert to a common denominator. But with a 10 based system all you have to worry about is where the decimal is.
Hmmmmmm- as if you didn't have enough worms to try and put back in the can. An 8 based math? Once again, lets step back from conjecture and into reality. The 10 based system has a name- metrics. The 8 based system is what we use. 8 one eights make an inch. It takes 4 cups to make a quart. We use a 10 base system to manage our money. Is that confusing to you?
But how about adding 3/4" and 5/8" together? Gotta convert to a common denominator. But with a 10 based system all you have to worry about is where the decimal is.
Desertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
Sir you are so wrong. I am not going to grandstand here or anywhere else I do indeed design and build my own engines from no one elses ideas but my own. I choose not to be arrogant about it but you do not know me so please do not say that I copy other designs that are not my own.
machinist@large
Active member
Stirling, steam or I.C.?
Desertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
Desertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
Here is one type I am working with I have many others that I care not to post right now these are some of the components and I will not go into alot of detail right now about them.
Attachments
-
Engine.jpg
machinist@large
Active member
I'll PM you...
Poboy kartman
Senior Moments Member
machinist@large
Active member
I saw one like that at Harbor Freight. ......JK.
:arf: He is going to hunt you down with a pop rivet gun for that.......
firemanjim
Just kartin' around....
No Robbie, I think we get it. What you are missing is when theory overlaps with known technology and you ignore the known effects of altering the known technology in a way that has already been done- you're not talking theory anymore- you're just wrong.
Hmmmmmm- as if you didn't have enough worms to try and put back in the can. An 8 based math? Once again, lets step back from conjecture and into reality. The 10 based system has a name- metrics. The 8 based system is what we use. 8 one eights make an inch. It takes 4 cups to make a quart. We use a 10 base system to manage our money. Is that confusing to you?
But how about adding 3/4" and 5/8" together? Gotta convert to a common denominator. But with a 10 based system all you have to worry about is where the decimal is.[/QUOTE
SEE ,Doug aint dumb..... he just acts like a goofy hick so no one tries to obtain a glimpse of his intellect......
Desertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
machinist@large
Active member
I saw one like that at Harbor Freight. ......JK.
Maybe a Clone???
Oh Crap!!! Do you mean that the copy machine from Muppet labs has made it into the REAL WORLD?!?!? A half dozen copies of poor Beaker we should be able to handle..... But that?!?!?
I'm gona go hide under my bed now....Desertduler
Active member
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 9
See,I told you to keep it quiet!
- Status