Are early car build ups a viable option anymore ?

[JV Puleo]

Here is the sub-frame material - from the 1911 edition of Heldt.

 

 

 

Heldt also makes reference to the fact that many commercial engine makers (like Wisconsin and Teetor Hartley) made the crankcases with removable arms so that they could be fitted to different width sub-frames. I think that if I was in your situation, I'd be looking for a largely complete engine from a truck...perhaps no easier to find but maybe easier to find ne big enough. the real problem is that the Staver was a fairly large car by the standards of the time and 40-50 HP motors are scarce.

[JustDave]

When I was a kid I used to hang around the older guys with the antique cars,an old man I was very close to was just floored by me asking about building a car up from just a classic,he said look here I bought this complete 1913 Cadillac Victoria he called it,with a parts car for only 3500 dollars,he couldn’t understand it would be years before I could spend that amount of money on a hobby project,he said buy a model t you can get those cheap,I talked to another friend who had too auburn boat tails that he restored and he just laughed at me for thinking I could build a car from a parts car,I always wanted an early car but was never in the right place at the right time,I’m a lot older now but I think if a project came along I’d still go for it,    Dave

[Terry Harper]

7 hours ago, 1912Staver said:

 

I didn't realise there would be a standard but it now makes sense that I measured a FWD truck Wisconsin "T" head and found it would almost bolt into place. A Wisconsin would be an ideal transplant engine but they seem to be just as hard to find as Teetor Hartley's. All those pesky Stutz owners have seen to that.

 

 

Hello Greg,

 

All Wisconsin motor mounts, whether cast with the crankcase or separate bolt on castings measure 27" 

In regards to your Staver how about a mono-block Wisconsin? These may be easier to find than a T-head

and were offered as early as 1914. They were also used widely in trucks and tractors. Early Cletrac crawlers come to mind.

 

Some 4 cylinder models to look for would be:

Type "C" (3-3/4"x5")

Type"E" (4"x5")

CU (3-3/4"X5")

EU (4"x5")

 

There were of course later models as well. 

 

 

[1912Staver]

Hi gent's , I gave my frame a quick measurement. It is 17 3/4 " inside dimension in the sub frame rails.  The mounting bosses would be roughly 24 " from outside front to outside rear.  The engine itself needs to be quite narrow , notice in the picture there is not much except the flywheel that is wider than a couple of inches beyond the subframe.

I have most of a spare Packard 2 ton 4 cyl. side valve. I tried a test fit years ago. It was much too wide particularly in the timing gear area and the flywheel.

Terry , I think you have written 27 " rather than 17 ". I know the FWD engine is very close . The Stutz version is wider, the mounting arms are cast to mount to the main frame rails in a Stutz. Paul Freehill used to cast the crankcases with the wider mounts so Wisconsin truck engines could 

be converted to the Stutz configuration.

 JV, too bad you missed the FWD Wisconsin's. Very nice engines ! I am sure they were scooped up quickly.  But when trying to concentrate on a major project it is definitely a good plan to avoid distractions. A mistake I have often made.

 

Its a bit hard to see in these photo's but the truck version is definitely narrower than the Stutz car version. Notice where the water pump is in realation to the frame rail in the second and bottom photo.

A Stutz steering box would fit the bill nicely as well. If you are going to dream why not dream big.

Greg

Edited March 22, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Terry Harper]

Hi Greg,

My bad (eyes) I went and checked the 1914 Wisconsin catalog and it is 17” according to the general arrangement drawings. Interestingly the text states 17-3/4”. Optional 27”.

 

In fighting trim a Wisconsin “A” (4-3/4”x5”) weighs 580 lbs the Model “B” (4-1/4”x5”) weighs 475lbs

[1912Staver]

That makes sense. The 17" would be the truck version ( subframe ) and the 27" would be the car version ( mounts to the main rails). 

Those weights sound about right.  

Thanks for the specfications .

The other limiting factor when considering alternative engines is the width of the flywheel. The relatively early engines like Teetor and the WW1 era Wisconsin engines use relatively small diameter flywheels that run in the open.

Any newer than about 1912 and flywheels enclosed by bellhousings start to become much more common. Almost any engine with a bellhousing will be too wide to mount within a subframe. On some engines the bellhousing is

a separate bolt on part and could possibly be left off , but at first many were cast in one piece with the crankcase.

Greg

Edited March 22, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Terry Harper]

12 hours ago, 1912Staver said:

That makes sense. The 17" would be the truck version ( subframe ) and the 27" would be the car version ( mounts to the main rails). 

Those weights sound about right.  

Thanks for the specfications .

The other limiting factor when considering alternative engines is the width of the flywheel. The relatively early engines like Teetor and the WW1 era Wisconsin engines use relatively small diameter flywheels that run in the open.

Any newer than about 1912 and flywheels enclosed by bellhousings start to become much more common. Almost any engine with a bellhousing will be too wide to mount within a subframe. On some engines the bellhousing is

a separate bolt on part and could possibly be left off , but at first many were cast in one piece with the crankcase.

Greg

 

 

PM Sent

[Terry Harper]

Hello Greg,

 

Here is the Type "C" and "E" these have open flywheels. (16.75" diameter)

The CU and EU have bell housings cast integral with the crankcase so those wouldn't work for you.

 

Might be worth keeping an eye out for.

 

 

[AHa]

These look like very good options and close enough in appearance that most people will not be able to know the non original. Now if only you could find one. I have to say I am pulling for you. I still think pouring a new crankcase is a viable option. It would take some networking with owners of cars that use motors like yours but the deep pocket guys sometimes spend money for the fun of it. Having a backup aluminum crankcase is a wise choice with the idiosyncrasies of the originals. If you contacted the owners with your predicament and proposition, you might find a few willing to go in with you. As I understand it, the crankcase can be scanned and the pattern printed, so the cost and trouble is much less. Still I understand there are a few wisconsin motors still out there. Several has been bought lately for speedsters. If a plea were made for one to complete a rare and desirable car, it might just bring one to light.

[AHa]

By the way, can the motors Joe passed on be traced down. Perhaps one could be purchased but would it work?

[1912Staver]

Hi all, the F.W.D. truck version is from what I can see the Wisconsin that is the best interchange for a Teetor Hartley. Is this what Wisconsin calls the type "B" ? If either of the two later side valve engines , type  " C " or type  " E " are made in the subframe configuration then they would be equally suitable.

I have a feeling they are all going to be reasonably difficult to find but at least other possibility's exist.

 

AHa, I agree that a new crankcase casting may be the best. Before I embarked on such a complex task I was always hoping that at least a damaged Teetor would turn up. One may still. There is still a great deal of work to do to the car before I am at the point where I absolutely need an engine to continue.

 

I will follow up on the possible leads some of you have provided. For the time being even if one was available right next door in Washington state I can't even cross the border to get it. So as always with the vintage car restoration game, patience is a virtue.

 

Greg

[wayne sheldon]

For production or even limited scale important things, significant design work is done first. Next is the pattern maker, followed by the form maker. Those two things are somewhat different specialties, although some people (used to be?)  were good at both. I certainly cannot recite the formulas, but they are critical. Thermal shrinkage of the casting MUST be accounted for. In addition, there are many tricks of the trades about how molten aluminum flows and spreads that would help a lot to know. Vents MUST be provided.

Knowing all that, I have always believed that with some creative thinking,it would be possible for a hobbyist to skip the pattern, and go straight to building a form (sort of inside out if you follow my meaning?).They could be made in numerous areas as separate pieces, then linked together for a pour. It may also be possible (check with a metallurgist first for best materials to use) to cast a crankcase in sides or sections to be welded together after casting.

No matter how you approach it, it would not be cheap. But it may be manageable.

It is something I have never been seriously involved in doing, but always wanted to. I have been around and helped with several projects over the years. Interesting stuff!

[AHa]

Wayne, did you notice the post about Lee Stohr? I haven't checked with him concerning cost, but if he can digitally scan a crankcase and digitally print a pattern, its got to be a huge cost savings. I made a pattern for a single cylinder crankcase just as an exercise but the foundry said it was good enough to pour, so pour we did, and I took it to the machine shop and had it machined, and now I have a motor for my project/1900car.weebly.com

[1912Staver]

That's a great restoration AHa ! Quite remarkable you were able to save one of the true pioneer auto's. 

 

Greg

[1912Staver]

5 hours ago, wayne sheldon said:

For production or even limited scale important things, significant design work is done first. Next is the pattern maker, followed by the form maker. Those two things are somewhat different specialties, although some people (used to be?)  were good at both. I certainly cannot recite the formulas, but they are critical. Thermal shrinkage of the casting MUST be accounted for. In addition, there are many tricks of the trades about how molten aluminum flows and spreads that would help a lot to know. Vents MUST be provided.

Knowing all that, I have always believed that with some creative thinking,it would be possible for a hobbyist to skip the pattern, and go straight to building a form (sort of inside out if you follow my meaning?).They could be made in numerous areas as separate pieces, then linked together for a pour. It may also be possible (check with a metallurgist first for best materials to use) to cast a crankcase in sides or sections to be welded together after casting.

No matter how you approach it, it would not be cheap. But it may be manageable.

It is something I have never been seriously involved in doing, but always wanted to. I have been around and helped with several projects over the years. Interesting stuff!

 

Hi Wayne, for simple castings patterns can sometimes be either extremely simple or done as you suggest. For something as complex as a 4 cyl crankcase I can't see how you could not use patterns. Terry Harpers excellent threads show just how much pattern work is necessary even for comparatively simple parts like his manifold and coolant pipes .

A crankcase is a very complex 3 dimensional shape and will require an equally complex pattern and cores. Even if a person can scan an existing crankcase and 3 D print the patterns and cores it is still a sizable undertaking. People have definitely successfully cast replacement crankcases in the past but it is none the less a 

major project. And in most cases it is done to replace a part that has failed , with the failed part in hand to work from.

Greg

[Terry Harper]

Casting a new crankcase is doable. However, as I have pointed out in a number of  post the cost can be 

prohibitive unless you have deep pockets or can do a lot of the work yourself. Design, patterns, core boxes and 

shop drawings.

 

3D scanning is a great tool but it does have limitations. The critical areas are the internal structure of the crankcase

and I think you would be hard pressed to get an owner of a running engine to tear it down so you could

take a look or scan. 

 

3D printing from the scans is not straight forward. Its a huge help but isn't a magic wand by any stretch of the imagination.

Once scanned the parametric models have to be manipulated and modified to remove any imperfections and discrepancies,

provide for draft, shrinkage, part lines, machine allowance and of course create the all important shop drawings with tolerances and fits.

 

It becomes a bit more complicated when having to interface with existing components such as the crankshaft, cams, gears etc.

While having those surviving parts can save a lot the engineering aspect becomes more critical. For instance ensuring that 

the the cams, crankshaft, idler gears all have the correct center distance and allow for proper gear mesh. and thrust clearance.

If your working from scratch with all new components its actually easier.

 

On the plus side, without having access to a torn down engine, your pretty free in your interpretation. Webs, babbitt or inserts, oil

galleries, any modern tweeks  - all will be hidden away.  Getting the outside correct is fairly easy. Even here remember you are looking

at design intent. If your configuration varies in a non-critical area than that's not a problem.

 

As for the patterns themselves its not that difficult and simple wood patterns and coreboxes would be cheap and fairly

simple to do. The most difficult area would be the front gear case. Again, just remember draft, part lines and machining 

allowance.

 

I tried to find a photo but a couple of years ago a gentleman produced a massive four cylinder T-heard  from scratch for

a Gas Traction Company Big Four traction engine. There was an extensive thread on the Smokestak forum.

So it can be done!

 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Terry Harper (see edit history)

[Terry Harper]

Hello Greg,

 

It is a big undertaking. But its not beyond the average persons skills if they are willing to make a few

mistakes and are willing to apply the time.

 

In regards to cores. They are just patterns turned inside out. Some of my patterns got complex because

of the odd angles and the need to follow a odd shaped part line. In the crankcase this shouldn't happen.

 

Your talking flat or curved surfaces and everything horizontal or vertical which is excellent.

Over on the Model T Ford Club website there is a gentleman casting blocks.

 

Mind being a mono-block design with all the water passages etc. its a much, much more complex

task than you are looking at.

 

 

 

 

[AHa]

I believe Lee Stohr could take the picture of your crankcase, your block and oil pan and crank, and create a pattern and pour you a crankcase. The picture of the motor in my earlier post was created in similar fashion. As to cost, I have no idea but it might be worth contacting him.

[1912Staver]

I am in total agreement Terry. I do have enough of the internals to reverse engineer quite a bit of the basic dimensions. I am just reluctant to invest the sort of time and money that would be necessary to create castings that are  functional but only

close - ish to the originals. I also have probably a decade of work to do on the car itself. From both a time and money point of view. There is still a possibility that either the correct engine or parts will show up or that I can find an alternate engine.

Work on the car can continue regardless of what is ultimately done about the engine.

 AHa , I do appreciate your recommendation about Lee Stohr. But work of that sort is clearly beyond the affordability of a retired Canadian living on a rather modest pension. Not only is my Canadian dollar worth little more than dirt compared to the U.S. dollar but there are blessed few of them

left over after the monthly expenses are covered.

Lee Stohr can clearly do remarkable work and it is definitely of value to see how he approaches the process.

As I have mentioned before, it may take a change of ownership to solve this cars problem. 

 

Greg

 

[AHa]

 

Greg, I have this water pump for a 4 x 4 motor I am currently working on. I could see about getting a casting done. This one is made out of cast iron but a magnesium bronze one should work. I haven't cast anything this complicated so it might get expensive. Sounds like you'd be better off with a motor.

[Terry Harper]

Hello Greg,

 

It is daunting but its pretty much like eating a moose... one bite at a time. 

 

I am pretty confident with access to photos and measurements of an original you can

certainly replicate the exterior shape and features very, very close. Heck... most of my

pattern are started just that way. Some photos and good sketches.

 

In fact I guess that is exactly where I would start - looking at the external shape and features and in particular

any visible part lines which can give valuable clues to how it was cast.Once you have measurements and

sketches with lots of dimensions then you can model it in CAD.

 

AutoDesk offers Fusion 360 free to students, educators and more important non-commercial

private use for hobbies etc. which is really, really cool. With Fusion you can create 3D models

and your shop drawings. Its fairly intuitive and there are a ton of tutorials on Youtube etc.

 

https://www.autodesk.com/campaigns/fusion-360-for-hobbyists

 

Then move to the internal configuration. Don't worry about patterns at this point. Your only

concerned with design intent and geometry. Patterns and core boxes can be created later on

by copying and modifying the original models. Adding draft, scaling-up for shrinkage, machining allowance.

 

next is reviewing and modifying to add tolerance and fits. (Machinery's Handbook is your friend here!)

and updating the shop drawings.

 

Given the size, wood is the first choice (cheap, easy to work.) If you have a copy center nearby you can have full  size

paper patterns and templates printed. In addition to basic wood working tools a bandsaw and a lath would be great.

A wood lathe is fine but a metal lathe is the cats meow since you can control the accuracy so much better.

I use a 1942 Southbend 13"X5' that I paid $1,000.00 for and included a four jaw, a the three jaw, a face plate and collets and

a new single phase 220 motor. Its well worn and when doing metal work you have to understand its quirks to do

accurate work but for pattern work it was indispensable.

 

A cheap 3D printer: We have a Creality CR10 ($600.00) that we run nearly 24-7. Its great for scaled proof of concept

models and yes. Small 3D printed patterns.

 

Start with the simplest part first. Greg, pattern work is not rocket science. Once you know how to apply draft,

shrinkage, machining allowance and direction of pull its fairly straight forward. Before starting my Wisconsin T-head

project I had never done anything with patterns or foundry work. I had never even worked with a lathe!

 

Its one of those things you can work off-and on. and if you do find an original before the new one is cast all you have

lost is time and a few dollars in materials.

 

But again, start with the photos and sketches. There is no reason why with careful work your crankcase's

external appearance would be any different than an original.

 

T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1912Staver]

I have 2 or 3 unidentified pumps myself.  I think all of mine are brass bodied. Over the decades I have picked up a number of parts that were quite cheap because the person selling them had no idea of what they fit.

Time permitting I should clean them up and post in the  " what is it" section. Someone might need what I have.  These days so much of my stuff is stored away awaiting a bigger shop where I can have a general accounting of where I stand on this project.

For years I thought I would probably move from my current house so I was reluctant to invest in a proper shop building. I have made do with less than ideal sheds etc for some time because of this.  But it's looking less likely each year that I can ever afford to move from 

where I am.

Greg

 

[1912Staver]

Hi Terry, I was briefly a High School Shop Teacher and in 1990 took a for the time comprehensive We did up to a decent standard for the day , 3 D animated , fully rendered 30 second clips, but so much has changed from those days. Hardware and software.

  Autodesk sponsored, Autocad course. But once I was out of teaching it was all back to pencil and paper. Like so many skills CADD definitely has its usefulness, however the programs have changed beyond recognition since 1990. And if you don't use it , you loose it.

I am a bit of a computer clutz,, at the moment I can't even get my new wireless printer to talk to my computer so I can scan some additional Staver material I have.

On the ship where I worked up until retirement 1 1/2 years ago I worked with and trouble shot quite a bit of industrial automation, but rarely used " ordinary " computer skills. I am more of a hand skills guy, the virtual world and I have an uneasy relationship.

Anytime  I have tried CADD in the last decade I get frustrated after a couple of hours of blundering in the dark and revert to paper. We all need about a 36 hour day to get it all done it seems. But thanks for the Fusion 360 tip. I tried a free download of draftsite 

last year when I had a somewhat complex drawing to produce, but I could not get it working. And unlike a piece of real world equipment the slightest virtual bug often stops me cold. Just not enough underlying understanding of programs.

Greg

Edited March 23, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[AHa]

Greg, I took the liberty of contacting Lee Stohr to satisfy my own curiosity if nothing else. He has been very helpful. It turns out he needs more than the parts you have to make a CAD drawing. I thought maybe if he could generate a CAD drawing, you could build a pattern. Below is our correspondence.

 

Lee,

I found your company on The Old Motor. Very Impressive! So I am in a current conversation with a guy who needs a crankcase for a motor he is trying to assemble. He is unwilling to contact you because he figures the cost will be too high but I figure if you can scan a crankcase digitally and print a pattern, that has to be a huge cost savings. Can you confirm my suspicion?

 

 

Hi ,

Thank you for contacting me.  I have made a Pierce crankcase and several engine blocks since that Old Motor article.  I'm pretty good at designing the foundry molds and we've been lucky to get acceptable first castings on several engine blocks.  Normally the first casting is cut up to look for defects, but I don't do that. However, I always say that casting is still a 'black art'.  As soon as you walk into a foundry, there are no guarantees.

 

For smaller, simple castings, you are correct.  A 'loose' pattern can be printed and handed to the foundry. The foundry has to be willing to hand shape a sand parting line around the loose pattern,to create a cope/drag sand mold.  No big deal for one or two simple castings.  However, a 4 cylinder or bigger crankcase is usually not so simple because the inside is complicated and cores need to be designed /made to define those surfaces and shapes. Those cores need to be held firmly in place, by what are called 'core prints'.  The core prints are additional pieces that need to be added to that 'loose pattern'.  They can be pretty complex with draft angles and tolerances required to make the foundries job easier.

 

Here is the process for a complicated sand casting like an engine block:

First, I have to draw the part in CAD.  Sometimes scanning helps, but I often use traditional measuring tools as well, and old factory drawings if they exist.

We save a lot by 3D printing the cores for the foundry.  That means the cost of making core boxes is eliminated.  You don't really need permanent core boxes if you only need one casting.  Printed cores are in the hundreds of dollars range.

The cope and drag halves of the sand mold are made off permanent molds (not a loose pattern) and they cost $3,000 to $8,000 depending on the size of the part.

Then there is the final cost of pouring the metal casting, maybe $1,000, it is whatever foundry charges.

Then there is the cost of my time for making the drawings and processing the job.

I am often asked to produce machining drawings for the part as well.

 

Sorry for the long winded story, but I don't how complicated your clients crankcase is.  It might be possible to make a 'loose pattern' by printing or even wood still works fine.  3D printing large objects is still not inexpensive, it can be a couple thousand from Stratasys or similar source.

 

So a worst case, maximum price for a big 6 cylinder aluminum Crankcase could reach $15,000. 

 

(Directly printing metal parts is possible now, but very expensive.)

 

Best regards,

Lee Stohr

-- 
Stohr Design  
Port Angeles, WA
540-255-6772

Lee, for reference here is a factory drawing of the crankcase. He has the block and oil pan, and crank and can provide bore and stroke. Can you make a CAD drawing from this?

 

That's not quite enough, more photos of similar Staver engines would add enough info, I think.

I have recreated castings and parts from photographs and a couple of original drawings, because we have no original parts.

I'm familiar with T heads.  It would be nice to know more about the inside of the Staver crankcase.  For instance, the Pierce has troughs cast inside to feed oil to the camshaft bearings. 

 

I also designed the cam lobes for the Pierce, I think the Staver has the same kind of pinned lobes onto the shaft.

Lee

 

 

 

 

 

[1912Staver]

Well that is quite informative, thank you AHa !  It doesn't  deviate much from what I was expecting however the $15,000.00 for a Pierce 6 is less than I would have figured.  I would have spit balled it at closer to $20,000. From Lee's

description it sounds like he needs an original to work from otherwise it is a great deal more drawing time. 

But even $10,000.00 USD is definitely beyond me. The Canuck Buck will hopefully regain a bit of value at some time in the future but for the time being I would be hard pressed to come up with $10,000.00 for even a complete,

rebuildable Teetor Hartley engine let alone a crankcase casting. By the time all the other missing parts were made I can easily see a $20,000.00 bill. I forgot to mention I don't have the sump either. A piece of cake compared to the

crankcase but still another part to be patterned and cast. I can handle quite a bit of the machining myself .

Greg

Edited March 23, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Lee Stohr]

Hi Greg,

I'm online now, happy to answer any questions.  It is possible to make a reproduction crankcase, but the more information you can find, the more accurate it will be.  The sump would have given all the necessary dimensions for the crankcase lower flange, but if you don't have that, it becomes more of a guess.  As I said above, there can be things inside the crankcase that are critically important, the oiling system, for instance.  The Pierce crankcase has little troughs cast-in to catch oil and direct it to the camshaft bearings.  There are a lot of undercuts and shape to the front and rear of your crankcase, that probably means some fancy core work.  In other words, you can't make a simple loose pattern that would pull straight out of the sand. Your sump may have had an internal box/cavity of some kind to catch oil for the pump to return it to wherever, I don't know how the lubrication system worked. It's a bit of work for sure, but people do it.

[Lee Stohr]

Some images of a 1907 Pierce crankcase reproduction - 

[1912Staver]

Hi Lee, great to make your acquaintance.! You certainly do very fine work. The Pierce crankcase above is definitely along the same general lines as that on my Staver Chicago's Teetor Hartley. I don't think the Teetor uses a oil pump , just splash oiling.

I have heard lubrication can be somewhat marginal with them. Some aspects of the Teetor are a bit unconventional. The cam shafts are supported front and rear by a separate bolt in casting, there is no timing cover , the timing gears fit up into a timing

chest cavity from the bottom. And they were a " monoblock " at a time when pairs of cyl's were far more common.

But more or less a " average " circa 1910 era design. I think they stayed in production until about 1914. The latest versions were fitted with a starter and generator.

I do have some more documentation but I am having scanner problems. One of the things I have is a decent engineering drawing of the outside of the engine , side view and I think front view. Its in my files somewhere. No internals but between it and the parts I do have 

a proper drawing like the one you have shown for the Pierce above could be possible.

 

Greg

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Lee Stohr]

Hi Greg,

Great to make your acquaintance as well.  Surprisingly we don't live far apart, but of course travel is impossible now. Another thing occurs to me, if you haven't done it already, you probably should inspect your cylinder block very closely and make sure it is usable. Any major cracks or issues there, and the whole project might be more than you want to spend. To make a Crankcase drawing,  I'd start with the sump flange plan view and the bottom of the cylinders plan view, then space them apart the correct distance, then start filling in the parts.  Main bearings, tappets, camshaft bores, etc.  Use a wall thickness of at least 3/8".  Maybe there is a Teetor Hartley parts manual somewhere?  They often included very nice side and front section drawings.

Lee

[1912Staver]

I think I have solved my scanner problems. 

These are from the 1914 Staver catalog as far as I know. I don't have a original of this catalog just some decent copy's. Last version with starter and generator.

 

Greg

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

Seems like each scan is about 6.0 MB so I will try the second one in a separate post. Is that 9.77 MB the limit per day per day ?

 

Greg

Edited March 25, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Dandy Dave]

42 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

Seems like each scan is about 600 mb so I will try the second one in a separate post. Is that 9.77 MB the limit per day per day ?

 

Greg

I've found that if you close out of the site and then open the site again you can post more. I've been able to post two or three, close out and come back and post two or three more. Dandy Dave! 

[1912Staver]

Thanks Dave I will try that...…….Yes , that works !

Greg

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by 1912Staver (see edit history)