A friendly bet

[alsancle]

The reason a sleeve valve engine would smoke less was the old time gas would create carbon buildup on the sleeves causing the tolerances to tighten up.   You still have conventional rings on the piston which can go bad but the sleeves will last a long long time.

 

New gas is probably too clean for the carbon buildup. 

[padgett]

Makes sense, thank you. Have an owner's manual from the '50s with instructions on decarbonizing the valves.

[Jack Bennett]

7 hours ago, Jack Bennett said:

No contention intended, and convention wisdom does dictate that a engine with seated rings and valves SHOULD smoke less than a newer engine. But that is not the case with a sleeve valve engine. Because the valves are actually two additional sleeves which slide up and down, powered by their own auxiliary crankshaft, much more lubrication is required than a engine using a in block camshaft and tappet valves. I cannot go into detail here but my Willys (the speedometer shows 31000 miles) will start fogging up the neighborhood if I let it idle too long or don’t start and drive it regularly. The sleeve valve engines have a ring called the “junk ring” which plays into this, but that is a different posting. Here, I may sound a bit sarcastic, but sarcasm isn’t intended, nor is it meant to lessen the fact I do appreciate your comment. But, because of the amount of time they spend idling, and the relatively small amount of time they are spent at speeds above back street, it is not too uncommon to see taxi cabs made in the past decade smoking like a chimney fire.

OMG (Oh My Gosh), I really blew that one Jack. I misread what you said, and without reiteration, you are 100% right. The Willys advertisement for the 1920’s sleeve valve engine equipped cars says that a Willys with 98000 miles will run better than a new one. I’m sorry sir, and I will blame it on these $9.99 Walgreens, one size fits all eyeglasses.

[Jack Bennett]

5 hours ago, padgett said:

Gee: I thought a sleeve valve engine was a 2-stroke and unless the right oil was used would smoke. If rong be glad to learn.

If you have a few minutes go to the Willys, Overland, Knight Registry (WOKR) web site and watch the video Pete Lillie has posted on the 1st page. The principle of engine aspiration is exactly like a 2 cycle, except that fuel and exhaust is provided by two sleeves which slide up and down in the cylinder bore. I use non detergent 30W in mine and it ticks like a clock.

[Jack Bennett]

4 hours ago, alsancle said:

The reason a sleeve valve engine would smoke less was the old time gas would create carbon buildup on the sleeves causing the tolerances to tighten up.   You still have conventional rings on the piston which can go bad but the sleeves will last a long long time.

 

New gas is probably too clean for the carbon buildup. 

The ethanol laden gas, even the better grades, are a problem with the sleeve valve engine. But it is more related to its low octane which causes detonation and starting problems than carbonizing the sleeves. I posted a photo of the spark plugs out of my 1927 Willlys, with a sleeve valve engine, on the WOKR site because they looked like new, although they had nearly 30,000 miles on them. The engine does burn a lot more oil than one with conventional valves but it is only a small amount if compared to how much is lost through leaks.

[padgett]

" its low octane" do not understand. At sea level today the regular E-10 pump gas is 87 PON which is about 91 Research. My understanding is that pre-ww2 it was lower: 60-70 in 1930 and 70-80 in 1940. Does anyone know how AKI (anti-knock index) used before WWII relates to the postwar octane numbers ?

[Graham Man]

Guess you could have the best of both worlds, a 68 year old car and a straight 6! 

 

[C Carl]

When your car was new in 1927, gasoline octane was in the mid-high 40s.    -   The Octane Police

[Jack Bennett]

1 hour ago, C Carl said:

When your car was new in 1927, gasoline octane was in the mid-high 40s.    -   The Octane Police

I’m out of my league here since I put whatever gas is available in the tank. I’m not even sure if they used Boron (lead additive) in gas in 1927 as a anti-knock measure and to smooth poppet valve operation. I do know that in 1950, if you sucked a slug of gas into your mouth while siphoning, it burned like heck, but, you could almost drink the 87 octane they sell as regular here. A positive thing is that the gears on the Willys are low enough that it takes some effort to lug the engine or cause detonation while climbing a hill.

[padgett]

Lessee, '53 Corvette  Blue Flame six vs XK-120 DOHC-6. Powerslide vs four-speed + Laycock OD. Hard choice.

[Jack Bennett]

On 4/27/2021 at 2:34 PM, alsancle said:

The reason a sleeve valve engine would smoke less was the old time gas would create carbon buildup on the sleeves causing the tolerances to tighten up.   You still have conventional rings on the piston which can go bad but the sleeves will last a long long time.

 

New gas is probably too clean for the carbon buildup. 

To agree is to walk in harmony, and I hope I never stray from that path in regards to this forum. So, while I do agree that the detergents added to gasoline since the 1930’s can really mess with the fuel systems of all older cars, I believe the inclusion of multi-viscosity oils and the detergents they add to them are of far more danger to a old engine than the motor fuel used. The engine in my 1927 Willys Knight is of a size and weight normally expected to be found in a full sized farm tractor. And, the technology used in its construction is very nearly the same. But, this large, heavy engine is only rated at 52 HP, which is barely more than a modern riding lawn tractor. My plight now, and in accordance with what you say about the protective, and sealing layer of sludge being washed away by detergent oil additives, I now have to shop for non-detergent, straight 30W oil to add to my Willys crankcase. When these engines was built, the guidance of torquing a nut was, “not too tight” varying to “very tight” and the check for adequate compression was, “Using the hand crank, bring the piston up on the compression stroke until a resistance is felt. If the crank feels “springy” and presses back against hand pressure, the compression is satisfactory”. So, it will it is the detergent additives and multi-viscosity properties of newer lubricants which will destroy the lower engine parts and cylinder bores of our sleeve valve toys, and detergent and pollution inhibitors added to motor fuels which will destroy the upper workings of our brass heavy toys. 

[padgett]

"heavy engine is only rated at 52 HP" And the Robert E. Lee was rated at 15 hp. Sorry but have always thought that HP was more of a marketing gimmick and torque (pound-feet) is the only value that can cross many years and types of engines with any meaning. Once it was the torque peak that was important, today it is the plateau (90% of peak from 1800 to 6500 rpm). In any event for years I have looked to the torque curve for real information.

 

So sorry but is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

[Jack Bennett]

On 4/27/2021 at 7:37 PM, padgett said:

" its low octane" do not understand. At sea level today the regular E-10 pump gas is 87 PON which is about 91 Research. My understanding is that pre-ww2 it was lower: 60-70 in 1930 and 70-80 in 1940. Does anyone know how AKI (anti-knock index) used before WWII relates to the postwar octane numbers ?

My major problem in life is that I never know when to “hold’em” and when to “fold’em”, and consequently let the circumference of my mouth exceed the listening capacity of another’s ears. But, there is still the “delete” and “just scroll past” options available to the audience....so here goes. This is from over 70 years of memory, and may not necessarily agree with Google or Skype, so you can check your own sources for accuracy. In the early evolution of engines, the primary concern was to get them to work. The internal combustion and steam engines were a blessing which powered saw mills, and facilitated the building of cities, farm tractors replaced horse drawn plows and hay rakes which allowed farmers to plant, grow and harvest at levels hereunto impossible. And, of course, the motor cars.....freedom, glamor, speed, comfort and individuality allowed the concept of a highway network which spanned the entire country. But, the compression of the engines went from 40/50 pounds, and pre-detonation (spark knock) and run-on (dieseling) became a problem due to the higher volatility of the older motor fuels.  Engine construction, and the technology used to design and build them changed radically over the years and the engine became increasing able to reach levels of power and RPM which would have made our mechanically inclined ancestors roll over in their graves. So, to meet the higher compression requirements, with little consideration of health consequences, motor fuel refineries began adding chemicals to reduce compression influenced combustion and clean the, normally dirty, carburetor throat and jets for better performance. Gas, rated at 98 to 100 octane was red in color and laden with lead to retard volatility and cushion valves in their seats. The onset of lowers compression engines, computerized metering systems, electronic fuel injection and sodium filled valves lessened the requirement for chemicals such as boron and (I think) counterpart called Teton, by its marketers. The lead, now a know carcinogen, and cancer causing agent, was phased out, and corn based ethanol was added as a filler to increase the volume sold as well as advertised as a environment friendly anti-pollutant. True, the boron missing from my very low compression Willys engine plays little part in how it runs. But, the ethanol, which is nothing more than grain alcohol, absorbs water and burns at a different rate than the gasoline in which it is added to make environmentalists feel good and enhance the governments kitty by taxing locally grown, and produced, grain alcohol at the same rate as a motor fuel.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Jack Bennett (see edit history)

[padgett]

Let's not discuss the longevity of the early lead additive salesmen who used to dip the end of their tie in the stuff and wave them over the carb of a badly knocking engine...

[C Carl]

Torque is a measurement of force moment potential, e.g. foot pounds. Hosspower is a measurement of work per time potential, e.g. miles per hour. Gear either as needed for remarkable results. Most , but not all heavy metal fans know a steam engine develops infinite torque for an infinitesimal period of time when you open the valve. Steam locomotives upon starting would to some degree slip the drivers and stretch the rails. Over a period of time, the rails at the platform would become longer. Please explain the relationship between force and work which produced that result.     -     CC 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by C Carl
Add e.g. for torque and h.p. (see edit history)

[padgett]

"steam engine develops infinite torque for an infinitesimal period of time " errr no. a steam engine develops maximum torque at zero rpm because it is the force of the steam (psi) on the piston (area). Once the piston starts moving various efficiencies (or lack of) come into play. It is all physical and nothing is infinite (except for calculus which is a kludge anyway).

 

This is the basis of the Lorentz transformations where duration is a finite value, a point often missed.

[C Carl]

9 hours ago, padgett said:

Sorry but have always thought that HP was more of a marketing gimmick and torque (pound-feet) is the only value that can cross many years and types of engines with any meaning.

Please read and accept what I said about h.p. and torque. Not an opinion, or conjecture on my part. A definition, statement of fact. You have made confused statements regarding this in the past ; I suggest that you hit the books. You know many things that I do not, you could put any two people in AACA together, each would know some things far better than the other. This just happens to be something I understand better than you do. You need to get a better understanding of this, the books will learn you up better than I can. Keep studying until you see what I mean. Never too late................. Hosspower refers to work capacity. Here : take that Chinee 5 hoss engine off that generator you picked up at the yard sale for $50. Make a little go cart out of it. Put a twenty pound bag of grapefruit on it and drive it ten miles. Can you do it in , say 1/2 hour ? Now , put fifteen more of them g’fruit bags on it and drive back. Can you get back in 45 minutes ? An hour ? Put 50 of ‘em there fruit bags in my Mercedes-Benz E550, (almost 400 h.p.), and make the 20 mile round trip. You could do that entire trip in 10 minutes. Including the weight of the car, driver, and fruit. That is what ponies do for you. They flat get the job done. The term used to quantify work potential is HORSEPOWER, not torque. The quantifying of work must have a time component. As I said, miles per HOUR for example.Torque is a force measurement. Foot pounds is a measurement of torque. It is a measurement independent of time. Take a ten pound weight, hang it off a ten foot arm. Take a one hundred pound weight, hang it off a one foot arm. Five pounds from a twenty foot arm, all have a force of one hundred foot pounds. Leave them all hanging for seventy years, come back, all are exerting the same amount of force, torque. But there has been no work done. No h.p. expended. Arguing against this is a waste of time at this point. There is objective reality, and common acceptance of terms of definition.

 

Quote

So sorry but is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

 

And will continue to be so as long as you harbor long held misconceptions. 
 

Now, we are all here to help one another. No one ever learns anything so well as when long held misconceptions are deflated, and the truth revealed. Please hang in there. I am not trying to be a real pr**k about anything here, but I must stand and correct something you have challenged me over. It is late dinner time out West coast way, and Sandy needs me to tie on the fodder bag at the moment. Before the day is done,  I will help you out with the steam engine stuff. I have consulted with a very good, very old friend of mine going back over 50 years. While I am chewing my cud, please look him up. Dr. David Mason, retired out of University of Delaware. Renowned in his field of mathematics with maybe 150 or more published papers. Knows a bit of calculus here, and any number of transforms there. He knows spit from spinola. I am just here to help, with all due respect.     -    Carl

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by C Carl
Further clarification (see edit history)

[C Carl]

11 hours ago, C Carl said:

 Most , but not all heavy metal fans know a steam engine develops infinite torque for an infinitesimal period of time when you open the valve.................

 

 

And you respond “errr no.”

 

10 hours ago, padgett said:

..............................errr no. a steam engine develops maximum torque at zero rpm "..................................and nothing is infinite ..........................transformations where duration is a finite value......................................a point often missed.

 

Actually, although the concept of infinitesimal and infinity can be a bit difficult to wrap ones head around, with utmost respect to you and forum decorum : errr YES !!!! so please let me repeat : A STEAM ENGINE DEVELOPS INFINITE TORQUE FOR AN INFINITESIMAL PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU OPEN THE VALVE. 

 

An infinitesimal period of time goes by PDQly. Much more quickly, in fact, than an octillionth of a nanosecond. Think that is a pretty small period of time , do you ? Divide that into octillion separate intervals. Divide one of these intervals again into this nominal octillion separate intervals. And now do this division process octillion times over. Think we are getting close to an infinitesimal period of time NOW ? Uh-uh. No, not yet. Doesn’t work like that. Suppose you repeat the process posited so far in this paragraph yet again an octillion times over, “are we there yet ?” So pop quiz time for you : “are we there yet ? “ In that infinitesimal period of time after the valve is opened, a steam engine develops infinite torque. Get the point ? This is “a point often missed”. And you have indeed missed the point.

 

Do you understand that a period of time has actually passed, it is just an infinitesimal period of time. But it IS NOT zero. Infinitesimally small is not ZERO. By definition. So a steam engine cannot develop max torque at ZERO rpm. It will have rotated an infinitesimally small fraction of a degree. And for that infinitesimally small period of time, and infinitesimally small fraction of a degree, the steam engine will have developed an infinite amount of torque. And any transformation which deals with FINITE durations is totally irrelevant here, by definition. And as to your contention that nothing is infinite, there are some very studious people who say that everything is infinite, an infinite number of times. And it is true that upon opening the valve on a steam engine, for an infinitesimal period of time , said steamer develops an infinite amount of torque ! As I said earlier, most ,  but not ALL heavy metal fans know this. No value judgment should be made regarding which group of heavy metal fans anyone is a member of, and no shame should be imputed to the fan who did not or still does not know this. BFD, right ?
 

You have missed the point. People do that from time to time. As do you. I am not obligated to correct each, or in fact ANY missed points here. But when someone misses the point and misconstrues something I have posted, I am obligated to set the record straight. I hope you and all can see that I have done so, and done so with respect. It has been intended to be so, but my friend , Dr. Mason would not have given you a passing grade for the day. 
 

This entire discussion probably should have been posted in a non-hijack zone. But I have had the pleasure of speaking at great length with my neighbor and new friend Jack Bennett. He covers a lot of territory, and I have a feeling that true to form, he is quite tolerant of the theoretical discussion which has come up here. Any discussion which clarifies torque and horsepower, is a discussion to the good. I apologize if I have deviated even a foot or a pound into forbidden territory.    -    Carl 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by C Carl
A number of clarifications (see edit history)

[Dandy Dave]

Steam. I've had some fun with old steam engines also. Peak power on a single double acting cylinder like those often used on a traction engine is when the cylinder is about 90 and 270 degrees from top and bottom dead center. If the cylinder is started on top (0 degrees) or bottom (180 Degrees) dead center often the engine will be stalled as the slide valve is in a neutral position and the engineer or fireman will need to flip the engine by hand enough to open the slide valve and introduce steam into the cylinder. It's all a principal of leverage really and having a flywheel to carry it though. Often, like on the Stanley steamer autos there are two cylinders and the cranks are set 90 degrees apart so the engine is never in a completely stalled position. Same is true on a steam locomotive. Steam turbines are another story. I have a set of Audels  Engineers and Mechanics guides from the 1920's if you fellows want any real technical info on the subject. 8 Books in the set and a lot of info on steam. No they are NOT FOR SALE. Dandy Dave! 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Dandy Dave (see edit history)

[padgett]

We have now descended into a realm more of philosophy and the difference between mathematics and calculus. Best elsewhere.

[Ronnie]

10 hours ago, C Carl said:

so please let me repeat : A STEAM ENGINE DEVELOPS INFINITE TORQUE FOR AN INFINITESIMAL PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU OPEN THE VALVE. 

Do you mean maximum torque? Infinite means unlimited and nothing has unlimited torque.

 

20 hours ago, padgett said:

a steam engine develops maximum torque at zero rpm because it is the force of the steam (psi) on the piston (area).

I agree that a steam engine can develop maximum torque a zero rpm. For example if you stopped the wheels of a locomotive at the spot where the pistons had the best mechanical advantage to turn the wheels, then locked the brakes and welded the wheels to the rails so they couldn't move, you could open the valve to apply the biggest head of steam the boiler could muster to the piston and if the wheels couldn't turn you would be applying maximum torque to the wheels at ZERO rpm. A steam engine does not need to rotate to apply force (torque). The example C Carl gave (below) confirms that.

 

Quote

Take a ten pound weight, hang it off a ten foot arm. Take a one hundred pound weight, hang it off a one foot arm. Five pounds from a twenty foot arm, all have a force of one hundred foot pounds. Leave them all hanging for seventy years, come back, all are exerting the same amount of force, torque. But there has been no work done. No h.p. expended. Arguing against this is a waste of time at this point. There is objective reality, and common acceptance of terms of definition.

 

[C Carl]

 Not exactly MAXIMUM torque, but I suppose saying so , in a way might be considered correct, Ronnie. Of course you could say nothing is more maximum than infinite. And that may be helpful to grasp what is going on. But it also could lead to confusion. You have to keep in mind that nothing is more minimum than infinitesimal. No matter how short the interval, you can keep slicing that interval to make it of lesser duration. At least that seems to be the case. So far, no one has discovered an ultimate quantum of time. Is there an absolute at the very extreme small end of the time scale ? What would take place , what would be the implications of this, and what might be done with it if you could grab and “hold in a bottle” that definitive duration ? All kinds of interesting things happen at extremes. Absolute zero temperature for example. The Big Bang Theory of the beginning of time and space is another. Physicists can explain everything back to something like 10 to the minus 38th of a second after the beginning of time.  But physics itself can not provide further explanation of what was going on before that. Where would “infinitesimal “ fit into the evolution of the beginning of time and space ? Was the “singularity” from which all developed infinitesimally small ? Or was there some dimension, or even some non-uniform topology to said singularity ? 
 

What I have just written is the only way I have to create a state of mind into which one can contemplate infinite torque for an infinitesimal period of time. Certainly someone other than myself could do a better job . I have less formal education than the majority of AACA and forum members. And I do not have the remarkable I.Q. level necessary to become a Microsoft or Google engineer, for example. But for all practical purposes, I do not have a boredom threshold. That has allowed me to waste monumental amounts of my life pondering these considerations for fully 70 years. I think most, or maybe all kids , find out that gravity makes thing drop to the ground. Many are lucky to have this extrapolated to the orbits of planets around the Sun. From there, to celestial mechanics and, perhaps, the gravity fueled evolution of a star from a vast cloud of gas and molecules. Or what drove the formation of galaxies. Which came first ? Chicken ? Egg ? Black holes ? Galaxies ? 
 

My old friend “Math Dave”, Dr. Mason, just called me. He’s about to give another failing grade today to anyone claiming that calculus is not mathematics. Oh : And quite a few curious folk attempted to read S. Hawking’s “ Brief History of Time”. Almost everyone got bogged down reading at some point. I couldn’t even get to page 40. But I got lucky. Found a talking book of it in the thrift store. I love driving fun cars in the wide open , big sky country out West here. One wonderful, seeming for a moment eternal, driving day, I plugged Hawking into the, (cassette player, I think), and let ‘er rip. Buy hitting rewind when I found myself wondering where I was at, I was able to push on through to the end. Of course it only meant what it could to my uneducated, and actually limited mind.  It it meant SOMETHING ! It was extremely satisfying, and I was left in peace with a certain state of mind which made me very happy that I had found that “talkie”.

 

In closing at this stage of the game, I do want to remind the forum that covering this remarkable concept stemmed by accident from my response explaining torque and horsepower. I can not let stand the contention that horsepower is just some advertising gimmick. That torque is the only relevant parameter as regards automotive performance. I let that rubbish slide somewhere in the fairly recent past, and felt guilty for having done so. If it does impact something I have written, if I don’t explain, some mythology may be perpetrated because of my irresponsible negligence. I wonder if there is some way that this diversion and hijacking can be cut and pasted in a new topic ? I actually did believe that almost all metalhaeds were aware that upon opening the valve, a steam engine develops infinite torque for an infinitesimal period of time. One mighty forge for stretching the rails at the departure platform in the railway station.    
 

 For now, without necessary proof reading and corrections large and small,      -    Carl 

[padgett]

Ectyually that was Achilles and the Tortoise so does have to do with motion.

 

ps my understanding was that mathematics is an exact science and calculus is a close approximation.