Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic -- Hot Rod Forum

Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> General Rodding Tech> trying to find a engine that will fit some dimensions
User Name
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: trying to find a engine that will fit some dimensions Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
03-31-2013 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by oldBodyman View Post
boggen, forget what you have just posted, you're over-complicating, Tesla had this all figured out in the 1920's. The problem then was the materials available were not up to snuff for internal combustion. Everything you posted has been solved, it's a self-contained unit.

Tesla's turbine is super efficient AND can run in both directions, as a power unit or a 'turbo charger', mounting 2 or 3 together will double or triple the HP output. Check the link below.

Have fun with it.

"wave rotor", "disc turbine", "blade less turbine", "micro turbine" are what i have gotten hits with in regards to the "tesla blade less turbine".

3 theories i am seeing...
1st theroy, so many of the first set of discs, are acting like a "centerfug pump" and in that compressing and speeding up the air flow, up into a combustion chamber, as fuel/air explodes in combustion chamber, it is re-routed back down to the rest of the discs. to run a centrifuge pump backwards in a sense.

2nd air comes in at the center, and is compressed and speeds up as it goes out to the outside of the first set of blades. fuel is injected. and "eddy currents" are created. these eddy currents moving much more aburtly and in that finite layer of high pressures are achieved to exploded the air/fuel. and then this mixture is pushed back out the remaining discs. (centrifuge pump running backwards)

3rd pulse detenation, i hope i got correct term, somehow plays a roll in both 1st and 2nd doings above. some go with friction of hot gas (fuel/air explosion) being applied to discs, others... i did not go that far into. i also saw some sort of almost "single disc" setups.

i am ready to pull my hair out, more "free energy" and folks making more out than what there blade less turbines are.... 99% is all steam or external shop size air compressor ran. trying to find a tesla blade less turbine, that is ran directly on combustion of fuels has gave a couple leads but, frankly i am a tad hesitant. mainly due to were combustion happens and how the combustion happens. and can the combustion be relied on and controlled to obtain lower and higher RPMs and same for torque.

in some hybrid car article. the telsa blade less turbine does have something going for it. and that is pure amount of weight over multi discs. and acting like a large flywheel. and allowing for internment combustion, and helps to reduce pulsation effects at the drive shaft.

it does have a bonous... air intake on one side (comes in at the center) and then on other side, exhaust gasses come out the center. reducing need like other engines to route things about.

CFM (cubic feet per minute) of air intake, and exhaust. unloaded and fully loaded, has me concerned.
while i have read statements of "self cooling" and then on some pages needing cooling of combustion area (water jacket) for water/antifreeze mix. the "self cooling" with air alone, puts me on edge as in, massive amounts of air flow goes through the engine.

low compression ratio, also has me concerned. granted i am no engine expert and dealing with air pollution / emissions. statements that i do read, almost makes it sound like, they are using massive amounts of air flowing through the engine. to help reduce PPM (parts per million) of some air pollution. but engine is still producing same or higher amounts of air pollution, per 1 minute of time. maybe i am mis-reading.

Wave Rotor Projects
Additional Links
M. Razi Nalim (personal note, need to contact)
Daniel E. Paxson - Controls and Dynamics Branch Personnel (personal note, need to contact)

Control System Development LLC (NDA (non-disclosure agreement) required to see anything)

TESLA ENGINE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION (i am sick and tired of this website) makes more of turbine than anything, but not seeing much of anything beyond something hooked up to an "shop air compressor) everything else, is someone else's notation. and acting like it is there's, at least that is what i am getting from the website. (volvo 850 concept vehicle "ECC")
Completed Pulse Combustion Turbine by member Luis Mendonca, Phoenix Turbine Builders Club, low cost Tesla turbines (personal note, need to contact) (personal note, need to contact)
looks like an actual re-world production of a small scale turbines. that might work out nicely, but all i see are "cabinet" setups. vs just the engine.

(gearturbine or greenturbine (no space)) coming up empty on websites besides notes to it.

ttengines - clean air turbine technology

PowerPedia:Gas turbine - PESWiki
Directory:Tesla Turbines - PESWiki
Directory:Tesla Turbines - PESWiki
Tesla turbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

at odds with myself. i like it, but, my mind is telling me to walk away from the tesla blade less turbine. or like doings. the "power curve" and overall range of the "power curve" at low and high loads placed on engine. it is not like you can go and "change diameter" of the discs or change spacing of the discs. and you will be placed into this "power curve" that is efficient in one range, but suck every were else.

the ttengines - clean air turbine technology might be worth it. and be able to put clutches between "power units". to turn/on off individual as needed. to change the overall power curve. and try to narrow the point were things are the most efficient, across a wider range of power curves. but even the TT engines compared to others are either making everything single piece or multi piece. and i just do not see it happening for me. do not get me wrong it most likely works, and would work well in certain given situations. but i am needing a wide range power curve and meeting the higher efficiency across that entire range.

man, and then i flip flop back. and then flip flop right on back against blade less turbines... its that whole variable adjustments. and adding extra pieces and splitting things up to obtain that variable adjustments. to obtain that higher efficiency across a wide range power curve.

hhmmssss i keep wanting to apply say a centrifuge water pump or air pump (power curve) to the blade less turbine / disc turbine. and i guess i need to get over that, i am not using a set HP electrical motor, but a variable speed electrical motor. or rather in this case it would be a variable generator for the SSTT (sideways snake train tractor). i am still stuck with disc diameter, and spacing, and if there are any fins between the discs. "i can not change that" once set, i am stuck with that. so there is going to be sudden jumps between throttling up the engine per say to get more RPM's and torque. as air is pulled into more discs and exhaust goes over more discs. there will be a limit of how many discs can be used. to evenly disperse incoming air and dealing with exhaust. this is going to relate to diameter of discs, space between discs, and any fins. and right there your setting yourself into a "power curve" and most likely will need to keep at a certain RPM's / Torque. to obtain efficiency. which will most likely mean speeding up and speeding down the overall engine. and using capacitors / batteries. to offset the pulsation. also issues of sudden need for more electricity and then suddenly not needing any energy, there would most likely be a "time lag" that would need to be dealt with, with capacitors / batteries.

this is not a electrical car and trying to build for range. but for traction and power, and using up a lot of power quickly and continuously. i want something that does not rely on need for a bigger capacitor banks / battery banks for range extension. but rather, quick response in production of electricity, to reduce size of stored energy. i want lots of weight low to the ground. even if it is not suspend weight (weight is below suspension). so while in field, i am pulling parallel to the field as much as possible. ((refering to wheel hub motors and the weight)) also weight low to ground, to help reduce "tipping over".

*rubs chin* it is that whole balancing of electricity being generated, and the blade less turbine. and balancing things out in such a way. that fuel efficiency stays up there. but still staying within the air pollution laws/regs. and dealing with the power curve of the engine, and the coils and permanent magnets of the generator. those power curves for both.... and dealing with storage capacity in capacitors and battery banks. to bridge gap between having to much electric produced and not enough energy produced.

blade less turbines are like (right here as i hold my head at eye level), and then i look at the "free piston linear generator engines", and they are here (as i raise my hand just barely above my head, just touching my hair). it is that variable (extra) that the free pistons give over the blade less. that extra variable of be able to adjust things on the fly and on demand. is what most likely going to work out better for the SSTT (sideways snake train tractor). both technologies are there, but that much variable adjustment. is what going to matter long term. and can be taken advantage of both now and later in the future.

a free piston engine, i can take say this 5 foot long cylinder shape that is say 8 inches in diameter. (honestly have no clue on dimensions) and plug it in. attach a few bolts or pins. and i just got that much more power. the free piston turns into a "power cell" or a battery per say. and ya, eventually it would be that easy and a long term goal to reach. but until then. the benefits of free piston, has me.

do not get me wrong, i am still flip flopping back and forth trying to compare free piston to the blade less, to what my mind is able to comprehend. but to push me over to the blade less. there needs to be something more. that i am most likely not understanding.

*open* have at it, even if it means ripping me a new one.

time to work on paper work.
03-31-2013 07:37 AM
oldBodyman boggen, forget what you have just posted, you're over-complicating, Tesla had this all figured out in the 1920's. The problem then was the materials available were not up to snuff for internal combustion. Everything you posted has been solved, it's a self-contained unit.

Tesla's turbine is super efficient AND can run in both directions, as a power unit or a 'turbo charger', mounting 2 or 3 together will double or triple the HP output. Check the link below.

Have fun with it.

03-30-2013 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by NastyRat View Post
Pretty cool from scratch. But I would look at battery and solar recharge with individual electric drive wheels or electric motor to drive your pumps and keep Hydraulic drive axles. You could also install gas or diesel gen. to supplement recharge with out sun light.
it would be nice for solar. but i doubt solar could ever provide enough energy for a field tractor, more so when kicking up dust, that would cover any photo cells of any solar panels. there is also issue of a small time window farmers have to get into the fields to till/plow and then plant, and then same come harvest. this small time spand. ends up being one of those times they might work 16 hour plus days, and trying to work around weather to deal with the fields. that many hours without being able to do a fast recharge of batteries. need a power plant.

Originally Posted by cobalt327 View Post
If I misread and the entire powerplant has to fit inside a 20" box (I thought the available length was more than 20"), good luck w/making any real HP/torque using commonly available engines/technology.
i am finding engines, granted still most in then experimental / testing stage, but came across a rare few going into mass production. not sure why others have not, or simply waiting for someone needing a demand for there given engine type.

you can find some longer recent threads of mine here
SSTT side ways snake train tractor (idea for a new tractor possibly) - The Combine Forum for some engines.

Originally Posted by oldBodyman View Post
" the entire powerplant has to fit inside a 20" box"

boggen, do a goggle search and chase down "Tesla's bladeless turbine", it's the only option small enough to fit and produce the power you need. It can be run as internal combustion OR steam driven. It can be made small enough to fit at each wheel, plumbing them would your task but 100psi would not be a problem.

Good luck with it.
"bladeless" key term *doh* i have looked at those pictures before and like ok pass them up. thanks for pointing the turbine out better .

recently came across below 2 links.
Wave Rotor Projects
40 Years In The Desert: Revolutionary Aero Engine Concepts

now i am thinking about it, i came across one other link, that had multi inlets and outlets. it might have came from the first link of the 2 above.
and oh... the "wave engine" i think it is called or "shock wave engine?" aswell.

*rubs chin* i really can not pass on the idea. i mean it is a possibility. could make a varible size setup for the disc/rotors to have a variable width turbine per say. add some actuators to the nozzle to direct the combustion pressure better. the issue is the "combustion" wanting a higher compressed air. and fully burning up all the fuel. and keeping the fuel burning hot enough? to reduce air pollution. other issues is high RPM's, and needing gear of some sort to deal with any sort of air compressor.

on other hand. if going with pure electrical type of setup. i might be able to come right off one side or both sides of the disc/rotor sets... ya i would have a very high frequency but... that should not be that big of a problem. and then just go with electrical motor to some sort of air compressor setup, that would feed the combustion chamber.

i don't know. only way to feed this combustion chamber, would almost need to be a constant supply of air non stop. or i would start causing a speed up, speed down, speed up, speed down. of RPM's if trying to feed a pulsated air flow to the combustion chamber. pulsation coming from a regular piston air pump/compressor, to super charger, to turbo charger, to roots air compressor. all that air = no good.

well.... i suppose i could set a "surge tank" between combustion area and the tesla blade-less turbine. and then regulate how much pressure comes out of the surge tank and into the turbine. to have a more controlled setup. perhaps getting things to point of removing pulsation at the turbine itself.

but issue would be, feeding compressed air, into the combustion chamber. when the valve to surge tank is still open. and that valve would not close till both surge tank and combustion chamber went down to a low enough pressure. resulting in needing some sort of piston or positive displacement. more so a multi stage positive displacement pump. to put highly compressed air into the combustion chamber. by the time i do that. i might as well go with another engine type.
03-29-2013 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by boggen View Post
never said i wanted to compete. rather would rather join one.
Still,question is if you would "join one" or with a over abundance of ego try to walk through the door on day one "try" to lead one.
03-29-2013 05:47 AM
oldBodyman " the entire powerplant has to fit inside a 20" box"

boggen, do a goggle search and chase down "Tesla's bladeless turbine", it's the only option small enough to fit and produce the power you need. It can be run as internal combustion OR steam driven. It can be made small enough to fit at each wheel, plumbing them would your task but 100psi would not be a problem.

Good luck with it.
03-28-2013 07:11 PM
cobalt327 If I misread and the entire powerplant has to fit inside a 20" box (I thought the available length was more than 20"), good luck w/making any real HP/torque using commonly available engines/technology.
03-28-2013 07:07 PM
new tractor

Pretty cool from scratch. But I would look at battery and solar recharge with individual electric drive wheels or electric motor to drive your pumps and keep Hydraulic drive axles. You could also install gas or diesel gen. to supplement recharge with out sun light.
03-28-2013 06:59 PM
Ironpony Not one time did I either imply that you were stupid. And I did not say it either. If You took it that way then I am sorry. I really was trying to help. I mean no disrespect at all. With that said I will tell you this. You come on this forum looking for answers to your problem. In this case you want a engine that can produce up to 600 hp and fit in a 20"x20" space. Because in your own words "I don't know much about engines" So In My first post I tried to explain that a diesel would be the best choice and why. You even agree that a turbine would fit in the space allowed by your design, and would be a good choice because of their high hp for their size. But you even agreed that they wouldn't work because of dirt ingestion. And the high cost of them. All I can tell you is good luck and I won't bother you again thanks Bill
03-28-2013 04:51 AM
cobalt327 A gas turbine can meet the space and power requirements. Cost to harness the rpm of a turbine to an agricultural implement may or may not be prohibitive- but it would be considerable, I'd imagine. Then there's the heat generated. But power to weight is good and many fuels could be used.

One example:
03-28-2013 04:22 AM
boggen *rubs chin* been mulling over your posts here on this thread Ironpony. for last few hours.
first off: You caught me on every single point Bill. and you have pointed out my ignorance and my stupidity.

the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

a : slow of mind : obtuse
b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish

: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>

: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>

a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event>

second.... you are asking me to provide information. that clearly i will not be able to achieve on my own. both prototype and what tractor could do in a field, and how much. all notations are reasonable. i am asking for help.

I am not trying to sell an idea, i am here with concept that i know is not fully flushed out. I know what i want. a fully functional tractor/implement setup, that can be used. I am here to see this concept for what ever it may end up being to the end. regardless of consequences and my ignorance or stupidity along the way. said it multi times before, i am making it up as i go along as needed, when needed, and hopefully what makes sense and works. and hopefully learn quickly without falling flat on my face. per my last post, and learn lesson the hard way. with that said. thank you for taking the extra time with your last post.

third. I have been posting on 3 different forums, that are within the industry i am focusing at. "agriculture / tractors / implements" most comments i get back fromm PM "private messages" and email, going something like this.... ya i would like to reply, but most of everything is far above me. or your nuts and quickly get overwhelmed, due to out of there scoop of knowledge and understanding. this is coming from same area, i am trying to get help from. and frankly i am right along with those same folks. of being over my head, and getting overwhelmed. and at moment it is engines.

forth....If i have to apply for a full patent/s i will. and if i have to seek funding i will. if i need to seek out and pay for this or that service, or information, i will. but it will not stop me from pestering the tractor manufactures, from taking this concept / idea on. they have the resources and more so the more specialized knowledge, that would be needed to make this into reality.

with above....
--what would it take, for me to come to one of these companies R&D places were there is a handful folks, that have 3D abilities and knowledge. and spend a week with them. hammering out basic concept doings? if not willing to take on cost, how much will it cost me? so i can come up with the money. assumption non-disclosure agreements signed. i am only looking to tie up a min of 2 people at a time. at this point if i am paying the bill.

if, then, elses, and buts. flat out what would it take for above to happen? it all comes back to... $$$. and i am putting my cash were my mouth is. it may not be much cash. but it is what it is.

fifth. if a company picks this up. they can have at it, patent/s etc... just give me a fair wage. my ignorance / stupidity showing up once again.... then again flexibility. i am not here to get rich, i need/want a usable machine. that can work. and not some over bloated tractor and implements, that leaves with. "what can you do" and just take it. that i have heard to many times before.

if it takes me acting like a client and company helping build the machine so be it. if company takes it over as there own product, so be it. if i have to go out and alone for another couple years, and play the game per say, so be it.

my email is within all the forums i have posted to a click or 2 away.
03-27-2013 08:43 PM
Ironpony Hey I'm just trying to help. By offering realistic suggestions, based on having been there and done that. You are confusing me too in your last post you said you would consider costs maybe after the prototype was built. Then You say that with computer design it's not needed. Well I hate to be the one to tell you this but just about every company that builds anything still prototypes. Even when they use computer aided design. And My point about building the directional boring machines and having 3 engineering firms on the design, seemed to be lost on you too. One firm was a hydraulic engineering firm. One was a electrical engineering firm. And one was for structural engineering. Plus we had the engine manufacture's engineering division there too. (That one was the Caterpillar tractor company) And on top of all that the owner of the company that dreamed up the idea in the first place was himself a engineer. Why would this Man use that many engineering firms to help him build something that had never been done before, And build scale prototypes to test before comiting to full size prototypes that cost in 1985 dollars close to 6 million to build. I don't know maybe he just wanted to burn money. But he was successful the day He died he was worth billions. But You said I don't know why you would need those other firms, And yet you by your own admission say that you know next to nothing about engines. And in your last post you said you didn't want to compete with the other manufactures you wanted to join them. And finely when you go to join them the first thing they WILL ask is what kind of performance can you get from your tractor. Ours can plow 280 acres a hour. Then you stand there and say well my computer testing shows I can get 300 acres a hour. So then they ask well have you built a prototype to test this? Your answer no but the computer says it will. Ok they say what is it going to cost to build each unit, We know that our unit's cost 72,000 to build each. And We sell them for 210,000 each. So what is the cost of production for your tractor. Well I really don't know as I didn't figure that was important. The result: Meeting over thanks for coming. I really hope I'm wrong about this. But if you are successful and can actually get this in production come back on this site and tell us how you did. I know this sounds mean but it is based on Me trying the same thing you are trying to do many times. I could give you examples but I don't think You are interested. But I will leave you with one thing. I never even mentioned the biggest wall you will have to get around. The old standby for most company's, "If it wasn't developed here we aren't interested." Do some searching about inventor's and see how many time that has come up for inventors trying to submit their ideas. Hope this helps Bill
03-27-2013 06:53 AM
Originally Posted by 1Gary View Post
In today's world of finance to think you can compete with existing tractor companies is unrealistic.
never said i wanted to compete. rather would rather join one.
03-27-2013 06:23 AM
1Gary In today's world of finance to think you can compete with existing tractor companies is unrealistic.
03-27-2013 04:21 AM
boggen i have to disagree with a good amount of your last post Ironpony.

first one person at this moment in time. and you are trying to tell me, it is more worth it, to spend a good amount of time tracking down every single point of cost. sounds like a joke to me. even if i had a team, you are still telling me, that you would rather have the team waste half there time tracking down costs of things, vs just getting it done in the first place, and what ever is come up may not even get used, due to it does not work out for that particular idea / set of parts? that really does not make a lot of sense to me.

ya eventally when it gets past a prototype stage. and then getting near final product ya, cost is a factor. but man, sounds like someone is trying to make an excuse to keep there job at moment. and it sounds like it is time for re-assignment into something else and if they can not change it is time to wave bye bye.

seriously protyping on a smaller scale. i would initially agree with you at first. but really? there is a huge difference, between small scale and a larger scale. when it comes down to wire sizes, pipes for fluid and gas, the entire dynamics completely puts everything into a different set of variables that get spit out. by forumlas. and it is not just simply oh make a smaller unit, but when it gets made bigger the entire unit will all fall right in line. with just making it bigger, it does not work that way. metals to various other materials. also do not line up. from simply upscaling. from small prototype to a larger scale version.

i gotta wonder, between today's age of rapid prototyping on the computer, and more so 3D simulation setups, a unit can be placed into, without ever having to physically make anything. why there is need for smaller prototyping? maybe i am missing something. beyond the need for someone that requires a physical thing in front of them to better grasp it all. trying to figure out why i am being tied back to old age doings when computers were not around. i thought reason for these expensive full size 3D simulation setups. was just that, for rapid prototyping. and cost of the full 3D simulation, vs multi prototyping of multi things as physical models. it was cheaper for full 3D simulation. *scratches head* maybe i am missing something, and these full 3D simulation setups are a joke? i gotta wonder if all the hype is what it is all cracked up to be.... *scratching head*

perhaps missing point, of trying to assign a few way to many folks at an idea at one time. just kinda tossing money at things. vs a handful of folks, that get changed in and out as things progress. maybe having multi different third party contractors coming in as needed for an overall job. that specalizes in different aspects, that i am use to. is not the right way to go about things. from building a home. and having basement dug, then another company getting basement floor done, and another for basement wall, and another for roughing out the main floor walls and floors and roof, and another for house wrap, and other for shingles, and another for electrical, and another for plumbing.
maybe i am missing a point some place, were an asbesto company comes in as removes asbestos, and anther company comes in todo HVAC work, or boil work, or..... what ever it maybe, and then another company coming in to deal with this or that to finish things up.
from what i get from you, i get idea that a bunch of folks / companies were tossed together and said get it done and money just kept being tossed at ya. maybe i am wrong.

to above, i gotta wonder sometimes, bringing a bunch of third party companies, on various things, and paying overhead, for all the extra bosses, and accountants, and duplication of equipment, all duplication of paper work. or i should multi duplicates of paper work. that tend to end up being a few inches thick. i never really understood it. and needing to assign at min 1 person that is dedicated to paper work for each third party company.

on another note.... i really do not bite, for companies having problems with (best efficiency point) of an engine and dealing with emissions. and trying to keep at a higher level of efficiency. granted i have never went through it, so i am talking out of my rear. but some times i gotta scratch my head and say huh? and this is one of them.
03-26-2013 08:26 PM
Ironpony You say cost is last on your list. If your intention is to build something competitive with the other Ag. tractors out there then it should be first on your list. And here is why, everybody in the business world has to be able to make a profit to survive. If your tractor costs 2 times what your nearest competition does because of the costs associated with up to 15 drive motors and generators or hydraulics or whatever. Then Your tractor has to make slightly more than 2 times the production in order to entice someone to buy yours over your competition. or it won't sell. Of course this rule doesn't always apply. A good example would be if John Deere was to build this product instead of you they would sell some simply because they would be John Deere green. So You must always keep the costs of a product in mind when trying to bring a product to market. I'm not talking about development costs but production costs and operating costs for the end user. I will take Caterpiller tractor company as a example here. Most folks don't know that Caterpiller started out as a offshoot of the John Deere company. (Do some reading on line about the Holt tractor company and the history of Caterpiller). And what We call a dozer today started out as a Ag. tractor. In a effort to put more horsepower to the ground, But alas it was considered to be too costly to use tracks for Ag. use. Now fast forward to today and you will see Caterpiller Ag. tractors being used on farms around the world. And some of them use rubber tracks (Challenger Tractors come to mind.) John Deere has also joined this game by offering rubber tracked Ag. tractors for sale too in recent years. But neither one sells very good. Because of their complexity for one thing and the cost of building them is higher than a wheeled tractor, And that means they cost more at the dealership. And speaking of Caterpiller tractor co. Cat has been working on electric drive dozers for some time now. And according to them one of the big motivations behind electric drive is emissions. A engine running at a constant speed is much easier to get in to emissions standards. And remember Cat builds locomotive engines for the railroad. And they are having problems with them. But after reading your post I think you have come to the same conclusions about powering this tractor. I have been involved in prototyping some very large and expensive equipment in the past. One of those items was directional drilling machines. A very cheep directional drilling machine would cost 5 to 6 million dollars to build and that is for a finished product. To prototype one could run 2 or 3 times that much. So what do you do. Well to save money We built scale models of the finished product. To test the viability of the product and how to produce them at a low cost. This was with 3 engineering company's on board. And the owner of the company I was working for was a engineer too. So you might give some thought to producing a scale working prototype to test your theory on before you commit to a full size version. A scale prototype is also very handy for presentations to prospective investors. Hope this helps Bill
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.