Hot Rod Forum banner

trying to find a engine that will fit some dimensions

6K views 31 replies 11 participants last post by  boggen 
#1 ·
straight to the point.... looking for an engine that will fit in approx 20 inches wide, 20 inches tall, and can be up to say 13 feet long. with approx 200 to 600HP. prefer drive shaft more centered in the 20 inches wide by 20 inches tall, but can work around that. more HP the better. would prefer to stay away from high RPM's of 10,000 or less. lower the RPM's the better for max torque produced. =============== the long drawn out story. been on a search for engine that could work for a tractor i am trying to build. new tractor idea possibly.... the design of the tractor is forcing me to find a smaller width and height engine. and piston/cylinder style engines i have not came across anything that would fit the bill. and thought, i would try some hot rod / sport car forums, to see if someone might be able to point me in a direction. i am willing to push up to 30 inches wide by 30 inches high, for a higher HP engine, but smaller width and height the better. if i can find something at or below 20 x 20 and what ever length, and high HP. i would be extremely happy! when i say 20 x 20, that is everything, no oil filters, no turbos, no pipes, no wires, can extend out past that. in order to deal with EPA and regulations, I am hoping to find something, that would allow both air intake and exhaust to be ported off to the same side. prefer diesel engine. the engine will be powering generator, and hydraulic pump. no direct axle or transmission connections to engine. ============== turbine engines for jets / air planes / helicopters. at moment i am shunning away from. all that i have seen, has way to much "air flow" going through them. that extra air flow = dust, leaves, stems, dirt, rocks = problems of larger air filter, that will already be getting used and abused in the fields. ============== below is an older diagram. showing just a single section of this tractor. were engine, generator, hyd pump would fit. i am planning to place, fuel tank, fuse / relay box, radiators, hydraulic oil coolers, air filters, in other sections of this tractor. i just do not want to run a drive shaft between sections.
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#2 ·
No gas engine will fit those dimensions. Even the best four bangers are taller than 26 inches when installed. Rotary engines are small but will not work well with your needs. a no tq rotary and high rpm will clash with 6 or 8 wheels to turn over. Even the newest version is way low on starting tq and almost need a manual trans to be drivable.

A chevy 350 is your best bets for power and package size. Most other inlines will be much taller than 20 inches.

An electric motor is the only way you can hit the 20 inch mark and make the numbers you need.

If you can push your numbers a little further. in width and hieght a chevy 350 will work good for the power part but still wider and taller than you need.

Most four bangers are over head cam. I think gm makes a four cylinder that uses normal v8 style heads. with case mounted cam. Iron Duke its called i think. It will make some power. but not going to make 600 hp. 200 hp is in the range but maybe not too cheap. I know they are used for racing pretty often. Its basicly one side of a v8 and can be stripped down to very little but still may not be close to 20 inches tall.

GM Iron Duke engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it will require some custom mods to fit. Looking at your design I am not sure it will work but is the closest thing that will make power and be very close in size. it is also well supported with aftermarket parts. That will help make it smaller and lighter. Most of the jap and euro motors will be lacking in this area and have overhead cams that will add 6" inches to the hight of the motor.

FYI I would make room for the 350 chevy. Propably cheaper and more power than anything on the market. The SBC is about 29 inches square. Much less in some areas.

Hope this helps.

I wouldn't say the sbc is the best at anything besides being cheap and widely available.

The 20"X20" is a real small package but you can do that with a turbocharged motorcycle engine, if properly redesigned you can hit your 200hp goal at a relatively low rpm as long as you are using a well designed turbo system.

While the width requirement can be met with many auto inline engines the height is near impossible to meet even with dry sump pans.
 
This post has been deleted
#3 ·
Maybe I'm missing the concept here, but hydrostatic drives are pretty common in industrial equipment and tractors. The advantage is that the engine runs at a fairly constant RPM, so it can be tuned for maximum HP and fuel economy. Sounds like you need to be looking at an inline tractor diesel.
 
#4 ·
btw sorry for ugly first post, i had things all spaced out and looking good, no idea why everything got tossed into a single long cluster mess. thanks for the links / info Hcompton. came across 350 Chevy Engine Dimensions almost there! i did hit some what on motorcycle engines at one time ap72, but i never put much effort / length of time into trying to track down actual dimensions and HP produced. will take another try at it, Thanks! joe_padavano, from car engine, to truck engine, to tractor engine. there all pretty much exact same engine setup. ya gas, to diesel, to LP (liquid propane), to other, the fuel may make some difference in engine setup. but most part the same. it is the dimensions that i am having problems with. i have no place like front of a car/truck/tractor to drop an engine, or a trunk to place an engine into, all i got is basically this square pipe going down the center of the tractor. i can go up to 30 x 30, but if i can reach my mark of 20 x 20, that 10 inches for both width and height, is huge, once i start folding / unfolding tractor implements off the top of this thing, and dealing with suspension per say for wheels. that 10 inches keeps getting magnified that begins to really hurt the overall setup.
 
#5 ·
not sure what the problem is, quick reply, and going to advance page to add photos, both are causing my replys to become a jumbled mess. without line brakes. to admin of site, is there something with me being a "newbie" to this forum, and some sort of settings i need to adjust?
 
#6 ·
the 62 & 53 buick had a v8 215 cu in all aluminum ,heads block intake also olds same year offered it with turbo/they are currently used in land rover or range rovers with fuel injection, the bought patent from gm also same engine used in MGB-gt -v8 all parts are avalible .they are small in size and light weight dont know if yhis will help with what you need,
 
#8 ·
i have not taken full time to look more into the chevy 350, i got side tracked in my internet searchings, it is as much of "learning on the go" as finding something that might work.

in attempt to put a different spin on this thread....
custom engine is fine with me. and almost expecting, to need to custom make an engine. to better fit within the dimensions i am shooting for. at this stage in the game plan, experimental engines are acceptable. eventually a will need to nail something down. but a ways away from that goal/stage.

==========
different note: problem seems to be fixed, not sure, why first 2 posts were all jumbled mess. only thing i have done, since first 2 posts here on the forum is restart firefox. i have posted to other forums using vbulletin forum software and all was good in that same time frame. going to blame firefox.
 
#9 ·
I don't get it...

If you're designing from scratch why not design it to hold the powerplant that you want to use?

Alternatively if there is a good reason, if you have 13', then why not just string a row of motorcycle engines inline till you have the power that you need?

For that matter, if all you want it >200hp, just take a single bike engine and put a turbo or blower on it (how about an eaton mated directly to the crank?)

I don't get why this is such a big deal, without more details it seems like there's a dozen ways to make this work.
 
#10 ·
I don't get it...

If you're designing from scratch why not design it to hold the powerplant that you want to use?

Alternatively if there is a good reason, if you have 13', then why not just string a row of motorcycle engines inline till you have the power that you need?

For that matter, if all you want it >200hp, just take a single bike engine and put a turbo or blower on it (how about an eaton mated directly to the crank?)

I don't get why this is such a big deal, without more details it seems like there's a dozen ways to make this work.
more details there is....

i simply do not know engines. it has never been one of them things that has interested me. general mechanical work, oil changes, filters, fix wiring issues on the farm no real biggy, but actual types of engines out there, and knowing the math and formulas for this and that or what does or does not work.. i simply do not have a clue. and in that, my lack of knowledge is the big deal, and more so experience of knowing about different engines, and type of engines.

===============
ya i am building from scratch. but i have tied myself to dimensions for this tractor. 8 feet wide 60 feet long 14 feet high max dimensions (approx max dimensions world wide, without requiring some sort of special permit or like).

the 13 foot comes in, splitting up the 60 foot into 4 sections. ((there is a couple feet between sections taken up by connection points))

once i start adding on wheels, frame work, linkages (think 3pt hitch for a tractor) to fold/unfold implements off the top of this tractor. i am down to needing a engine, that i would to see in the 20" wide x 20" tall.

if engine is taller than 20 inches, say 30 inches. the linkages (metal bars and hydrualic cylinders), would need to be an extra 10 inches longer. to fold implements up on top of this tractor. that 10 inches, gets magnified via old tetter totter (grade school lever math). requiring larger diameter hydraulic cylinders, and longer hydraulic cylinders. this all starts adding up more and more to a point. there is no room left.

right now the name of tractor = SSTT (sideways snake train tractor). the picture in this thread, that single section is in transport mode. but when in field mode tires do a 90 degree rotation. so instead of 8 feet wide, 60 feet long going down the road like a semi truck / trailer. it is now 60 foot "wide", 8 feet "long"

these same tires need room to rotate both in transport mode and in field mode to take turns on the road and in the field. this alone puts restraints of were i can place things and how i space things out along the 60 foot.

your talking field tractor, that needs to get tires between rows of crop. so your not running over all the plants. if i am battling hydraulic cylinder diameters due to larger linkages needed, that is a result from a taller and wider engine setup. i get myself into issues of not being able to place tires were they need to be for different crops. that might be spaced at different row widths.

it all falls back, that yes i could push things up 30 inches wide by 30 inches tall. but i rather spend extra time seeing if i can find something that fits 20 inches x 20 inches. (smaller the better, within reason of course).

but at begining of this reply, like i said, i am no engine person. i honestly do not know. 20x20 maybe an unreasonable dimensions. but i have set a goal to that, and will see what i can find.

============
200HP is low end, i am looking for higher say 600HP, but i honestly do not know top HP at this point beyond just general comparison of tractor field implements, and looking at what is needed / suggested for current age tractor HP for the given implement/s.

i figure if i can get an engine that meets the upper limits of what is need/wanted. i can always down size. and stay with same framework, tires, etc... but if i start with 2 small of an engine. i will never be able to use this tractor all but very minor doings in the field if at all.

i am more looking at "swap out engine" undo a wire harness, undeo coolant lines, undo battery cables, undo fuel line, undo exhaust, undo air intake. undo a couple bolts. and pull the larger say 600HP engine out, with a fork lift, set it down, and then pickup say a 250HP engine and drop back in, and hook everything back up. so when the implement that is to be used out in the field only needs say 200HP. i am not wasting a few hundred plus bucks on fuel on the larger 600HP engine. granted this paragraph is most like a pipe dream at this time, but it is something i have in back of my mind.

to above a 60 foot implement, of one type may only require 140HP, while another implement that engages more deeper into the dirt, may require 300HP, while yet another implement type may require 500 to 600HP.

besides regular field tractor implements (chisels, rippers, discs, bottom plows, seeders, cutters, etc...) there is good chance a flat bed or box will be tossed on top of this. to move round bails, or to move harvested crop.

due to the design of this tractor. there is a good chance, 1 implement will fold off, on one 60 foot side, while another implement folds off the other 60 foot side, and go through the field with 2 implements basically.

the 8 foot ends, i can not add an engine, or i would risk nailing fence posts, and running down crop before combine or like gets to it. plus 8 foot ends is were the main cab connect (separate unit, kinda like a semi truck / trailer relationship)

============
i can not let the engine set lower within this frame. more so during wet years, and sinking up to the belly, i would end up tearing any sort of oil pan or cover all up.

============
with above, i think i covered it, both 60 foot sides, both 8 foot sides, reason for 20" high vs not really wanting 30" high for an engine. reason for 13 foot length sections.

the 20" width, is tire size. field tractor plus muddy spots.... i need some larger diameter tires. wider i go for engine. the smaller the tires will need to be.

============
============
============
servicing engine....

engine oil, engine oil filter, air filter, fuse /relay box. fuel tank filler. all of the basic routine check maintenance things. will need to happen. at the ends of each 13' section (total of 4 sections). so a person can actually check things without having to dis-mantel / unhook implements or like.

for major maintenance, i was looking at having some sort of "hinged latch" both on top and below the 20x20 frame work. that a person could grab a hold of and remove. the sides of the frame work. is already tied up with tracks to adjust wheel spacings, coolant lines (water/antifreeze mix), electrical cables, 3000PSI hydrualic oil lines, and a pressurized 200PSI max air line.

trying to place multi engines (and just hooked up through drive shafts), creates a problem, trying to service each engine, . no way to get to each engine individually.

the tractor will most likely be on some pretty good slopes working fields. and at some odd ball angles as well. result, i will need to use some sort of engine oil pump setup. to feed oil were it needs to go with what ever that gets used. most likely the engine will need a of min of 2 engine oil pickups. so engine oil does not all collect at one end and pump is not able to pick the engine oil up from the other end.

Alternatively if there is a good reason, if you have 13', then why not just string a row of motorcycle engines inline till you have the power that you need?
see above.... been trying to avoid a line of multiple engines all tied together via there drive shafts. i might get away with a single engine block that is similiar to a bunch of smaller engines lined up. but been holding out. to see if there something better out there.

diesel is fuel of choice at moment, overall safer vs gas, and from little i know, diesel will give me more power vs gas when talking same amount of fuel used. longer tractor can keep going in the field the better between refueling.

=============
20 x 20 is my goal.
 
#13 ·
thank ya 1Gary.

================
i got a couple other leads that i found. that gets away from the standard piston/cylinder engine. that looks more promising to hit my 20x20 dimensions. and hopefully the engine types can be elongated. to fit this tractor better. vs a V or straight piston/cylinder engine can.

cousin is more of the gear head of the family, and will see if he can help / point me in a local company direction that does customized engines. for the chevy 350. granted most likely will end up setting down and chicken scratching out something in autodesk inventor, to rough out geometry of a 350 engine. but most likely going to put it on hold to see if the other leads pan out.

will update the main thread at tractorbynet new tractor idea possibly.... here in a couple hours with information.

=========
thanks for the help everyone! :thumbup:
 
#15 ·
ya, i got issue yesterday as well, i reported it, and from just checking, looks like issue has been resolved and all is fine. not much else i can do beyond making this notation. just a user like most others. most forums i visit, end up getting nailed every now and then, from a rash of sudden spammers to other. not much can be done, besides dealing with issues and fixing them as they come up. just like fixing issues with vehicles to everything else in life.
 
#16 ·
I having worked as a heavy equipment mechanic for over 35 years I would like to add to this. 1st point is look at what almost every piece of AG. equipment and almost every piece of heavy equipment in the world uses for power. Diesel for lots of reasons. What moves a piece of equipment? Torque and a lot of it. Here is where a diesel shines. The ability to run for extended periods of time at not just full throttle but at full torque output as well. And yes some gasoline engines come close to what a diesel will do, And the operative word here is close. Most notably would be the gas engines used in heliocopters in there early years. The drawback to those are the really short TBO's (Time between overhauls) 2,500 hrs at the most. And very expensive to rebuild to boot. Whereas diesels in the Ag and construction industrys often see 10,000 hrs or more before overhaul. Add to that the one factor that keeps diesels firmly in the equipment of the world is they are very efficient for the torque produced and fuel burned they are hard to beat. One type of engine that does do that (Beat the diesel) Is a gas turbine. And they can come in small packages with high hp outputs. But they are hugely expensive to build and to maintain. If that wasn't the case then why aren't they used more. They too have short TBO's compared to diesels and are probably way to complex to put out in the field plowing. Not to mention the dust would kill them real fast. I do have quite a bit of experience with turbines as I used to work for GE in their marine propulsion division. The perfect environment for a turbine in there isn't much dust to deal with. But they are hardly used in marine propulsion. Why too expensive to operate.

Number 2 Are you going to drive this ag. tractor with hydraulics? Have you computed in the frictional losses from that many hydraulic pumps and motors? If you are going to have a drive motor in each wheel then the losses would be staggering. I think that you would need closer to 800 of a 1000 hp to function. One thought that comes to mind and would meet most of your requirements would be electrical drive. That way You could have several small generator sets that for cost reasons and the ability to sync together and to have variable speed would almost have to be DC generators. With dc drive motors in the wheels. The real problem with either electric or hydraulic drive is the cost. Hydraulic motors and pumps are very expensive to buy and the so are electric motors and generators. So that leaves mechanical drive. Lots of chains and sprockets or shafts and belt's to drive that many wheels, That to sounds pretty expensive too. And very labor intensive to keep running. Have You ever been around a baler of a combine. It takes a lot to keep them running. Lots of gears and pulleys and chains and belts. And costs with all of them. And ultimately cost is everything because you have to be able to sell your product, unless this is just for you. I am NOT saying this to discourage you far far from it. Almost every successful invention ever made has come from inside the industry that it was meant for. Racing is a good example for the forum we are on now. Racers gave us seat belts, rearview mirrors, high speed tires including radials, dry sump oiling systems and many more. So I am not discouraging you at all. I am just trying to give you some things to think about. And one of the things I see is that you will almost have to redesign this to use a larger engine and it will probably end up being a diesel. I do know what I'm talking about here as I have successfully prototyped many mechanical products over the years including some electrical products. I have also wrote a regular advice column on finding someone to prototype products and how to do prototyping yourself for the web site American Inventor Spot. And that was part of the TV show American Inventor. I don't want to see you fail, but also don't want to see you spend money you don't have to. I really hope this helps Bill
 
#17 ·
ya pretty much mirroring my own thoughts. sadly, i do not have the experience as you, so i have had to down play my own thoughts. and thanks for helping re-affirming them.

ya, i have kinda gotten away from turbine engines. i really had no choice but not look at them, due to small dimensions and HP they produced.

i am kinda hard pressed gas vs diesel at moment, i know i would prefer diesel. but i am so far out of my experience, and knowledge, of engines, that trying to understand, it is to point, i am making it up as i go. perhaps bad, perhaps good. no way for me to judge. without input. and i thank you for that.:thumbup:

i think i can still get my 20 inches width x 20 inches tall. for most part i been heading in direction of, trying to find a single large engine, to drive 60 foot width tractor. with say up to 16 plus wheels more likey 24 to 32 wheels possibly. but as i am finding out. that many HP of an engine just not gong to happen.

BUT....
i still have an option. i already have 4 sections that make up 60 feet. i can place that say 600HP, up into 4 smaller engines. so now i am looking more at say 150HP engine to fit in a 20" inches wide x 20" inches tall. this is being more favorable for this SSTT and what engines are out there on the market already.

ya i would be duplicating everything 4 different times per each 60 foot errr for each 13 foot section. but that really is not all end. for smaller fields that can be a large plus. and for larger fields, being able to say hookup another 13 foot section, for say 73 feet. would not be that bad on additional cost vs having to buy a complete new set of tractors and implements. for just that little bit more. extra duplication also allows for "backup" if one engine goes down, maybe there is enough from other engines to keep on going.

while i was hoping to avoid above going with a single larger HP engine, *hey i had to see if it was possible, i did not know any better at the time*

=============

ya i know about hydraulic issues, more so if all the wheels hub motors were hydraulic. the pure amount of GPM (gallons per minute) would quickly over whelm most things. and by the time i upped the inside diameter of pipe, and then upped the hydrualic pumps to produce a high enough pressure at the higher GPM. i would be getting into some major friction losses just trying to move that amount of fluid, let alone trying to place regulators on everything. to try and even out both pressure and GPM going to each wheel.

no way to use shafts, sprockets, chains, gears. would be a bloody nightmare on this tractor. and would cause to much slop at things furthest away from the engine. there would most likely be binding issues, twisting shaft issues, etc...

==========
electrical wheel hub motors. give me a few more PRO's vs hydraulic. more so in finite control of RPM's and torque. i am hesitant of both A/C and D/C. and current doings out there. i have full control over the generator, and wheel hub motors. so i can run at any volts, any amount of phases, at any frequency i want. along with at any amps i want. and in all thought. i think i am going to use that to my benefit. of not needing to tie to a given standard of.... 110v, or 220v or 12,24,36,72 volts
the only exception is needing a standard 12V to deal with electronics, and road lights.
to above it will be a variable volts/amps/frequency at a certain amount of phases across the entire machine. with a 12v beside it.

if i do not approach things as dynamically changing volts/amps/frequency across entire machine. then i don't think i will have a chance of pulling things off. at least for the generator that would supply electricity to wheel hub motors.

there most likely will be inline filters (think regulators for hydraulics or fluid or gas), but to control amount of bad electricity (odd frequency, odd amps, odd volts)

to be honest i am not there yet, to actually figure electrical all out.
===========

engines with generator/s and electrical wheel hub motors.

i am actually not worried about torque vs RPM's. torque x RPMs / 5210 = HP correct? i mean as long as i reach my HP requirement, and an engine that can withstand continuous heavy load placed on it. i really do not care what RPM's or torque it produces. like i said, i am not trying tie myself to a standard of 110v, 220v, 12,24, etc... volts. the only exception is the 12v that run along side. but i am looking for a dynamically changing variable volts/amps/frequency, at a given number of phases.

i am not really looking at regenerative braking, while that would be a plus. i am not counting on it to recharge batteries like a regular electrical car out there.

=================
at this point in time, cost is last on list, it is just me at this point in time. and needing a team. but at this point it is concept, and trying to see what could work. and what would be needed to make it work. multi other things need to happen before cost of things will most likely get involved. to see were corners might be cut, or something else done. no real reason to have some bean counter saying OMG that is to expensive and creating an up war over things. when there no direct way to get a estimated cost atleast by myself. it is the other folks that are needed though in a team. that i am seriously lacking at moment.

ya electrical wheel hub motors are expensive, but so are physical transmissions, final drives. pick your poison. some areas are going to be more costly than current age tractors, while others it will be zero. and its not just tractor but also portions of implement costs, that might become null and void. with this SSTT and implements to go with it. that i am hoping will offset things enough to make it near current age tractors and the implements that go with them. there a lot of metal and weight that should be removed from the overall setup compared to current age tractors and implements.
 
#18 ·
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
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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
 
#23 ·
*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.

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

stupid
1
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

2
: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>

3
: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>

4
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....
FLAT OUT
--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.
 
#24 ·
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:
 
#25 ·
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
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.

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.

" 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 :thumbup:.

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.
 
#28 ·
" 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.
 
#31 ·
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.


teslaturbine.htm
 
#32 · (Edited)
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.


teslaturbine.htm
alright.....
"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.

links....
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.
http://www.teslaengine.org/images/pump.jpg
http://www.teslaengine.org/images/teba23p4.pdf (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)

http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/Product Catalog_ENGLISH_LR.pdf (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

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/01/1091298575202.html

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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top