I'll see your 62' and raise you 120'.
I couldn't find another pic of the big blade. Could it be for furrowing? Or maybe just ripping? Or gophers? https://www.kibbleeq.com/new-equipme...db120-48row30/ Gotta have a good tractor. |
1 Attachment(s)
|
How could they use a 120' bar if the Earth wasn't flat. :haha:
|
When you lift it in the middle, it deflects to match the curvature of the globe.
|
1 Attachment(s)
The tractor was designed to speed up farm equipment on the road while being stable, the speed record is just for shits & giggles.
And the Honda does actually mow just not at the same time... |
1 Attachment(s)
In case you want to take 36 friends with you...
|
|
That's the head offa one o'them there sex robots.
|
3 Attachment(s)
Roughing it...
|
1 Attachment(s)
A
|
$6500 for assembly?!?!
Jesus-jumped-up-Christ-on-a-pogo-stick. |
1 Attachment(s)
Knickerbocker...
|
Very early run-flats, just not very-fast
|
M&S tires.*
*Mud & Snow, also good when you're in deep shit. ;) |
1 Attachment(s)
Why? I'd say for the military given the time frame and color.
Yeah but why a 30 cylinder, 2.5 ton monster to get only 400 horsepower? Because horsepower don't mean shit, torque is what does work. |
I see what you did there.
|
It's a tank engine.
|
Quote:
It is a 19.5 horsepower per liter engine. If diesel, then acceptable for that period. If gasoline, it was a marginal design. Which would explain why it was only made for a short time. Too little speed to provide necessary torque - due to insufficient horsepower. |
TW is right. HP is a calculation taken directly from the torque (HP = Torque lb-ft x RPM / 5252). The low HP figure is a result only of the low-revving nature of the engine.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_A57_multibank
Quote:
|
Quote:
All the gears in the world won't change the torque the motor produces, just multiply the torque by reducing the speed of the output thereby reducing the calculated horsepower. Theory is bullshit, torque does the work. |
1 Attachment(s)
Who say cheaters never win, both NHRA and NASCAR checked the Carb, Intake, Bore, Stroke and Heads,
but not the bottom end. Taking off the Intake they should have spotted the cam bearings though. |
I'm curious about how those connecting rod internal bearing races work. They look like in the picture that there's a race on the bearings... Which makes me wonder how they got the bearing/race onto the crank.
Any help? |
This crankshaft is a one piece and is heat treated and surface hardened. The connecting rods and bearing races are split in the middle. The bearing retainers are also split in half and assembled around the crankshaft, and split races are in the block and main bearing caps. The roller bearings run directly on the hardened crankshaft.
|
Thanks, key phrase "split races", is a new thing to me. I think I can imagine it now.
Thanks! |
Were the rollers illegal?
|
Oh yes, very. Especially NASCAR who wants to make everything same same. Using those bearings cut down on frictional losses and you could use a smaller oil pump that took much less parasitic power from the engine. Might be good for 5 mph compared to a legal engine, and in NASCAR that's huge. NHRA it would be OK in modified classes but very illegal in stock, SS, even FX classes.
|
Quote:
And have totally ignored the point. Same torque can be provided by all sorts of horsepower - high and low. Irrelevant is torque when speed also matters. Only increased horsepower means sufficient speed at that torque. Only horsepower matters. Even a 2 liter four cylinder engine can provide the same torque. But does not have speed. Obviously that torque myth is popular among many who forget that simple formula taught in school science. Torque is obviously irrelevant if enough horsepower does not exist to provide minimal speed. Only horsepower matters. Why do eighteen wheelers with 350 horsepower engines have enough torque for 60,000 pounds? Many gears. Which eighteen wheelers get up to speed faster? Those with 500 horsepower engines. Both have same torque. More horsepower means better speed (and acceleration). Horsepower is the relevant number. How did Shell create a 100 MPG car in the 1950s? A two horsepower engine had plenty of torque - and not much speed. Simple multiplication. |
Yes, I assumed conventional gears, my bad for not considering your magical frictionless fairy gears. My only excuse is I'm stuck in the real world.
You have it backwards as usual, horsepower is the product of torque times speed over constant. The 30 cylinder engine was designed to produce the torque they needed at the speed they wanted. Yes the hp rating could be increased by increasing the RPMs, but that would be stupid. All that would be accomplished is more wear on the engine and the need to gear it back down to a usable speed. They already had the torque they needed and Torque Does the Work. Your 2 liter 4 won't get far in a tank or a semi. |
1 Attachment(s)
The basic bicycle is a pretty simple design, but it took a long time and lots of dead ends to get there. I have a feeling clothing had a lot to do with it.
|
Quote:
As usual, due to too much emotion and insufficient knowledge, you again got it wrong. 4 cylinder engine can produce that same torque. But insufficient speed - due to insufficient horsepower. You also got that wrong. Anyone not educated by hearsay (who can do simple multiplication) would know that. Only motors with sufficient horsepower can produce a torque at required speeds. Somehow that multiplication is just too hard - the routine expression from another lesser educated man called George Jr. Meanwhile, that engine apparently had a very short life span due to its low performance numbers. |
Quote:
But again, it all about that simple concept taught in school science - the product of torque and speed. So that a much less than 1 horsepower engine (the human) could adapt to changing loads. |
hey tw
you're wrong about your unswerving devotion to the temple of horsepower. Let me ask you this. When you have a nut on a bolt to remove (or tighten), do you, with your static, unchanging amount of personal horsepower, use your fingers and thumb, or do you use a wrench? |
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
So, I was rolling along rattlesnake trail a really sweet single track with a lot of turns climbs and descents when suddenly I see ...
|
3 Attachment(s)
Then a couple monster lathes...
|
1 Attachment(s)
These boys...
|
1 Attachment(s)
and the product
|
I did not have a ripe banana so I've scaled with a mtn bike.
|
Very interesting
|
Weird. Any idea of what the history/circumstances might be?
|
1 Attachment(s)
It's the site of Redstone quarries in North Conway NH. They quarried and polished granite like the massive column in the pic. I don't think they lasted long working from the late 1800's and shutting down sometime in the 1910's.
I didn't know the site was there until I rode into it. |
Granite's expensive, right? Is it not worth someone's effort to get in there and take that column? Or are there just too many trees in the way, do you think?
|
It's a state historic site now. I was surprised that amount of steel was still there. The column is accessible but there is a rail bed between it and the roads.
|
You didn't ride your bike on top along the length of the column? After a balancing act like that, it could've been called Griffhenge.
|
It's amazing that machinery wasn't scrapped for the war effort.
Once you steal that column what on earth would you do with it? |
Carve it up into kitchen countertops?
|
It would have to be sliced and each slice polished, I doubt it would be cheaper that using slabs from the quarry in the end. But it seems a shame to cut up a polished cylinder like that, maybe erect it and put a statue of UT on top.
|
1 Attachment(s)
They dropped a CAT through the ice in the Arctic and had to retrieve it. I traced this picture back as far as Reddit but can't find any details.
Seems to me if the ice wouldn't hold the CAT, it wouldn't hold anything lifting it out of the water. I thought maybe a barge mounted crane but the oil slick seems to be under ice. Damifino. |
Griff, your short story was very exciting! When I saw the drive face of the lathe I gasped. I was thinking about turning (already cylindrical) trees (wtf??). But no. Great surprise ending!
Banana, lol. |
I also looked for that underwater track-layer photo in vain.
Why did it stop there and not the bottom? More curious is that I can't find that track pattern anywhere either. |
It was probably in the Antarctic. More pics and info @:
http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2019...outh-pole.html & https://lewebpedagogique.com/audevil...ion-2015-2016/ |
Good find.
Guess I have never seen a 65C. They small as Cats go and seem to have different configurations. A year on the bottom. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Is this a test?
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=1035790&postcount=682 Find the difference: one vs. two-piece crank. |
Ah, new TOM chapter.
|
This was the next step. A lot of work, a lot of money, they only built one. Crazy difficult to end up with a unit stiff enough to not flex or vibrate, hard enough to stand up to the roller bearings but soft enough to not crack, and perfectly balanced for high RPM.
|
I laugh every time I see those rollers looking like the old mechanical chattering false teeth.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Check out this baby, never forget something at home again...
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.