Advanced tech without electricity/internal combustion?

In regards to Diesel. I would say that if you can make a reasonably reliable triple-expansion steam engine, you're ready for crude diesel.

Listen guys... l am a preacher, not a mechanic or an engineer.

But I can take apart and reassemble a gasoline engine. I know what is inside there and have a pretty good idea how it all works. The most difficult part of that would be the tolerances on the bearings for both the cam and the crankshaft. The cylinders themselves would be a bit less critical using compression rings. Finally you have to get the valves seated tight enough to hold compression.

One of the things that has been interesting me is how hard Howsmyn has been working to improve his precision machining and how with the guns at least, interchangability of parts. IIRC with compression he is managing about 300 lb for his steam engines. How much higher does he need to get for diesels?

I'm assuming that the diesels would run on mostly the same principles except for no need for plugs to fire the cylinders. But I'm in a bit deep for me on the details.

My own assumption would be that with Howsmyn's current resourses, he could build on what he has learned from the steam engines, add to that knowledge base enough to go on to build a diesel.

As for the oils, I'm not knowlegable enough to comment on that.

Don

n7axw wrote:Listen guys... l am a preacher, not a mechanic or an engineer.

But I can take apart and reassemble a gasoline engine. I know what is inside there and have a pretty good idea how it all works. The most difficult part of that would be the tolerances on the bearings for both the cam and the crankshaft. The cylinders themselves would be a bit less critical using compression rings. Finally you have to get the valves seated tight enough to hold compression.

One of the things that has been interesting me is how hard Howsmyn has been working to improve his precision machining and how with the guns at least, interchangability of parts. IIRC with compression he is managing about 300 lb for his steam engines. How much higher does he need to get for diesels?

I'm assuming that the diesels would run on mostly the same principles except for no need for plugs to fire the cylinders. But I'm in a bit deep for me on the details.

My own assumption would be that with Howsmyn's current resourses, he could build on what he has learned from the steam engines, add to that knowledge base enough to go on to build a diesel.

As for the oils, I'm not knowlegable enough to comment on that.

Don

The requirements for machining a high speed steam engines crank and valves (i.e. faster than 700 rpm) are exactly the same as a low speed diesel. The forces are very similar. The injection pump needs more precise work but if you can build a gun with truly interchangeable parts you are more than half way there. (Some firearms manufacturers today still have difficulties - hence why you have gunsmiths to hand fit what should be identical parts).
As for lubrication - if you have a set of appropriate text books then making the oils shouldn't bee impossible with a relatively low tech level - its just a question of volumes needed.

Cheopis wrote:
I bought mine new, for cash, with part of the settlement I received for the aftermath of an argument with a hydraulic cylinder (it won handily.) By far the best investment I ever made. I didn't even blink when I had to replace the engine. It was expensive, but worth it to keep the truck. If I ever have to get another vehicle, which I hope I won't, I might have to look into buying a foreign built Ranger if they seem to be as well-built as the US-built ones were.

I think that in that time frame all of the small pickups were being built in Japan - for Ford, I believe that their partner was Mazda. You might check them out, should you ever have to replace your vehicle.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Cheopis wrote:
I bought mine new, for cash, with part of the settlement I received for the aftermath of an argument with a hydraulic cylinder (it won handily.) By far the best investment I ever made. I didn't even blink when I had to replace the engine. It was expensive, but worth it to keep the truck. If I ever have to get another vehicle, which I hope I won't, I might have to look into buying a foreign built Ranger if they seem to be as well-built as the US-built ones were.

I think that in that time frame all of the small pickups were being built in Japan - for Ford, I believe that their partner was Mazda. You might check them out, should you ever have to replace your vehicle.

The Twin Cities Automotive Plant built Rangers right up to the time when the model was discontinued.

Don

n7axw wrote:The Twin Cities Automotive Plant built Rangers right up to the time when the model was discontinued.

Ya-no, they might still be making Rangers if you guys bought new ones more often than every 20 years. :p

Mazda BT50 is more or less the new Ranger. IIRC, both are built in same factories in Thailand and Argentina.

Ranger is available here, but BT50 isn't. Go figure...

Both come with quite interesting Diesels, which thanks to draconian NOx emission regulations in US, is probably not an option there. Pity.

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:The Twin Cities Automotive Plant built Rangers right up to the time when the model was discontinued.

Ya-no, they might still be making Rangers if you guys bought new ones more often than every 20 years. :p

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:The Twin Cities Automotive Plant built Rangers right up to the time when the model was discontinued.

Ya-no, they might still be making Rangers if you guys bought new ones more often than every 20 years. :p

**grabs the topic again and yanks it in a different direction. Sorry.

There's something to that, I suppose. I guess that just means they should make them even better, so that nobody will seriously consider buying anything else.

Planned obsolescence is a big sore point with me. My mother had a 1960 RCA-Whirlpool Imperial washing machine. It was her grandmother's and was passed to her. It did three or more loads of laundry per day for 43 years, with only a few minor repairs before it died because the tub rusted out. We were actually able to get a new tub, in the original box even, but I couldn't get the old tub out/off, because the tub top retaining nut was time-welded in place, and I didn't have a shop where I could take the thing to try to heat the nut and hope it would crack loose without breaking anything. I certainly wasn't going to use a torch to heat the thing in the house.

Even if the thing was only half as efficient as a modern washer, how much energy was saved over forty years because my mother didn't need to buy eight new washers? All the man-hours and resources saved, all the time spent doing other productive things.

Autos are getting better, overall, I think. But a lot of other stuff isn't.

Cheopis wrote:**grabs the topic again and yanks it in a different direction. Sorry.

There's something to that, I suppose. I guess that just means they should make them even better, so that nobody will seriously consider buying anything else.

Planned obsolescence is a big sore point with me. ...

Oh, I'm no fan of planned obsolescence either, but if nobody is buying new rangers there's no profit in building them -- whatever the reason for low sales might be.

I can imagine creating a laser that is pumped by solar/mechanical means. It would be an interesting challenge, but could have no electronic signature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-pumped_laser