**** CHANGFA S195 SLOW SPEED MODIFICATION PROJECT ****
So....this forum is about experimentation, testing the limits of things, and trying new ideas. Right ?
I have decided to drop the speed of my S195 even lower:
I realize that these engines are designed to run best between 1400 and 2200 rpm but I want to see if I can achieve smooth reliable operation in the 900 rpm range on a continuous basis (24/7 if necessary).
Reasons for this experiment:
1] reduce noise.
2] make only the amount of power that I need.
3] because I have this engine available and don't want to buy a smaller one :)
4] for me, it's an interesting experiment which may also interest others on the forum.
GOAL:
The ultimate goal of this project is to drive a 50-70 amp, 12 volt alternator for battery bank charging using a slow speed, low noise, diesel engine fueled by diluted WVO. The engine will not incorporate a heating system for straight WVO, so fuel dilution is necessary.
Engine: The engine should run at ~900 rpm and develop 2+BHP
Load: The flywheel driven automotive alternator has a 3" serpentine pulley. The Flywheel is 16" diameter. (5.3:1 ratio)
With an engine speed of 900, the alternator should turn at 4770 rpm. For the Delco 12SI this equates to approx. 86
amps or 1032 watts (1.03kw). If we double the kw to achieve a HP rating, this results in a 2.06 BHP demand on the
engine.
OBSTACLES:
For this section, I need input from the forum members.
Here's a few obtacles that come to mind...
1] Rotating mass. The S195 may need additional flywheel weight to run at lower speeds?
2] Vibration control. The counterbalance shafts in the Changfa may be designed for the current flywheel mass.
Changing the flywheel weight may upset the overall machine balance?
3] Dimensional Bore and stroke limitations?
One thing of note is the similarity in bore/stroke ratios between slow speed engines like the Listers and the Changfa 195.
Let's look at the Bore/Stroke ratio:
Bore Stroke Ratio
Changfa 3.75" 4.5" .83:1
Lister 6/1 4.5" 5.5" .81:1
It would seem that the bore and stroke of the Changfa are in line with other low speed engines.
4] Can the engine make 2HP at 900 rpm? no power curve exists for the Changfa, so this is not known at the moment.
5] Combustion. This is a DI engine. Does that pose a problem for slow speed blended WVO operation?
6] Other obstacles (from your contribution)
So, first I would like to focus on the obstacles and get a those summarized.
Then move on to attacking the obstacles one by one.
This is where I can see Bob, Henry and others helping a lot.
PS: Please let's not focus on why it can't or shouldn't be done, or why this is a stupid thing to do with a 12 hp engine, because I'm doing it anyway ;)
I do have the capability to make heavier flywheels or machine components if necessary, so let's get the suggestions rolling !
Hopefully this will turn out to be a cool project with an interesting outcome.
Veggie
Hello Veggie,
From what I heard from venders selling S195's is that the engine should be brought up to operating rpm's as soon as possible.
Reasons:
- Shock load on gear train at low RPM's.
- Might not have enough oil pressure at 900 RPM's when oil is hot.
The shock load might be taken care of by increasing the flywheel mass. How much, I don't know.
Oil pressure can be checked running the engine at 900 RPM's while the oil is HOT.
Bob might be able to help out on output at lower engine speeds.
Henry
Quote from: hwew on December 26, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
Hello Veggie,
From what I heard from venders selling S195's is that the engine should be brought up to operating rpm's as soon as possible.
Reasons:
- Shock load on gear train at low RPM's.
- Might not have enough oil pressure at 900 RPM's when oil is hot.
Noted:
Henry,
- What's the oil pressure of a warm S195 at normal speeds of 1400 to 2200 rpm ?
- The gear train only drives the countershafts? correct?
veggie
just so i am clear on your objective(s)
is it to increase fuel efficiency? or rather reduce the amount of fuel consumed
to make a kw?
the crank gear turns the governor gear, the cam gear and the idler gears, and by extension
the oil pump.
it appears the crank gear is held in place by a snap ring, if so then the gear may not be pressed
on or shrink fitted? if it is a slip fit i would be very concerned with low rpm gear pounding the key to
death, loss of a key means bent valves i would suspect.
of course we don't know yet if that would be the case or not, till someone tries it.
are you sure the engine is DI and not IDI?
how new is this engine?
oil pressure at 2000rpm hot is around 125-150lbs i am told, but have not taken the time to measure that to confirm
i find it interesting that you can get it to run reliably at 900rpm, mine gets a bit irratic at 1000rpm, and is stable at 1200rpm
and up.
fwiw, i think you will find the fuel consumption in gr/kw/hr is going to be dreadful at 1 or 2 kwatt loading, at least it is so on mine
it really doesn't come into its own until i get over 6kwatt load on it, after that it will compete well with a listeroid, under 2kwatts
its laughable.
ymmv of course, so don't let me rain on your parade, perhaps your setup will do much better than what i have experienced here.
iirc the baseline fuel consumption for my changfa 195 idi engine, direct driving an st7.5 at 1800rpm with no electrical load
is right at 600gr/hr just to cover the windage, friction, and a bit of excitation of the st head and cover the losses associated with the
engine, so even if a good engine can produce a kwatt for 300 grams, added to the baseline makes the changfa come in at
about 900grams for the first kwatt.
thats not very good at all.
of course those numbers get better at lower rpm, but i don't recall how much better for sure, but iirc it would still likely be over 650 grams
for a kwatt out of one of the alternators at 1300rpm engine speed.
i haven't tried one of the little changfa's to see what its baseline consumption might be, who knows it might be even though they have
a higher consumption rate at rated load than a 195, they might end up burning less generating a single kwatt?
something we are sure to find out i would suspect
bob g
The Crankshaft gear drives:
Governer Gear
Governer Gear drives:
Camshaft and injector pump, Oil pump and lower countershaft
Lower countershaft gear drives:
Hand crank/idler gear
Hand crank/idler gear drives:
upper countershaft
It might be different if the gears were helical cut. If they were I believe the geartrain would be:
- Stronger that would be able to handle higher shock load.
Henry
Sorry Bob you beat me to it.
Henry
Bob,
Bob wrote....
just so i am clear on your objective(s)
is it to increase fuel efficiency? or rather reduce the amount of fuel consumed
to make a kw?
Reply....
>>1] reduce noise
>>2] curiosity
>>3] Only need 1 kw but refuse to buy a smaller engine (which would run faster and louder)
>>4] Fuel consumption is not a concern ( yet ;) )
---------------------------------
The crank gear turns the governor gear, the cam gear and the idler gears, and by extension
the oil pump. It appears the crank gear is held in place by a snap ring, if so then the gear may not be pressed
on or shrink fitted? if it is a slip fit i would be very concerned with low rpm gear pounding the key to
death, loss of a key means bent valves i would suspect.
>>> Maybe, but we really don't know if the loads are destructive when the engine is loaded so lightly.
---------------------------------
are you sure the engine is DI and not IDI?
how new is this engine?
>>> Engine is 1 year old, brand new, right out of the crate.
>>> Designation is ZS195NM (Direct injection).
>>> Is that better or worse than a DI engine for low speed operation ?
----------------------------------
oil pressure at 2000rpm hot is around 125-150lbs i am told, but have not taken the time to measure that to confirm
>>> I will make a note to monitor the oil pressure at low speeds. What would be considered minimum?
----------------------------------
i find it interesting that you can get it to run reliably at 900rpm, mine gets a bit irratic at 1000rpm, and is stable at 1200rpm
and up.
>>>This could be a fuel rack/governor issue. Mine too is touchy below 950 rpm. (one more obstacle).
----------------------------------
Bob, what about some additional flywheel weight?
I have not seen the crank bearing on the flywheel side, but do you think it could handle an additional 50+ lbs of weight ?
veggie
The Crank Bearings are very Large:
Just over 2-3/4" dia.
Just over 1-1/4" wide with a 1/4" full circle groove in the center.
My 8 groove serpentine pulley on my S195 is almost 50 lbs and it seems it does not overload the bearing.
I don't think it will be a problem. Time will tell though.
Henry
Quote from: hwew on December 26, 2009, 06:53:24 PM
The Crank Bearings are very Large:
Just over 2-3/4" dia.
Just over 1-1/4" wide with a 1/4" full circle groove in the center.
My 8 groove serpentine pulley on my S195 is almost 50 lbs and it seems it does not overload the bearing.
I don't think it will be a problem. Time will tell though.
Henry
Thanks Henry.
I think the stock flywheel is around 80 lbs.
I'm thinking of machining a secondary flywheel to bolt up to the sheave boss using the 3 available bolt holes.
Not sure how heavy it would need to be?
veggie
The engine is relatively quiet (80 db. @ 5 ft.) and runs very smooth.
I wonder if additional flywheel mass would reduce any concerning gear backlash that Henry and Bob brought up.?
The goal is only to reduce this speed by 100 rpm.! and add some features which make it happy at that speed.
Keep the ideas coming.....
veggie
Veggie:
that is surprisingly smooth for a 195 at 1000rpm, perhaps the difference is it being a DI engine?
maybe we can talk Henry into running his down to 1000rpm and see how it compares
i have 3 of the DI engine's, but have never put one on the test stand, but plan to at some point
down the road, because i am looking for a pinch more efficiency they are supposed to be able to deliver
over that of the IDI engine's.
i guess dropping another 100rpm probably ain't gonna hurt?
very interesting venture you have there.
bob g
Bob, Henry....
Any suggestions on how much flywheel to add ???
veggie
I ran my S195 DI down that low and it runs the same.
The only thing I do not like is the geartrain sounds very harsh at speeds that low.
Bob mentioned about gear pounding and I see it as he does.
My engine has lots of extra inertia.
ST12 Genhead
Pulley for ST12 about 38 lbs.
Flywheel pulley about 50 Lbs.
I guess all this helps some.
I know if I shut it down at 1800 rpm's with no load it takes over 10 seconds to stop turning.
Henry
i personally would not recommend more flywheel mass, especially if your engine is a plain brg model
and if you are targeting low rpm operation
there might not be sufficient load capacity in the main brg to carry appreciably more weight, unless
you plan on mounting the alternator up to so that the belt can help carry some/part/or all of the additional weight?
with the alternator up top, i would expect another 50 or so pounds would be just fine, perhaps as much as 75lbs
maybe a hell of a lot more!
when you consider belt deflection when tight being maybe 20lbs, and then calculate the physics involved you end up
with perhaps 150-200lbs of actual pull on the belt. so mounting the alternator up top like the one you have now should
allow you to add just about any amount of weight you would like.
within reason of course, because the next issue will be one of injection timing, you will need to slow the timing substantially
running a very heavy flywheel and low rpm compared to the lighter wheel and 1800+ rpm, otherwise you may see
the big end brg start to fracture or delaminate in the high pressure region.
just as everything in life, compromises everywhere.
lots to consider when you re-engineer a product to do something it was not originally designed to do.
that doesn't mean it won't work, just means there are things to watch out for, and signs to keep tabs on
so that you can make adjustments before something is damaged.
bob g
Quote from: veggie on December 26, 2009, 07:40:57 PM
Bob, Henry....
Any suggestions on how much flywheel to add ???
veggie
Well like my pulley setup because the boss on the pulley keeps it centered on the flywheel. I would not go much larger in dia because as we know there are only three mounting bolt holes on the flywheel and there might also be a harmonic ballance problem if you go too large.
i forgot to add this
my drive pulley is a cast iron 4 groove B section, and is mounted with a 9"od spacer made of steel
so i would expect that the weight of this combination is about 20lbs over that of the oem pulley?
i would have to weigh everything but i bet i am close i the estimate.
i also have the st7.5 as part of the reciprocating mass, along with another 3groove pulley, the drive hub and element
so if i had to guess the added weight is probably about 75lbs over the oem pulley, but the genhead has its own brgs to help
support the load.
bob g
Roger that !
So, an additional modification will be injector timing.
When the time is right, I will bring up that subject and make the necessary adjustments.
Regarding belt arrangement and tension, the automotive alternator will be taking the place of the Voltmaster AC head.
The Alternator will be charging two 225 amp Trojan T-105's and then feeding a 5KW inverter.
Therefore the belt tension will help support any additional flywheel weight.
The bottom line question is weather the additional of slow speed inertia will assist in the compression/combustion cycle?
My assumption was that the additional mass would reduce the the deceleration pulse during compression and also dampen the acceleration pulse after ignition. Less hammering overall.
(also the main reason for your suggestion to adjusting the timing.)
Do my assumptions hold water ?
veggie
your assumptions are pretty close, however
we must remember that just because there is a delay angle after injection followed by ignition which is evidenced by
a sharp pressure rise (the diesel knock)
the added weight of the larger flywheel can dramatically effect this pressure rise, if the timing is retained at the oem spec
i would expect some severe knocking and damaged brgs or worse in a short amount of time.
while the added mass is a "plus" while coming up on compression, it is a liability on "ignition" if one does not offset the injection timing
to keep the pressures in line with the design of the engine.
but that is easy enough to do when the time comes, just have to add a few thousands of shims under the injection pump.
iirc it amounts to .002" per degree or thereabouts
bob g
Quote from: mobile_bob on December 26, 2009, 08:18:07 PM
but that is easy enough to do when the time comes, just have to add a few thousands of shims under the injection pump.
iirc it amounts to .002" per degree or thereabouts
bob g
Just to be clear.....are we advancing the timing by adding shims? or retarding it ?
I Assume the object is to retard the timing.
veggie
adding to retard the timing
bob g
Ok,
So here are the things which can be modified:
1] Adding flywheel mass to smooth out the pulses at the lower speed.
2] Modify the timing to accommodate the additional flywheel mass and low speed operation.
3] Monitor oil pressure at the lower rpm's to ensure adequate lubrication.
A good start......
veggie
Veggie,
I would worry about adding extra flywheel mass with the three bolts used to mount the V-belt shieve. I suspect you could fracture the bolts. The torque pulse on the stock flywheel is intense. I did some experiments a few years ago trying to drive a heavy (~175 lbs.), 20" flywheel end on with a rubber damped coupler from the flywheel of a JD175A engine. I kept breaking the steel pins inside the rubber pieces and also beating the rubber to pieces in very short run times measured in minutes.
Hi, Veggie,
Your low speed project is interesting. I plan to slow down a 170B Changfa with a design speed of 3000rpm. I hope the following comments help with sizing the flywheel(s).
At design speeds the flywheel has a specific rotational energy. This energy slightly increases and decreases in an engine cycle (two revolutions). This rotational energy is determined by the square of rotational velocity (rpm's) and linearly with the rotational mass (called: moment of inertia)
Reducing the rotational speed from 1800rpm to 900rpm is a two to one ratio. A 195 engine runs smoothly at 1800rpm. To keep the rotational energy constant (hopefully retaining smooth running at 900rpm) the rotational mass must be quadrupled (One-half squared).
To increase the rotational mass. (to have the same rotational energy at 900 rpm) requires an increase of flywheel radius and/or increase in mass.
For example: doubling the radius of the flywheel increases the rotating energy by a factor of four (without changing the mass of the flywheel). Alternately increasing the mass of the flywheel by a factor four (without changing the radius) will increase the flywheel energy by a factor of four.
A combination of increase in both flywheel mass and radius is usually best.
A practical first step to flywheel change to increase the rotational mass is to determine the maximum increase in flywheel radius possible and the maximum increase in flywheel mass acceptable.
The ways to increase the increase the rotational mass are endless. A few ways are below. Increasing the diameter of the flywheel may require raising up the engine mounts for clearance.
Fit a heavy pulley and bolt to existing flywheel. Contact friction from the force the
connecting bolts will prevent the pulley from slipping.
Fit a ring around the existing flywheel. Use a press fit and/or hold in place
with screws.
Rap flywheel with heavy copper or brass(much denser than steel) wire. Fix with
screws.
Fit a large radius steel plate to the existing flywheel.
As a side issue: I understand that decreasing flywheel rotational mass increases loads on the rod bearing for a given rpm. So increasing rotational mass is important for low rpm operation.
Another side issue: at half rpm the imbalances caused by the piston are quarter size. Thus the vibration causing forces are nearly quarter size and the counter rotating shaft might not needed. Also increasing the flywheel rotational mass will reduce the forces on the drive train for the counter rotating shaft.
Your results will be interesting, Jlmtech
Thanks rcavictim,
From what you described, it would seem that your fractures may have been a result of flywheel diameter.
20" is a very large flywheel when considering WR^2 and inertia forces.
The Changfa has a 16" flywheel and additional flywheel weight would be kept within this diameter.
Here's an example:
2 flywheels both the same weight but different diameters spinning at the same speed....
Diameter Weight RPM Centrifugal Energy Inertia foot-lbs force
Fly#1 14" 80# 1500 16,242 kg 10,443 **
Fly#2 20" 80# 1500 23,203 kg 21,314 **
** So an increase of 42% in flywheel diameter resulted in a doubling of forces.
I think the trick to adding flywheel mass is staying within the diameter of the current flywheel.
If your flywheel was 175lbs, then you had some serious forces at play on those 3 mount bolts.
veggie
Jlmtech,
Thanks for your comments. My calculations on the required additional flywheel mass are falling in line with your suggestions.
My thinking was along these lines....
1] Engine runs very smoother at 1500 rpm, so....
2]Calculate the rotating mass forces in the stock flywheel at 1500 rpm.
3]Then calculate the mass required to match the 1500 rpm forces when the engine is slowed down to 900 rpm.
When I did this I came up with some very large numbers for weight. Flywheel weights that were not realistic for my application.
I may have to fab. a lighter than optimal flywheel knowing that this is an improvement but not the best solution.
PS: I will post my flywheel design shortly and would appreciate any comments and suggestions you may have.
veggie
Here's the preliminary design of the secondary flywheel.
I will do some calculations to establish the desired thickness of the various parts and refine the drawing with more data added.
This design utilizes the sheave mounting holes in the existing flywheel for fastening.
At this point, feel free to critique and comment.
veggie
in theory that looks good, however
the reality is going to be ugly in my opinion
the shear mass of the second flywheel being attached only by the three oem center mount bolts
is just not anywhere near enough, over time they will work loose, shear and you have a real problem on
your hands.
you might consider making the secondary flywheel larger in diameter, and machining a register ledge so that
it fits over the OD of the oem flywheel, then drill and insert dowel pins in several locations after the thing is bolted
up? or alternatively drill and tap to bolt the secondary to the oem flywheel about the periphery
with the ledge register and doweling to take the torsional stresses of the bolts, the resulting connection
between the two flywheel halves would be much stronger and safer in my opinion.
bob g
Based on the comments from Bob, rcavictim, and jlmtech, I made the following modifications...
Any other suggestions before I begin calculating the overall weight required and finalizing a machining drawing ?
(It appears the weight for the flywheel will be determined by the crank bearing carrying capacity.)
veggie
Quote from: mobile_bob on December 27, 2009, 11:40:07 AM
in theory that looks good, however
the reality is going to be ugly in my opinion
the shear mass of the second flywheel being attached only by the three oem center mount bolts
is just not anywhere near enough, over time they will work loose, shear and you have a real problem on
your hands.
you might consider making the secondary flywheel larger in diameter, and machining a register ledge so that
it fits over the OD of the oem flywheel, then drill and insert dowel pins in several locations after the thing is bolted
up? or alternatively drill and tap to bolt the secondary to the oem flywheel about the periphery
with the ledge register and doweling to take the torsional stresses of the bolts, the resulting connection
between the two flywheel halves would be much stronger and safer in my opinion.
bob g
Just curious bob,
Based on the rev.1 design, I wonder if the load on the three sheave bolts would be any greater than a 3 groove sheave driving an ST7 head pulling full 12HP where the 3 bolts must deal with pulse loads as well as the 12 BHP.
The rev.1 flywheel is just rotating mass and caries no additional torque. Agreed, the pulse loads are at a lower frequency and potentially more destructive. But I wonder if those loads exceed that of a 12 HP fully loaded engine?
veggie
Quote from: veggie on December 27, 2009, 01:50:08 PM
Just curious bob,
Based on the rev.1 design, I wonder if the load on the three sheave bolts would be any greater than a 3 groove sheave driving an ST7 head pulling full 12HP where the 3 bolts must deal with pulse loads as well as the 12 BHP.
The rev.1 flywheel is just rotating mass and caries no additional torque. Agreed, the pulse loads are at a lower frequency and potentially more destructive. But I wonder if those loads exceed that of a 12 HP fully loaded engine?
veggie
The peak torque, or impulsive or shock torque would be far and away much greater and therefore much more potentially destructive IMO. I've seen it happen first hand.
Here's how the weights look....
I calculated the kinetic energy in the current flywheel at 1500 rpm. (Where the engine runs very smooth)
and then increased the weight of the flywheel until I got the same rotating kinetic energy at 900 rpm.
16.75" diameter @ 1500 rpm @ 14,949 lbs.force = 80lb. flywheel
16.75" diameter @ 900 rpm @ 14,949 lbs.force = 221 lb. flywheel
I presume 221 lbs. would be an unrealistic weight to place on the crank bearing.
Any suggestions as to what would be an acceptable weight.
Perhaps an additional 60lbs ?
veggie
rcavictim,
When you experimented with the large flywheel. Did it actually make a positive difference? (before it broke).
Did you achieve a slow running diesel with reliable quiet power?
Other than the bolt boss failures, would you consider it a success?
veggie
i would think you could get by with maybe 100lbs, if you use an overhead mounted alternator
where the belt tension can help to carry the additional weight.
60 lbs is probably a nice conservative number, especially in light of the fact we don't know what the
oil pressure is in a well used 195 when it is hot, running at 900rpm.
surely the overhung alternator could offset the addition of 60 lbs without any issues i would think
60lbs would probably be all that is needed, using your illustrated design, where most all the added weight
is at the periphery of the oem flywheel.
one interesting thing i like about your added flywheel design is the fact that it would be easy to have the
machinist add the serp belt grooves, and i would suggest 8 groove automotive.
that would be very cool, and i might even want to buy one, so let me know before you do the machining
because it might be cheaper to do two or more than a single unit.
i would have to rethink a few things, but i might well want one too.
bob g
Quote from: veggie on December 27, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
rcavictim,
When you experimented with the large flywheel. Did it actually make a positive difference? (before it broke).
Did you achieve a slow running diesel with reliable quiet power?
Other than the bolt boss failures, would you consider it a success?
veggie
I'm still using the big flywheel but it is now coupled via the factory dual B belt shieve on the R175 to a larger pulley on the jack shaft with bearings that hold the big flywheel. The large flywheel runs at 1/2 crankshaft speed so as to not exceed it's rim speed rating when I operate the R175 at 1800 RPM to drive a 4-pole alternator. The engine can be slowed way down and runs smoothly below the point where my oil pressure indicator mimics a penis in a cold swimming pool at which time I have to speed up the rig or shut it off. The R175 is not a powerful,engine even at the rated 2600 RPM and at that speed is only good for making about 3 kW of E power. At 1800, I can coax 2 kW out of this rig. At a nice slow 900 RPM or so it is a treat to listen to and makes 500 watts or maybe more at greatly reduced voltage and frequency. I cannot give you an exact number on how much. The little bit of give in the belts totally eliminates the peak parts breaking torque while still pulling the engine through the draggy parts of the cycle at the lower RPM's where there is insufficient momentum storage in the stock, rather small flywheel. The large flywheel keeps the output power completely free of any flicker, even at the really slow RPMs and gives the genset much better motor starting short term output surge capability than I would otherwise have.
If I were to operate the rig at the really slow speeds more often that for occasional curiosity I'd definitely want to retard the fuel injection pump with a extra spacer between the pump and the engine block. You can really hear that diesel knock as a sharp whack on the poor lower rod bearing and crank journal at the low speeds. I have run that little engine at ~400 RPM with the flywheel in the system and it is remarkably smooth.
I have improved the splash lube in my R175A crankcase by adding a dipper/thrower onto the lower rod bearing bottom bolt. It does a way superior job of getting oil onto the crank ball bearings and camshaft. I read of JiangDong 175 owners having their main bearings weld up solid in just 12 hours. Having been inside mine a lot I came to the conclusion that the factory oil system needed help. I have had no bearing troubles with my engine that go my oiling system modification very early in it's life. The R195 that you have is a totally different layout lube wise as is my new Changfa 1115. My plan for the 1115 is most likely to run it at 1800 RPM direct coupled to a 12 kW 3-phase ST type head as soon as I can obtain a gen head. I won't need to fiddle with added flywheel mass on that project.
Quote from: veggie on December 27, 2009, 01:42:09 PM
Based on the comments from Bob, rcavictim, and jlmtech, I made the following modifications...
Any other suggestions before I begin calculating the overall weight required and finalizing a machining drawing ?
(It appears the weight for the flywheel will be determined by the crank bearing carrying capacity.)
veggie
Nice idea Veggie.
I would recommend putting three 3/8 dia. dowel pins 120 deg. apart between the bolts. Press fit in the new pulley face. They only have to go in the flywheel face 3/8 deep. This should eliminate shock and additional stress on the bolts.
Henry
Once they are mounted on the flywheel I would recommend sending the complete assembly away to get ballanced.
Henry
Quote from: hwew on December 27, 2009, 04:03:50 PM
Nice idea Veggie.
I would recommend putting three 3/8 dia. dowel pins 120 deg. apart between the bolts. Press fit in the new pulley face. They only have to go in the flywheel face 3/8 deep. This should eliminate shock and additional stress on the bolts.
Henry
[/quote]
Yes you would think it should, but it wont.
Quote from: Jens on December 27, 2009, 05:30:52 PM
Have you considered increasing the flywheel diameter - that will give you more stored energy for a lower weight.
I personally would prefer running a second flywheel on a jackshaft and have the two interconnected with a belt but that is just my take on things and part of the attraction would be the ability to run multiple devices off the jack shaft via seperate clutches. The drawback of course is the extra size of the resulting machinery.
Hi Jens,
The unit was built with compactness (is that a word ?) in mind.
My accessories are driven from the flywheel, so if possible, I would like to maintain the diameter.
By going larger in diameter, it would negate the existing frame structure and accessory mounts.
We'll find out when version 1.0 gets "first smoke".
If I need to go with a larger diameter, I will accommodate it somehow.
veggie
Jens,
Perhaps I could go larger in diameter, but it would mean scrapping the belt guard and making another.
Fitting a new one would also mean welding new mounts to the base.
If I find it necessary to go bigger in diameter after testing version 1.0.0, then I suppose I could do these mods to accommodate.
veggie
I removed the flywheel ready for the machine shop.
The flywheel was weighed at 68 pounds, so my plan to add another 60 lbs will almost double the flywheel mass of the unit.
veggie
Bob,
When you suggested .002" per degree of ignition timing...
1] where exactly do the shims go? (At the joint indicated by the arrow in the picture below?)
2] I assume we make the shims with .002" shim stock and scissors ?
veggie
yes they fit in right there, i made mine from notebook paper and scissors
you just have to be careful that the governor link connects properly into the slot
on the pump when you go back together, otherwise you can have a runaway.
its not difficult to do the job at all, just wanted you to be aware of the link
some engines have a small removable cover that you can look through to see if the link
is in proper placement with the pump.
my idi changfa's do not have such a cover, my di flying fish brand engines however do have the little cover.
bob g
ps. went back and took another look your engine gear cover doesn't have the little cover, much like my changfa
so just look up inside as you install the pump and you will see the little link/pall and how it fits the slot in the pump
btw, can you take a picture of your cylinder head from above, showing the injector and post it?
Hello Veggie,
Did you get a manual with your engine?
Henry
If you don't have one I'll email you a photo copy of one.
Henry
Quote from: hwew on December 27, 2009, 09:33:33 PM
Hello Veggie,
Did you get a manual with your engine?
Henry
My manual simply says "to retard the timing add shims". >:(
Very descriptive !
It also states that TDC is when the mark on the flywheel lines up with the mark on the hopper.
My engine never had a hopper ! Hence no TDC indication. >:(
I'll get back to you in a second.
Let me try taking a picture of the Golden Flying Fish Injection Timing procedures. It is much better than the Changfa Copy I have.
Give me about Ten Minutes.
Henry
they are terrible about timeing marks in my opinion and i had a hopper!
i waited till i removed the head, and located tdc from the piston
then made a wire pointer and tweaked it to match the flywheel marks
which btw, those marks on the flywheel are all in chinese, and god only knows what they mean.
i ended up measuring the diameter of the flywheel, dividing by pi, then by 360 to get an idea of how many
degree's to the inch of circumference, and then measured and marked for 20 degree's and worked back from there.
checked my work with the oem setting and found it to be setup for 18 degree's btdc, so i guess i am close enough
for the girls i run with, then did the shim thing to try to see how reduced timing affected starting, smoke, power and noise
didn't see much difference so i put it back to oem spec's at the time, although i may go back and revisit this issue
again now that i have the ability to very accurately measure bsfc in gr/kw/hr
bob g
Quote from: mobile_bob on December 27, 2009, 10:00:42 PM
which btw, those marks on the flywheel are all in chinese, and god only knows what they mean.
bob g
Chinese mark for Thor, god of lightning! ;)
I tried taking Pictures and they all came out blury.
I'll bring it to work and make photo copies and I'll try to get it posted.
Henry
Quote from: hwew on December 27, 2009, 10:06:35 PM
I tried taking Pictures and they all came out blury.
I'll bring it to work and make photo copies and I'll try to get it posted.
Henry
Sounds good !
*** UPDATE ***
The two changes discussed in this thread were flywheel weight and injector timing.
FLYWHEEL:
The heavier flywheel has been machined and installed.
The weight of the steel ring is 60 lbs and when added to the stock 65 lb. flywheel it makes a total weight of 125 lbs.
A spigot was machined into the stock flywheel to locate the new ring.
8 X 1/2" bolts were used to secure the ring.
TIMING:
The timing was retarded by 2 degrees from the factory stock setting
RESULTS:
- The engine ran surprisingly smooth at the target 900 rpm.
- Mechanical noise was reduced significantly.
- The noise reading was 84 db at 3 meters.
- There seemed to be a reduction in diesel knock compared to the previous test run
Here is a video of the engine at 900 rpm...
and here's some pictures of the flywheel modification...
veggie
Next step:
I took the speed down a bit lower to see what she could do.
This is where I encountered the next obstacle in the project.
It seems the fuel rack/governor assembly shuts off the fuel when trying to run lower than 800 rpm.
The engine is very stable at 840 rpm.
I am not familiar with the internal workings of the governor and the rack on these engines.
Perhaps Bog, Henry, Flywheel, and others would have some ideas about how to get the throttle system to be more precise and responsive at the lower speeds. (Throttle spring tension ???)
Ideas anyone?
- Engine runs very smooth at this speed
- Noise level dropped to 79 db at 3 meters
- Exceptionally low vibration
Veggie
Have you conducted load tests to find the limits at 900rpm?
Cheers, Wizard
kudo's
now i wanna hear how much load it will carry and still run reliably and reasonably well mannered.
very nice!
be nice if it will do 3kwatts or better at ~900rpm, and i think it just might do that.
bob g
Hello Veggie,
Nice flywheel!!! The only thing I would think of changing on it is the mounting bolts. I would change out those grade 5 bolts to grade 8.
About the fuel rack cutting out. My S195 does the same thing. What I would do is try to work on 900 rpm's and get a load on it and see what it does.
Oh, I would recommend putting on a oil pressure gauge and get the oil nice and hot and see where the oil pressure is running at 900.
Keep us posted how it is working.
Henry
Good idea Henry, I will get the bolts changed to grade 8.
Bob, I would be ecstatic if I could get 3kw at 900 rpm.!
I was planning on getting 1.6 kw out of her to drive a Delco 12si at 80 amps.
(80 amps X 12 volts / .60% alternator effy. = 1600 watts of power)
If I am lucky enough to get 2.5 or 3kw at 900 rpm, I may have other plans for this beast. ;)
One way to do a quick power test is to change the sheave on the current generator head so that it revs at 3600 when the engine is at 900 rpm. Then I could apply my resistive loads incrementally until she grunts.
Those poly-V sheaves have to be ordered in. May take a week or so.
Perhaps that will be my next update.
(I don't have the tools to properly measure fuel consumption so that's not on the agenda at this point in time)
veggie
I would not switch to Gr.8 bolts. They have hardly any stretch and will be brittle, plus they may cause the threaded section of the original flywheel to become sloppy through constantly being banged on sideways. My recommendation would be to put red Locktite between the two flywheels where they press together over the entire area, then torque down the eight, Gr.5 bolts with lockwashers as you have now. The clamped surfaces should of course be free of any paint or grease, oil etc. Once that Loctite cures you won't have any sideways hammering of the bolts.. If you think you might someday wish to separate the two flywheels then go with blue Locktite.
Did you drill and tap 8 holes in the Changfa flywheel or did you drill 1/2" holes clean through and use nuts on the backside? I suspect you drilled and tapped because you have split locks under the bolt heads.
those 8 bolts will be there till hell freezes over!
a class 8 truck with a 15" spicer 2plate clutch only uses eight 3/8" bolts with lock washers
and no loctite, and i have never seen a single one work loose in 35 plus years,
they run for hundreds of thousands of miles, all sorts of shock loading, high temperatures and
extreme vibration brought on each time the clutch is engaged.
those bolts aren't going anywhere, provided they are torqued down properly, iirc about 55 ft/lbs is about
right for a grade 5 half inch bolt.
bob g
it looks like you have the juncture painted well, keeping an eye out for cracking of the paint
would indicate if there is any movement between the two bolted together parts.
i don't expect any movement, but it would be easy to check over time.
bob g
Quote from: rcavictim on January 12, 2010, 09:58:15 PM
My recommendation would be to put red Locktite between the two flywheels where they press together over the entire area.
My sugestion would be not to use 271 Red Loctite. If you ever need to take the flywheel apart both parts need to be heated. Loctite has a retaining compound called 680 (Green Color Loctite) that is made for that purpose. We use it every day and no failures with it at all. I would also recomend
NOT using a primer like Loctite 7649. It will not give you enough time to work with the assembly of the flywheel. The Locktite will start setting in 2 minutes if you use 7649 primer. On cleaning the surfaces of both pieces I would highly recommend using Acetone to get all grease and oils off.
Most people do not know about Loctite 680. it is a great retaining compound that will allow you to remove parts with a high powered press if needed. But it will hold parts from spinning and what you have there is so much surface area that hell will freeze over before the parts will ever spin.
I have plenty of 50ml bottles of Loctite 860 here and if you want some send me a pm with your address and I will send you a bottle. It is expensive stuff but I will never use it all.
Henry
That is one fine job Veggie!
You a John Deere fan?
Quote from: WGB on January 13, 2010, 05:12:08 AM
That is one fine job Veggie!
You a John Deere fan?
Thanks WGB,
John Deer? ..... Nope! I just like the color :)
veggie
Regarding the bolts.....
Thanks everyone for your comments and ideas.
During the machining process, I increased the number of bolts from 6 to 8 at the last minute.
The thread engagement into the stock flywheel is over 1 ".
The clamping force created by 8 X 1/2" bolts torqued to 60 lbs is tremendous.
Also, the spigot fit between the two flywheels has just a few thou. clearance.
Just enough to allow the two pieces to be tapped together before bolting.
Then...if that's not enough...the bolt holes in the second ring are machined to be a slight "drag" fit to the shoulder of the 1/2" bolts.
Now what about the throttle linkage? I would like to get this puppy to idle at 500 rpm (unloaded) but she cuts out at 750 to 800 rpm.
cheers,
veggie
Quote from: Wizard on January 12, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
Have you conducted load tests to find the limits at 900rpm?
Cheers, Wizard
Hi Wizard,
I have not yet conducted any load tests because the drop in engine speed no longer drives the gen head at 3600.
First I wanted to see if I could get the engine running nicely at the low rpm.
My plan now is to change the sheaves and apply some load to the system.
I will report the results after the changes.
cheers,
veggie
Your injector may not have a smooth delivery curve from full to zero displacement. In other words it might regulate smoothly from 100% down to say 10 percent then further movement suddenly takes it to zero displacement. If 5 or 6% delivery rate is what it would take to give the desired rpms then you are out of luck without doing micro surgery to the injector pump internals.
The mico pump on the listeroids will allow you to reach very low rpms but even so I notice on mine that there is a point where it cuts fue off abruptly somwhat short of the fully closed position.
Quote from: Crofter on January 13, 2010, 08:49:58 AM
Your injector may not have a smooth delivery curve from full to zero displacement. In other words it might regulate smoothly from 100% down to say 10 percent then further movement suddenly takes it to zero displacement. If 5 or 6% delivery rate is what it would take to give the desired rpms then you are out of luck without doing micro surgery to the injector pump internals.
The mico pump on the listeroids will allow you to reach very low rpms but even so I notice on mine that there is a point where it cuts fue off abruptly somwhat short of the fully closed position.
That is useful information. I have seen this first hand trying unsuccessfully to get extra slow idle from my Petter PJ-1.
Yep, that's probably what is happening with the Changfa. I may have to settle for 900 rpm as the magic number.
The Lister(roid)s can get much lower of course. I've seen some idling as low as 240 rpm.
Lots are driving alternators at 300 to 375 rpm.
Like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sgXeDEZyXE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sgXeDEZyXE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVT-dNWt3I8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVT-dNWt3I8)
but this one is the winner at 240 rpm ! (Sounds like it's going to break something :o )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WTSJEVMvM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WTSJEVMvM)
veggie
The Lister running at 240 rpm does not sound good at all. I wish him well with it. ::) It sounds like it's hammering itself to death.
Henry
Quote from: hwew on January 13, 2010, 03:39:03 PM
The Lister running at 240 rpm does not sound good at all. I wish him well with it. ::) It sounds like it's hammering itself to death.
Henry
I agree. Probably running below critical speed. Sounds and looks like a punch press in operation. Punching it's own lights out in this case no doubt.
**** UPDATE ****
Ref: Low speed load test
So, I conducted a load test on the slow speed S195 with some interesting results.
I changed the gen head sheave to get the correct speeds for testing.
A 4.12" driven sheave gives me 3600 rpm generator speed when the engine is at 900 rpm.
Below are the results from the test:
Engine speed: 900 rpm
Load bank: Restive heat elements with a max. load of 3 kw
Condition: load(kw) Sound Exhaust color
==============================================
30% loaded (Warm up) 0.9 kw little change clear
50% loaded 1.5 kw stronger knock clear
80% loaded 2.4 kw Same as above clear
100% loaded 3.0 kw grunting but ok slight black
I was quite surprised to see this kind of output from the engine at 900 rpm.
Although running for long periods at 3kw would be too much, I would not hesitate to run the unit at 2.5kw indefinately.
This would be ideal for battery bank charging of 50 amps @ 48 volts ( or 200 amps @ 12volts).
Cudo's to Mobile_Bob for his accurate estimate of what the engine could produce at this speed.!
Below are video links showing the engine running at each of the test points.
In the last video, I switch from 2.5kw to 3kw and the black smoke is noticeable.
Loaded at 1.5 kw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhT29UL1YWw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhT29UL1YWw)
loaded at 2.4 kw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H76Cw0TuxXM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H76Cw0TuxXM)
loaded at 3 kw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qsq_Kb2MKY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qsq_Kb2MKY)
Thanks for everyone's input on this project. I consider it a success. :)
veggie
Hello Veggie,
It seems like it runs good at 2.5kw. It seems stable.
I can't get a good view on 3 kw. I did hear it load up though. I sounded like the engine slowed down a bit.
Try testing it at 2.5kw. Take temp readings, get an oil pressure gauge on it, get it nice and hot by running it a couple hours and see how the oil pressure looks.
Oil pressure is the only thing I am concerned about. If you have 20 lbs or more you should be ok. An oil pressure gauge would be a good thing to have on your project anyways. It will show if you are having excellerated bearing wear down the road.
Nice work, :)
Henry
that looks like a pretty useful conversion, nice result too.
i am with Henry, probably out to put a pressure guage on it so you can monitor that
and might also check the big end of the rod brg for wear or unusual signs of stress periodically
to see if anything shows up there.
how hot was the coolant when you were pulling 3kwatt load?
wish i could talk you into doing some fuel consumption tests???
:)
if even by volume i would be interested in the results
bob g
I need some coaching on where and how to install a pressure gauge on this engine.
Can one be mounted in place of the little red indicator/sight glass on the valve cover?
Or do I have to cut into the external oil line running from the crank to the head.
Bob, I only pulled 3 kw for about 5 minutes because I think it's a bit too much for the engine. (still breaking it in).
I don't want to break a piston ring if the engine is hammering too much.
I did not stop the engine between tests so it ran for about 30 minutes straight. The engine water was only at 150 f after all the testing.
Not sure if you guys noticed, but I don't yet have a fan on the radiator :o
I removed the belt driven fan in favor of a high speed electric motorcycle rad fan I picked up on eBay.
It will be wired through a snap disc temp switch so that it comes on when the engine gets warm (180 f).
Until I get that installed, I will stick to short run times.
veggie
Utterpower made a Banjo Bolt at one time to hook up an oil pressure gauge.
Remove the fitting bolt that holds the oil line near the valve cover and screw it on.
I'll see if I can remember to take a picture of the one I purchased this weekend.
George still might have some.
Henry
Nice work, Veggie!
Hmmm, 2500 watts continuous sounds like a reasonable Listeroid 6/1 replacement. How is the noise compared to the 6/1?
if you are only at 150 degree's i would expect the engine to pull the full 3 kwatts when it is up to around 200 degree's F
then the game starts where you check the big end brg for signs of stress near the area of highest pressure (up in the top
shell) and if necessary retard the timing another 2 degree's or so.
personally i think you are right on the sweet spot for that engine at 3kwatt, when it gets fully up to temp
if the red indicator is staying up and not bobbing up and down like a frantic groundhog you got enough oil pressure
so that everything should work just fine.
at 3kwatt you will be at the peak efficiency for that setup as measured in bsfc, at 150 degree's you are just barely over
the hump of the efficiency curve.
if used with a 48 volt alternator i would have no issues with allowing the engine to pull this hard, because as the batteries begin
to regain their charge the amperage will start to fall off anyway, so i wouldn't expect the engine to have to pull at 3kwatt for a protracted
length of time anyway.
this is where a balmar would be a fantastic match for this setup, you can program not only the three steps, voltage setpoints, but
you can also program the max amperage which sets the max load on the engine, right down to 2% increments.
it also has a port that if you feed it 12 volt it will cut the output to 50%, that is something you can daisy chain in temp limit switches
on the alternator, engine coolant or whatever else you want.
but that might be down the road for you , i dunno :)
for now i think we need to see you get some hours on the unit and determine what if any issues pop up, i don't expect any but
i don't know for sure either.
very cool project,
btw, we need to get a copy/paste thing going for your test results and put them in the "testing" section too.
personally i want to see copies of all testing either in the "testing" section or the "white paper" section
maybe all testing posted in the testing board, and final conclusion writeups in the white paper board?
just don't want to see things like this project getting lost in the pile so to speak, you have done something
different and are getting very good results.
bob g
Hello Veggie,
I am with Bob, I think once you get it broken in and run at around 200F. you should be able to pull more. It might even run quieter.
We don't want this lost. Please post copies in white pages.
Henry
Veggie,
Very fine work there! Those videos were very interesting to see and hear.
Everybody,
Some may recall seeing on the other forum, how I had been trying to spin a very large heavy flywheel with my JD175A engine and the problem I had of destroying my soft coupling between the original flywheel and the larger one. This package got rewired to belt drive. I don't have a lot of hours on it but probably 250'ish. I've had an odd vibrtation that got worse with increasing RPM that has been a puzzlement to me for a while. Something has apparently gone wrong in the engine because the vibration just all of a sudden got a whole lot worse the other day. It was running about 1300 RPM at the time. I shut it down before anything exploded. I may have fried a lower rod bearing, or cracked crank, I have no idea. I am hoping to get to look at it soon after I get another project here out of my way. I could have damage caused by operating with too much ignition advance (stock setting) for the slower speeds I was trying to run. I will report my findings when I have news to share.
Quote from: BruceM on January 14, 2010, 07:22:05 PM
Nice work, Veggie!
Hmmm, 2500 watts continuous sounds like a reasonable Listeroid 6/1 replacement. How is the noise compared to the 6/1?
Thanks BruceM,
Regarding the noise, I would say it's just a bit louder than the Listeroid once it has a proper muffler and the exhaust is routed outside. It's only comparable because I slowed it down. That was a big issue for me because I'm in a residential area.
The main difference is the mechanical noise from the square cut gears on the counterbalance shafts.
At 900 rpm I was recording 80 db @ 3 meters distance. Under load it was a bit louder.
At 1/2 the price of a listeroid, it may be an good economical choice for some people.
veggie
Just read through some of this thread.
Couple of points that might be important to get to lower rpms:
IP head: This might need to be smaller. Pumps are sized according to maximum injection requirement. That is obviously at full rpm and full power. If it is the rack that does not have any adjustment at the speed you are operating a pumping head from a lower power engine (of same original design speed) would be more appropriate, allowing governor control nearer the optimum for that pump head.
Injector: The injector nozzle may also need to be downsized, either fewer holes of same size or a smaller hole or holes. This will affect the penetration of the atomised spray into the combustion area and also the size of the droplets. Pop pressure may also need to be optimised, but I would not wish to make any further comment than that.
Regards, RAB
**** UPDATE ****
LIGHTER SPRING INSTALLATION:
I was able to locate a spring which matches the desired speeds.
I don't have a fish weigh scale so I don't know the tension of the spring.
Diameter = 11/32"
Length = 1-1/4" (without the end loops)
After installing the spring I first tested the engine at various loads.
.9Kw,... 1.8kw,... 2.6kw,... and 3kw.
The unit held speed perfectly through the whole load range.
At 3kw she was blowing some gray smoke, but the speed held solid at 910 rpm (3600 on the gen head).
Now the fun part....
I released the loads and began to slow the engine down.
750....700...650....600.....550....500 !
She sounded really nice at 500. I did not want to add any loads at that speed, but it's nice to know it can go there.
Gives me more confidence that the design rpm of 900 is well above the minimum speed.
I took it up to 750 rpm and added a bit of load.
Voltages were off, but I used the kill-a-watt the measure the load.
I took it to 1.2 kw before I could notice any sound change. Still the speed held at 750 rpm.
I did not go any higher because I was not sure if it would damage the electrics.
Below is a picture of the original spring vs. the new spring.
I won't be doing any more mods or testing on this engine.
As far as I'm concerned, it's ready to spend the rest of it's life burning WVO at 900rpm producing 2.5kw (3kw max.)
I installed a Stop in the linkage which is set at 900 rpm. :)
**** EXPERIMENT FINISHED ****
veggie
Bravo Veggie! I think 2400 watts is a very nice wattage for off grid use, and it's good to know even lower is possible for say a battery charger setup. I think you have a winner!
Jens,
Those are valid questions.
The oil pressure indicator still pops up, but I don't know the exact pressure.
I only took it to 500 to see if it would go there.
Live or die, the engine is now fixed at 900. :)
Time will tell. I will keep an eye on things.
After the first 50 hours, I'll pull the head and see how she looks.
I will stick to the recommended oil change intervals.
Running WVO, I may even change a bit sooner.
veggie
Hi Veggie,
What did you use to make the new muffler exhaust on your s195?
Is that I want to replaced the original muffler exhaust with a new configurations that I have on mind.
Thanks in advance... ;) ;)
Quote from: Shipo on February 17, 2010, 02:32:21 PM
Hi Veggie,
What did you use to make the new muffler exhaust on your s195?
Is that I want to replaced the original muffler exhaust with a new configurations that I have on mind.
Thanks in advance... ;) ;)
Shipo,
Here's some info on the exhaust system.
Hope this helps,
veggie
Thanks Veggie..Excellent picture & presentations... ;) ;)
*** UPDATE ***
The completed project has the engine mounted on stationary feet.
The Changfa 195 runs very smooth at 900 rpm and produces 2.5 kw with clear exhaust and 3kw with slight smoke.
During a regular run, a neighbor walked by my garage and inquired about the gentle pop....pop....pop of the exhaust.
I showed him the unit and he fell in love with it.
20 minutes later we shook hands and he paid me for it.
He's a retired mechanic and just loves it. Every so often I can hear the engine running in his garage as I go by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOhg1Q1rd6E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOhg1Q1rd6E)
on to the next project..... a Listeroid GM90 CHP system for greenhouse heat, light, watering, and air circulation.
veggie
traitor!
;(
its ok, i fogive ya,, you'll be back
once you go changfa you you will never be happy with another!
;)
bob g
That is horible news!!! Sold the nice compact slow speed Changfa S195 genset. ::) Now what will take the place of it? I hope there is a better design in the works with another Changfa. :)
Henry
Hi Henry,
Well...since you asked...
I have some Changfa R190NM units and I plan to turn one of them into a slow speed model.
Being in a residential area, noise is an issue for me.
The R190 Changfa's are much lighter and easier to work with than the bigger 195's.
A R190NM would be a really nice unit to couple with a Leece or Voltmaster alternator for emergency power and battery bank charging.
At 1200 rpm it should make approx. 5 HP or 2.5 kw of generated power. (3.5 HP at 900 rpm for battery bank charging).
I will apply the same mods to the R190 as I did with the S195.
veggie
Hi Veggie,
Glad to hear you have another Changfa project in the works. I would like to see the inside of an R192.
Henry
I like the stationary mount pads u made for it. The casters fit in it nicely.
I take it they're made from angle iron welded to flat bar, with the pads bolted on to the bars? Good and simple, love it.
Veggie
its been a while since this topic was posted to, and i was thinking about it this evening
and wondered if you still have it in operation?
if so how is the engine doing?
thanks
bob g
Hi Bob,
A neighbor saw it running one day when I had the garage door open and he fell in love with it.
He hounded me until I sold it to him. (3 doors down)
I hear it running once in a while because he runs it every month.
Calls it his "S#@t hit the fan insurance" :D
Runs great and makes good, quiet power.
If I did it again, I don't think I would change much...
1] Ad some flywheel weight (either a heavier flywheel or a heavy drive sheave)
2] Retard the timing by 2 - 5 degrees
3] Change to a lighter governor spring
cheers,
veggie
*** UPDATE ***
Guys !
I'm reviving a 10 year old thread. ;D
The neighbor who bought my Changfa 195 "Slow Speed Project" never used it once in 10 years.
( Wow.... how time flies hey ! )
Anyway, I offered to buy it back since he has no need for it. He accepted.
So now the 900 rpm Changfa 195 generator is back in my stable. :)
WooHoo !!!!
More updates to follow....
veggie
don't you love it when the kids come home?
:)
bob g
Well......has it improved with age? 8)
Tom,
It hasn't changed a bit.
He kept it covered and tucked away in the corner of his garage.
Looks just like the day he took it.
Here a video with the belt guard removed showing the increased mass flywheel.
https://youtu.be/X3n0dVsias8 (https://youtu.be/X3n0dVsias8)
The winy shrill noise in the background is the generator head.
It makes that sound when lightly loaded
Very nice setup Vegie. My 195 is working it's heart out running a Chinese wood chipper. Is the fan on the radiator thermostatically controlled?
Quote from: Tom Reed on April 20, 2022, 01:58:53 PM
Is the fan on the radiator thermostatically controlled?
Thanks,
Yes, there is a Snap Disc temperature switch on the side of the radiator.
It can also work 100% of the time by connecting a wire to the Accessory contact on the Key-start ignition switch.
I have run it both ways.
Currently it runs whenever the key switch is turned on. That way it's the same as a stock engine which runs the fan 100% of the time from a belt to the crank.
Veggie,
This is great news!
You need to throw a home coming party.
Quote from: Henry W on April 24, 2022, 08:15:37 AM
Veggie,
This is great news!
You need to throw a home coming party.
Yes ! Shell Rotella 5-40 for everyone ! WooHoo ;D