 | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Ok after giving Larry farfignuten for not Googling something I figured I should Google it myself. Not an easy find, but is this the kind of thing you're taking about? (URL) never seen an engine design like that before. Very odd. Derek (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Is *that* what it was, I thought you were baiting with that pejorative term... (1). But more importantly, what are you babbling about? I *know* what the engine term is. So does Tim. This is lugnet.trains after all, so why should I google for (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Without stepping on anyone's toes, I think the fact that the individual interests of trainheads themselves- within the trainhead (read .trains) community itself, differs. Afterall, interest in railroading (or any subject for that matter) (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Ironically (1) that's exactly the same link as I gave in my post, it was just hidden by the ftx! Tim (1) OK, its probably not ironic, probably some other word (2) (2) I'm getting into this footnoting thing (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Coincidental. (...) I'm thinking of taking it up too. Legoswami Samarth (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Sorry Larry, I've had far too many M&Ms today. And I just can't stop eating them. My question was in fact was serious. I didn't understand how an engine could have two cylenders share the same combustion chamber. I realized after that I asked (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Nuts. I did travers the thread through your post, but I missed that link completely. I wasn't until Larry's post that the engine consept hit me. I did backtrack, but I missed the link the second time though. Now I want to build one of these. (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Well now I'll display MY ignorance... I know that a lot of 2 cycle engines are valveless but I did not think it was mandatory that they not have exhaust valves. Anyway, I am pretty sure the FM is 2 cycle, I think the Alco 244 was (but too lazy (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) They are probibly a lot more efficent when whey do have exhaust vales. A basic two stroke doesn't clear the cylinder of exhaust very efficiently. By opening the top of the cylinder through exhaust valves the rush of intake air will definitly (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Oh ya, no doubt. I think one of the reasons for this whacky two piston, one cylinder, central combustion chamber arrangement is that in an exhaust port system, with the proper amount of lag between cylinders, you can arrange the exhaust to (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) The big advantage of a OP engine is that you get good scavange air flow via the two ends of the cylinder being open at the same time. So, yes, it is in some ways more complex (timing gears between crankshafts, rather than valves), in other (...) (19 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: BNSF new paint
|
| (...) Snip (...) Atually, from what I remember of the movies we watched @ school, the air exchange can run up to about 98% clean air in a loop type arrangement. That's using something like 200% excess air in order to clear the cylinder of combustion (...) (19 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.trains)
| |
