Maybe not 100 per cent laboratory accurate but great enough. This says a lot about how things were in the year 1924 when you payed for 1 1/2 HP you expected and got what you payed for
Cool to see one of these type of engines run loaded. At events you always see one of these running unloaded and running super slow. Nice to see how one of these would've sounded in actual use.
Thank you for this. I like to hear these under load. I recall hearing hit miss engines running oil jacks as a kid. My father explained these engines to me and what they did. The cadence on them was interesting. As they pumped up it was working hard, like this one on the lower stroke they didn’t hit.
Interesting video. I found that I could set the video playback speed to 1.75 and save a lot of time while still understanding every word. I did set the speed to normal to listen to the engine at its various loads. Interesting how this runs at 540 RPM when loaded. This is the standard speed that tractor PTO-driven farm equipment operates at to this day. Coincidence? I think not.
Love hearing this under load.. when I was a kid.. they always brought these to summer festivals and fairs as Ice-cream freezer engines.. so you could tell when the ice cream was getting ready to be done as the engine would hit more and more.. and then the crowds would start to gather because they knew the ice cream was almost ready! old engines were big here in the Ohio area.. lots of farmland.. lots of people whp worked for railroads and the automotive industry back in the day.. and so there was many people who knew mechanical machines.. I love listening to David have fun with this machine.. just like many of the men I met as a kid who built these things.. i was always so fascinated
It’s amazing that it’s still capable of almost its original rating. When it was new it was probably capable of producing more because back in that time things were rated very conservatively unlike today.
A simple hack to control automatic gain is a little 60hz buzzer. You record it in a silent room then put it on the camera and subtract it from the audio to get the normal noise level.
That would work decently well if you were using uncompressed, 24bit audio. However, in my experience, attempting to subtract tracks that have been compressed in any way usually results in artifacts. (Have you ever tried to make an a capella by subtracting the instrumental from the full mix when you only have mp3s? I have, it sounds bad.) Also, by adding a base tone, you're essentially "squashing" the bit depth of everything else in the mix between that tone's level and the peak level. Once you subtract it, and correct the volume, you could lose quality. Far easier to just record on a separate device where you can control the gain yourself, and sync it up later.
Very good demonstration! Thanks for making this video for us. I hope some day to get a nice flywheel engine to restore. Love to hear these engines at load. It's amazing and (but not unexpected!) that she still puts out about rated HP after 100 years, as well!
I really enjoyed your video. I realize it’s been a while since you put it out. I hope you are doing well and want to thank you for contributing to something I’ve been interested in!
A couple of thoughts. I always put a twist in a flat belt. You get a better wrap on the pulleys eliminating most slip when under load. All of your vertical flapping also goes away. Your engine pulley is quite shinny. Every time a single cylinder engine hits, the torque surge creates a bit of slip. A 2 cyl JD tractor causes the belt to jump a little, every time it fires. It is most pronounced on a belt without a twist. I think you need one or two more bulbs. Unless the engine is hitting constantly, you are not getting maximum available hp for that engine. Also hp is figured at rated rpm. So, unless the engine is at 600 you have less than advertised hp. As someone noted, the old engines were likely conservatively rated. A new engine running at rated rpm may have put out more than the rated power. My opinions are based upon my hit-n-miss, throttling governor engines and various tractors in my collection. Thanks for a great video.👍
zalmaflash yes, can’t just put in a belt twist in the existing setup. When I set up a demo, I orient the engine and implement so it will turn the correct way when operating with a twisted belt. The longer the belt, the greater the necessity to run a twist. A short belt, not so much.
To get at least part of the twist effect without reversing direction, turn one end of the belt inside out. This breaks the lateral stiffness of the belt, and it will run truer.
I feel like hit and miss engines are under-rated generally.. i have a 2 hp Jaeger engine..and an unknown rated fairbanks morse.. i use the 2hp Jaeger for a drain pump to pump water uphill from the lake up to a man made horse pond.. the pump was a harbor freight water pump that originally had a 6.5hp 212cc engine on it.. however the 2hp Jaeger pumps water just fine..
We had an old 11hp Wisconsin my brother found in a barn, it had a clapping magneto and it produced about 30hp of power. Never ran above 800rpm and never needed to, it'd collapse rubber fire truck siphon hoses when we were pulling ditches dry around town. Hit and miss engines are rated by the number of horses they can pull backwards, not this new fangled bullshit math.
@warmfreeze very true I have 5 or 6 hit and miss engines only have had 1 going before but at shows it seems like they always do the task they are set to with ease
Torque = HP x 5252/RPM: 6.5 x 5252/3600 = 9.5ft/lb and 2 x 5252/600 = 17.5ft/lb. Even if it’s wheezy it will out-pump the original. But it probably weighs 2-300 lbs so it can’t exactly be mounted to a push mower lol.
Great experiment, but surely the engine is rated 1.5 bhp (brake horse power) and so whilst the engine produces some indicated power at no load it’s only enough to overcome friction,pumping losses etc and would never have been part of the brake horse power figure. Not sure with hit and miss governing but throttle governed engines have what’s known as a governor droop curve which is the percentage loss of speed between idle and wide open throttle so the no load speed is set high by this percentage giving wide open throttle at rated speed. It was great to hear it working .Thanks
One major advantage of Hit and Miss, is that there is only minimal pumping losses. It doesn't try to suck air past a throttle plate, when running with little or no load. Much more efficient, at 20% rated torque then an engine with governed throttle.(Briggs and Stratton lawnmower)
Good Work !! We want to see the pretty gal in the boots !!! This was a very inspirational video and I plan to search out an engine of my own! Thanks Mr. Cave.
Hay that was very interesting, I have never observed a hit and miss engine under load like that before and I was surprised to learn how much heat was generated on the cooling system, so you really can not run it at full load for very long. You for your video I learned a lot
Old stuff was built to do WORK for a long ass time, with proper maintenance. And when it finally broke, it was easy to fix. The way it SHOULD be. You didn't just go to a store to buy some shit and throw it away when it broke.
Ballsout means no misses. I think this engine will produce it's rated horsepower, if the governor was adjusted back up to 600 RPM. The engine is rated at about 13 foot pounds of torque. If you load it that hard, stalling is eminent. The lightbulbs, are a good load, because as the engine slows down, the current, thus the torque would roll back, preventing the engine from stalling. I'm with you: it's nice to see one of these loaded, just to see what it does. I wonder how fuel efficient this is, compared to the modern high speed engines we have now.
@@vincentrobinette1507 ya know ive been wondering about the efficiency also you could take a modern engine.... add a MASSIVE flywheel...... and then only trigger injector pulses when you need to idk..... this emissions crap...... what comes out the tail pipe is cleaner..... but you burn more fuel when does the cost of mining, making, transporting, ETC the fuel out-weigh the shit that comes out the exhaust???? my dads 72 Plymouth satellite got 24 to 34 mph (depending on how much my dad put his foot into it) 360 small block with like 2.45 rear end gears...... aint nothing new under the sun
and i think these "miss" because the exhaust valve is held open..... which means you are still using fuel even if the intake was held open..... their would be fuel coming into the motor..... and fuel coming out of the carb (depending on if the piston is making pressure.....up stroke..... or making vacuum.... down stroke) thats why i say..... hold the valves open....... but still use modern electronic injection no fuel wasted ya just have the engine run at 1500 rpm or so...... and use its massive torque from the fly wheel and a good selection of gearing to get the car up to 70mph or maybe a CVT transmission i dont like CVT's on normal cars...... but i think it would fit right in with a hit and miss
@@kainhall You're still getting past the throttling losses when you do that, so the engine actually turns freely, bouncing on its compression, like a diesel. If you have a car with a manual transmission, try going down a hill with the key off(make sure you don't lock your steering wheel). You will find that the car will coast easier with the gas pedal floored, than when it's held part throttle. At idle, the high manifold vacuum causes it to bounce on the intake, and it turns more freely. That easy coasting would make hit and miss more efficient, than part throttle, but it won't be smooth.
@@kainhall I think you're right, it works by holding the exhaust open. But, doing that, means that there is no suction to pull the intake valve open, which is not cam driven. since the air comes back in from the exhaust, no air is drawn through the carburetor. If it did, you would correct that by increasing the seat pressure of the intake valve spring, to make sure it doesn't open with exhaust restriction. When the exhaust valve is allowed to close, then the intake vacuum is sufficient to overcome the intake valve spring, the engine gets a gulp of fuel and air, and BANG! Another hit. If the intake spring it too stiff, then the engine doesn't get a good charge, and you don't get as much power. It's a fine adjustment.
Neat old "Poppin' Johnny." Every year there is a meet-up locally and all the "olde tyme" engines come and do their stuff. My favorite is an old Fairbanks Morse hit and miss. For work, they usually run pumps circulating water in a wooden barrel. Thanks. Jon
You can compensate for that strong AGC by using a compressor on the audio in post-production. Depending on the software, it may be able to completely eliminate the gain fluctuations.
Suppose you could direct couple the generator to the crank pulley centerline, so its free to rotate, supported at the ends, then have a 1 foot rod bearing down on a scale then increase the load until the rpm's drop, that'd give you a direct brake torque number.
That is a nice little engine , but they have a beautiful sound when they are running full on . I do wish you would make another video with that sweet little thing giving it all .
Fantastic video. I've never seen a hit and miss do much more than run an ice cream maker. Great to hear it getting a little workout. Very informative video. By the way, do I spy an LGB box on the shelf?
Oh boy it had a pretty bad miss probably only running on one cylinder, might want to check the distributor cap. At 700 watts I wonder how many gallons an hour it would get. Love the video Thank you!
Thank you for making this video. My motorcycle has a belt final drive, although it’s toothed so I guess not as efficient as a flat belt. Am I correct? By the way, consider me subscribed.
Now that's an engine.. I have been wondering about effiencey of these. Over a 3-5 hp new engine. In a DC generator setup. To charge batteries in a 24v system , so 28.8v and 150 amps max. But likely 1/4 that current. Witch do you think would be most effiecent?
I've played with old and new engines for years and for your application I would recommend a newer and oversized engine set to run around 1/2 - 1/3 it peak speed to get maximum service life out of it if you are planning to have this rig running for 1000's of hours in it expected service life. Beyond that for peak fuel efficiency I would recommend replacing the stock fixed jet (emissions compliant ) carburetor with a older style adjustable one or at minimal drilling out your main jet a tiny bit to get the A/F ratio richer. That alone can pick you up 10 - 20% on fuel efficiency and power on a engine which at a light load means using even less fuel to matian the same power output. Also beyond fuel efficiency is simple cost per hour which with the old adjustable jet carbs you could easily tune them to run on sme pretty low grade cheap fuel (E30 - E85) which is where the real savings that matter come into play. My rough math for a 150 amp load at ~29 volts says you need 8 Hp continuous which I would set up to have a at least 24 - 30 HP engine running at just under half its peak rated RPM to put out if it has to pull it for hours on end.
You won't get the same fuel economy with a modern engine. These old hit and miss engine's are the most fuel efficient engine's ever made. When i was a kid we had a Bamford engine powering a water pump to keep the water troffs full and also pump water to the farm house water tank and we would use around 5 litres of fuel per week. We replaced it with a Robbin engine with the same pump and used around 10 - 15 litres a week.
I'm pretty confident that the 0.15 horsepower figure required to turn the engine at that speed will increase as load, and therefore output, increases. You could be looking at 2 or 3 times the internal losses when the engine is producing full power.
Loved to hear it run under load didnt see the water tank steaming newer engines are rated 3 ways max power interminited and continuous this ole gal must be rated for max output just like a team of mules they will work hard most of the time then need a little break! mite try mixing a little kerosene or diesel fuel in the mix for fuel efficiency lower compression motors fuel density etc etc as with any motor you are turning heat into motion the hotter the more efficient to a point just my 2 cents worth thanks Fred
The generator is a treadmill motor. treadmill motors are permanent magnet DC therefore will operate either as a generator or as a motor. Therefore it does not regulate the voltages much higher unloaded than when I turn the light bulbs on. to compute the power I just have to look at the voltage and the current at the time.
“In 1922 John Deere revolutionized the industry by copying IHC in enclosing their crank cases” I think is what you meant! Just kidding of course, these E engines are popular, and an Amish family uses one to make ice cream at a show near me. Great video!
Nice video and interesting demo of one of these old engines. My only critique was that you may have double dipped a bit on your losses in the system. You guestimated your efficiency at .80 by discounting the motor efficiency as a generator at .85 and then knocking that down to .80 to account for the flat belt losses. I am OK with that. At the end you threw in a .15hp correction for the losses in your dyno setup you. I am OK with that also but when you lumped these two together you were double dipping .... both in efficiency and in your .15hp correction. Don't get me wrong, I have no suggestions of how to do this more fairly or accurately with the limitations of a garage demo. I just want to point out something I noticed. Absolutely right or wrong, you clearly demonstrated these old engines were capable of putting out something close to their rated power.
Very interesting video and analysis. I was very worried that you were going to get your baggy shorts caught in that belt when you walked next to it. What would happen if you added load and exceeded the rating of the engine? Would it stall like little generator engine would? Also, can you explain how you relate the number of hits to Hp? Are you just proportioning the full number of his to the lesser number times the Hp rating of 1 1/2?
YEA closed it up for lubrication....lol....did it to make sure people be more likely to bring it to shop.early example dealers making sure you bring things to shop.john deere bought waterloo mfg and foundry in 1925 they cast engines for 66 companies...well 1926 the other 65 engine companies were out of business unless they could cast their own parts what john deere did not get international IHC got the rest
OK, I'm going to make a generization here. An engine rated at 1.5 HP, should be able to deliver 1.5 HP, at the output. (In this case, the drive pulley.) The internal drag, (in the engine) is not figured in that amount. What part of Arizona, I'd LOVE to come and see this engine running. I'm in Mesa. steve
Steve next weekend the 9th and 10th of February you could see to or three dozen of them running at Sahara Ranch in Glendale. That's right next to Glendale Community College. A month later the 9th and 10th of March even more of them will be running at the Apache Junction Road do grounds. And both cases there will be lots of engines turning various loads as well as antique tractors pulling a sled as well as Garden tractors etc
These things where stronger than most think. My grandfather's shop had a 6hp from 1934 that I'm pretty sure was a international harvester to run the line shaft if water was low. It originally was a mill that he turned into a machine shop. Anyway the flywheel on the thing had to weigh 80lbs alone. I wish I could dyno it but when my dad replaced it, he used a 14hp 3 phase motor and it was nowhere near enough power and he ended up powering each machine on its own except for a band saw and drill press. We're actually rebuilding it now but it ran for 8-10 hours a day 6 days a week for over 20 years and still had more power than a modern electric motor rated for twice the power. So I'm not sure how they measured them then but its not how we do it these days. The only thing I can come up with is maybe they used something like a Clydesdale and now we use a little pony lol.
running this at 600 watts, I wonder how fuel efficient this is, compared to a modern generator of similar rating, but running at high rpm. A generator rated for 1000 watts turns 3600 RPM, to produce 60 Hz. 600 watts would be a good load for peak efficiency.
@@1marcelfilms Good point. I didn't think of that. Maybe an inverter generator would be a better contest, for this low speed, all or nothing hit and miss engine. Both the inverter generator, and hit and miss, don't suffer from pumping losses, as air tries to get past a throttle valve in a carburetor. The inverter generator just slows down, and the hit and miss, only gulps fuel, when needed. Both will be more efficient than the high speed generator I described in my last post.
Наука
Maybe not 100 per cent laboratory accurate but great enough.
This says a lot about how things were in the year 1924 when you payed for 1 1/2 HP you expected and got what you payed for
Cool to see one of these type of engines run loaded. At events you always see one of these running unloaded and running super slow. Nice to see how one of these would've sounded in actual use.
Finally someone displays one of these early engine under load. Thank you
Your commentary is so nice you could read me the phone book. Nice job my good man!
Thank you for this. I like to hear these under load. I recall hearing hit miss engines running oil jacks as a kid. My father explained these engines to me and what they did. The cadence on them was interesting. As they pumped up it was working hard, like this one on the lower stroke they didn’t hit.
Interesting video. I found that I could set the video playback speed to 1.75 and save a lot of time while still understanding every word. I did set the speed to normal to listen to the engine at its various loads. Interesting how this runs at 540 RPM when loaded. This is the standard speed that tractor PTO-driven farm equipment operates at to this day. Coincidence? I think not.
I like how you mentioned that
Ethan Lamoureux thank you! Saved me much time. I keep forgetting that I can speed up videos
Love hearing this under load.. when I was a kid.. they always brought these to summer festivals and fairs as Ice-cream freezer engines.. so you could tell when the ice cream was getting ready to be done as the engine would hit more and more.. and then the crowds would start to gather because they knew the ice cream was almost ready! old engines were big here in the Ohio area.. lots of farmland.. lots of people whp worked for railroads and the automotive industry back in the day.. and so there was many people who knew mechanical machines.. I love listening to David have fun with this machine.. just like many of the men I met as a kid who built these things.. i was always so fascinated
The load test begins at 9:00 minutes, nice to hear a H&M engine firing nearly every stroke :-)
That was very informative. Wish I could still be 85% efficient at my age now. Lol
It’s amazing that it’s still capable of almost its original rating. When it was new it was probably capable of producing more because back in that time things were rated very conservatively unlike today.
I appreciate you sharing and uploading this.
Thank you sir.
I enjoy anything with a motor. 👌
A simple hack to control automatic gain is a little 60hz buzzer. You record it in a silent room then put it on the camera and subtract it from the audio to get the normal noise level.
That would work decently well if you were using uncompressed, 24bit audio. However, in my experience, attempting to subtract tracks that have been compressed in any way usually results in artifacts. (Have you ever tried to make an a capella by subtracting the instrumental from the full mix when you only have mp3s? I have, it sounds bad.) Also, by adding a base tone, you're essentially "squashing" the bit depth of everything else in the mix between that tone's level and the peak level. Once you subtract it, and correct the volume, you could lose quality. Far easier to just record on a separate device where you can control the gain yourself, and sync it up later.
Excellent demonstration and overall performance analysis. Thank you for sharing.
Very good demonstration! Thanks for making this video for us. I hope some day to get a nice flywheel engine to restore. Love to hear these engines at load. It's amazing and (but not unexpected!) that she still puts out about rated HP after 100 years, as well!
i love that you have experience about what you do
Love your videos. Keep up the good work.
So nice to run across a tube site with hit and miss engines. Keep up the good work Dr. Cave.
Very good demonstration and analysis - thank you!
I really enjoyed your video. I realize it’s been a while since you put it out. I hope you are doing well and want to thank you for contributing to something I’ve been interested in!
GREAT JOB 👍 Answered a lot of my hit and miss questions. I know now that I must have one of these. Thank you for the video.
A fine and most interesting presentation! Thank you very much!
As a physicist PhD I need to say: Great contribution; hopefully many people will learn a bit from it !
A couple of thoughts.
I always put a twist in a flat belt. You get a better wrap on the pulleys eliminating most slip when under load. All of your vertical flapping also goes away. Your engine pulley is quite shinny. Every time a single cylinder engine hits, the torque surge creates a bit of slip. A 2 cyl JD tractor causes the belt to jump a little, every time it fires. It is most pronounced on a belt without a twist.
I think you need one or two more bulbs. Unless the engine is hitting constantly, you are not getting maximum available hp for that engine.
Also hp is figured at rated rpm. So, unless the engine is at 600 you have less than advertised hp. As someone noted, the old engines were likely conservatively rated. A new engine running at rated rpm may have put out more than the rated power. My opinions are based upon my hit-n-miss, throttling governor engines and various tractors in my collection. Thanks for a great video.👍
By putting a trist in the belt you would be spinning the generator backwards. It doesn't work that way.
zalmaflash yes, can’t just put in a belt twist in the existing setup. When I set up a demo, I orient the engine and implement so it will turn the correct way when operating with a twisted belt. The longer the belt, the greater the necessity to run a twist. A short belt, not so much.
To get at least part of the twist effect without reversing direction, turn one end of the belt inside out. This breaks the lateral stiffness of the belt, and it will run truer.
Great channel , love the vid . Always wondered what these old engine produce so many years on
it sounds soo beautiful. they are definitely underrated and people just dont love the engineering but I love it. old school rocks.
Nice video. Love those hit and miss motors.
Fabulous video and wonderful mathematics.
Very professionally demonstrated ! The beer Babe is really easy on the eyes !!
Nice job Sir on your presentation.
I feel like hit and miss engines are under-rated generally.. i have a 2 hp Jaeger engine..and an unknown rated fairbanks morse.. i use the 2hp Jaeger for a drain pump to pump water uphill from the lake up to a man made horse pond.. the pump was a harbor freight water pump that originally had a 6.5hp 212cc engine on it.. however the 2hp Jaeger pumps water just fine..
i think its because the hit and miss probably has far more tq than the 212cc predator.
Because the hit and miss has 2hp and 8374748284747 foot pounds of torque lol.
We had an old 11hp Wisconsin my brother found in a barn, it had a clapping magneto and it produced about 30hp of power. Never ran above 800rpm and never needed to, it'd collapse rubber fire truck siphon hoses when we were pulling ditches dry around town.
Hit and miss engines are rated by the number of horses they can pull backwards, not this new fangled bullshit math.
@warmfreeze very true I have 5 or 6 hit and miss engines only have had 1 going before but at shows it seems like they always do the task they are set to with ease
Torque = HP x 5252/RPM: 6.5 x 5252/3600 = 9.5ft/lb and 2 x 5252/600 = 17.5ft/lb. Even if it’s wheezy it will out-pump the original. But it probably weighs 2-300 lbs so it can’t exactly be mounted to a push mower lol.
Very good explanation and very well done!
Great experiment, but surely the engine is rated 1.5 bhp (brake horse power) and so whilst the engine produces some indicated power at no load it’s only enough to overcome friction,pumping losses etc and would never have been part of the brake horse power figure. Not sure with hit and miss governing but throttle governed engines have what’s known as a governor droop curve which is the percentage loss of speed between idle and wide open throttle so the no load speed is set high by this percentage giving wide open throttle at rated speed. It was great to hear it working .Thanks
One major advantage of Hit and Miss, is that there is only minimal pumping losses. It doesn't try to suck air past a throttle plate, when running with little or no load. Much more efficient, at 20% rated torque then an engine with governed throttle.(Briggs and Stratton lawnmower)
Really enjoyed this thankyou
Let me tell you something this is a very informative video 👍🏼
Nice work and very interesting. Thanks for sharing
Good Work !! We want to see the pretty gal in the boots !!!
This was a very inspirational video and I plan to search out an engine of my own! Thanks Mr. Cave.
Very nice video. I have seen all types of hit or miss engines but that John Deere was something else. Very interesting data.
Awesome! Thanks for that!
Hay that was very interesting, I have never observed a hit and miss engine under load like that before and I was surprised to learn how much heat was generated on the cooling system, so you really can not run it at full load for very long. You for your video I learned a lot
Good demonstration, and I like your dyno. Would you be akin to the Dave Cave from California who used to make special telescope mirrors?
Great sound.
These old motors are pretty cool! 😁
Old stuff was built to do WORK for a long ass time, with proper maintenance. And when it finally broke, it was easy to fix. The way it SHOULD be. You didn't just go to a store to buy some shit and throw it away when it broke.
I seen lots of hit and miss engines run at shows and fairs but never under much load! Very interesting! I would like to hear it "ballsout"
Ballsout means no misses. I think this engine will produce it's rated horsepower, if the governor was adjusted back up to 600 RPM. The engine is rated at about 13 foot pounds of torque. If you load it that hard, stalling is eminent. The lightbulbs, are a good load, because as the engine slows down, the current, thus the torque would roll back, preventing the engine from stalling. I'm with you: it's nice to see one of these loaded, just to see what it does. I wonder how fuel efficient this is, compared to the modern high speed engines we have now.
@@vincentrobinette1507 ya know ive been wondering about the efficiency also
you could take a modern engine.... add a MASSIVE flywheel...... and then only trigger injector pulses when you need to
idk..... this emissions crap...... what comes out the tail pipe is cleaner..... but you burn more fuel
when does the cost of mining, making, transporting, ETC the fuel out-weigh the shit that comes out the exhaust????
my dads 72 Plymouth satellite got 24 to 34 mph (depending on how much my dad put his foot into it)
360 small block with like 2.45 rear end gears...... aint nothing new under the sun
and i think these "miss" because the exhaust valve is held open..... which means you are still using fuel
even if the intake was held open..... their would be fuel coming into the motor..... and fuel coming out of the carb (depending on if the piston is making pressure.....up stroke..... or making vacuum.... down stroke)
thats why i say..... hold the valves open....... but still use modern electronic injection
no fuel wasted
ya just have the engine run at 1500 rpm or so...... and use its massive torque from the fly wheel and a good selection of gearing to get the car up to 70mph
or maybe a CVT transmission
i dont like CVT's on normal cars...... but i think it would fit right in with a hit and miss
@@kainhall You're still getting past the throttling losses when you do that, so the engine actually turns freely, bouncing on its compression, like a diesel. If you have a car with a manual transmission, try going down a hill with the key off(make sure you don't lock your steering wheel). You will find that the car will coast easier with the gas pedal floored, than when it's held part throttle. At idle, the high manifold vacuum causes it to bounce on the intake, and it turns more freely. That easy coasting would make hit and miss more efficient, than part throttle, but it won't be smooth.
@@kainhall I think you're right, it works by holding the exhaust open. But, doing that, means that there is no suction to pull the intake valve open, which is not cam driven. since the air comes back in from the exhaust, no air is drawn through the carburetor. If it did, you would correct that by increasing the seat pressure of the intake valve spring, to make sure it doesn't open with exhaust restriction. When the exhaust valve is allowed to close, then the intake vacuum is sufficient to overcome the intake valve spring, the engine gets a gulp of fuel and air, and BANG! Another hit. If the intake spring it too stiff, then the engine doesn't get a good charge, and you don't get as much power. It's a fine adjustment.
Neat old "Poppin' Johnny." Every year there is a meet-up locally and all the "olde tyme" engines come and do their stuff. My favorite is an old Fairbanks Morse hit and miss. For work, they usually run pumps circulating water in a wooden barrel. Thanks. Jon
It's got a solid beat and you can dance to it, so I'd give it a solid 10, Casey.
that was very interesting, thank you
I think it would make the full 1.5 hp when the crank oil was hot. If it has a pickup finger it is slamming through a viscous fluid.
excellent i learned a lot thank you
I too like the loaded sound of a V16 EMD 567 at notch 8 at 7 mph.
Excellent thank you!
So this is what grandpa does when hes not pretending to be sleeping In his chair while the grandkids are around
I thoroughly enjoyed your video and stats. Would love to have the little engine here so I could fire it up and listen to it ..
73
j
I guess they never miss huh
Go away
standing you gotta boyfriend?
@@apimpnamedslickback2748 😂😂
@@apimpnamedslickback2748 no just broke up last night 😓
DAMNIT I JUST SAID THAT
The coolest thing about these engines is that you can use them indoors. Dont make them like they used to!
Don't run gasoline engines indoors. It will impair the process of living.
@@randymagnum143 it didnt kill the guy in the video.
@@JonnyRocketfuelawesome! Feel free to run gasoline engines indoors!
(Kids, don't run gasoline engines indoors!)
@@randymagnum143 the sarcasm in my original comment is way over your head I guess....
Wow, that's a well-running engine.
You can compensate for that strong AGC by using a compressor on the audio in post-production. Depending on the software, it may be able to completely eliminate the gain fluctuations.
Suppose you could direct couple the generator to the crank pulley centerline, so its free to rotate, supported at the ends, then have a 1 foot rod bearing down on a scale then increase the load until the rpm's drop, that'd give you a direct brake torque number.
That is a nice little engine , but they have a beautiful sound when they are running full on . I do wish you would make another video with that sweet little thing giving it all .
Fantastic video. I've never seen a hit and miss do much more than run an ice cream maker. Great to hear it getting a little workout. Very informative video. By the way, do I spy an LGB box on the shelf?
Sounds like Joe Pera, calming voice
Oh boy it had a pretty bad miss probably only running on one cylinder, might want to check the distributor cap. At 700 watts I wonder how many gallons an hour it would get. Love the video Thank you!
love it
Thank you for making this video. My motorcycle has a belt final drive, although it’s toothed so I guess not as efficient as a flat belt. Am I correct? By the way, consider me subscribed.
Beautiful old Deere.
Are you Mortemer Young from Forever Young Film Preservation?
Now that's an engine.. I have been wondering about effiencey of these. Over a 3-5 hp new engine. In a DC generator setup. To charge batteries in a 24v system , so 28.8v and 150 amps max. But likely 1/4 that current. Witch do you think would be most effiecent?
I've played with old and new engines for years and for your application I would recommend a newer and oversized engine set to run around 1/2 - 1/3 it peak speed to get maximum service life out of it if you are planning to have this rig running for 1000's of hours in it expected service life.
Beyond that for peak fuel efficiency I would recommend replacing the stock fixed jet (emissions compliant ) carburetor with a older style adjustable one or at minimal drilling out your main jet a tiny bit to get the A/F ratio richer.
That alone can pick you up 10 - 20% on fuel efficiency and power on a engine which at a light load means using even less fuel to matian the same power output.
Also beyond fuel efficiency is simple cost per hour which with the old adjustable jet carbs you could easily tune them to run on sme pretty low grade cheap fuel (E30 - E85) which is where the real savings that matter come into play.
My rough math for a 150 amp load at ~29 volts says you need 8 Hp continuous which I would set up to have a at least 24 - 30 HP engine running at just under half its peak rated RPM to put out if it has to pull it for hours on end.
You won't get the same fuel economy with a modern engine. These old hit and miss engine's are the most fuel efficient engine's ever made. When i was a kid we had a Bamford engine powering a water pump to keep the water troffs full and also pump water to the farm house water tank and we would use around 5 litres of fuel per week. We replaced it with a Robbin engine with the same pump and used around 10 - 15 litres a week.
he didnt say anything about thermal efficiency which might be as low as 12 percent...he did say it got really warm
I'm pretty confident that the 0.15 horsepower figure required to turn the engine at that speed will increase as load, and therefore output, increases. You could be looking at 2 or 3 times the internal losses when the engine is producing full power.
If RPM is constant friction is constant.
You're getting confused by thinking about it like modern ICE where the revs increase.
You got to tell me about the pulley on the JD. I've never see one that large. Is that a home made unit or some you found?
Could use a new coat of paint but I like it. As far as the value of an antique like this, would it depreciate the value by painting it?
Loved to hear it run under load didnt see the water tank steaming newer engines are rated 3 ways max power interminited and continuous this ole gal must be rated for max output just like a team of mules they will work hard most of the time then need a little break! mite try mixing a little kerosene or diesel fuel in the mix for fuel efficiency lower compression motors fuel density etc etc as with any motor you are turning heat into motion the hotter the more efficient to a point just my 2 cents worth thanks Fred
What kind of generator is that? How does it regulate voltage?
The generator is a treadmill motor. treadmill motors are permanent magnet DC therefore will operate either as a generator or as a motor. Therefore it does not regulate the voltages much higher unloaded than when I turn the light bulbs on. to compute the power I just have to look at the voltage and the current at the time.
“In 1922 John Deere revolutionized the industry by copying IHC in enclosing their crank cases” I think is what you meant! Just kidding of course, these E engines are popular, and an Amish family uses one to make ice cream at a show near me.
Great video!
Is that a treadmill motor you are using for a generator?
At a whopping 540rpms haha love it!!
Nice video and interesting demo of one of these old engines. My only critique was that you may have double dipped a bit on your losses in the system. You guestimated your efficiency at .80 by discounting the motor efficiency as a generator at .85 and then knocking that down to .80 to account for the flat belt losses. I am OK with that. At the end you threw in a .15hp correction for the losses in your dyno setup you. I am OK with that also but when you lumped these two together you were double dipping .... both in efficiency and in your .15hp correction. Don't get me wrong, I have no suggestions of how to do this more fairly or accurately with the limitations of a garage demo. I just want to point out something I noticed. Absolutely right or wrong, you clearly demonstrated these old engines were capable of putting out something close to their rated power.
why did you removed the startup!!?!??!!?!?
This is great!!!!!!!......I don't know anything about these engines apart from I like them !!!.... How's the fuel consumption..???
Maybe vent the exhaust?
What size pulley is on the engine?
what kind of fuel economy does that give you when at load
nice
Wish I had cardboard cut out for my shop. What brand does it represent?
It might be from the brand Black Label Beer
St. Pauli Girl
@@Greg-jo1ft I was not sure what one it is.
I noticed her too.
Is that cart original?
Very interesting video and analysis. I was very worried that you were going to get your baggy shorts caught in that belt when you walked next to it. What would happen if you added load and exceeded the rating of the engine? Would it stall like little generator engine would? Also, can you explain how you relate the number of hits to Hp? Are you just proportioning the full number of his to the lesser number times the Hp rating of 1 1/2?
what did these cost new
Good running oud john deere
YEA closed it up for lubrication....lol....did it to make sure people be more likely to bring it to shop.early example dealers making sure you bring things to shop.john deere bought waterloo mfg and foundry in 1925 they cast engines for 66 companies...well 1926 the other 65 engine companies were out of business unless they could cast their own parts what john deere did not get international IHC got the rest
such good job on video and dont pay no mind if see any negtive comments
never misses tho does it
How do you tell when a hit&miss engine is running rich or lean?
If its smoking its rich . you want to adjust the mixer till it cuts out then open very slitely till it fires then let it run.
OK, I'm going to make a generization here.
An engine rated at 1.5 HP, should be able
to deliver 1.5 HP, at the output. (In this
case, the drive pulley.) The internal drag,
(in the engine) is not figured in that amount.
What part of Arizona, I'd LOVE to come and
see this engine running. I'm in Mesa.
steve
Steve next weekend the 9th and 10th of February you could see to or three dozen of them running at Sahara Ranch in Glendale. That's right next to Glendale Community College. A month later the 9th and 10th of March even more of them will be running at the Apache Junction Road do grounds. And both cases there will be lots of engines turning various loads as well as antique tractors pulling a sled as well as Garden tractors etc
@ 10:22 sounds like music to my ears lol
How much torque would that engine produce
1 hp at 550rpm is about 10lb-ft
HP = Torque X RPM / 5252, so Torque = HP X 5252 / RPM
If we're at the rated 1.5hp and 600rpm, 1.5 X 5252 / 600 = 13 ft*lb
The flying ball governor does not control power. It controls speed, that is not power
makes me wonder what it would have done when brand new.....
These things where stronger than most think. My grandfather's shop had a 6hp from 1934 that I'm pretty sure was a international harvester to run the line shaft if water was low. It originally was a mill that he turned into a machine shop. Anyway the flywheel on the thing had to weigh 80lbs alone. I wish I could dyno it but when my dad replaced it, he used a 14hp 3 phase motor and it was nowhere near enough power and he ended up powering each machine on its own except for a band saw and drill press.
We're actually rebuilding it now but it ran for 8-10 hours a day 6 days a week for over 20 years and still had more power than a modern electric motor rated for twice the power. So I'm not sure how they measured them then but its not how we do it these days. The only thing I can come up with is maybe they used something like a Clydesdale and now we use a little pony lol.
@@southjerseysound7340 They used a Belgian draft horse and now we use a miniature horse foal the second it's born.
running this at 600 watts, I wonder how fuel efficient this is, compared to a modern generator of similar rating, but running at high rpm. A generator rated for 1000 watts turns 3600 RPM, to produce 60 Hz. 600 watts would be a good load for peak efficiency.
Not if you have an inverter generator.
@@1marcelfilms Good point. I didn't think of that. Maybe an inverter generator would be a better contest, for this low speed, all or nothing hit and miss engine. Both the inverter generator, and hit and miss, don't suffer from pumping losses, as air tries to get past a throttle valve in a carburetor. The inverter generator just slows down, and the hit and miss, only gulps fuel, when needed. Both will be more efficient than the high speed generator I described in my last post.
I wonder how modern gasoline effects the operation compared to whatever gasoline was like in 1924?
Did I ever tell you that Mrs. McCave. Had twenty-three sons, and she named them all Dave?
*747.7w:1hp