RE: [bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

I just noticed this thread and hasten to throw in the fact that I have a 1960s 4-stroke outboard to dispose of. It is a Bearcat 55, same thing as the slightly earlier Homelite 55, made by mounting an upended Crosley car engine on a beefed up Scott Atwater lower unit. I remember seeing one in Monkey Wards in its day. This was running on a 16 foot Lyman until 4 years ago. Fans of these motors claim there was a comparison test done with late Nineties Mercury 4-strokes of same power. Results were virtually identical on fuel economy, noise, rpm, performance. Owner of this one apparently loved it but had to tinker: I found a timing light and spare carburetor in the boat. It’s heavy.

 

From:bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Ofphilbolger@...
Sent:Saturday, September 15, 2012 5:32 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 

 

Look forward to seeing them over here.  The earlier BMW F-800 twin was aiming for high-efficiency while maintaining higher RPM-based power-curve. 

Oddly enough, because that characteristic supports the 'relaxed' driving-style - not for 500-miles day though - some of the 'old-timey-flavor' American-Cruisers knock-offs such as HONDA's VT 1100 V-twin have had long-stroke torquey liquid-cooled engines for several decades, with around 2500rpm for peak torque on some sub-models.  But mileage has always been middling with perhaps high 40s (US), which can be matched by a PRIUS or turbo-diesel VW POLO...

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

  

----- Original Message -----

From:c.ruzer

Sent:Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:45 AM

Subject:[bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 

 



Honda are now setting a bike trend in this with their new mid-sized Integra bikes that borrow heavily from slow revving low friction car engine technology - and some other tricks. Torque curve is flat from around only 2000rpm. The parallel twin 700cc engines are essentially that of a Honda Jazz cut in half, and have fuel consumption comparable to much smaller bikes, claimed around 28km/L. They have invested quite a bit of time in developing the engine design aimed to give good performance/economy in the speed ranges bikes are actually ridden at ninety percent of the time by ninety percent of riders.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
> HONDA's first INSIGHT - alu-body - was indeed powered by an under-square/long-stroke gasoline non-turbo engine, with the second engine-version dropping peak torque further from 2000 to 1500, with corresponding adjustments in the gearing, which gained another 10+% in its unprecedented mileage or some such...

I'm amused by the number of these that appear to be a lawnmower engine
mounted to a leg. If all you care about is cheap and easy to work on,
it's the way to go I suppose.

-p

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM, djdecker2002 <djdecker2002@...> wrote:
>
>> > On 09/09/2012 05:38 PM, philswatch wrote:
>> > >
> ...snip...
>> > >
>> > > There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
>> > >
>
> This is the kind of situation where our Chinese friends can help us out. I just had a chance to search alibaba.com for diesel outboards,
> and Voila! View the search results here:
>
> <http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?SearchText=diesel+outboard>
>
> -Derek (Who is not really sure this is the answer, but at least there's a whole lot more going on in this area than we thought.)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> > On 09/09/2012 05:38 PM, philswatch wrote:
> > >
...snip...
> > >
> > > There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
> > >

This is the kind of situation where our Chinese friends can help us out. I just had a chance to search alibaba.com for diesel outboards,
and Voila! View the search results here:

<http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?SearchText=diesel+outboard>

-Derek (Who is not really sure this is the answer, but at least there's a whole lot more going on in this area than we thought.)
There is a company named Klaxon that makes small diesel outboards, not sure what the availability or cost is like but the website looks decent. Lauson made four stroke gas outboards in the 1940's, made quite a few of them actually. They're not that heavy but air cooled and a bit noisy at higher power settings.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
>
> The first four stroke outboard motor was a Fagiol.It was Italian made
> using and American car engine from Crosley. They were as big as a 50
> horse power Mercury and they were only 25 horsepower. You can look it up
> on line. The only reason we were able to go to the four stroke engine
> for outboards was the two stroke was outlawed on much of this countries
> waterways because of mixing oil with gasoline.
> The 8 horsepower single cylinder Yanmar is as Big as the Fagiol. The
> diesel engines don't have any power for their size and weight. They are
> Ok for a sailboat that won't cruise over 6 knots but they are worthless
> for anything else. The Yanmar is a throw away engine, they are
> rebuildable once. After that you can't rebuild because the cylinders are
> worn out. You can't resleave them. My boat has a two cylinder Volvo,
> the engine cruises at 1800 rpm and only develops 10 horse power and
> weighs twice as much as a Yanmar. It lasts twice as long and can be
> rebuilt indefinitely. Guess what they fixed that by not making the
> parts anymore. The reason it is so rebuildable is that it was designed
> in the 1920's as and industrial engine. They ran 24-7 for twenty years
> before rebuilding. When every thing in the countryside was electrified
> in Europe they built the little engines for a few years for sailboats
> but being a heavy duty engine they were to expensive. Enter Yanmar. They
> are not selling enough engines either as nobody is building sailboats in
> any quantity now. Kaboda and Yanmar builds a few small ones but the have
> all gone to 3 and 4 cylinder engine for tractors. They are able to stay
> in the market because their is a demand for them in China where there is
> little electricity in the countryside. Nobody in the US wants an
> outboard engine that weighs several hundred pounds and delivers 10
> horsepower. I don't think we are likely to see any diesel outboards
> soon unless gasoline goes to $15.oo or $ 20.00 a gallon which may well
> happen if we don't start drilling for oil and fracking is not increased.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> On 09/09/2012 05:38 PM, philswatch wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > <philbolger@> wrote:
> > >
> > >..snip..
> >
> > > I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit;
> > alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems
> > astonishing.
> >
> > Strongly concur.
> >
> > There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
> >
> >
>
Look forward to seeing them over here.  The earlier BMW F-800 twin was aiming for high-efficiency while maintaining higher RPM-based power-curve. 

Oddly enough, because that characteristic supports the 'relaxed' driving-style - not for 500-miles day though - some of the 'old-timey-flavor' American-Cruisers knock-offs such as HONDA's VT 1100 V-twin have had long-stroke torquey liquid-cooled engines for several decades, with around 2500rpm for peak torque on some sub-models.  But mileage has always been middling with perhaps high 40s (US), which can be matched by a PRIUS or turbo-diesel VW POLO...

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

  
----- Original Message -----
From:c.ruzer
Sent:Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:45 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 



Honda are now setting a bike trend in this with their new mid-sized Integra bikes that borrow heavily from slow revving low friction car engine technology - and some other tricks. Torque curve is flat from around only 2000rpm. The parallel twin 700cc engines are essentially that of a Honda Jazz cut in half, and have fuel consumption comparable to much smaller bikes, claimed around 28km/L. They have invested quite a bit of time in developing the engine design aimed to give good performance/economy in the speed ranges bikes are actually ridden at ninety percent of the time by ninety percent of riders.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
> HONDA's first INSIGHT - alu-body - was indeed powered by an under-square/long-stroke gasoline non-turbo engine, with the second engine-version dropping peak torque further from 2000 to 1500, with corresponding adjustments in the gearing, which gained another 10+% in its unprecedented mileage or some such...

Honda are now setting a bike trend in this with their new mid-sized Integra bikes that borrow heavily from slow revving low friction car engine technology - and some other tricks. Torque curve is flat from around only 2000rpm. The parallel twin 700cc engines are essentially that of a Honda Jazz cut in half, and have fuel consumption comparable to much smaller bikes, claimed around 28km/L. They have invested quite a bit of time in developing the engine design aimed to give good performance/economy in the speed ranges bikes are actually ridden at ninety percent of the time by ninety percent of riders.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
> HONDA's first INSIGHT - alu-body - was indeed powered by an under-square/long-stroke gasoline non-turbo engine, with the second engine-version dropping peak torque further from 2000 to 1500, with corresponding adjustments in the gearing, which gained another 10+% in its unprecedented mileage or some such...
I think 'torque' is 'torque' - be it off gasoline or Diesel.  The measurement is either true or not.

The first generations of engines (gasoline mostly) could not rev very much and were thus oversized by today's standards to make any adequate power.  Once lighter and smaller gasoline and diesel engine could be designed with advances in metallurgy, bearings, seals, combustion-processes, gas-exchange etc. they revved higher to make more power out of less displacement and thus weight an typically much-improved fuel-efficiencies.  Bigger torque was regained via gear-boxes with multiplication of nominal engine-torque to match earlier shaft-torque.  Or so it seems...

Note that gas-turbines have very little 'conventionally'-usable torque, which accounts for the poor drive-around-town pick-up of comparably-rated HP turbine cars, despite torque-converters.  On ships however they can power warships to beyond hull-speed - which takes torque generated via massive step-down gears to get to a 17-foot propeller on a modern destroyer.

For the given horsepower-rating a naturally-aspirated Diesel has to be larger due to the combustion-process involved.  A 'self-igniting' Diesel often does not rev anywhere near as fast as a gasoline-powered engine can.  With that larger engine you get more torque, as I believe you would if you detuned an equal-sized gasoline engine to match the Diesel's max RPM.

There's more going on though and I may well be misunderstanding things though...  For instance, many modern turbo-diesels are long-stroke engines for torque down-low and a carefully-matched turbo to make up for the limited top-rpm by pushing air in 'easier'.  On the other hand some 15+ years ago BMW did a longer-stroke non-turbo gasoline engine in its 5-series with an 'E'-moniker attached indicating lot's of 'natural' torque down low for untypically impressive pick up and yet decent mileage from overall lower revs. in daily driving.  Ergo a 'sleeper' and very desirable for the 'right' driver...

HONDA's first INSIGHT - alu-body - was indeed powered by an under-square/long-stroke gasoline non-turbo engine, with the second engine-version dropping peak torque further from 2000 to 1500, with corresponding adjustments in the gearing, which gained another 10+% in its unprecedented mileage or some such...

Pioneered in part by HONDA in cars and bikes via VTEC, variable valve-timing at long last got us out the high-rpm/lots-a-power but poor 'bottom-end' conundrum.  Today you can get more torque than once conceivable on an engine that can also rev high.
But there won't be a variable bore-to-stroke ratio anytime soon...

So with VTEC or not, stump-pulling torque will likely continue to be based on a long-stroke engine geometry. Then add turbo or even two turbos, plus inter- and after-coolers and you find reliable high-revving Diesel-power in some aircraft as light, potent and still with a fuel-burn-per-hp advantage (it seems) offering greater range for the carried fuel-weight.
 
 On a boat, long stroke should always do what Nels is looking and I would be looking for.  Low peak torque on a flat curve, with injector-size to match and a sensible throttle-hand plus the elusive 'perfect' prop of course; too bad no variable pitch units in smaller sub-24" sizes.

'Nothing beats torque'.  And electric motors - depending upon internals - can have the most torque at 0rpm - until you've 'cooked' it that is...-  and then a predictable torque-curve without  camshafts, valves etc. which explains the single-speed gearing in many electric cars. 

And an 'oversized' engine running at low-rpm and thus low-power-output, with a matching lubrication- and cooling-system to keep everything 'just so' should indeed run 'forever'.  Only displacement boats and ships can casually absorb the obvious weight-penalty trading it for 5-digit Time-Between-Overhaul (TBO).  The returns are sweet.

Still, I believe HP = HP and torque = torque when measured on a dynometer.


Susanne Altenburger, PB&F 

----- Original Message -----
Sent:Friday, September 14, 2012 4:40 PM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 

I guess another thing to consider is what really is a "horse power"?


From my experience a diesel horse if a lot bigger and stronger than a gasoline horse. As is also an electric "horse". 

In a planing hull a gas horse works but in a larger displacement hull nothing pushes like a diesel horse. Torque can turn a larger prop with less slippage.  And a diesel loves to run at a constant RPM - almost forever and never wear out.  So to me a diesel gen-set running at  a constant rpm with a alternator output and a variable  adjustable tranny  would be my ideal. That is what big ships and trains do - too bad it could not be scaled down for a smaller displacement hull. 

Nels




--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "doug6949" <doug6949@...> wrote:
>
> The biggest problem with hydraulic drive is the added weight and complexity, not efficiency losses. By the time you add up the weight of the pump, motor, hoses, valves, and a lot larger reservoir of oil than you might expect, a hydraulic drive will weigh 2-5 times as much as a gearbox.
>
> The other problem is that most folks don't work with and thus don't understand hydraulic systems. I have several hydraulic systems in my plant. They are reliable and they don't leak a drop. Most installations, however, are filthy and troublesome. They aren't practical for people who lack hydraulics experience.
>
> I have a 50HP marine diesel and most of the hydraulics I purchased for my boat that never got built. If I ever do build that boat I would not use the hydraulic system.
>
> Doug Harrison

MY fantaisia 34.5 Had about 4000 hrs on her when I rebuilt her about
1992. She was running great but I was wanting to do a lot of cruising so
rebored. bigger pistons top end job and all new bearings. Had the high
pressure pump reworked T think the engine work was $1,500 plus the
pump. A good friend has 7000 hrs on his Perkins 4-108. I had a Yanmar
horizontal 8 horse single cylinder and rebuilt her at 2800 hrs. new
rings bearings and valve job. When I sold her she had about 300 more
hrs. The rebuild as I remember was about $500. So all and all they are
pretty reasonable. I wish I new more about these new gasoline high
thrust engines. Its might handy to take on off and haul it to the shop
and have some work done. If you have one big enough to run about half
throttle looks like it would run for ever.
I was recently talking to someone with a 36 ft heavy ketch that said
he spent over $20,000 to repower. Now thats a bit much. Volvo used to
make a 6 horse single cylinder engine seems like 6 horse running at
pretty good RPMs could keep batteries up enough that with the right
electric motor she
should get a good turn of speed for short periods of time and then
cruise along slow all day for a small boat. What I am saying is you
might be able to have ten horse to hurry through and open bridge. Doug

On 09/14/2012 04:40 PM, prairiedog2332 wrote:
> I guess another thing to consider is what really is a "horse power"?
>
>
> From my experience a diesel horse if a lot bigger and stronger than a
> gasoline horse. As is also an electric "horse".
>
> In a planing hull a gas horse works but in a larger displacement hull
> nothing pushes like a diesel horse. Torque can turn a larger prop with
> less slippage. And a diesel loves to run at a constant RPM - almost
> forever and never wear out. So to me a diesel gen-set running at a
> constant rpm with a alternator output and a variable adjustable tranny
> would be my ideal. That is what big ships and trains do - too bad it
> could not be scaled down for a smaller displacement hull.
>
> Nels
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "doug6949" <doug6949@...> wrote:
> >
> > The biggest problem with hydraulic drive is the added weight and
> complexity, not efficiency losses. By the time you add up the weight of
> the pump, motor, hoses, valves, and a lot larger reservoir of oil than
> you might expect, a hydraulic drive will weigh 2-5 times as much as a
> gearbox.
> >
> > The other problem is that most folks don't work with and thus don't
> understand hydraulic systems. I have several hydraulic systems in my
> plant. They are reliable and they don't leak a drop. Most installations,
> however, are filthy and troublesome. They aren't practical for people
> who lack hydraulics experience.
> >
> > I have a 50HP marine diesel and most of the hydraulics I purchased
> for my boat that never got built. If I ever do build that boat I would
> not use the hydraulic system.
> >
> > Doug Harrison
>
>
I guess another thing to consider is what really is a "horse power"?

From my experience a diesel horse if a lot bigger and stronger than a gasoline horse. As is also an electric "horse". 

In a planing hull a gas horse works but in a larger displacement hull nothing pushes like a diesel horse. Torque can turn a larger prop with less slippage.  And a diesel loves to run at a constant RPM - almost forever and never wear out.  So to me a diesel gen-set running at  a constant rpm with a alternator output and a variable  adjustable tranny  would be my ideal. That is what big ships and trains do - too bad it could not be scaled down for a smaller displacement hull. 

Nels




--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "doug6949" <doug6949@...> wrote:
>
> The biggest problem with hydraulic drive is the added weight and complexity, not efficiency losses. By the time you add up the weight of the pump, motor, hoses, valves, and a lot larger reservoir of oil than you might expect, a hydraulic drive will weigh 2-5 times as much as a gearbox.
>
> The other problem is that most folks don't work with and thus don't understand hydraulic systems. I have several hydraulic systems in my plant. They are reliable and they don't leak a drop. Most installations, however, are filthy and troublesome. They aren't practical for people who lack hydraulics experience.
>
> I have a 50HP marine diesel and most of the hydraulics I purchased for my boat that never got built. If I ever do build that boat I would not use the hydraulic system.
>
> Doug Harrison

The biggest problem with hydraulic drive is the added weight and complexity, not efficiency losses. By the time you add up the weight of the pump, motor, hoses, valves, and a lot larger reservoir of oil than you might expect, a hydraulic drive will weigh 2-5 times as much as a gearbox.

The other problem is that most folks don't work with and thus don't understand hydraulic systems. I have several hydraulic systems in my plant. They are reliable and they don't leak a drop. Most installations, however, are filthy and troublesome. They aren't practical for people who lack hydraulics experience.

I have a 50HP marine diesel and most of the hydraulics I purchased for my boat that never got built. If I ever do build that boat I would not use the hydraulic system.

Doug Harrison



--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "ghartc" <gregg.carlson@...> wrote:
>
> An internal combustion engine is only about 18-20% efficient to begin with, so most of your gasoline or diesel goes up in smoke (heat). But, both means of mechanical conversion start with an engine.
>
> At the far end of the comparative transmission process is a prop - efficiency of about 75% (probably best case). So, you start off at about 14% (.18x.75).
>
> Gear trains are pretty efficient - they don't make much heat - about 95% or 98%. So, directly driving your prop is the best choice.
>
> Hydraulic pumps and motors are about 90% efficient, though you might have a little more loss in plumbing; probably not a lot. Your efficiency drops to 11% (.18 x .75 x .9 x .9). As an aside, I have a hydraulic genset driven off a PTO and it works quiet nicely.
>
> So, the hydraulic mode is .14-.11 / .14 = 20% less efficient, but what does that mean?
>
> No one tromps along at WOT, so let say you putter along to lunch at 1/3 throttle on your 20hp prime mover - that's 6.7 hp. That's going to burn just about 1/2 gallon or $3.50/2=$1.75 per hr. You pay a 20% penalty for your hydraulic drive, or about $.38 per hour of operation.
>
> 1000 hours is a LOT of time under power, so that costs you $375 extra.
> (My sailboat is 25 years old, and has 3800 hrs on it).
>
> Clearly, if you move freight all day with an engine, a couple of percent is important to you. For a pleasure boater, it probably makes more sense to close the air vent to prevent evaporation.
>
> [The politics/statistics of MANY people choosing less efficient power trains for their PLEASURE boating begs a different question ;-]
>
> Gregg Carlson
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jay K. Jeffries" <bottomgun@> wrote:
> >
> > Doug,
> > If you look at drive train efficiencies, you will find that a hydraulic
> > system is only about 30% efficient as compared to an inboard drive being
> > about 50%.
> > R/Jay
> >
> > Jay K. Jeffries
> > Andros Is., Bahamas
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > Douglas Pollard
> > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:48 PM
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards
> >
> > We were in Fort Lauderdale and there was a catamaran that had a diesel
> > engine mounted on the aft side of the deck bridge with a diesel in a box.
> > It had a hydraulic pump in place of the transmission and two hoses that ran
> > to a hydrophilic pump on top and outboard drive. A long one! I never met
> > the guy but his next door neighbor said he was happy with it.
> > You can by vane type pumps and motors that are not all that expensive. I
> > would think they could deliver ten to fifteen horse power??
> > Doug
> >
>
doug,
 have a look here, I knew ruell when he was draggen 7 feet of draft in fishers hornpipe.
all his boats are shallow now. this will fit your bill.

http://www.parker-marine.com/scow33page.htm

mike
An internal combustion engine is only about 18-20% efficient to begin with, so most of your gasoline or diesel goes up in smoke (heat). But, both means of mechanical conversion start with an engine.

At the far end of the comparative transmission process is a prop - efficiency of about 75% (probably best case). So, you start off at about 14% (.18x.75).

Gear trains are pretty efficient - they don't make much heat - about 95% or 98%. So, directly driving your prop is the best choice.

Hydraulic pumps and motors are about 90% efficient, though you might have a little more loss in plumbing; probably not a lot. Your efficiency drops to 11% (.18 x .75 x .9 x .9). As an aside, I have a hydraulic genset driven off a PTO and it works quiet nicely.

So, the hydraulic mode is .14-.11 / .14 = 20% less efficient, but what does that mean?

No one tromps along at WOT, so let say you putter along to lunch at 1/3 throttle on your 20hp prime mover - that's 6.7 hp. That's going to burn just about 1/2 gallon or $3.50/2=$1.75 per hr. You pay a 20% penalty for your hydraulic drive, or about $.38 per hour of operation.

1000 hours is a LOT of time under power, so that costs you $375 extra.
(My sailboat is 25 years old, and has 3800 hrs on it).

Clearly, if you move freight all day with an engine, a couple of percent is important to you. For a pleasure boater, it probably makes more sense to close the air vent to prevent evaporation.

[The politics/statistics of MANY people choosing less efficient power trains for their PLEASURE boating begs a different question ;-]

Gregg Carlson



--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jay K. Jeffries" <bottomgun@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> If you look at drive train efficiencies, you will find that a hydraulic
> system is only about 30% efficient as compared to an inboard drive being
> about 50%.
> R/Jay
>
> Jay K. Jeffries
> Andros Is., Bahamas
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Douglas Pollard
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:48 PM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards
>
> We were in Fort Lauderdale and there was a catamaran that had a diesel
> engine mounted on the aft side of the deck bridge with a diesel in a box.
> It had a hydraulic pump in place of the transmission and two hoses that ran
> to a hydrophilic pump on top and outboard drive. A long one! I never met
> the guy but his next door neighbor said he was happy with it.
> You can by vane type pumps and motors that are not all that expensive. I
> would think they could deliver ten to fifteen horse power??
> Doug
>
..snip..
> The other option would be to buy something like the Ningbo Seagull Outboard Paddle:
>
> <http://www.nbhogj.com/en/products_view.asp?News_Id=14>
>
> and mount an appropriate small diesel engine to it, You'd have to build an enclosure for the engine as well.
>
> -Derek
>

That paddle is intriguing. Googling didn't find a dealer though.
I've been looking for a good alternative to a gas outboard for 25 years. No good diesel alternative. A hydraulic pump and motor combination to join to a six to ten hp air cooled diesel would allow me to mount the motor on the rudder, but I could not find pumps and motors, they are inefficient (expensive?) and the engine alone is the cost of a 4 stroke outboard. I'm still holding out for electric drive. For now, dinghy tug will suffice.

Electric power is the future (for reasons given below). Today, electric drive is a practical choice for inboard engine replacement (example that I've seen installedhttp://www.ebay.com/itm/48v-Electric-Boat-Conversion-Kit-Inboard-Outboard-/250760445273), but not for outboard replacement. Over three thousand dollars for the fragile and unreliable Torqeedo, and somebody's 6 hp electric "pod" was over nine thousand dollars. Batteries extra. Eventually, I expect we will have less expensive options available including regenerative capability for sailboats, and better, cheaper batteries. Perhaps hydrogen fuel cells.

As for Doug's drilling and FRACKing remark, we do not have much time to make more rational choices.

Oil is a world market commodity. World markets determine cost. Whether we drill for oil in the US, or not, affects how long domestic oil lasts, but only trivially affects the cost of gas in the US. World peak oil production has been reached, except for the expected brief fluctuations from the ideal curve. We are at the top of the supply bell curve of resource depletion. We have very little time to transition. There will forever be less oil to meet growing world demand. Oil is half gone. Food grows on oil. It is irrational to burn oil. Yet we do, and when the world economy recovers we will quickly see $8 / gal gas, crashing our own oil dependent economy, while advantaging Germany, Brazil and other countries that have been quickly transitioning to renewable sources of energy. China has good reasons for subsidizing its industry to acquire a monopoly on solar voltaic production.

Global warming is an inarguable scientific reality. Every serious scientific investigation has show that global warming is taking place and is the result of humans burning the carbon that was accumulated during the warmest period life has seen on this planet. That took millions of years and we have released a good portion of that carbon during little more than 100 years. The consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels of any kind (including natural gas) will be severe. Though prohibitively costly, rising sea levels will not by a long stretch be the worst of the problems.

PB&F's experience, and existent design catalog of efficiently driven hull forms will be ever more important in the future. Susanne's sustainable fishery work is important for more than just Gloucester, MA. Keep up the good work Susanne.

Eric





--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
>
> The first four stroke outboard motor was a Fagiol.It was Italian made
> using and American car engine from Crosley. They were as big as a 50
> horse power Mercury and they were only 25 horsepower. You can look it up
> on line. The only reason we were able to go to the four stroke engine
> for outboards was the two stroke was outlawed on much of this countries
> waterways because of mixing oil with gasoline.
> The 8 horsepower single cylinder Yanmar is as Big as the Fagiol. The
> diesel engines don't have any power for their size and weight. They are
> Ok for a sailboat that won't cruise over 6 knots but they are worthless
> for anything else. The Yanmar is a throw away engine, they are
> rebuildable once. After that you can't rebuild because the cylinders are
> worn out. You can't resleave them. My boat has a two cylinder Volvo,
> the engine cruises at 1800 rpm and only develops 10 horse power and
> weighs twice as much as a Yanmar. It lasts twice as long and can be
> rebuilt indefinitely. Guess what they fixed that by not making the
> parts anymore. The reason it is so rebuildable is that it was designed
> in the 1920's as and industrial engine. They ran 24-7 for twenty years
> before rebuilding. When every thing in the countryside was electrified
> in Europe they built the little engines for a few years for sailboats
> but being a heavy duty engine they were to expensive. Enter Yanmar. They
> are not selling enough engines either as nobody is building sailboats in
> any quantity now. Kaboda and Yanmar builds a few small ones but the have
> all gone to 3 and 4 cylinder engine for tractors. They are able to stay
> in the market because their is a demand for them in China where there is
> little electricity in the countryside. Nobody in the US wants an
> outboard engine that weighs several hundred pounds and delivers 10
> horsepower. I don't think we are likely to see any diesel outboards
> soon unless gasoline goes to $15.oo or $ 20.00 a gallon which may well
> happen if we don't start drilling for oil and fracking is not increased.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> On 09/09/2012 05:38 PM, philswatch wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > <philbolger@> wrote:
> > >
> > >..snip..
> >
> > > I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit;
> > alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems
> > astonishing.
> >
> > Strongly concur.
> >
> > There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
> >
> >
>
Had an A-4 on my Columbia for a number of years. Never a problem, but I was fussy about the condition of my fuel lines, filters, pumps and stayed on top of it. You gotta respect gas in a boat period. Don't need to be afraid, just respect it. Be safe.

Dennis
"Boatless in Bellingham"

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> I suspect that a person that don't have sense enough to not blow
> themselves up with Gasoline probably should not be on a sailboat any
> way. I have always had gasoline on board even on boats with diesel
> engines. I have found that when cruising the islands you have to have a
> dingy. It should be fast because it is yourfamily car. You often run a
> few miles to the grocery store or around to the outer side of the
> Island to catch lobsters. That is often a five or six mile run. People
> who have fast inflatables have more fun.
> As to propane, I am more concerned about alcohol stoves that have
> pumps I have known of a few that sprayed the cook with alcohol and there
> sailing mate could not see the flames and couldn't figure why they were
> dancing around in the cabin. They were badly burned. Propane fires are
> visible. I guess it has happened but I know no one that has had a
> propane explosion on board. We had a flame run across the top of the
> stove down the front and across the cabin sole. We shut down quick and
> it was over.
> Doug
>
>
> On 09/10/2012 03:23 PM, Peter wrote:
> > > For limited/seasonal cruising having gasoline aboard in
> > > a self-draining location seems none too dramatic.
> > >
> > > Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
> >
> > There are a zillion outboard skiffs out there using gas engines. They
> > don't blow up. I think that proves the point.
> >
> > I read in one place that there was never an explosion traced to an
> > Atomic 4, and I read in another the exact two parts that clicked
> > together causing the initial spark. Contradiction. Either way, A4's gave
> > very little trouble of that sort. With 50 years of development, the
> > installations got safer and safer. They may have regressed due to the
> > emphasis on diesel.
> >
> > I suspect cooking gas is a bigger hazard.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
I suspect that a person that don't have sense enough to not blow
themselves up with Gasoline probably should not be on a sailboat any
way. I have always had gasoline on board even on boats with diesel
engines. I have found that when cruising the islands you have to have a
dingy. It should be fast because it is yourfamily car. You often run a
few miles to the grocery store or around to the outer side of the
Island to catch lobsters. That is often a five or six mile run. People
who have fast inflatables have more fun.
As to propane, I am more concerned about alcohol stoves that have
pumps I have known of a few that sprayed the cook with alcohol and there
sailing mate could not see the flames and couldn't figure why they were
dancing around in the cabin. They were badly burned. Propane fires are
visible. I guess it has happened but I know no one that has had a
propane explosion on board. We had a flame run across the top of the
stove down the front and across the cabin sole. We shut down quick and
it was over.
Doug


On 09/10/2012 03:23 PM, Peter wrote:
> > For limited/seasonal cruising having gasoline aboard in
> > a self-draining location seems none too dramatic.
> >
> > Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
>
> There are a zillion outboard skiffs out there using gas engines. They
> don't blow up. I think that proves the point.
>
> I read in one place that there was never an explosion traced to an
> Atomic 4, and I read in another the exact two parts that clicked
> together causing the initial spark. Contradiction. Either way, A4's gave
> very little trouble of that sort. With 50 years of development, the
> installations got safer and safer. They may have regressed due to the
> emphasis on diesel.
>
> I suspect cooking gas is a bigger hazard.
>
> Peter
>
>
> For limited/seasonal cruising having gasoline aboard in
> a self-draining location seems none too dramatic.
>
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

There are a zillion outboard skiffs out there using gas engines. They don't blow up. I think that proves the point.

I read in one place that there was never an explosion traced to an Atomic 4, and I read in another the exact two parts that clicked together causing the initial spark. Contradiction. Either way, A4's gave very little trouble of that sort. With 50 years of development, the installations got safer and safer. They may have regressed due to the emphasis on diesel.

I suspect cooking gas is a bigger hazard.

Peter
Yes I agree and all the racer cruiser sailboats likely would have looked
different to accommodative them. But I don't think the power boat
market would have bought in because the were using engines well over a
hundred horse power. I wonder if sailboats would have been a big enough
market. The waterman would have liked them for sure. Doug


On 09/09/2012 07:16 PM,philbolger@...wrote:
> Beautiful 27/34 HP YANMAR outboard-head in the early 1990s, but fatally
> bolted to a small-prop lower-unit then adorned with a 12-15K price-tag
> or something...
> Who ever 'advised' them to compete with a 25/35 2-stroke JOHNSON ought
> to be...@#%%**$@$ <mailto:be...@#%%**$@$> ...fer sure...
> With 4:1 reduction to swing a low-pitch 16" wheel on a 20/25" 'leg' and
> they'd been successful. Add a 80-100amp alternator and we'd be breaking
> out the Champaign...
> Must 'talk' to them ! Seriously ...
>
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* philswatch <mailto:philswatch@...>
> *To:*bolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 09, 2012 5:38 PM
> *Subject:* [bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com>,
> <philbolger@...> wrote:
> >
> >..snip..
>
> > I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop
> lower-unit; alas no such 'commercial' application is offered
> anywhere - which seems astonishing.
>
> Strongly concur.
>
> There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
>
>
Italian LOMBARDINI did work ok but again with a darn cute small-prop lower
unit...
Perfectly good engineering but dumb marketing aiming at whom...???

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Pollard" <dougpol1@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards


>
> The first four stroke outboard motor was a Fagiol.It was Italian made
> using and American car engine from Crosley. They were as big as a 50
> horse power Mercury and they were only 25 horsepower. You can look it up
> on line. The only reason we were able to go to the four stroke engine
> for outboards was the two stroke was outlawed on much of this countries
> waterways because of mixing oil with gasoline.
> The 8 horsepower single cylinder Yanmar is as Big as the Fagiol. The
> diesel engines don't have any power for their size and weight. They are
> Ok for a sailboat that won't cruise over 6 knots but they are worthless
> for anything else. The Yanmar is a throw away engine, they are
> rebuildable once. After that you can't rebuild because the cylinders are
> worn out. You can't resleave them. My boat has a two cylinder Volvo,
> the engine cruises at 1800 rpm and only develops 10 horse power and
> weighs twice as much as a Yanmar. It lasts twice as long and can be
> rebuilt indefinitely. Guess what they fixed that by not making the
> parts anymore. The reason it is so rebuildable is that it was designed
> in the 1920's as and industrial engine. They ran 24-7 for twenty years
> before rebuilding. When every thing in the countryside was electrified
> in Europe they built the little engines for a few years for sailboats
> but being a heavy duty engine they were to expensive. Enter Yanmar. They
> are not selling enough engines either as nobody is building sailboats in
> any quantity now. Kaboda and Yanmar builds a few small ones but the have
> all gone to 3 and 4 cylinder engine for tractors. They are able to stay
> in the market because their is a demand for them in China where there is
> little electricity in the countryside. Nobody in the US wants an
> outboard engine that weighs several hundred pounds and delivers 10
> horsepower. I don't think we are likely to see any diesel outboards
> soon unless gasoline goes to $15.oo or $ 20.00 a gallon which may well
> happen if we don't start drilling for oil and fracking is not increased.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> On 09/09/2012 05:38 PM, philswatch wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> <philbolger@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >..snip..
>>
>> > I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit;
>> alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems
>> astonishing.
>>
>> Strongly concur.
>>
>> There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead
> horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
> (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
Beautiful 27/34 HP YANMAR outboard-head in the early 1990s, but fatally bolted to a small-prop lower-unit then adorned with a 12-15K price-tag or something...
Who ever 'advised' them to compete with a 25/35 2-stroke JOHNSON ought tobe...@#%%**$@$ ...fer sure...
With 4:1 reduction to swing a low-pitch 16" wheel on a 20/25" 'leg' and they'd been successful.  Add a 80-100amp alternator and we'd be breaking out the Champaign...
Must 'talk' to them !  Seriously ...

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
----- Original Message -----
Sent:Sunday, September 09, 2012 5:38 PM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 



--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
>..snip..

> I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit; alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems astonishing.

Strongly concur.

There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(

The first four stroke outboard motor was a Fagiol.It was Italian made
using and American car engine from Crosley. They were as big as a 50
horse power Mercury and they were only 25 horsepower. You can look it up
on line. The only reason we were able to go to the four stroke engine
for outboards was the two stroke was outlawed on much of this countries
waterways because of mixing oil with gasoline.
The 8 horsepower single cylinder Yanmar is as Big as the Fagiol. The
diesel engines don't have any power for their size and weight. They are
Ok for a sailboat that won't cruise over 6 knots but they are worthless
for anything else. The Yanmar is a throw away engine, they are
rebuildable once. After that you can't rebuild because the cylinders are
worn out. You can't resleave them. My boat has a two cylinder Volvo,
the engine cruises at 1800 rpm and only develops 10 horse power and
weighs twice as much as a Yanmar. It lasts twice as long and can be
rebuilt indefinitely. Guess what they fixed that by not making the
parts anymore. The reason it is so rebuildable is that it was designed
in the 1920's as and industrial engine. They ran 24-7 for twenty years
before rebuilding. When every thing in the countryside was electrified
in Europe they built the little engines for a few years for sailboats
but being a heavy duty engine they were to expensive. Enter Yanmar. They
are not selling enough engines either as nobody is building sailboats in
any quantity now. Kaboda and Yanmar builds a few small ones but the have
all gone to 3 and 4 cylinder engine for tractors. They are able to stay
in the market because their is a demand for them in China where there is
little electricity in the countryside. Nobody in the US wants an
outboard engine that weighs several hundred pounds and delivers 10
horsepower. I don't think we are likely to see any diesel outboards
soon unless gasoline goes to $15.oo or $ 20.00 a gallon which may well
happen if we don't start drilling for oil and fracking is not increased.
Doug




On 09/09/2012 05:38 PM, philswatch wrote:
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> <philbolger@...> wrote:
> >
> >..snip..
>
> > I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit;
> alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems
> astonishing.
>
> Strongly concur.
>
> There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
>..snip..

> I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit; alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems astonishing.

Strongly concur.

There WAS a diesel outboard. But it is no longer on the market. :(
 People have grafted air-cooledvertical-shaft engines designed for pumps, etc. to used outboard/outdrive lower units fixed to the hull bottom, with rudder steering.  The weight is greater, but it's in about the same place as an outboard.  It sounds like more work than it would be worth to me, but YMMV.

Ford Walton

----- Original Message -----
From: philswatch
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 12:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 

I don't like the high thrust outboards that seem to be the optimal propulsion for many Bolger designs.

Let me rephrase that, I actually have the highest respect for modern outboards like the Yamaha 4 stroke 9.9. It is a very respectable machine. It's the GASOLINE that I don't like. I've used diesel at sea my adult life, and I don't like gasoline on the boat.

On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?

The best I can think of without redesigning the entire boat is a 10 HP diesel mounted to a Sonic outdrive leg. This would require some redesign of the stern, but not a wholesale redesign. (though might screw up weight distribution)

Sonic is also not a really good option financially.. I think the Sonic drives cost about 3K alone.

Switching gears in a related manner.. what are the engine specs in the Ataraxia design? Could that be adapted to replace a 9.9 HT in the AS29, AS39?

Thanks for reading..

Well, there is the fan-cooling on the generator/alternator tossing away energy.  Then cooling fins/fans/water-jacket on electric motors.  Then heat-sinks on controllers.  And we're just getting 'warmed up'...  Hence always seeing the input-rating on an engine coming out as less on the electric end of it - whether the generator/alternator or the motor driving things.

Modern cruise-ships can have over a dozen gensets to vary input between propulsion and other massive onboard consumption, justifiable in their cost and complexity since hull-speed and thus 'propulsion-efficiency' are not driving these systems, but the ability to feed massive internal passenger-generated/focused electric loads on demand, as the hull oozes along in no particular rush.  Direct-drive diesel drivetrains are the backbone of much of the modern freighter-fleets.

A 1-engine hybrid-propulsion only shows gains in cars if you have significant city stop & go driving where you can draw on battery-power and ample braking for regeneration/capture of energy otherwise lost during deceleration.  A plain conventional drivetrain is way better doing highways for the money.  In real-world driving a 4-cyl turbo-Diesel with 6+ manual may embarrass certain hybrids, particularly since the former may be able to tow 2000lbs, often a no-no on hybrids. 

Cost, complexity&reliability in saltwater etc. do matter.  Most importantly though would be a fairly efficient hull to begin with.
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F     

----- Original Message -----
From:tom s
Sent:Sunday, September 09, 2012 2:40 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 

What is the loss in efficiency when indirectly powering an electric motor with a generator?  I'm aware this has much to do with the efficiency of the generator as well as the motor, but it's my understanding that the power characteristics and possible RPM choices for an electric actually put the power to use more effectively.  With an appropriate "buffer bank", the diesel can also avoid being run at the low power/idle speeds that they hate so much.  

Modern cruise ships have multiple staged generators powering electric pods.  WW2 Subs used this basic method.  It's the basis for the hybrid cars of today, which do quite well on highway mileage though probably not as well as pure combustion cars designed for it like the Honda Fit.

Tom

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 9, 2012, at 10:22 AM, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@...> wrote:

 
=



--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "philswatch" <philswatch@...> wrote:


<snip>
>
> On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?
>

There was a suggestion that one could mount the diesel in a place convenient in the hull for ballast/balance/etc, and transmit power to the prop by means of hydraulics.

One could also use electricity to transmit power - mount a diesel engine and generator in a decent place, and use one of the electric drives that are out - Green Motion has a retractable drive, there are others that are in an outboard-like form factor.

Phil never liked this idea, for the simple and straightforward reason that it was less efficient and more complicated than a direct mechanical attachment. You'll burn more diesel per mile this way, and there's much more to go wrong.

As for efficiency, you can add a modest 3-4 hour cruising time capacity battery bank (maybe 1-2 hours even) and ensure your electric drive has a regeneration capacity - for some types of sailing (motor out of port, sail a day or two and fully regenerate, motor in and recharge on shore power) you need never run the diesel at all.

For prolonged journeys under power (say inland waterways upstream) you'll run the diesel all the time and take the efficiency hit.

Of course, adding the battery bank and regeneration gear is even more complex - but these things are well-understood now, and no longer experimental.

For replacing an outboard this is an awful lot of trouble and expense.

The other option would be to buy something like the Ningbo Seagull Outboard Paddle:

<http://www.nbhogj.com/en/products_view.asp?News_Id=14>

and mount an appropriate small diesel engine to it, You'd have to build an enclosure for the engine as well.

-Derek

What is the loss in efficiency when indirectly powering an electric motor with a generator?  I'm aware this has much to do with the efficiency of the generator as well as the motor, but it's my understanding that the power characteristics and possible RPM choices for an electric actually put the power to use more effectively.  With an appropriate "buffer bank", the diesel can also avoid being run at the low power/idle speeds that they hate so much.  

Modern cruise ships have multiple staged generators powering electric pods.  WW2 Subs used this basic method.  It's the basis for the hybrid cars of today, which do quite well on highway mileage though probably not as well as pure combustion cars designed for it like the Honda Fit.

Tom

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 9, 2012, at 10:22 AM, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@...> wrote:

 



--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "philswatch" <philswatch@...> wrote:


<snip>
>
> On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?
>

There was a suggestion that one could mount the diesel in a place convenient in the hull for ballast/balance/etc, and transmit power to the prop by means of hydraulics.

One could also use electricity to transmit power - mount a diesel engine and generator in a decent place, and use one of the electric drives that are out - Green Motion has a retractable drive, there are others that are in an outboard-like form factor.

Phil never liked this idea, for the simple and straightforward reason that it was less efficient and more complicated than a direct mechanical attachment. You'll burn more diesel per mile this way, and there's much more to go wrong.

As for efficiency, you can add a modest 3-4 hour cruising time capacity battery bank (maybe 1-2 hours even) and ensure your electric drive has a regeneration capacity - for some types of sailing (motor out of port, sail a day or two and fully regenerate, motor in and recharge on shore power) you need never run the diesel at all.

For prolonged journeys under power (say inland waterways upstream) you'll run the diesel all the time and take the efficiency hit.

Of course, adding the battery bank and regeneration gear is even more complex - but these things are well-understood now, and no longer experimental.

For replacing an outboard this is an awful lot of trouble and expense.

The other option would be to buy something like the Ningbo Seagull Outboard Paddle:

<http://www.nbhogj.com/en/products_view.asp?News_Id=14>

and mount an appropriate small diesel engine to it, You'd have to build an enclosure for the engine as well.

-Derek

=
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "philswatch" <philswatch@...> wrote:


<snip>
>
> On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?
>

There was a suggestion that one could mount the diesel in a place convenient in the hull for ballast/balance/etc, and transmit power to the prop by means of hydraulics.

One could also use electricity to transmit power - mount a diesel engine and generator in a decent place, and use one of the electric drives that are out - Green Motion has a retractable drive, there are others that are in an outboard-like form factor.

Phil never liked this idea, for the simple and straightforward reason that it was less efficient and more complicated than a direct mechanical attachment. You'll burn more diesel per mile this way, and there's much more to go wrong.

As for efficiency, you can add a modest 3-4 hour cruising time capacity battery bank (maybe 1-2 hours even) and ensure your electric drive has a regeneration capacity - for some types of sailing (motor out of port, sail a day or two and fully regenerate, motor in and recharge on shore power) you need never run the diesel at all.

For prolonged journeys under power (say inland waterways upstream) you'll run the diesel all the time and take the efficiency hit.

Of course, adding the battery bank and regeneration gear is even more complex - but these things are well-understood now, and no longer experimental.

For replacing an outboard this is an awful lot of trouble and expense.

The other option would be to buy something like the Ningbo Seagull Outboard Paddle:

<http://www.nbhogj.com/en/products_view.asp?News_Id=14>

and mount an appropriate small diesel engine to it, You'd have to build an enclosure for the engine as well.

-Derek
Fair amount of installation and inherent hydraulics-related losses but might
at times work for intermittent uses.
For our outboard-based sailing-designs the challenges of weight, balances
and cost remain.
Losses too high for power-boats...

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Pollard" <dougpol1@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards


> We were in Fort Lauderdale and there was a catamaran that had a diesel
> engine mounted on the aft side of the deck bridge with a diesel in a
> box. It had a hydraulic pump in place of the transmission and two hoses
> that ran to a hydrophilic pump on top and outboard drive. A long one! I
> never met the guy but his next door neighbor said he was happy with it.
> You can by vane type pumps and motors that are not all that
> expensive. I would think they could deliver ten to fifteen horse power??
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> On 09/09/2012 12:13 PM,philbolger@...wrote:
>> For Liveaboards it would indeed be preferable to have just a single fuel
>> aboard for 'everything'.
>>
>> But on outboard-powered designs Weight-/Balance-consideration will nix a
>> fair bit of that thinking, apart from length of the whole assembly.
>> I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit; alas
>> no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems
>> astonishing.
>>
>> For limited/seasonal cruising having gasoline aboard in a self-draining
>> location seems none too dramatic.
>>
>> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* philswatch <mailto:philswatch@...>
>> *To:*bolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:04 PM
>> *Subject:* [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards
>>
>> I don't like the high thrust outboards that seem to be the optimal
>> propulsion for many Bolger designs.
>>
>> Let me rephrase that, I actually have the highest respect for modern
>> outboards like the Yamaha 4 stroke 9.9. It is a very respectable
>> machine. It's the GASOLINE that I don't like. I've used diesel at
>> sea my adult life, and I don't like gasoline on the boat.
>>
>> On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a
>> 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?
>>
>> The best I can think of without redesigning the entire boat is a 10
>> HP diesel mounted to a Sonic outdrive leg. This would require some
>> redesign of the stern, but not a wholesale redesign. (though might
>> screw up weight distribution)
>>
>> Sonic is also not a really good option financially.. I think the
>> Sonic drives cost about 3K alone.
>>
>> Switching gears in a related manner.. what are the engine specs in
>> the Ataraxia design? Could that be adapted to replace a 9.9 HT in
>> the AS29, AS39?
>>
>> Thanks for reading..
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead
> horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
> (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
Doug,
If you look at drive train efficiencies, you will find that a hydraulic
system is only about 30% efficient as compared to an inboard drive being
about 50%.
R/Jay

Jay K. Jeffries
Andros Is., Bahamas


-----Original Message-----
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Douglas Pollard
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:48 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

We were in Fort Lauderdale and there was a catamaran that had a diesel
engine mounted on the aft side of the deck bridge with a diesel in a box.
It had a hydraulic pump in place of the transmission and two hoses that ran
to a hydrophilic pump on top and outboard drive. A long one! I never met
the guy but his next door neighbor said he was happy with it.
You can by vane type pumps and motors that are not all that expensive. I
would think they could deliver ten to fifteen horse power??
Doug
We were in Fort Lauderdale and there was a catamaran that had a diesel
engine mounted on the aft side of the deck bridge with a diesel in a
box. It had a hydraulic pump in place of the transmission and two hoses
that ran to a hydrophilic pump on top and outboard drive. A long one! I
never met the guy but his next door neighbor said he was happy with it.
You can by vane type pumps and motors that are not all that
expensive. I would think they could deliver ten to fifteen horse power??
Doug




On 09/09/2012 12:13 PM,philbolger@...wrote:
> For Liveaboards it would indeed be preferable to have just a single fuel
> aboard for 'everything'.
>
> But on outboard-powered designs Weight-/Balance-consideration will nix a
> fair bit of that thinking, apart from length of the whole assembly.
> I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit; alas
> no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems
> astonishing.
>
> For limited/seasonal cruising having gasoline aboard in a self-draining
> location seems none too dramatic.
>
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* philswatch <mailto:philswatch@...>
> *To:*bolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:04 PM
> *Subject:* [bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards
>
> I don't like the high thrust outboards that seem to be the optimal
> propulsion for many Bolger designs.
>
> Let me rephrase that, I actually have the highest respect for modern
> outboards like the Yamaha 4 stroke 9.9. It is a very respectable
> machine. It's the GASOLINE that I don't like. I've used diesel at
> sea my adult life, and I don't like gasoline on the boat.
>
> On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a
> 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?
>
> The best I can think of without redesigning the entire boat is a 10
> HP diesel mounted to a Sonic outdrive leg. This would require some
> redesign of the stern, but not a wholesale redesign. (though might
> screw up weight distribution)
>
> Sonic is also not a really good option financially.. I think the
> Sonic drives cost about 3K alone.
>
> Switching gears in a related manner.. what are the engine specs in
> the Ataraxia design? Could that be adapted to replace a 9.9 HT in
> the AS29, AS39?
>
> Thanks for reading..
>
>
For Liveaboards it would indeed be preferable to have just a single fuel aboard for 'everything'.

But on outboard-powered designs Weight-/Balance-consideration will nix a fair bit of that thinking, apart from length of the whole assembly.   I'd like to see a YANMAR bolted to a YAMAHA large-prop lower-unit; alas no such 'commercial' application is offered anywhere - which seems astonishing.

For limited/seasonal cruising having gasoline aboard in a self-draining location seems none too dramatic.

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----
Sent:Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:04 PM
Subject:[bolger] Diesel Alternatives to High Thrust Outboards

 

I don't like the high thrust outboards that seem to be the optimal propulsion for many Bolger designs.

Let me rephrase that, I actually have the highest respect for modern outboards like the Yamaha 4 stroke 9.9. It is a very respectable machine. It's the GASOLINE that I don't like. I've used diesel at sea my adult life, and I don't like gasoline on the boat.

On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?

The best I can think of without redesigning the entire boat is a 10 HP diesel mounted to a Sonic outdrive leg. This would require some redesign of the stern, but not a wholesale redesign. (though might screw up weight distribution)

Sonic is also not a really good option financially.. I think the Sonic drives cost about 3K alone.

Switching gears in a related manner.. what are the engine specs in the Ataraxia design? Could that be adapted to replace a 9.9 HT in the AS29, AS39?

Thanks for reading..

I don't like the high thrust outboards that seem to be the optimal propulsion for many Bolger designs.

Let me rephrase that, I actually have the highest respect for modern outboards like the Yamaha 4 stroke 9.9. It is a very respectable machine. It's the GASOLINE that I don't like. I've used diesel at sea my adult life, and I don't like gasoline on the boat.

On the hull forms of AS29, AS39: what are the options to replace a 9.9 HT outboard with a suitable diesel?

The best I can think of without redesigning the entire boat is a 10 HP diesel mounted to a Sonic outdrive leg. This would require some redesign of the stern, but not a wholesale redesign. (though might screw up weight distribution)

Sonic is also not a really good option financially.. I think the Sonic drives cost about 3K alone.

Switching gears in a related manner.. what are the engine specs in the Ataraxia design? Could that be adapted to replace a 9.9 HT in the AS29, AS39?

Thanks for reading..