NicE math skillz

+Sven Okonomi thanks!

+Sven Okonomi lol . I like the way you described the sound.

+Sven Okonomi wuda zryje banie

huicd

+Sven Okonomi More like a BookaBookaBookaBookaBooka

Lol where did you come up with 1680ft/lbs for an 8N!!?? Hp=TQxRPM/5250. Ford rates ~90ft/lbs at 1500rpm at the PTO. That's works out to 25.7HP if it makes 90 ft/lbs & 1500rpm.

BS

Look at most jet engines, they use APU to start, even power turbine APUs

Hell, most liquid-fueled rocket engines need a smaller rocket engine attached to them just to power the fuel pump. The exhaust from the mini-engine blows right into the turbine.

Many Caterpillar engines had petrol powered starter motors.

@@alexveldhuis6004 Exactly right - most Caterpillars have pony engines. Even a 35 hp D4 crawler.

thanks for the nice words!

Yes it has only 110hp but it has 83.7yard tons of torque!

+A. Zak even so. 110hp at 225 RPm is insane. Imagine at 5000 or 6000rpm

+B1gR3dH thanks!

+TAOFLEDERMAUS How much torque do you think this engine has ?

+Tor Arne Hustvedt Thanks man. Didn't click the "show more" tab to do the math

Not a 420, you can't see the small flywheel on a 420

+Piotr Niewinski Yeah, is like a great Makina Mix 2013

thanks

There are

BUT, will it fit in a Buell frame?

Ha ha ha..I love it...and this is Harley's answer for a Moped type. LOL

It would crush the Prius, I'd pay to see a Prius being crushed. a butt-ugly speed bump of a car, it must be powered on its ego, that must be why it's so 'fuel efficient'

HP is not important, how much torque??

Jeff H 110 HP @ 225 RPM works out to about 1.25 tons of torque...

It has literally a tonne of torque.

Jeff H Do you understand that if you put some gearing to slow down a modern 100hp engine to 200rpm, you get the same torque as this beast in 1/100 of the weight.

And about the same HP.

You forgot to convert revs/minute to revs/second because horsepower is ft-lb/s and you need to cancel that s. It actually comes out to 154,058 ft-lb.

@@jtcrook32 No you don't. Horsepower is power over time; torque is power at any given time, not over a given stretch of time

@@hiddenworldforge374 Horsepower = (lb • ft)/s Torque = lb • ft Horsepower is torque per unit of time.

Yo dawg, I heard you like Diesel diesels, so we built a diesel to help your diesel start your diesel!

lka1988 Sadly it's a small petrol engine that starts it :P

Yo dawg, i heard you like Diesels. So i build a Diesel to help your Diesel help your Diesels Diesel.

XD

thanks!

정말로 대단하다 잘보전.감사합니다

Forget about it all and my face awfully is not in his mind to make it look.......thank

+Will Hammer One issue with those engine is: inneficiant. I looked into them for a while, and the efficiency is quite low. They are however basically unkillable, you can feed them about the worst fuel quality and would still run fine. You can neglect the oil change yet it will be happy. This is why they are still used in remote location, like in oil field, where oil is cheap and labor very expensive. They can run for month on the same oil.

if a 110 cant relocate a city, then this cant either.... its not hard to understand.... this has the energy output of 110hp..... it doesnt matter its tq output cause the tq and rpm equal 110hp....

surely rpm is not irrelevant, because it is the time factor in work done ?

Well...any 110 HP engine could move very heavy things, but as you said, very slowly.

racketman2u its all about hp.... any other 110 hp motor can produce the same tq as this thing...

Thank you chad, it's easy to gear something up or down to adjust how much torque and speed you want, as long as multiplying them together adds up to 110hp

More like 2568 lb-ft but yeah a lot.

Jeff N exactly!

Plus the rotational mass

Its a 2 cycle diesel engine not a hit an miss engine.

Survival of the fittest

Yes, it's more of an evaporative cooling tower than a radiator. You have to replenish the water every so often.

***** Who needs constant loss lubrication when you can have constant loss cooling, lol.

Waterford ... in where?

+Raymond Ashby They would only do it once.

Samuel Zelter That's OK. Just the one laugh would probably be sufficient.......maybe two

+Raymond Ashby See if you can catch a spoke kid?

+Local-Yokel NO NO NO !! Catching is for girls - "you need to head butt a spoke, kid........"

+Raymond Ashby nature was still selective at that time ;)

Usually the engine its self would either use thermocycle or power its own pump.

Sufficient!!

The large engine is 25 HP.

Over 2,500... As least on paper. 110hp @ 225 rpm = 2,567 lb/ft torque.

All of it.

the torque is what ever the velocity squared times the weight of the 2 flywheels is that will give you you torq of that engen

Not a tractor

Leigh Rich r/woosh

+Frietpan Was wondering how that cooling system worked lol

+Scotty R its evaporative - evaporating water refrigerates the return water

turbo next.....

the small engine is feeding it compressed air!

Is it a 2-cycle diesel? Then yea it wouldn't run without having a supply of compressed air...

110 hp @ 225 rpm = 2550 ft/lb torque :)

Man, youre everywhere! Skaeven, vlogginlife, tasty glue, here... anyway, I thought the same thing! But I figured it was 110. Like, I took into account, 1920, they thought they were efficient until the next person made it MORE efficient, and so on, and now we have the machines we have today. We have an old generator, I want to say... mmmmm.... 40's or 50's. It was army of wwll. Ive been working on it. I "rebuilt" the carb, and put it back together, then, a man buying a mower from me came into the garage and said he liked it, I said, do you know anything about them? And he said, being an older gentleman, he said that when he was young, he had one like it, and it had about 1 horsepower. ONE. The engine itself is about 2 feet tall, and about 1.5 feet deep, and about the same wide. Its a beast to pull start, WITHOUT a recoil. Plus, the fact that I need to do carb adjusting, and the thing is so old that I cant find ANYTHING on it, nothing. Well, dang. This is long...

taiden Isn't tq supposed to be measured at 5252 rpm?

NateWilson99 lol I am, I think I recognize you from pugs videos actually. Yeah man, things have changed a lot in the last long while, even car engines...little 4 cyls making as much as big v8s used to, hell I even had a Nissan se-r I bought new in 03 that had 190 HP and back then it was faster than the majority of stuff that wasn't more than 40-50 grand, nowadays most cars have over 200 and that was just over 10 years ago!

sc0tte1 5252 is where Horsepower and and Torque are equal (intersection). Below that RPM torque is always greater than horsepower, above that RPM Power is always greater that torque. I was a little excited when I was able to understand why this is the case after taking a bit of Calculus. This is also why you start seeing some relatively stratospheric power numbers (High compared to Torque) from high RPM engines, think: 20K RPM F1 or 1.2HP@29K RPM .15cc RC engines. The difference between this engine's rated 110HP and a 110HP 1.2L 4 cylinder is that this one can produce 110HP 24/7 for the next 30 years and If you ran the 1.2L at the rated RPM wide open (Ignore that it would quickly overwhelm the cooling system), there wouldn't be much left after a few hours.

Ryhcxcvhfc j. Cv.....vvhjcb. uhvhfug huhh jjb jhbj. Iugghh😎🙆😖😖😭😖😚🙏💀 P0

+Rafael Cantarella Hopefully cause with that weight it doesn't need less than a century to do what a modern 110hp engine would do.

+Star Core this engine produces 3400nm ... that is as much as 14l+ truck diesel engines today so its quite good for what it is .... and i honestly can see it still being used in some aplications

NotIrishRider Torque alone doesn't matter, just like rotation speed. You can transform one into the other using gears. Power is what matters because it considers both torque and speed, just like watts consider both voltage and intensity.Of course it could be used, but with today's technology, you could get the same power out of a foetus-sized engine.

+REGGIN RETNUH Torque by itself mean nothing. You can apply more torque by hand with a lever than the most powerfull engine. A ferrari 458 produce 398lbft of torque. Take a 1 foot long bar, put 398lb at one end, and the other end now have 398lbft of torque trying to turn it. Take a 2 foot long bar and 199lb and you have the same torque. My cordless impact do 300lbft of torque. I can actually do more than that with a ratchet. What is important is the speed AND torque: HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252 Slow turning engine require massive flywheel as the inertia force is squared with the speed. Double the speed, you get 4 times the stored energy. Fast turning speed then require a smaller weight since it store more energy for the same weight. To make thing even more complex, slow turning engine require ton of energy to compress the air in the cylinder, while fast turning one have smaller cylinder, so require less energy to compress it. Now, All you need to do to make the fast engine turn the same belt is: use a smaller wheel, or use a gearbox between the engine and the wheel. This slow turning engine is rated at 225rpm, gasoline engines are usually 3000-3600rpm, diesel in the 1500-1800rpm, just need to adapt the wheel so the circumference*rpm get the same value, so it actually ends up with the same belt speed. This is actually acting as a gearbox.

he is 110 hp but this engine has Giant flywheels for more power

Richard Mann. I could fall asleep within minutes. What a nice machine ! Thanks.

+earl verity Well each flywheel weighs 4,260 lbs, so their combined weight is 8,520 lbs. torque=force applied x distance from the axis of rotation. each flywheel seems to be about 3 feet in diameter so the radius (distance from axis of rotation) is about 1 and a half feet. so 4,260 x 1.5= 6390 foot-lbs of torque per flywheel. So this engine has about ~12,800 foot-lbs of torque.

Oh and the RPM is 225. I'm not really sure what to do with that number, but that probably increases the torque.

+slydog98j Actually, it's the crank radius that's the big thing...was trying to find a link to the whole formula, as I had to memorize it in college...found this though, will give you a better idea...I don't believe flywheel weight has anything to do with it, other than giving it more inertia...here's more... www.first-hand.info/EngineTorquePower.html

+Alan Jankowski Well my reason for including the flywheel weight, is that torque is the crank radius* x force applied. So I figured that if the flywheels each weigh 4,260 lbs, and were successfully rotating, that the engine had to be applying at least that much force. But I am not sure.

+slydog98j Yeah, I can assure you that flywheel weight has nothing to do with torque, as it really doesn't generate any forces only stores them. I'm sure with those massive flywheels you can probably shut the engine down and it will spin for three minutes...but torque is largely determined by the force applied to the piston surface, which is largely determined by the temperature differences between ignition and end of stroke, multiplied by crank radius...here's more I found... s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.tutorfair.com/resources/attachments/f1d343c1d481b16e9667b64725055950c108fc90_1.pdf

fwupow Yeah, I know. I just think its kinda brutal and seems quite useless for usual purposes

+PhunkDumpOfficial HP is not best way to tell what is the "power" of engine. If someone gives HP they should also say what rpm, torque etc.

+krecikowi hehehehe, smart comment my friend !!! i have 2 big caterpillar in my boat , aprox 800HP each one (weights like 2 tons each) , and people make fun of me because new outdboards has as much as HP as my CAT's and weight 1/10 .... What they dont understand is the HUGE torque those engines has, capable to propel a 30 ton boat full of people and water and fuel with no hesitation on almost any weather .... if you put the same amount of HP with outboards, i think will last few hours with that amount of load ......... this is a good way to understand the torque .........

+PhunkDumpOfficial 2568 foot lbs, if it makes 110 hp at 225 rpms.

Loebane Thats about 3482 Nm for my european standart which is a fucking lot for its time. There will be smaller Engines that produce as much power but those turbocharged timebombs wont ever last close to a century...

Docktor Jim haha!

Lmao

not me. I love this.

Katrina Hunt You're one of the good ones.

+Katrina Hunt 1857 man loves you now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mud Sh-sh-shark. Hahaha ! You 're as sharp as a shark. Hihihi !

Without a doubt when it was in production, it had a much, much larger radiator system in place and it was steaming.