[SEL] RE: Fuel Savers

Bill Dickerson bill at antique-engines.com
Tue Jul 20 10:56:27 PDT 2004


2hp Chapman doesn't have such a device, the 7hp (and other higher HPs) did.
One must consider the relationship of the intake valve to the exhaust valve.
On the 2hp, they are side-by-side, on the larger engines, they are above on
another - the exhaust pushes toward the head to open, the intake pushes
toward the back  of the engine to open.
As the rush of exhaust gases passes the intake in its way out, it tends to
float the intake like the rush of air over an airplane wing - there is lift.
Of course, a stronger intake spring could keep it closed, but it would take
a pretty stout spring if the engine speed was high enough to make for a good
rush of exhaust gases pouring out, then you'd have issues on the intake end.

Anyway, I can sure see where there could be a need for it on this large
Chapman, that's a lot of exhaust gas rushing by - it's a large bore and
stroke, so I suspect there was a pretty good pull on that intake, almost a
"siphon" effect as the gas rushed past that intake valve, wanting to pull
the intake mix right in and out with it.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: sel-bounces at lists.stationary-engine.com
[mailto:sel-bounces at lists.stationary-engine.com] On Behalf Of Curt Holland
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:09 PM
To: The SEL email discussion list
Subject: Re: [SEL] RE: Fuel Savers


Patrick,
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the fuel savers 
were adopted on the better engineered engines in the US.
Three well engineered engines come to mind at the moment.
1) Hercules - Hercules continued the use of the fuel saver over into the 
throttle governed engines due to their merit.
2) IHC - The Famous lines incorporated the fuel saver into the intake 
valve stand on at least the H&M style. It was no easy task to add this 
feature but apparently the     fuel savings justified the effort.
3) Stickney - Charles Stickney was a intense engineer who really pushed 
the superior engineering features in the Stickney sales literature. The 
fuel saver on a Stickney     is a complicated bent push rod casting that 
wraps around the lower portion of the water hopper to get at the intake 
valve on the front. Again, it was no easy task to     add this feature 
but apparently the fuel savings justified the effort.

Can anyone name other engines that used the fuel saver feature to this list?
How about a list of engines that did not use the feature? As Reg mentioned,
bore size necessitated the use of the fuel saver. Are 
there some manufacturers of engines that used fuel savers on their 
larger HP engines but did not use them on their smaller HP engines?

Curt Holland
Gastonia, NC

Patrick M Livingstone wrote:

>If the fuel savers were such a good idea how come they were not 
>universally adopted in the USA? I also cannot think of any English 
>engines which used a fuel saver mechanism. Tangyes would be a good 
>example of an English engine that could have benefited from such a 
>mechanism. They govern by holding the exhaust valve open but have an 
>atmospheric intake valve. The fuel intake is through the valve seat of 
>the atmospheric valve. Any fluttering of this valve would allow fuel in 
>and the engine would not govern properly (if at all). Admittedly the 
>spring tension is critical but it all seems to work fine. Perhaps the 
>fuel saver was a mechanical way to get around the need for critical 
>spring tensions on the mass produced American engines?
>
>Patrick M Livingstone
>Leichhardt NSW
>http://www.oldengine.org/members/pml/Index.html
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/pml/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>This was a much needed item on larger H&M engines.
>The problem was that the inlet valve spring did not have the strength 
>to hold it shut on the 'miss' strokes and yet be weak enough to allow 
>the fuel mix free entry on the 'hit cycle'. Under these conditions the 
>fuel loss would have been quite high. It must have been for the makers 
>to go to this extra expense. Some designs would have been worse than 
>others but, makers of engines that sold well took the trouble to add 
>this feature. It was, then as now, easy to lose customers due to a 
>'greedy' engine model. After all, the ability to do a job using less 
>fuel than the opposition was a good selling point.
>Users of engines were very aware of the cost of fuel. Same as now.
>If I had a unit that gobbled fuel, I would not replace it with another like
>it.
>I wonder how many makers went under due to this excessive fuel drinking?
>Reg & Marg Ingold.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SEL mailing list
>SEL at lists.stationary-engine.com 
>http://www.stationary-engine.com/mailman/listinfo/sel
>
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
SEL mailing list
SEL at lists.stationary-engine.com
http://www.stationary-engine.com/mailman/listinfo/sel






More information about the sel mailing list