Micro 12VDC Generator with a Cox .049 Sure Start Diesel Engine

The bracket to attach the dynamo to the enclosure has been made and looks OK.

The greatest difficulty ( other than the engine ) so far, as expected, was the pulley and the pulley attachment.

The dynamo, as you can see on the previously posted link, has a cylindrical axel extension which is very flat and only 9mm long and 2mm in diameter. Some people suggest to put an extension which I do not have. I may be able to find a copper pipe with a 2mm diameter but I do not know whether AliExpress or anyone sells these. Then, I can press fit the pipe and crimp. Then, I can flatten the pipe after the axel and press fit pulleys there. I can also put copper wires along the pipe and press fit plastic pulleys onto the pipe. I thought whether to do this with the axel only.

Instead, here is what I have done :

I took two identical pulleys which were very tight and filed one of the rims of each of them off. This way they can be put one next to the other and make one thicker pulley. Then, I installed a fuel pipe on the top of the axel and installed one of the pulleys on the fuel pipe. The installation flattened the fuel line. I installed a heat shrink over the fuel line ( hose ) and I heated the heat shrink tube. Then, I installed the other pulley. Then I glued the second pulley to the heat shrink with supper glue. Then, I glued the two pulleys one to another by putting glue on top of where they meet. Then I glued a fan to the heat shrink.

Thus, now, the dynamo has a fuel line hose over the axel, half of a pulley press fit to this fuel line hose, a heat shrink tube, the other half of the pulley press fit and super glued to the heat shrink tube, the two half pulleys super glued to each other and a fan super glued to the heat shrink tube outside of the axel.

Can rotate the dynamo by hand just by rotating the pulley.

However, at some load and some RPM, I am not sure whether :

1. The first half pulley would not cut through the fuel line hose and spin around the axel without rotating the axel.
2. The same for the second half pulley over the heat shrink tube and the fuel line hose.
3. The fan would not pull all out or break lose or damage the tube and the hose.

I know there are Aluminium pulleys with screws to attach to an axel but I have never seen these attached to a CYLINDRICAL axel made of steel.

May I ask you this : how do you all think a pulley can fit on a flat, cylindrical, shiny, super tough stainless steel axel?

Also, do you know of any extension for these and how does the extension attach to the axel?

Welding and soldering is out of question.

In case the engine and the generator match in their RPM, power and voltage characteristics, then straight connecting the two axels looks to be the best to do. And is. This gives a logical gear ratio of 1 to 1 and the generator can be positioned in front of the engine.

Otherwise gear wheels ( with or without stabilizers ) either coupled to each other or connected with a chain is the best solution.

Pulleys and a belt look to be the worst solution but have these advantages :

1. Supposed to be the easiest to do ( unless the generator has a flat axel and pulleys with screws and axel extension are not available ) and the most inexpensive.

2. Allow the belt to be removed, the engine started and heated up, then stopped, then the belt re installed and, then the engine started again.

3. Allow easy recalculation of gears and quick re installment ( under normal circumstances ) of different pulleys for a different job.

4. Protect the engine : in case of a problem, the belt will just slide over and not load the engine as much. Also, allow for the belt tension can be adjusted as per the desire of the user. This can be done either by moving the generator ( like in some cars ) or by an empty spring ( and or re adjustable ) pulley.

5. Easy to replace ( under normal circumstances ).

Straight coupling can perform 2 in case designed for an easy decoupling. Gears can perform 2 and 3 in case designed for an easy decoupling and replacement. Specially designed soft connection and or soft gears can introduce 4 to straight coupling and gear wheels too.

The thesis has been appended with discussed here topics :

Thesis : http://www.steven-stanley-bayes.com/Cox%20.049%20SureStart%20Diesel.doc
Pictures : http://www.steven-stanley-bayes.com/Pictures%20of%20the%20Engine%20and%20the%20Stand.doc
Video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FfparKL78&list=UUiFdItymm78mcEB5Qlu67tg

StevenStanleyBayes wrote:

Surfer_kris wrote:

StevenStanleyBayes wrote:
Because diesel fuel is more powerful and as depends of the fuel component mixture ( which can be varied a lot ), I expect the engine to have a flatter power RPM response at RPM lower than the RPM where the maximal power is displayed. I expect but I am not sure the engine to reach maximal power at 6000 to 8000 RPM. I do not know, though. I expect the power output to decrease significantly after 9000 RPM. Again, I do not know.

The torque will be a little higher on diesel I guess but the rpm dependence is probably very similar. I.e. the torque curve is fairly flat and that gives you a nearly linear power curve (that goes through the origin). The maximum power point I guess is limited mainly by the internals, such as size of intake and the reed, transfer channel size etc. So that will not change much when converting to diesel fuel.

You can easily measure power curves by using different sized propellers. The propellers should be load calibrated in order to have some accuracy, but you can get a rough estimate by using regular props too.

Here are some of my own data for the Queen Bee engine converted to diesel by using an RJL 09 conversion head;

This is very interesting. Thank you for this post.

Cox .049 SureStart Diesel cannot reach the speeds your engine can. The RPM which the engine can reach for sure is 10000. Whether the engine reaches anywhere from 10000 to 13000 depends on the load, fuel and temperature. I will probably never test the engine at such huge RPM or, in case I do, this will be in a very remote future because I am afraid I may damage the engine. I prefer not to reach the maximal power output and not to test what happens thereafter but to keep the engine nice and safe.

Slow burning fuel may not be able to reach high RPM and the power output may be very low at high RPM and reach maximal power at lower RPM. To make the fuel slow burning, I think, one may need to decrease the amount of Ether and increase the amount of Kerosene. Thus, per single combustion at lower RPM, the engine may get more power from the power giving Kerosene, but, at very high RPM, only some portion of Kerosene would burn and, regardless of more combustions per second, the power may decrease significantly because the power of one combustion decreases incredibly significantly.

Again, I just say what I think and not what is. I do not have a way to measure the output and I have only two known loads ( only two propellers ) which may not be the best way to generalise.

A good way to measure the power output of the engine would be a somewhat known loud, for example, a dynamo or an alternator with a known response, which I do not have.

With a dynamo with unknown response, the overall energy of the system can be measured just by multiplying current by voltage but there is no way to know how much energy the dynamo looses in order to say how much the engine gives.

Also, I do not think putting more Kerosene instead of Ether would make the fuel thicker and reduce the suction, although, Kerosene looks to be slightly thicker than Ether.

StevenStanleyBayes wrote:
Cox .049 SureStart Diesel cannot reach the speeds your engine can. The RPM which the engine can reach for sure is 10000. Whether the engine reaches anywhere from 10000 to 13000 depends on the load, fuel and temperature. I will probably never test the engine at such huge RPM or, in case I do, this will be in a very remote future because I am afraid I may damage the engine. I prefer not to reach the maximal power output and not to test what happens thereafter but to keep the engine nice and safe.

There is nothing huge about 10000-13000rpm for our two-stroke model engines. On the contrary these are very modest revs. Most glow engines for instance will overheat if they are propped with a too high load and forced to stay at or below 15000rpm. Diesel engines are a little different and they can quite happily run at around 10000rpm but not much lower (at full throttle). So at full power from the generator I think the engine will be most happy if it revs at around 10000-13000rpm.

For a given prop and rpm you can calculate the power the engine makes by using an excel sheet from Pe Rivers who worked at MVVS. He has passed away but a similar calculator can still be found here; excel sheet

If your engine makes 10000rpm on a 6x3 prop it is putting out about 16W in order to do so. Props from different makes are all a little different in their load, but this gives you a good estimation. With a nearly constant torque curve, this engine would then make a staggering 8W at 5000rpm.  

This is assuming that it is able to run at 5000rpm with full throttle without overheating....

Surfer_kris wrote:

StevenStanleyBayes wrote:
Cox .049 SureStart Diesel cannot reach the speeds your engine can. The RPM which the engine can reach for sure is 10000. Whether the engine reaches anywhere from 10000 to 13000 depends on the load, fuel and temperature. I will probably never test the engine at such huge RPM or, in case I do, this will be in a very remote future because I am afraid I may damage the engine. I prefer not to reach the maximal power output and not to test what happens thereafter but to keep the engine nice and safe.

There is nothing huge about 10000-13000rpm for our two-stroke model engines. On the contrary these are very modest revs. Most glow engines for instance will overheat if they are propped with a too high load and forced to stay at or below 15000rpm. Diesel engines are a little different and they can quite happily run at around 10000rpm but not much lower (at full throttle). So at full power from the generator I think the engine will be most happy if it revs at around 10000-13000rpm.

For a given prop and rpm you can calculate the power the engine makes by using an excel sheet from Pe Rivers who worked at MVVS. He has passed away but a similar calculator can still be found here; excel sheet

If your engine makes 10000rpm on a 6x3 prop it is putting out about 16W in order to do so. Props from different makes are all a little different in their load, but this gives you a good estimation. With a nearly constant torque curve, this engine would then make a staggering 8W at 5000rpm.  

This is assuming that it is able to run at 5000rpm with full throttle without overheating....

I agree the maximal power will be at higher RPM but I cannot imagine to be at around 10000 RPM which is stated to be very close to the maximal RPM.

Heating at low RPM is a problem which I expect and, hopefully, I would be wrong. I understand the propeller will take power from the engine. Initially, I will run the engine with two propellers : an 8 inch double blade as a back up and a 3.5 inch triple blade as the preferred one. I also have an option to use big blade quadruple fan, around 4 inches diameter.

I have also mentioned the electrical blowers which I am not sure whether would be powerful enough.

By examining the propellers, I think the maximal aeration a propeller can give to an engine is directed towards the engine and slightly to the right ( looked from the pilot seat ). Thus, I think to put the electric blower to the left of the engine, blowing towards the left side of the engine ( looked from the pilot seat ) and the back of the engine too.

To reduce the heat, I will use rich mixture and not very high compression which will reduce the power.

The only reason to try to do whatever I can to avoid running the engine at high RPM is to avoid the wear of the engine. Otherwise, there is no problem and I can always do so.

Running the engine with more powerful diesel ( more Kerosene ) will also increase the temperature.

Also, the adjustment of the engine depends on the application. In some applications, for example to run a USB powered device, the engine needs to provide just 2.5W because, as mentioned, the USB specifications state a USB powered device must not take more than 0.5W at 5V.

This is why I like the freedom of having three adjustments : the mixture, the amount of fuel and air and the compression.

The 8 inch propeller not only consumes energy and room but is very inconvenient to work with. With a 3.5 inch propeller, one can put hands over the propeller to adjust the controls. More blades will consume more power BUT will provide extremely good aeration with no significant consumption of real estate.

I have to run the engine to see.

Note : the inexpensive RS555 generator, when run as a motor, has the highest efficiency at 12V, 0.6A ( 7.2W ). This is around 68%. The generator may go to 40% at other loads. This means more than half of what the engine makes would be lost.

An immediate stress may or may not be a problem because of the internal impedance of the generator and the capacitor of the system as well as the impedance of a load, I. e. when the load is switched to consume more, the generator is expected to slowly put more load on the engine and not immediately stress the engine.

However, I have had an idea how to simply make this delay and slow increase even slower : I may put a potentiometer before than the capacitor which can be turned by the user to maximum and then slowly decreased to zero. This way, the generator will slowly increase the load to the engine and, even better, the engine can be readjusted on one or more occasions before the potentiometer is turned to zero.

Your engine is certainly capable of reliably turning at better than 10,000rpm. I'd not worry up to about 17,000+.

On the cooling front, I think you may be overdoing it somewhat. Consider the Cox car engines. THey have a small heat sink that clamps to the upper cylinder/glow head, and is about 1.25 x 2.5" of finned aluminum, maybe 3/8" thick at best. Their cooling air is provided by a very poor 3 bladed fan about 1.5" in diameter, at the end of the drive shaft, or by a small impeller with tiny 1/4" blades, mounted to the flywheel. They provide decent cooling and acceptable life.

Ran one yesterday in my Sandblaster...

J

JasonB wrote:Your engine is certainly capable of reliably turning at better than 10,000rpm.  I'd not worry up to about 17,000+.

On the cooling front, I think you may be overdoing it somewhat.  Consider the Cox car engines.  THey have a small heat sink that clamps to the upper cylinder/glow head, and is about 1.25 x 2.5" of finned aluminum, maybe 3/8" thick at best.  Their cooling air is provided by a very poor 3 bladed fan about 1.5" in diameter, at the end of the drive shaft, or by a small impeller with tiny 1/4" blades, mounted to the flywheel.  They provide decent cooling and acceptable life.

Ran one yesterday in my Sandblaster...

J

What you say sounds very promising and I thank you for this. I am afraid even to think of 8000 or higher RPM. I think, also, the load of the dynamo to the engine may be higher than the one of a propeller, i. e. I am not sure whether any modeller has ever used a larger portion of the power of the engine in the models.

However, I am happy to know there are people who have been using the engine extensively and, what these people call " using " the engine I call " abusing " the engine, so I am happy to know the engines perform very well under this extensive use.

I am also happy to hear they have been used in cars where the aeration is not as good as in airplanes.

Once I get the system to run, the temperature test is not very difficult : I would just stick a finger on the cylinder and see whether the engine heats up to a temperature where I cannot keep the finger on the cylinder.

I have improved the attachment of the dynamo to the enclosure.

The dynamo is sandwiched between a lower bracket and a top bracket. All are made of Aluminium and are secured by screws, nuts and washers, all Brass.

The lower bracket is long and wide enough to sit the dynamo. The lower bracket is attached to the enclosure.

The top bracket is 2.5cm wide and 2mm thick and secures the dynamo to the lower bracket by long screws, nuts and washers, all Brass. The top bracket does not cover the holes and openings of the dynamo which allow a better aeration of the dynamo. The top bracket is shaped as a semicircle which goes around the cylindrical dynamo.

A provision for reshaping the holes of the enclosure where the supporting crews and nuts go in linear or circle segment shapes has been made available but not done for now. In case necessary, this can be done to allow the dynamo to be repositioned to cover for belt stretching. For now, a disposable elastic band will be used as a belt, thus correction may not be necessary.

Two screens have been installed around the generator to reduce the probability of exhaust liquids to go inside the generator.

I will also look into the possibility to install a barb hose connector to the muffler and then a hose to channel the exhaust fluids away from the system. This is because I may not be able to find a copper pipe. I am not sure whether the hose will withstand the heat of the engine.

I have also “ tested “ the dynamo by rotating the pulley by hand. Looks OK when hand rotated but I cannot even think of what happens when rotated at high RPM by the engine through the belt gear system. First, I am not sure whether the belt will stay on in the pulleys between the rims. Second, I am not sure whether the engine would be able to rotate the dynamo at all because the dynamo is very stiff mainly, I think, because the dynamo axel ( rotor axel ) is not broken in.

The axel looks to be attached to the housing without any bearings. I think, there is an attachment which looks like plastic where the axel is seated.

I have this idea for a compact assembly which can be made in a company and may be very difficult to be home made :

The engine and the generator are put one above the other. The generator is on top to allow easy access to the controls. The dynamo is under. The can be connected by pulleys and belts or by “ tire gears “ Tire gears are pulleys, one of which has a tire around. When positioned next to each other, the tire, which is attached to one of the pulleys, goes inside and between the rims of the other pulley and transfers the rotation. Precision of assembly is important.

Even more : the generator can be attached to a spring and accurately moved away and towards the engine. This way a clutch will be provided. The engine can be started with the generator away from the engine run this way for a while. Then the generator can be “ slowly released to be pulled or pushed by the spring towards the engine and the tire will slightly engage to provide a sliding clutch effect. After a while the clutch can be slowly release to full contact.

0.5L tank can be positioned next to the engine or, even higher than the engine but without obstructing the controls. In case positioned higher, an external needle valve can be installed between the engine and the tank to reduce the fuel pressure. This, however has to be readjusted with the fuel amount decreasing in the tank due to burning. An external needle valve is always a good idea. In case not used for pressure reduction, this can be used to shut down the supply of fuel to the engine. The fuel needle valve can also be used for the same purpose, however, due to the gentile and fragile fuel needle valve which may also bend, to avoid strong tightening, an external needle valve is always welcome. Thus, an external fuel needle valve is used even in the prototype.

Under the fuel tank, some of the electrical components can be positioned in an environment where liquid from the tank cannot reach.

A muffler and an exhaust pipe will be used to channel the exhaust fluids away from the engine and, possibly, the user, unless the user goes close to the pipe and in the direction of the spat out fluids.

On the back, there will be gauges, switches, fuse, socket, etcetera.

Thus, the device will look like a tower. However, will the device not fall?

Here is the trick which I have been thinking of :

The engine and the rest of the components are positioned on the firewall. The gauges, on another. These are connected at the frame ( chassis ).

Then all will be enclosed by an enclosure. No holes, no aeration. When the engine does not work and fuel is not allowed to escape from the tank ( the tank aeration hole can be closed too ), any one can take the whole device and put in the pocket or backpack.

Before the device is to be used, all the walls of the enclosure must be opened. The four side walls can be attached to the frame by lock in hinges : the walls will be hinged to the bottom wall and will open up from top to the side like a flower opens up at bloom. Once the walls reach horizontal positions, the lock in gadget will engage and the walls cannot move afterwards.

Thus the side walls will make a standing base pedestal and the device will be secured on a flat surface. The length can be such, so the device cannot tip even when the propeller blows top level of aeration and attempts to move the whole device. The engine, the controls, dynamo, belts, pulleys, all will be accessible. The walls may have pegs.

In addition, the walls may have holes covered by lids with spring latches. When these lids are open nails or sticks or even tent sticks can go through to provide even higher support mainly on the soil or other soft surfaces. The device may not need to be positioned straight in order to work : depends on the position of the tank and hose and weights inside to allow for the engine to always suck fuel in most positions.

Thus, a generator in one pocket and a bottle of fuel in the other and this is all. Well, napkins too.

Apart from outdoorers, I think, but I may be wrong, such a device may be useful to the military along with solar panels, extra batteries, wind turbines, river turbines, hand cranks, pedal cranks, etcetera.

Apart for the direct application, I can think of an old school military application which may or may not be appropriate in the GPS world.

Laser guiding of military equipment has been around for decades. A laser ( infrared ) is pointed to a target which reflects light and the weaponry follows the laser line and reflection. Now they use GPS guided weapons with known target coordinates and or drones.

The problem with GPS is the communication between the GPS guided weapon and the reference ( usually but not only a satellite ). There are some other ways, such as sound echo, but, I think GPS communication is mainly established by either electromagnetic way or, unlikely, infrared laser way. The light way is good when there is a visible reference ( tower, mountain, high flying airplane, etcetera ) which can shoot beams at the weapon while in flight.

The problem with electromagnetic communication is the ease of electromagnetic disturbance at all frequencies. The problem with the laser beam is these can be seen or detected and shaded by, say, another weapon flying on the path of the beam or, in some cases, stationary.

So, here is the laser guidance application : a recognisance device or soldiers can position lasers and cameras away but near targets. These can shine beams at the targets. Problem : these beams can be seen or detected. They can be intermittent, though. These lasers will be powered by batteries, solar, micro wind and, even, this generator. The more the power the more away the lasers can be positioned. In case the lasers are positioned in mountains or trees far away, the noise from the engine cannot be heard.

Thus, with a lot of diesel, these lasers can point to the targets for days and weeks. The military does not need to use them and does not need to fire weapons. The recognisance team or device can safely return to base. In case never used, the diesel will burn and then only solar and wind can power the lasers. Nothing happens. These can also be programmed to self destroy.

However, when needed, these lasers can be used to fire upon the target. This is when not moved, of course, although sensors can be made to detect movement and stop work or signal in case they are.

The problem is the probability for need for such a strategy is very low, probably lower than 0.1% and is also detectable and destroyable. GPS communication at incredibly high flight may be difficult to disturb and, the GPS communication is not needed all the way to the target. The weapon would use the last good coordinates available and hard program the flight at the expense of accuracy.

In case a tiny generator with a remote starter is made, than this can be switched on remotely. Hopefully, there will not be any disturbance so far away from the target and in the mountains and the generator remote starter can be controlled from a satellite or another remote location by electromagnetic and or light way.

In case anyone can think of any military or not military application, you are welcome to share.

Please, also note 12V, 1A, 12W devices are used to top up car and motorbike batteries overnight and this may be another application when energy is not available and the engine best not be on.

Also, the heat signature of the generator is nothing as compared to the heat signature of other engines. Obviously, the heat signature of a solar panel, wind or river turbine is close to zero. For military applications, however, solar panels have the disadvantage of reflecting light like mirrors but this can be masked at the expense of power.

The wires are soldered to the generator. The generator is lined up.

For now, the 3.5 inch triple blade propeller is used with a 2.4cm pulley, 5mm thick and a spacer.

On the generator a pulley whose exact measurements I forgot but is roughly 1cm and more than 5mm thick to compensate for the rims which stick only around 1mm higher than the pulley.

This gives a gear ratio of 2.4 to 1, I. e. one turn of the engine would give 2.4 turns of the generator and the load to the generator is 2.4 fold higher than with equal pulleys.

Not very correctly done things :

1. The generator pulley is not very stable on the axel and moves front to back like a car tire out of balance. Hopefully this movement is negligible.
2. The generator needs break in. Moves roughly as previously reported.
3. The generator pulley is slightly rough and needs filing as the superglue dried on the pulley unevenly. Hopefully the effect is negligible. Can be filed smooth.

These imperfections do not pose a problem when hand rotated and spring rotated. However, the RPM at which the generator rotates are huge and these may pose a problem. Must test to see. The initial test would be without a load with the generator wired straight to a multimeter.

The elastic band seems to give a good tension to rotate yet not very high to damage the engine and the generator. Different elastic bands will be tested. For the beginning, before the generator has broken in, a slightly wider ( probably around 3mm ) elastic band is to be used.

With such a lack of support to the generator pulley, I can only tell what happens when I test and see.

The engine pulley is attached perfectly and there is not seem to be a problem on the engine side. How I wish I had a nice and wide 1cm pulley for the generator as well as a D shaped rotor axel.

Mods, surely 10 pages of dribbling nonsense from Mr Bayes is enough.

Please do something.

if you want results
go to my generator

yea i am hyjacking your topic dude
https://www.coxengineforum.com/t7906p20-little-generator#100522

dinsdale wrote:Mods, surely 10 pages of dribbling nonsense from Mr Bayes is enough.

Please do something.

In case you are not interested, do not read these posts.

robot797 wrote:if you want results
go to my generator

yea i am hyjacking your topic dude
https://www.coxengineforum.com/t7906p20-little-generator#100522

Looks very nice and, most importantly, works! Congratulations!

Started the engine with not fully engaged spring for spring starts. Works much better than fully engaged. Here are the settings :

Air Valve ( Throttle ) : 0.75% Open
Fuel Needle Valve : 3.5 Turns Open
Compression : Close to the maximal. Compression screw gently positioned near the maximum by gently turning with one finger until stops. Can be tightened more with two fingers but must not.
Spring : The spring is engaged to go through one, one and a half or two compressions only.
Propeller : 3.5 Inch, Triple Blade, Cox

Fuel : 38% Ether, 33% Kerosene, 23% Castor Oil, 6% Cetane Booster

The engine starts after two to four spring starts with not fully engaged spring as per the settings.

Attempted to start the engine with the dynamo. FAILED. Started the engine first to heat up. Then tried many settings. Managed to start for a few turns only, for less than a second.

The generator pulley is uneven and wobbly as expected. Many belts broken and falling. Managed to find an elastic band which will stay. Unable to start. Broke another spring for so many consecutive attempts one after another.

As mentioned, the dynamo is not broken in. Puts huge load to the engine. The engine cannot sustain.

I give up for now. Looks like starting up with a generator without a clutch is close to impossible. May attempt to rotate the generator with an electric screw driver to become more easily rotatable at 0 load, i. e. to break in.

Have an idea for a clutch which is still difficult to do in out of a company environment but may try in case unable to start the engine with a generator attached. An empty pulley with a spring or a screw can be used to pull the belt. The engine can be started without belt tension and with the belt slipping over the pulleys. Deep pulleys needed. Then the empty pulley can gently and slowly engage to pull or push the belt to increase the tension gradually.

Attempted to do this by hand. Unsuccessful. Very difficult.

Must get the dynamo to work smoothly with zero load and not to mechanically load the engine because of friction when not broken in. So sorry I did not do this before I attached the pulley and the fan to the dynamo.

Although I have finally figured out whatever Cox says in the manuals is true and am able to easily start the engine, I am so sorry I have not used Nitro just because of a stupid battery. Regardless of the decreased power, a Nitro engine would start very easily even with a load. Choosing diesel was the biggest mistake I did with this project.

Will try to fight more but am immensely discouraged from what I have seen to be total inability for the engine to start even with a tiny load even after started to heat up.

I have expected this but not to such a huge extent.

One thing for sure : regardless whether I am successful or not with this project, I will never ever use a diesel micro engine any more for anything.

Nitro would run at low RPM OK and will provide sufficient energy. The maximal energy in either of the engines would never be used to increase the reliability. An evidence for this is the Nitro cars which perform immensely powerfully at low RPM.

dinsdale wrote:Mods, surely 10 pages of dribbling nonsense from Mr Bayes is enough.

Please do something.

C'mon, what happened to the "friendliest forum on the net"

Reading these and other posts is voluntary, and Steven is not trolling in other people's threads, nor is he posting anything "politically incorrect", although I must admit I haven't read all the posts.

But I think there is nothing here that would require actions from the moderators.

starting without a clutch is easy
knowing when the engine runs is the hard part
my engine runs synchrome to my starer engine
i can tell if it can run on its own when a nice cloud of smoke is comming out of the exhaust

Most entertaining  thread ever....  

I try to look away but I can't.

i know
but you know what amazes me
the ease that he gave up
he cant start it and belts keep breaking
and he is "i never should have chosen a diesel engine"

robot797 wrote:starting without a clutch is easy
knowing when the engine runs is the hard part
my engine runs synchrome to my starer engine
i can tell if it can run on its own when a nice cloud of smoke is comming out of the exhaust

Using the generator as a starting engine is an excellent idea. I may try this with a battery. I am not sure whether the dynamo would be able to turn the engine, though.

However, I may try something else. I may grease up the pulleys with Castor Oil. Then, I may or may not run the dynamo with an external battery but I would sure try to start the engine. Because the belt and the pulleys are greased up, I expect the pulleys to slip and not engage the belt. Thus, I would be able to start the engine normally without any load.

Then, after spinning for a while the oil would go elsewhere and the engine would slowly start to engage the belt and the dynamo.

I am not sure whether this would work but, this, along with a reduced tension belt and greasing up the dynamo's rotor axel seatings are the only things I can pray to work, so I can start the engine. Lower gear ratio ( closer to 1 to 1 ) may also reduce the resistance of the dynamo.

If Steven's generator is to truly be functional, then diesel is the answer. You can't be backpacking in the winter and depend on a cold 1.5v glow igniter. Starting a diesel in the cold might be hard, but maybe with a long windup ripcord like the old lawn mower engines had. Robot's direct drive seems sensible, whether clutched or not. However, knowing your engine's power specs at all RPMs before you choose your dynamo should make the job a whopping lot easier.
Rusty

EDIT: I wrote this as Steven was posting his latest installment.
Castor doesn't go away, it hangs around and makes a mess of things. I'm thinking you may not like the results of oiling your pulleys.