My Cool 750 Commando

Status
Not open for further replies.
numbers tell the story :D

2 on one odds are mostly ugly and its downhill from there
 
Needling

Thanks for that unfortunately my bike is a 69 model which has different bar switches and has been done over by the DPO I will have a look at the drawing and take it from there as I was not planing to go negative earth at the moment it is on a boyer but when I had it dynoed at the beginning or the year it was showing an electrical fault at high revs so I'm just going to do my beat,

Best wishes for Xmas and the new year. And show some good cheer where you can.
 
needing said:
Hi all.
Picture below - trial of aerating oil at room temperature with no water added: just whizzed at highest setting for 1 minute then checked at 5 minute intervals to determine return to original condition. Last photo is T = +26 minutes. Draw your own conclusions.
My Cool 750 Commando
Click to expand...

So your wife is away on holidays ??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Hint TQF doesnt froth makes excelent gearbox and primary oil...dont know if
it would work in engine???????
 
needing said:
hobot said:
That's a neat demonstration to see why hi sped engines are designed not to churn the whole volume of oil at once. My mower rods have 3 long spades off each big end to churn oil onto items at top of cases but only turns 3600 rpm. Would adding a few drops of water prevent it from de-gasing in reasonable clock time or unreasonable calender time?
Click to expand...

Hi hobot.
The trial was to assess frothing/aeration and time to resolution.
A consideration as my Combat engine uses the breather to eventually return oil to the tank at high revs.
Actual froth in the oil tank is confined to some bubbles as I use a catch can inline to settle froth out - my oil tank never has froth as generated by the whizz. I have referred to froth as 'cappuccino' but this is a misnomer.
Water added to oil is not a concern of my bike (or lawn mower?). Perhaps it is a test program you could undertake as you often mention water in oil.
Click to expand...

Your frothing test and results are interesting. You've chosen an extraordinarily high shear mixing device for incorporating air into the oil - very possibly more effective than an engine would be at it. Another variant of the frothing test that would get you closer to engine reality would be to conduct the test with oil that was at ~ 100C (as long as your wife is away you might as well live it up!). Thus the starting oil viscosity would be at least 10X lower than at RT, it would therefore entrain less air, and being much lower in viscosity would degas much quicker. Although the oil would begin cooling the instant the frothing started, with the temperature continuing to drop as the experiment proceeded, it would still be fairly representative of oil temperatures encountered in stock Norton engines (85C is typical in my 850).

Caution - Stop Now. Please don't read past this point unless you have time to waste on non-Norton related information and a desire to read an excessively long winded diatribe of very limited value to you.

Regarding water in oil, have a couple non-Norton non-motorcycle observations that I made this past summer on the subject. This experiment starting when I made the mistake of borrowing a tool from a neighbor (6 HP, 2500 psi pressure washer from neighbor) for deck cleaning. Started it up, used it for a few minutes and noticed thick grey puss oozing out of the vented oil filler cap. Upon further inspection the pump housing was full to the top with this viscous grey water/oil emulsion (oil should only fill the pump housing about 20% of total volume) and the pump was very hot from working in this thick medium. I told the neighbor about it, said it could not be used like this and volunteered to drain it and replenish with new non-detergent oil (per pump mfg'er recommendation), to which he said OK. After running for an hr, drained oil, collected in a clear vessel where it was observed to be turbid with a yellow colored water layer separating out on the bottom of the vessel that constituted ~ 10-15% of the 0.75 liter total volume.

Refilled with oil, ran for an hour, drained oil etc, and fell into this protocol of using a tank of gas (~ 1 hr run time) followed by draining oil and observing for water content. This confirmed a constant rate of water leakage into the pump housing as the water volume in oil remained constant with each draining.

But here is what I didn't know about water and oil and detergent vs non-detergent oil. Since I was going through so many oil changes I thought what could it hurt to throw in an oil change with detergent oil. We all know detergent is present to keep carbon debris in suspension, but I did not know that it would also do an excellent job of suspending water, i.e., creating a water in oil emulsion. With detergent oil in this system, the drained product looked just like cream and remained so for well over a week, with only a trace of pure oil showing at the top surface of the drain vessel. If a non-detergent oil change followed a detergent oil change, the residual detergent oil created a very similar creamy appearing water/oil emulsion in the non-detergent oil, but was not quite as stable (because it was short on detergent, which stabilizes the emulsion). This was repeated multiple times (detergent, non-detergent, detergent, non-detergent) and the result was always the same.

To conclude the story, I bought and installed a seal kit for the pump, which did nothing to stop the water leakage. I then looked deeper and found one of the 3 ceramic pistons cracked and replaced that to restore pump function to like new.

In conclusion consider the following. The pump had 3 crank throws/connecting rods, etc, and ran at the engine governed speed (estimate 3000 rpm give or take). Thus it was a relatively high speed thrashing environment inside the pump. Pump body was finned throughout for cooling and was too hot to touch when worked continuously, so reasonable heat development also occurred. Oil was always drained immediately after shutting off engine and no froth or foam was ever detected with either detergent or non-detergent oil. Non-detergent oil has very limited ability if any to emulsify, and thereby remove water from a system via draining. Detergent oil does an excellent job of emulsifying water in oil and removing it from a system via draining.

I am by no means attempting to draw analogy between oil in an IC engine and a pressure washer - just telling a story. If you see anything above that has merit in your mind fine. If it was a total waste of your time to read the above, too bad, as you were forewarned not to read it. My main goal in reporting the above was simply to provide hobot some insight as he contemplates his upcoming water in oil experiments.
 
hobot said:
Kurt thanks for repeating decades old tests again.
Click to expand...
That's the fun side of Alzheimers - a new finding everyday and lots of new friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top