|
Hey heres an idea posted:One of our inspectors went out to a customers warehouse............... and they noticed that the pump casing was cracked in half like that. *Forklift backs into pump* "Yeah guys, your pump just exploded. No idea how the casing got cracked" 
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
Sockington posted:*Forklift backs into pump* I'll buy it. I'm working in an a stamping plant right now overseeing some construction work and the plant fork truck drivers keep plowing into the construction demarcation walls. Every loving week we need to fix the wall and every loving week the materials handling dept. says it's not their problem and the drivers aren't doing anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
There's no "mundane mechanical failures" thread, so you all get this. So I heard a  grinding noise from my front driver's brake starting the day after my state inspection. I checked the sticker and they pulled LF and RR wheels this year, so I just figured "bastards didn't clean anything and just whacked the pads back in after mic-ing them without anti-squeal."...I bought myself some anti-squeal since the last bottle I had got loaned out and never returned, along with some brake cleaner and a bottle of starting fluid for the jeep. Off comes the wheel.   indeed. So I grabbed my uncle's tracker and went and bought pads... All I can figure is they broke the pad when they slammed the caliper back into position. This also explains the whole "Well I back up out of my driveway, and when I get to the end of the street and am nearly stopped there's a nasty THUD! noise from that brake..." From that pad remnant shifting from one end of the caliper to the other. Thankfully I drive like an old man so I didn't damage the rotors or anything, that bit of pad did the best it could. Now I feel like I should be planning apexes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 05:18
|
|
|
I'd seriously be pissed if I had to let some random fucker take my brakes apart for a forced inspection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 20:16
|
|
|
Yeah I thought they just removed the wheels to do a visual inspection, I don't think they actually remove the calipers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
ozziegt posted:Yeah I thought they just removed the wheels to do a visual inspection, I don't think they actually remove the calipers. A stack of feeler gauges between the pad backing and the rotor. Don't need to take the wheel off if you're lucky. Sponge!, where do you live? That inspection process sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:All I can figure is they broke the pad when they slammed the caliper back into position. If your brake pads are rusty enough that you can break the pad material off the backing plate by simply "slamming it back into position," then a) your car was not safe to drive in the first place and b) more importantly, your inspection station is not doing its job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:A stack of feeler gauges between the pad backing and the rotor. Don't need to take the wheel off if you're lucky. I live in PA. And the fact that it started right after my inspection puts it at more than coincidence... Here in PA they do pull the pads and inspect them for glazing/cracks/de-lamination. On drums they pull the drum off and check it and the shoes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 01:50
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:I live in PA. That must suck, front drums where you have to re-pack the bearings and poo poo to get to them. But hey, free drum adjustment!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
Contraband posted:If your brake pads are rusty enough that you can break the pad material off the backing plate by simply "slamming it back into position," then a) your car was not safe to drive in the first place and b) more importantly, your inspection station is not doing its job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
Surprised I haven't seen this yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAKbkU9l-xE Piston failure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAGWo3PbZk&feature=related Armature locked on the traction motor CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
Raluek posted:That must suck, front drums where you have to re-pack the bearings and poo poo to get to them. But hey, free drum adjustment! Which is why they only pull one front and one rear per year, and they do opposites every other year. Next year they'll pull front passenger and rear driver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Surprised I haven't seen this yet: More locomotive engine failure:  Power assembly, weighs about 750lb. Looks like the four hold-down bolts broke (you can see one of them sans threads sitting on top of the assembly; the other pipe looking thing is a pushrod) and the whole unit was ejected through the engine bay doors and clear of the locomotive. Followed promptly by the piston itself...    Weighs about 90lb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
SGNL06 posted:Followed promptly by the piston itself... Holy loving poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
I sure hope the homeowner gets to keep that, finders keepers right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
Welp, I'm never living near a train track. Ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
Messadiah posted:I sure hope the homeowner gets to keep that, finders keepers right? I would seriously fix the ceiling and then just put a blank picture frame around the piston.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, what are the chances of that happening? It looks like it brought some hot engine oil along with it, judging from how it splashed against the drywall as it ruptured through the house. What would you even change on the engine to withstand something like that? That's gotta be a shitload of force to move a piston that weighs almost 100lb that far. Am I right in assuming it was the cause of poor maintenance? Those bolts should have been checked and retorqued to make sure the thread wasn't wearing on them. edit: Man, I wonder what it sounded like to whoever was inside the house at the time. Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Apr 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 08:00
|
|
|
That's just incredible
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 08:01
|
|
|
SGNL06 posted:
This picture should be in a gallery with a cardboard cutout of a person in front for scale. Seriously, locomotives make like 4000hp with **90lb** pistons? Someone please post pics!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Holy poo poo, what are the chances of that happening? It looks like it brought some hot engine oil along with it, judging from how it splashed against the drywall as it ruptured through the house. Well they only do 300rpm or so, still that's up and down 5 times a second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 08:53
|
|
|
I don't have a picture, just a story. My engineering teacher was telling me about when she was a cadet a loooong time ago working on a cruise ship out of America. She was on watch and the turbo for #4 engine was making a really strange high pitched whine, completely different to the other turbos. She figured given that she had no idea what it was, she'd shut the engine down and look into it. No sooner had she walked towards the fuel cutoff, than the loving crankshaft blew out the side of the block landing EXACTLY where she had been standing seconds before. Apparently one of the oil lines had become blocked, the crank had massively overheated and half of it had seized while the other half went exploring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 09:51
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:What would you even change on the engine to withstand something like that? That's gotta be a shitload of force to move a piston that weighs almost 100lb that far. OK, so that goes down proportionally as the engine RPM goes down, but consider how much it scales up with pistons weighing that much!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 10:35
|
|
|
SGNL06 posted:More locomotive engine failure: I'm certainly mot calling bullshit, or disputing this in any way, but that piston seems to be quite small given the length of the crankshafts in locomotive engines. About 5 years ago, I was doing a job at a place in Winnipeg this place to be preciseand they were remanning locomotive crankshafts. Which were 2 pieces each piece longer than my arm span which is about 5 1/2 feet. So, the whole thing put together is 10+ feet long. So, my point being. It looks like an awfully small piston, given the length and over all massive size of the crank shafts that I saw at that place. Was that a "small" locomotive that happened to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 12:29
|
|
|
Sterndotstern posted:This picture should be in a gallery with a cardboard cutout of a person in front for scale. Here's pics from an EMD 710 I was doing some work on. The power packs, one removed and one installed: This is baiscally the head of the cylinder, and is designed to drop in and remove out.  My hand over the power pack, for scale. Fun fact: Those threaded rods are torqued to something like 2250 or 2500 N.m of torque off memory, and are used to hold the entire top end down.  The turbo. That red thing is one of those overhead crane control boxes, measuring about a foot long.  Sponge! posted:Well they only do 300rpm or so, still that's up and down 5 times a second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 13:18
|
|
|
scapulataf posted:I'm certainly mot calling bullshit, or disputing this in any way, but that piston seems to be quite small given the length of the crankshafts in locomotive engines. You can see in the second house photo that the piston is probably larger than an adult head, where most automotive pistons are the size of a beefy fist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
This is why rotaries rule you pistionares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:This is why rotaries rule you pistionares. how big would an apex seal be on a wankel engine making 4000 HP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
scapulataf posted:I'm certainly mot calling bullshit, or disputing this in any way, but that piston seems to be quite small given the length of the crankshafts in locomotive engines. Pistons in commercial diesels aren't usually that big compared to the engine. Most of the grunt comes from the stroke. GE evolution specs list the bore as a tad under 10" with stroke bring over 1'. Everything else is huge to deal with the massive amount of torque.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
rscott posted:how big would an apex seal be on a wankel engine making 4000 HP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:Same as normal, just chain together like 20 rotors. So you're saying that a normal 2-rotor makes 400hp? Try again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
ab0z posted:So you're saying that a normal 2-rotor makes 400hp? Try again. With boost, it's not unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Well a locomotive needs lots of torque and amazing reliability. I bet that 4000hp locomotive engine makes a lot more than 4000 ft-lb of torque.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:With boost, it's not unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
How did we immediately go from talking about high torque high reliability engines to boosted rotaries?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
14 INCH DICK posted:How did we immediately go from talking about high torque high reliability engines to boosted rotaries? Because rotary owners are retarded and feel the need to justify their antiquated, inefficient engines at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
They should've posted a picture of one, then we'd at least be on-topic still. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
rscott posted:how big would an apex seal be on a wankel engine making 4000 HP? Depends on how smashed up it gets as it's being thrown out the exhaust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They should've posted a picture of one, then we'd at least be on-topic still.  2 birds, 1 stone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
ab0z posted:Well a locomotive needs lots of torque and amazing reliability. I bet that 4000hp locomotive engine makes a lot more than 4000 ft-lb of torque. 23,342 lb-ft
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 20:12
|
|
