Engine Concepts...

Where is this engine now? Where is the data from the 1000 hours?

So this is the total history and there was once one engine tested only in a tank. There were still problems with it including heat, clearance, and injectors. Your effort into high pressure common rail was early but now common rail is old and proven technology so you're behind that curve.

You discontinued all work on the engine. Doesn't matter why. Fact is the work was stopped.

You have nothing but an idea now. No engine. Certainly none actually on a boat. Not even something for someone to see operate and say it works.

You may have said but what engines do you have on your Viking? Why not your miracle engine? And you give no indication you're actively working on the engine, in fact you say you're retired. Seems to me you're just waiting for someone to come along and give you half a billion or so to play with. Well, let me assure you that people who can afford to do that require seeing much more than you can provide. They don't want to see what you think it can do or some 6 or 7 year old test in a tank. They want to ride in the boat that uses it.

And your comments like shooting yourself and half full glasses only go further to show lack of professionalism. Would someone invest big money in someone who reacts to criticism that way? My best employees during my career were those who would challenge me, say no to me, make me prove myself or work further on my ideas. If I was a potential investor in your company and I read your posts, I'd never entrust you with my investment.

Fact is today. There is no engine. And there is no real plan to ever have one. Putting a dream on a piece of paper doesn't make it happen.

I can only imagine in 2020 you'll be back to argue further with Marmot on the subject. Just might say too, his dream product is on the market. He does know how to develop something and then sell it to someone else to take it further. He's proven that. Sometimes he infuriates me even but not in his comments to you. He knows what he's talking about. You should be asking people like him how to go forward, not making childish comments back to them.

What a true professional you are. If you want to just be a jerk, please go bother someone else. (Normally I wouldn't say that but I recently read it somewhere).

You two are not interested in a legitimate discussion about engine concepts and design so I would appreciate it if the moderator would just close this thread.

Ok, a serious question then Mike.

You say, "Every Buck Marine Diesel currently in development uses a 4.625" piston coupled to a 5" stroke crankshaft". How many engines is that currently in development? It certainly implies several.

I haven't updated the web site in years but the first engine family that we intended to produce would have used this bore and stroke. The in-line six is something over 8 liters. The plan was to initially produce a 3, 4 and 6 inline for the first offering, using all interchangeable parts and wet sleeves. The reason for the difference between this and the prototype is that the prototype used a dry sleeve application which required a smaller bore. We had decided to change to a wet sleeve which would have worked better and allowed for a larger displacement. The cylinder jugs were being modified for the wet sleeve when we stopped. The outside measurements of the jugs needed no changing, only the core box and machining. Gordon Wright wanted me to use a wet sleeve in the beginning but I had had O-rings fail on past wet sleeve engines that I had owned and I wanted to eliminate that possibility. In the end I should have listened to Gordon. Our thinking was to make the displacement as large as possible within the same envelope. The idea is that fewer and larger cylinders for marine use can, in some cases, reduce the overall size of the engine while increasing displacement.

Concepts

Thank you so much for your post. I agree with every aspect of it. As I stated in a previous post, since we had to stop in 2008, I have continued to work on the designs and add patents. If you will email me I will be happy to send you the latest CAD pictures of the Buck Tilt Top Engine (patents in place). I believe that you will agree that it is nothing strange and once assembled it looks like the rest. If I am fortunate enough to take this forward, I will most likely use a Stanadyne pump and their fully electronic injectors (they are at 2500 bar). The injector will move to the center of the cylinder head like almost all others. Rate shaping injectors have eliminated the need for the two injector concept that I had once considered.

My question remains, how many are in development? Zero, I guess. Was once one? Simple question requiring a one word answer. You are soliciting investors, dealers and customers on the web site so you do know I hope that you're held accountable in that regard for all the content of the site. You don't make it sound at all like it's just a concept until the very bottom of one page where you say in red that "Buck Marine Diesel engines are still in the development stage and we plan to make them available as soon as possible. We are currently raising capital to begin production. We will be happy to talk to prospective customers or dealers about these engines at anytime." You say that was at least five years ago. Has there been any change? What is the plan? Is it for money to fall from the sky? You do say, "Since we didn't have the dyno working properly, we're not positive on the actual power numbers". What? You can't get a working dyno to test? Is it working now?

You say "Imagine a diesel engine that can be rebuilt inside of the boat in just a matter of hours and is lighter, more powerful, and more reliable than anything currently on the market." But that's all there is to do is imagine.

We've asked many direct questions about where you actually stand. What you actually have today. All we get is your vision, your concept.

I really don't know how else to say this. All of the testing stopped in 2008. I have only worked on improving the designs and patents since 2008. I am not offering anything for sale or asking anyone to by stock. I have only explained that until we can locate funding, we are on hold. What about the word CONCEPT is so difficult to grasp????

The problem is you're going about this all wrong. I get that you have a dream, you have designed a prototype, you made it run and got only so far with perfecting this design which would be frustrating to most people, then you ran out of cash so everything stopped.

The problem is, any advice that anyone on here has given you, you simply argue with them instead of considering their advice. If Rupolf Diesel himself gave you advice you'd argue with him. Most people on here are experts in their area's of expertise, some know a lot about all subjects regarding boats and yachts, but all are contributing good advice. Marmot, Kiwi, even myself on the engine itself. Karo, olderboater and others on the business end of it and how much it costs to get it to market and support it. It doesn't matter who, you're too **** stubborn to take any advice from anyone.

So that leads me to the million dollar question. Why are you here??? If you have patents, your engine is such an amazing gem you claim it to be, you can get it to run reliably and so efficiently, then take the **** thing to a company who has the means to make it successful and to follow it all of the way through and collect 10 cents on the dollar for every single one they sell. In the end, if a large company is willing to properly manufacture and market it, you'll make 5-500x as much money than if you could actually build them and sell them yourself. Otherwise, get a few working ones and GIVE them to someone who can be your guiniea pig and advertise them for you.

Until then, talk is cheap and facts are facts.

On the Diesel Bomber site you wrote:

Olderboater posted: "My question remains, how many are in development? ... Was once one? Simple question requiring a one word answer.How many prototypes"

I am wondering the same thing now. If you would just stick to one story and not keep changing history you might get a bit more tolerance but when the story keeps changing and you insult those of us who are a bit skeptical because you refuse to provide the kind of data you must surely have obtained in the 1000 hour test program you claim to have run, what do you expect?

He's here looking for venture capital. He wants to only keep 5-10% of the marine division for himself. Investors. He mentions $125 million. He has no financial resources or interested financiers to support his concept. Years ago he put on his website, "We are currently raising capital to begin production." That didn't happen so now he's trying to make it happen.

He's never posted in any thread on the site that wasn't one where he could post about his engine. Yet, he answers no questions asked. Running for office perhaps. He talks about the great tests and engine, but doesn't even answer as to where that engine is now. One place he's revolutionizing everything. Another place it's just like other engines except assembly and disassembly.

You are right, facts are facts so lets look at the real facts here. Marmot jumped me the moment I posted the .28 BSFC figure. Since then Marmot and Olderboater have ganged up made it there mission to catch me in a lie. Read the post where Olderboater asked me about the bore and stroke listed on the web site. I'm sure he had already done the calculation and found that it didn't match the test engine displacement. Instead of politely questioning my post they resorted to sarcasm and slandering my work. I have answered every legitimate question to the best of my ability. I do not lie, even about the fish I catch. If anyone thinks that I am wrong, just bring it to my attention and we will discuss it and if it ends up that I am wrong I will quickly admit it. As I have stated before, Too old and Too tired for BS. It is very obvious that many post are made without reading the previous post and that leads to the same question being asked again and again. I do expect adults to approach each other with respect and I think that what I have accomplished to date deserves it. I will not be attacked without responding and if you haven't figured it out by now, I am a determined individual. Any person would need to be to do this.

How many people do you know who have built a completely new engine from scratch using their own resources and tested it to the point that the designs are validated. I think that Achates Power raised over 50 million before they ever built their prototype and I believe the figure with Scuderi was 65 million. Cat spent 500 million developing the Acert engine, which was really just a common rail fuel system. The point is that this market is expensive to enter. I knew that going in but s--- happens and 2008 was a surprise to me. I was focused on building the prototype and was not paying attention to the financial markets. I had agreements before I started that would have provided the resources to commercialize the engines but those commitments evaporated in 2008. The people who made the commitments were well intentioned but 2008 left them in the same boat I was in. No pun intended.

The thread is called Engine Concepts yet I have been ragged to death about test data and where's the beef. Every number I have posted is, to my knowledge accurate. Olderboater thought for a long time that I was just an employee, shooting off my mouth. He obviously assumed this from the post that Tim Brownell made back in 2008. Tim was, at the time, a mechanical engineering intern from Ohio State. Tim meant well but he got a couple of things wrong. I have never owned a boat with Cat engines and the dyno calibration was check for accuracy in a matter of hours after the post. The BSFC he posted was during a time when we were not making the boost we needed to and the fuel injectors were crap. As posted earlier in this thread, I did own a Viking at the time, with a pair of 6v92 TAs. I had intended to use it as a repower platform once we had completed the test cell testing but as I have stated many times now, that ended in 2008.

I'm not stubborn but I won't be talked down to either. I have more time and experience in this than most engineers with PHDs. As for this conversation and why I am here. I am here for a legitimate design concept discussion and to receive constructive input for the designs. Not to be berated. Ok Marmot, now you can tell me how many words are in my post.

Concepts

My name is not Tm Brownell. Please read all of the post. It will be less confusing.

But you fail to produce any evidence of anything or answer any of the simple questions people have asked of you. You may have a great engine/concept (I have no idea), but unless you can bring it to market, that is all it is a concept. The past is the past, patents are only good for so long, unless you can get this engine moving and soon it's not going anywhere. Have you contacted any of the big engine manufacturers? Perhaps you should try going on shark tank!

How many engines have you made that are in existence?
Why can you not produce any dyno test results, sheets or anything?
Why does all of your information seem to be all mixed up?


Honestly, I built an engine for a car (not invented or anything, just built a race motor with other people's parts) and still have the dyno sheets for that motor which have more information and facts than you've given us.

Personal names don't matter, all the information we have has been published under the banner of Buck Marine Diesel and that is what matters. If the original information from 2008 or 2009 was incorrect I suggest there has been ample opportunity to correct the errors.

If the engine (or engines - we still don't know) actually accumulated 1000 hours of testing then surely there were some kind of preliminary specifications produced and data collected from the runs. Why is it so difficult to tell us simple answers to simple questions?

We didn't seek you out to give you a hard time, until you posted here I had never heard of you or your engine. Until you posted a claim to a BSFC that is extraordinarily good I was happy to tell you that the engine looked nice but if you want encouragement you need to show some kind of performance specs.

Maybe I am a "snapping turtle" about this sort of thing but all you had to do to get me to shut up was provide the kind of specs that anyone trying to finance a new engine should be able and more than willing to provide after 1000 hours of dyno testing. Is that such an unreasonable position to take? It's not my job to poke you with a sharp stick, I don't know you from Adam and have no personal stake in this debate but I do know when to get suspicious about claims that can't, or even worse, won't be backed up.

You had a chance to gain some ground here but like I and others have said, you blew it by slinging insults when simple honest responses to simple and reasonable questions might have earned you a lot of support.

Good luck with your project, you have obviously put a lot of your heart and treasury into it. Too much, I believe, to squander this way.

Maybe, Mike Buck from Carolina Power & Performance, located at the address 3060 Old Nc Highway 11 in Winterville, North Carolina 28590?

Gee, my turn to stand up ... I have to give kudos to J for an excellent post.

Look out, Elizabeth - Think I'm having the Big One!