Cummins/ Achates Diesel

Torque curve would reveal all. if 2400 occurs at 3000 rpm, that is probably not what everyone would dream about. Lets also remember that cost is not the top priority for the military, but a definite concern for selling pickup trucks.

noteven wrote:
When will Cummins stop calling motors “engines”?

A motor is electrical.

It is an internal combustion engine...not motor

Never heard of electric engine or a hydraulic engine, always called them a motor.

noteven wrote:
When will Cummins stop calling motors “engines”?

Many years ago, if you talked about a “ motor”, you were talking more about AC or DC electric “motors. Engine meant an internal combustion enginegas or diesel powered engine. Maybe it’s regional, but early in College Engineering classes and in the USAF (circa 1969-75). If you called something a motor, it was either run off AC or DC. Engine meant gas or diesel fueled, or jet engine, all internal combustion engines.
It was the way I was taught growing up and same in the Air Force and College.

Jim

gmw photos wrote:

wilber1 wrote:

gmw photos wrote:
LOL, now we're down to semantics for sure !

But actually, NASA does call them "motors". I'm not not referring to the main engine which ran on liquid fuel. I'm talking about the solid fuel boosters on the sides.

https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

I don't see them as either, just a glorified roman candles.

It's not semantics. it's accuracy. Like not calling a whale a fish.

I reckon I'm chuckling at that reply ! Those two sentences don't seem to fit together well. On the one hand you are saying we should be accurate in our descriptions.
In the other sentence you are comparing high tech rocket motors to cheap backyard fireworks.

They are both just tubes of propellant that are ignited and can’t be shut off or controlled until they run out of fuel. The only difference is they have some control of the nozzle direction on a SRB. Doesn’’t sound very high tec to me.



Using that definition a firearm could be an engine. Or would it be a motor?

wilber1 wrote:

gmw photos wrote:
LOL, now we're down to semantics for sure !

But actually, NASA does call them "motors". I'm not not referring to the main engine which ran on liquid fuel. I'm talking about the solid fuel boosters on the sides.

https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

I don't see them as either, just a glorified roman candles.

It's not semantics. it's accuracy. Like not calling a whale a fish.

I reckon I'm chuckling at that reply ! Those two sentences don't seem to fit together well. On the one hand you are saying we should be accurate in our descriptions.
In the other sentence you are comparing high tech rocket motors to cheap backyard fireworks.

Bionic Man wrote:
Is it summer yet?

Apparently not... we are 4 pages deep on the differences between engine vs motors.

If it was summer, Fishie would be posting (because it has the word Cummins in the title) about how towing just got easier with his Ford.

gmw photos wrote:
LOL, now we're down to semantics for sure !

But actually, NASA does call them "motors". I'm not not referring to the main engine which ran on liquid fuel. I'm talking about the solid fuel boosters on the sides.

https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

I don't see them as either, just a glorified roman candles.

It's not semantics. it's accuracy. Like not calling a whale a fish.

The English Commer truck had an opposed piston engine called the TS3.