The BMW UUC Digest Volume 3 : Issue 120 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) <E36> Idler pully and alternator brushes Re: <E36> Idler pully and alternator brushes <OT> Titanic findings Re: E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel Re: E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel <E38> Hot dash/center stack <E30> Convertible Top Re: <E30> Convertible Top Re: E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Neil Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kevin: About 10 yr ago, I read the following two interesting bits of information on the Titanic incident in a non-technical magazine: 1. A piece of steel from the Titanic build discovered being used as a paperweight (IIRC) somewhere revealed the excess Sulfur. It is possible they recovered this from the ocean, but I seem to recall it being discovered on a desk somewhere. I think the article said they did not have the various impact tests at the time. A simple Charpy impact test would have shown this problem today as per the article. 2. The Titanic had a non-reversing steam turbine as the main engine that drove water over the rudder. The reversing engines (diesel, IIRC) were not pushing as much water over the rudder. When the captain, inexperienced in this configuration, saw the iceberg coming up he had the non-reversing turbine shut off (and presumably you don't just switch steam turbines on at a moment's notice) and the reversing engines (weaker) reversed, losing rudder control and being unable to avoid the iceberg. 3. An understanding of the compartments under-deck would have dictated hitting the iceberg dead on and flooding only a few tanks and not making the ship tilt enough to flood the others over the wall (which didn't go up to the ceilings oddly enough). I guess the captain did not understand this part either. Perhaps it was too new at the time. Missing the head-on collision tore open a large section of hull, flooding many more compartments than a head-on collision would have. Neil Deshpande *** Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:35:05 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: <OT> Titanic findings Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sorry, Jay, rivet holes don't appear to have anything to do with Titanic's fragility. The current speculation is that the plate steel had too high a content of sulphur which made it very brittle at the water temperatures in that part of the ocean in which it sailed. -Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:26:01 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From Neil Deshpande > >Kevin: > >About 10 yr ago, I read the following two interesting bits of information on >the Titanic incident in a non-technical magazine: > >1. A piece of steel from the Titanic build discovered being used as a >paperweight (IIRC) somewhere revealed the excess Sulfur. It is possible >they recovered this from the ocean, but I seem to recall it being discovered >on a desk somewhere. I think the article said they did not have the various >impact tests at the time. A simple Charpy impact test would have shown this >problem today as per the article. I hadn't heard about a piece of Titanic scrap steel being found and tested, but I had heard that they tested a piece recovered from the bottom and found high sulfur levels. This might have been permutations of the same story, or verification of the theory. I am not sure a Charpy impact test would catch the problem unless it was done at low temperatures. No one even though to test metals at freezing temperatures until about mid 1940's or so when Liberty ships in the North Atlantic began snapping in half while their sister ships in the tropics never had a problem. Of course, today we know to test at the temperatures the steel will see in service and then some... but it took a number of catastrophic failures to learn those lessons. Keep in mind that mechanical engineering in the early 1900's was all by eye, experience, and trial. The idea that steel could be tough at room temperature and brittle a mere 40 degrees colder was an impossibility at the time. >2. The Titanic had a non-reversing steam turbine as the main engine that >drove water over the rudder. The reversing engines (diesel, IIRC) were not >pushing as much water over the rudder. When the captain, inexperienced in >this configuration, saw the iceberg coming up he had the non-reversing >turbine shut off (and presumably you don't just switch steam turbines on at >a moment's notice) and the reversing engines (weaker) reversed, losing >rudder control and being unable to avoid the iceberg. Titanic was revolutionary in the over-all efficiency of her power plant for the time. Port and starboard engines were huge triple expansion steam engines. They took in steam at about 200 PSI or so and exhausted it at about 9 PSI producing about 15,000 HP each. The 9 PSI steam fed a turbine producing about 16,000 HP (the turbine exhaust was something like 2 PSI). Each engine powered a propeller with the turbine propeller in the center, right in front of the rudder. When the command was given for full reverse, the turbine was shut down since it could not be reversed, and the two reciprocating engines began the reversing process. First, it takes some time for the 130 ton turbine disk, gearing and the 22 ton center propeller to come to a stop. Second, it takes some time for each of the 38 ton outer propellers, 138 ton crankshafts and 50 ton pistons to come to a stop... and they had to stop at exactly the right point to reverse. If they missed, the engines had to be walked over by hand until they reached the right point to reverse the valve gear. Once they had reversed the valve train, they could apply steam to the engines again and begin spinning up the previously mentioned 225 tons of metal in the other direction. Now, since you are in full reverse, but still moving forwards, the propellers will cavitate. this makes a frothy mess in the propeller wash reducing the effectiveness of the rudder. Furthermore, if they wanted to turn to port, but were reversing the engines, the command would have been for full starboard rudder. In a single prop vessel, this would work as the prop wash would be backwards over the rudder, causing the reverse in direction. Since Titanic's two reversing engines were not in line with the rudder, the wash direction was likely not reversed, making the ship slow to respond, or worse, responding opposite what was expected. >3. An understanding of the compartments under-deck would have dictated >hitting the iceberg dead on and flooding only a few tanks and not making >the ship tilt enough to flood the others over the wall (which didn't go up >to the ceilings oddly enough). I guess the captain did not understand this >part either. Perhaps it was too new at the time. Missing the head-on >collision tore open a large section of hull, flooding many more compartments >than a head-on collision would have. There has been much speculation on this subject, and the results are mixed. Presumably hitting head on would have only flooded the forward compartments and saved the ship. There has been speculation and some evidence that not all the water-tight doors worked, so this might not have made much of a difference, or it could have made all the difference. It is hard to say. There is also some speculation (and evidence) that the space between the double hulls flooded unevenly and broke her keel. If that did happen, the all the water-tight doors ever made wouldn't have saved the ship. Unfortunately, due to the years, depth, distance, marine life, chemistry, and lack/loss of documentation all we will ever have is speculation over the mechanics of how 1,513 people died one calm, clear, April night. -- Joe -- Joseph M. Krzeszewski Network Operations and Security [EMAIL PROTECTED] Worcester Polytechnic Institute ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:56:24 -0700 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think they were also able to test some metal from one of the titantic sister ships, Olympic and Britannic, probably the Olympic. The Britannic was sunk by a mine in WWI. The Olympic was nearly sunk with a collision with a lighthouse ship IIRC and was scrapped in the mid 30s. Interestingly they was a female employee of the ship line that survived both sinkings and the collision. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) >From Neil Deshpande > >Kevin: > >About 10 yr ago, I read the following two interesting bits of information on >the Titanic incident in a non-technical magazine: > >1. A piece of steel from the Titanic build discovered being used as a >paperweight (IIRC) somewhere revealed the excess Sulfur. It is possible >they recovered this from the ocean, but I seem to recall it being discovered >on a desk somewhere. I think the article said they did not have the various >impact tests at the time. A simple Charpy impact test would have shown this >problem today as per the article. I hadn't heard about a piece of Titanic scrap steel being found and tested, but I had heard that they tested a piece recovered from the bottom and found high sulfur levels. This might have been permutations of the same story, or verification of the theory. I am not sure a Charpy impact test would catch the problem unless it was done at low temperatures. No one even though to test metals at freezing temperatures until about mid 1940's or so when Liberty ships in the North Atlantic began snapping in half while their sister ships in the tropics never had a problem. Of course, today we know to test at the temperatures the steel will see in service and then some... but it took a number of catastrophic failures to learn those lessons. Keep in mind that mechanical engineering in the early 1900's was all by eye, experience, and trial. The idea that steel could be tough at room temperature and brittle a mere 40 degrees colder was an impossibility at the time. >2. The Titanic had a non-reversing steam turbine as the main engine that >drove water over the rudder. The reversing engines (diesel, IIRC) were not >pushing as much water over the rudder. When the captain, inexperienced in >this configuration, saw the iceberg coming up he had the non-reversing >turbine shut off (and presumably you don't just switch steam turbines on at >a moment's notice) and the reversing engines (weaker) reversed, losing >rudder control and being unable to avoid the iceberg. Titanic was revolutionary in the over-all efficiency of her power plant for the time. Port and starboard engines were huge triple expansion steam engines. They took in steam at about 200 PSI or so and exhausted it at about 9 PSI producing about 15,000 HP each. The 9 PSI steam fed a turbine producing about 16,000 HP (the turbine exhaust was something like 2 PSI). Each engine powered a propeller with the turbine propeller in the center, right in front of the rudder. When the command was given for full reverse, the turbine was shut down since it could not be reversed, and the two reciprocating engines began the reversing process. First, it takes some time for the 130 ton turbine disk, gearing and the 22 ton center propeller to come to a stop. Second, it takes some time for each of the 38 ton outer propellers, 138 ton crankshafts and 50 ton pistons to come to a stop... and they had to stop at exactly the right point to reverse. If they missed, the engines had to be walked over by hand until they reached the right point to reverse the valve gear. Once they had reversed the valve train, they could apply steam to the engines again and begin spinning up the previously mentioned 225 tons of metal in the other direction. Now, since you are in full reverse, but still moving forwards, the propellers will cavitate. this makes a frothy mess in the propeller wash reducing the effectiveness of the rudder. Furthermore, if they wanted to turn to port, but were reversing the engines, the command would have been for full starboard rudder. In a single prop vessel, this would work as the prop wash would be backwards over the rudder, causing the reverse in direction. Since Titanic's two reversing engines were not in line with the rudder, the wash direction was likely not reversed, making the ship slow to respond, or worse, responding opposite what was expected. >3. An understanding of the compartments under-deck would have dictated >hitting the iceberg dead on and flooding only a few tanks and not making >the ship tilt enough to flood the others over the wall (which didn't go up >to the ceilings oddly enough). I guess the captain did not understand this >part either. Perhaps it was too new at the time. Missing the head-on >collision tore open a large section of hull, flooding many more compartments >than a head-on collision would have. There has been much speculation on this subject, and the results are mixed. Presumably hitting head on would have only flooded the forward compartments and saved the ship. There has been speculation and some evidence that not all the water-tight doors worked, so this might not have made much of a difference, or it could have made all the difference. It is hard to say. There is also some speculation (and evidence) that the space between the double hulls flooded unevenly and broke her keel. If that did happen, the all the water-tight doors ever made wouldn't have saved the ship. Unfortunately, due to the years, depth, distance, marine life, chemistry, and lack/loss of documentation all we will ever have is speculation over the mechanics of how 1,513 people died one calm, clear, April night. -- Joe -- Joseph M. Krzeszewski Network Operations and Security [EMAIL PROTECTED] Worcester Polytechnic Institute Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________________________________ In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:37:43 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Romani) Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From Marco Romani > >The Britannic was sunk by a mine in WWI. > >The Olympic was nearly sunk with a collision with a lighthouse ship IIRC and >was scrapped in the mid 30s. > >Interestingly they was a female employee of the ship line that survived both >sinkings and the collision. > Don't ever go on a cruise with this woman... -- Joe -- Joseph M. Krzeszewski Network Operations and Security [EMAIL PROTECTED] Worcester Polytechnic Institute ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:06:03 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: <E36> Idler pully and alternator brushes Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When my son and I do the coolant pump and radiator R&R, I'm thinking it might be a good time to replace the alternator brushes/regulator at 80k miles. Two questions: 1. What is the size of the allen that Bentley refers to on the idler pulley? 3. Does the alternator have to be removed to replace the regulator when the radiator and belts are removed? -Kevin ---------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail communication is confidential and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by replying to the e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jim Bassett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E36> Idler pully and alternator brushes Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, April 12, 2006 12:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > 1. What is the size of the allen that Bentley refers to on the idler > pulley? 8mm. > 3. Does the alternator have to be removed to replace the regulator when > the > radiator and belts are removed? Dunno, never done this, although I have removed the alternator to replace the leaking oil filter housing gasket. Jim Bassett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:02:48 -0700 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> Subject: <OT> Titanic findings Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So that iceberg theory is bunk? That's a shame, giving icebergs a bad name for all these decades. Is there any relationship between this steel sulphur content problem and the E36's propensity to rip the rear subframe out of the floor just for thinking about taking a fast turn? Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:35:05 -0700 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [email protected] >Subject: <OT> Titanic findings >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sorry, >Jay, rivet holes don't appear to have anything to do with Titanic's >fragility. The current speculation is that the plate steel had too high a >content of sulphur which made it very brittle at the water temperatures in >that part of the ocean in which it sailed. > >-Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:52:34 -0700 From: "Curtis A. Ingraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not to discount something serious, like wheel bearings, but Yokohama AVS ES-100 tires, half worn? Curt Ingraham 72 2002tii Oakland, CA jaykenty wrote: > '94 E34 Wagon Auto- Hard to tell exactly where this is coming from, but > seems to be in the rear. Starts to become very noticeable from 30 mph > up. Can hear and feel it- rumble, almost like a low frequency grinding > sound- loudest at 30-40 mph, but can hear/feel sound up to 60 (didn't > want to go faster). Wife says handling changed with onset of this > problem, but I didn't notice this. Pretty sure not brakes or > transmission- no change in sound on braking or in Neutral. Sound goes > away during quickly swerving back and forth. Felt both rear hubs after > test drive and both feel hot to the touch. I've never tried this > before, so maybe they are always hot...? > > I suspect rear bearings, u-joint, or something else in that back axle... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:10:06 -0400 From: "Michael Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They don't even have to be half worn. A new set on my parents E39 almost had us fooled into changing all the wheel bearings as we could not find anything else. Then we changed the tires and all was well. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bmwuucdigest- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis A. Ingraham > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [UUC] E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel > > Not to discount something serious, like wheel bearings, but > Yokohama AVS ES-100 tires, half worn? > > Curt Ingraham > 72 2002tii > Oakland, CA > > jaykenty wrote: > > > '94 E34 Wagon Auto- Hard to tell exactly where this is coming from, but > > seems to be in the rear. Starts to become very noticeable from 30 mph > > up. Can hear and feel it- rumble, almost like a low frequency grinding > > sound- loudest at 30-40 mph, but can hear/feel sound up to 60 (didn't > > want to go faster). Wife says handling changed with onset of this > > problem, but I didn't notice this. Pretty sure not brakes or > > transmission- no change in sound on braking or in Neutral. Sound goes > > away during quickly swerving back and forth. Felt both rear hubs after > > test drive and both feel hot to the touch. I've never tried this > > before, so maybe they are always hot...? > > > > I suspect rear bearings, u-joint, or something else in that back axle... > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:20:08 -0500 From: "Paul Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: <E38> Hot dash/center stack Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi all, I have a friend with a 1997 740il with a little over 100 kmiles. The car is new to him for the last 6 months or so. If he drives the car for any amount of time over 15 minutes or so, the center stack area of the dash around the radio and HVAC controls gets very hot. Hot enough that you do not want to touch it for any extended period and tapes in the player (apparently he still owns some cassettes) get so hot they will not play. Anyone else seen this? Any ideas as to what is going on? Any help is appreciated. Regards, Paul Craven 93 325ic with ambient temperature dash 99 528it her dash, not allowed to touch ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:27:22 -0500 From: "Paul Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: <E30> Convertible Top Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nice weather has finally arrived here in KS and I have been dropping the top on my 1993 325ic. Like many E30 owners, the power top does not work. The motors look OK, but the drive assembly that operates the top is disengaged and has been since I bought it. The tonneau cover drive works fine and I use it. The engineer in me wants to fix the other motor, but I can't find any info on the system. I'd like to at least try to get it going again. I assume it will need to be re-initialized if I engage it. Does anyone know how to do this or know where I can find a reference for the system? Should I run away from this? I fixed a double pane E34 touring sun roof once, so this should be cake, right? Famous last words... Regards, Paul Craven 93 325ic - semi power top 99 528it - needs the ABS fixed ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:24:02 -0500 From: "John Bunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: <E30> Convertible Top Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Paul - Information on the E30 convertible top is hard to come by. About the only thing BMW ever provided was a video on the top - I have a copy I picked up on eBay back when I still had my 1992 325ic (with working electric top). I've always thought I'd transcribe it to digital so it could be easily shared, but I've never gotten around to it. The word is that some gears strip and levers get bent, after which is it extremely difficult to get it to work properly again. This is especially prone to happen when the elastic bands get old and lose their resilience. It's all I know about it, because like I say, I was able to keep mine working the whole time I owned it. Let me know if you are interested in the video, I've got it around somewhere. John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:50:55 -0400 From: "Karl Zemlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you sure hot-hubs was not from braking heat? My first guess on driving noises is always tires (software). Rotate the tires and see if it moves. If not, then it's time to start looking at hardware. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jaykenty Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [UUC] E34 Rumbling Noise/Feel '94 E34 Wagon Auto- Hard to tell exactly where this is coming from, but seems to be in the rear. Starts to become very noticeable from 30 mph up. Can hear and feel it- rumble, almost like a low frequency grinding sound- loudest at 30-40 mph, but can hear/feel sound up to 60 (didn't want to go faster). Wife says handling changed with onset of this problem, but I didn't notice this. Pretty sure not brakes or transmission- no change in sound on braking or in Neutral. Sound goes away during quickly swerving back and forth. Felt both rear hubs after test drive and both feel hot to the touch. I've never tried this before, so maybe they are always hot...? I suspect rear bearings, u-joint, or something else in that back axle... Any ideas? Thanks in advance. Jay Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________________________________ In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 4/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/309 - Release Date: 4/11/2006 ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(13 messages) **********
