The Classic Machinery Network

fowlerman I have been doing some thinking ( I KNOW I SHOULDNT)
If the the new motor that was fitted was spinning faster I would have thought it would have a lot more momentum and if the reduction is not directly at the back of the motor instead at the far end of the drive train ie the final drives when you are dozing along and hit a big immovable object I wonder does this extra momentum increase shock load threw the drive train perhaps and the fluid coupling was to try and absorb some of that shock
Or prehaps its the other way it is trying to absorb some of the shock load when taking off
either way Fowlers wearnt known for the best metallurgy in the business
just some thoughts I have no idea if any of it is right

Paul

Hi Trevor and Paul,

I've been reading your posts, thanks for your interest.
You mentioned the old Allis's with fuel filled converters. (I worked on them too).
There seems to be some confusion on the fluid-flywheel / torque converter thing. For anyone interested I'll try to explain the difference.

The fluid-flywheel consists of two turbines in an oil filled housing.
One, the drive turbine, is connected to the engine and the other the driven turbine to the transmission or propshaft.
The drive turbine spins oil against the driven increasing it to the same speed as the drive, just as if they were connected by a solid link.
At full speed the driven turbine has the same speed and torque as the drive.

A "torque converter" has a ring of variable blades between the turbines which move under load to slow down the speed at which the fluid moves the driven turbine.
This effectively increases the torque of the driven turbine whilst slowing it down; same as a gear reduction in a mechanical transmission does.

Yes, the fluid-flywheel does absorb shock, taking up the load as the revs increase, (thats why they are still used in rock crusher drives). But unless someone knows different it seems to me that in the case of "Moores Challengers" the throttle would be open creating a solid drive link as I discribed above They would then lose the drive cushioning advantage of the fluid-flywheel when using the clutch to change gear or direction unless it was somehow linked to throttle opperation.

In answer to the other point, gearing down at the final drive will remove load from the gearbox. By using the planetary final drives and doubling the reduction at this point the tooth loadings in the gearbox were halved.
This allowed Fowlers to retain the same basic box originaly designed for the 80 hp. Mk.2 in the later higher revving 125 and 150 HP. tractors without over
stressing it.
Fred

Fred was the fluid flywheel bolted to the crank and then the clutch or was it the clutch then the flywheel ? a lot of over head cranes used to have these fluid flwheels that I have worked on over the years and most of these cranes that had these were Malcome Moores same brand Moores made just about anything and or everything big and industrial

I guess there is only way to find the answer to why maybe I better buy one anyone got one for sale in this wide brown land ???

Paul

Mrsmackpaul wrote:Fred was the fluid flywheel bolted to the crank and then the clutch or was it the clutch then the flywheel ? a lot of over head cranes used to have these fluid flwheels that I have worked on over the years and most of these cranes that had these were Malcome Moores same brand Moores made just about anything and or everything big and industrial

I guess there is only way to find the answer to why maybe I better buy one anyone got one for sale in this wide brown land ???

Paul

The fluid coupling was direct to the engine Paul.
All my ramblings would be a bit pointless if not.
Fred

Fred, thank you for your good explanation of the difference. I've only ever seen a couple of the older fuel filled torque converters apart up on a bench to be serviced, and I hadn't noted this difference ... what I do remember is thinking thank goodness I haven't yet had to repair the one in my old girl .. it and the radiator were about the only thing that hadn't been pulled apart to fix.

Fred are we sure its a fluid coupling and not some type of torque converter that moores made Im not doubting you just wondering if anyone has seen in side it or are we just guessing thats what it is I have never seen a Fowler with one of these so Im just throwing ideas around

Paul

Mrsmackpaul wrote:Fred are we sure its a fluid coupling and not some type of torque converter that moores made Im not doubting you just wondering if anyone has seen in side it or are we just guessing thats what it is I have never seen a Fowler with one of these so Im just throwing ideas around

Paul

Hi Paul,
Moores fitted a Vulcan Sinclair fluid coupling made by Hydraulic Couplings & Engineering Ltd. at Isleworth, UK.
Other early use of these drives was in Aveling Barford road rollers, various busses and Daimler and Alvis military vehicles.
I found this pic of a typical Vulcan Sinclair unit, see below.
I once had one in a Daimler car coupled to a Wilson preselect box.

Fred could it be possible that in Australia we reckoned the transmission in Fowlers of the day were not reel heavy duty and by putting the planetary hubs on they nearly halved the strain on the transmission and final drives and potentially making it last a lot longer

Paul

It would be interesting to know the exact thinking behind using a fluid coupling. Then again, I have no experience of these couplings and how fluid they might be at engine idle, etc.

About the only thing I could think of behind putting one in, would be to make it easier on the clutch ... specifically for those who would roll start their machines.