Advertising Last completed movie pages
1910 Wolseley Motor Sledge Antarctic Expedition Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2018-08-19 21:39 |
![[Image: scott-sledge_3.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/scott-sledge_3.jpg) ![[Image: scott-sledge_.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/scott-sledge_.jpg) Actually filmed during the start of the first part of the journey to the south pole before both vehicles suffered overheating and finally complete engine failure; during Captain R.F. Scott's second Antarctic expedition, begun in 1910. Compare with the replicas here /vehicle_866742-Wolseley-Motor-Sledge-1910.html and /vehicle.php?id=1170083#Comment2369630 The line attached to the front was used for steering (by being pulled to the side by someone walking in front) as the sledge had no internal steering mechanism. -- Last edit: 2018-08-21 11:53:24 |
|
◊ 2018-08-20 18:12 |
How can a machine overheat in literally the coldest place on the planet?! |
|
◊ 2018-08-20 18:39 |
when the anti-freeze is too weak?? When a polar bear sits on the radiator?? |
|
◊ 2018-08-20 19:40 |
No polar bears at the S pole. Anti freeze technology was not so developed in 1910, relying mainly upon the more volatile alcohols which would boil away leaving the coolant liable to freezing in the lower part of the radiator which stops the circulation, especially in non pumped (thermo syphon) systems. The coolant in the top of the engine then boils away, and the engine is left to all intents uncooled. The oil then overheats, loses its “oiliness” and the engine will seize. In 1910 the oil industry was still in its infancy as far as the relatively highly stressed and higher speed internal combustion engines were concerned, compared with steam engines which did not stress the lubricants so much, at least until the use of superheated steam became general. There were no additive viscosity enhancers, and there was more use of animal or vegetable feedstock for lubricants, which were not tolerant of overheating. Also, napthenic, rather than paraffinic crudes, if using mineral oil, were preferred as they did not wax so much when encountering very low temperatures. Something at the back of my mind is saying that the engines might have been sleeve valve, with all that entails in respect of incipient seizure, but it could be my aging little grey cells that are in need of some ten year old lubricant. There is also the possibility that the expedition members did not include a motor engineer, and maybe they topped up the cooling systems with no more than melted snow, not appreciating that this would weaken the anti freeze mixture and so lessen the resistance to freezing when the engines were not running. I am not denigrating the gallant gentlemen of the expedition, just remember this was 1910, and that they would probably a) have known much more about the horses, dogs and ponies, and b) have had “a man to look after the motor” when at home. -- Last edit: 2018-08-20 21:00:30 |
|
◊ 2018-08-20 22:14 |
Wolseley used an air cooled engine; it looks to be 4-cylinder with a large air fan at the front. ![[Image: engine.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/engine.jpg) I don't know how advanced air-cooled engine design was in the early 20th century but I see that at least one other maker realised a finned cylinder block was necessary for cooling. Wolseley were a major tooling/engineering company so could have developed their own unit perhaps (I have not been able to find engine details yet). edit: Its likely the engines were made by The Advance Motor Manufacturing Company who manufactured air-cooled engines for "projects such as Scott’s motorised sledges which went on trial in Norway" http://www.oakingtonplane.co.uk/a_scott.php In the movie the metal engine cover with slatted front air intake (from earlier photographs in UK and Norway) looks to be replaced with a fully enclosed wooden box structure. So probably little or no air passes over the engine it would just reuse its own heated air? Also it looks as though the top cover is continually being opened or closed possibly to keep things working. Lastly without water-temperature being able to be measured would they know of overheating until actual failure? A later CM archive article goes on at some length that proposes that the 'reduced latent heat of air' at extremely low temperatures compared with normal above freezing temperatures, was responsible for poor hear transfer. However my thermodynamics-chemistry background is too little now to say if that had any actual effect. JFS, your comments about if an actual engineer being on the expedition is valid. I will attempt to find out, but in any case its almost certain the wreckage remained in Antarctica so no formal failure analysis would be possible and only the expert or non-expert comments from those present was reported. -- Last edit: 2018-08-28 12:52:29 |
|
◊ 2018-08-20 22:49 |
The formation of fog as air cools is an effect due to cold air being able to hold less water than warm. With less water to vapourise it would seem logical that the colder the air becomes the more difficult it would be to transfer heat to the air for cooling the cylinders. Obviously my comments about the antifreeze of 1910 do not apply here, but the comments concerning the efficacy of the oils of that era do. Memories from my days of VW beetle ownership include the oil change intervals being observed if you know what’s good for the engine, and the fact that the engines had an oil cooler. VW and Porsche did not, in the 60s, recommend multi grade oils possibly because of misgivings regarding shear stability, this 50 years later than the Wolseley engines in question, the oil used in which must have been very much less stable, and virtually unusable at the low temperatures encountered when first starting, and similarly ineffectual when overheated. Add to this the possibility that air flow was limited by the wooden structure referred to above, think about the sort of temperature gradients found in the primitive air cooled engine starved of less conductive air, and it seems to suggest that this is a recipe for failure. BTW non-expert comment from me, but back-up received from Richard Michell, “Which Oil” Veloce Publishing 2011, and F.W. Lowe BSc, whose efforts to knock A level Physics into some of us are appreciated now, if not then. -- Last edit: 2018-08-20 23:23:19 |
|
◊ 2018-08-21 11:31 |
JFS, your comments about air at low temperatures holding less water and therefore having less cooling capacity makes easier and clearer reading than the CM archive's lengthy article. I now understand the problem far better! Its also worth mentioning that Shackleton at the same time was using motor transport in the Antarctic with even less success. Earlier he was donated an Arrol-Johnston car that was lightly modified (ski-fronts and paddle shaped wheels at the rear) which could be driven on the Antarctic snow and later a purpose-built Snow-tractor again with large paddle shaped drums. Both lacked sufficient grip and tended to bog down in snow, but appear to have water cooled engines. At least the Wolseley proved the crawler tractor principle on the first part of the journey on the ice-shelf, its use on the Beardmore glacier would however be almost impossible I guess. It was reported as being able to tow up to 1½-tons but at the severe penalty that a lot of this load was fuel it self. Compared with the speed and manoeuvrability of a dog-team its fairly obvious why Amundsen had the best chance of success. No documentaries found for the Arrol-Johnston car or the Snow-tractor yet but some articles and film footage do exist. Link to "rsgsexplorers.com" https://eshackleton.com/2015/01/30/motor-crawler/ Link to "archive.commercialmotor.com" Link to "www.gettyimages.co.uk" |
|
◊ 2018-08-21 13:16 |
Thank you for your kind comment. It also helps to remember that dry air is quite an effective insulator, which is why layered clothing keeps you warm in winter but also why it’s no use if you capsize the boat and fall in the water! The Arrol-Johnston was air cooled as well. There is also a comment about the oil solidifying in the engine, and about overheating. I see from the article about the water cooled motor sledge used by Shackleton that it did not have a radiator as such, but relied on a large tank filled initially with snow, sensible! Link to "www.coolantarctica.com" -- Last edit: 2018-08-21 13:32:05 |
|
◊ 2018-08-22 19:46 |
From the 'Great White Silence' version complete with tinted scenes.![[Image: whitetitle.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/whitetitle.jpg) ![[Image: whitemotors.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/whitemotors.jpg) ![[Image: white1a.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/558/white1a.jpg) The 1907 Arrol-Johnston car on the Shackelton expedition was operated by Bernard Day who worked for Arrol-Johnston before joining Shackelton's Nimrod expedition. Scott therefore also used Bernard Day to operate the Wolseley Motor Sledges on the Terra Nova Expedition, with Lieutenant Evans in charge of the use of the vehicles. Two of the vehicles were shipped in large wooden cases on the deck of the Terra Nova, the third was lashed to the deck on its own (except for a tarpaulin). The three sledges before being shipped by Wolseley http://thumbsnap.com/1mZb9yOg Although overheating was found soon after arriving, Day said their general performance was satisfactory when the specific difficulties were taken into account. The cooling of No.1 and 2 cylinders closest to the fan was acceptable but cylinders 3 and 4 overheated and eventually, connecting rods broke following bearing failures. However, they carried out useful transport of supplies, relieving ponies from some work in preparing staging camps, over distances up to 65Km and over difficult terrain. They were unpopular however because of their unreliability. The development of the motor sledges was financed completely by Thomas Scott-Ellis, 8th Baron Howard de Walden a wealthy landowner with properties in London and friend of Robert F. Scott. -- Last edit: 2018-08-28 12:59:26 |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
