Real Fiero Tech

bigblockfiero wrote:My dyno sheet I posted was unimpressive to this fiero tech world, laughed at, and critisized yet the technologys in this little TWO VALVE motor have been raved about in the real world with contributions made by a few top builders. It has been a test peice for dimpled valves, horizontaly ported piston rings, quench chamber grooves, venturi crankcase evacuation, piston skirt displacement rings, plug purge grooves and so much more.

[emphasis added]
from: phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13885&start=100

Also some info and pics at these sites (although this site's info is kinda cracked):
http://somender-singh.com/component/opt ... /Itemid,1/
http://somender-singh.com/content/view/119/49/

http://www.postimage.org/gxrGiXi-800cea ... 33afcf.jpg
http://www.postimage.org/Pq1bWvLS-800ce ... 33afcf.jpg

he posted a dyno sheet?

/hijack

For the research engine. You saw it.

WHAT dyno sheet? I didn't see it. Linkers?

I read about this indian guy who did the cyl head grooves a long time ago, claimed he could idle down to where you could count the fan blade revoulutions, and claimed higher HP numbers under full load.

Lower idle, higher hp, and better economy all the result of some groves cut in the heads. It was an interesting article in Red Power (international harvester magazine ((my fathers a farmer)))

If it really did all that, and really worked, car makers would be doing it.

There are many groove treads that have been circulating for the last five or so years ever since popular science did a story on the guy from india, summander sigh. The groove theory has been around much longer and I started experimenting with it in the late seventies when I discovered the clinton (small engine) company put simular grooves in there four stroke motors.

I have never seen grooves reduce power and I have seen grooves noticably improove idle, bottom end torque, mileage, and throttle responce but I have also seen grooves not improove these same things under certain conditions and so this corralation of combustion chamber changes is the discovery that will be in my story "quench chamber grooves by matt kneen and david vizard". It is shocking, interesting, and will help drivability for a street motor which includes about everybody but any gains at higher rpm and wide open throttle are miniscule.

Darin morgan told me that if there are any gains he believes it is because there is a deficiency that is being comphensated for within the motor. In my dyno tests this has been prooven to be true but the ineficiency that is the most interesting is that of a partially closed throttle. I am now making enertia dyno pulls at a steady eight inches of murcury (part trottle) up to eight grand and the improovement results are noticable and undeniably real.

A few more links but most of this this info is heading in the wrong dirrection, a dirrection of more questions then answers and miniscule comparisons made at wide open throttle.

http://pesn.com/2005/10/13/9600187_Desi ... _Chambers/

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0 ... index.html

* http://forums.performanceyears.com/foru ... oovy+heads

* http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/more-si ... 08566.html

http://somender-singh.com/component/opt ... /Itemid,1/


* http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4069

* http://www.revsearch.com/grooves/grooves.html

http://www.supercoolprops.com/articles/stuntsquish.php

* http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/foru ... php?t=4825


http://www.gofastnews.com/board/engine- ... -area.html

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5907

Aaron wrote:So, half of the time the grooves noticeably improve nearly every important performance aspect of an engine, and the other half of the time, they neither help or hurt. So would would no major car company do this? Seems to me, if there was that much to gain, with so little risk, and so little cost, they'd be all over it.

I'm equating these with air intake tornadoes.

The reason for the gains hasn't been isolated till now so I'm sure others will expand on the discovery.

Those tornado dodads reduce full throttle and upper end hp but the chamber grooves don't hurt anything when there running at a less effective condition.

I'm going to control this thread more tightly than usual because *I* want to read about how quench grooves work, what they do for combustion and how I might apply them to my engine.

"They can't work because OE's don't do that" is not discussion of *HOW* they might work.

Slightly O/T sidenote;

I'd like to bring up the contest between Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison in the "Current Wars."

Thomas Edison was a brute-force inventor; he didn't have an extensive math or engineering background. His "proofs" were trial and error, and he would not necessarily be able to say why it worked, only that it did as evidenced with his proof of concept.

Tesla was a mathematician and engineer, and went into the experiments having a good theoretical grasp of what should happen and why. In the end, his designs worked out because he didn't have to waste as much time getting his bearings, and when push came to shove, he was able to explain exactly why his design was better.

MY question is that if you're a "brute force inventor," how exactly is it that you can recommend a certain course for one engine over another given that you don't actually understand why it works in the first place?

This isn't a criticism per-se; but maybe you should consider enlisting some professional assistance to wheadle out a practical theory as to why it works?

Because, I'll tell ya, I'm interested in alternative technologies, but I'm not willing to mutilate my heads without a clear and practical explanation as to why it'll work.

Singh may be a respected inventor, but his "proofs" and "trials" aren't any better than most of the bullshit additive/vortex/electrik suprchargr! crap available from Wal-Mart.

Sounds like a bunch of bull-crap to me. Might work to introduce turbulence/tumble on a crap head with tons of safety factor built in, but on a well designed head will reduce flow at high RPM and will introduce hot spots in the head.

Will, do you really buy that some slots in anotherwise properly functioning head are GOOD? If you're building your fuel-miser SBC discussed in the other thread and know going into it that you'll be running on the limits of detonation in order to maximize fuel economy, wouldn't putting new notches/edges/corners/protrusions in the head be asking for trouble? I browsed through the posted links to be open minded, but I haven't seen any (legible?) presentation of before and after information on an otherwise unchanged engine. Throw me a bone if you see one. I'm still lost as to what the rhyme or reason is as well, since nobody that claims "IT WORKS!" is running the same style/number/size/etc. grooves. Having been at OEMs, I guarantee you this has been tried in a lab under controlled conditions by OEMs. Why haven't they gone with it if it's so simple? I have seen all sorts of crazy stuff tested at OEMs and it's extremely rare than any of it even sees improvements at all, let alone the claimed improvements. The few I have seen that worked as advertised were usually way too expensive/complex to make it worth the while.

Bryce

Oh yeah, I also think it's a valid question to say, "If it's that good, why don't OEMs do it?" in a technical discussion. If somebody claims that removing my oil fill cap will improve engine life, but the OEMs have always used an oil fill cap, it's reasonable to think they did it that way for a reason. It's much more valid to say, "Why wouldn't the OEM do it?" if they never have than to say "Why hasn't a single OEM done it?" IMO...seems pretty weak to delete posts in regards to that but not to some cracked out website like Singh's.

Bryce

Nashco wrote:Oh yeah, I also think it's a valid question to say, "If it's that good, why don't OEMs do it?" in a technical discussion.

True, and that is a GOOD question, but that's NOT the same as "It can't work because OEM's don't do it".

I think it makes some sense in that it could increase in cylinder mixing near TDC by basically creating a jet of air. I don't think you'll see any benefit with carb'd engines because their charge is pretty homogeneous anyways. So I don't think the briggs engine dyno carries much weight, but I can't otherwise explain the gains.

I think you could get better results without creating potential preignition hot spots and carbon traps by dimpling the combustion chamber like a golf ball. It would increase turbulence at TDC and get the same effects.

Nashco wrote:Sounds like a bunch of bull-crap to me. Might work to introduce turbulence/tumble on a crap head with tons of safety factor built in, but on a well designed head will reduce flow at high RPM and will introduce hot spots in the head.

The few I have seen that worked as advertised were usually way too expensive/complex to make it worth the while.

Bryce

After I explain this it will make perfect sense but before I do that and spoil it, lets look at the variety of ways people perceive this and how this speculation leads to the creation of wise tales, urban myth, hocus pocus and all that stuff because that is sort of fun too.

Grooves will induce turbulence and tumble?

Gee, I suppose it could and who could argue that it doesn't at all or even a little bit. But thats not really it.

Grooves will reduce flow at high rpms?

Again, I suppose it could especially if it sets up rotation on overlap that is counter productive to the existing flow and swirl but then again it can help induce earlier rotation and swirl that is beneficial to increase flow as well, but again, thats not the overwhelming reason for the gains that people are seeing. Many back to back dyno tests have shown no peak hp loss as a result of adding quench chamber grooves.

Grooves will introduce hot spots in the head?

It was common for people to say that chamber sharp edges must be deburred to prevent preignition from hot spots but look at a stock hyabusa chamber, alot of sharp edges and isn't a problem unless were talking about a long distance endurance event and even then the deburing is only possibly nessasary near the plug and exhaust valves. The valves will usually glow before a sharp edge of the chamber will. Many race engines are now built with sharp edges on the intake side of the chamber on purpose to provide a sheering edge for incylinder fuel vaporization and Quench walls are now usually left sharp. At the location where quench grooves occur, this isn't going to be a preignition source.

Nashco quote "The few I have seen that worked as advertised were usually way too expensive/complex to make it worth the while".

I would like to see a "worked as advertised" chamber.

If you look at all these groove threads you will notice that the experts you would expect to give profound explanation never do but that doesn't mean there isn't something positive going on, its just that they dont agree with whats being said. When I prompted darin morgan for an explination his answer was quite vauge but very accurate altho he didn't find isolation for the reason for the improvements.

[/b]

whipped wrote:I think it makes some sense in that it could increase in cylinder mixing near TDC by basically creating a jet of air. I don't think you'll see any benefit with carb'd engines because their charge is pretty homogeneous anyways. So I don't think the briggs engine dyno carries much weight, but I can't otherwise explain the gains.

I think you could get better results without creating potential preignition hot spots and carbon traps by dimpling the combustion chamber like a golf ball. It would increase turbulence at TDC and get the same effects.

I dont want to spoil this just yet so let the speculation continue, we still havent gotten to flame kernels, chamber shadowing, flame propagation, overlap isolation, etc.

Ya know, Mach 10, those direct current power lines don't clog as easily because the current isn't stopping and starting all the time. :scratch:

A chamber groove hint !!!

Benefits are typically greater on a V type engine!

The Dark Side of Will wrote:

Nashco wrote:Oh yeah, I also think it's a valid question to say, "If it's that good, why don't OEMs do it?" in a technical discussion.

True, and that is a GOOD question, but that's NOT the same as "It can't work because OEM's don't do it".

But that isn't what I said at all. I asked, in almost this exact way, if this technology is so good, helping in over half of the applications in every aspect of an engine's performance, without any negative affects, it would be highly desirable to car-makers. So why haven't any of them done it?

Then I hypothesized, that it was because it is an urban myth, like the tornado. You just up and deleted my post, despite it being civil, on topic, and completely reasonable.