Quench grooves

[Mach10]

Ok, fair enough...

Except that now you're starting to imply chaos theoreticals here... Real butterfly-flapping-wings shit; with differences so small as to be un-measurable, having measurable effects on the outcome.

So tell me, has anyone tried adding RIDGES to the quench area--funneling to a point--to increase pressure, and force that volume of air through a small aperture? Tricky to do w/ cast iron/aluminum... But worth a go....

[whipped]

I'm still waiting for teh datas.

or a CFD simulation of the air flow with and without the grooves.

[bigblockfiero]

Ok, fair enough...

Except that now you're starting to imply chaos theoreticals here... Real butterfly-flapping-wings shit; with differences so small as to be un-measurable, having measurable effects on the outcome.

So tell me, has anyone tried adding RIDGES to the quench area--funneling to a point--to increase pressure, and force that volume of air through a small aperture? Tricky to do w/ cast iron/aluminum... But worth a go....

What Still isn't clear is that the dyno pull that is posted earlier in this thread is a wide open pull making 22hp.

The groove pulls I'm referring to were on a different test engine that makes only 6hp wide open throttle. During the part throttle pulls I was only making around 2hp and the groove improvement change was an improvement of sometimes 1/2hp at best. This may sound like only minuscule improvements but its a 25% gain given the overall part throttle hp of 2.

This dyno is very accurate and I'm quite sure the improvement is substantial but the fact that I was trying to regulate the manifold pressure by hand during the tests and that quench chamber grooves are so controversial, causes me to automate this test before I make it public (not counting here as public). -------------------------------------------Are fiero people considered normal public? not to start a new thread here but this topic is more controversial then quench chamber grooves.

Your idea and others are worth testing and you would be surprised to know how little of this has really been explored. The golf ball analogy that the dimples cause less friction as it travels threw the air, I suppose you could test these dimples in a quench area for the air or combustion to move faster. I never have tried this but consider two things,------------Dimples increase exposed surface area which reduces thermal efficiency ( but also the boundary layer may become less active which increases thermal efficiency) and dimples will hide and store any fuel wash and could create wet flow problems (but this wouldn't be a problem if the dimples were located where no fuel wash is present). Larry widelmeyer has tested stuff like this and has settled on a chamber texture he calls a soft chamber, it has not gained wide spread acceptance because no one else has independently tested this as well. Jesse williams has tested dimples on valves and the only other independent testing I know of was done by me. The point is that new technologies have to be promoted regardless how good they are. Anyone interested in further testing of dimpled valves should contact jesse and check out his site---------http://www.williamsmotowerx.net/index.htm

Its hard to test this stuff which is why I do it on cheep little single cylinder engines.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I get that part...

What he won't answer is how the air being expelled from under this quench pad is being convinced to take the path of greater resistance and pick up enough speed relative to the rest of the air under the quench pad to force the rest of it to change direction and flow directly at the plug.

Draw an analogy to electric circuits...

You have two resistors in parallel, one is 10 ohms and one is 100 ohms. If you supply them from the same voltage source and the same ground, current will still flow through the 100 ohm resistor, despite the fact that the 10 ohm resistor is the "path of least resistance".

If you think about the quench clearance as the 10 ohm resistor and the groove as the 100 ohm resistor, it might make sense.

[Indy]

Ok, fair enough...

Except that now you're starting to imply chaos theoreticals here... Real butterfly-flapping-wings shit; with differences so small as to be un-measurable, having measurable effects on the outcome.

So tell me, has anyone tried adding RIDGES to the quench area--funneling to a point--to increase pressure, and force that volume of air through a small aperture? Tricky to do w/ cast iron/aluminum... But worth a go....

Your idea and others are worth testing and you would be surprised to know how little of this has really been explored. The golf ball analogy that the dimples cause less friction as it travels threw the air, I suppose you could test these dimples in a quench area for the air or combustion to move faster. I never have tried this but consider two things,------------Dimples increase exposed surface area which reduces thermal efficiency ( but also the boundary layer may become less active which increases thermal efficiency) and dimples will hide and store any fuel wash and could create wet flow problems (but this wouldn't be a problem if the dimples were located where no fuel wash is present). Larry widelmeyer has tested stuff like this and has settled on a chamber texture he calls a soft chamber, it has not gained wide spread acceptance but part of that is because no one else has independently tested this as well. Its hard to test this stuff which is why I do it on cheep little single cylinder engines.

Dimples don't cause less friction...They induce a turbulent boundary layer. Skin friction drag on a sphere moving through air is insignificant compared to its pressure drag, something which the turbulent BL reduces. Trade the laminar BL and its lower skin friction drag for a turbulent BL and its MUCH lower pressure drag. IMO, this is irrelevant anyway, as I seriously doubt that flow would make the transition into the chamber without the BL becoming seperated anyway, and if you can achieve a laminar BL across the combustion chamber face, I will make you a stack of pancakes.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Except that now you're starting to imply chaos theoreticals here... Real butterfly-flapping-wings shit; with differences so small as to be un-measurable, having measurable effects on the outcome.

But it isn't... it's not that the differences are un-measurable... it's that they're inaccessible in the environment of a running engine. You can observe and change them all you want when you have the engine apart.

It just makes correlating cause and effect a bit more difficult. It's the problem that researchers at the cutting edge have been facing for a long time. My cousin's been closng in on a PhD in developmental biology for six years now. Her project? Find ONE chemical messenger responsible for the mechanical interactions of cells in ONE section of a frog embryo during ONE portion of the development period. It's such a tiny part of the overall whole to have been working on for 6 years, but we're at the point at which new knowledge is THAT hard to suss out of the details.

While the most complex and thoroughly designed engine is dirt simple compared to the stupidest amoeba or virus, the same applies to the cutting edge of engine technology.

[bigblockfiero]

Ok, fair enough...

Except that now you're starting to imply chaos theoreticals here... Real butterfly-flapping-wings shit; with differences so small as to be un-measurable, having measurable effects on the outcome.

So tell me, has anyone tried adding RIDGES to the quench area--funneling to a point--to increase pressure, and force that volume of air through a small aperture? Tricky to do w/ cast iron/aluminum... But worth a go....

Your idea and others are worth testing and you would be surprised to know how little of this has really been explored. The golf ball analogy that the dimples cause less friction as it travels threw the air, I suppose you could test these dimples in a quench area for the air or combustion to move faster. I never have tried this but consider two things,------------Dimples increase exposed surface area which reduces thermal efficiency ( but also the boundary layer may become less active which increases thermal efficiency) and dimples will hide and store any fuel wash and could create wet flow problems (but this wouldn't be a problem if the dimples were located where no fuel wash is present). Larry widelmeyer has tested stuff like this and has settled on a chamber texture he calls a soft chamber, it has not gained wide spread acceptance but part of that is because no one else has independently tested this as well. Its hard to test this stuff which is why I do it on cheep little single cylinder engines.

Dimples don't cause less friction...They induce a turbulent boundary layer. Skin friction drag on a sphere moving through air is insignificant compared to its pressure drag, something which the turbulent BL reduces. Trade the laminar BL and its lower skin friction drag for a turbulent BL and its MUCH lower pressure drag. IMO, this is irrelevant anyway, as I seriously doubt that flow would make the transition into the chamber without the BL becoming seperated anyway, and if you can achieve a laminar BL across the combustion chamber face, I will make you a stack of pancakes.

:love10: check out my ninja edit and the link to williams motorwerx.

[bigblockfiero]

http://www.williamsmotowerx.net/

Second try, I screwed up the link but check out what he has to say about dimples causing less friction. The dimples make the flow more laminar above the boundary layer now where's my pancakes.

[Fastback86]

Except that now you're starting to imply chaos theoreticals here... Real butterfly-flapping-wings shit; with differences so small as to be un-measurable, having measurable effects on the outcome.

But it isn't... it's not that the differences are un-measurable... it's that they're inaccessible in the environment of a running engine. You can observe and change them all you want when you have the engine apart.

It just makes correlating cause and effect a bit more difficult. It's the problem that researchers at the cutting edge have been facing for a long time. My cousin's been closng in on a PhD in developmental biology for six years now. Her project? Find ONE chemical messenger responsible for the mechanical interactions of cells in ONE section of a frog embryo during ONE portion of the development period. It's such a tiny part of the overall whole to have been working on for 6 years, but we're at the point at which new knowledge is THAT hard to suss out of the details.

While the most complex and thoroughly designed engine is dirt simple compared to the stupidest amoeba or virus, the same applies to the cutting edge of engine technology.

Does your family piss excellence or something? A physicist and a PhD level biologist? Let me guess, your brothers a brain surgeon.

[bigblockfiero]

I get that part...

What he won't answer is how the air being expelled from under this quench pad is being convinced to take the path of greater resistance and pick up enough speed relative to the rest of the air under the quench pad to force the rest of it to change direction and flow directly at the plug.

Draw an analogy to electric circuits...

You have two resistors in parallel, one is 10 ohms and one is 100 ohms. If you supply them from the same voltage source and the same ground, current will still flow through the 100 ohm resistor, despite the fact that the 10 ohm resistor is the "path of least resistance".

If you think about the quench clearance as the 10 ohm resistor and the groove as the 100 ohm resistor, it might make sense.

a very good perspective. :thumbleft:

[whipped]

The dimples make the boundary layer thicker (more resilient?) so that the high velocity air doesn't crash into the solid wall and lose energy. It's like a pickup's MPG with tailgate up vs down. Up you gain fuel economy because the stagnant air bubble trapped in the bed keeps the jet stream above the pickup.

[p8ntman442]

Do the groves affect a Natural gas engine? Electric car? Biodiesel?


Jones: Hey edison, I have perfected the gas lantern, come check it out.
Edison: Nah, I'm a little busy working on a bright idea of mine.

[bigblockfiero]

Do the groves affect a Natural gas engine? Electric car? Biodiesel?


Jones: Hey edison, I have perfected the gas lantern, come check it out.
Edison: Nah, I'm a little busy working on a bright idea of mine.

Electric car? :scratch:

Even good ideas have to be promoted and marketed by somebody. Its not correct to say that if this was such a good idea manufacturers would be doing it. If a purchasing agreement were signed with summander sigh for his patent they would be sued by clinton engines because they did it first. If they make the grooves and pay sigh nothing they will be sued by sigh. If they just wait for sigh to stop paying his pattent maintenance fees in about 5 years they can quietly make these grooves and pay sigh nothing and hope clinton doesn't catch on. The politics of good ideas is very complex and new pattent laws are stifling creativity. You would be very surprised to know how much combustion technology has not been explored.

Sumander sigh told me not to use his name in my story and I think it is understood that by his warning I would be sued if I did. Sigh will soon give up negotiations by discouragement and stop paying his pattent maintenance fees of about $5,000 per year. This scam started just a few years ago, there was no such thing as maintenance fees. You were awarded a pattent and it was stored in public record forever. It seems like common sence but even that is now being legally challenged.

Its very expensive and hard to get awarded a pattent and the end result is almost allways a financial failure. Only one out of a hundred pattents ever make any money. Pattent attorneys scam plenty of cash for the 99 pattents that made nothing not to mention the thousands of other attempts that were never awarded a pattent. My pattent attourney has been in buisness for over 30 years in a lush downtown location and he can name only just a couple of his filed pattents that are actively generating revinue today.

My currently active pattents cost $36,000 from my pattent attourney for the fileings and $3,500 per year mainenance fees. This is considered a good deal for canada, us, europe, aisia, japan and a few more I can't remember but not china because they just steal ideas anyway. I have put another $20,000 into manufacturing in the last six months and $250,000 in development before that. In total I have earned back about $50,000 and so I'm about $263,000 in the hole.

[p8ntman442]

you missed my point,

Revolutionizing the internal combustion engine is not going to happen, were beyond that, now we need a new form or method to propel cars.

[bigblockfiero]

you missed my point,

Revolutionizing the internal combustion engine is not going to happen, were beyond that, now we need a new form or method to propel cars.

Look at all we learned about combustion in 2001. Now take everything that was learned up untill that point and throw it away. This is the kind of stuff that is inspireing to the idea that more is left to be discovered.

Batteries were labled pos and neg to imply that as in water pressure examples, positive pressure would flow to the load then return to the negitive side. It was then discovered in the seventies that we had labled all batteries backward in that flow was actually going from the negitive to the positive. Its to late to change this now so even today battery currents flow backward of what common sence tells you it would be so don't be saying that smart people somewhere have figured everything out because they havent.

Some people think the govenment is hiding a secret technology or a 100 mpg carbarator and they wonder why there are examples of very old cars that get very good mpg in a heavier car then the same of today. This kind of stuff furthers this belief but what is not considered is that govenment regulation such as emmitions has mandated things like less oxide of nitrogen output that has a dirrect correlation to less thermal efficiency.

Natural gas is generally considered the most efficient form of energy for heating. when comparing solar you also need to consider that the additional $30,000 it takes for the installation needs to be weighed against the intrest earned if that $30,000 had been invested instead. This then brings into debate a lesser known fact that geothermal heating is half the cost of natural gas for only a slightly more exspensive installation and so also negates the economics of solar.

So you must then ask yourself why isn't geothermal more widely used? The reason once again is the government. When politicians see that some people are getting by cheeper they assume that because of the savings, those people can afford to pay more taxes and so they figure out a way to regulate the technology. Regulators now mandate that private geothermal wells must have a water meter installed to which they charge the homeowner a water use fee :scratch: for water that they don't provide :scratch: even tho the electric pumping costs are paid for by the homeowner :scratch: and the well was installed and paid for by the homeowner on their own private property :scratch: so that by the time they pay the usage fee its almost the same as someone that has natural gas. But yet the house next door may have a well and that water is unregulated if they don't have geothermal (or if the government doesn't know they have geothermal).

And now back to engines, maximum cylinder pressure occurs at 15 degrees after TDC for really crappy leverage. The spark has to occur very early to account for the time it takes for combustion to get moving, but if combustion got moving quicker then the spark could occur later and maximum cylinder pressure could occur at say 20 degrees after TDC for a really big leverage improovement. It is because of this that one of my current solutions is a gasoline powered external combustion engine such that leverage timing can be manipulated and directed thru a specially designed air motor.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... ctiona.gif

[lucky]

Batteries were labled pos and neg to imply that as in water pressure examples, positive pressure would flow to the load then return to the negitive side. It was then discovered in the seventies that we had labled all batteries backward in that flow was actually going from the negitive to the positive.

Not really against common sense. Electrons are negatively charged after all.
I get what you're saying tho.

[p8ntman442]

It is because of this that one of my current solutions is a gasoline powered external combustion engine such that leverage timing can be manipulated and directed thru a specially designed air motor.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... ctiona.gif

so you agree, the solution is not an improved internal combustion engine.

[bigblockfiero]

It is because of this that one of my current solutions is a gasoline powered external combustion engine such that leverage timing can be manipulated and directed thru a specially designed air motor.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... ctiona.gif

so you agree, the solution is not an improved internal combustion engine.

Yes I am working on something else but nissan is working on an opposed piston internal combustion engine that solves this 15 degree crank pressure angle issue. The nissan has two pistons in the same bore that are heading strait toward each other for compression up to TDC. Each piston has its own separate crank arm but one reaches TDC a little sooner. One piston starts heading back down wile the other is still coming up so no volume is being displaced but yet the leading piston is achieving a 25 degree crank angle before the power stroke happens. Just imagine how efficient the overlap period can be with all this time to direct the flow volumes.

[bigblockfiero]

Batteries were labled pos and neg to imply that as in water pressure examples, positive pressure would flow to the load then return to the negitive side. It was then discovered in the seventies that we had labled all batteries backward in that flow was actually going from the negitive to the positive.

Not really against common sense. Electrons are negatively charged after all.
I get what you're saying tho.

But the issue is much greater than this single mistake!
We are told there are an equal number of protons and electrons orbiting around the nucleus at the speed of light. When current flows a single electron cuts in to a nucleus orbit and so bumps out an electron to the next nearby nucleus orbit because the proton and electron numbers must remain the same. This sets up a chain reaction that creates current flow. We are told what this all looks like, the number of character elements, the speed of the elements, how the elements are charged, the heat producing friction between the elements and why, the magnetic inductance created by the mass, flow, whatever, and how its produced and bla, bla bla, its never ending.

The point is that if the most simplest of dynamics (flow direction) was not known till the 1970's even after the advent of the nuclear bomb then apparently it wasn't so important that it needed to be known to create the bomb (assuming that a string of technology parallels are present). Furthermore many of these much much more complex details are more likely to be inaccurate and were created by hypothesis only. This doesn't mean the current hypothesis isn't generally accurate, its just that whenever any new experiment models conflict with the hypothesis the hypothesis is changed just a bit to suite all existing models. So basically the whole thing could be fundamentally wrong but the hypothesis works and also because we keep updating it. Understanding has to start somewhere just to get a frame of mind even if it's just a hypothesis.

So here we are and we don't really know what gravity is, or magnetism altho many hypothesis are available so I just try to keep an open mind.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It was then discovered in the seventies that we had labled all batteries backward in that flow was actually going from the negitive to the positive.

The point is that if the most simplest of dynamics (flow direction) was not known till the 1970's

You said it twice, so it's not a typo.
You're in the wrong century, man.

That's a bad analogy, because the difference between current flow and electron flow is irrelevant. You just have to be aware or consistent with which one you're using to analyze a circuit. That's why the definition of current flow wasn't changed... that difference between model and reality is not important.