-=Shadow=- wrote:

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:

jackalope wrote:/\ /\ /\ /\ Thats right. Thank God someone gets it !! The things you named to play into the V.E. and how the air actualy flows into the cylinder. Thats why an engine can not acheive 100% V.E. unless the engine is boosted.

And yes this can give you a head ache sorry. But now do you see why 100% is impossible. There are just too many things to keep this from happening.

so explain why N/A race engines achieve it in Indy and F-1.... just asking...

just a shot in the dark as seeing i'm not an Indy or f1 expert or engineer.

it they in fact make 100% VE maybe it is because it took a team of engineers lots of time, testing and money to develop the engine. and because they have the budget and time they can calculate down to very accurate levels of exactly how the engine works and the best way to fill it with air, and get it out. they have the time and resources to make the most efficient engine possibly.

further making me believe that the set of equations they use incorporate everything in the intake not just cyl. because i might be wrong but wouldn't the equation be skewed because of the variables included with runners, plenum, and the actual intake pipes (pre tb) ability to flow. and then also they have to be filled with air also etc.

i have no education at automotive engineering but i do know enough that if the equation is wrong so will the solution. and also can everyone at least keep an open mind to ideas?

well thats my point, the time money and effort....

all resources i am viewing are saying its possible...YET....RARE....


meaning it can be and has been done. just not common. and when these guys at indy and F1 cars, they dont have any power adders, however their intake setups do move air quicker into their plenums ESPECIALLY at the speeds they go... to have 100% V.E. ...................but their engines are not nitrous, boost, etc...

straight N/A




i already know about our engines.... it the same as me seeking PERFECTION in handling... i'm already limited by the rear trailing axle a bit. econo cars, not gonna happen.

Possible to get close, yes. Possible to exceed, no.

Of corse to do so is gonna require a buget the size of Hondas or Ferreri's and I don't see any pockets around here that deep.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

jackalope wrote:Possible to get close, yes. Possible to exceed, no.

Of corse to do so is gonna require a buget the size of Hondas or Ferreri's and I don't see any pockets around here that deep.

really wouldnt worry on exceeding... 100% is 100%... as my coach in college used to say:

"dont give 100% today and 110% on game day, give 100% all the time... that should be your max output... 110% are for those with roids and cheat methods"


granted in automotive, cheat devices are good, but N/A dont really need to surpass the physical max



and like 2fast 2 furious... pockets aint empty anymore, cuz!

I give up !!!!




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

slowolej wrote:Jackalope, here's the deal.

You're not giving me enough credit for what I do get. Everything you're talking about... less hp with elevation or atmospheric pressure, less fuel needed at elevation, less air density, I get. I've been racing at Douglass, WY, Great Falls, MT, and at Lebanon Valley and Epping. I've lived at close to sea level and 3500 ft above. I've seen it. I know damn well that you're right about what you see. But you're just as wrong wrong about what you call it.

VE is an engineering and physics term. It's set up as math. VE math is designed so VE doesn't change with atmospheric pressure changes. What you're calling VE isn't what engineers call VE. And since it was engineers, not Jackalopes, that made up VE, they get to set it up however they want. You've got the wrong name for the thing you're describing.

You said:

Quote:

Now if an engines piston moves down in the cylinder and the intake valve is open then its fairly safe to assume that atmospheric presure is going to push / force air into the cylider up to the point of how much presure is all around the engine.

That's it. Stop right there. That's all there is to VE. VE does not compare sea level air density to high altitude air density. You went on to say

Quote:

So theres less air presure pushing down on the engine less presure means less vaccum, less vaccum means that less air can be pulled into a cylinder meaning the engines V.E. has effectively been dropped.

Wrong name. That's not VE. The engine's VE isn't decided at sea level. The engine's VE is decided at whatever altitude it's at. Yes, there's less air in the cylinder. But there's less air outside the cylinder, and VE compares air in the cylinder to air outside the cylinder at whatever altitude the cylinder is at. It may seem like splitting hairs to you. people will think I'm beating a dead horse. I only wish someone had been able to point out some of the finer points to me when I was first starting out.

I can answer a question you've asked very easily.

Quote:

Sit a empty glass out on the counter, How full is it of air? Its 100% full, correct? Now how can you "overfill" it with air unless you presureize the air? You cannot.

This is easier than you think. You pick up the table with the glass and lift it as fast as you can. For the smallest amount of time when the glass is accelerating, air will be compressed in the glass. The glass will be "overfull." And it's done without pressurizing the air in the room.

The difference is that the glass is moving, just like air entering a cylinder is moving. Air is like a spring. A spring sitting still isn't very exciting. It just sits. To make anything interesting happen with a spring, you need some type of movement. Stretch, compress, wind, bounce... some type of motion needs to be involved. Air is the same. Still air is boring air. Moving air has a lot more potential.

Quote:

You are not understanding what I'm talking about and you insist on argueing.

The hardest part of this is separating "what you've seen" from "what it's called."

I've gotta go do some tuning... and some relaxing.

-->Slow

This exactly what I was talking about.
Props to Slowolej, i couldn't have said it better myself.
just glad to be part of the controversy

BOOM!!!

sorry, my head exploded. too much V.E. for my skull to contain. now just need to find my eyes so i can find my head.

just wait till i post the traction one

Hey I just got my ECOtec to run at 300,000% V.E. !!!!!! Cool huh!!!!! How do I know its running that well ? Well because I said so thats why. Just like all you guys THINKING that your gonna get any n/a engine to run beyond 100% V.E. Sorry Guys but you are WRONG. How do I know this? Hmmm Maybe its because this is what the automotive engineers that actualy desinged the engines have said. The simple fact that you have a valve opening into the combustion chamber takes up space the air would. So I guess you've all found out to to make an engine "magicly" run without valves or to stop blow-by 100% right? Well if you did then why aren't you working as an engineer instead of posting here? Its IMPOSSIBLE to do period end of story it CAN NOT be done. And if your so sure it can please post a link that shows it being done on a n/a engine. You will never find one because it is impossible without forced air inuction of some kind.

There are so many varibles that are involved with engine building and tuning that if you actualy think you can get an n/a engine to hit 100% or surpass it then maybe you should go talk to G.M., Ford, Dodge or hell for that matter ANY car company and you will be a very rich man. BUt since it can't then you won't so its all good.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

not doggin ya j-dawg, but.... two articles... the second article has some of the most prestigeous engine designers/builders/aftermartket technology...

Quote:

There are many factors which determine the BMEP an engine can produce, but the fundamental determinant is the mass of air it can ingest into the cylinders, and there is a nearly-linear relationship between VE and BMEP. For contemporary naturally-aspirated, two-valve-per-cylinder, pushrod engine technology, a VE over 95% is excellent, and 100% is achievable, but quite difficult. Only the best of the best can exceed 110%, and that is by means of extremely specialized development of the complex system comprised of the intake passages, combustion chambers, exhaust passages and valve system components.

Generally, the RPM at peak VE coincides with the RPM at the torque peak. And generally, automotive engines rarely exceed 90% VE. There is a variety of good reasons for that performance, including the design requirements for automotive engines (good low-end torque, good throttle response, high mileage, low emissions, low noise, inexpensive production costs, restrictive form factors, etc.), as well as the allowable tolerances for components in high-volume production.

http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-VolEff.htm

i believe its been done....difficult to do 100% yes, i agree.

even more difficult to do over 100%... but in a controlled environment where you can make it ideal for testing.......that can prob be achieved even if its just 101%

another article....

Quote:

Also, we were treated to an in-depth discussion on one of the most important factors of performance engines: volumetric efficiency. We know how increasing powerplant efficiency, we can gain more horsepower and torque by more effectively converting fuel and air into torque, but other benefits are not so apparent. Gains in fuel economy, throttle response, and average power output are also realized. Volumetric efficiency (VE) is directly related to torque, and increases in VE generally result in a torque gain. VE will be greatest at peak torque, and lowest at idle speeds. Normal engines are about 80 percent efficient, while a well-designed performance engine can reach a full 100 percent at torque peak. Supercharged engines can actually operate at beyond 100 percent efficiency, since the measurement is based on the engine's air capacity. Since superchargers force more air through the engine than it can normally ingest, the volumetric efficiency measurement can surpass 100 percent.

http://popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0306phr_meeting/
its under Lance Ward who created FAST Inc. (fuel air spark technology--they also make a setup a few race cavaliers are using.)

but it has been done. will the avg person do it? prob not.

also this site which does dyno testing http://www.revsearch.com/dynamometer/dyno_testing_defininations.html

stated:

Quote:

Volumetric Efficiency; A four stroke engine's volumetric efficiency would be 100% if it were 360 cubic inches, and it flowed 360 cubic inches of air every two revolutions. With good intake manifold, camshaft, and exhaust header tuning 100%+ VE can be achieved in a naturally aspirated engine. Engines with forced induction will have VEs of well over 100%.

There you go, just a couple examples that I didn't need to see to understand the theory is sound.
Thickskull

/\ /\ /\ /\ Event the first articl is referring to exotic one off type engine that it says uses complex system in the intake and exhaust passages. So I'm led to believe these engines don't have normal valve arangements. AND heres the best part of your first post. "AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES RARLY EXCEED 90%" I believe thats what I said 3 pages ago. So by the first post I'm also led to believe these engines that exceed 100% V.E. aren't even automotive engines.

Second quote. Directly before the high lighted portion it says "NORMAL ENGINES ARE ABOUT 80% EFFICIENT" then it goes on to refeer to a "WELL DESIGNED PERFORMANCE ENGINE" again I believe that would be the F1 engines I refeered to as the only ones that could come close.

Now you know I'm not an ass Event so I know you'll know how to take this post which is great!! But you quotes that you provided say the exact same thing I've been saying all along. That normal engines such as ours will never see 100% without forced induction. And that the ONLY engines that can even come close is ultra high doller F1 type engines and the only ones that can exceed it are exotic designs that don't use a normal automotive engine layout which I would LOVE to see a diagram of them and some pics cause I'm very curious now as to what these things even look like with there "COMPLEX" intake and exhaust systems.

So if you can find any pics ( not to prove they exist cause I'm not calling you a lier ) but rather I just want to see what they look like.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

well on the first post, it DOES say they "RARELY exceed 90%" but then again its more than likley factoring in all cars. performance, daily, weekend driven cars...

i mean its rare to see some exotic cars but there are a good few lotus elises and exiges here where i live. rare things just mean its not as commonly seen or produced etc... but they exist

the weel designed ordeal... you took it as F1 engines... i took it as that as well, but also the most interesting types i feel.. "PROTOYPES"

any prototype built is usually raw, welded aluminum/steel, etc.... the production versions however are usually limited, performance taken down, etc...even in racing nascar uses restrictor plates.... so for alot of production engines and such when they lower stuff for emissions, its bound to lower VE as well.

[Agreed]That normal engines such as ours will never see 100% without forced induction.

that or prob a crapload of tinkering tuning and fabricating. i'm talking like near or full total restructuring head parts.

well besides the F1 engines, there are prob some engines done at the place from the third link that are v8's or something that has been done. but i am willing to garuntee that theres alot of money in it.

as far as pictures, hard to find "secret prototype" pictures online, but i am looking at buying a few books dealing with it.


on wild engine designs though... theres an article of some scientists/engine designers building an engine that can handle something like 200-350 psi of boost.... yes, you read that right.... when i find the mag i;ll scan and post it... but if their technology ever comes through or it becomes a reality... their idea of how the engine works (good diagram in the mag) may become one of those engines to exceed it n/a.... only time will tell.

Sorry Event didn't see the third article. But to answer it NO if a 360 flowed 360 cubic inches of air every 2 revolutions does not mean that it runs at 100% V.E. Why do I say that ? BLOW BY. Look I do realize that with a multi-billion doller F1 team budget and the latest aero-space materials its gonna be close I said that. And since the only engines that can acheive it or surpass it are " secret prototype exotict" engines that we'll never ever see in a car then thats almost a moot point. BUT it is a point none the less.
I'm just glad to see that your finaily starting to see that where it is possible to get close
it can't be surpassed on a "normal" level. So see I've been right all along that the only way you can do it in a car is thru forced induction.


Thank you, Thank you no need for applause really but thank you.

btw along with blow by you have valve over lap which actualy allows the intake charge to flow into the exhaust stream before the valves close all the way. so where your 360 may flow enough air required to fill the cylinders to 100% the machanical aspect of the engine prevents it from ever seeing its full potential.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Quote:

BOOM!!!

sorry, my head exploded. too much V.E. for my skull to contain. now just need to find my eyes so i can find my head.

LMAO!!!!
Sounds like you need to have your head ported.

Jackalope, you laid down da law.

Quote:

Just like all you guys THINKING that your gonna get any n/a engine to run beyond 100% V.E. Sorry Guys but you are WRONG.

Lotsa times you said no engine can run over 100% VE. Can't be done. Impossible. Laws of physics...
But when given examples of engines that are over 100% VE, you say something different! "Special engines" or "racing engines" or "prototypes." I guess I'm being a hardass, but you did say "any engine." As far as I can tell, a "special engine" is included in "any engine." I guess you meant "any average engine" which I'd have to agree with right away. But those of us that that don't know know you wouldn't have any way to understand what you really meant, so don't get too wound up over it.

Quote:

Well if you did then why aren't you working as an engineer instead of posting here?

Because I had to leave engineering school in my 4th year when paying for school, home, and bills as well as travelling 2 1/2 hrs back and forth every other weekend to take care of my wife's dying parents got to be too much. So now I'm back to efi tuning and customizing for fun, maintaining a fleet of buses for a living, working on a pit crew for 2 cars in my spare time, keeping the new yard and house in nice condition, maintaining my own "fleet" of 9 vehicles, gathering the materials to concoct 275 gallons of biodiesel to use as home heating oil this winter, and trying to help the kind people on JBO from time to time.

But I wouldn't have mentioned any of this if you hadn't asked the way you did.

-->Slow

/\ /\ /\ /\ Thats right "J" I did say it can't be done on an automotive engine and nowhere did I see an automotive engine mentioned in the articles that say someone has come up with one that can. What the article provided by Event said was there are extremely specialized and complex system. That to me sounds like exparamental govt type stuff that we'll never be able to get our hands on. So being that its not in an automotive use
then as I said before its a moot point but its still a point not the less. Meaning o.k. so some scientist somewhere figured out how to do it useing specialized complex whatever's that does not mean you can acheive it in a NORMAL n/a application. So my stance remains unchanged that it is impossible to do in a car unless you use forced air induction, I have seen nothing that would make me change my view point sorry but yes you guys are still wrong.

And if you were in school for enginerring then YOU should have already known that its not possible with a "normal" engine not something that uses the specialized stuff Event is referring to in the article's he sited as proof. Because if you read the articles you see it can't be done on a "normal engine" which last I checked was what we were talking about.

BTW the whole lifting the table to introduce more air to the glass is the same as compressing it.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

OK guys I got tired of defending my point without a little backup so I went and found some sites for you to look at. I wish i knew how to do that quote thing like Evevt did but I don't so you'll just have to link, sorry. And Event I found the article you took your quotes from but you didn't include all of the quote so i'll just provide the link.
http://www.tpub.com/engine1/en1-105.htm
http://www.thedirtforum.com/volume.htm
BTW this one/\ /\ /\ referrs to the lose of V.E. at different altitudes. Hmm just what I had said but since this is actualy the amount of loss I can't see you argueing it.
http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-VolEff.htm
http://silverstone.fortunecity.com/damonhill/240/goodengine.html#VE
The last one actual shows a pontiac 4 cylinder engines test results and since this is the engines that some of us have I thought you may like to see just how NOT good they
actualy are as far as V.E. is concerned.






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Woo Hoo !!! they all work !!! now enjoy the read guys and see if it helps you any.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

jackalope wrote:Sorry Event didn't see the third article. But to answer it NO if a 360 flowed 360 cubic inches of air every 2 revolutions does not mean that it runs at 100% V.E. Why do I say that ? BLOW BY. Look I do realize that with a multi-billion doller F1 team budget and the latest aero-space materials its gonna be close I said that. And since the only engines that can acheive it or surpass it are " secret prototype exotict" engines that we'll never ever see in a car then thats almost a moot point. BUT it is a point none the less.
I'm just glad to see that your finaily starting to see that where it is possible to get close
it can't be surpassed on a "normal" level. So see I've been right all along that the only way you can do it in a car is thru forced induction.


Thank you, Thank you no need for applause really but thank you.

btw along with blow by you have valve over lap which actualy allows the intake charge to flow into the exhaust stream before the valves close all the way. so where your 360 may flow enough air required to fill the cylinders to 100% the machanical aspect of the engine prevents it from ever seeing its full potential.

with the issues of blowby, total seal has already addressed that. depending on how you gap the rings you can somewhat minimize blowby to something negligible, however its a small tradeoff for other things (think about how they gap for boost and n/a or nitrous.

now..... the first link.... i gotta challenge its ethos just a bit....the TPUB one...

correct me if wrong, anyone.... but:

Quote:

is not possible, except by supercharging, because the passages through which the air must flow offer a resistance, the force pushing the air into the cylinder is only atmospheric, and the air absorbs heat during the process.

if i remember the basics well, the engine cylinders get air via SUCK, squish, bang, blow......correct?

youd have to have the theory of Ram air, like an indy car in N/A form to cram air in the cylinder or by force....straight direct tube going into the intake with a car traveling at 170-220+ mph....

the site seems pretty cool being a conglomerate of stuff, but just wondering who wrote it and where does "pushing" air come from when its "sucking" in air...more or less.


above you also said

Quote:

Thats right "J" I did say it can't be done on an automotive engine and nowhere did I see an automotive engine mentioned in the articles that say someone has come up with one that can. What the article provided by Event said was there are extremely specialized and complex system. That to me sounds like exparamental govt type stuff that we'll never be able to get our hands on. So being that its not in an automotive use

the first part in bold, the article i posted from popular hotrodding.... thats basically automotive. as the designer of FAST, Lance Ward, works with automotive engines, and stated it can be done...rare...but can be done.... you gotta stop and think, these are some of the smartest people in the automotive business if you look through that link.

the second part on experimental govt... not really. dont know if you remember a while back, but they made a quad 4 that was tested scruf was telling me about. basically a stress test, supercharger ran the 4 turbos. not really governmental, but def something not produced.

i dont feel because an engine is unobtainable by the gen public, or a prototype... that its not in an automotive use.... its in an automotive use, but just not available to the public. alot of companies do this when improving upon designs, where they dont have limitations as to what they can or cant do ,smog control, etc...

lastly, on the engines another factor to look at is the intake... not just the valves and valvetrain, but intake size and diameter can make a diff.

Quote:

Lastly, if designed well, intake systems will 'resonate.' I will not go into an elaborate explanation, but resonation at the correct engine RPM will create an effect of air being forced into the engine, giving it a little boost.

that can be what engineers tediously tune to get that extra bit out of an n/a engine to reach 100% or get slightly over.


i still agree this prob isnt gonna occur with most anyone on this forum, but just cause its a million dollar engine, doesnt mean its NOT automotive... "know what i mean, verne?"

Your link regarding VE and altitude says "Relative VE" meaning VE in relationship with altitude, which is different than just VE by itself.
O.K. the horse is dead, quit beating it, everyone can see the intent of each others posts.
Jackalope is saying that nobodys j-body is gonna get near 100% VE, fine and true.
Slowolej, Event, and I are saying that in theory its possible for a N/A motor to go slightly beyond 100% VE. We did not say that we're gonna try to get it in our or any other car, just that providing world class engineers and deep pockets it is feasible.

Event where do you the suck part comes from? The fact that all the aur is removed and is now a vaccum meaning no air. Well if theres no air then the outside air presure is what is forceing the air in atmospheric presure which also relates to the post about altitude so they all tie nicely together and explain how this is not possible in a "normal"
engine. Did you read how the valve arangment was in the engines that can see 100%? THey state that they use a rotory valve design as to not abstruct the air flow at all. Well last I checked "normal"engines don't have rotory valves so as I said its impossible in a normal engine.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I guess I just don't know Jackalope.

Article 1 makes a claim with no proof. Might as well say your car does 2.0 in the quarter. Without proof, you've got nothing.

Article 2 lists Relative Volumetric Efficiency changes with altitude. The values are relative to a base VE defined at sea level. Because they're relative values, the chart proves that VE does not in fact decrease with altitude increases. They only prove that someone set sea level as pressure as the basis for 100% VE and made the chart relative to that. I can easily make a chart of relative VE values which shows relative base VE to be 100% at 10,000 feet and increases as altitude decreases. With these #'s everyone driving would have more than 100% relative VE, no matter what altitude they're at. The change per 1,000 ft in the chart is nothing more than the change in air density per 1000 ft. Article 2 actually proves that VE is independent of altitude, something that Ben992200 and I have been saying all along.

Article 3 does not say that F1 or any other automotive engine cannot exceed 100% VE. And it does not say you need a complex system to obtain 100% or greater VE in a naturally aspirated engine. The article says

Quote:

Only the best of the best can exceed 110%, and that is by means of extremely specialized development of the complex system comprised of the intake passages, combustion chambers, exhaust passages and valve system components.

This one word, development, means spending a lot of time determining the optimum valve timing, intake tract length and diameter, exhaust header length and diameter, intake plenum size, airbox size and location,and collector diameter. Everything needs to be just right to make >100% VE happen.

Article 4 backs up my first reply to Event... that the factory engines are around 66% VE max. But I had factory information in front of me when I said that.

Quote:

And if you were in school for enginerring then YOU should have already known that its not possible with a "normal" engine not something that uses the specialized stuff Event is referring to in the article's he sited as proof.

You said "it's impossible." You said "any angine." You said "can't fill a glass more than 100%" All of these challenges have been answered.

I was in engineering school, and I do know that most of the parts used in the Formula SAE challenge cars are not so exotic that us mortals can't get our hands on 'em. What the college FSAE teams have that we don't is research time and energy and great computer software to model the systems they're designing. But they're not using unobtanium parts or materials.

Quote:

BTW the whole lifting the table to introduce more air to the glass is the same as compressing it.

Good. Very good. I didn't pressurize the air, but I was able to compress it into a glass. So now you can picture a greater volume of air in a cylinder than the size of the cylinder should contain. And you realize that it's the relative motion of the cylinder to the air which made this possible. So now that the light bulb has turned on for you, just what do you think happens when an engine achieves >100% VE?? With the motion of the air and the glass in mind, I'm sure you can picture just how it could be done.

Now ask youself if an engine's rotating at 7000 rpm, 116.7 revolutions per second, 58.33 air intake events per second, one intake event every .017 seconds, just how much heat can incoming air possibly absorb from the surrounding materials in .017 seconds? Do you think it's possible that a lowly plastic intake could be used to make this value even lower? How about ceramic thermal barrier coatings applied to the intake ports and valves, would this further reduce the amount of intake charge heating? And what if gasoline were injected directly after the intake valve opened, so the fuel used in combustion were introduced into the cylinder as atomized liquid rather than a volume hogging gas... would this help ensure most of the air flowing into the cylinder isn't displaced by gasoline? What if engine rpm were moved up to 12000 or 14000 rpm... one intake event every .0085 seconds. Now how much intake charge heating do you think there'd be? And what if the intake runners were just long enough so the intake pulse reverberating from the last intake closing event, up to the plenum and back, reached the intake valve just as it opened, reducing the delay between valve opening and cylinder filling to almost zero. What if the header were designed so the pulse of the exhaust from the previous cylinder actually created negative pressure at this exhaust valve just as the valve opened, reducing the pumping losses and the need for extended valve duration and overlap? And what if static cylinder leakdown were less than 2%, a figure achievable in a well prepped street engine using no more magic than Total Seal piston rings. Do you think this static 2% leakdown translates to an even lower value when the engine is running? If you wanted to cheat just a little, what if the fresh intake charge were drawn through an intercooler, which was bathed in ice cold water? Do you think it's possible the air entering the engine could actually be colder and denser than the air outside the engine? What affect would this have on VE? Do you think it's possible that intake air temps 3 degrees cooler than ambient can introduce enough oxygen to counter the 2% static leakdown? Without any exotic technology, without anything that needs special permits to obtain, do you think it's possible to achieve > 90% VE in nothing more than a well hotrodded NA engine? I do. Sure, it's for short term. Maybe no more than 15 to 20 seconds, max. Then again, that's more than enough time for a quick 1/4 mile run which is about all the time any of us have anyway.

Jackalope, if you don't get it, that's fine. If you choose not to try and understand then you've actually got a lot of company on this planet. Some of what I've seen in your posts led me to think you tended to be an above average thinker, but who knows. I've certainly spent an above average amount of time on this, and I know that I don't need to spend any more. If you're the kind of guy that has an instinctive ability to build engines and cars, be grateful for that talent. It will help you get the job done even if your explanation of why it works doesn't match anyone else's.

-->Slow

Holy christ dude, for the 4 millionth freaking time, they're not saying NORMAL engines!!!! But just because an engine isn't what you call NORMAL doesn't mean it isn't for an automotive purpose. AUTO= prefix for "self", MOTIVE= meaning movement, or motion. Automotive is not limited to normal street cars. A multi-million dollar F1 car is just as much an automobile as your J, or the Festiva kicking out oil smoke and backfiring as it sputters down the road.

So please, quit arguing a point that by now, no one else is arguing. Arg....




Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said

J, I do "get it" its you who do not. Yas I said no engine, But that was before I knew rotory valves existed. And since I don't see YOU provideing anything other then an ecoing voice of Event its apparent you you do NOT have a clue as to how any of this works so for me to try and explain it to you over the web is completely pointless as you simply cannot grasp the limiting factors that negate the possibility of accheiveing 100% V.E. in a "NORMAL" engine. I have provided links that describe what I'm talking about but you just discount them, thats fine really if you don't wish to learn new things who am I to try and make you? As for Event I will talk to you about this on Saturday in person so that maybe I can make you understand why its just not possible. But untill I see you just think on a few points so we can discuss them in person. First off in oreder to acheive 100% you need 100% flow unobstructed into the cylinder. In the way you have an air intake with an air filter that reduces the fow of air to the engine. Then the air has to be directed thru the intake to the throttle body or carburator where once there it incounters the butterfly in the throttle body or carburator. After it passes thru that it enters the intake manifold where its routed to the different cylinders. Now the inside of the intake manifolds are not completely uniform 100% so the airflow to the different cylinders is not uniform. Then the air at high velosity slams into the closed intake valve where it has to wait untill its opened so it can begin its flow into the engine. Now if you've ever spent any time in an engine class you'd know that the piston has already past TDC and is on the downward part of the intake stroke which means the air is exposed to a vaccum this draws the air in but since the piston has already begun to go down the air is alredy behind in its attempt to fill the cylinder 100%. Now as the piston is drawing the fresh air in thru the open intake valve the exhaust valve is still closeing allowing a very small portion of the intake charge to flow directly into the exhaust stream not allowing it to be present in the cylinder at all. True its a small amount but since you guys want to nit pick so bad then lets nit pick shall we. If this bleed off of intake charge is even 1/2 of
1% then right there you've just lost your 100%. But lets continue shall we, Now that the air is rushing into the cylinder thru the open valve it has to contend with the very valve itself taking up space the otherwise the air would be able to. Now when the intake valve closes thats it the fresh air is shut off. But what of the room the open valve occupied?
The valve closed and more air cannot enter so theres more dead room in the cylinder that cannot be taken up by the fresh air. Then you have blow-by, I know all about zero-gap rings as I had them on my old big block Pontiac but even with them you do still have a blow-by effect going on. Again very small but since were all here to split hairs then I can split them too. The leakdown rate on my old Pontiac was at a rate of about 1psi in about a minute which is great compared to regular rings but its still present.
Then after all the obstructions thrown at the air you have the heat produced by the engine itself now as air heats up it expands again not muh just a tiny little bit but it does.
and if it expands it takes up more space not alloweing the full amount of air that could enter the cylinder to do so. Oh almost forgot then you have the exhaust to get rid of its hot and nasty and cannot be re-burned and the piston has to force this stuff out thru a restrictive exhaust system. And don't forget the EGR system! It actualy re-cycles that nasty un-burnable stuff back into the cylinder to take up space so the intake charge cannot fill the cylinder completely. Now I want you to try and tell me how you can do away with ALL those things in a "NORMAL" engine to acheive this 100% to 110% V.E.
that the title implies.

And Jersey J I think tha title of this post is .....
"VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY FOR 2.2 OHV 100% AND 110%"
If they want to start a new post about "other" engines or "non automotive" engines then fine. But dont try to stray from the bace topic whitch is what I argueing about in the first place. If you do this then why not argue that purple is the best color?

( Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that I am not here to fight and that I'm only tring to
help you understand / teach you why this is not fesable on a "normal" engine. )




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

The topic has changed a bit from the original post, don't deny it. This statement from Event on the first page should have stopped your whole "not happening in a NORMAL engine" rant.

Dam-it Muffins (Event) wrote:

on our engines, i def agree. its not there, but there has to be some engines that it does occur without FI. especially when it says "its normally not possible" but there has to be an exception to every rule, especially if they arent wording it as "it NEVER CAN occur"

but for me, no one has said MY engine will do 100%, my engine shop def remains realistic, hence the reason i chose them and the transmission shop

Not to mention your definition of "normal" is not necessarily the same as everyone elses. What does "normal" mean? it runs on gasoline? It's built by a factory to be approved by CARB or SMOG? An inline or V? does that include boxers and rotaries? is V.V.T. normal? just because something is new or unpractical doesn't make it abnormal to everyone.