Power Junkies! 2-stroke Chambers (Domes) for Real Power on Pump Gas.. What if?
- Thread starter gtfoxy
- Start date
G
gtfoxy
Member
Nope, a lean condition because the O2 Measures O2, not fueling...
....Sounds like a Obama answer
Did you not say this is more efficient(better energy conversion)? I gathered "it is" from all the jargon. I'm curious if you could use two BSFC comparisons as reference points to contrast a "traditional setup" and your setup in similar "state of tune"....
Also please expound on "energy conversion" for this context if I'm missing it. I think you are saying you get more of the GEU converted to torque but I'm not sure I follow completely........ watts are watts, joules are joules.
Confused on MN
G
gtfoxy
Member
....Sounds like a Obama answer
Did you not say this is more efficient(better energy conversion)? I gathered "it is" from all the jargon. I'm curious if you could use two BSFC comparisons as reference points to contrast a "traditional setup" and your setup in similar "state of tune"....
Also please expound on "energy conversion" for this context if I'm missing it. I think you are saying you get more of the GEU converted to torque but I'm not sure I follow completely........ watts are watts, joules are joules.
Confused on MN
If that's the case, then where is my Nobel!!!
Seriously I would like to see Obama try and answer that one... Talk about a dear in the headlights!
Simply put, more power, ie torque, on the same Mass of fuel, equates to lower BSFC, yes.
Undertanding joules/ Kg is important in gathering a total amount of energy / induction cycle capability. What is realy important in this scenario is the calculated magnitude of velocity of the fuel/ Air Mass containing a given amount of Kinetic energy. Then a given amount of force can be determined, Force applied over an area is pressure, pressure results in an application of force, force exerted over a distance equals work and so on and so forth...
The interaction then of this accelerated mass as to create a direct pathway is the key, not just to attain the pressure and call it a day... Kinetic energy has to be "transfered" and the more direct that transfer, the more efficient the end outcome will be.
Imagine the force of the accelerated mass that is the gases in a traditional chamber all exerting their force, as they collide in the chamber, and on each other. The chamber shape exerts the force from side to side as much as up and down. Yes some of that force, through gasious interaction, will reach the piston but it loses K.E. along the pathway because it is less direct. More direct the application of force, the better the transfer. If the pathway only results in the gases bouncing around and hitting each other, and the chamber walls, then eventualy heat will be generated, or more accurately remain in the chamber, and be transfered by atomic interaction not resulting in work, because the K.E. in the gases is not being transfered as K.E. into the Piston because it has not moved in realtion to the gases. It is more complex than that as we go down the atomic structure past the electrons and such, which is realy where the energy is being stored... Energy, even K.E., is a fluid transition that "Flows" from one object to another in my opinion. Look at a newtons cradle as an example. I have a deeper theory than this but that is for another discussion.
If there is a proper interaction of atoms and piston surface area, the temp in the gases will drop because the enegry is being converted. This will automaticaly lead to reduced temps throughout the engine in the form of radiant and water temp... Imagine no more over-heating!! This can lead to reduced cooling system volumes... LESS WEIGHT!! See where the path to efficency leads people?
All of this begins then with how fast the mixture can burn or the pressure wave can travel. You need 100% light off within very few degrees of crankshaft rotation, that is how temps are controled and enegry is transfered. You get a faster rise in temp and faster energy conversion. Closer you get to achieving that the better the convesion can be for a given rod/stroke ratio and piston dwell time. Shorter dwell time works better in this scenario because in order for a force exertion to result in work, movement must occur, the faster the movement capability, the more work is created... Also the time needed in this scenario results in less pumping losses as cylinder pressures can not try and force the piston against its upward stroke to TDC. Again, an energy savings... or gain in energy efficiency, as it relates to where the power to accelerate the piston to TDC comes from, which is the piston next door.
You will find that, in these scenarios, little gains here and there really add up.
Also as I stated earlier the energy being absorbed by the atoms as bonds are being formed as the temp in the chamber rises and masses are accelerated is a certain quantity needed for that molecular attatchment to occur. If the chamber, and homoginization and distribution are not correct then the atoms are not where they need to be to form the right molecular chains. Then when the energy level in the chamber drops below a certain point the molecules stay in the formation they are in (CO, NO, etc) and then they give off energy to what ever is around them and what ever can absorb the energy, like Lead or Nitrogen(these things also reduce the overall energy available in the system for this to occur) or even the chamber and cylinder walls... The other end of this can be seen in fuel burning in the pipe, that produces really high CO levels. The gases can not phase properly. This is the main reason why our 2-strokes have awefull emissions! It is a periferal flaw, not an inherent one. That is what is essential to keep in mind from an emissions standpoint.
I has nothing to do with "when" the mixture is presented to the chamber, As Ski-Doo and their drive for DI would have you beleive, but simply how it is burned in the chamber. Their system is a emissions system, not a power system.
That is in essence what I have been trying to get accross form the begining of this thread. I just was trying to say it in more understood terms and concepts.
Now to try and answer your initial question, If temps are lower and energy conversion is better, then damage from heat related issues become less even over a period of time. That is not to say force exertion failures do not then become a concern because the engine needs to be able to handle the number (RPM) of higher stress loads over time.
Trying to acertain that is nearly impossible from a hypothetical standpoint, that is all I was tryng to get at.
Last edited:
No offense taken. I'll freely admit to taking something of a "devil's advocate" point of view. I don't expect to be spoon-fed anything, but I'm trying to find out how much YOU know by watching whether your explanations are addressing a topic directly or talking around it. I've heard plenty of sales pitches and promises over the years ranging from almost believable to totally ridiculous. To be honest, some of your posts earlier sound too much like sales pitches with just enough "technical" in them to sound good. Your recognition that the engine is a complicated system does give me some hope that you actually DO have a clue. So, keep posting, I'll be reading. Just remember, there are a lots of people here who have a lifetime of 2-stroke experience behind them - people who have built their own motors, pipes, heads, etc. You may learn some things from us, just as we may learn from you.It looks like you live close to me and if it is close enough I invite you to come and check out what I am doing, maybe we can go for a ride...We got snow now!
I appreciate your input so I am going to be as patient and as brief as possible. If you take what I have to say to heart then so be it, if not, I can only say you need to learn a little more before making blanket statements. It only identifies that you do not fully understand what energy conversion is all about and how it truly effects engine power output. That being said I can tell your concepts in thinking, as related to engine heat, are based on a skewed view ofconvention with little in the way of understanding of what proper fundamental engine dynamics are and can do. That is not a slam, just an observation. Go back and re-read what I have written thus far.
I fully understand the function and incompassing importance of a tuned pipe. Pipes are important yes. They are however one piece of a very extensive puzzle. If you have a puzzle with a say 20 pieces and some are bigger than others, when you have all the big ones, and parts of others, in the proper place you can still tell what the picture is... Understand?
Maximum cylinder filling is effected by a "perfect pipe". But you need to first identify what is "perfect" and what is not. Perfect to one person could be a pipe that produces a broad useable owerband over a wide RPM yet not making as much peak power. Others may view it as producing a maximum power yet narrow powerband. There are also other criteria in this "perfect" scenario all too imprtantly overlooked. There is not a "perfect" pipe made for a sled chassis, in relation to proper flow dynamics and sound wave distortion, in the US that I have come accross. Close maybe, but no where near perfect. I do not need to explain myself here, it would simply take too long. It just needs to be taken at face value. ANd NO I have not tested every pipe there is. But I can still look at a Dog and tell its a Dog whether it barks or not...
I asked "what if" a certain compression ratio was possible. Not that poeple need to run it to get the power they require. People pull start 14.5:1 engines and that compression ratio is more than enough, with proper engine dynamics, to put any stock engine into pieces. People can also buy starter kits, and they do.
If there is a particular statement you have a question on then I will be glad to address it. I want to educate people here but I am not going to spoon feed people who have a set ideal on what they percieve as correct. Especially when they do not want look at things as they really are. I hope you want to learn and not think I am just being a D.H. because that is not my intention
And before I forget, yes I do know where Siren is - I've ridden in the area some years ago. I'm just a couple hours SE.
G
gtfoxy
Member
Thank you for the candid talk. I appreciate the direction you are taking with my response and what I am trying to get accross.
I am the first to admit I do not know everything, only a Fool says that... Heck I learn more as I get ideas out in forums like this as I think and re-think things... Thta is why I embrace the conversation, not steifel it. People need to keep going back an re-reading what i write becasue I tweek it as I go over it a few times. That way I am sure what I am trying to say is being permiated in my writing.
That being said, I have spent my life and the last 2yrs (1yr on certain things related to combustion in general and 1yr on this very concept and 2-strokes) in constant learning prepairing for the time to be right to release this information and perspective on Internal combustion 2-stokes. My mentor has trained me well for doing this work. People can copy this design all they want now, later, it won't matter. My theories and ideas go WAY beyond what I am talking abut here and as I have said previously this is just the begining. It's either lead, follow or get out of the way... I think you know what my possition is from my perspective...
That puts you what down about E.C. or so?
Last edited:
If you could keep better control of the scavenge and piston motion induced flow, where and how it flows in the combustion chamber you can and will achieve lower cyclic variation in the combustion process as you will present a more even condition at the spark plug for each cycle.
A low cyclic variation would allow you to use higher than "normal" compression ratios without hitting deto. just because you now do not have certain cycles with extreme time, temperature and pressure in the chamber.
I know that combustion chamber shape has a huge influence on this very matter and if you have found a chamber design which puts this in a better position than todays best designs it s wonderful.
The question is simply what your way around the problem is?
A low cyclic variation would allow you to use higher than "normal" compression ratios without hitting deto. just because you now do not have certain cycles with extreme time, temperature and pressure in the chamber.
I know that combustion chamber shape has a huge influence on this very matter and if you have found a chamber design which puts this in a better position than todays best designs it s wonderful.
The question is simply what your way around the problem is?
I remeber this being posted about a year ago...
G
gtfoxy
Member
Thanks for the input, very good perspective here!
Yes internal combustion engines, in essence, are cyclical devices with each cycle influencing the next. The only reason people don't necessarily view them as such is because, i think, the linear motion of the piston seams to throw them for a loop in realizing this concept... Don't ask me why, it's just the way it is... Convention, I guess.
The biggest thing to realize, in what convention tells us, about certain aspects of chambers design like Quench (squish), swirl, plug angles etc, is these things are a bandaid to cover up certain flawed aspects of an engines operating dynamics, and in some cases these things are simply related to chamber design and nothing else.
That being said we can then evaluate what is really wrong with current 2-stroke chambers and how to fix it.
Problem: They detonate in scenarios and ratios where they shouldn't.
Here's the Main cause; Any chamber with a raised design and any kind of high squish concentration, no matter how many funky ways you try to work with it (different squish velocitities, grooves, what ever) ejects mixture to the center. It leads to poor distribution and very little in the way of wave control. That is to say combustion wave as well as sound wave. That design detonates. Its that simple.
Now that we know the real cause we can work towards a solution. That is what this chamber does.
That takes care of, in part, the main cause of detonation. Now we need to look at it in the cyclical sense. That is where residual heat comes in, due to lack of efficient energy conversion pathways.
It just so happens that when you take care of one problem, some of the other ones, being inter-related, get solved also. Surface interaction does a lot in this respect.
Now we need to understand what else would lead to poor distribution in the cylinder and cause poor V.E.
I have laid a lot out there for people to digest. I have a lot of work to do and now I want to see who has been paying attention.
It is now time for me to ask the questions.
This is where I am now going to ask a question and we'll see what ideas are out there, (Except you Analyzer, I already taught you this one), in regards to 1st identifying the problem, and then what a solution would be. I will even give a hint.
Problem: Poor distribution into the cylinder.
Hint: It has to do with Reversion.
Lets hear it people...
Last edited:
G
gtfoxy
Member
I talked about some of these things that long ago, but the time wasn't right. Not to mention people were unreceptive, at best.
The ONLY way anyone will be convinced is if it is proven in side by side comparisons and dyno results in real applications.....all the theory and speculation in the world is....well.....just theory and speculation.
Maching some heads, throw them on a couple different sleds, post the results and people will listen.
After all the different designs that have been tried, all the race teams with some very smart guys and big $$ budgets, all the "snake oil" that comes and goes, it is only natural for people to be skeptical. I wish you luck and look forward to hearing some good results in a real-world application.
Maching some heads, throw them on a couple different sleds, post the results and people will listen.
After all the different designs that have been tried, all the race teams with some very smart guys and big $$ budgets, all the "snake oil" that comes and goes, it is only natural for people to be skeptical. I wish you luck and look forward to hearing some good results in a real-world application.
G
gtfoxy
Member
The ONLY way anyone will be convinced is if it is proven in side by side comparisons and dyno results in real applications.....all the theory and speculation in the world is....well.....just theory and speculation.
Maching some heads, throw them on a couple different sleds, post the results and people will listen.
After all the different designs that have been tried, all the race teams with some very smart guys and big $$ budgets, all the "snake oil" that comes and goes, it is only natural for people to be skeptical. I wish you luck and look forward to hearing some good results in a real-world application.
Thank you.
There is a difference between theory being worked out in practical application and application resulting in a theory. This concept is actualy from the latter. It was applied and proven, then the theory was worked out.
You are right though. Like I said I do have a lot of work to do and my posting will now be limited. That is why I now left it for others to figure some things out on their own. Hopefully people with the knowledge will get involved now and not lurk so much...
I can see where VE or cylender filling would be effected by reversion.
I can also understand how a open chamber head desing would be effected by reversion.
my question is, reversion is caused by port timing and sound pulses in the pipe
isn't it?
I dont claim to understand all of this, but i think i understand where you are going with this.
and i doo have a cabed 800 skidoo, if you still need people to try this out.
I can also understand how a open chamber head desing would be effected by reversion.
my question is, reversion is caused by port timing and sound pulses in the pipe
isn't it?
I dont claim to understand all of this, but i think i understand where you are going with this.
and i doo have a cabed 800 skidoo, if you still need people to try this out.
Toroidal Head Inserts
THE most detonation-resistant head design in existence is the toroid, which became doubly important in 125/250/500cc motorcycle GP racing in the late '90s following the introduction of unleaded fuel. Naturally, only the most det-resistant design would do. And to this day, the combination of flat-top pistons and toroid domes is used on ALL GP racers. This is state-of-the-art:
http://www.twostrokeshop.com/two_stroke_shop_engines.htm#headinserts
We at TSS would welcome some back-to-back tests with any other type of head insert design. Bring it on.
Enough of the empty 'tell'. Let's see some Show and Tell.
Cheers,
Steve
THE most detonation-resistant head design in existence is the toroid, which became doubly important in 125/250/500cc motorcycle GP racing in the late '90s following the introduction of unleaded fuel. Naturally, only the most det-resistant design would do. And to this day, the combination of flat-top pistons and toroid domes is used on ALL GP racers. This is state-of-the-art:
http://www.twostrokeshop.com/two_stroke_shop_engines.htm#headinserts
We at TSS would welcome some back-to-back tests with any other type of head insert design. Bring it on.
Enough of the empty 'tell'. Let's see some Show and Tell.
Cheers,
Steve
Steve, do you guys have head designs for snowmobile engines? Or would you just need someone to send you a stock head to match?
I have talked with Chris about his design quite a bit. It is radically different to say the least. It is in development stages currently and looks to show insane gains. Gains not thought possible, indeed not possible, with current ideas. It doesnt work off normal concepts, as he states earlier it is entirely new. Testing has been on smaller cc engines but we will have some 'full size' models on the snow really soon.
Chris is not a full of smoke snake oil salesman from what I have gathered. In fact, he hasnt made mention of wanting to sell anything. So far, this is just a concept piece, part of a concept idea. I look forward to working with him in the development of it. I think it has potential. Stay tuned for results.
Jake
Chris is not a full of smoke snake oil salesman from what I have gathered. In fact, he hasnt made mention of wanting to sell anything. So far, this is just a concept piece, part of a concept idea. I look forward to working with him in the development of it. I think it has potential. Stay tuned for results.
Jake
Last edited:
G
gtfoxy
Member
Thank you for your contribution and I applaud your efforts to put what you understand out there in a manner that states a question rather than attacking me and my concepts. It takes a real man to do that. Thank you! Don't EVER be affraid to ask a question! The only dumb one is the one you don't know and never ask.
I was hoping some of the more experienced and knowledgeable people would have come in and taken what you had to ask and worked with you.
To this point they haven't, so I will...
OK, here is what I want you to do. Empty your noggen of all your preconceptions. If you have a Jug laying around go grab it and study the EPO and TPO events and their realationship to each other. Then what I want you to do is close your eyes and begin with the piston moving up the bore to compress the A/F mixture in the chamber, then work you way through the process untill the exhaust port opens and then the transfer ports open then back again. Picture in your mind what exactly is going on in each phase of the process. What do you see? What happens at each step? What dynamics are present in each step?
Then come back and tell me what these things were.
G
gtfoxy
Member
This is going to be the First and LAST time I respond to one of these "Callin you out" posts. I do not have time for this.
I went to your site and looked at you stuff... some nice shiny things you got there.
From a quick glance I will let you in on this little secret; Looking at your Pipe Dynamics and your Domes I see right away you do not understand or have knowedge of where I am coming from. It is that simple.
I am not going to argue, it would not lead to anything productive. Feel free to post ranting and raving. All you will get is dead air from me if that will be your approach. You see things by virtue of convention. That much is very clear to me.
If you have read all of what I have to say and can find one fault or mis-representation of the nature of internal combustion as I have presented it, then by all means lets here it. If not then you need to go away because you are not posting anything usefull in the conversation. You are simply here to plug your ideas and methods to try and contradict me, which you can do, just not in my thread and have me respond.
That being said, good bye.
Neither are you
I've got this great new thing...I won't show it to you...I won't explain it...I won't offer any proof it's better...not yet anyways...I just want a worthless thread to tell you everything you think is wrong without backing up anything I say.
Sound familiar?
