airflowdevelop

you guys must love dreaming of unicorns....

it takes f1 monies + some coin to model this correctly, today. And even then it is speculation.

Sabre002

iTrader: (7)

Wow I would like to take that class, that is the stuff I would have liked to learn at my school they showed us a flow bench for about 1/2 a day and that was it.

airflowdevelop

Another question that I think is even more important....A little unicorn that I dream about!

If we are to dynamically test the valve event in a wet flow procedure...wouldn't it only be a benefit if we tested the complete induction system, including depression applied to all cylinders, and valve timing as it would be dynamically in the running engine? Also, wouldn't you want the pressure drop across the induction system to equal that of the engine in real life? fluid release location? If injected, pressure drop across orfice....



IMO for now, the mondello deal is more than enough to digest for most guys.

Also - I would LOVE to see this CFD that models charge motion correctly...I have heard this from every salesman on the planet...but have never seen it

TLewis4095

iTrader: (10)

I also strongly suggest regular visits to David Reher's tech tips on their site......excellent FREE tips for just about everything you could imagine.

Malihoochie

I would e-mail pics of Dart's wet bench to someone if they would post the pic.

gollum

iTrader: (1)

Here's DART'S WET FLOW BENCH !

SScam68

iTrader: (20)

Of course it would be more beneficial. This is just another tool, just as CFD is but it isn't stopping the REAL gurus from making great power. That's where the dynos and experience come to play

I guess it makes you wonder what potential is still left on the table.

LHP

Funny: I made a similar machine some 10 years ago for my own entertainment.
A 5 hp 3 phase motor with a digital phase converter for speed control, driving an old gmc blower for vacuum, this way I could spray damn near anything into the port and not worry about blowing myself up, (electric fan wise).
Worked pretty good too,
I used sodium floroshiem, I think thats how it written,
it's a flat red powder, that when mixed with water turns bright yellow to green depending on concentration and is fluorescent to black light, so you would have to have a clear cylinder for viewing the flow into the bore.
The machine I made had a recovery system so I didnt glow aswell, but was loud as hell with the blower hovering away on a cylinderhead.
I even tried layout dye but it etched the acrylic bores, but it left a pattern on the bore wall for you to see.
I learned a few things with the system such as the stepping of manifold to head to create lift for the fuel:mismatching the port floor from manifold to head etc.
Heads having different flow patterns, port styles, etc.
Some of this stuff is not relevent to fuel injected engines as the injectors are close to and on the roofs of ports, so less need to get fuel off floor of port.
Now I design manifolds for other people/companies.

LHP www.haywardperformance.com

MSURacing

iTrader: (1)

The best way to know what is going on inside the engine while running. Incylinder pressure data. I have been part of this kind of testing and it is amazing to see. There is so much data coming in it takes 1 minute for a dyno run and about 40 hours to go throught the data and organize it, and then you can analyze it!!!!

ZoDDy

The mass in the fuel drops keeps the movement alive even after the valve has closed.

ZoDDy

Already been done, i have seen more than hundreds of report about this online. Most of this stuff has been done ages ago. Intake and In-Cylinder Flow Modeling is nothing new. They use more hightech equip than "watching the drops through a bowl in the garage"

I've read about Laser, X-Ray, Radar, highspeed cameras, transparent lab engines, computer models, and all the other stuff that makes the life more simple for the scientists. All this research **** must need million dollar budgets?

The terms and the math they use makes my head spin, And I also realize that it must be almost hopless to keep up with this scientist guys and all the equip they have and use. I have done a wet bench myself and watched the drops dancing around in there, but do i really know what i'm watching? No! not after been reading the scientist reports i really lost my hope of fully understanding it

A-man930

iTrader: (2)

I am reviving this thread... What applications could this potentially have for our LSX/LTX cars? Are the OEs already doing it? I know DART is as well?

Adrenaline_Z

I have an audio CD with an interview between Darin Morgan and Don Terril
regarding air flow software and CFD.

The comments toward such computer based prediction was along the lines of:

You're better off flushing that money down the toilet.

(My words not his)

If anyone wants to see this wet flow bench in action, apparently Reher-Morrison
is very open about letting the general public into their testing labs.

You might want to phone them and inquire about a tour if you're in the area.

treyZ28

Sorry, that is a load of crap. The problem is people doing CFD are typically people with nothing higher than a BSME, and they are the people who shouldn't go near that stuff.
<----BSME

If it can be used to accurately model the F119 or rockets on space shuttles, you can use it to model a simple freaking cylinder head.

Adrenaline_Z

First off, let me state that I misquoted Darin Morgan; he was speaking of
CNC machined heads, not CFD software.

I don't recall where I heard/read the opinions about CFD, but the logic made
a great deal of sense.

Those who develop the CFD software modelled the algorithms against real
world data. Therefore the program is only as good as the research and data
samples taken.

If a human is able to take a cylinder head port developed using CFD and improve
upon it (making more HP and better track times), then human trumps the software.

After listening to the audio interview again, I take back what I said about
CFD as I was confused about the topic.

I do believe that CFD is a good model to baseline an initial design, but I don't
accept that CFD has the final say in a design, or the ability to pinpoint fluid/gas behaviour in a dynamic environment.

With respect to the space shuttle rockets , I can see how CFD would be a
more sensible approach for designing than spending millions upon millions revamping a rocket and trying to accurately measure the efficiency of the design over a previous model.

I don't imagine NASA has a rocket dyno of sorts...but rather some very sophisticated
mathematics and flight data to study.