ESE's works engine tuner

[wobbly]

LOL, thats the first time ever I have felt the need to use that phrase.
Absolute gold, even Lozza would be hard pressed to have put it better,period.

[TZ350]

This forum is here for people to help each other by adding small snippets of helpful 2T knowledge with each post.

..................... Totally True ....

[WilDun]

.
This forum is here for people to help each other by adding small snippets of helpful 2T knowledge with each post.

..................... Totally True ....

I don't usually participate here (no engines to participate with, but do read it all out of interest)
Several have tried to change it all by promoting themselves without understanding what the thread is all about. They only take notice of others or their endeavours when they disagree with them.

[dutchpower]

Edit - Dutchpower, just be sure that when you look at the entry to the stinger that the Ex transducer position is set to the correct length.
This is not important if its just a straight tube, but if its a nozzle then you need to set the transducer to that nozzle position.
ie if the length is set at 80mm than both ExMach(1) and ExMach(2) will be at this length down each of Pipe 1 and Pipe 2 ( 2 being the stinger )

Thanks Wobble ( end cone dia. is 16 mm and stinger 18 mm )

But what you think of the grafiek

[husaberg]

But what you think of the grafiek

[wobbly]

The Mach graphic shows that the duct exit diameter is pretty much spot on - try a little bigger and see what happens to the Mach and the subsequent power level.
Some engines ( lower bmep ) like a tighter exit.
But I think the stinger exit is a little small.
Neels code has some difficulty correctly modelling real steps like you have, with a small cone end dumping into a larger stinger.
Is this modeled as a definite defined step input ?
Try changing the setup to a proper nozzle, and look at the Mach within the nozzle length.

[dutchpower]

The Mach graphic shows that the duct exit diameter is pretty much spot on - try a little bigger and see what happens to the Mach and the subsequent power level.
Some engines ( lower bmep ) like a tighter exit.
But I think the stinger exit is a little small.
Neels code has some difficulty correctly modelling real steps like you have, with a small cone end dumping into a larger stinger.
Is this modeled as a definite defined step input ?
Try changing the setup to a proper nozzle, and look at the Mach within the nozzle length.

Bigger exit duct give less power

Oke will try nozzle
16 mm is not so smal for a 50 cc !!!

[Frits Overmars]

Everybody, thank you so much for your kind words and moral support

Now let's get back to business .

[Pursang]

..................... Totally True ....

..........

[JanBros]

LOL, thats the first time ever I have felt the need to use that phrase.
Absolute gold, even Lozza would be hard pressed to have put it better,period.

glad I could finaly return you a favor for all your shared knowledge

[lucf]

FOS is not the idea of Frits Overmars

Van mijn vader had ik gehoord dat hij dit systeem in 1969 uitgedacht had,
hij kon alleen geen goede gieterij vinden die een cilinder kon gieten zonder gietgallen
Cilinders lekten constant water.
Hij is vanwege tijdsgebrek er weer mee gestopt en heeft het idee uitgelegd aan Frits Overmars.
Die zou er daarna, met modelbouwmotortjes succes mee gehad hebben.
William van Dongen

Reaction Frits

Around 1995 I discussed my FOS scavenging system with Cees van Dongen (great character, saddly missed).
Cees used to cast his own cylinders, based on the Mahle-Kreidler racing cylinders. Cees then showed me an experimental cylinder in which he had added a small transfer port under the exhaust.
This was the only difference. Contrary to Lucs suggestions there were no circumferential exhausts, no symmetric transfer ports, no central scavenging column, in short: no resemblance to my system.
The casting of this prototype was too porous to be properly tested, as William van Dongen confirms, and Cees let me have the cylinder as a souvenir.
The picture below with the yellow transfer port shows an impression. When I get back to Holland, I can take a picture of the original cylinder and post it.
Now I wonder if Luc has the balls to rectify what he wrote about the Van Dongen-cylinder in this forum and in the other places where he posted the same text.

@ William van Dongen: if this cylinder has a sentimental value to you, just let me know and I'll let you have it.

Here is the answer from William van Dongen

Het gaat toch juist om het idee van een spoelpoort onder de uitlaatpoort ?
Mijn vader kon het verder niet testen en uitwerken.
Ik wil die cilinder wel hebben ! Mijn adres is Waalpad 7, 2652DH Berkel en Rodenrijs
Ergens moet het idee beginnen, daarna ga je het uitwerken.
Zonder dat idee met die cilinder, was hij waarschijnlijk niet op idee gekomen.
Als je een spoelpoort onder de uitlaatpoort plaatst is de volgende stap toch automatisch dat je ze rondom wil gaan plaatsen ?
William van Dongen

I know Cees van Dongen and his father from the past, I realy don't believe they only talked about one transfer under one exhaustduct.
When Frits published in dec 2007 how the idea came up, he did not even mention the name of Cees van Dongen, so how could anyone believe, that he is telling the truth now.

And second Frits lies about the sequence of his publications which you can see below.
So that's one more reason I don't believe he is honest in his latest reply.
When he had been honest from the start, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but now I can't.
And why should that be different in other cases???


This is a passage from the text of FOS publication March 2008

Ideas only count when they are realized. That's why I would say, "Do your best, Luc.
Show how good the system is that you and I have thought independently of each other.

I hope my bike runs first. But if you are too quick for me, I hope that yours is running fast

And after 10 years Frits writes

By the way, that's the way the whole thing started.
At the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 I presented my scavenging idea in a racing newsletter and in a Dutch motorcycle magazine, accompanied by drawings and a picture of a cylinder that had clearly been running.
Luc, whom I had never heard of before, promptly launched a me-too reaction all over the internet.

He even claimed to have been the first with a running engine, because he posted a video while I had better things to do.

The first FST text was published on 19 january 2008.
2 month later on 16 March 2008 at 20.00hr the first FST engine was started in my home and my wife did make the movie on YouTube.
One day later Jan Thiel called me to congratulate me, that was close before he went to Thailand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&hl=nl&v=jtTc7sk8WS8



Publication dec 2007 How the idea came up. No explanation how it works, No pictures of a cylinder, Nothing about Cees van Dongen!





Feb 21, 2008, two days after my publication on Jan 19, 2008
First picture of FOS only the underside of a cilinder, which he let publish by Martijn Stehouwer (nickname snel), No descriprion how it works.
http://www.kreidler.nl/forum/viewtop...25485&start=25




March 2008 First publication of the "FOS"systeem. Still no running engine with expansion pipes !
And even after 10 years no running "FOS" engine with expansion pipes !






I don't care who you believe but these are facts which nobody can ignore !

And there is more, he also lies about Ryger.
In an Italian magazine you can read that the Ryger idea came from Frits Overmars.
While he came to Ryger in 2014 to see how it worked.
He never added anything to the Ryger idea.
And I know because I have been involved in the project since 2008.
Here the original text:
l motore ollandese Ryger 125 revo deriva da un idea cviluppata da una decina d'anni da Frits Overmars, il primera sinistra nella foto.
Photo will follow later

My question is "are these the only few things he lies about ?"



.

[koenich]

I don't care who you believe

Obviously you do quite a lot Same as with the Ryger - mucho blabla to convince people of your amazing achievings. you have to be a great guy to hang out with...

16 mm is not so smal for a 50 cc !!!

I'm using 15 mm on my 50cc. Diameters below that value killed overrev, the engine was hard to jet and build up heat like crazy. So far I'm not sure if the increased backpressure is needed.

[F5 Dave]

Luc. You said you were leaving quite some time back. Please honour that commitment.

This isn't the thread to pollute with screes of, whatever it is argument it is that you think you're having.

Seriously. Piss off.

[dutchpower]

I'm using 15 mm on my 50cc. Diameters below that value killed overrev, the engine was hard to jet and build up heat like crazy. So far I'm not sure if the increased backpressure is needed.

0.646 kw more changing stinger

[mr bucketracer]

Here is the answer from William van Dongen



I know Cees van Dongen and his father from the past, I realy don't believe they only talked about one transfer under one exhaustduct.
When Frits published in dec 2017 how the idea came up, he did not even mention the name of Cees van Dongen, so how could anyone believe, that he is speaking the truth now.

And second he also lie about the sequence of his publications which you can see below.
So that's one more reason I don't believe he is honest in his latest reply.


This is a passage from his text of his publication March 2008

[/I][/B] And this he wrote now



Publication dec 2007 How the idea came up. No explanation how it works, No pictures of a cylinder, Nothing about Cees van Dongen!





Feb 21, 2008, two days after my publication on Jan 19, 2008 First publication of only the underside of a cilinder, which he let publish by Martijn Stehouwer (nickname snel), No descriprion how it works.
http://www.kreidler.nl/forum/viewtop...25485&start=25



March 2008 First publication of the "FOS"systeem





I don't care who you believe but these are facts which nobody can ignore !

this is all good stuff , thanks for sharing