ESE's works engine tuner

[jbiplane]

I have wasted thousands of dollars over the last 45 years on papers that disappointed. The older ones were better, maybe because they took pier review seriously.

If someone give me doi of article which is usefull, I can get it for free and share using local univervity portal

Sample - https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4046711

[jfn2]

Hello Husaberg
I also have that paper and for some reason, and I don't remember why, I wrote another number on the paper. 93A083 They might have changed the orig number? A person by the name of Randy Norian tried this on a RG500 with good results. I think he lives in OZ but not sure. Also a man whose name is Mark Dent from UK. He is with Mark's Dynapro.co.uk knows something about Randy's bike. I have a write-up by Randy about his set-up if your interested. Jeff

[Muhr]

Got a package with some cast parts today. It will be fun to start with some actual fabrication!

[nitro2tfx]

A couple examples of incomplete knowledge.

First we "know" that a thin edge orifice plate has a coefficient of discharge of around 0.6 i.e. it flows terrible, and of course other unfavorable shapes have fairly poor coefficients as well.

Second we "know" that once a pressure ratio of about 0.528 is reached on the low pressure side of a non-diffused opening then decreasing the pressure on the low side further will not result in any additional mass flow.

This information is readily available, but it is incomplete. Both only apply to specific scenarios, and there are scenarios inside an engine where neither statement holds true. Some people know this, but I suspect it is not common knowledge ?

[gamma500]

Friend told me about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub

No, never used it to download scientific papers 😉

[husaberg]

Hello Husaberg
I also have that paper and for some reason, and I don't remember why, I wrote another number on the paper. 93A083 They might have changed the orig number? A person by the name of Randy Norian tried this on a RG500 with good results. I think he lives in OZ but not sure. Also a man whose name is Mark Dent from UK. He is with Mark's Dynapro.co.uk knows something about Randy's bike. I have a write-up by Randy about his set-up if your interested. Jeff

cheers all on the RG500 stuff links are dead i posted them at the time but they had no SAE paper. edit it did have the number though lol
SAE paper 931506,
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1130479247

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1130173462

[wobbly]

Nitro , by slinging shit at SAE in general due to background " fudging " to make a papers revelations appear more substantiated is bit bit rich , when you then go ahead and do exactly that.
By presenting a " factory " pipe data log , that is clearly working nowhere near its optimum design parameters , then immediately comparing that to your design , that is obviously exactly on its
designed working parameters , smacks of SAEsque fudging of the first order.
But the paper I quoted , showed conclusively using equally both real and sim data , exactly why a pipe with a megaphone is superior to a single pipe.

You came on here with a mission to convince us that TFX is functionally capable , and is far superior to sim data as it can somehow enable off the wall new design techniques to be validated - that sims simply cannot achieve .
Well sorry buddy you have failed miserably in that particular goal so far.

I have no idea , nor the time to try without a paying customer , if I am clever enough to design and replicate the amazing achievment you have shown.
But Im still entirely conviced that it would come down to the degree of intellectual assesment of the data .

TFX or sim , to me is still completely irrelevant - as you have shown nothing at all that would enable me to revaluate that opinion.
Your 20 years of experience in pipe manufacture and design is also irrelevant , ive been doing it for twice that , and realise I still know jack shit.

[wobbly]

Katinas and Muhr , no I didnt try retarding the ignition as the cylinder I used had a new type of very shallow chamber to suit the semi flat top piston.
This setup uses very retarded ignition already , with high trapped compression in comparison to older designs on the same fuel.
Also , like the water test dyno runs , the egt was identical , if the flame speed was improved , it would react like more advance ie lower egt.
Real issue is that we run a fixed advance ( flat ) curve , and always there is a direct tradeoff between front side power and overev.
Also that particular cylinder had cooling inside the short turn duct radius ( but no I didnt tell you that ).

What I really wanted to prove was that the outer duct cooling was a step in the right direction , the real long term goal was to have water running across the top of the mains , cooling the transfer duct
entry in the case , then entering the cylinder next to the boost port.
Sadly that is going to be a real hard sell now.

[husaberg]

"Expanding the Torque Curve of a Two-Stroke Motorcycle Race Engine by Water Injection, Robert Fleck, 931506" presented at the Small Engine Technology Conference in Pisa Italy December 1-3, 1993

Sorry i missed that response Neels, cheers

[Frits Overmars]

....What I really wanted to prove was that the outer duct cooling was a step in the right direction , the real long term goal was to have water running across the top of the mains , cooling the transfer duct entry in the case , then entering the cylinder next to the boost port.

Cooling the insides of the transfer ducts certainly works, as Jan Thiel proved, so cooling their outsides would be the logical next step. But in my view the real long term goal would not be cooling the transfer ducts, but preventing heat from the ducts getting to the mixture.
I've considered inserts in the ducts, with an air gap between the duct walls and the inserts, like double glazing, but the simplest solution I think would be applying a thermal barrier coating to every surface in the engine that comes into contact with the mixture (except the piston crown and the exhaust duct, because there the combustion gases would drive the surface temperature of the coating to insane heights). Then the only thing that could still heat the mixture would be the big end bearing, wich needs to get rid of its heat anyway (a strong argument against direct fuel injection, unless we provide the big end with direct oil injection, as Neil Hintz will be doing).

[Condyn]

https://youtu.be/jo-r7LwI70Q

850cc etec engines utilize a direct big end lubrication scheme.
Unfortunately you will have to copy and paste the link as I had to edit.

[nitro2tfx]

Nitro , by slinging shit at SAE in general due to background " fudging " to make a papers revelations appear more substantiated is bit bit rich , when you then go ahead and do exactly that.
By presenting a " factory " pipe data log , that is clearly working nowhere near its optimum design parameters , then immediately comparing that to your design , that is obviously exactly on its
designed working parameters , smacks of SAEsque fudging of the first order.
But the paper I quoted , showed conclusively using equally both real and sim data , exactly why a pipe with a megaphone is superior to a single pipe.

You came on here with a mission to convince us that TFX is functionally capable , and is far superior to sim data as it can somehow enable off the wall new design techniques to be validated - that sims simply cannot achieve .
Well sorry buddy you have failed miserably in that particular goal so far.

I have no idea , nor the time to try without a paying customer , if I am clever enough to design and replicate the amazing achievment you have shown.
But Im still entirely conviced that it would come down to the degree of intellectual assesment of the data .

TFX or sim , to me is still completely irrelevant - as you have shown nothing at all that would enable me to revaluate that opinion.
Your 20 years of experience in pipe manufacture and design is also irrelevant , ive been doing it for twice that , and realise I still know jack shit.

Hmmm for a smart guy, and you are, and one who knows what happens when assumptions are made, you sure do make a LOT of assumptions. So lets get this straightened out once and for all.

I didn't just "come on here". I have been on here for about 8 years (roughly 4 years as a member and I guess about another 4 years before that), reading quietly. I have read almost every page in this thread, quietly. A few years ago I made a couple posts and promised to post some real data traces for a Banshee. Time went by and things came up and it didn't happen, about a month or two ago I finally got around to posting a couple traces from a Banshee ( I have more but whether they get posted or not is debatable at this juncture). Somebody, I won't mention any names lol, was all over me for doing that. How dare I post real data in a great big long thread that has only sims ? That person attacks everything I post, then I have to be on deck to defend it, again and again, apparently.

You are off on some kind of a tangent with the two 4 stroke traces I posted. I did not post the best 4 stroke trace ever generated by a pipe on planet earth vs the TFX pipe, so get off that notioin. What I posted were 2 traces, from the same engine at the same rpm, one with a 4-2-1 header and one with a TFX pipe, the POINT being that a 4 stroke conventional header does NOT generate exhaust traces that look like a 2 stroke exhaust stroke i.e. different shape but the TFX pipe DOES generate a trace that looks like a 2 stroke trace yet the TFX pipe itself does not look like a 2 stroke pipe. So what. I'm not selling the TFX pipe to anybody. It's interesting, or at least it was meant to be. I thought that perhaps some members might not know what a 4 stroke trace looked like (i.e. it looks a lot different than a 2 stroke trace), that's why I posted the (4-2-1) 4 stroke trace, NO OTHER REASON.

I came in here with NO MISSION AT ALL. As I mentioned I have been on here about 8 years reading quietly with almost no posts. I thought that since there was no real pressure data in the thread that it might be interesting for people to see real data, after all this is 2021 not the dark ages. Have you seen me posting the company phone number ? How about the company website ? How about the company email ? NO YOU HAVE NOT. In fact I was asked directly in the thread for that info, and I did not respond to it, if you bother to look back a few pages you will see that. Do I expect to make sales from posting on here ? Nope not even one.

What I do expect from this site, since it is more technical and less trashy than some other sites, is to be able to post technical 2 stroke info on here and have people ask legitimate technical questions which hopefully I can provide answers to. Being attacked everytime I post anything is ridiculous.

Further I don't think you have any idea what I do for a living by the sounds of it. I am not in competition with you in any way, shape, or form.

[wobbly]

Nitro - OK , I accept your critism of my now obviously triggered over reaction , but the underlying point of all the ranting was due to two factors.

I have a couple of " money no object " customers that have TFX available to them , but they use my sim experience as it gets results, fast , by using data that is so close to reality as to make the distinction irrelevant.
Secondly is the still unproven assertion that your real data somehow adds a new dimension to the analysis process , facilitating results that the sim data cannot enable.
I still have a real issue with this whole concept - maybe a more detailed explanation of this process is simply all that is needed.

Competition with you or anyone is completly irrelevant , as like you I dont want or need the work except for the odd technical challenge.
But one thing you should be aware of ( maybe you are , having read so much ) was a long drawn out shit fight we had on here from one self proclaimed genius , who continually told us about how many of us regularily
contributing here , were wrong.
But thru the whole discussion he gave us absolutely no useable technical input of any substance whatsoever.
His resultant banning from the site , added to the same result he suffered from a couple of other two stroke dedicated forums.
This is what would have triggered the somewhat rude reply you got ending with sil vous plait.

Simply put , please dont take anything I have said as a personal attack , we are all frustrated , and on the edge of our chairs wanting to know the process by which your amazing technical feat was achieved.

[lohring]

We ran water injection into the header on our 35 cc race engine. The goal was to boost acceleration into the speed traps. The first graph shows the dyno results. The purple line is with water. The power drops off at around 21,000 rpm. With water off we got good power to over 23,000 rpm. The second graph shows rpm vs time in the actual boat. You can see that the rpm plateaus at around 20,000 rpm but jumps up with the water off. Since the pipe was designed for high rpm, not maximum power, water injection gave us the best of both worlds. Of course, this system is easy in a boat.

Lohring Miller

[Larry Wiechman]

Imagine a collaboration involving an engineer who codes 2-stroke simulation software, a clever
tuner skilled in the use of the software, and a real-time pressure instrumentation expert.
Now mix in a physicist and a number of crafty patternmakers, machinists, and welders.