Show us a picture with the A transfer - short circuiting is the main issue to be looking at with the shape of the Ex bottom.
Show us a picture with the A transfer - short circuiting is the main issue to be looking at with the shape of the Ex bottom.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
Best to use lock washers like Nordlock or similar. https://youtube.com/watch?v=IKwWu2w1gGk&feature=share
Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
OK , so there is plenty of area between the A port front wall and the angled up corners of the Ex floor , good for reducing the possibility of short circuiting caused by over-scavenging.
Next issue is where does the A port front wall backward radial angle intersect with the bore centerline.
If that piece of rod is indicating that the intersection point is damn near on bore center , then work is needed.
Ive got a thing thats unique and new.To prove it I'll have the last laugh on you.Cause instead of one head I got two.And you know two heads are better than one.
The Nordlock looks very interesting. I will have to see if they are available here in New Zealand.
Interesting that a Nylock nut was so much better than a double nut arrangement, lock or spring washer arrangements.
Ok.
Found a suppler here in NZ:- https://www.fasttrade.co.nz/
I expect I will have them in a few days. It will be interesting to see how they go.
![]()
Geez, I would have thought that a double nut cranked up would have out done all?
Your photos are super low resolution. But thats an odd piston. What make is it?
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
Surely that welding rod is just the middle. The port interface looks maybe like it sweeps back more.
In my laboratory I use fluid dynamics to give a general gist of transfer direction. Ok. . . it might be the laundry sink tap aimed from a height at the transfer entrance one at a time.![]()
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
Been there, done that, until I noticed that by altering the flow entrance direction I could manipulate the outflow angle.
For this scheme to work you need a flow that fully fills the transfer duct's cross flow area from the beginning. And then within seconds you will have so much water in the cylinder that you can no longer see where it is going. On top of that gravity will pull the flow downward, giving a misguided impression of the axial flow component.
Unless you work with chocolate cylinders, I can recommend flame visualisation.
![]()
Yes the rod indicates the intersection. To validate I just used the method that Frits proposes and it confirms that I must redirect the intersection more backwards as you say.
And to come back to the bottom shape of my exaust port. The shape of the rsa would be more fragile as a short circuit if the intersection of the A port is located at the center of the cylinder. That's right?
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
Bigger they are, the harder they fail, or something like that.
My 100 when rebalanced was really annoying in the pits but once out on the track was just fine. Compromise Compromise
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
My 360 single was never balanced, not even after it had grown to over 370cc due to the occasional seizure. Wen it was idling, sitting down on it blurred my vision. But once I put it into gear and it had to work for a living, all vibrations disappeared. Too bad the seizures didn't.
You win some, you learn some. I learned a lot. Like avoiding shrunk-in cast-iron liners. And air cooling in general. And clutch cables that are thinner than brake cables. Pulling the clutch because of a seizure doesn't do much good if the cable snaps. I survived without a scratch but it left the longest tire skid mark I've ever seen.
There are currently 39 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 39 guests)
Bookmarks