ESE's works engine tuner

**peewee** · 2nd August 2014, 17:55

rode the bike today and it pulls 1000 times better below the pipe than the last cylinder. probly because the ports arent sky high i suppose. mostly the transfers probly. before it seemed to have 1000 rpm wide powerband. below that and it couldnt recover without down shifting 1 or 2 gears. now it pulls back to the pipe alot better without down shifting ( in most situations). i left some meat on the bone so i can make more cylinder adjustments if needed. any body got ideas how to get more power without the midrange dropping out, like the last cylinder ?

heres what i got

honda T port exh and no powervalve
exh 192 and about 90% width
A trans 128 and 20* upward
B trans 127 and 15* upward. piston dome is 15* also
C 127 and 62* if i recall

i did the best i could with the upward angles. honda had them backwards. 20* on the rear and 15* on the front so i did the best i could with what i had to work with. i even lifted the cylinder up slightly with thicker gasket to try and correct the floor angles.

didnt get the spacer installed under the reed stopper yet. should be able to get that done this week and tested next weekend. i think it will help as the current 7mm lift seems really small. still might not be enough lift with the spacer but atleast ill know if im going in the right direction

**F5 Dave** · 2nd August 2014, 19:48

204* on the ex. Don't be a pussy.

you might need to use the clutch.

**peewee** · 3rd August 2014, 05:22

ive tried 200*. with 132 A and 130 B if i recall. worked ok. but i want to find a good compromise with lower ports. at some point i think the ports get so high you gain nothing but overrev which is useless for me. i ride in sand so there needs to be some power slightly lower in the rpm otherwise the sand can pull the rpm down too easily. maybe 8spd gearbox is the answer

**jasonu** · 3rd August 2014, 05:56

Originally Posted by F5 Dave

204* on the ex. Don't be a pussy.

you might need to use the clutch.

Like your old 50 with the power spike...

**F5 Dave** · 3rd August 2014, 06:17

Sorry I might have been being a bit silly. I think my grape juice might have fermented.

**wobbly** · 3rd August 2014, 12:10

You only need to fill in 3 pages of EngMod to get the full benefit of the STA readout page.
Just having the engine, Ex and transfer inputs will tell you where the ports are in relation to what you think you need.
You , and we, are simply guessing at what is happening until you can give us the STA printout.
Do that and we can help.

**TZ350** · 3rd August 2014, 19:33

Ok a Tesla Turbine is not a 2T, but whatever happened to this great invention from a 100 years ago. Supposedly better power to weight and energy conversion than any other motor.

**husaberg** · 3rd August 2014, 19:35

Originally Posted by TZ350

Ok a Tesla Turbine is not a 2T, but whatever happened to this great invention. Supposedly better power to weight and energy conversion than any other motor.

The tesla one way valve is even cleverer

**Ocean1** · 3rd August 2014, 21:20

Originally Posted by TZ350

Ok a Tesla Turbine is not a 2T, but whatever happened to this great invention from a 100 years ago. Supposedly better power to weight and energy conversion than any other motor.

If you've got shitloads of compressed gas handy and don't mind losing most of the HP converting all those rev's into something useful.

**senso** · 4th August 2014, 03:17

If the only thing that provides torque is the viscous coupling between air flow and the polished discs, the torque values might be in the 0.0x kgm range?
And yes, something has to provide a high flow of pressurized air/gas, that is no free power, so use a combustion engine coupled to a air compressor to drive it?

**Drew** · 4th August 2014, 05:32

Originally Posted by senso

If the only thing that provides torque is the viscous coupling between air flow and the polished discs, the torque values might be in the 0.0x kgm range?
And yes, something has to provide a high flow of pressurized air/gas, that is no free power, so use a combustion engine coupled to a air compressor to drive it?

That's a mighty inefficient way of making something spin.

If you want big revs and few moving parts, gas turbine all the way.

**FastFred** · 4th August 2014, 07:51

Originally Posted by Drew

Originally Posted by senso

If the only thing that provides torque is the viscous coupling between air flow and the polished discs, the torque values might be in the 0.0x kgm range? And yes, something has to provide a high flow of pressurized air/gas, that is no free power, so use a combustion engine coupled to a air compressor to drive it?

That's a mighty inefficient way of making something spin. If you want big revs and few moving parts, gas turbine all the way.

Intuitively you would think so, and yes something has to provide a high flow of pressurized air/gas, to drive a conventional turbine to, the same thing could be used to drive a Tesla. The Tesla was conceived in the days of steam but with modern materials it might have a place in the turbo jet age too.

The Tesla works on drag of the boundary layer so the gap between any two blades is adjusted to twice the boundary layer thickness and in this way the coupling between blade and driving medium is very closely coupled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine ""The turbine efficiency of the gas Tesla turbine is estimated to be above 60, reaching a maximum of 95 percent. Keep in mind that turbine efficiency is different from the cycle efficiency of the engine using the turbine. Axial turbines which operate today in steam plants or jet engines have efficiencies of about 60 - 70% (Siemens Turbines Data).""

**136kg136ps** · 6th August 2014, 14:53

Turbines do not like shifting, better have a variator style tranny.The tolerances are very hard to maintain as well, having worked on them up to LM2500 25K' hp they are light and powerful but piss poor in small vehicles.