| Author |
Message |
Neal
Forum Moderator
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 7432
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:32 pm |
|
Cool you can remind me about it sometime, found it all quite interesting at the time, but forgotten it all now... |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:32 pm |
|
yes I get what your saying.
But I am merely saying if they are all equal then you feel better and it can then be dynamically balanced properly without having un-equal rod/piston assemblies pulling/pushing on the crank.
Also the fact the crank can take it means nothing to smooth running.
but then again I am pretty sure the stock crank would easily cope with 600bhp as long as it dodn't have to rev. |
|
|
|
|
stan
Gay Rights Activist
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 1268
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:24 pm |
|
EXACTLY! you FEEL better about it! its all in the mind....
Even if they are un equal, there is going to be a combustion stroke at the same time as an exhaust stroke, isnt there, so the combustion force will "cancel/overcome" any "excess" inertia force due to an excess mass on the exhst stroke..... and again make it negligable. You could then say that there will be a variation in loading along the axis of the crank due to the variation of inertia loading, but cylinder-cylinder variations that naturally occur in combustion would render these due to inertia negligable. |
|
|
|
|
david3533
Site Subscriber
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1575
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:17 am |
|
I hope I'm not putting my ore in but I've been following this with interest from a laymans perspective (im not a motor mechanic or motor engineer) but I always understood that for smoothness free reving etc you balance everything piston to rod to crank, but in doing so you even out the harmonics that build up with a not properly balanced engine and I understood it is the harmonics that do the damage. please correct me if i'm wrong I'm always willing to learn. |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:38 am |
|
no your right as well David but theres no point in arguing further. |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:40 am |
|
also its oar not ore.
Oar is a boats propulsion device and what you stick in so to speak.
ore is a material, for example "I poured molten Iron ore down my trousers now I have no legs".
I am being pedantic, its my hobby. I blame Neal. |
|
|
|
|
stan
Gay Rights Activist
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 1268
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:07 am |
|
| david3533 wrote: |
| I hope I'm not putting my ore in but I've been following this with interest from a laymans perspective (im not a motor mechanic or motor engineer) but I always understood that for smoothness free reving etc you balance everything piston to rod to crank, but in doing so you even out the harmonics that build up with a not properly balanced engine and I understood it is the harmonics that do the damage. please correct me if i'm wrong I'm always willing to learn. |
Well that seems to be the general assumption, to which i have just proven otherwise. I see no proof/explanation that this assumption is correct...
Its always the case when i disagree/prove someone wrong...... someone says something WITHOUT any explanation, they just come out with this so-called fact with no proof, BUT i give an explanation as to what im saying, but still it gets dismissed????? |
|
|
|
|
Roger Red Hat
Site Subscriber
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 4722
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:50 am |
|
| Quote: |
| ore is a material, for example "I poured molten Iron ore down my trousers now I have no legs". |
ROFL |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:56 am |
|
you reckon Stan.
is thisliek you arguing with Ben and I a while back saying we were wrong when we were clearly right.
Or when you thought you installed piston rings at 120 degrees?
Still its good your questioning things now. |
|
|
|
|
stan
Gay Rights Activist
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 1268
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:34 am |
|
Piston rings at 120 deg??? All i said was thats not wot (I mean what really) the haynes and engine builders ive spoken to says...never said you were wrong! Its a bit of a shit "argument" anyway....
Argued with Ben about what? If it was with ben, where does "WE" come from?? Last one i can remember was about Bore and stroke increasing torque/power. HE SAID stroke is better=more torque...true. I SAID bigger bore=more torque...true, but also allows for larger valves AND will allow higher RPM. Therefore larger bore is used as opposed to longer throw. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT???
SO HOW WAS I WRONG?? |
|
|
|
|
stan
Gay Rights Activist
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 1268
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:37 am |
|
Good im questioning things now....HAH! what, as opposed to next year when im working as a development engineer for a major race-engine designer/manufacturer.....will you still have a positive input then oh righteous one?? |
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:50 am |
|
I dunno I cannae mind.
Dunno but racing teams and manufacturers racing teams are very often plain wrong with many things.
Motorcyle racing is a very good example of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
