Moparts
I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.)
Posted By: Jesse_Lackman
I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 04:41 PM
A few months ago there was a thread about flow testing in which I said the flow in a running engine isn't even close to what it is on a flow bench. Using the example of a 360 engine running at 6000 rpm the calculated airflow (100% volumetric efficiency) is 624 cfm. 624 / 8 = 78 cfm per cylinder, this was the basis for me saying what I said.
Well I was wrong, no one corrected me, and now I must correct myself.
Up until now I always stopped at the 78 cfm (624 for eight cylinder four stroke 360 @ 6000 rpm). My mistake was not realizing the 78cfm/624 cfm is average flow and that the actual the intake flow is crammed into a much shorter time span. The port has to flow about 312cfm during the intake stroke to flow the average 78cfm.
If I did the math right a 45 cubic inch four stroke cylinder @ 6000 rpm will have around 332 ft/sec average intake velocity (average over 180 degrees crankshaft rotation) through a 2.25 sq in cross section at 100% volumetric efficiency.
78cfm average flow @6000 rpm
312cfm @ 6000 rpm ((720 / 180) *78 )) (average flow during 180 degrees of intake stroke)
312 * 1728 (1728 cubic inches in a cubic foot)
=539136 (cubic inches per minute)
/ 60 (seconds per minute)
= 9885.6 (cubic inches per second)
/ 2.25 (intake port cross section area, or volume @ 1" length)
= 3993.6 (average inches per second velocity)
/12 (inches per foot)
= 332. ft./sec average velocity during 180 degrees crankshaft rotation.
There is more about this at speedtalk;
http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4774#4774Quote:
maxracesoftware;
.50 Mach = 582.5 fps @ 105.5F = 77.4 Inches of Water
.60 Mach = 699.0 fps = 111.5 Inches of Water
700 Fps times .5 = 350 FPS , and 350 FPS = approx. 28" Inches of Water
Flow Testing at 28 Inches of Water is roughly "half" the Air Speed Velocity
in Live Engine conditions.
Note the velocity maxracesoftware is talking about easily believable since the calculations above show the average velocity in the 360 intake port to be 332ft/sec. The 332 ft.sec from above is an average velocity during 180 degrees intake stroke. The peak velocity is sure to be higher. I suppose someone somewhere has instrumented an intake port on a spintron or running engine and measured actual conditions.
Testing at high depressions never made sense to me before but it does now.
Posted By: BradH
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 05:33 PM
I gotta start getting more than four or five hours of sleep a night... that just caused me a major brain cramp.
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 05:33 PM
Wow, great info! What I could follow of it, anyway. It makes sense-because a running engine has it's intake and exhaust flow as periodic events rather than continuous, the peak must necessarily be higher than the average. That being the case, designing stuff only for the average would not seem to be the best approach. I've wondered about this stuff off and on for years, and my basic theory is that (being very general and vague here) stuff like what you're talking about may help explain why chrysler engines seem to usually do better than ford and chevy under ACTUAL operating conditions. Perfect example-last night I'm reading a book about how to hotrod smallblock chryslers, and the author mentions something I hadn't paid attention to; the fact that an LA engine's valves open "on center" with the cylinder bore. Meaning, the valves aren't crammed toward the intake manifold OR the exhaust manifold side of the cylinder (as viewed from above). This shrouds them the least possible, which ford and chevy apparently do not. So, with a given bore size and valve size, an LA motor shrouds the valves less. The result-more flow UNDER ACTUAL OPERATING conditions. This is guaranteed to be missed by a flowbench, since they don't put a cylinder against the head in question.
Now that it seems like I rambled, let me try to tie it all together; What I just said has in common with your post the fact that there are things our simplistic models leave out. Flowbenches don't consider the relative centering (or lack thereof) of valves in a bore, and many theories and formulas neglect to consider that gas movement in an engine is a series of pulses instead of a continuous flow. It is this type of oversimplification that causes us to have an incomplete and flawed understanding of what's really going on in an engine. Hence, a well-prepped 340 will usually outrun an equally well-prepped 350 chevy, and many people will wonder why. Well, THIS IS WHY.
Posted By: StrokedW7
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 05:39 PM
Yes... Larry Meaux is amazing. A bundle of knowledge.
Posted By: BradH
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 05:41 PM
Quote:
...Perfect example-last night I'm reading a book about how to hotrod smallblock chryslers, and the author mentions something I hadn't paid attention to; the fact that an LA engine's valves open "on center" with the cylinder bore. Meaning, the valves aren't crammed toward the intake manifold OR the exhaust manifold side of the cylinder (as viewed from above). This shrouds them the least possible, which ford and chevy apparently do not. So, with a given bore size and valve size, an LA motor shrouds the valves less. The result-more flow UNDER ACTUAL OPERATING conditions. This is guaranteed to be missed by a flowbench, since they don't put a cylinder against the head in question...
Better rethink your theory: A cylinder head tested on a flow bench is mounted on a bore adapter that replicates the effect of being mounted on a block. That's why it's important to know the bore size of the adapter used (e.g. 4.00", 4.25", etc.) during any particular flow test to be able to account for any increased / decreased shrouding effect compared to the bore size the head is actually used with.
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 05:43 PM
Ah, I didn't know that.
Posted By: aarcuda
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 06:00 PM
i would think it would be more complicated than that. If you think aboutthe engine in its entirety, there is more than one intake valve open at any particular time. I dont have it charted out but the ol 18436572 tells me that when 1 is open, 2 and 8 may be open (either just closing or just opening) but is different amounts. so when i is flowing its max, part of the intake charge is going into other cylinders which may be just closing or just opening.
so the flow is proportional to the amoutn the valve is open and where the piston is.
so using differential equations to set up the dynamics of the engine would be required to determine the answer.
And what that answer is, I cant tell you because Im not about to go trying to figure it out.
I just thought Id add a little more difficutly to the problem.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 06:00 PM
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 06:03 PM
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 06:14 PM
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 06:26 PM
I may be completely off here, but it also seems that manifold plenum size (along with runner volume) would affect vacuum. As in, the smaller the plenum, the higher the vacuum (all else being equal). If I'm right, I guess this is at least part of the reason why excessively big intake plenums tend to give soggy response with carburetors.
Posted By: nomore65BelvJim
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:23 PM
Reading this has me curious,just what are you all trying to figure out here? peak flow or peak vacuum/pressure? both? something else? couldnt max vac/press be figured by using piston speed at or near its highest point? wouldnt the vac/pressure level be controled by the most restrictive point in the flow path?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:36 PM
You guys are reading a lot into ejit's deleted post. He didn't actually SAY anything, other than somebody, somewhere, posted crap. That was interesting and informative.
As for people wanting stuff handed to them on a silver platter, what are you talking about? Why have this board at all if people are supposed to keep it a big secret and make everyone else go find out on their own?
"WAY TO GO EJIT you actually made some here think, now they may do the required work to get their questions answered..........and they will remember it."
No, that's NOT AT ALL what he did. He didn't provoke any thought on the actual subject of rod/stroke ratios, he spouted off. Have you seen anybody post thoughts on rod/stroke ratio as a result of ejit's post? I haven't. If you have, please point it out.
Again, vaguely referring to some "crap" in response to a technical question is not productive, as in "now they may do the required work to get their questions answered..."
If you know the answer, why not just say the answer? Streetwize seems to have survived the traumatic experience of simply ANSWERING THE QUESTION, why not ejit? The guy obviously has a huge wealth of technical information (I mean that seriously, not sarcastically). Why not share it? And if there's some reason to not share it, why even post at all? I'm not trying to say ejit should not be a member here-let me nip that **** in the bud before it starts. But I do wonder, if information must be earned the hard way, why be a member of a forum that's there to be an EASY way?
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:41 PM
Oh boy, here he goes, getting p#$$y because I busted him out a couple of weeks ago. Hence, he deletes useful posts. Ejit, as you well know, your posts in this thread are useful. As I've said before, you have all kinds of useful knowledge. However, that doesn't give you a free pass for when you decide to act like an @$$. So, I guess if you wanna take retribution for our last go-around, go ahead. There's nothing anyone can do to stop you.
Posted By: nomore65BelvJim
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:46 PM
do you take back things you say outloud as often as you delete posts here?
Posted By: Jesse_Lackman
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:49 PM
Panic, would you repeat that bit about average flow being 6% of peak flow?
Is that average flow during the intake event?
And where did that figure come from?
------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't think velocity and pressure would be too hard to map in a running intake port - cylinder pressure has been recorded in running engines. I'd be willing to bet it's been done.
One thing to remember about flow bench depression is it on the cylinder side of the valve, not the port side, whatever that tidbit is worth.
Posted By: BBR
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:49 PM
Quote:
You guys are reading a lot into ejit's deleted post. He didn't actually SAY anything, other than somebody, somewhere, posted crap. That was interesting and informative.
As for people wanting stuff handed to them on a silver platter, what are you talking about? Why have this board at all if people are supposed to keep it a big secret and make everyone else go find out on their own?
"WAY TO GO EJIT you actually made some here think, now they may do the required work to get their questions answered..........and they will remember it."
No, that's NOT AT ALL what he did. He didn't provoke any thought on the actual subject of rod/stroke ratios, he spouted off. Have you seen anybody post thoughts on rod/stroke ratio as a result of ejit's post? I haven't. If you have, please point it out.
Again, vaguely referring to some "crap" in response to a technical question is not productive, as in "now they may do the required work to get their questions answered..."
If you know the answer, why not just say the answer? Streetwize seems to have survived the traumatic experience of simply ANSWERING THE QUESTION, why not ejit? The guy obviously has a huge wealth of technical information (I mean that seriously, not sarcastically). Why not share it? And if there's some reason to not share it, why even post at all? I'm not trying to say ejit should not be a member here-let me nip that **** in the bud before it starts. But I do wonder, if information must be earned the hard way, why be a member of a forum that's there to be an EASY way?
Where's that violin playin' smilie when you need him?
FYI - His post deletion is not limited to moparts.
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:50 PM
Oooh, that was rough! I know full well that I was hard on him in that other thread. It's just that what he said initially, and his attempts to defend it, were so indefensible as to be ludicrous. There's just no purpose in someone swooping in and saying something negative w/o adding anything useful. Negative with a point is an entirely different thing. I'm not immune to that sort of thing-I occasionally post stuff that I later regret, and see as an @$$hole kind of post on my part. When I do see that, I try to make amends.
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 07:56 PM
Yeah, I bet a restrictive valve could kill velocity down quite a bit, as well as change the TIMING of the pressure variations on the intake manifold side of the valve. I'm gonna theorize that a restrictive intake valve would somewhat attenuate and delay the vacuum/pressure effects on the intake-side of the port, as it would limit the cylinder's ability to affect anything past the valve. Sort of a smoothing effect, in other words.
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 08:03 PM
Jesse, I'm sorry that my posting here caused him to pack up and go home. I'm guessing that once he realized that I was the same guy who busted him in the other thread, he decided to pull all his posts, and instead post what I said to him that made him mad. Anyway, I have emails from the board with the contents of what he posted. If you want, I can cut/paste them into a pm for you. I could just repost them under my own name, but even I'm not that cold. Just lemme know if you want them.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 08:07 PM
Another thing to consider is that there will be pressure differences at every lift of the valve.A pressure of 40" might exist at .400 lift and then drop to 30" at .500 lift all in the same stroke.That would mean that the terminal velocity of a port at some lift in the same stroke would precede what the terminal velocity would be at some other lift.So in actuality even if a head were to flow some maximum flow on the bench at so and so lift it may never see that potential in real engine performance.Ejit touched on the idea that rod ratio may be something to consider in designing a cam. I believe that to be totally something to consider.This has been brought up before and is something i'm incorporating into the design of my next flow bench.When we see flow charts for ports we usually see every lift of the valve flowed at the same test pressure(28"....25"....etc.)But the same pressure for each lift in a real engine doesn't see the same pressure at the same engine speed.The pressure varies with each lift.Possibly a properly designed cam lifting just the right amount to avoid that terminal velocity at every lift until much later might be the way to go.I believe one way to determine that would be to have a flow curve not based on flow at every lift at some same depression but a flow curve that shows the flow at every lift within the same rpm range in actual conditions.I've thought about this somewhat and how to measure this.I've got a good idea on how this can be done.
Posted By: aarcuda
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 08:09 PM
thats it. im deleting my post too!
Posted By: v8440
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 08:15 PM
Bad ace, good thought. All this stuff is tied together, and tied to "tuning" an intake and exhaust system. Your idea leads me to think that maybe more than rpm affects the tuning range of an intake system. As in, different valve opening RATES will tend to change the peak velocity of the intake charge, which in turn would change the time/space between vacuum pulses, independant of the rpm. I'd be willing to bet that rpm would have a much greater effect than lobe steepness though.
Posted By: earlybee
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/22/05 09:04 PM
Posted By: nomore65BelvJim
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 09:04 PM
wouldnt peak velocity(intake or exhaust)come as the piston reaches its max speed as the valve is fully opened at that point, or am I missing something?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 10:17 PM
A comment was made on another board about taking a small port head and flowing it at 28" with some valve lift.Then taking that head off the bench and placing another bigger port head on the bench with the same valve lift.Don't change a thing but the heads.Turn on the same number of vacuum motors used to test the other head and do nothing to change the test pressure.What will likely happen?The test pressure will differentiate i'm sure.The bigger port head will more than likely show a smaller pressure and possibly less flow than the other head.If this is the case then it goes to show why the smaller port may indeed outflow the bigger port at the same engine speed.Simply because there is more pressure drop at the same rpm.Now take that same idea and apply it to flowing one port at different lifts on the bench. Of course it's no secret to head porters that at every difference of lift the test pressure has to be readjusted.I'm definitely no expert so I'll leave it up to whomever...what if we just test the port without adjusting the test pressure?This should very closely simulate the flow of each lift of the valve at the same engine speed. May this in fact give us a better way to design cams? Heck I don't know but i'm going to research it more.Maybe they're already doing it somewhere i'm sure if it does in fact work.Another thing that concerns me is the initial opening of the valve.Does that create an initial vacuum pulse. If so what affect does that have?Maybe the experts will chime in later.
Posted By: BradH
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 10:34 PM
Quote:
...what if we just test the port without adjusting the test pressure?This should very closely simulate the flow of each lift of the valve at the same engine speed...
I don't think so. If you've even seen graphically the pressure variations that an engine experiences in the intake & exhaust tracts as it runs through the complete 4-cycle series, you'd see there's a whole lot more going on there.
Unfortunately, using the same standard test pressure for each lift is the simplest way to capture comparative data from one head / port to another. Does it accurately reflect exactly what's going on with a running engine? Not really...
EDIT: Go check out http://www.audietech.com and look at the page for the Dynomation 4 Stroke program. Scroll down to see the "pressure graph screen" showing intake & exhaust port velocities vs. crankshaft rotation to get an idea of what I'm referring to.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/22/05 11:26 PM
Yeah I know it's not going to actually simulate true engine conditions. But if the port flows say 200 cfm at .300 lift with 28" of test pressure and say 300 cfm at .500 lift with 28" test pressure then it doesn't tell us anything about what engine speed that 28" of pressure will occur for both lifts.By the time 28" is reached at .300 lift then what will the pressure be at .500 lift during the same stroke?You're right there is too many differentials to generalize.I'm only guessing that by not changing the test pressure on the bench and using the same number of vacuum motors with the air valve opened at the same point....it would more closely represent the true vacuum at the same engine speed for both lifts.Thanks for the input.
Posted By: Demon340GSS
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/23/05 05:11 AM
Ok, alot of info here... My question is this. How do you decide what amount to flow a combination at? Is there an industry standard that says I have to flow it at say 28# manifold pressure ? just trying to get some more info, before I ask more questions. So what happens when you add boost to the flow instead of vacume? (is this not done on a bench somwhere??)I'm curious because my heads flowed 335 @ 28# , but my Supercharger is pumping 22 lbs boost WOT, with a mild 620 lift solid roller in a 496.(based on a 440) What does that take my flow number too?... How much does humidity affect volumetric efficiency on a flow bench? what about Altitude?... 28# here in Colorado Springs, Colorado is NOT the same as 28# in Miami, FLA.(desinty altitude affects my race car just like in my Cessna 180. most of Us know what it does in the "real world" but is it even factored into the equation? What about temperatures of the air being flowed? AKA...Density. I know that most lift/flow improvements are made to produce gains in a naturally aspirated engines. Most of this technology does not apply to supercharged engines.(beyond the basics) It was mentioned in one of the posts on this topic, the effects of overlap ( the period when the intake valve has already opened, and the exhaust valve is not yet closed.) in a blown motor this is power lost and heat gained to some degree, yet a naturally aspirated motor tolerates this. as Air needs time to get "moving". I'm not trying to change the subject here. just trying to get some better understanding before I build my next motor. I have the use of a Superflow brand bench test stand whenever I want it... Just waiting to build a Larger Air/fuel Pumper!!!!
Thankyou.... Grant Eaton 719-330-0468 best time in street legal trim to date
8.03@172 mph at our MILE HIGH ALTITUDE. yup, :Licence plates, ET street tires and no traction!!!!
Posted By: RyanJ
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/23/05 06:01 AM
We are building a new flow bench that is capeable of pulling 400 cfm @ 40" of vacuum. I have known for quite some time the importance of flowing at higher depressions, but COST is reason most of us don't. More inches = more blower motor which = more $. I will be able to pull "normal" SB heads that flow in the under 300 range to easy 50+ inches, and exhaust ports well over 60". Dwyer 120" vertical manometer should allow room to grow in future if I ever saw need for more airspeed. I just want to be able to test a W8 style head at over 28 inches and figured 40 would be good place to stop $ wise on the blower motors and complexity of the bench.
Biggest thing is just being able to generate enough airspeed for BIG ports to see what the short turn REALLY does. What may be stable at 10 or 20" may not be at 28 or 35"+ Or sometimes it's other way around, port can be unstable at 10" but crank airspeed up and air can actually hang onto the ST better.
Some of the Formula 1 type guys are testing now over 100 inches because they have measured presure spikes in oprating engines of similar outputs. Jim McFarland who used to design intakes for Edelbrock used sensors in between intake and head to measure airspeed in running engines. If have never heard his auido interview on SpeedTalk I'd highly recommend it. It's 98% about inatke manifold science not heads, but is best interview I have ever heard. That is one sharp dude, I learned more about intakes in hour and half than I had in my whole life.
Posted By: Jesse_Lackman
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/23/05 06:14 PM
What I got out of churning that speedtalk thread is that the port velocity during testing is very important and should be matched with what it is in an actual running engine. Of course it takes high depression/high pressure to get the velocity that high on a flow bench. It's pretty obvious that flow bench test depression/pressure needs to be much higher than I previously thought to get the port velocity even somewhat close to the levels it is in running engines.
If the exhaust port average flow is only 6% of the peak flow (from a book Panic is reading) it would take a tremndous amount of test pressure to get the flow bench port velocity close to what it is in a running engine. You would have to start measuring test pressure in HG or psi.
No wonder some head porters say they are barely scratching the surface.
What are you going to use for a blower in your new bench?
Have you thought about computerizing your new bench?
That would eliminate the 120" manometer - you would need a tall shop for that thing.
What is the suction limit of centrifugal blowers anyway?
We have some "exhausters" where I work that will pull 26" hg, and lots of CFM. These are a centrifugal design not a roots type blower, they would be very smooth.
I wonder how a big diesel turbocharger would work if you spun it with an electric motor? Probably fine for pressure but how good for vacuum?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/23/05 06:16 PM
Quote:
Hence, a well-prepped 340 will usually outrun an equally well-prepped 350 chevy, and many people will wonder why. Well, THIS IS WHY.
I would think that the overall design (Chamber and port design) of the cylinder head itself would also play a major role in this equation (V8440's quote above.). It would be interesting to put both classes of motor together at the same ci. of displacement and best iron oem production head design and see where each stood. Of course I think that keeping the intake, carb and camshaft duration the same would help with a true comparison; no? For example 355 ci., 9.5:1, Vortec heads (for Chevy) and Magnum (Chysler), hyd. flat tappit 230@.050, dual plane intake, 750 cfm vac. sec carb., standard oem ratio rockers. It would be a neat comparison. With that being said I am not convinced that I would want to put my money either way. 
Let the flaming begin. Cheers !!! 
Big Jimmy
Posted By: 69_Swinger
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/23/05 07:49 PM
OK- silly question from someone who doesn't know a thing about flow bench measurements. If someone were to assemble a complete motor and hook up a drive motor with enough umph to turn the crankshaft, could actual flow in the test engine be simulated accurately by turning the it at various RPM?
Of course, there would be some differences between the test setup and reality, but seems it would be closer than a flow bench. The trick would be how to measure pulsed flow vs. the continuous flow on a bench.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/24/05 12:40 AM
Quote:
OK- silly question from someone who doesn't know a thing about flow bench measurements. If someone were to assemble a complete motor and hook up a drive motor with enough umph to turn the crankshaft, could actual flow in the test engine be simulated accurately by turning the it at various RPM?
Of course, there would be some differences between the test setup and reality, but seems it would be closer than a flow bench. The trick would be how to measure pulsed flow vs. the continuous flow on a bench.
Your statement above got me to thinking. Having experience in Industrial Automation I was thinking about this. What if someone were to make a flowbench and was hooked to a pump source for both vacuum and pressure yet used solonoids controled by a PLC (Programmable Logic Controler) that actuated the valves according to the specified cam specs that could be programmed into the PLC. The programming tell it how long and how far to open each valve. I would think that the PLC could be interfaced to control the velocity of the pump which would simulate the VE of the motor. would it not? Would it work? Any Thoughts? Cheers !!!
Big Jimmy
Posted By: RyanJ
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/24/05 02:11 AM
Quote:
What are you going to use for a blower in your new bench?
Have you thought about computerizing your new bench?
That would eliminate the 120" manometer - you would need a tall shop for that thing.
\
It's a U stlye Manometer so 60" tall.
Amatech Blower Motors, same as used in SF's
Don't plan on computerizing it.
Posted By: quickd100
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/24/05 03:16 AM
Ryan; Please excuse my ignorance but what size are these blower motors on your bench and what type of fan do they run? Coming from a farming background we use some pretty big fans on grain storage. Such as 7-1/2 hp motors and larger on large squirrel cage type fans. They move a tremendous amount of air. Dave
Posted By: 69_Swinger
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench fl - 02/24/05 04:42 AM
That sounds like a FUN project
The only thing I would wonder about is how quickly the "switching" affect could be accomplished. You figure that for an engine turning at 6k RPM, the intakes are going at 3k RPM = 50 cycles per second! That might exceed the mechanical capability of most pneumatic valves
It kind of touches off another thought though. At that high a pulse rate, I wonder if the inertia of the air flow mass exceeds the force required to cause a change in it's velocity (which makes a flow bench a more plausible approximation of reality). Guess I should dust of my Fluid Dynamics books!
Posted By: Jesse_Lackman
Re: I was wrong. (Engine airflow vs flow bench flow.) - 02/24/05 04:56 AM
Quote:
Amatech Blower Motors, same as used in SF's
I might have some Ametek 115923 vacuum motors for sale in a couple weeks.
D100,
I don't think those single stage blowers have enough pressure/vacuum for flow testing. These vacuum motors will pull 28" H20 while flowing about 100 cfm. They are two stage vacuum motors similar to what's used in a central vacuum system.