Increased efficiency

[Twinscrew]

A low pressure high volume screw compressor use as a supercharger.

2 points for Andre. My focus for the last several years has been supercharging. I am currently developing a supercharger of my own design. Therefore, my research happens to be all about, what else but, volumetric efficiencies. Do I know everything about VE with regard to Listers?
No, of cousre not. But, I know what will improve the VE of practically every other internal combustion engine. I can hypothocise that some of if not most of the flow dynamics obsevered in every other engine on the planet also apply to Listers. If not, my aplogies. Write me off as a flake. 

[GuyFawkes]

I am currently developing a supercharger of my own design.

<smacks forehead on desk>

Every method of mechanically pumping air possible has already been developed.

There are no commercially available blowers for 250 cc motorcycle engines because there ain't a market for them, not because nobody know how to make them.

$100 says there is prior art...

[Andre Blanchard]

tractor pull?

bet the efficiencies are a LOT higher than you think.

Maybe but I am just going by the amount of unburned carbon and raw fuel in the air after a run and in my hair at the end of the night.  Efficiency cannot possibly be as good as the same tractor pulling a plow with a clear exhaust.

… that it takes just 15/100ths of a second for all 7,000 horsepower of an NHRA Top Fuel dragster engine to reach the rear wheels?

Just what does this mean?  Horsepower does not travel thru a drive train like water thru a pipe.
And if they are talking of the time it takes for the engine and drive train to spin up from idle they should be clear and say so.

In which case they would be wrong, a long while back I seen some measured HP plots as a function of distance down the track.  They start someplace around 1/3 of max HP at the starting line and ramp up to max just before the end.  HP goes up with the speed of the car because torque is limited to what the tires will take without spinning.

[GuyFawkes]

tractor pull?

bet the efficiencies are a LOT higher than you think.

Maybe but I am just going by the amount of unburned carbon and raw fuel in the air after a run and in my hair at the end of the night.  Efficiency cannot possibly be as good as the same tractor pulling a plow with a clear exhaust.

… that it takes just 15/100ths of a second for all 7,000 horsepower of an NHRA Top Fuel dragster engine to reach the rear wheels?

Just what does this mean?  Horsepower does not travel thru a drive train like water thru a pipe.
And if they are talking of the time it takes for the engine and drive train to spin up from idle they should be clear and say so.

In which case they would be wrong, a long while back I seen some measured HP plots as a function of distance down the track.  They start someplace around 1/3 of max HP at the starting line and ramp up to max just before the end.  HP goes up with the speed of the car because torque is limited to what the tires will take without spinning.

they mean idle to wide open

cmon, all the numbers are in that post I made, you can correlate a top fuel dragster fuel efficiency to a lister(oid).

why is everyone resisting the math?

[mobile_bob]

twinscrew:

as i have stated before, it was not my intention to blow anyones dress up over their head.

if i have offended you i appologize, fair enough?

if i am guilty of anything it is in asking hard questions, and giving sound arguement, or at least
reasoned arguement.  This is how i learn!

i am sorry if i don't automatically take one at his word, but rather ask questions to determine the credibility of
the person.

if upon asking a question i get a sound reasoned responce, then i figure the guy has probably been around the
block. failing that .... well the jury is still out... so i try again. i rephrase the question.

yes i have done a lot of different things, am i an expert? hell no! and never represented myself as such.
am i an inquisitive son of a bitch? hell yes!

perhaps i am too obscure to understand, that is my shortcoming.

when i asked about your background it was not to take a swipe at you, i don't care if you are 18 or 80, i have learned as much from either.

sometimes it is thru brisk and often heated debate that much is learned, as evidenced by those in the scientific community who routinely beat the shit out of one another in horribly heat debate..

i am no expert on lister/oid or any other engine, i do understand VE, theory and a boat load of other stuff at least to a level to be conversant.

to be asked a question should not be veiwed as a personal attack but rather an opportunity to explain a position and support it.

i openly invite critism of my idea's as well, but be sure i will respond with sound reasoning if i can, or i will back off and research and rethink my position based on the other guys arguement. If it turns out he is on the right path and i am missing the boat i will respond and let him know.

i have been wrong many times in my life, probably more times than right, which leads me to why i am the way i am.

again i am sorry if i offende you or others

bob g

[slowspeed1953]

[

Just what does this mean?  Horsepower does not travel thru a drive train like water thru a pipe.
And if they are talking of the time it takes for the engine and drive train to spin up from idle they should be clear and say so.

In which case they would be wrong, a long while back I seen some measured HP plots as a function of distance down the track.  They start someplace around 1/3 of max HP at the starting line and ramp up to max just before the end.  HP goes up with the speed of the car because torque is limited to what the tires will take without spinning.

If you mean the horsepower goes up that is being transmitted to the tires you are right as they slip the clutch pneumatically untill about half track at the end of a run the clutch steels and fibers are welded solid.

If the clutch tune is right from the drop of the tree to the finish line they are at maximum available power.

Peace&Love , Darren

[Andre Blanchard]

they mean idle to wide open

cmon, all the numbers are in that post I made, you can correlate a top fuel dragster fuel efficiency to a lister(oid).

why is everyone resisting the math?

I have to go now but if I get a chance I will look at it tonight.

The numbers you gave can at best be used to find the average power produced if we know the mass of the car, start and end speed, and time.  I do not remember seeing that in the text (just skimmed it) but WAG in the range of 1500 to 2000 pounds.

Here is one at 2225 lbs.
http://www.goarmy.com/racing/nhra_top_fuel_dragster.jsp

[mobile_bob]

just to show you and other where my heart is at, so you all don't think of me as a guy who wants to squash the shit out of experimentation, inovation and exploration.


i have 55 chevy 210, two door post, have had it now for 32 years, most of which it has set in storage.
when i recovered it from the divorce (predates the witch, haha) i decided i wanted it to be my test bed.

my engine of choice,,, 500 ci cadillac,,,, oh ya,,, i too can be a freak!

built two manifolds and added 2 airresearch t04b turbos,  oh ya we gotta improve the VE!!!

rear axle,,, gm corporate, cone lock,,, narrowed it myself,,, no 9 inch ford for me,,, gotta be different ya know!!

working on my own electro mechanical fuel injection system,,, oh yes call me stupid,,,

and the list goes on.... is that DIY enough?  will it run and be dependable,, hell no!  will it be different? yes!
will i have to be constantly tweekin it? of course!  efficient?? you gotta be kidding!

the freakin thing will be as tempermental as a dairy bull, and probably as strong if it takes a notion to run...

just one of many DIY projects ,,, and yes i have been ridiculed for doing it, thats ok

now having related that, i will say this
i am no expert on turbo charging a cadillac, do i know a thing or two? yes! would i want to represent myself to anyone as an expert and have them follow in my footsteps,,, again no!

the only thing i have been trying to get across to you guys, (hopefully someone understands) is the need to substantiate, document, test, and follow some sort of methodology.

it might also surprise some of you to know that i am a proponent of improving the listeroid VE, but how to do it, and how do determine what works and what doesnt is where some of us part ways.

MY THEORY:

it is my belief that the intake manifold and exhaust manifolds are comprimised, and for just reason. they are not of optimal length, because of manufactureing and packageing concerns.

the intake should probably be several feet long, as well as the exhaust runner. properly calculated a set of runner lengths can be established to increase the VE of the listeroid to over 100%!  yes over 100% in theory.

END THEORY

now would this be more easily implimented than a turbo, probably yes, certainly for less cost.

would the engine make more power? in theory yes.

would it be more efficient,,, in theory, possibly, maybe, intuitively?

but how you gonna tell? how you gonna tell if it makes more power? or if it is indeed more efficient?

this is all i am about in this thread, not to shoot down your idea's, but to get you to a position where you
can document what you have done.

if you can't document an improvment, what do you have? well certainly it will look cool if you take the time to
polish it all out! i suppose you could claim it makes more power, but does it?

sort of like flipping the lid on your car aircleaner, makes a throaty varoooom,,, but does it make more power?
probably not.  put on glass packs ,,, ooooh yaaaa,,, sounds bad ass,,, but does it add more power,,, perhaps?

hell even the 18 yo kids are using the little black box on the dash to check G forces, calculate 1/4 times etc.. to see
if their changes have any real effect.

maybe i am all wet,,, maybe i am the idiot,,, oh well,,, i like it here

there is nothing wrong with me,,, wrong with me,,, wrong with me......

bob g

[Twinscrew]

Thanks for the reply Bob. This is refreshing. I'm bouncing between computers and don't have much time at the moment but I'll be back in the morning.

Every method of mechanically pumping air possible has already been developed.

Yes, tell all of your friends. New science is not possible. Everything has already been done. My designs will never be patented. You're right, once again.

[GuyFawkes]

they mean idle to wide open

cmon, all the numbers are in that post I made, you can correlate a top fuel dragster fuel efficiency to a lister(oid).

why is everyone resisting the math?

I have to go now but if I get a chance I will look at it tonight.

The numbers you gave can at best be used to find the average power produced if we know the mass of the car, start and end speed, and time.  I do not remember seeing that in the text (just skimmed it) but WAG in the range of 1500 to 2000 pounds.

Here is one at 2225 lbs.
http://www.goarmy.com/racing/nhra_top_fuel_dragster.jsp

you have specific fuel capacity for nitromethane, and gasoline, a specific engine you know the capacity of, and specific bhp for each fuel, and fuel consumption rate, you don't need anything else.

[GuyFawkes]

Thanks for the reply Bob. This is refreshing. I'm bouncing between computers and don't have much time at the moment but I'll be back in the morning.

Every method of mechanically pumping air possible has already been developed.

Yes, tell all of your friends. New science is not possible. Everything has already been done. My designs will never be patented. You're right, once again.

I said $100 there is prior art, money talks and bullshit walks.

[dkwflight]

Hi Many years ago I used to drive a "B" model Mack truck. Dredging up a memory form those days I think I was told the engine , a natualy asperated one, had a 22-1 compression ratio. Who knows, for sure.?
Since turbochargers, the compression ratio has dropped to allow increased boost for more power.
Increasing the CR cleams the exhaust, Right?
Would a Lister live long with a much higher CR? I don't think so. But I don't know.
The secret of Lister longjevity is the stress level is low. The piston speed is low. The pressures are low on the bearings.
Increase the power out put by any means and shorten the life. Its just THAT simple.
Increased compression will increase the pressure on the bearings which will need pressure lubrication. The pistons will be hotter and then they will need a jet of oil to cool the crowns.
The exhaust will get hotter and then you will need sodium filled valve stems for cooling and perhaps valve rotaters as well.
And then the crank. You will need a steel crank to stand the stress.

Tbe bottom line is you should have bought a modern engine with these features already there.
The modified engine won't be a Lister any more.
My power solutions engine is a direct injection head with pistons with a cavity in the top. The crank has big counter weights for ballance. The flywheels don't have counter weights. Is it still a Lister  oid?
Dennis

[GIII]

A friend of mine was an engine designer in the 70's and used to say 'any dumb ass can design an engine that turns 300 rpm and makes 50 hp that will last forever weighing 200 tons; but it takes a genius to get 500 hp out of a 1 liter engine for an hour'.  I believe that is all about stress and internal parts.

[MikeyT]

A friend of mine was an engine designer in the 70's and used to say 'any dumb ass can design an engine that turns 300 rpm and makes 50 hp that will last forever weighing 200 tons; but it takes a genius to get 500 hp out of a 1 liter engine for an hour'.  I believe that is all about stress and internal parts.

Guy won't like to hear you talking about his much beloved Lister Engineers that way.

Actually, both take smart and skilled people, neither is a trivial task. To create a successful design you need to know your market, and your abilities, Lister had this right on the CS (not much since, apparently), Toyota has it right today. Who knows about 30 years from now, when the new mechanical air pump that Guy said could not be developed is all the rage.

[Jim Mc]

... every 100 BHP engine on the planet burns fuel at about the same rate...

False as written for planet earth.  Unless you have a very different meaning for "about" than I do.

BHP is a measuement of the actual work output of an engine, measured on a power absorption device, such as a Prony brake.  As such, it can be represented in units such as kW or HP.

Fuel consunmption is the energy input rate, typically a BTU/hr unit or the equivalent.

The ratio between these (BHP-hr/BTU or similar metric units) is a measure of efficiency, is dimensionless, could be represteted as a percentage, and is not "about" constant for engines on my planet.





.