Mule is still at it.....

[rhjames]

While I thought this discussion of engine theory was temporarily dead, it seems that Mule is at it again.


I will humor you one last time.......


I consulted two known-to-me degree-d people with your argument.

One was my father.

His pedigree as follows:

graduate Ark U bachelors mechanical science

graduate Pitt U mechanical engineering

graduate ArK U MBA

licensed, practicing mechanical engineer 1958 to present

Chief nuclear mechanical engineer-Westinghouse Nuclear Power Systems 1959 thru 1966

Team management member (launch data systems/Saturn 5 Apollo project) Boeing Corp/Kennedy Space Center 1966 thru 1974

then onto: other data systems architect/management positions including Radiation Corp, Martin/Marietta, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and finally----

Chief systems architect EDS (Troy, MI--a division of GM) where he was the head of computer systems design and procurement for the C4/Saturn project.

Number Two:

Dr. Thomas Blaskovics, Phd., associate professor psychology Emeritus, WVU, Morgantown, WV

His resume is quite extensive as well, enjoying awards in areas of mechanical engineering, computer sciences, as well as an accomplished teaching career in Psychology at the University of West Virginia.


That being said (because I want there to be no doubt that I didn't just dream up an argument to humor MULE), I have presented Mule's theory to both of these two (degree-d) gentlemen.

I went on further to explain my experiences (I didn't need to give them my resume, because they've known me since birth), and they agreed, too, that my experienced past with engine development, both gas and diesel, has much merit as well even though I do not have any sort of degree other than the school of hard knocks and the ability to read book.


Their conclusion is this:

Mule is correct "under certain circumstances."

However, in the real world, his theory is also de-bunkable, and my data proves it.


Mule's assertion is general at best. His application of Helmholtz' theory is vague at best, not really taking into account "everything" that happens in an internal combustion engine.

My psychology professor has a great saying when applying general statements to any circumstance:


"All general statements are false. Think about it."


How true it is........

Maybe Mule will take a lesson from this exchange. I certainly did. If you are going to state facts, whether they be published theory, or cold hard data, you should be more detailed in the point you are trying to get across. Otherwise, they may just be general statements. (see above)

I repeat my findings again.

My diesel blows his 2 atmosphere/ 2xhp theory out of the water. 100 hp at idle (one atmosphere) and 600+ at 2100 rpm (at approx 2.5 atmospheres). He stated nothing about this rpm or that--- the rpm issue seemed to throw him off. (his presentation--not mine)

Positive pressure waves are not strong enough to override the vacuum created by the intake stroke of the engine. You cannot measure positive pressure in an intake (any intake, regardless of design) when the engine is running because of this action. Put a gauge on it and show me the numbers-----Mule has not, nor can he.

I have no idea what Mule's background or resume is, nor does it matter.

He asked for data, I gave it. He ignored the data, so it's his loss.

End of story------


-----

[Danglerb]

This should explain it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

[Red Baron]

Why don't you guys get over it and stop naming someone to start a flame thread?

I've read all of your posts and while saying a whole bunch of nothing, you have yet to prove that 1 bar of boost will produce more than double the HP.

Get over it.

[rhjames]

Red baron hasn't read my example either.

you make general statements without any further context and that's what you get.

I made my case, and did Mule had the courtesy to admit my findings were correct according to "his" presentation. Mule was then kind enough to further explain his theory, that all things being equal 2 times the atmosphere did not yield 2 times the hp "AT PEAK HORSEPOWER".

"At peak horsepower" is the context at which Mule's presentation is correct.

Red baron has just repeated Mule's earlier assertion, that you can't get twice the HP with 2 bars of boost.

Again, in what context??????

Re-read my example, and then re-read the addition of "AT PEAK HORSEPOWER" and you will see it makes a heck of a lot of difference when you start quoting theories without further qualifications.

Red baron does himself a disservice just repeating others' claims without giving the rest of the crowd a fair shake......


-----

[Mule]

RH said:

However, in the real world, his theory is also de-bunkable, and my data proves it.

To what data do you refer? The only point you made successfully is that your diesel makes more power as 2100 rpms than at idle. I really do hope that back in bolt turning 101 when you were 12 they taught you to expect this. I hope!

Other than this truly astute observation I see ZERO (0) data.

Now maybe you or your dad or your psychology professor (?) or Albert freakin Einstein or a local Hooters girl can produce some data to even shed a slight doubt on what I've said but as of yet, ZERO (0) ZE freakin RO.

And let me again apologize to all who did not realize that when I was referring to hp measurements I was referring to PEAK hp measurements not at idle or with the engine off. God I hope it was only you.

[Red Baron]

Originally posted by rhjames
Red baron hasn't read my example either.

you make general statements without any further context and that's what you get.

I made my case, and did Mule had the courtesy to admit my findings were correct according to "his" presentation. Mule was then kind enough to further explain his theory, that all things being equal 2 times the atmosphere did not yield 2 times the hp "AT PEAK HORSEPOWER".

"At peak horsepower" is the context at which Mule's presentation is correct.

Red baron has just repeated Mule's earlier assertion, that you can't get twice the HP with 2 bars of boost.

Again, in what context??????

Re-read my example, and then re-read the addition of "AT PEAK HORSEPOWER" and you will see it makes a heck of a lot of difference when you start quoting theories without further qualifications.

Red baron does himself a disservice just repeating others' claims without giving the rest of the crowd a fair shake......


-----

Disservice? Keep fooling yourself, your good at it.

[Mule]

See the dog in my avatar, he knew I meant peak hp.

[rhjames]

not fooling myself at all.....

Mule was nice enough to admit I was correct with my data, and no, I did not know he meant at peak hp. if he had said this originally, nothing would have been said of his theory. He did not. Who's fault is that? Certainly not mine...

As I have stated before, I'm not a tuner car guy, nor am I a licensed mechanical engineer.

BUT----I do know how to pick up the phone and discuss theory with some one who has the degrees which you guys probably don't have, and I have over 35 years of building bad-ass super stock/pro stock race cars, and high performance diesel engines.

did you guys start this much ***** at Rennlist?

is this why you were collectively banned?????

you pop off with theories without presenting all of the facts--or at least the really important ones, and then when someone blows your theories (as presented) out of the water you can do nothing but fail to read the data and admit your stuff isn't complete? and then tell me you don't understand?

I didn't start this insane argument, but with the likes of Red Baron, Mule and Danglerb, this forum will go straight to the *******.

Flame somebody else----I've had enough for one sitting.


Enough of this crap, as you still do not see the point as I have laid out, in either example, nor will you.

I had fun with this forum when I first got here. now it's just, well, not fun.......


------

[Red Baron]

For one, I'm not banned from rennlist. So again, you are clueless as to what you are talking about.

Two, you are the one actually starting threads that are meant to be nothing more than argumentive.

And thinking your correct because of who you talked to is laughable. Mule has a little race experience himself and in fact yesterday sat and ate lunch with a driver and car builder that has won world championships. He said you were wrong too.

Anyway, if it starting threads that are meant to be arguments gets you off, have it. But when you do do, don't start whinning like a ***** when it doesn't go your way.

If anyone has taken this forum down the wrong path lately, it is you. Not to mention most of who you are calling out have been registered here longer than you...Perhaps you are your own biggest problem here?

[Mule]

Rh said"
I have over 35 years of building bad-ass super stock/pro stock race cars, and high performance diesel engines. "

If that is anything other than a dream then you knew peak hp was the topic all along, just like my dog.

But guess what, you couldn't wash parts for "bad-ass super stock/pro stock race cars" and know as little as you do about port tuning unless you were deaf & blind. Are you on a braile keyboard.

For all the Mencia fans,
If you are a dee please don't marry a dee 'cause then your kids will be dee dee dee, like rh.

PS one of us apparently got other opinions in a lame attempt to bolster their imbecilic beliefs (according to posts) and it wasn't me.

[Danglerb]

You guys don't really know anything about each other, so why do you feel the need to be personally offensive?

All I see in the sum of these threads is a vague statement and a lot of fussing over language. I have to assume the vague nature was intentional as well as the result, so congratulations you really sucked us in with your troll, can we move on now?

[Mule]

If it's my statement you refer to, there was nothing vague about it. My point was that any time you see hp claims that exceed 100% per additional atmosphere of boost they are not accurate, period. If rh really didn't know that I was referring to PEAK hp and thought it would be cute to try to play word games that's not my problem. If he really doesn't know any better than what he was posting, I'm sorry for him.

[Danglerb]

Here is what you said,

"I look at the numbers posted on these projects and wonder how .5 bar can produce more than a 50% hp increase. Can anybody explain this phenomenon?"

It was two freaking weeks before we found out your were not really asking a question.

Then you keep on about pressure, when its not pressure, its mass which is pressure and temperature.

I don't "trust" anybody's claims, boost, oil, or magnetic effects on fuel. Mass of air through the motor is a DANDY check of how reasonable the claims are, and that has never been in dispute.

Answering the original question, they get more than 50% improvement with 1/2 atm of boost because they change a load of other stuff at the same time, reducing restrictions in intake or exhaust, dropping the charge air temperature, otherwise the claims are likely a crock.

[Mule]

What don't you get? My question was simply can, anybody explain these hp claims in excess of what for all practical purposes, is possible. Guys like you wanted to try to justify this with with comparisons between mass & pressure which is more than obvious to ALMOST anybody. But since boosted applications have boost gauges not mass gauges, and since we were discussing boost, that is what I focused the question on. I'm sorry if your attempt to feel smart by pointing out that temperature has an effect on air density did not achieve your desired results.

Simply, the answer to the original question is a big fat resounding NO and yes I knew the answer when I asked the question. Why can nobody explain it? Cause in all practicality, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Feel better?

In case you STILL don't get it, Dan Jones, who forgot more about supercharging than everybody on this board put together knows, says expect 40% or less from half an atmosphere. I was trying to get this across politely but NOBODY is producing numbers better than Dan Jones & Jim Summers at Procharger. Got it?

[Herr-Kuhn]

You all often forget that it is not just about the peak number...but also powerband width and the transient response of the engine. I would say over double is possible with one bar when you are talking at the wheel because the losses are not off of a straight percentage when you crank it up...it takes so much torque to spin up the gears, frictional losses, etc...you end up shipping more down the shaft (percentage wise) as compared to stock on the second atmosphere.

For all around performance on a car like the 928 I believe the turbocharger is the way to go for many reasons. I'm not overly concerned with the peak numbers, but rather the entire end result.

[Danglerb]

Everybody knew the answer when you asked the question.

And the boost gauge tells you what? Besides the blower and pop off work? Its not power, its not even engine load, its a driver amusement device.

I could really care less about the PSI of boost, if I want more power I just turn up the money, thats what makes HP.