Cyclocharger is being tested on 328GTS

Interesting site (though this thread should be in technical)

Your 328 seems weak on the dyno though, even in stock form. Mine made 223 at the wheels. 170.2 seems strangely low.

So what's the next design look like?

 

Nice. So how has progress been since January? Have you been able to realize the redesigned unit?

 

Wheres the website link

 

, , ,, ,, on paper, and in a lab,,,, , but not in Real Life, on a real intake system.
Automobile engines spend most of their time working with the inlet in a vacuum condition. Flow past ANY butterfly will be turbulent, , check your Reynolds number. (Yes, , it’s spelled Reynolds.)

Why do you want to increase flow efficiency or maintain flow along streamlines? In doing this you are trying to promote laminar flow in a system designed to be turbulent.

Ok,ok sure when it is 1/2 open you get swirling on a flow bench, , , , wooooooo pretty… . And, fully open it has the profile of a standard butterfly.

How often are going to run it either position. Never, throttle bodies on efficient engines run just cracked open, , , , therefore turbulent.

Review;
The Otto cycle engine is really a crappy design, , 48% efficiency on paper, 38% in real life. So with full throttle you added 1% efficiency, , SOooo WHAT..!

And, what HP gain will you reap. 4 ,,, ,, 5 HP? At full throttle,,,,,,, , with loss of control at low RPM’s….. (Ex; being your leakage problem now.)

So, how much did you spend getting those 5 HP…? $$$$$.....?
(Let’s see,, , you spent all of your money on a patent lawyer and a Web site. Then couldn't hire an Engineer, , who knows AutoCAD, , ,to do your first prototype.)

P.S. If you want 5% more out of your CIS, ,you should just remove it and add port injection.

P.S.S. If you want to be a hero and save people gas, air up their tires

 

it was in the body of text. www.cyclocharger.com

thats neat, i'm not sure of the ability to keep the vortex undisturbed as it moves past the intake valve or negoiating turns in a plenum. indivudal throttle per intake would work better as you probably know.

i had yrs ago thought of a different approach. iris diaphragm valve, eithier as sliding plates or twisting material. both are already patend'd so it would just be matter of building it. the idea was to have a zero restrictive opening. the twisting material would work better as it would create its own venturi and have no turbulance, it would seal air tight also.

 

http://www.dvmanufacturing.com/catphp/catpg72.php

this idea

 

in a shutter style iris yes, but with the twisted inversion one no. you'd have an inner silcone tube that would constrict 90* to its axis and neck down in both directions creating and venturi at the closure. no internal moving parts to obstruct or add turbulance to the air.

what i want to know is, is anybody using multiport throttle bodies and MAF's at each individual port? seems if you could 'compute' the air for each cylinder independantly you could control the fuel to each cylinder indipendently and have a greater effeciancy. cost would get you though, but why not? carbs used to do that on a very basic level, but when EFI came along it got general. time to advance the tech.

 

This could turn into a fun discussion....

re: individual MAF sensors... The question is, who needs this? I can see a theoretical benefit in tuning each cylinder to it's unique port/exhaust flows, but I doubt you could even measure a benefit on a dyno; not sure the control in the rest of the system is good enough to make a difference (i.e. stackup on inputs/outputs). Fun idea, I'm sure it's been evaluated somewhere. Maybe even with an SAE paper!

 

well i think it would be neat, consider it would look like the old carbs but have the advantage of modern EFI. then each cylinder would be it's own 'engine'. so for a V8 you'd have 16 O2 sensors and 8 'programs' the benifit might be some additional power but it sure would run smooth, then you'd have control over the emissions and i'm sure it'd run very clean compared to the current setup.

you'd have to moove vaccum to an electric pump, but most everything these days is going that route.

maybe this should be part of the new Dino design on the other thread...

 

LONG LIVE CARBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




ARGGGGGGGGGGGG


















oh yea , to add something to the thread that may actually be pertinent, Rolls Royce uses a similar toothed set up on thier jet engines for the engine throttles and controls. good luck with your invention though, i wish you the best .( but i still prefer carbs!)

 

Agreed, something is not right...my car made 214hp, and that was before I replaced a bunch of leaky injectors with new. Never redid the dyno, but it ran much stronger after.

 

Too complicated and not needed. If your induction and exhaust system is ideal (ferraris are pretty good if you toss the CIS crap) then all cylinders should be contributing almost identical numbers. Thats never going to happen in real life but a thousand extra sensors on a weenie 3.2 engine is more of a waste than the money poured into that new fangled throttle body that slowed the car down. Just put a SUPERcharger on it.

 

with current technology, yes it would be cumbersome but if we could get it down in size, then why not? complete control of every cylinder has it's advantage. couple it with direct injection and then you'd have a system that would tell you exactly which cylinder is the problem.

keep the design going, switch to neumatic valves and ditch the current head design and before you know it you'd have a new type of engine. costly but different. low displacement high reving small package add FI and you'd have a screamer!

 

I could imagine a multibladed adjustable pitch prop/stator that entirely closed off as working a lot better for you.

 

I remember the musclecars had screens under the carbs to make MORE turbulance, along w/rough intake walls...same effect. Also 2 inch base spacer, further mixing. Suzuki 1100 employed the twin swirl combustion chamber design. Intake snorkel ram air raises intake pressure some. If you get more air flow, you need more gas. Slap a big bumpstick or 4 in there if your goal is more air. Then raise compression w/dome pistons, stiffer valve springs, titanium retainers, oil pump, it never ends. If you want better economy, lean it out til it pings n back off a little, or get a smaller engine. Are you looking for 'free' horsepower or better economy? If swirl your brainstorm, try spiral intake runners. I still think you can't get something for nothing.

 

Scott, there is no doubt in my mind that the iris shutter valve is superior in air flow to the butterfly valve...if only due to the shutter being completely clear when wide open (e.g. cameras don't like arbitrary lines cutting through the middle of their pictures like the center-mounted butterfly valves).

 

But Doctor, in your web site, you said, no random vortices.
,,, , so your valve lowers turbulance....?

So you claim You Can eliminate the Cat, , , because all it is doing is changing CO to CO2.... right...?
Because compression ratios are kept low, , , to keep the NOx low. (Duh)
So with turbulance, you mix the charge up really good...! That's right Dr. Mix it up Real good.

That's right Toto,,,,the Dr. can eliminate the Cat,,,,,
And then, ,,, these Monkies will fly out of my A$$.


Back to school with you.
(And Dr., it would actually be spelled vortici.)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Multiple, or even just two, counter-opening blades will open a butterfly valve faster and change the turbulence pattern (for better or worse is debate-able)...requiring special gearing in order to give familiar throttle response and an expected idle speed for a given amount of throttle position.

But...you've got to ask yourself if the above is a solution looking for a problem.

Do cars really need a faster throttle opening cycle? Do air intakes need different air intake turbulence patterns?

...And the above solution still leaves one acknowledged problem with traditional butterfly valves (why leave a traditional problem in place when you are proposing a solution to the tradition??): the center butterfly hinge bar that cuts across the entire middle of every throttle body...a hinge that blocks airflow, slows air intake airspeed, etc.

Look at Scott's post on the previous page. He identifies the iris shutter valve, a vastly superior solution to the traditional butterfly valve. Old analog cameras would use that iris shutter valve because if they had instead used a butterfly valve on their lenses they would all have had big blurry lines across the middle of every picture ever taken.

You don't want flow restrictions.

Get rid of them.

Identify them and eliminate them.

Flow restrictions are **not** efficient. Find them in the air intake; remove them. Find them in the exhaust output; remove them.

By removing flow restrictions you **will** make a system more efficient, less wasteful, more powerful, etc.

That's a solution to existing problems. Flow restrictions are problems. The solution to those problems is to eliminate the restrictions.