[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: On a peel

In a message dated 97-11-01 16:23:34 EST, you write:

<< >>>find it frustrating trying to get you to understand a concept that
seems to have eluded Randall and you to date.  Again you are defending the
 Hmmmm.  Two questions come to mind:  (1) What fuc*ing exception are you
constantly referring to---that I am supposedly defending?  (2) Can I withdraw
my defense of the unknown exception and enter a plea of you are right, I am
wrong?  If so, I would like to do that now.   
1) the "exception" is "what if this" and "what if that"....   Eric's car
doesn't except him from combustion theory.  Not with every frickin mod ever
put in a combustion motor. Doesn't change the physical properties.  Larger
valves = higher VE = higher Flow for a given PR.  DOESN"T change the PR.
 Larger CI = higher baseline CFM = higher flow for a given PR.  So, what I'm
referring to is MATH.  Exceptions?  Your nopt referring to any, cuz the
conclusion hasn't changed since my original post.  I spent a lot of time, so
did Dave, trying to show, there are NO exceptions to the physics.  The turbo,
the IC, the CI, the valves ALL the friggin mods in the world don't change the
conclusion OR the math.  2)  Not at issue.  Something is wrong, yes.  By
definition and math, it HAS to be a)  the claim OR b) the mods.  I can accept
claims all day long.  ANY and all tweeks to a turbocharged car, still give a
CFM and a PR, and that goes to a turbo MAP, and now we know it only take one
of those numbers to get the other for a turbocharged motor..  That is how
turbochargers are chosen, period.    The 2.79PR makes a) or b) above wrong.
 Which is it?  I don't do well with ego arguments, you of all should know
that well.  Not starting one.  Really here to do what you CLAIMED you are
here for, information and visiting.  I put out 10 years of turbo experience
to this list, and YOU are the frustrated one as I'm justifying combustion
theory and turbocharger MAP application?

 >>>> Have you seen the engine bay pix of the Trans Am cars?<<<<< 
> Answer:  Yes, but no one saw me see it, so, the corrected answer would be

Not the point.  Just asking you to think, Bruce, that's all.  Right now you
are defending a floating target, that needs only logic to see thru clearly.
 I ask, patiently and with formulas out the ying yang, for only you to take
the time to UNDERSTAND what you are trying to say.  Right now, as your posts
dictate, that is not happening for you.  You are putting out, "What if it's
not CI or the valve size I think it is?"  It doesn't matter.  If you read the
post I did to Randall, really read it, and even half of the others, it
doesn't matter.  Changing math doesn't change the formula or the theory, only
the number.  The number GOES to a turbo MAP, by definition, and that MAP has
a CE vs CFM vs PR vs CS (compressor speed).  AFTER every single mod Eric did:
 The number is 2.79, the MAP, ANY map, indicates this is not where ANY
turbocharger manufacturer puts a street car.  Do not pass go, see a) or b)
 >>>>You are looking for "exceptions" without thinking it thru<<<<<
 > I'm not right now, but I was last night around closing time.    
 Another thread all together.  The results hopefully were in your favour.

 >>>>MATH any of your "exceptions" to prove me wrong, don't just toss them
onto the fire<<<<<
 > Since I haven't a clue what you are referring to when you refer to
exceptions, I >can't do the math.  Probably couldn't even if I knew what you
are referring to, sorry.

"What if CI or what if not stock Valves?" - the point is there are no
EXCEPTIONS, just a different number to plug in.  If you did that to the basic
math, and I posted the formulas in a post TO you, you should come to the same
conclusion.  Repeatability, consistency and validity to the math.  What does
it do to the mods or the claim.  Question.

 >>>> That is what he is claiming, you and Randall
 are defending<<<<<
  Answer is:  Whatever you say.  >>>
Nope, NOT what I say.  I took the math of a Claim (NOT mine) and plugged it
in.  There's no magic, there's no top secret mod to change the numbers.  They
are cold and analytical.  Fast?  I think I know what that is, I have it
sitting in my garage to compare to anytime (albeit 2 wheels). 22psi Boost
pressure at a very low efficiency will make a 44 chassis turbo scream.  Not
the point, is yours.  And what you and Randall want to go back to.  I can
just as easily show with math that 22psi, is fast, and use a rock stock k26.
 And tho the Charge Air temps are higher, the turbo is still at 65% CE.
 Unfortunately for Ross, the 130,000 rpm speed got the best of that project.
 >>>> Who saw it other than the claimant<<<<
 >Relax man.  Who cares?            
 Don't, so if it's the Claim than it's true, fine.  If the Claim is true, the
math shows the mod is incorrect.  The definition I suppose, of:   There's a
better way to skin that cat.  My point exactly.  As defined in my original
post.  "Who Cares?" is my claim all along, sir.  You owe me a copywrite fee
for that.  For the exercise, I grabbed an RS2 turbo as the comparo, could
grab a whole bunch of others, including hybrids, too.  The RS2, with the
givens was an excellent example IMO.  Math shows it's darn good for the whole
exercise.  There certainly are others as well, but they have to fit the math.

 >>>>>  A lot of us here are saying NO ONE, based on the claim vs math<<<<<
 >Ah, correction:  You are saying it a lot of times, which makes it sound
like a lot of >people are are saying it--whatever it may be.  All I  asked
was several dumb >questions about the egt's.        
 EGT is the ability of the air in the cylinder to be totally combusted.  The
higher the EGT, the leaner the mixture.  The lower the egt the closer it is
to lambda.  Not dumb question, just objecting to relevence.  Think on this
idea, a higher DR will need more fuel than a lower DR, all other things
equal.  Again, my issue puts egt aside, it really doesn't address anything
other than the fuel equation bruce.  So noted in my original post AND 2
subsequent mentioned.  Doesn't change the math, and has nothing really to do
with the turbocharger application here.  Want to add it in?  Fine.  I can
deal with that.  I can also mathmatically show that the egt is low, cuz the
turbine is too big.  Irrelevent to this exercise.  Given the level of
frustration to the basics, the KISS theory should apply here. 
 >>>>Scott Justusson, RS2 wannabe<<<<
 >Bruce Aukerman, wannabe a cowboy
Not sure that fits in with your "faster" desires, but Ok