what do you guys think of this? Part II

DavidNJ · Post by **DavidNJ** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:34 pm

Is this covered by a patent? If so, would that affect its use or licensing required to use it?

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:52 pm

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... RS=6237579

http://somender-singh.com/content/view/60/51/

DavidNJ · Post by **DavidNJ** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:24 pm

Does he require a license?

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:46 pm

DavidNJ wrote:Does he require a license?

It would be best to address this question to Somender Singh

http://somender-singh.com/component/opt ... /Itemid,3/

DavidNJ · Post by **DavidNJ** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:55 pm

What is the size...length (apparently from the edge of the cylinder to the edge of the chamber, width, depth, and taper. Some of the photos show a pronounced taper in length and width, some show no taper in either direction.

Is there a relationship of the effectiveness of the groove to ratio of the depth to the quench height?

Thank,

David

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:59 pm

DavidNJ wrote:What is the size...length (apparently from the edge of the cylinder to the edge of the chamber, width, depth, and taper. Some of the photos show a pronounced taper in length and width, some show no taper in either direction.

Is there a relationship of the effectiveness of the groove to ratio of the depth to the quench height?

Thank,

David

As for ideal size, as with everything else, different people have different opinions. I keep the groove narrow to keep the squish flow velocity in the groove high. Most grooves I have seen and all of the ones that I have done are wider at the combustion chamber cavity. I cut the grooves almost up to the gasket surface to eliminate fuel in the oil.

As for depth, I believe deeper is better if the deck thickness allows, I like to think of it as rerouting some of the squish flow to the top of the chamber as apposed to keeping it against the piston top.

"Is there a relationship of the effectiveness of the groove to ratio of the depth to the quench height?"

On several occasions I have been able to eliminate detonation completely by widening the piston to head clearance > 0.040" with one groove in each chamber. Power, mostly at lower RPM has always increased. I would be more specific, most would not believe me.

My current belief is when detonation is a concern and the squish to bore ratio is 25% or greater, I go with something near 0.050" piston to head at assembly, steel rod 7500 RPM. I have run engines with grooves where the pistons touch the head at RPM and have seen no benefit to the tight clearance.

This information is solely the opinion of myself. Specific dimensions have been omitted intentionally to protect Somender Singh.

To a give comparison, here's a Volvo head from Les in the UK.

MadBill · Post by **MadBill** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:19 pm

Be nice to know the shape and position of the flame front near TDC. It would likely be better to 'jet' the unburned mixture than to churn up the spent gasses behind the front. On the other hand, stirring them up during combustion might be best of all...

[/i]

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:08 pm

MadBill wrote:.... On the other hand, stirring them up during combustion might be best of all... [/i]

The purpose of the squish design is to convert kinetic energy in the form of fluid flow into turbulent energy. Combustion takes place within turbulent flow because turbulence increases the mixing process and enhances combustion, but at the same time combustion releases heat which generates flow instability, thus enhancing the transition to turbulent flame.

Therefore as Madbill implies, ignition and squish flow timing are key. What I like about the Volvo head is the two squish pad locations and how Les uses them to his advantage.

DavidNJ · Post by **DavidNJ** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:39 pm

I would have thought the length vs the cross section, the depth vs the quench height, and the taper vs the length would have all been significant factors, with less effectiveness on either side of an 'optimum' setting.

P.S.
With patent protection, wouldn't he be better off with wider use and acceptance? An easy licensing arrangement, maybe from his web site, would seem to be in order. Maybe free use for personal use, and maybe $100/engine or $10-15/cylinder for professional or commercial use.

Darin Morgan · Post by **Darin Morgan** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:23 am

I keep seeing and hearing about it but where's the beef? I mean the data to support these claims? I just don't see it yet. I see pictures, I hear speculation. I see theory being talked about and put in print but what I don't see is a dyno sheet showing how wonderful this new technology ( and I use that term very loosely) is in developing power and a more efficient burn.

Dyno sheets please?
Does anyone have any imperial proof what so ever?

"I felt it in the seat of my pants" or "it seemed to have more torque" or "on the dyno it looked like there was a couple of ft/lbs down low from the last time we where on there" or " it looks like it will work" or " that guy over seas said it worked " is NOT proof.

Do I think it works? No. I think this is junk science clogging up peoples brains and preventing them from concentrating on the things that really do matter! From the looks of every chamber I have seen so far, proper porting techniques such as seat, throat and bowl design along with some basic understanding of chamber design and modification would make them produce more power, have far better flame travel and burn than cutting slots in the quench pad ever will or ever could.

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:51 am

Darin Morgan wrote:I keep seeing and hearing about it but where's the beef? ....

Darin,
I’m not interested in arguing with you about whether or not the idea works. I have been modifying engines for over 30 years. I have proven the value of this to myself and others the same way I have done it from the beginning at the race track and on the street and I’m sharing that with people that are interested.
I am convinced, it works. The proof that has been provided does not convince you, that’s OK, I am happy to hear your opinion.

Darin Morgan · Post by **Darin Morgan** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:09 am

Do you have dyno sheets?

I don't want an argument I just want verification. Saying that "you know it works" is not proof. I cant ever get away with saying," I know it works." I would be fired if I operated on that premise. I don't believe it because I see no evidence to the contrary. I have to prove (with exhaustive research and testing) everything I claim and the things I endorse with dyno data why should I ask any less of others?

airflowdevelop · Post by **airflowdevelop** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:30 am

Come on Darin...are you telling me you can't see the unicorns?

automotive breath · Post by **automotive breath** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:38 am

Darin Morgan wrote:Do you have dyno sheets?

I operate at a different level from you. I don’t have dyno sheets on any of the work that I have done ever. I can’t get away with saying I know it works ether, it’s not about getting fired, it’s about customer satisfaction and reputation. The reason people come to me is because they are pleased with what I do to their heads. If what I do doesn’t work they don’t come back. I have to prove everything I claim and the things I endorse with results.

beth · Post by **beth** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:31 pm

I agree with Darrin,

Someone needs to test this ABA before it becomes proven. Customers can be well satisfied whether this groove helps or not if your overall combinations work well with what they are doing. I don't discount it completely, especially for very low engine speeds there may be something there. At very high compressions and high engine speeds I see it as just another part of the combustion space that will shield mixtures and inhibit their burning.