Reputable links for horsepower from windage tray/crank scraper

[Kevin Johnson]

...
The video you recommended did not confirm your claims.

I have seen a crankshaft spinning dry at 3500 (it is a blur), there is no way that the human eye could see what they claim at higher rpm through an oil coated window.

The video cited from 1937 directly refuted both of your claims in the above sentence. The window is also visible and the light is played on the interior of the crankcase (backlit or internally lighted).

You apparently have difficulty processing multiple information sources simultaneously. The phenomenological description of the mixed ligaments and droplet sizes conforms with the Ricardo Laboratories paper. Go back and reread at what rpm the crankcase was filled with oil mist which would allow the droplets to appear as ropes, taffy or tentacles.

You apparently have difficulty processing information honestly.

Sad that I have to state the obvious:
Without a strobe light it would be a blur, Smokey made no mention of a strobe light.
This is an attempt to mislead on your part.

Further, the video with the strobe light was made from an end view of the crankshaft.
The plastic windows windows Smokey wrote about were on the side of the oil pan.
This is an attempt to mislead on your part.

When you can present data that directly supports the claims about taffy on a crankshaft I will be interested to see it.
So far, all we have is your imagination.

Smokey patented his device which was substantially imitated to become the Spintron. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5515712A/

In the patent, window 30 is installed beneath the oil pan.

You're doing a pretty fair job of playing the fool for someone that claims to have been a consultant to OEMs. Keep it up.

[Kevin Johnson]

...

In my opinion, it’s not enough to have a strobe light and a window in the pan to learn anything useful about what’s going on inside a crankcase of a running engine. One needs mechanical shutters on the inside surface of the window and a synchronized camera. At high rpm, there’s only a minuscule time interval between the opening of the shutters and the window being covered by oil to the point that nothing useful can be observed thru it. You of course know this, but I just wanted to point out the high level of unintentional comedy in some of the claims.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5515712A/

Lots of comments on the internet of Smokey (Henry Yunick) using a strobe light and high speed camera. Laugh it up.

[ptuomov]

...

In my opinion, it’s not enough to have a strobe light and a window in the pan to learn anything useful about what’s going on inside a crankcase of a running engine. One needs mechanical shutters on the inside surface of the window and a synchronized camera. At high rpm, there’s only a minuscule time interval between the opening of the shutters and the window being covered by oil to the point that nothing useful can be observed thru it. You of course know this, but I just wanted to point out the high level of unintentional comedy in some of the claims.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5515712A/

Lots of comments on the internet of Smokey (Henry Yunick) using a strobe light and high speed camera. Laugh it up.

One could have patented a perpetual motion machine, but that doesn’t mean that it works.

Peer reviewed papers that I’ve read on crankcase oiling all have a synchronized shutter mechanism on the inside surface of the window.

[Kevin Johnson]

...

In my opinion, it’s not enough to have a strobe light and a window in the pan to learn anything useful about what’s going on inside a crankcase of a running engine. One needs mechanical shutters on the inside surface of the window and a synchronized camera. At high rpm, there’s only a minuscule time interval between the opening of the shutters and the window being covered by oil to the point that nothing useful can be observed thru it. You of course know this, but I just wanted to point out the high level of unintentional comedy in some of the claims.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5515712A/

Lots of comments on the internet of Smokey (Henry Yunick) using a strobe light and high speed camera. Laugh it up.

One could have patented a perpetual motion machine, but that doesn’t mean that it works.

Peer reviewed papers that I’ve read on crankcase oiling all have a synchronized shutter mechanism on the inside surface of the window.

I truly expected more from you, Tuomo.

[ptuomov]

Here’s a comment on large cross-plane V8s vs. small inline 4’s. The gas flow patterns are completely different. While in a large V8 the piston pumping pulses are so significant that they overwhelm everything else, in a 1.6L four banger this is not the case. The piston pumping pulses communicate higher up in the crankcase and are smaller in magnitude. This allows the rotating crankshaft to actually matter to gas flows in the bottom of the crankcase.

Here’s one (gas only) simulation of a four cylinder engine. These are local gas flow speeds, and if you squint you can see the rotating crankshaft influencing gas flows somewhat:

1E9CDAC4-DC2D-4C4A-AA5B-EECB18187660.jpeg

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

The video cited from 1937 directly refuted both of your claims in the above sentence. The window is also visible and the light is played on the interior of the crankcase (backlit or internally lighted).

You apparently have difficulty processing multiple information sources simultaneously. The phenomenological description of the mixed ligaments and droplet sizes conforms with the Ricardo Laboratories paper. Go back and reread at what rpm the crankcase was filled with oil mist which would allow the droplets to appear as ropes, taffy or tentacles.

You apparently have difficulty processing information honestly.

Sad that I have to state the obvious:
Without a strobe light it would be a blur, Smokey made no mention of a strobe light.
This is an attempt to mislead on your part.

Further, the video with the strobe light was made from an end view of the crankshaft.
The plastic windows windows Smokey wrote about were on the side of the oil pan.
This is an attempt to mislead on your part.

When you can present data that directly supports the claims about taffy on a crankshaft I will be interested to see it.
So far, all we have is your imagination.

Smokey patented his device which was substantially imitated to become the Spintron. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5515712A/

In the patent, window 30 is installed beneath the oil pan.

You're doing a pretty fair job of playing the fool for someone that claims to have been a consultant to OEMs. Keep it up.

As you often do, you conflate patents with reality.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

In my opinion, it’s not enough to have a strobe light and a window in the pan to learn anything useful about what’s going on inside a crankcase of a running engine. One needs mechanical shutters on the inside surface of the window and a synchronized camera. At high rpm, there’s only a minuscule time interval between the opening of the shutters and the window being covered by oil to the point that nothing useful can be observed thru it. You of course know this, but I just wanted to point out the high level of unintentional comedy in some of the claims.

Exactly, it is disappointing that something so obvious has to be stated.

When the last person that claims to have done and seen something was ~50 years ago, it is time to become skeptical.

[Kevin Johnson]

Here’s a comment on large cross-plane V8s vs. small inline 4’s. The gas flow patterns are completely different. While in a large V8 the piston pumping pulses are so significant that they overwhelm everything else, in a 1.6L four banger this is not the case. The piston pumping pulses communicate higher up in the crankcase and are smaller in magnitude. This allows the rotating crankshaft to actually matter to gas flows in the bottom of the crankcase.

Here’s one (gas only) simulation of a four cylinder engine. These are local gas flow speeds, and if you squint you can see the rotating crankshaft influencing gas flows somewhat:

tuomo2.jpg

Kool.

Don't rev that puppy above 1500 rpm. Those rods look spooky thin to me.

[Kevin Johnson]

In my opinion, it’s not enough to have a strobe light and a window in the pan to learn anything useful about what’s going on inside a crankcase of a running engine. One needs mechanical shutters on the inside surface of the window and a synchronized camera. At high rpm, there’s only a minuscule time interval between the opening of the shutters and the window being covered by oil to the point that nothing useful can be observed thru it. You of course know this, but I just wanted to point out the high level of unintentional comedy in some of the claims.

Exactly, it is disappointing that something so obvious has to be stated.

When the last person that claims to have done and seen something was ~50 years ago, it is time to become skeptical.

I am trying to channel a film title... Daniels ??? No, lost it.

Carry on.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

...

In my opinion, it’s not enough to have a strobe light and a window in the pan to learn anything useful about what’s going on inside a crankcase of a running engine. One needs mechanical shutters on the inside surface of the window and a synchronized camera. At high rpm, there’s only a minuscule time interval between the opening of the shutters and the window being covered by oil to the point that nothing useful can be observed thru it. You of course know this, but I just wanted to point out the high level of unintentional comedy in some of the claims.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5515712A/

Lots of comments on the internet of Smokey (Henry Yunick) using a strobe light and high speed camera. Laugh it up.

Strobe would not be enough. Especially on the bottom of a pan.

Seriously, if have any credible evidence, post it.
If this is the best you have, then you don't have anything credible.

[ptuomov]

Kool.

Don't rev that puppy above 1500 rpm. Those rods look spooky thin to me.

Factory budget design, so no H-beams. I think the cross section is cut from the middle of the I-beam rod.

[ptuomov]

Here's another interesting and practically relevant difference between a big cross-plane V8 and a small I4 engine. The oil drains work very differently.

In I4, the piston pumping pulses are gentle and thus the oil drains flow gas smoothly and consistently. The "suction side" flows gas down. The "pressure side" flows gas up. There's not a lot of variation between locations of the drains or which part of the engine cycle we're looking at:

I4.jpg

Contrast that with the big V8 oil drains. The elephant in the room frequently flips the gas flow direction in the oil drain channels:

V8.jpg

When you combine these piston pumping pulses and how they need to move a massive amount of gas from one end of the crankcase to another with the 45-degree angle of the oil drains (and effectively worse when cornering), you end up with a difficult problem to solve how to get oil to drain reliably from V8 heads. It's an especially big problem for 4-valve heads on a V8, because those 4-valve heads have a ton of volume to store oil under the valve covers.

[Kevin Johnson]

Kool.

Don't rev that puppy above 1500 rpm. Those rods look spooky thin to me.

Factory budget design, so no H-beams. I think the cross section is cut from the middle of the I-beam rod.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

[Kevin Johnson]

...
Contrast that with the big V8 oil drains. The elephant in the room frequently flips the gas flow direction in the oil drain channels:

Yeppers.

That is why a jog is often used. Maybe they would have to license that concept. Nixxed by accounting, no doubt.

[Kevin Johnson]

...

Strobe would not be enough. Especially on the bottom of a pan.

Seriously, if have any credible evidence, post it.
If this is the best you have, then you don't have anything credible.

Carrey ???

I am getting old. It will pop into my head. I just know it will.