justanothermelvin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:28 pm
bigfoot584 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:37 am
GARY C wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:10 am
I have had so many updates to fix problems with that program that I no longer know which one to use... I have at least 5 different versions since the original... Don't get me started on that!
X2, and because of that I just don't feel comfortable with it's outputs.
I have much better experience with Performance Trends EA program
and DV's 128 formula.
Engine Analyzer does not do what Controlled Induction 2020 does nor does DV's deal. I don't think you have actually used Controlled Induction 2020, especially version 3.02. If you had, you would feel plenty comfortable with the outputs.
Why I raised my early concern... If you "ACTUALLY" knew what the program was feeding you,You would not feel comfortable with it's outputs!!!!!
Gary Collander <
gcollander@yahoo.com>
To:
valvemotion@yahoo.com
Dec 9, 2015 at 5:09 PM
I was wondering how your program deals with the difference of low and mid lift flow with the program only accepting one data point?
In my case it ask for flow at .520 lift, the two different heads below both flow 273 cfm @ .520
2.08" intake valve 50* vs 45* -1.55" ex valve 50* seats on both.
50*
lift-----cfm vs 2.08" 45* seat
.050----36 36
.100----67 72
.150----76 109
.200---123 142
.300---184 201
.400---236 244
.500---267 268
.600---288 289
.650---291 296
EX.
.050----18
.100----38
.150----60
.200----97
.300---133
.400---176
.500---200
.600---209_W/pipe 230
.650---211_W/pipe 232
Rick Jones <
valvemotion@yahoo.com>
To:
gcollander@yahoo.com
Dec 9, 2015 at 7:49 PM
Hi Gary,
This is one of the places where imperfections in the method of using the mean values for calculating results have their faults. The math uses the lift at which the valve curtain area is the same as the valve area (.25 * valve diam). From this flow, the math assumes the intake port flow curve to be a at least a direct proportion of the flow at, in this case, .520, which it is. It suggests that every .25 degrees of piston motion creates motion at the valve, then through the port, and every point in the induction system effects every other point, for the following .25 degrees. It's more about the complete opening curve, not one point in the process.
I would think that better low lift flow would help fill the cylinder and allow for more ramming effect. But would you alter the valve motion because it flows better at low lift? And what would you do with it? Make the duration shorter, so you have less time at low lift? And because the port flows better at low lift does it now decrease the negative pressure in the cylinder for the coming .25 degrees?
This is why no one has successfully created a correct working model of the induction process using instantaneous calculations. This is also why most of the engineering fraternity will not accept this method being accurate.
It is deterministic chaos, when looking at every point in the port, instantaneously during the intake cycle.
I hope this helps.
Rick
Here is where he is wrong, DV's program, even the early version from the 90's does address this change!