the DV Live Now post

[Stan Weiss]

The problem is that the era that the testing was supposedly done is irrelevant to modern parts.
Not to mention the testing claimed does not add up.

Jon,
Now that is interesting.

If I remember right, the linage of what Mike / CamKing is using can be traced back to Ed Winfield.

Stan

[CamKing]

If I remember right, the linage of what Mike / CamKing is using can be traced back to Ed Winfield.

No, the math we use is all our own, and has been refined many times over the years.
Ed Winfield mentored my dad, on cam design. Ed was way ahead of his time, but the way he designed cams is light-years behind today's technology.
He came up with his designs by using multiple radius plates to form the lobe shape. It was ingenious for his time, but was obsolete by the end of the 70's.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

The problem is that the era that the testing was supposedly done is irrelevant to modern parts.
Not to mention the testing claimed does not add up.

Jon,
Now that is interesting.

If I remember right, the linage of what Mike / CamKing is using can be traced back to Ed Winfield.

Stan

Regarding relevant parts, the testing was done a long time a go, I would hope that anyone building an engine today would be using modern parts that are much different than what was in play when Crane was involved.

With regards to Cranes cam math, his software was a very primitive use of polynomials in DOS, no one would use those methods today if they had a choice.
I

[Stan Weiss]

The problem is that the era that the testing was supposedly done is irrelevant to modern parts.
Not to mention the testing claimed does not add up.

Jon,
Now that is interesting.

If I remember right, the linage of what Mike / CamKing is using can be traced back to Ed Winfield.

Stan

Regarding relevant parts, the testing was done a long time a go, I would hope that anyone building an engine today would be using modern parts that are much different than what was in play when Crane was involved.

With regards to Cranes cam math, his software was a very primitive use of polynomials in DOS, no one would use those methods today if they had a choice.
I

When I visited Crane in the mid 70's in Hallandale and got a tour, unless my memory has gone, he was using time share on a mainframe to do cam lobe design.

Stan

[CamKing]

When I visited Crane in the mid 70's in Hallandale and got a tour, unless my memory has gone, he was using time share on a mainframe to do cam lobe design.

Stan

Harvey drove his motor home to our shop in the 80's, to try and sell us on his cam program.
It was on a PC, running DOS. It was way behind what we were already doing.
He could take a curve, and make it taller or shorter, fatter or thinner, but had no understanding of what the engine would want.
I remember him saying, "look if you want to make it bigger at .200", you just do this".
I then asked him, how do you decide how big it needs to be at .200" ?
He had no answer.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

That's correct, since there was no DOS in the 70's it had to be main frame before that.
I offered to help Crane modernise his program to run on windows but when I found out how it worked, I suggested that he use different math. The way it worked could make a nice enough shape, but if it was not symmetrical it was so difficult to integrate all of the derivatives to 0 at the end that it became ordinary to have lumps in the acceleration curve on the closing side.
That program was used by a lot of people as there wasn't any good alternative available to the public.
Richard Moser the guy that designed the DOHC engine Crane funded gave me the code to a cam design software that was used by Chrysler in the 1960's. He used it to design cams for some of the 426 Hemi. He didn't use that at Crane though. He designed some of the Hemi heads and some slant 6 engines.
It was quite impressive in the complexity as it took the base circle and journal diameter into consideration and made sure the lobes were convex for flat tappets and also had computation that adjusted the lobe shape for tribology and Fourier series automatically.

[David Vizard]

Jon,

Did you see episode 110 of PowerTec 10?
DV

[David Vizard]

What's kind of interesting in this latest EMC and EMC rebuttal is that if I understand it correctly, the 128 "formula" came about from innumerable dyno tests. That is, for a "given combination", (and we've seen that combination is very specific in the grand scheme of things), greater output, (in this case torque) was seen with "x" LSA.
In other words, the results came before the math.

With regards to the EMC results, it could probably be argued the same way. Take the results and find those which suit the formula.
As it was inferred earlier, how many other hundreds of EMC results fall outside? There were bound to be some that fall within.
Perhaps Gary C can find which participants fit that bill and reverse engineer which formula parameters are in play. It may well be that some of those specific entries are outside of the scope of 128 and yet have the LSA that might otherwise be suggested.

FTR, I don't rely on or propose anyone else rely on 128 as there's just too much going on as has been ably explained above by Mr. S.
I backed that up by having my new cam specced by a professional.
That my new 10.2:1, 2.02" valved SBC has a 108 LSA is not because of some rule or formula, but because it was scienced out.
But looking at it from the other perspective, 128 also suggested the same. But that part's not rocket science. This engine just fits the bill. A narrow bill at that.

No disrespect to DV intended. Torque Master was a lot of fun while it lasted.

Kevin,

I would like to have a phone conversation to straighten out a few misconceptions here. Could you PM me with your phone # so we can do that?

[skinny z]

David Vizard wrote:

Kevin,

I would like to have a phone conversation to straighten out a few
misconceptions here. Could you PM me with your phone # so we can do that?

Absolutely.
PM sent.

[HQM383]

David Vizard wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Did you see episode 110 of PowerTec 10?
> DV

Maybe Jon is not interested anymore.

David, could you post a link to episode 110 as your episodes aren't always clearly identified on YouTube.

[Tom68]

https://youtu.be/IMsCt2u_vOw`

[HQM383]

Tom68 wrote:
> https://youtu.be/IMsCt2u_vOw`
Thanks Tom. I have seen that one. Didn’t pick up where episode 110 was mentioned. Device I watch on has video blurb hidden.