Here you go, Piston area and force.
I think there a few here that get it, but not the dummies '273' & Turk.
Buddy I don't call you names.
I will post the info AGAIN from Harold Bettes, who does get it. [ Turk read the text, don't look at the pretty pictures ]
You think we should change are minds just cause you say so, you think you've offered proof but you haven't nothing you have said so far is a valid argument.
Not that a majority matters but not one person has agreed with you but that gives you no pause no doubt that you might be in the wrong and just continue trashing us for not agreeing with you.
What does Bettes get? He gets that if you increase piston area, the pressure loading over area [ using pounds per sq in as an example ] becomes less. Pressure has become confused with force.
You are confusing them.
The formula below, uses simple everyday words, is very simple.....& even the dumbest of the dumbest should be able to 'work it out'.
Totally agree that a bigger diam piston can make more hp. [ So does a longer stroke ]. What pushes the piston to turn the crank? Doesn't do it by itself.......????????????
Were talking force and torque remember. A power stroke is torque, eg..1 cyl 2 stroke engine makes 50 lbs-ft it's making 50 lbs-ft per revolution, and if it happening at 5252 times per minute than it's also making 50 hp.
Making it simple: the piston draws air into the cyl by creating vacuum as it goes from TDC to BDC. If you make the piston BIGGER, you are pulling more air through the same size valve opening, & that creates more vacuum..........so more air has now filled the cylinder. More hp is created because more air is drawn in to be compressed. A bigger diam piston does not guarantee more HP by virtue of it's area. Chrysler proved it!!! They made an odd ball 383 engine that was a raised block engine, not the more common low block 383. Not used by Dodge & Plym, Chrys only 1959 to 1961.
Bore/stroke RB 383: 4 1/32 by 3.75
Bore/stroke LB 383 4 1/4 by 3.38
Both engines had 10:1 CR. Both made exactly the same hp/tq: 325/425. But, but, but, but LB 383 had a bigger piston....shoulda made more hp. Huh?
No one is saying this, for the same displacement like you mentioned 383 RB vs B, one it don't matter the hp it's the efficiency that determines the Imep, Bmep, lbs-ft per cid and if you notice none of them care how the displacement is made bore stroke ratio wise.
But back to your example the 383 B's larger piston is applying more force for a given psi but why it's not making more power but the same in your example is cause like I said in the beginning and since the 383 B also has a shorter stroke so it has less multiplication effect equaling out the torque and by extension hp. Now if you compare a 383 & 400 B engines same psi the 400 larger piston will be making more force but since now both engines have the same stroke the multiplication factor is the same so the 400 larger force becomes more torque than the 383 and if happening at the same rpm would make more hp.
You should've been able to figure this out if you really know what your talking about, you sure your right?
Here is the formula again for
HP related to piston area:
Unless you are particularly dumb, it should be obvious that the HP/to area gets less as piston area gets bigger because piston area is on the bottom line of the formula
View attachment 1716271050
Again this formula has no bearing on what were talking about hp per piston surface area is similar to saying hp per cid, a given cid don't automatically make that ratio of hp same with the surface area of the piston, just a reference guide telling you how well you doing hp level wise.
Again if you think this was some kind of proof you should've known better if you know what your talking about, are you sure your right ?