David Vizard - Which to prioritize - PORT FLOW or PORT VELOCITY?

-
Hysteric said:
Pay your money and target what ever velocity you want.

P.s. when was the last time you looked at that pic of your intake manifold with the evidence of reversion?
Click to expand...


On my engines? I never see reversion in them.

But of course I use slow, lazy ports and raw fuel to the cylinders so there is that.
 
Hysteric said:
Pay your money and target what ever velocity you want.

P.s. when was the last time you looked at that pic of your intake manifold with the evidence of reversion?
Click to expand...
You really just like being a troll don't you? this is exactly what you wanted a bunch of people riled up at you. You have zero intentions at an honest conversation, I use to think you where interested in figuring all this out, but obviously not.
 
273 said:
You really just like being a troll don't you? this is exactly what you wanted a bunch of people riled up at you. You have zero intentions at an honest conversation, I use to think you where interested in figuring all this out, but obviously not.
Click to expand...


You error in your assessment.

He already knows it all. He doesn’t need to figure anything out.

The sad thing is he won’t even lift a finger to type out how we urchins can know as much as he does.
 
273 said:
this is exactly what you wanted a bunch of people riled up at you.
Click to expand...
That's funny some one else saw the gaping inconsistencies I pointed out.

fishmens67 said:
what causes port velocity to drop off or possibly reverse
Click to expand...
And
fishmens67 said:
Hum I wonder how rod ratio and piston motion affect velocity
Click to expand...
Maybe I should post the video of Kaase sticking his finger in an intake port in a running engine so you can see the reversion and how far it travels back up the port?

Pay your money and target what ever you want.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
But of course I use slow, lazy ports and raw fuel to the cylinders so there is that.
Click to expand...
Awsome!
I first saw that before youtube, on a real TV, but now everyone can see how well it works with a click of a button.
Are you using porcelain or wood tank? I like the seperate tanks but their hard to find now - especailly with all the new restrictions on flow.



Just like this thread has gone...
 
Mattax said:
Awsome!
I first saw that before youtube, on a real TV, but now everyone can see how well it works with a click of a button.
Are you using porcelain or wood tank? I like the seperate tanks but their hard to find now - especailly with all the new restrictions on flow.



Just like this thread has gone...
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Mattax said:
Awsome!
I first saw that before youtube, on a real TV, but now everyone can see how well it works with a click of a button.
Are you using porcelain or wood tank? I like the seperate tanks but their hard to find now - especailly with all the new restrictions on flow.



Just like this thread has gone...
Click to expand...

Been a long time since I've seen that show.
 
If you go by these formulas for a second (say there in the ballpark) and calculate what's too big for a 318 to make peak power at 5,000 rpms the trick flows come out to be slightly lower than the lowest acceptable velocity. But if you put a set of trick flow on a 318 even with an rv cam it's gonna make peak hp in a higher rpm than 5,000 rpms, probably moving them up to the lowest acceptable velocity.

Now obviously no one is recommending trick flows on a mild 318 but say there even technically fine I don't think people overly have to worry about lesser heads much. Now of course you can debate the validity of the formulas but unless your trying to run trick flows or bigger on a mild 318 I don't think you overly have to worry how accurate the formulas are.
 
Last edited:
What defines whether its too fast or too slow?
 
Mattax said:
Much of engineering is based on emperically derived formulas and tables that have known relationships. It relates to science but is not the same describing relationships strictly on physics and chemistry. This is the way stuff gets done. This why Pipemax provides good guidance at the same times Burns and Elston can provide equally good guidance even though in some instances it is rather different guidelines. All of its emperically derived - although some of you are well aware DMtovof and others on ST have had deep discussions and attempted various models of the gas and sound waves.

How about dynomax? Does anyone think Larry Atherthon is a physicist or hired a team of them to develop the F&E and Wave modeling?

I can tell you the company I worked for sold a critical safety item to two of the three big US car companies that was emperically derived, developed, and tested. There were a few physisists working on computer models but that was for down the road when it was thought that solid state equivalents could be made cheaper and smaller.
Click to expand...
Larry Atherton was one of my best friends is High School back in the Mid 1960s.
Even as a kid, he had more technical knowledge and mechanical skills than anyone
in our high school. He was instrumental in shaping my interest in the High Performance
Automotive Hobby.

When he states something, he speaks with the authority of 60 years of experience and
you can take what he says to the bank!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top