Higher efficiency cylinder head by grooving?

[rsicard]

Correction: "When this gap is reduced the resistance to detonation is GREATLY INCREASED."

[johnc]

From the test conclusions in the first .pdf:

 

1. EGT is lower on all tests.

2. Torque, power and thermal efficiencies increased on moderate loads in the higher rpm ranges

(and hence lower BSFC). High loads did not have a positive or negative effect on these

parameters.

3. HC pollution was generally lower.

4. NOx pollution increased with higher loads and speeds.

5. CO pollution increased with higher loads and speeds.

 

The engine was more efficient at moderate loads in the higher rpm ranges. Improved highway cruise is my interpretation. No increase in horsepower or torque at high loads but a slight increase in NOx and CO at higher loads and rpms.

 

Could that have been achieved without the groove via some other kind of combustion chamber reshaping, a compression ratio increase, or maybe something as simple as projector tip spark plugs and indexing the spark plugs? Maybe.

[Tony D]

"No increase in horsepower or torque at high loads but a slight increase in NOx and CO at higher loads and rpms."

 

This is what killed it at B&S. They were looking for a magic bullet to forestall adding catalytics to their small engines and the increase in NOx and CO without a corresponding HP Increase...

 

As much as people want to Poo Pooh a little lawnmower engine, realize they are running at PEAK POWER 100% of the time per their design. This is VERY demanding service. Anybody who is into Junior Dragsters knows what you can get out of a '5HP' B&S engine, the engine is designed to run at peak load and power for as long as possible between overhaul intervals.

 

This is why the Singh Groove on the face looks spectacular for automotive applications: midrange gains.

 

But in the end, where emissions are a concern, their pittfals outweigh what they get midrange.

 

Like I originally stated: this is great technology in developing countries without emissions controls (er...like India, China, all of Africa...) but in the long run it will likely be resigned to the bin of 'was good while it lasted' technology. If he'd been born 100 years earlier, the Singh-Modified Otto Cycle engine would have been revolutionary and sped up hotrodding. Unfortunately the technology has matured, and the demands of EMISSIONS for OEMs make them choose their technologies on a far more stringent set of criteria than they would have in 1940---when this revolution would have had Detroit running wild cutting grooves in their flatheads to keep from converting to OHV's for another 5 years from the possible power gained.

 

It's all a matter of timing.

 

Who would laud the invention of The "Turbo Button" on your PC today?

[rejracer]

The chamber design could also affect the results. I would agree with what John is saying, if a combustion chamber is already optimized in other ways, how much would the grooves affect combustion.

 

What I believe the test prove, is that under circumstances the grooves yield a significant increase in power. Problem is it's not WOT. For a street engine I see a benefit. I would again agree with John, this is for cruising.

 

In all the implementations I've seen of these grooves, I would describe it as a garage hack based on the work I've seen done. In my opinion the implementations done with a hand file are half baked ideas. To me there is little to no thought put into what it is the designer is trying to get the gasses to do inside the chamber. All descriptions I've seen are along the lines of "increases turbulence", which is just vague. It strikes me as "lets do something and hope it works", instead of a well thought out design.

 

I suspect that if the there was a more elaborate design, that there could be benefits even at WOT. As of now, that's just my theory. There were a couple of problems with the tests though. And I think it was in the favor of the grooved head. First, the average RPM's were not the same. The grooved head was run at a slightly lower RPM, about 50 RPM's. With a fixed throttle position, I believe this would be in the grooved head's favor. Also, not all the TPS readings were the same. This too could skew the results. I don't think it accounts for 17% at moderate loads, but I would expect the real number to be somewhat lower. Also this test did not compensate for the loss of compression. The loss of compression I believe would lower the power output on the grooved head. So the tests are not perfect, just the best I've seen on the net.

 

John, keep in mind that not all of us are using this in a track only car, so a loss of compression may not be as big of a priority as it is on your engine. Cooler running at part throttle has a anti detonation benefit for when you do intermittently get in on it. Since most street cars are low duty cycle, there may be an indirect benefit at WOT, as you may be able to run a tad more timing, or up the boost.

 

Come to think of it, EGT's were lower, I don't know if that means the combustion chamber would be cooler as well. The grooved head was using less fuel based on the injector pulse width, so it may be a higher percentage of less fuel being consumed in the chamber. I assume that would mean lower chamber temps as you have the same mass of air being heated by less fuel burning, but I could be wrong. It could be that the more complete combustion happening in the chamber means higher temps.

 

Make this a road race or track car, and that benefit is no longer there, or against you if it raises chamber temps.

 

That's my thoughts on this for a while. I need to analyze the test data some more, and scour the corners of the net for objective power testing.

 

-Robert

[rsicard]

It's not complicated. If the grooves increase the combustion flame rate of travel, then it is a design improvement no matter what duty cycle or power band. If there is more complete combustion in lesser amount of time the EGT will likely decrease. Something has to be sacrificed at higher loads and speeds.

[Tony D]

rejracer-You really are missing the point of my post regarding Briggs and Stratton. They worked directly with the man on testing for their application, and it returned exactly the results spoken of---you are postulating perhaps that the inventor and the full resources of Briggs & Stratton Engineering/R&D somehow screwed the pooch during their testing?

 

Considerable money was expended in their application. They were looking for an emissions reduction and they didn't get it.

 

And facts of todays' world are that OEM's are concerned about emissions. Sommender Singh simply was born 100 years too late for most of the world for his invention to be 'revolutionary AND change the face of automotive engine design'...

 

It may be revolutionary, but the drawbacks for an OEM are far to great to adopt it.

 

Home Hobby Reworkers? Sure, you can probably get something. But make no mistake your emissions will suffer. Does that matter? To some it will, to others it won't.

 

If anyplace would have adopted it, B&S would have, they still use side valve engines. But are moving away from them for emissions reasons as well.

[260DET]

Interesting input Tony, thanks, I have this sort of half arsed theory that if the squish areas run at very close clearances then grooves are going to help. But with your usual production clearances? Not enough squish effect so forget it.

[rsicard]

Good squish and swirl will NOT be obtained by using production tolerances. It may not be attained using mass production parts. There needs to be specific configuration pistons and cylinder heads to attain good squish and swirl. OEMs are interested in how much it costs to produce to keep the profit margin up. OEMs will keep the tolerances on the conservative side to keep reliability up with CHEAP parts to hold down warranty costs. It is only when assembling and testing each Corvette and Camaro engine that particular attention will be paid to assembling a high performance and quality product and still keep warranty costs in line. With better performance comes better emissions.

[johnc]

Good squish and swirl will NOT be obtained by using production tolerances. It may not be attained using mass production parts. There needs to be specific configuration pistons and cylinder heads to attain good squish and swirl. OEMs are interested in how much it costs to produce to keep the profit margin up. OEMs will keep the tolerances on the conservative side to keep reliability up with CHEAP parts to hold down warranty costs. It is only when assembling and testing each Corvette and Camaro engine that particular attention will be paid to assembling a high performance and quality product and still keep warranty costs in line. With better performance comes better emissions.

 

Huh? OEMs can't get good squish and swirl in their combustion chambers? What about the Honda F20C engine - 120 hp per liter and meets Bin2 emisisons standards? Maybe the Honda B16 engine - 100 hp per liter and meets PLEV standards? Or how about Ford's new EcoBoost 3.5L V6 - direct injection which is the ultimate in swirl technology? Nissan's VQ and VK engine series...

[Tony D]

There is a basic disconnect with reality of OEM production methods and desires being displayed, and that's a shame.

I can see shedding if it continues down this path.

 

OEM's as JC has mentioned have made TREMENDOUS strides towards spectacular specific output while at the same time decreasing emissions to a remarkable level. Some of the engines would have been considered 'Formula Racing' applicable with the outputs now being put forth only 40 years ago.

 

And the Ford Eco-Boost...MAN!

 

As I have said, this technology is simply 40 years too late to be applicable to the engines of today. It's biggest possible application was for small engines...unfortunately (or fortunately for the planet) even they now are being brought under emissions regulations...mostly due to the fact that the mobile emissions sources (automotive engine emissions) have decreased so much.

 

My prospect for this technology is that they will never see implementation in an emissions controlled mass-produced OEM engine simply because of the emissions penalty they impart. We have moved beyond 'power at all emissions cost' mentality at the OEM level. If this is to make hay or gain notoriety, it will be in hobby applications where emissions are not monitored strictly, and where power at any cost may make some people jump at the chance.

 

If it was reliable power, I would expect we would see implementation in an F1 team someplace...

 

Willie Essing was a forklift hydraulic mechanic with an idea. He implemented it and had very spectacular results. Ferrari flew him to Maranello, tested his theories and implementation, had him sign a non-disclosure and licensed his technology.

 

And for them it represented MAYBE a 3% advantage in power through hydraulic manipulation of fuel rail pressures (as I understand it, I am not privy to the specific details...)

 

Long and short of it, if the technology being proffered was REALLY worth 20% at almost ANY point...I would expect to see Mr. Singh with a couple of hot umbrella ladies of nebulous asian extraction at some circuits around Europe when the circus came to town. Willie got a plane ticket, and a big check for 3%...for 20% this guy would be a God.

 

And I think that was the point of John's original post regarding OEM's as well. I don't see it in OEM's (other than B&S's testing), and in a "Power at all costs, emissions be damned" application like F1....I'm not seeing it either!

 

So is it Racism? What? Why haven't the big dogs embraced this technology?

 

Chances are they did testing and found...well... as JC said, standard combustion chamber evolution has evolved to such an extent that it isn't as impressive, and may well indeed hinder the CC designs of today.

 

On an F-Head from the 40's---great gains. But again, I don't see the guys in XO Class at Bonneville running the technology, but I'll make sure to ask about it at the next race. I'm not a flathead guy, but this technology is out there in the public domain, and if it really works well on Flatheads, the Bonneville guys would use it!

[rsicard]

Huh? OEMs can't get good squish and swirl in their combustion chambers? What about the Honda F20C engine - 120 hp per liter and meets Bin2 emisisons standards? Maybe the Honda B16 engine - 100 hp per liter and meets PLEV standards? Or how about Ford's new EcoBoost 3.5L V6 - direct injection which is the ultimate in swirl technology? Nissan's VQ and VK engine series...

 

It seems there is a basic misunderstanding at to what squish and swirl are, what they look like in physical configuration, and how they promote combustion efficiency. Looked at the Ford Ecoboost 3.3 V6 piston and cylinder head configuration and am unable to see the science of combustion efficiency. Supercharging or Turbocharging is a whole different science altogether. It is force feeding combustion. There seems to be a comparison between NA and Boosted Engines which is not a good comparison. Once a SBC Gen I is boosted to 12 inches it likely to produce overwhelming power per cubic inch (super efficiency) just like the more modern engines with boost but with much less moving parts.

[rsicard]

Tony D:

 

I purchased a 1994 Buick Roadmaster. It had a Gen II Small Block Chevrolet known as the LT-1. Found a design defect in the fuel pump to line interface within the tank. Went back to doing it the older way and everything worked out OK. Just before that, replaced the fuel injectors, Opti-Spark distributor, Plug wires and Spark Plugs. The wife took it to emissions and there were so few emissions the certification sheet read zero HC and zero NOx. That is how good a design that engine is. GM stole the cooling system design from someone who already had the design registered. GM team of lawyers settled the matter even though they were at fault. Heard of similar litigation situations and the results are the same. Does not matter who is right or wrong, just who has the deepest pockets and the most lawyers. It was the cylinder head design, compression ratio and cooling system that made the difference. The Vortec heads were an off-shoot of that cylinder head design with conventional cooling.

[Tony D]

GM stole the 'design' of the LT1 cooling system from someone else? Are you SURE about that, as in 1979 GMI (now Kettering Institute) recruiters and student aids discussed with our high school classes GM's reverse-flow experiments with the SBC from the 50's. New engine, lots of tooling investment, and ROI on implementing the advantages of the system they said at the time 'would have to wait until they get around to a totally new design of the SBC, and then they would likely implement it'...

 

You "heard of a lot of other situations." Right.

 

As much as I don't like domestics, for myriad reasons, I will give GM credit for extraordinary engineering to get very advanced systems in place for phenomenally low costs. Mechanical ABS? C'mon, that was amazing.

 

Really I don't know what the point is of your last post...Knowing people in GM design in the 70's, and retirees who worked on the SBC development from the 50's onwards (and who assisted/guided our high school Auto-Shop with it's Reverse-Flowed 6.6 Trans Am...) I'm finding it hard to believe someone 'registered' the design for the LT1 engine when GM knew of the advantages of reverse flow cooling at LEAST as early as 1958. Would you happen to have a patent number for that discovery, as I believe GM patented their discoveries as an improvement over their original design. Corporations have a tendency to do that to protect themselves later on...my bet is someone had a 'patent pending' but not in reality 'registered' it any more than that and GM's lawyers brought that to their attention

 

But your contention is Singh Grooves will improve the GM LT 1 design?

My contention is likely it will not, and in fact they would likely harm it.

 

Everything in OEM manufacturing is dictated by economics. But that takes a back seat to federal regulation---you can't make a profit if you don't have certified product to sell. Why did the 460 Ford die and get replaced with the V10 Modular? Would have been FAR cheaper to keep the 460. But the modular V10 has tremendously better emissions performance. GM, on the other hand did what GM always has done and figured out some way to tweak the existing design and eke out another product cycle from the venerable Rat Big Block. Mostly through combustion chamber redesign...didn't see Singh Grooves get implemented there!

 

If Singh's technology worked, as John C contends, and as you imply, GM or someone would have simply stolen it and used it to their advantage to keep their costs down and existing tooling in place for at least another product cycle. They have good lawyers.

 

That they didn't, that NOBODY but Briggs and Stratton did any testing that is published tells REAMS about the technology and it's applicability in the REAL WORLD OF TODAY.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Tony D

[johnc]

Looked at the Ford Ecoboost 3.3 V6 piston and cylinder head configuration and am unable to see the science of combustion efficiency.

 

Oh C'mon! You can't see any science in this combustion chamber design? You don't notice the direct injector pointing directly at the spark plug? How the spark plug is oriented optimally based on where the fuel is coming from? The quench on the injector side of the head causing a flow pattern towards the spark plug?

 

 

How about this piston dome? No combustion chamber science here?

 

[johnc]

Looked at the Ford Ecoboost 3.3 V6 piston and cylinder head configuration and am unable to see the science of combustion efficiency.

 

Oh C'mon! You can't see any science in this combustion chamber design? You don't notice the direct injector pointing directly at the spark plug? How the spark plug is oriented optimally based on where the fuel is coming from? The quench on the injector side of the head causing a flow pattern towards the spark plug?

 

 

How about this piston dome? No combustion chamber science here?

 

[rsicard]

Tony D:

 

Apparently you do not understand large corporation tactics. Concerning stolen technology the gentlemen at Evans cooling was the one that created reverse cooling design.

 

Go see http://www.evanscooling.com/company-background. I will try to find the original article on this subject.

 

As far as Mr. Singh grooves I have already commented on that. Its simple KISS. They increase combustion flame travel thus more efficient burn of mixture. Not difficult to grasp.

[rsicard]

John C:

 

Purchase David Vizard's latest book and read it thoroughly. The master of combustion science was Smokey Yunick who has since passed on. The next best these days is David Vizard. Read what he says about domed pistons. The fuel injectors emits FUEL only. It need to combine with incoming air. Even with CFD, it is doubtful that Ford can come up with good squish and swirl with that configuration. Maybe they are counting on tumble to do the job instead. Would like to see David Vizard's assessment of this design. Ford has come up with MANY differing engine designs mostly dual overhead cam engines. They are just following in the footsteps of Honda and Toyota wherein the power is developed at higher RPMs with turbrochargers i.e. force feeding the fuel mixture.

 

Comments?

[johnc]

If Smokey and Vizard are your standards of the best combustion technology gurus then you're at least 10 years behind where things are now. The best engineers right now probably work for Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, and Cosworth. There are also a lot of OEM senior engine design engineers deep in the bowels of the OEM manufacturers that have forgotten more the Smokey and Vizard put together. They have vast computer and lab resources at their disposal.

 

Regarding direct injection and turbulence: Spraying a precisely calibrated fine mist at 3,000psi into a combustion chamber at exactly the right spot near the end of the compression stroke does not require a lot of turbulence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection

[rsicard]

If Smokey and Vizard are your standards of the best combustion technology gurus then you're at least 10 years behind where things are now. The best engineers right now probably work for Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, and Cosworth. There are also a lot of OEM senior engine design engineers deep in the bowels of the OEM manufacturers that have forgotten more the Smokey and Vizard put together. They have vast computer and lab resources at their disposal.

 

Regarding direct injection and turbulence: Spraying a precisely calibrated fine mist at 3,000psi into a combustion chamber at exactly the right spot near the end of the compression stroke does not require a lot of turbulence.

 

http://en.wikipedia....irect_injection

 

John:

 

The basics are the basics for ICE regardless of time, Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, and Cosworth. The basics do not change over time. Combustion efficiency is likely not advanced by theory, CFD or a team of inexperienced engineers. It is only gained by testing, documenting, trial and error. Using Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes and Cosworth Formula one engines as an example is like comparing apples and oranges. OEM have never learned as much as Smokey and Vizard! Genius is not taught, it is instilled by constant questioning! Computer Modeling does not yield EXPERIENCE. It is only the refining of science that matters no matter what the process.

[Tony D]

Tony D:

 

Apparently you do not understand large corporation tactics. Concerning stolen technology the gentlemen at Evans cooling was the one that created reverse cooling design.

 

Go see http://www.evanscooling.com/company-background. I will try to find the original article on this subject.

 

As far as Mr. Singh grooves I have already commented on that. Its simple KISS. They increase combustion flame travel thus more efficient burn of mixture. Not difficult to grasp.

 

Riscard, you are too bent on conspiracy thinking to rationally discuss this further. FROM THE WEBSITE YOU JUST LINKED:

"John W (Jack) Evans, previously CEO and Chairman of Meca Development and now Evans Cooling Systems, has worked continuously on the development of cooling system technology design since the early experimental stages in 1977."

 

So EVANS 'invented' reverse flow cooling huh?

 

PLEASE SIR go back and reference my PRIOR POST regarding Chevrolet REVERSE FLOWING the SBC in 1958, and understanding the advantages, BUT NOT IMPLEMENTING IT UNTIL A REDESIGN WHICH INVOLVED RETOOLING THE PRODUCT! There is a little disparity between 1958 and 1977. Evans may have started in 1977, and indeed he may have gotten a specific patent. But Chevrolet STEALING his idea? Bullshit pure and simple. I was taught by engineers who worked on the SBC development, and they did this 20 years before Evans. Right there at GM R&D.

 

I know WELL how business works, ESPECIALLY the automotive business.

 

My participation in this thread ends when simple ignorance turns to stupidity.

 

Have fun with the conspiracy theories.