Tony D Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) I'll add this was at least the third reverse-flowed GM product our shop classes had constructed. The same retired engineers 'mentoring' (and in reality spying for prospects to go to GMI) helped on each of those classes. Meaning when my shop teacher started there, taking over from the prior teacher Mr. Hatch, they were doing reverse-cooling of GM products (with retired GM engineers guiding them) since at least 1976, predating Evan's claims. Perhaps I can make a similar statement saying Evans stole the idea from reverse-cooling from Tawas Area High School Shop Teachers Mr. Hatch and Mr. McCarley and some retired people doing work in 1976... I wouldn't be so stupid as to claim that. But apparently I have the right to claim I was on the development team... Curiously, one of my classmates did go to GMI, and does work in GM R&D...maybe being in a company town, with old company employees, recruiting new company employees, this was their way of making sure THEIR development work wasn't forgotten. Go back and watch my threads and recall I've been talking about reverse-flow cooling on the web since I became active in 94, and at that time always referenced our 600HP Trans Am with the Corolla Radiator from my time in Shop Class in the late 70's. We also got a brand-new Chevy Citation that I bracket raced. And our shop was donated a draw-through four barrel 3.8L Buick V6 Engine fresh off the production line with display stand so we could 'keep current and see the future'... It was good to be near the big three, and bad at the same time. Edited July 2, 2011 by Tony D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 No it is not a conspiracy theory. The SBC was designed before 1958. All later designs were an evolution from the earlier original design. Don't care about whether you think it's "Bullshit pure and simple". I have talked to others in the industry that experienced type of stealing. It is not UNIQUE. The advantages of reverse flow cooling are well understood. For the SBC GM used it only a few years. With its advantages one would think that the design aspect would be carried forward but was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Tony D: Go read the following: http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3520 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 The above link is NOT "Bullshit pure and simple". Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rejracer Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I step away for a few days and.... Tony/John, Your pointa are not lost. I've heard everything you have said, and agree with it. Thank you. What I have not seen is what type of testing B&S did. I simply do not have the data. I don't know if they did the same crude cuts in the head / piston, or even if they tested it on OHV engines. I am sure their goals are different than mine. Part of my posts are just thinking in text, please don't take this as being in denial of the known shortcomings, or pushing views. rsicard, I don't know where you are going with the patent theft, as it's totally irrelevant to the technical discussion. I am trying to have a technical discussion to better understand the combustion process, not get into a business ethics debate. My emotional attachment to the grooves is nil, so if they work, great, if not, I'm not phased a bit. Back to the grooves, no power gain at WOT, just mid range power gains at the cost of emissions. If there is additional data please include it, otherwise I know what the grooves do per the real testing data I found. My only question at this point is if the grooves can be modified to get power gains at WOT. Once again, if no data suggests it's possible, I'm not going to cut up one of my P90's to find out. As much as I would love to develop a new combustion chamber design that increases power, I still have to live in reality, and that is I don't have the means, knowledge, or tools. I will say that what the OEM's have done in the past 10 years is inspiring. Cars just keep getting better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 When someone calls your assertions "Bullshit pure and simple" then it is time to provide proof to prove a point. To your point about about technical discussions I agree that is what it should be. As to the grooves, the only time that I can see that they provide benefit is when squish and swirl are already optimized. In addition the grooves will increase the travel time of the combustion chamber flame in conjunction with good squish. That increases combustion efficiency. Good swirl and squish are only accomplished by way of a good piston and cylinder head configuration. I suspect that Robello engine builders already knows about this science in that they order specific pistons and modify cylinder heads to get to a specific configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 A Patent based on "FIRST SALE" (yes, riscard, READ your link!) being invalidated----is EXACTLY what I said in my earlier posts: GM did this testing in the late 50's and KNEW the benefits. And when someone (like web companies buying up web domain names and then extorting huge sums of money for them later when a large corporation gets to thinking they should use them...) tries to grab a patent on 'prior discovery' in order to extort licensing revenues.....sure legal shenanigans get going. But Evans trying to claim credit for GM Development work done almost 30 years earlier....how does this relate to Sommender Singh's development work: It doesn't. Other than the fact that Mr. Conspiracy claims this is rampant in the OEM world, and IF THIS WAS SO TRUE AND SIGH'S WORK REALLY DID WHAT HE SAID, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE ALREADY STOLEN IT! (Doesn't want to face the fact that the logic of this argument knocks out any further debate on why it's not employed by OEMs. If it REALLY worked, someone would be using it. To say they aren't using it because of some conspiratorial reason is foolish.) "What I have not seen is what type of testing B&S did. I simply do not have the data. I don't know if they did the same crude cuts in the head / piston, or even if they tested it on OHV engines. I am sure their goals are different than mine." No, they were not crude cuts, Sommender Singh himself did the work and development hand in hand with B&S, the goal was to circumvent emissions requirements that were on the horizon. Instead they realized as was noted above. Likely you won't see anything published, neither through Mr. Singh, or B&S as that kind of stuff is covered with legal non-disclosures. Same as I could only argue for counterflow injector placement in vague terms until Cosworth made the placement public---I was under a 5 year non-disclosure and there were plenty of people saying "link me to it man!" Sorry, can't, it's not in the public domain and I've got non-disclosures. Similarly I'm not privy to the details but have talked at length since finding the data from Singh's work several years ago...and since I knew someone at B&S in R&D....well, make a phone call and talk talk talk. My forecast: Singh's work is (and again for what seems like the millionth time) about 40 years too late. It's technology improvement not in-synch with the modern state-of-the-art. Simply put, it's not going to show up anywhere important in motor vehicles with emissions requirements. Period. Now, I WILL ask next weekend if any of the XO guys at Bonneville are running them, they're really helpful to inquiring minds not competing in the same class... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Oh, and another little thing about court cases. Evans can say whatever he wants. Doesn't mean it happened that way. I've been sued and people made absolutely false statements against me---OUTRIGHT LIES---and they are all in the court records, just like this one. Doesn't mean they are true. If I wanted to pay $50,000 to recover $11,000 in lawyers fees, I could press it. But personally I don't put that kind of money forward for such an inverse payback regardless of the principal at stake. I carried a copy of the $1,100 check the court ordered paid to me by the plaintiff, for he was judged to have lost the case by statute. That was good enough for me, and most of the customers who asked me about the lawsuit and it's outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Have already seen others using the singh grooves. As said before, the grooves when properly done increase combustion flame travel for more complete combustion and therefore more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 "Have already seen others using the singh grooves." More than willing to look, from the OEM guys I talk with.... not in their liftime from what they saw working with Singh directly. I guess you are saying the inventor didn't know how to apply his work in a fully instrumented test lab with datalogging capabilities (B&S)... I just wanted to make sure that was what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsicard Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Did not know Singh worked directly with the OEMs trying to prove his theory. Know absolutely nothing about B&S and their technology. It seems as though there is a lot of NIH syndrome here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts