|
Site Admin |
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:07 pm Posts: 18701 Location: Doncaster
|
mgbv8 wrote: The guy obviousdly knows what he is talking about when it comes down to fuel delivery with his carbs. You're doing him an immense disservice to make the assertion that his EXTENSIVE knowledge is limited to carb fuel delivery. Did you not read his contribution to our forum on the subjects of AFR & detonation, which were SERIOUSLY IMPRESSIVE stuff. You may have misunderstood my concerns with the fuel delivery from the front legs of the spider. Not from what I remember Perry and I'm sure you'll find that if you look back through your original posts, that you started off by claiming that G-force was the problem and that you INCORRECTLY asserted that you were replicating the effects of G-force, by testing the flow of the Spider while held at an angle!!!! For the record that is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE & ABSURD. Furthermore, ANY testing OUTSIDE THE MANIFOLD is TOTALLY WORTHLESS and even most testing inside a manifold that's NOT on a running engine, is just as WORTHLESS, because neither bears ANY resemblance to what happens in a manifold on a running engine. It is not about G force affecting the the VOLUME of fuel from the front spider legs. It is more about G force affecting the direction of delivery. Am I on a different planet to you Perry, as I can't see any difference between those 2 statements, other than one is more generalised??? Either way the end result you are IMPLYING, based on TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE testing, is that some cylinders run lean. I have tested my spider in free air with fuel and nitrous flowing. The fuel dribbles from all the legs and drops onto the front of the nitrous legs so the fuel can be drawn into the nitrous flow. I did not see any appreciable suction effect of the nitrous plume that caused the fuel stream to be drawn forwards away from the end of the fuel legs into the nitrous stream. Maybe you have a WON video to show this effect? I didn't bother to video that process, because it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that LIQUID nitrous flow, creates a PULL on EVERYTHING within the affected vicinity, which can extend beyond a 2" radius (IN ALL DIRECTIONS) in some instances. I didn't bother watching the full video of your 'testing', as it was TOTALLY POINTLESS up to 3/4 of the way through, so unless you then tested with LIQUID nitrous flow, with the jet sizes you had in use in the engine (at the end or at some other time), I've only seen you briefly flowing GASEOUS nitrous, which OBVIOUSLY won't have as strong a 'pull' as liquid. If you still doubt the FACT that LIQUID nitrous flow creates a PULL, take another look (as I'm sure you must have seen this before), at the end of this high quality and classy video from Zex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxaFwOPR0H8 My own basic testing showed that with the plate inclined backwards just a few degree's saw the fuel from the front legs was a slave to surface tension and tended to stick to the bottom of the fuel leg which caused some of the fuel to miss the opportunity to be drawn into the nitrous stream. Therefore the fuel that cannot be drawn into the nitrous stream from the front legs would tend to run off the manifold onto the floor of the plenum. I guess this would mean that under acceleration that this excess fuel would tend to seep backwards on the floor of the manifold ?? You've hit the nail right on the head, with the opening statement of this paragraph, your testing was BASIC, so basic in fact as to be of NO WORTH and has to be, the most RIDICULOUS testing and conclusion, that I've ever heard, for the reason I stated above!!!! Just in case you missed that reasons, I'll repeat it again; Your test conditions bear NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST RESEMBLANCE to what ACTUALLY happens in a manifold on a running engine. When an engine is running the air is NOT 'STILL' as in your test. When you fire the nitrous system, the plumes are NOT firing into vast open space as in your test.
For ANY test on the Spider (or ANY other form of nitrous and/or fuel discharge intended for inside a manifold), TO HAVE EVEN THE SLIGHTEST VALUE, IT 'MUST' BE CARRIED OUT IN THE CONDITIONS IT IS USED IN!!!! Even when the engine is running at different RPM and under different loads, the conditions in the manifold are DIFFERENT at different points, as well as ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to when the engine is stopped. Therefore, even if you'd tested the Spider fitted to a manifold while fitted to an engine WITH THE ENGINE STATIONARY, even then YOUR test results & conclusions WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS WORTHLESS and yet your tests weren't even that close to simulating REAL CONDITIONS!!!! As I have said to you via private email before. I have had satisfactory results on the dyno with the spider once I had jetted it to suit my inlet manifold design. That PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that the Spider design works as intended, as I stated in the reply to your PM, that you didn't even have the decency to respond to, after I'd gone to great lengths to explain the errors in your thinking, experimental procedures and your conclusions, as well as point you in the RIGHT direction to find your problems. But on track it behaves in a different manner? That as I also explained is ONLY 'YOUR OPINION' which as clearly demonstrated then and now above here, is based on your FLAWED testing, as well as your unwillingness to ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE WRONG, despite having provided you with more likely causes of the problem, which are based on my THIRTY FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE and is now supported by an INDEPENDENT & EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGEABLE person. THIS WAS MY MAIN CONCERN !! A concern that is entirely UNFOUNDED, that I addressed extensively in my PM to you and have done so again above but it's now more OBVIOUS than ever, that you 'THINK' you know better than both Bruce and myself, purely based on your PATHETIC, TOTALLY INADEQUATE & TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE testing.Now lets talk about the effects of airflow in the inlet manifold affecting the fuel flow from the front legs of the spider when the car is running a 1/4 mile pass. I cant comment on this and we both know that we cannot see this effect in real life. That's the ONLY accurate statement you've made and that's because you are declaring what you DON'T KNOW and in this instance I agree but what that further proves is how USELESS & POINTLESS your testing was.
Whilst I have NO IDEA what is going on in the manifold FOR CERTAIN, Bruce has EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE ON THE MATTER, so rather than GUESSING as you are choosing to do, I'm more than happy to LISTEN to his comments on the subject and IF you had any sense you'd do the same. So we have to rely on our plug readings. And my plug readings showed very lean on the front two cylinders (if not melted) of my V8. And lean on cylinders 3 and 4, and then progressively rich to the back cylinders. The plug readings DO NOT 'JUST' show what the nitrous system is doing, they ALSO SHOW what the ENTIRE FUEL/OXYGEN charge is doing. Furthermore, acceleration is WELL KNOWN to affect the fuel flow FROM THE CARB EXTREMELY BADLY, so how does your plug reading tell you it's the fuel from the Spider that is being affected by G and NOT the fuel from the carb????
Bear in mind that the fuel from the carb ONLY has the force of induction 'ENCOURAGING' it towards the front cylinders, whilst still being 'ENCOURAGED' to ALL the others at approx. the same time and that it has MUCH FURTHER to travel to the cylinder, than the fuel from the Spider. In contrast, the fuel from the Spider is being directed to each cylinder INDIVIDUALLY, from within a couple of inches or less of the port entry and is also BEING ASSISTED TO ITS DESTINATION, by not only the nitrous plume but also a STRONGER signal from each cylinder, due to it's closer proximity and that's forgetting any fuel pressure there may be.
Now I don't know for sure if that is the cause of the problem (I believe there are a number of other potential alternatives causes, ALL of which I gave you in the PM and ALL of which you've decided to IGNORE), but based on simple physics and the laws of probability, I'd say that the increased G created by using the nitrous, acting on the fuel from the carb, had a MUCH GREATER CHANCE of being the cause of your distribution problems, than the fuel from the Spider, just as is the case on MOST nitrous assisted cars.
That being said, I'm not the IDIOT JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE DEVOID OF 'ANY' BASIS IN FACT, as I'm just assessing the situation in a LOGICAL manner using my UN-common sense, in an effort to find the REAL CAUSE of a problem, whilst keeping an open mind on the subject, because 'I' like to know THE TRUE FACTS rather than just pin the blame on the most convenient component, regardless of the truth. I have already concluded that the best way to run a spider (in my opinion and from my own testing would be): High presure fuel delivery of 3 bar. Jet the spider fuel legs and not the pulsoid outlets. Jet the spider nitrous legs with less gas for the shorter runners of the inlet manifold. Make the spider fuel legs longer than the nitrous legs. As stated above, your 'CONCLUSIONS' are based on ILL-CONCEIVED tests, which were carried out in an ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE manner and therefore are ENTIRELY WRONG!!!! Having said that, the format you describe for using the Spider is likely to solve 'your problem', BECAUSE IT WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE FUEL FROM THE CARB BEING THROWN TO THE BACK OF THE MANIFOLD, just as people who use US kits have to juggle their jet patterns to solve the same problems.
Achieving a cure to your problem that way would no doubt lead you to 'THINK' that it proves you are right about the fuel from the Spider being the problem, however, as described above, IT WOULD DO NOTHING OF THE KIND!!!!If the fuel leaving the legs of the spider has a good head of presure behind it and the jets is in the leg it will have more velocity at its outlet in order to make it, no! Force it to flow where it is needed. If the fuel leg of the spider is long enough it could be made to drop the fuel in front of the nitrous stream so it has no choice but to go where it is needed. And if reversion is an issue when the inlet valve is closed at least the fuel will be in with, or in front of the nitrous stream. ALL that statement proves is HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW & UNDERSTAND ABOUT NITROUS FLOW. And heres my own personal thoughts on how the spider could be a world beater on nitrous delivery!!! Fit fuel injectors in the inlet runners of the manifold and use the spider for nitrous only. For ALL the reasons provided in my distant PM (which you've obviously IGNORED) and repeated above (which hopefully for your sake you'll take notice of this time), NONE of your suggestions are of any relevance, as the Spider performs PERFECTLY WELL as I designed it. I'm sure you will have your own comments in reply but as this is an open forum I'm happy to voice my opinions based on my own experiences. And I'm happy to take all comments and feedback to enlighten me. I'm glad to hear it and I hope you are suitably ENLIGHTENED and the reason I say that is as follows;
1) I've allowed you to make INCORRECT & NEGATIVE ASSUMPTIONS/STATEMENTS about the Spider on this forum for far too long. 2) I'm guessing you've probably made similar posts elsewhere on other forums. 3) You've propagated this RUBBISH verbally to others. 4) You've posted an EXTREMELY MISLEADING video on Youtube. ALL of which will be having an adverse effect on people's opinions of the Spider, which is probably having an adverse effect on the sales of my Spider plates, which may even have knock on adverse effects on my other products.
Now although I've been EXTREMELY UNHAPPY about your handling of this matter (ESPECIALLY IGNORING my PM to you after I went to immense trouble, to type it out in an effort to direct you to the ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM), I've allowed you to continue to make such posts, because until now I haven't had any INDEPENDENT evidence, to prove my claims for the Spider to be CORRECT and therefore YOURS TO BE WRONG. However, now that is no longer the case, I'm no longer willing to tolerate the potential adverse effect, that your BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS are likely to be causing.
On the up side, having allowed you to post your BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS, should have proved to the world, that I don't delete ADVERSE posts from my forum, even when I'm CERTAIN that they are JUST THAT. However, as I only allow FACTS on this forum and now that I have such a high level INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE, confirming that even in your wildest dreams, the Spider COULD NOT be responsible for what you have experienced, IT'S TIME TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. Therefore I repeat that I 'HOPE' you have been suitably "ENLIGHTENED" because if that's not the case and you choose to stick to your ILL-FOUNDED OPINION, rather than openly accept the SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE that has been presented, there will be consequences for that choice.
_________________ Regards
Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)
30 years of nitrous experience and counting!!!!
|
|