Adjustable intake ports

[mpgmike]

I have been using Powre Lynz for about 2 years now and finally came up with a test that would prove or disprove a controversial claim; that the ports constrict at low flow and open up at higher flow demands. I found a test that strongly suggests that this is indeed happening. I invite you to read about it and look at the numbers posted and give constructive feedback. Check it out here:

http://powrehaus.com/2007/04/27/coll...layer/#more-40

Mike

[Vigo]

hmm... so the idea is that the lower the speed of the intake charge, the 'thicker' the boundary layer is, thus creating a smaller port area and keeping velocity up at low engine speeds, and becoming thinner and thinner as the charge velocity increases, effectively becoming a bigger port and flowing more when velocity is a non-issue.

i have not followed your other threads but this is a cool test and results. it seems to support your claim of large low rpm torque increases that port work usually doesnt improve.

also, i tried to call you today but couldnt catch you. i need to know where to send those heads

[turbovanman²]

Very interesting.

[cj011]

What is Powre Lynz? Is it the Sign slash I saw at your website on the combustion chambers?

[Frank]

Umm, I can definitely see why there is controversy with the subject of boundary layers. People just don't have a good understanding of boundary layers. While I think your test is definitely worth while and definitely shows data that is usable, I don't think it provides enough data to make statements or theorize about the boundary layer itself because there is no velocity data at various points in the port's cross section to create a model.

The boundary layer can shape itself rather interestingly based on flow velocity obviously. You can speculate about the BL when looking at test 1 and test 2. Test 2's various pitches definitely cause ripples in the boundary layer that do effect flow. No question there.

However what you cannot gather from this test is the effect on test 1 vs stock and its ability to atomize fuel. I feel it would require velocity modeling to determine the flow gradient shape (more descriptive then boundary layer shape). You may find that at large pressure draws that the you may have a large boundary layer (as people tend to think), but the gradient is very steep to counter act the thick boundary layer.

[mpgmike]

My intent for posting these results is to spark interest from people that have better access to equipment (like a flow bench as I have to run heads up to the machine shop to have them flowed). I am proposing that texturing the intake ports creates benefits, and have some data to support that claim. The chosen vehicle is screw threads. Dana44 from another forum uses the scallops caused by a chattering carbide bit as his vehicle and claims very positive results.

If other head porters were to take this subject seriously enough to devise their own tests, and perhaps their own frorm of texturing, this whole "port texturing" theory could be refined into very predictable data. Sharing this info puts into the hands of customers better products, regardless of whom the porter is. As a head porter, I'm sharing this info with hopes of getting back testing data from other head porters so that my own process can be improved.

If this is as significant as I think, then it should be shared. It is a tuning tool and not a means to an end (my thoughts on the Somender Grooves as well). So what I'm doing is giving away one of my trade secrets in hopes that the process can be refined by the hands and minds of others.

Mike

[Murphy]

my avatar is the powre lynz

i think mine are the 20 pitch

[ssheen]

And they look so pretty. Can not wait for my variable pitch ones. Eh Mike?

[zin]

It's pretty well established that on "wet flow" applications, a rough surface on the intake port is a good thing, as it helps keep the fuel in suspension by creating a small amount of turbulence at the surface of the port, thereby not allowing the fuel to "wash out" of the air stream. I'm not quite on-board with this helping in a "dry flow" situation.

It is also established that proper velocity in the port is a big contributor to HP and combustion efficiency, and that tapering your port to achieve this is a good idea, but again, I don't quite see this as being the same.

Anyone have a link to a page that might explain the aerodynamic or fluid-dynamic principle behind this idea? I don't doubt that there could be some way of configuring a port to induce some kind of shock wave that could induce something similar to what is described, that is: an effectively smaller port at low velocity, becoming more available as velocity increases, but I (and I'm sure others, Frank for sure), would like to see the "math" behind it. Mostly so I can see it it is something I can apply to my projects.

Mike

[Aries_Turbo]

i could care less about the math. I would like to see a test with:

1. a clear cylinder head model and some smoke to show turbulence and flow quality

2. and some pitot tubes to measure velocity at various points in the port.

unfortunately, I dont have access to these things. I know that 1fastcsx289's machinist has the pitot tube setup for his SF600 bench.

Brian

[DB-Rocket]

It's pretty well established that on "wet flow" applications, a rough surface on the intake port is a good thing, as it helps keep the fuel in suspension by creating a small amount of turbulence at the surface of the port, thereby not allowing the fuel to "wash out" of the air stream. I'm not quite on-board with this helping in a "dry flow" situation.

Mike

Once the flow is in the heads (where the powre lynz are) it is no longer "dry flow".

It makes sence to have last chance atomization happening before the combustion chamber, since there is such a short distance for the fuel and air to mix to begin with.