| Author | Message | ||
     Hans |
Notsip: Thanks: You restored my believe in the common sense of physics. Hans | ||
| Blake |
Really? I wish someone would explain it to me, cause to me those results are opposite of what I would intuitively expect. | ||
| Hans |
As I not know what is meant by minor or major side, it has to be overlooked, while front and rear is clear enough for simplissimus me. To make it easier to replace the old enigmatic mental picture here the updated view.  Tells me that the trust side has nothing to do with the cylinder temperature. Was already afraid that a possible temperature elevation by increased friction on the trust side would start an oil war. Tells me in fact that the temperature differences within the cylinders are only dependent of asymmetrical gas streams, dependent of the position of the in and outlet, (outlet side hot) and that the rear cylinder lying in the wind shadow of the front cylinder runs, en general, hotter. And that complies whit what my 92 old father in law already told me, and keeps telling me. Hans | ||
| M2me |
I don't think that the updated view is correct. I am assuming temperatures while the bike is in motion, say going down the road at 70 mph. It makes sense that the front of the engine would be cooler since it is getting the most cool air flow and the front of the rear cylinder would be hotter because not only is it producing it's own heat, it is also getting heat from the front cylinder. I also don't agree that the exhaust side of the cylinder should be hotter (notice CYLINDER, not head). When ignition occurs, which is producing the vast majority of heat, it occurs in the middle of the cylinder, not just on the exhaust side. Why should the exhaust side of the cylinder be 200 degrees hotter than the intake? That doesn't make any sense. Who knows what the temperatures would be like after running on a dyno. Remember, I'm thinking about temperatures in a normal operating mode, running down the road. | ||
| M2me |
Oops! I just read Blake's post from Thursday and he already said basically the same thing, just different words.  | ||
| Hans |
Outlet side gets hotter, also by conduction, via the cylinder wall and valve seat, from the red hot outlet valves. And a third factor is the incoming radiation from the header. The temperatures haven been measured, so they are true (unless I made mistakes in drawing the picture). The absolute values will be dependent of the circumstances like the speed, temp, humidity, pressure of the cooling air etc. etc., but the general idea of the dangerous temperature level of the rear cylinder comes out quit clearly. Hans | ||
| Blake |
Well, the first time those temperatures were offered they were stated to be hottest for the front cylinder's "thrust side" (rear face) and hottest for the rear cylinder's non-thrust side (front face). I don't know what to believe for certain. Unless copper gaskets were used, the gaskets between each head and cylinder would preclude any great amount of conduction heat transfer from head to cylinder. I just cannot imagine how the interior of the V would not be hotter. Put two radiator style heaters next to each other and measure the surface temps. The temperature of the facing surfaces will be WAY higher than those facing open air. I could be wrong, and the fact that the WMOBWB thinks otherwise sure has me wondering. Damn you Hans!  | ||
| Captpete |
Which gets hotter? It's a trick question. There's no right answer. There are too many variables involved. I've fried so many engines now that Pammy has started calling my S1W "The Hindenburg of Buells". Sometimes it's the front jug, sometimes it's the rear, and sometimes it's both. Figure that one out! | ||
| Sportsman |
OK, the 2nd diagram is opposite the 1st. Either somebody take a ride and take readings, or we'll just have to go with the Buell engineers. They put a fan in the middle, though I'd like to see it from the carb side as not to blow 440 degree air on the intake. | ||
| Hans |
Blake: The radiation between the cylinders is not high because the walls are so cool.  But I have experience: Some body ever stated that you have to warm up your bike before you go. Time needed to put your gloves and helmet on would be enough. Well, that goes now pretty fast, so it is no good rule of the thumb. Another statement was to wait till the rearside of the front rocker box became to hot to lay your hand on. That seemed me right. But hey, that costs a lot of time. Impatiently I tried of course if other parts became already hot. Well, they were... If you want to try: Start immediately after the first combustions to avoid burned fingers. But the numbers on the updated picture do`nt seem me strange. Yes indeed, no air moving around the standing engine. I would like to see the numbers of a riding bike. Hans. | ||
| M2me |
Well, I guess the only way to answer it is to go out and get a thermometer and take some measurements. On more thing to think about.
Isn't that mixing up cause and effect? Hot exhaust headers are not the cause of heat. They are an effect of the combustion, which occurs near the center of the cylinder (horizontally). In other words, the engine gets hot because an air/fuel mixture is being ignited inside. Not because there are hot exhaust headers bolted to the outside. | ||
| Notsip |
Hans, The temperatures were achieved with 60 mph. air blowing across the engine. All tests were done in a controlled enviroment with exact riding conditions duplicated. The original numbers were incorrectly laid out in a diagram by someone else, don't pay any attention to them. Remember that there are many other factors to be considered before a solid conclusion can be achieved. | ||
| Blake |
"All tests were done in a controlled environment with exact riding conditions duplicated." That is a VERY bold statement. If indeed it is true, the testing must have been in a wind tunnel with rider mounted, wheels spinning, and floor moving. Are you planning to answer my questions? | ||
| Notsip |
Blake, Nope!!! Until you can understand Real World Data, it will be a waste of time. | ||
| M2me |
I was doing a Google search on this topic and came across an interesting report on aircraft engines. Here is a link to it if you care to read it. It is in PDF format so you'll need Acrobat Reader. Be warned. It is chock full of equations! Report on air cooled cylinders Here is a quote from it:  They do talk about the heat effect from the exhaust but, as I would expect, it is not as noticeable on the cylinder (barrel). They also do not see large temperature differences around the cylinder, as I would expect. This probably doesn't prove a hill of beans for a V-twin Buell, but it is interesting. | ||
| Blake |
Notsip, Sorry you feel that way. Until you change your mind, I for one would rather you simply not contribute to this discussion forum. Does your attitude represent that of everyone at Hot Shot Motor Works? Blake | ||
| M2me |
Blake and Notsip, Come on guys! Stop this bickering back and forth!  I'm just trying to argue my theory about cylinder temperatures. By they way, in my Google research every source I found said that the rear cylinder is hotter. Cool, that fits with one aspect of my theory. The other aspect of my theory is that you should not see large temperature differences around the cylinder. Front to back, side to side, whatever. Now, I'm just trying to argue that theory and explain why I think it is correct. But I'll concede that my theory could possibly be wrong. Again, the only way to know for sure is to actually measure it and maybe I will someday for just for my own curiosity!  | ||
| Shazam |
Blake, with all due respect, a lot of information exchanged on this and many other forums is unsubstantiated and taken on faith, and refuted when possible. the debates on various subjects help us all find the answers we are looking for. I feel everyone's input should be welcomed, if simply for the fact that it makes us all (participants and voyeurs) think a little more on the possibilities of a unseen conclusion. (who would've guessed peanut butter and jelly? I doubt that happened in a lab, the first time!) I think asking someone not to participate in your forum when they "may" (or have) contribute(d) in a very positive manner at any minute, is fairly obtuse. Notsip is playing with "our" toys and therefore has the possibilty/probability of enlightening the masses, his attitude sucks, but when are you egomaniacal mad scientist types ever accused of being affable all the time? people get defensive about their beliefs........ in layman's terms: this shit is great reading! and I do take some perverse pleasure in seeing your panties in a bunch! and I don't see why the floor would need to be moving? cordially, Sam | ||
| Blake |
M2me, I do not feel my point is petty or insignificant, especially when weighed against the well documented prior contributions made by Notsip. Sam, Some Notsip quotes for you to consider (paraphrased from memory)... 1. Blake, can you help me determine the clamping load exerted by the studs on the cylinders? 2. I refuse to provide you the information required to do so can you find it yourself? 3. I already knew the answer so I don't care what you say. 4. I have information to share; after reading what I present please ask questions if you have any and I'll do my best to answer them. 5. All your questions are too hard for me to answer, would you please number them for me so I can answer them more easily. 6. I refuse to answer your questions because you don't understand real world data. I don't appreciate that kind of disingenuous participation here. He's more than welcome to participate, and I have no doubt that if he so chose, he could positively contribute to these discussions. All I ask is that he drop the condescending attitude and be open to debate and forthcoming with answers to our questions. I'm tired of his indictments against my knowledge and experience in "the real world". In fact, I am uniquely qualified in that respect. Notsip however chooses to make inane assumptions about my experience, something about which he knows ZERO. It might come as a surprise to poor old Notsip that I have made a good living as a consultant helping to solve real world problems much of which involved testing and simulation as well as analysis. It might come as a surprise that I spent four years supervising the real world testing of full scale components of the B2 Stealth Bomber. In that capacity I created the detailed test procedures, analyzed and predicted structural behavior, failure load, and failure mode; I directly supervised the actual testing, and analyzed and reported on the test results versus predictions and expectations. Hell it was just mere tens of millions of dollars worth of test programs for a state of the art military aircraft, what could I possibly know about testing and real world data? The same applies to my years of SatCom earth station analysis and testing in which I was intimately involved. Nah, I have no clue about real world data. I couldn't possibly know how to keep a 60' diameter antenna tracking a target within a few hundredths of a degree in the midst of a typhoon while also maintaining the integrity of its reflective surface shape within a few thousandths of an inch. Oh wait, one of the high wind antennas whose design I dictated was the ONLY antenna in Hong Kong to stay on the air during a recent typhoon. What the fuck do I know about theory versus real world data? The silly Japanese government paid $7M for a couple antennas just because I told them they would do what they wanted, what no other SatCom antenna had ever done before. Imagine if they knew how ignorant I truly am, not knowing the difference between theory and real world data. Hah, sure fooled them! Oh wait, the antennas fullfilled their missions perfectly and were showcased by Japan for the world's most respected SatCom experts. I guess the engine lab in college in which I participated was of no value. I guess the engines, carburetors, and transmissions I've successfully rebuilt don't count for anything in the real world. I guess Notsip could be right. Maybe I've just been exceedingly lucky for the last 20 years.  Respect, it's a two way street. | ||
| Blake |
As far as Notsip being a "scientist"... Half the claims he's made or statements he's made are flat out wrong, though he refuses to even once admit it. I'm sorry, I just don't see any redeeming value in his continued participation here if he refuses to answer some very simple questions. Like I said, that is just "I for one" voicing my opinion. He can do as he likes, I'll not be taking any action to stop his continued posting if that is what he chooses to do. | ||
| Aaron |
"I have no doubt that if he so chose, he could positively contribute to these discussions. All I ask is that he drop the condescending attitude ..." I'll go along with that. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Ditto Aaron. I would love to have him contribute, but all I have seen so far is radical claims that defy common sense, and not a shred of evidence or theory to support it. When somebody says something like "All tests were done in a controlled environment with exact riding conditions duplicated" that is about as clear a "BS" indicator as I could ever think to type. It makes it perfectly clear to anyone that has been serious about testing of any kind that the person that made the statement is NOT serious about testing. Testing is always a series of controlled errors and validated generalizations. And this particular topic is "not that hard"... just throw together a compact acquisition system in a tail bag, slap some thermocouples on the engine, go for a ride and log some data. For the general case, it would be far less work to instrument the bike and take it for a ride then to "reproduce exact conditions". If trying to explain the "general case" accurately, why use this approach? If this were a backyard mechanic trying to reproduce some problem, we could cut them a little slack, but this is not the case here, this is somebody claiming to be an expert. If you come in claiming to be an expert, don't get pissed off when we treat you like one, and expect you to be able to back up wild assertions and obvious inaccuracies. I would love for anyone to participate in these forums, I learn tons. But every time I have seen NotSip post, it has been an confusing muddle of unsupported and unlikely assertions and overly broad generalisations buried in what appears to be intentional obsfucation of terms. When pressed for clarifications, details, or explanations, he inevitably seems to simply ignore the question, or attack and dismiss the questioner. The classic example in this case was Notsips description of the temperatures being on "the thrust side", and making no attempt to clarify the term. Who is he trying to impress? Why not say "Intake Side" or "Exhaust Side" or "In the Vee". If he is a troll, it makes perfect sense, if he is trying to participate and contribute, then he has had a lot of time to do so, and we ain't seen nothing useful yet... People like this (trolls) have been around since the internet began. They generally fall into one of two (often both) catagories. They troll for responses and try to get people spun up. The first types goal is to do as little work themselves and lure others into expending tremendous amounts of work and energy. They call this sport. It was funny to watch now and then in the days of Usenet (with a pinnacle of achievement about 5 years back in a REALLY funny crosspost between alt.goth and rec.motorcycle where both groups got VERY wound up and were landed hook, line, and sinker), but it is getting pretty tired and petty at this point. The second catagory is people with a legitimate personality disorder, and having met plenty of them in real life, they just creep me out and depress me. So let me paraphrase what Blake said.... "Please don't feed the trolls". I am with Blake. If Notsip wants to contribute, I would love to learn from him. If he wants to ask questions, I would love to be able to help him where I can. If he just wants to talk about Buells, I share his dysfunction and am waiting to be an enabler But so far, all he has done is troll, and it's just wasting bandwidth. Bill "Doh! I just fed the Troll!" Kilgallon | ||
| Rick_A |
Notsip's data is hard to believe. I'm picturing a bike on a dyno with a little box fan pointed towards the center of the cylinders.  Taking a guess (for a moving bike) I would think the heads would be hotter at the exhaust sides...and cylinders hotter in the "V"...the rear cylinder (of course) being hottest overall. A difference of around 200 degrees at opposing sides of the cylinders is a bit hard to swallow. | ||
| Jimidan |
Reepicheep: Wow! Where the heck did that all come from? I must be confused...I have been following this thread and I don't remember reading all of the stuff you just mentioned. I think you got a little carried away there, didn't you dude? Piling on? You say, "Wild assertions"? "Obvious inaccuracies"? BTW, what are your credentials? Blake: I think it is inappropriate and reactionary as the head guy in charge of this site to suggest to Notsip not participate in this discussion just because he doesn't choose to answer your questions. I think he refuses because you pissed him off. I think you are being defensive because he pissed you off. You both are plenty smart guys...so there I said it. I would be interested in knowing which "Half the claims he's made or statements he's made are flat out wrong". In general, I think testosterone is poisoning the well of knowledge to be had here. Let's take it dooown a notch...the picking of nits has escalated to an undesirable level. I have been in Notsip's Hot Shot Motorworks shop and his engine dyno and control room are first rate...so are his engines. I know because I have two of them. He can measure parameters that most guys have to guess at. It is a very controled environment! I question the applicability of the criteria you guys are asking for here? How do you duplicate exactly the air flows of a "typical" bike on a typical road with average wind and weather conditions? Does my S2 have the same factors that the XB bikes have? Nope. Does my S1? Nope. Does a Sporty...? What I am saying here is that I believe it is unnecessary to dupicate exactly those "typical" parameters to measure the hot spots in our v-twin engines. A fan pointed at the front cylinder pushing 60 MPH wind at it should be enough of a control to measure the temperature at various locations on the heads and cylinders, don't you think? These temps could vary somewhat depending on factors such as you mentioned, but basically, these numbers answer the original posted question within a few degrees here or there. It is high theater though and beats watching the war on CNN. | ||
| Jimidan |
Rick A, your minds-eye vision is incorrect. Notsip uses a water brake engine dyno room with a squirrel cage fan pointed at the front cylinder blowing 60 mph wind over the engine in a "real world" fashion, pretty much duplicating the air stream when going down the road. He can measure temps anywhere on the engine, and many other parameters. He also has a chassis dyno. You guys are getting hung up on semantics. | ||
| Pammy |
"I'm picturing a bike on a dyno with a little box fan pointed towards the center of the cylinders." Hey!....Have you got spies in my shop? I haven't kept up with this whole thread and I really don't want to re-live it all. But I have seen a couple of posts that seem nothing if not just hostile to me. I think there's been tons of miscommunication and ego bruising that has escalated this thread into what it has become. I know for a fact, the temperatures in the intake and exhaust sides of the head do vary greatly. The exhaust side gets hotter by more than a few degrees. So much so that we have introduced a 'POWER-COATING" that prohibits the exhaust gas heat from saturating the head. We also use the 'COOL SHOT' oil squirters in the engine to aleviate some of the cooling and oiling issues known to plague the Buell engines.Between the coating and the squirters, we are very happy at the temp changes we have seen. Blake I know you are a very smart man and I have the utmost respect for you and your beliefs. I have met you and spent quality time with you. I hope you do not hold Wes or myself in the same low regard that I see you hold Dan(notsip). I have spoken with Dan in length about many issues and do not find him lacking in the field to which he has laid claim of knowledge. I hope we can put away this arguing and continue to champion the learning arena that BadWeb has become. Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.... P.S. If you all were women, we would call this a cat fight ;o} | ||
| Blake |
Jimidan, You might want to read the Setting Cold Squish discussion starting with Notsip's first post on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 12:00 pm. Then jump over to the Catch Can Controversy discussion starting with Notsip's first post on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:52 pm. Before both of those, ole Notsip had offered his products for sale without even inquiring about sponsoring the board. When his advertisement was deleted he sent me an email saying To which I replied... I never received a reply. I should confess that I said I would give him a call; I never did. My bad, and I'm sorry for that Dan (Notsip). Those are the real world facts, no theory. I can definitely be frank and direct in my manner of online discourse, but I fail to see where anything I've contributed warrants the attitude exhibited by Dan (Notsip). Ego can be such a fragile thing. In the end, none of this will amount to a hill of beans. It's just fun to talk about. For some reason Dan/Notsip is not interested in open discussion. | ||
| Blake |
Pammy, You and Wes have always been a pleasure to talk to and your contributions here have always been well received. I suppose if Dan and I could meet in person we'd be less likely to miscommunicate and get upset. | ||
| Xb9 |
Blake, I think you hit it on the head. There is no better type of human communication than face to face and in person. Having been in outside sales for a number of years, I've recognized a great difference in perception between talking to someone on the phone, and conversing with them in person. An online experience is even more removed. I guess we were not created with our hands on a keyboard.... By the way, sounds like you've been involved in some way-cool stuff in you line of work! It's great to know a little about your background! | ||
| Reepicheep |
Jimidan. You are right. I shoulda kept my mouth shut, I did not contribute to the discussion. I started out meaning to help, and launched off on a rant. I apologize to you and Notsip, as well as anyone else offended. Let me try again to go the direction I originally went and help. This should help people speak the language we can call "Blakese". A lot of misunderstandings here relate to environment. I come from an engineering environment, where a group can sit down together, have knock down dragout arguments about technical issues (such as here), grind through some, table others, then go eat lunch. There can also be two discussions in a 15 minute period, and one time person A is right and person B is badly mistaken, and 5 minutes later the roles are reversed. It's no big deal, you can't take it personally. I say this as a very feely right brained and intuitive person that found himself immersed in an engineering environment. It took some real adjustment, but if you humble yourself to it and get prepared for the occasional ego stomp, it's a great way to get work done. It is lousy for feelings and it does not always help self esteem, but it has the handy side effect that the plane you are flying in does not fall from the sky, and your bridges don't fall over. So when we say "thats nuts", we don't mean "we don't like you" or "you are nuts", we mean that what you just said makes absolutely no sense based on our common sense or experience, and unless you can provide some really good arguments, either from theory or empirical testing, we are not inclined to believe you. If your response to us asking for further support of extreme claims is to dismiss us or insult us, you are not going to do much to make us believe you are right and we are wrong. Ok. Everyone please disregard my previous rant, and insert the following honest question. I really mean it, this is meant to be an honest question without attitude. Hey Notsip! I don't understand what you are saying, I don't know which parts of my engine are the thrust side / major side, could you describe the temperatures based on front, middle, and back of the engine? And everything I have experienced on my Buell, from rocker box failures to just grabbing the heads to watching that back header glow red at night, as well as common sense, makes it seem obvious to me that the highest temperatures are on the exhaust side of the rear head. Can you explain to me how the temperatures of the intake part of the head, that are constantly exposed to cool air and incoming fuel, are hotter then the exhaust ports, which are continually filled with burnt fuel? And if the middle of the V is hotter, and the air is moving across the engine and then over the back cylinder, how can that be cooler? I don't understand and I am finding it hard to believe. Bill |
