Combustion 101
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 116
Originally posted by EricTheBald
I disagree.
Energy and mass are directly related through the formula E=MC^2.
You can convert mass into energy through chemical processes such as burning, but you lose mass in the process. Not as much mass as you lose in fission or fusion but you still lose mass.
So, if you have the exact same volume/mass of gasses leaving the combustion chamber as went into it, where did the heat come from?
I disagree.
Energy and mass are directly related through the formula E=MC^2.
You can convert mass into energy through chemical processes such as burning, but you lose mass in the process. Not as much mass as you lose in fission or fusion but you still lose mass.
So, if you have the exact same volume/mass of gasses leaving the combustion chamber as went into it, where did the heat come from?
little drunk now but ii'm in 3rd year and..... lot of you guys are talking about "binding energy" wether it be chemical, nuclear, or electrons onto an atom.... its actually all the same
now with fission/fusion reactions the binding energies are on the order of a couple percent of the entire mass... which i will say is not miniscule
for chemical bindings (a bunch of carbons to a bunch of hydrogens in gasoline) it is certainly miniscule, which is why in high school chemisty we learn that mass is conserved no matter what.... and dont really have to worry about it any more than that
so certainly for all intesive purposes for engine building.... mass in = mass out, to a point of quite a few zero's followed by a one
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Originally posted by Chris B
You will not end up with 100cc - it is mass equivalents, not volume equivalents...
I've been using mass & volume as synonyms when I know that I really shouldn't. Mostly because in this case the loss of mass, as a percentage, would be pretty small. The loss of volume would be much bigger.
In the above equation heat is produced, and mass is conserved - so where is the mass that has been converted into energy?
Everything is energy, either potential or kinetic. When you convert potential energy into kinetic energy you "lose" the potential energy because you used it to do work.
Yes, but this process only occurs in a nuclear conversion (by definition).
E=MC^2 isn't a process, it's a relationship.
Step back for a moment - let's say we convert just 1 MILLIONTH of a gram of fuel/air to energy (1ug) in a second of time - that is going to give us 89.98 MEGAWATTS of energy, or about 120,500 horsepower. And that is only 1 millionth of a gram. Hardly anything.
I'm guessing you're talking about total conversion of matter into energy. IC engines are a wee bit less efficient than that.
Realize if any mass -> energy conversion was taking place we would have orders of magnitude more energy released.
If I strike a match, that is a mass to energy conversion. Not a very efficient one, but efficiency is a different issue.
Sorry, the law of conservation of mass states explicitly that in all chemical processes the mass of reactants and products is the same before and after the reaction. Do a simple google for "law of conservation of mass" and you will find this readily.
The law of conservation of energy says that it can't be created or destroyed, or as Einstein put it: The total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.
It CAN change for though.
You can't use "volume/mass" as interchangeable terms because they are not.
You're right, and I shouldn't have been using them interchangeably.
In the burning of gasoline you will end up with more moles of gas than you began... with...
What's a mole?
...so volume will increase even though mass is constant; additionally, the heat released from the reaction will cause the gasses to expand, greatly increasing the volume.
And that gas, expanded by the heat, is used to push the piston down, expending most of it's energy in the process.
Look, I've been careless about my terms in this discussion and I do understand what you're saying about conservation of mass, which relates to why I really should have been more careful with my choice of words.
You will not end up with 100cc - it is mass equivalents, not volume equivalents...
I've been using mass & volume as synonyms when I know that I really shouldn't. Mostly because in this case the loss of mass, as a percentage, would be pretty small. The loss of volume would be much bigger.
In the above equation heat is produced, and mass is conserved - so where is the mass that has been converted into energy?
Everything is energy, either potential or kinetic. When you convert potential energy into kinetic energy you "lose" the potential energy because you used it to do work.
Yes, but this process only occurs in a nuclear conversion (by definition).
E=MC^2 isn't a process, it's a relationship.
Step back for a moment - let's say we convert just 1 MILLIONTH of a gram of fuel/air to energy (1ug) in a second of time - that is going to give us 89.98 MEGAWATTS of energy, or about 120,500 horsepower. And that is only 1 millionth of a gram. Hardly anything.
I'm guessing you're talking about total conversion of matter into energy. IC engines are a wee bit less efficient than that.
Realize if any mass -> energy conversion was taking place we would have orders of magnitude more energy released.
If I strike a match, that is a mass to energy conversion. Not a very efficient one, but efficiency is a different issue.
Sorry, the law of conservation of mass states explicitly that in all chemical processes the mass of reactants and products is the same before and after the reaction. Do a simple google for "law of conservation of mass" and you will find this readily.
The law of conservation of energy says that it can't be created or destroyed, or as Einstein put it: The total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.
It CAN change for though.
You can't use "volume/mass" as interchangeable terms because they are not.
You're right, and I shouldn't have been using them interchangeably.
In the burning of gasoline you will end up with more moles of gas than you began... with...
What's a mole?
...so volume will increase even though mass is constant; additionally, the heat released from the reaction will cause the gasses to expand, greatly increasing the volume.
And that gas, expanded by the heat, is used to push the piston down, expending most of it's energy in the process.
Look, I've been careless about my terms in this discussion and I do understand what you're saying about conservation of mass, which relates to why I really should have been more careful with my choice of words.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 39
Originally posted by EricTheBald
[i]If so, would someone be kind enough to explain to me how you can have, say; 100cc of air/fuel mixture, convert a sizeable percentage of it into heat by burning it and yet still end up with 100cc of combustion residue and unburned fuel/air?
I've been using mass & volume as synonyms when I know that I really shouldn't. Mostly because in this case the loss of mass, as a percentage, would be pretty small. The loss of volume would be much bigger.
[i]If so, would someone be kind enough to explain to me how you can have, say; 100cc of air/fuel mixture, convert a sizeable percentage of it into heat by burning it and yet still end up with 100cc of combustion residue and unburned fuel/air?
I've been using mass & volume as synonyms when I know that I really shouldn't. Mostly because in this case the loss of mass, as a percentage, would be pretty small. The loss of volume would be much bigger.
Yes you have been using mass & volume as synonyms sometimes...this is VERY VERY VERY indicative that you just don't understand it...in this case, and any other case other than a nuclear reaction, the loss of mass would be ZERO and the loss of volume would be NEGATIVE because combustion creates a LESS dense gas that wants to take up more volume.
How else would it push the piston down?
Last edited by Mike454SS; Jul 6, 2003 at 04:28 AM.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 10,745
From: Buffalo, New York
In case no one ever noticed, hot gas occupies a larger volume than cold gas (if the pressure is the same). And, of course, when you vaporize a liguid there is a marked increase in volume. So yes, there is a greater volume of exhaust v. intake gasses, though the mass is the same.
So, even for NA there is lot more exhaust gas to deal with. Wouln't be too hard to calculate, but I am not up to it on a Sunday morning. Add nitrtous and there is a huge bump in exhaust gas volume. Similarly, with a blower you alos have gas under pressure in the intake relative to the exhaust, which also increase exhaust gas volume. Water injection, like I use, should also increase exhaust gas volume relative to intake as steam occupies a whole lot more space than liquid water. However, most of the vaporization occurs in the intake.
David Vizard did some experiments on optimal exhaust valve size with nitrous. I will try to dig them up. I have been thinking my next set of heads will have a much larger exhaust valve than usual, if I stay with a forced induction+nitrous setup.
Rich Krause
So, even for NA there is lot more exhaust gas to deal with. Wouln't be too hard to calculate, but I am not up to it on a Sunday morning. Add nitrtous and there is a huge bump in exhaust gas volume. Similarly, with a blower you alos have gas under pressure in the intake relative to the exhaust, which also increase exhaust gas volume. Water injection, like I use, should also increase exhaust gas volume relative to intake as steam occupies a whole lot more space than liquid water. However, most of the vaporization occurs in the intake.
David Vizard did some experiments on optimal exhaust valve size with nitrous. I will try to dig them up. I have been thinking my next set of heads will have a much larger exhaust valve than usual, if I stay with a forced induction+nitrous setup.
Rich Krause
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Originally posted by Mike454SS
... you have been using mass & volume as synonyms sometimes... the loss of mass would be ZERO and the loss of volume would be NEGATIVE because combustion creates a LESS dense gas that wants to take up more volume.
How else would it push the piston down?
... you have been using mass & volume as synonyms sometimes... the loss of mass would be ZERO and the loss of volume would be NEGATIVE because combustion creates a LESS dense gas that wants to take up more volume.
How else would it push the piston down?
1) I already said that I was wrong to use the terms interchangably. Mea Culpa.
2) How else would it push the piston down? Heat.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Well I never took chemistry in HS, assuming you don't count any "chemicals" I bought at the Beer 'n Bait.
I read the link, I understand what it says and I've been saying so for the last several posts.
But I don't want the POINT to get lost in the shuffle here.
So let me put this in the form of a question:
Is the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port the same as the volume of gasses coming in through the intake port?
I read the link, I understand what it says and I've been saying so for the last several posts.
But I don't want the POINT to get lost in the shuffle here.
So let me put this in the form of a question:
Is the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port the same as the volume of gasses coming in through the intake port?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by EricTheBald
So let me put this in the form of a question:
Is the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port the same as the volume of gasses coming in through the intake port?
So let me put this in the form of a question:
Is the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port the same as the volume of gasses coming in through the intake port?
References from this thread:
Mike454SS: "When you burn an air/fuel mixture (in our case whatever the air surrounding your engines air filter has in it and gasoline), you create new materials you didn't specifically inject into the cylinder that have a different density than the original substances...same total mass, but at STP (not the band...although they're one of my favorites) it will take up a much larger volume (wether you measure it in cc, ci, or "Joe's volume units")."
rskrause: "In case no one ever noticed, hot gas occupies a larger volume than cold gas (if the pressure is the same). And, of course, when you vaporize a liguid there is a marked increase in volume. So yes, there is a greater volume of exhaust v. intake gasses, though the mass is the same.
So, even for NA there is lot more exhaust gas to deal with. .. Add nitrtous and there is a huge bump in exhaust gas volume."
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
OldSS -
I know it's easy for you to go back and cut & paste, but please don't.
I already read those paragraphs that you pasted and I didn't find them to be satisfactory answers. If I had, I would have stopped posting on this thread long ago.
Not to mention the fact that doing so is more than a little patronizing and dismissive.
"When you burn an air/fuel mixture ... you create new materials you didn't specifically inject into the cylinder that have a different density than the original substances...
Doesn't address the question I just asked.
same total mass, but at STP (not the band...although they're one of my favorites) it will take up a much larger volume
I presume STP = same total pressure.
Well of course the gasses in the combustion chamber after ignition are going to have a higher pressure than they started with. That's what makes IC engines work in the first place.
"In case no one ever noticed, hot gas occupies a larger volume than cold gas...
Yes. While it stays hot. But in the act of pushing the piston down the gas expands and cools, since there is no heat source keeping it's temperature up.
And, of course, when you vaporize a liguid there is a marked increase in volume.
There is also a corresponding cooling effect, which limits the maximum possible expansion and ultimately tries to drive the temp of the gases back down to what it was before. Obviously, in our cars it never gets there, but that's a side effect of normal engine operation.
So yes, there is a greater volume of exhaust v. intake gasses, though the mass is the same.
And what is it's density?
I know it's easy for you to go back and cut & paste, but please don't.
I already read those paragraphs that you pasted and I didn't find them to be satisfactory answers. If I had, I would have stopped posting on this thread long ago.
Not to mention the fact that doing so is more than a little patronizing and dismissive.
"When you burn an air/fuel mixture ... you create new materials you didn't specifically inject into the cylinder that have a different density than the original substances...
Doesn't address the question I just asked.
same total mass, but at STP (not the band...although they're one of my favorites) it will take up a much larger volume
I presume STP = same total pressure.
Well of course the gasses in the combustion chamber after ignition are going to have a higher pressure than they started with. That's what makes IC engines work in the first place.
"In case no one ever noticed, hot gas occupies a larger volume than cold gas...
Yes. While it stays hot. But in the act of pushing the piston down the gas expands and cools, since there is no heat source keeping it's temperature up.
And, of course, when you vaporize a liguid there is a marked increase in volume.
There is also a corresponding cooling effect, which limits the maximum possible expansion and ultimately tries to drive the temp of the gases back down to what it was before. Obviously, in our cars it never gets there, but that's a side effect of normal engine operation.
So yes, there is a greater volume of exhaust v. intake gasses, though the mass is the same.
And what is it's density?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
EricTB,
IMO, which you may have noticed is never humble, you don't want an answer to your question nor the truth; you want affirmation of you beliefs. Sorry, not here.
LOL here at your "cut and paste" request and then your five c&p's.
Reverse psychology, I guess. I got the point.
Is it worth mentioning that the spent exhaust gasses leave the head at 1200+ F, so a little of the heat is still there, compared to the under 100F inlet charge temp? Probably not.
STP (not the kind the Pettys sell), often means Standard Temperature and Pressure, but it could have other meaings.
I'll stop hitting my head against the wall here. I'm not out to change your mind. I just don't like to see others mislead.
I am reminded of Jack Nicholson's line about "truth" in the Movie "A Few Good Men".
Best line in the flick, IMO.
IMO, which you may have noticed is never humble, you don't want an answer to your question nor the truth; you want affirmation of you beliefs. Sorry, not here.
LOL here at your "cut and paste" request and then your five c&p's.
Reverse psychology, I guess. I got the point.
Is it worth mentioning that the spent exhaust gasses leave the head at 1200+ F, so a little of the heat is still there, compared to the under 100F inlet charge temp? Probably not.
STP (not the kind the Pettys sell), often means Standard Temperature and Pressure, but it could have other meaings.
I'll stop hitting my head against the wall here. I'm not out to change your mind. I just don't like to see others mislead.
I am reminded of Jack Nicholson's line about "truth" in the Movie "A Few Good Men".
Best line in the flick, IMO.
Last edited by OldSStroker; Jul 6, 2003 at 08:18 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 39
Originally posted by EricTheBald
"When you burn an air/fuel mixture ... you create new materials you didn't specifically inject into the cylinder that have a different density than the original substances...
Doesn't address the question I just asked.
"When you burn an air/fuel mixture ... you create new materials you didn't specifically inject into the cylinder that have a different density than the original substances...
Doesn't address the question I just asked.
The answer to your question is no, the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port is larger than the volume passing in through the intake port because you created a chemical reaction and you have DIFFERENT gasses passing out than you had before the spark...they have the same mass...and a lower density, thus a greater volume.
As I and a LOT of others have already said numerous times, the heat you discuss is entirely from the breaking down of chemical bonds that contain energy...that energy is released in the forum of heat and light.
It's all simple simple chemistry and maybe a tiny bit of introductory physics, and some algebra 1 (to allow you to manipulate equations like d = m/v into v = m /d...stuff you should have definitely learned in high school.
And as OldSStroker said, STP means Standard Temperature and Pressure...it's like the first thing you learn in high school chemistry.
Administrator
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 71,094
From: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
Originally posted by EricTheBald
OldSS -
I know it's easy for you to go back and cut & paste, but please don't.
I already read those paragraphs that you pasted and I didn't find them to be satisfactory answers. If I had, I would have stopped posting on this thread long ago.
Not to mention the fact that doing so is more than a little patronizing and dismissive.
OldSS -
I know it's easy for you to go back and cut & paste, but please don't.
I already read those paragraphs that you pasted and I didn't find them to be satisfactory answers. If I had, I would have stopped posting on this thread long ago.
Not to mention the fact that doing so is more than a little patronizing and dismissive.
People are trying to help you, and you become confrontational and insulting. We have tried to explain it to you in words, and you reject it and tell us we are wrong. We try and give you credible links, and apparently those aren't good enough. We try and show you what you apparently missed in the first reading, and you attack people.
No one "owes" you an explanation. We are trying to help.
Perhaps you should look elsewhere for the answers.
Fred
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
OldSStroker, Mike454SS, Injuneer -
Do me a favor and read this post, although you may not want to.
I really think you've gotten the wrong idea about what I'm doing here and why I'm doing it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OLD BUSINESS:
Originally posted by OldSStroker
IMO, which you may have noticed is never humble, you don't want an answer to your question nor the truth; you want affirmation of you beliefs.
Well of course I want an affirmation of my beliefs. Everyone wants that. But if I am getting the opposite I want to make very sure that I understand every reason I am wrong and every reason someone else is right.
LOL here at your "cut and paste" request and then your five c&p's.
No, it's not about psychology. You were repeatedly pasting the words of several people, which I have already read.
I'm pasting yours so that when I try to engage in a conversation, we can both be sure of the points I'm responding to.
Is it worth mentioning that the spent exhaust gasses leave the head at 1200+ F, so a little of the heat is still there, compared to the under 100F inlet charge temp? Probably not.
Why not?
a) I know that the exhaust temps are over a thousand degrees.
b) I was talking about their temp in relation to what they were at the height of combustion.
STP often means Standard Temperature and Pressure, but it could have other meaings.
Well, I didn't know the acronym, so I was only able to make what seemed like a reasonable guess.
I am reminded of Jack Nicholson's line...
Has it occurred to you that if I was really as dismissive of your words as you seem to believe I am, that I wouldn't bother to discuss it with you?
You're telling me that something I have long been convinced is true is in actuallity, false.
That may actually be the case, but how can you expect me to understand why YOU are right before I fully understand why I am wrong.
=============================================
Originally posted by Mike454SS
...the heat you discuss is entirely from the breaking down of chemical bonds that contain energy...that energy is released in the forum of heat and light.
As I already mentioned, I believe you on that point. I did several pages ago. Frankly, I'm not a chemist and all I know about physics is what an intelligent, well read, layman would know.
I had believed differently prior to this conversation, I was shown where I was wrong, and now I know better.
What I don't think YOU understand though, is that acknowledging this reality undermines my understanding of OTHER aspects of combustion and flow and before I can understand the real answers I need to examine all the areas where I was wrong.
Maybe that seems a bit convoluted to you, but it's how my mind works. I'm sorry if that irritates you.
The answer to your question is no, the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port is larger than the volume passing in through the intake port because you created a chemical reaction and you have DIFFERENT gasses passing out than you had before the spark...they have the same mass...and a lower density, thus a greater volume.
You see, THIS is where I am having trouble.
But I'll come back to this at the end of this post.
=============================================
Originally posted by Injuneer
Eric:
People are trying to help you...
I realize that.
But "people" are also asking me to shift my entire paradigm on combustion and flow.
Forgive me if I want to be very sure of things before I dump something I have believed to be true for a quarter century.
...and you become confrontational and insulting.
I have very specifically exercised the utmost care to NOT do that.
I can well understand why I am coming off as confrontational. It's because I am forcing people to explain both why I am wrong and why they are right, in minute detail. It's all about understanding.
But insulting? If you can show me where I have INSULTED anyone, intentionally or otherwise, I will be happy to make a public apology.
In fact, I recall mentioning you specifically as one of the people around here I have a tremendous respect for, just before I disagreed with you about something. Something I later admitted I was wrong about, by the way.
You're not equating disagreement with insult, are you?
Because that isn't actually fair, or productive.
We have tried to explain it to you in words, and you reject it and tell us we are wrong.
That statement would have been true at the beginning of this thread. And why shouldn't it be?
Am I not allowed to be wrong?
As the thread has progressed I have come to understand that several things I have believed to be true were NOT.
For instance, it was more than halfway back through the thread that I became aware that my belief that mass was LOST during combustion turned out to be untrue. If you go back and look, you will see that.
We try and give you credible links, and apparently those aren't good enough.
And I looked at those links.
And learned from them. It was those links that showed me that I was wrong about the mass issue.
So who said they weren't good enough?
We try and show you what you apparently missed in the first reading, and you attack people.
I'm going to have to object to that statement.
I haven't "attacked" anyone. Period.
No one "owes" you an explanation. We are trying to help.
I never said anyone owed me anything. You and the others engaged in this conversation of your own free will.
And frankly, I'm mystified at your anger.
After all, it's ME that is turning out to be wrong.
I mean, it's really amazing when you think about it...
We disagreed, and through the process of discussion/argument, you are convincing me that MY beliefs are wrong, which is exactly how this sort of thing is supposed to work.
Why people would resent being on the WINNING side of an argument is beyond me.
=============================================
=============================================
NEW BUSINESS:
Apparently it hasn't been sufficiently clear, so let me make a definitive statement here and now so that there won't be any FURTHER misunderstandings:
1) I was wrong about the air/fuel mixture losing mass during combustion.
2) I understand that the heat of combustion comes from energy that is "left over" after the chemical changes that take place during combustion and that no mass is lost.
3) I accept Mike's contention that; "...the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port is larger than the volume passing in through the intake port..."
This brings me back to the density issue.
Right now, there are only two ways that points 2 & 3 can be true at the same time, in the context of current head design:
1) If the density of the "spent" gasses is so low that once it's forced into the exhaust port it's density is STILL lower than the density of the intake charge. (or at least roughly equal)
2) There is another mechanism at work here that I am missing, don't understand, or am unaware of.
Because otherwise, it makes NO SENSE that the intake needs a bigger "pipe" than the exhaust.
So what's the deal?
Do me a favor and read this post, although you may not want to.
I really think you've gotten the wrong idea about what I'm doing here and why I'm doing it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OLD BUSINESS:
Originally posted by OldSStroker
IMO, which you may have noticed is never humble, you don't want an answer to your question nor the truth; you want affirmation of you beliefs.
Well of course I want an affirmation of my beliefs. Everyone wants that. But if I am getting the opposite I want to make very sure that I understand every reason I am wrong and every reason someone else is right.
LOL here at your "cut and paste" request and then your five c&p's.
No, it's not about psychology. You were repeatedly pasting the words of several people, which I have already read.
I'm pasting yours so that when I try to engage in a conversation, we can both be sure of the points I'm responding to.
Is it worth mentioning that the spent exhaust gasses leave the head at 1200+ F, so a little of the heat is still there, compared to the under 100F inlet charge temp? Probably not.
Why not?
a) I know that the exhaust temps are over a thousand degrees.
b) I was talking about their temp in relation to what they were at the height of combustion.
STP often means Standard Temperature and Pressure, but it could have other meaings.
Well, I didn't know the acronym, so I was only able to make what seemed like a reasonable guess.
I am reminded of Jack Nicholson's line...
Has it occurred to you that if I was really as dismissive of your words as you seem to believe I am, that I wouldn't bother to discuss it with you?
You're telling me that something I have long been convinced is true is in actuallity, false.
That may actually be the case, but how can you expect me to understand why YOU are right before I fully understand why I am wrong.
=============================================
Originally posted by Mike454SS
...the heat you discuss is entirely from the breaking down of chemical bonds that contain energy...that energy is released in the forum of heat and light.
As I already mentioned, I believe you on that point. I did several pages ago. Frankly, I'm not a chemist and all I know about physics is what an intelligent, well read, layman would know.
I had believed differently prior to this conversation, I was shown where I was wrong, and now I know better.
What I don't think YOU understand though, is that acknowledging this reality undermines my understanding of OTHER aspects of combustion and flow and before I can understand the real answers I need to examine all the areas where I was wrong.
Maybe that seems a bit convoluted to you, but it's how my mind works. I'm sorry if that irritates you.
The answer to your question is no, the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port is larger than the volume passing in through the intake port because you created a chemical reaction and you have DIFFERENT gasses passing out than you had before the spark...they have the same mass...and a lower density, thus a greater volume.
You see, THIS is where I am having trouble.
But I'll come back to this at the end of this post.
=============================================
Originally posted by Injuneer
Eric:
People are trying to help you...
I realize that.
But "people" are also asking me to shift my entire paradigm on combustion and flow.
Forgive me if I want to be very sure of things before I dump something I have believed to be true for a quarter century.
...and you become confrontational and insulting.
I have very specifically exercised the utmost care to NOT do that.
I can well understand why I am coming off as confrontational. It's because I am forcing people to explain both why I am wrong and why they are right, in minute detail. It's all about understanding.
But insulting? If you can show me where I have INSULTED anyone, intentionally or otherwise, I will be happy to make a public apology.
In fact, I recall mentioning you specifically as one of the people around here I have a tremendous respect for, just before I disagreed with you about something. Something I later admitted I was wrong about, by the way.
You're not equating disagreement with insult, are you?
Because that isn't actually fair, or productive.
We have tried to explain it to you in words, and you reject it and tell us we are wrong.
That statement would have been true at the beginning of this thread. And why shouldn't it be?
Am I not allowed to be wrong?
As the thread has progressed I have come to understand that several things I have believed to be true were NOT.
For instance, it was more than halfway back through the thread that I became aware that my belief that mass was LOST during combustion turned out to be untrue. If you go back and look, you will see that.
We try and give you credible links, and apparently those aren't good enough.
And I looked at those links.
And learned from them. It was those links that showed me that I was wrong about the mass issue.
So who said they weren't good enough?
We try and show you what you apparently missed in the first reading, and you attack people.
I'm going to have to object to that statement.
I haven't "attacked" anyone. Period.
No one "owes" you an explanation. We are trying to help.
I never said anyone owed me anything. You and the others engaged in this conversation of your own free will.
And frankly, I'm mystified at your anger.
After all, it's ME that is turning out to be wrong.
I mean, it's really amazing when you think about it...
We disagreed, and through the process of discussion/argument, you are convincing me that MY beliefs are wrong, which is exactly how this sort of thing is supposed to work.
Why people would resent being on the WINNING side of an argument is beyond me.
=============================================
=============================================
NEW BUSINESS:
Apparently it hasn't been sufficiently clear, so let me make a definitive statement here and now so that there won't be any FURTHER misunderstandings:
1) I was wrong about the air/fuel mixture losing mass during combustion.
2) I understand that the heat of combustion comes from energy that is "left over" after the chemical changes that take place during combustion and that no mass is lost.
3) I accept Mike's contention that; "...the volume of gasses passing out through the exhaust port is larger than the volume passing in through the intake port..."
This brings me back to the density issue.
Right now, there are only two ways that points 2 & 3 can be true at the same time, in the context of current head design:
1) If the density of the "spent" gasses is so low that once it's forced into the exhaust port it's density is STILL lower than the density of the intake charge. (or at least roughly equal)
2) There is another mechanism at work here that I am missing, don't understand, or am unaware of.
Because otherwise, it makes NO SENSE that the intake needs a bigger "pipe" than the exhaust.
So what's the deal?
Last edited by EricTheBald; Jul 7, 2003 at 09:52 AM.
Advanced Tech Moderator
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,262
From: Nashville
Originally posted by EricTheBald This brings me back to the density issue.
Because otherwise, it makes NO SENSE that the intake needs a bigger "pipe" than the exhaust.
So what's the deal? [/B]
Because otherwise, it makes NO SENSE that the intake needs a bigger "pipe" than the exhaust.
So what's the deal? [/B]
As far as the quoted statement, let me ask you to further this, as im not following you. How do you mean that the intake needs/has a bigger pipe than the exhaust? The way i see it is the intake has a, what, 3" pipe. And your exhaust (with long tubes) has, what, 8 primaries going into two 3" collectors...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Originally posted by kmook -
Hey Eric. Good post, i think everyone was just getting the wrong impression.
Yeah, hopefully I cleared it up.
As far as the quoted statement, let me ask you to further this, as im not following you. How do you mean that the intake needs/has a bigger pipe than the exhaust? The way i see it is the intake has a, what, 3" pipe. And your exhaust (with long tubes) has, what, 8 primaries going into two 3" collectors...
Well, when I used the word "pipe" I quotated it because I was trying to convey the notion that I was using the word in a non-traditional sense.
What I mean is this:
I can't think of any flow chart that shows a bigger exhaust flow than intake flow and I can't think of a single head where the exhaust valve(s) are bigger than the intake vavle(s).
Hey Eric. Good post, i think everyone was just getting the wrong impression.
Yeah, hopefully I cleared it up.
As far as the quoted statement, let me ask you to further this, as im not following you. How do you mean that the intake needs/has a bigger pipe than the exhaust? The way i see it is the intake has a, what, 3" pipe. And your exhaust (with long tubes) has, what, 8 primaries going into two 3" collectors...
Well, when I used the word "pipe" I quotated it because I was trying to convey the notion that I was using the word in a non-traditional sense.
What I mean is this:
I can't think of any flow chart that shows a bigger exhaust flow than intake flow and I can't think of a single head where the exhaust valve(s) are bigger than the intake vavle(s).