Gotcha.
If the simulated results deviate from actual then a variable(s) is thrown in for correction. That is why I mentioned that those combinations which might be out of the "typical control group" are going to deviate even more. You have a ballparking at best and then the question remains.... is the software dynamic enough to include the higher level mathematics necessary to simulate all of the other important phenomonon.... dynamics, kinetics and so on which go on inside an engine? Based on my experiences with software, I don't see the cost reflection of that level of programming in these software packages.
Then again, they are marketing a software that has a reasonable degree of accuracy within a given control group. Good enough for most I guess but I wouldn't want to depend on it for professional level use.

I didn't use it.

Maybe we're missing each other here but I'm not an engineer, I'm a programmer. Again, specialization... you wouldn't want an engineer writing programs, nor would it be very safe for a programmer to engineer. My job at Algor was to compile data and write programs.

wrt performance simulation:
One situation I can think of is Jesel's use of Algor in valvetrain simulation. Of course this is simply "strength-based" simulation but it is an example of FEA used in a "performance simulation". I'm quite certain crankshaft and other reciprocatory parts manufacturers are using FEA as well.

As you know, airflow simulation would be handled through CFD but something worth noting, is that the software programming has come quite a ways in the last few years alone, and there is a good deal of cross-talk in the packages now. You can actually build an assembly in your design platform, perform FEA and run CFD within that same package. Computers are great eh?

Quote:

It's an interesting group who read/write in "Advanced Tech", isn't it? I had to chuckle that you defined GIGO, but not CFD and FEA.

I may have missed it in past threads, but what kind of consulting do you do?

Regards,

Jon

That it is Jon.

I guess its just a matter of perspective. I had to think about GIGO more than CFD & FEA as I am already familiar with those terms.... Computational Fluid Dynamics and Finite Element Analysis for those who don't know.

My area of expertise is in network security and high level programming.... terminate and stay resident (TSR), firewall, etc.. I consulted up until 4 years ago when I was asked to come to work for uncle sam. Resume in a nutshell.

-Mindgame

 

Well, ummm...I'd rather have an engineer write my software than a programmer do my engineering. Sorry. Here's part of why.

A long time ago I flew a fairly extensively computerized single-pilot airplane for "Uncle". The software was not always too 'pilot-friendly' until we got the pilot/engineers involved. Not to flame all programers, but there is an old saying about air traffic controllers which might apply: When the pilot screws up, the pilot dies; when the air traffic controller screws up, the pilot dies.

I'm coming from the pilot/engineer/empirical/user end of the spectrum. There's room for all of us; it's a broad spectrum. Sometimes I think we might be red-shifted and you (programmers) blue-shifted, or vice-versa.

Hey, if we all thought alike there wouldn't be much need for this forum.

My $.02

 

Hey guys, quit hijacking my topic

 

Well umm, I wouldn't and most of the CEO's of these companies... Algor, Adina, etc., don't either. Besides, I have yet to meet an engineer who could work at that level of programming. Can you?

You and Bret need to make up your minds. Should we "specialize" or not? Ok, it's good in high performance race engines but not in software development?
Sorry, but you won't find very many software companies where the engineers spend their time writing COBOL and Fortran programs any more. That's just a waste of resources. I encourage you to find one.
The bottom line is this.... everyone wants a nice graphic user interface and something that's aesthetically pleasing.

Now, engineers and programmers working in concert towards the same goal.... you'll see alot of that. At least, that's what I saw in my consulting business for 17 years, much of which was spent working with engineering firms.

Glad we got somewhere with the FEA used in "performance" thing though. "Switching" is exactly what we did there.

How long have you been out of the industry?

-Mindgame

 

Thanks for the reminder.
I'm outta here...

 

My apologies Chris.

Some of us should keep our ball at the house. Either that or pick the right court to play on.

*Out*

-Mindgame

 

Yes and yes. One thing you are doing and one thing that a lower LSA does is raise the DCR to a higher point, and this is important with a CR ratio limited class.

I'm a fan of a small .050 overlap area so extreme ramps will allow you to cut the overlpa area and run a lower LSA with higher duration cams. This gives you driveablity, good idle and the ablity to run a lower LSA, which is going to move your intake closing point and give you more DCR. The bigger duration will give you the upper RPM band you are looking for.

I don't mean to take over your thread either, so staying on topic is good advice for ALL OF US

I hope this answer helped.

Bret

 

Chris,

My apologies, please feel free to skip everything I write here but the last reply does warrant a response.

~~~~~~
I find it rather hilarious that I should have to argue with guys who think they know everything about the software industry when I worked in that industry for quite a number of years. Then consulted quite a number of years afterwards.

I will concede to the fact that I can't build a 600 hp 350 that peaks at 6500 rpm. You two should concede to the fact that you don't know the programming and software engineering industry. I'll also concede to the fact that I don't know anything about open heart surgery but I'm sure that if the subject were to come up, you guys would have an answer to everything or know someone who engineers and does open heart surgery on the side.

*sarcasm off*

This is the statement that misses the boat and tells me that you don't have a clue how the system works.

Programmers compile data and write code. No one ever said that they do the engineering. I'm talking a practical use of resources here.

If you look at the core cirriculum for mechanical, chemical, aerospace and civil engineers you won't see an over abundance of computer science with advanced programming in their repertoir. No bachelor or master degreed engineer in any of these fields would come out of college with the skills necessary to the subject at hand. They will however know MATLAB, maybe Fortran or Cobol and how to navigate a design software. How many people know how to navigate Windows? How many of those people know how to develop an OS?

Electrical engineering... yes, they do a bit of C++ but I don't know of too many with the dynamic of skills necessary to software development. Computer engineers, sure. Software engineers, of course.

I tell ya what. We have a few engineers on this bulletin board. How many of you guys feel confident enough in your programming skills to develop a software on the level in question?

Injuneer, Chuck, Eric, 94bird?? Anyone?? Jon, you claim to be an automotive engineer... how good are you programming skills? C, C++, Perl, Assembler... good with any of those?

Just trying to make a point here and I think some of you are out to argue on a subject you have no business arguing.

Sorry about your friend Bret.

-Mindgame

 

Hahah after I put all my specs in it told me I'd have 510 Horse power with a heads/cam, right....

 

I think everyone has some pent up frustration because they havent gotten a hug today

Now how bout we get back to Chris' topic...

 

I'll take you on... 20 paces with slide rules... mine is still down in the basement somewhere...

 

OK, I give up. YOu guys can have my thread! At least I got [i]some[/] good input.

 

Pfaff, Nick Scavo, Ray Barton, John Kaase, David Reher, Hans Fuestal....

I only mention those gentleman because here a few years back I was racing against guys running their engines and I didn't fair to badly. Mixed right into that group winning quite a number of Quick 8 events and racking up some nice points standings. Thing is, I was running my own engines, machined by a professional shop and ported by a professional porter but the combinations were put together by myself along with all the assembly work.

So, maybe I know a few things about "your field" too. I feel that you have other issues here though... considering your "prodding" response and all.

What is the difference between a "pro" and an "amateur"?
Answer...... the "pro" gets paid.

Well I guess that doesn't count either cause I have gotten paid to put engines together for people over the years. So I don't know....
What I do know is this. You can feel free to come over to any of the programming boards I hang out at from time to time and ask me questions about programming, security, whatever. Won't bother me at all.
You can also feel free to correct any misinformation I've posted on this board. Or debate any issues you feel I'm "off" on.



Just getting to the core C++ language as a postgraduate? He's got a ways to go.

Fred,

Thanks for the laugh. Only an engineer would bring a slide-rule to a gun fight.

-Mindgame

 

I'm one of the less-software-skilled EEs out there in the auto world, so maybe I'm not the guy to ask. I can do some minor embedded stuff, but we're talking a few hundred bytes or maybe a K of code. Anything bigger than that, and I turn to the professionals. The software guy that I work with right now happens to have a EE degree, but virtually all of his experience is in the software field - and we're only talking 30-40 K embedded apps.

My wife works on larger software programs for military equipment - she's got a CS degree.

It's possible for an engineer to be adequate at programming, but the vast majority of the time, a qualified programmer is going to be far superior in actually implimenting algorithms, interfaces, etc. If you start talking about designing a full-on FEA package or something of similar magnitude, it's far from a one-man show- it'd swamp a jack-of-all-trades engineer instantly.

 

Agreed.

I consider myself a bit more of an old school ME. I prefer to actually know the formulas necessary to my specialty, which means I'm constantly using them if at all possible and will go for the calculator, pencil and paper first... my Gieck/Gieck reference second, the Machinery Handbook third and the computer is usually my last choice. Then again, sometimes the situation dictates knowing things off the top-of-the-head... like when I deal with my customers.
With postgraduate mechanical engineering courses you do get into a bit of computational stuff, finite element analysis, computational mechanics, dynamics, etc.. I've done a bit of the former but I am still by no means any kind of an excuse for a programmer.
Like the old saying goes, "Behind every successful man is a woman".... well, behind every successful engineering software package there's a team dedicated to it's success. Engineers and programmers indeed.

Take care