Ok, I have a number of requests for the Fùkatani/Watanabe paper. Oddly enough... Larry isn't one of them. I'm sh cked!

This paper is 27 pages so I'm gonna do what I said but it may have to go out to you guys in the morning.

-Mindgame

 

No, you're whole arguement is based around what you think the program is telling you. Problem is.. you don't really know what it's telling you.

Sometimes you crack me up with that hard head of yours old dude.

-Mindgame

 

No I am not .
To do the formulas like I used to do with a ledger sheet and plenty of eraser's is long in the past. It used to take me a week or more to figure up an engine on paper.
This old fart figured there was a better way. Paid the money(3yrs ago when I learned to use a computer) and got the programs that do it for you. I have the books with the necessary formulas in them and when I first got these programs I checked them against my figures and guess what they are pretty close. So I don't bother with the long way anymore.

MG,ya should pay the $500.00 for EAP and the $2000.00 for a Prostock program and use them to check each other and spend more time building than figuring.


Pi are round--Cornbread are square

 

You're preaching to the choir about the utilization of programs LR. Keep in mind that programming is what I do for a living.

The discussion isn't about the "long way" or any of that... you're a shifty one .... it's about knowing HOW the program works. Knowing HOW to interpret the data is just as important as knowing how to operate the software.

Just so you know, MEAN in mathematical terms means AVERAGE.

If you knew how to interpret the data from EAP then you'd also know that the .40-.42 Mach average you like to see for your stuff is probably peaking right in that .5-.6 Mach range that's so perplexing for you.

BTW, what's the "Prostock" program? Does it have a name or manufacturer?

FWIW I own lots of software... I even have a couple of pretty advanced engine simulators too.

-Mindgame

 

I could give a rat's *** about how it works,they prevent me from working up builds on paper and they are pretty close to my figuring.

Well use the ones ya have to get the answers just like I use mine.

I see it as less Mach in a REAL engine because it uses average and don't consider any obstructions IE. short turn,guide, bowl,ect.It figures it as a 1 dimension streight pipe
The Pro program has more inputs if ya use them and know the deminsions.
Ya think ya would like to know what PS program I use.?Heeeee Heeee Don't think so.

 

No, that's not how the software works. You ever heard the term, "flow coefficient"?

I'm gonna guess not because if you had then you'd know that the flow coefficient takes care of alot of those variables for you.

It's all back there in the formula you care nothing about. Let's just make assumptions on HOW the program works ok...

Oh.. didn't figure you'd be one to pull the "Top Secret" card on me Larry but there ya go.

Could have been an intelligent debate but alas... nolo contendere.

-Mindgame

 

And for those of you reading this who got the wrong idea..... don't. LR and I really like and respect each other alot. We just like to get together and argue every once in a while.

Hell, we even got together in the desert last summer for a bit of fun. Even took pictures...





For those who don't know.... I'm the one on the right

-Mindgame

 

Here is a good one to get.

It's even got pictures I can understand!!!!!!

http://www.audietech.com/

 

Oh man you guys are cracking me up.

Steve

 

Had fun in the desert. Beep Beep That's him on the RIGHT just like he said.



Ooooopppps no formula to figure that one.



Yep he is wondering what that formula does or which one to use.



If it only had .6 Mach.

Ahhhh What's up Doc.

 

Thanks for the visual aids. At first I thought all this talk about flow, mach., etc, was well over my head. But now that I have pictures I totally get it. By the way, that would be me sitting on the boulder, trying to figure out what the heck you guys are talking about.

 

LMAO!!!

 

Bret did you happen to fall off the Unicorn you were riding at the Bauer Racing complex and bump your head.

Ron & Phils job is turning out ported LT1 heads & cam combos, plus R&D to make their product better. How would they educate the public on this? However you pointing out they don't help people out is like calling the kettle black. You don't help people with camshaft specs do you? If you don't really care about financial gain you should spec peoples' cams for free. It is nice that some people help out on here, but you have to understand that some people are busy working, building cars and would probably want to spend their spare time with their family and friends. Don't hate on someone for that

 

Wow, thats funny. I seem to think you missed the point of that post by Bret. I'll let Bret set that straight when he reads this. I tend to think that you are only here lurking around to bust on Bret, since thats all you try to do anyways. It kinda gives it away when the 2 comments in your sig are directed by him. You spend enough time on here, perhaps you could educate people alittle since you seem to think you are so smart...I doubt that though, because 90% of the CRAP you post is of this nature.

 

So when's this gonna be a sticky so i won't have to dig to find it????