Kevin Johnson wrote:Greater restriction of degrees of freedom of movement would have dire consequences for some random engine with misaligned bores. Maybe two lifters could be constructed with axially located drill rods of some extended length. That would make it far easier to check for skew.
I will install the lifters for mockup tomorrow and give them the old "what fer" just to see how much they can be rotated while sitting on the cams lobe. Sure hope I don't have to replace these damned things if the link bars are too sloppy.
wyrmrider wrote:Isky used to advertise a toroidal crown on his lifters to account for slight misalignment
Is a Parrot necessary?
Just about every day I install studs by hand which work by displacing metal with thousands of psi of force to lock them in place. It is easy to see the same principle whether with an English Wheel or roll hardening. It is also easy to jump to a conclusion that metal is apparently missing because of wear when it might have merely been shifted. Forty years ago my Grandfather taught me about burnishing margins on crowns to close them up. A similar idea is used when applying texture to an intact tract. I am happy to be a parrot so knowledge is not forgotten. Finding references in patents to processes is to establish that a PE was likely involved at some stage rather than anecdote.
Kevin Johnson wrote:Greater restriction of degrees of freedom of movement would have dire consequences for some random engine with misaligned bores. Maybe two lifters could be constructed with axially located drill rods of some extended length. That would make it far easier to check for skew.
I will install the lifters for mockup tomorrow and give them the old "what fer" just to see how much they can be rotated while sitting on the cams lobe. Sure hope I don't have to replace these damned things if the link bars are too sloppy.
To at least partially check for lifter bore misalignment, I used three lengths of 1" steel bar stock and turned a couple of inches at one end of each down to a snug fit and inserted them in various bores. Then I used a straight edge across them top and bottom to check for any lateral displacement or angular difference. To check for front/rear tilt, I used a digital caliper to compare top to bottom spacing between mandrels.
Not quite as good as a professional jig, but at worst I knew the were all misaligned the same...
Probably just a bad cam core and soft lobe. I would rather see abit stiffer spring in there, alittle more rate than the 26918's but they should be ok with super light valvetrain. I like double springs myself
Orr89rocz wrote:Probably just a bad cam core and soft lobe. I would rather see abit stiffer spring in there, alittle more rate than the 26918's but they should be ok with super light valvetrain. I like double springs myself
Assuming this is correct (soft lobe), it would be interesting to measure the resultant lobe design and determine whether or not it is more stable for the system (after being changed by that system).
MadBill wrote:Would that be like improving the aerodynamics of your car by draping wet fiberglass over the chassis and driving at speed until it sets up?
MadBill wrote:Would that be like improving the aerodynamics of your car by draping wet fiberglass over the chassis and driving at speed until it sets up?
VERY GOOD
Although ... I bet your glassy eyed at speed
MadBill wrote:Would that be like improving the aerodynamics of your car by draping wet fiberglass over the chassis and driving at speed until it sets up?
Kidding aside, the mere existence of the Spintron is an admission that the complex dynamics elude conclusive modeling.
In hypersonic re-entry vehicles, ablative re-entry cone wear is currently being modeled to balance radiative versus convective energy absorbtion. Remember that racing is a way to train future engineers to abstract and transfer useful concepts to alternate applications.
Kidding aside, the mere existence of the Spintron is an admission that the complex dynamics elude conclusive modeling.