[97SPX680]

If you are looking for Maximum Compression ratio and Power, on pump Gas, then this thread is for YOU!

I'm not trying to sell anything...

Overview
Everyone pretty much knows the current state of what compression ratios can be run, within certain detonation thresholds, on given fuel at a given altitude. While certain applications and parts and tunes may vary among certain combinations and brands, there is still a predominant state of being that is the limitation for Pump gasoline, that is, with current "conventional", Dome design.

So many think that residual heat generation from the combustion process is a prerequisite in 2-stroke engine operation and can not be avoided. That is FALSE!

It is my perspective that there is a fundamental flaw in the design and operation of this "Conventional" mind set. This flaw, as I see it has traversed itself in a way of approaching detontaion thresholds and thus power productions on a given octane fuel.

The Problem
As it stands right now, with current Dome design, people are having to turn to, in alarming quantities, High octane racing fuels in some form or another. This being in the form of Pump/Race gas mixes to out & out straight racing fuels, or even worse Av-Gas.

Take one glance through these forums especialy, as well as others, and a popular trend becomes quite aparent. That is, in order to run elevated cylinder pressures a more detonation resistant fuel is needed.

We all undertsand WHY it is done. This is simply because nobody wants their junk to blow up, but we don't see the real reason behind this "Why". Atleast not yet fully as an industry and consumers. We see the detonation or pre-ignition aspect of it, and while the cause is apparently clear, the solution doesn't appear to be so. That is, atleast, not yet.

Current State of Technology
The current design of domes have some very interesting traits that lend themselves to being very pooor in Flame propogation, Quench area Detonation, Directional pessure wave control, and energy transfer. No matter whos "better" design you choose from you undoubtedly end up with a final point of increased compression ratio before detonation, from one of the above mentioned sources, rears its ugly head. Then begins the travel down the path to more detonation resistant fuels.

Many decades have been spent trying to refine this basic architecture of a rased dome chamber. If there was a way to make this design perform better, it would undoubtedly have been found by now, right?

There is currently a multitude of maufacturers each with there own take on this old concept. Each being only marginaly better than the least able one on up. They are purchased in droves every year by hopefull enthusiasts such as ourselves looking for that extra performance to be found in a bolt-in part. Yet in the end, we feel somewhat duped as our expectations have led us astary to real world gains.

We are left eventualy resorting to the tried and true engine savior that is high-Octane racing fuel.

Race Gas sucks!

Before I get a bunch of hate mail on bashing race fuel, hear me out...

For so many the avenue of more power and higher octane requirements is a slow and resistant path. It starts off as mixing pump fuels and race gas to save money and to add just that extra bit of protection to keep from junking your engine. Then as your desire for power increases you begin to go in transistion from 50/50 mixes to 60/40 to 70/30 and so on. Then the next thing you know you are carrying 50Gal drums to your outings so you don't run out of the go juice that keeps your beast alive and breathing.

The cost of race fuel vs Pump gasoline is irrefutable. The availability is much more of a pain than many like to realize or admit. There is the storage, the transporting, the known environmental and health risks involved with handling and using it. It is stuff that just doesn't belong in engines if they don't need it.

Furthermore, many do not know HOW race fuel is able to have the burn resistance that it does. Not to mention how this impacts actual power production. Race fuel uses much heavier Hydrocarbon chains that are much more difficult to break up. They do not vaporize as well and therefore their detonation cielings are elevated. The propblem is that most engines run better on fuels with a higher ratio of easier vaporizing components, or light hydrocarbons. The light hydrocarbons are easier to evaporate and combust and actualy lend to increased energy conversion when used in the proper application.

Fact is an engine, that doesn't require the octane, will make more power on pump gas fuels. So we need to make the engines not require the octane. Sounds simple enough, right?

What is needed
Without a doubt what is needed is a chamber design that eliminates the problems of conventional design theory. That much is clear.

Challlenging Convention
If the conventional way of designing a chamber is fundamentaly flawed, why continue to use it? Something has to be better than something that works so apparently awefull.

It hasn't been discover yet, right? WRONG!

I have been blessed with being shown a design of chamber that challenges what convetional thinking tells us. Convention tells us that over certain compression ratios that running pump gasoline is not possible, that is FALSE!

Convention also tells us that residual exhaust heat enegry in the form of EGT is unavoidable. It isn't if energy conversion, by pressure wave to surface area interaction, is done properly.

I'm not stupid, Just crazy!
Don't think for a minute that I would come on a national site like this and drop a baited hook in the water without the test to haul in what I am fishing for.

The design I am talking about has been proven, now it needs to be validated.

What if...
I am not going to give specifics here but simply ask "what if?".

What if heat energy was being traded for compression energy?

What if 15-16:1 Compression could be ran on 87octane (91RON) whether at sea level or in the mountains?

What if this was with twin pipes or single pipes?

What if Cylinder temps were reduced because of drastic improvements in energy conversion eliminated piston siezing and exhaust side destruction of pistons?

Open Source
I know what I am saying is way beyond convention and that is why it works. I hope this thread will be filled with conversation and exchanges of ideas.

If anyone has questions on how these domes work I welcome the exchange. I will gladly share whatever knowledge can be divulged without giving it ll away. if someone figures it out on their own, then so be it, more power to them.

To prove that I am not just blowing smoke, I am going to be showing my findings in a semi-open source manner. I am not the originator of this design, just the person whos gets to refine it, for our market demographic, and realease it for all to share. As such...


Volunteers needed!
I am in need of 5 very specific test subjects to run these chambers, for FREE!. Before people get excited and I receive a bunch of requests I must be very clear on what I am looking for in test subjects.

The following are requirements for what I am looking for:

1) The sleds must be Carbureted only!

2) I am looking for the following manufacturers/ Mods

1 Polaris turbocharged sled, any engine size

2 AcrticCat sleds, any engine size, one N/A one turbocharged

3) Sleds must be equiped with some form of EGT and Wideband monitoring, More data aquisition capabilities would be great

4) I must be supplied with a stock bridge for each vehicle that will be recieving chambers. You will get your bridges back, modified, to accept these chambers. I am doing this to save time and money. You will be free to test them at your leasure and simply provide me with your findings and data. I will work with you every step of the way. PM me and we can talk.

Closing
I know what I have stated will be hard for many to believe, and that's OK. I hardly believed it myslef. But what I am saying is True and Honest. Believe me, I wouldn't be going through all this trouble and give away my hard work for nothing.

I know there are a lot of people on here that are Dying for something like this for their sled. They are tired of wasting money on race gas and other high octane gasolines and are craving a real, honest design that performs as stated.

Again, I embrace input and question form anyone. I will do my best to answer questions anyone may have.

 

[powersledder]

Pretty much all you have to do is look at other industries and you will see that a hemispherical head is not exactly ideal. Example, in Mercury Marine's 2-stroke DI engines they commonly use a bath tube shaped head for proper flame propagation. The problem I see with having people test your design is you're going to run into inexperienced users, and what are you going to do when they blow their engine and start calling you to replace it? Nobody is gonna risk blowing an engine for free....

If you are serious about this, then what you need to do, if you already haven't, is set up a test engine that you can run your heads on. Most R&D departments use billet billet single cylinder engines to test with, expensive, but you can more easily control your variables. Or you going to need to get some whole test engines to set up and run on a dyno.

 

[97SPX680]

Thanks for the input. I understand what you are saying. Your insight is from a level headed approach.

A few things are within the realm of my control in this scenario. I would also hope that a certain geographical proximity would be possible so I may assist, in some form, in this data aquisition.

1, I do in the end have a choice as to who would recieves these chambers and have a cetrain amount of discretion as to whom I would feel would be able to assist and have a given level of knowledge so as to give a certain amount of validity to the testing and also the data obtained.

2, The design has already been rigorously tested in aplication that leads to a certain amount of probability that if compression is left static, engine damage would not be a concern. The individuals I choose must also understand a certain level of risk involved in testing prototype components and be willing to agree to do so, with a known probability of this to occur, would agree to do such tetsing at their own risk. You would be very surprised as to the response I have gotten elsewhere in peoples willingness to accept these terms.

3, I am after certain imperical data that could only be attained in real world application and testing. Dynos are wonderful for obtaining certain data, and these have already been down that route, so another form of testing is now required.

 

[madcow]

if you have dyno tested these on a sled you should be able to show us the sled and dyno charts.

also if you have dyno tested these heads on a sled that means you should be able to take that sled stock and do some base line runs, 1/4 mile et and mph, then put on the heads and retune the clutching and jetting to be at the new peak rpm and make more runs. with accurate timing equipment you should be able to show that you gained X amount of mph in this area and are running X amount quicker.

the average trail sled would not notice 3-4 hp gains since they are not running against timing equipment. the stock tach and feel of the pants is not accurate enough to say its a gain or loss. a dyno would show gains and losses in the rpm range. many times feel of the pants is wrong, I have set up many sleds that by feel of the pants were way better than stock, take them out and run them against the timing equipment and yes, the short run they are better but in the long run it was a major loss of performance.

compression numbers in an engine do not stay static. a hot pipe vs cold pipe, barometric pressure, elevation, humidity are all things that really change the power ratings of a sled. on a trail sled you dont notice this, hook a sled to the ice and run it against timing equipment and you will see the mph really change through the day as the air changes.

some sleds are more prone to mid range detonation because of fuel and timing, with the factory head they are fine, with an aggressive head design they become piston eaters.

you want a turbo sled but that requires a completely different parameters than a convetional sled.


is not the conventional dome design because you have ports in all sides? I am very open to new stuff and try to do a lot of goofy stuff myself.

there is more to it than comprssion ratio. you can have the same compression ratio with different squish numbers. one sled at 12:1 can easily run pump gas, other sleds because of different timing and squish numbers might have to have race gas at the same ratio.

you also have the taper of the dome. flame speed is affected by degree of angle and lenght of angle. on a big bore the flame has to travel farther so it must travel faster vs a small bore engine with the same piston speed.

it would be fun to see a pic of these domes. 99% of sledders arent going to waste 10 minutes in trying to steal there design.

 

[97SPX680]

madcow

Thanks for your time to respond to what I have to say. I know your perspective on things come from a possition of time and experience in 2-strokes. You are very close to me and that would make it very convenient for us to get together so you can see where things are heading with this testing. I would not even be against building a set of triple chambers for you. It was not my intention to focus on the older triples, it would however be beneficial to show the benefits of this chamber across a very wide range of engine applications. Since the architecture would not require a bridge to be made or modified, I would simply need a stock chamber and some information about the engine specifics you are running. All this if you want to see what I am working on so you can understand my perspective and be a part of it. It would be entirely up to you.

You posed a lot of things that, yes, are very much true when dealing with conventional chamber design and viewing certain data from a certain perspective.

If I were coming out here trying to SELL something then all the data you are refering to is very much important. It would be needed for people to make an educated buying decision. As it stands right now, that is not what I am trying to do, therefore that data is not really relevant.

Also while all the data comparisons, in the manner you are percieving it from, would be good to have. It is however not a requisite for viewing a change and ascertaining a certain quantitive difference between the two. It is also not what i am after at this time. My goal in this is to view the change from two or three very simple aspects that lead to a conclusion as to what the chamber would be doing. All this from the perspective of combustion efficiency and enegry conversion. At this point, and with certain test subjects, the rest of comparison data you are eluding to is simply not important.

I understand the Static statement aswell. By static I meant one ratio dome vs another chamber design, nothing more nothing less. I fully understand the changes in dynamic compression from the periferal changes you mention. Again, not important to the data desired in this situation.

That is not to say that if a change is made, and certain data, whether quantitative or qualitative is seen or prercieved, does not necessarily disqualify its impact on this perception of enegry conversion and efficiency.


I will give you a scenario as to what i am reffering to:

Lets take your sled for instance;

You have a known calibration of jetting, A/F ratio, clutching, EGT, fuel efficiency, octane requirements, etc. at given atmospheric conditions and operating perameters, correct?

Now lets say you make a chamber swap that maintains a given static Compression ratio. You then know that any change to any one of the quantitative or qualitative areas, and the direction that change goes, then leads to a known aspect of what that design would be doing in the area of energy conversion and combustion effieciency. You could then change other perameters to go further to see what the changes are capable of doing, or in otherwords, where that change leads to advancement of perceptions in these catagories, all of which can be backed by qaunitative data.

As a simple example; Lets say you run your sled on a given day, you log some very simple things like EGT and shiftout RPM. You then make a change in chambers while maintaining a calculated static ratio. You then drive the sled and see that 1, EGT's drop 300deg and 2, now your clutching shifts out way to fast and over revs. You then decide to drain the tank and make a switch from say 91 octane to 87 octane, (a fuel rating that previously would have led to engine carnage) and you run the sled again. You then see another drop in EGT of say 100deg and the engine over revs even more all the while never exhibiting any sign of detonation or spark plug stress.

Would you not then be able to extrapolate those findings into a perception that you are seeing a very marked and radical difference in the way the chamber is effecting the operating dynamics of the engine on a given day at given conditions?

Yes, would not the temp change then make the pipe configuration less than Ideal? ofcourse! But if the engine shifts out faster and over revs, then you know there is still more torque being produced. This even in the face of now a pipe condition that is less than optimal. Then you have the qualitative data of Octane. If you wanted to then validate the change as being simply from the chambers all that would be needed would be to go back to the preceeding chamber and run the lower octane fuel. You would, however, not do this because you know darn well you could not have gotten away with, while using the other chambers, so that test becomes soemthing that is not feasable. You can then make a very clear assesment of what the chambers alone are doing.

The reason why this type of testing is not valid when dealing with other chamber designs, and other forms of more precise data aquisition are needed, is because such changes are rarely, if EVER, encountered from a simple chamber swap. Understand what I am saying?

Here is a tidbit, the changes in operting conditions such as EGT, that I present here may well be in actuality an understatement... Ponder that for a moment if you will.

If you look at things from a simple perspective as to evaluate a given change, certain data is most important. The rest can fall where it may at a later date.

 

[wakeboarderboy]

This is all way over my head lol.

 

[powersledder]

On most stock sleds, the difference between 87 and 91 octane are not noticeable. Even the way the engine operates doesn't matter because they are all designed to run on 87.

Essentially, what data are you looking to obtain from testing on a sled? How your domes react to different engine loads, weather conditions and octanes? Or how they run on engines you've yet to test?


Would you mind PMing me a picture or simple drawing of your design so I can try and figure out what you're getting at? If I knew what you were adjusting with the head it might make it easier to see what kind of results you are trying to get. (If you PM a pic to me instead of posting one I'll know that you'd prefer for me not to share the design with anyone and I'll keep it to myself.)

 

[shnill]

is this dude for real?

 

[Ugly_old_Poo_kid]

Well, he's got himself convinced.

But I suspect that long term results will prove it to be very like grinding grooves in the crank counterbalance to act as a fan..

 

[PrtclMn001]

Cliff notes for those of us with the attention span of a.... hey look! Something shiny!

 

[powersledder]

97SPX680, I did receive your PM but I've had problems with sending PM's to people on this site so if you did not receive any of my PM's then please PM me your email address so I can talk to you that way. Thanks.

 

[Ugly_old_Poo_kid]

Cliff notes for those of us with the attention span of a.... hey look! Something shiny!

Bla, bla, bla, not selling anything, bla, bla, bla, race gas sucks, bla, bla, bla, new concept proved but not validated (I thought the two meant pretty much the same thing), bla, bla, bla, need 5 very specific machines to test on, that cannot run EFI, bla, bla, bla... Did I miss anything?

My one question to 97SPX680 is, why no EFI?

 

[97SPX680]

Cliff notes for those of us with the attention span of a.... hey look! Something shiny!

Bla, bla, bla, not selling anything, bla, bla, bla, race gas sucks, bla, bla, bla, new concept proved but not validated (I thought the two meant pretty much the same thing), bla, bla, bla, need 5 very specific machines to test on, that cannot run EFI, bla, bla, bla... Did I miss anything?

My one question to 97SPX680 is, why no EFI?

You have doubts as to my knowledge and capabilities, that is understandable...

You want to know why no EFI?

http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185986

It was one of the first things I covered in this thread.

If you would like to learn something I recomend you read it all. And have your physics books ready...

 

[ultrawillie]

Cliff notes for those of us with the attention span of a.... hey look! Something shiny!

Bla, bla, bla, not selling anything, bla, bla, bla, race gas sucks, bla, bla, bla, new concept proved but not validated (I thought the two meant pretty much the same thing), bla, bla, bla, need 5 very specific machines to test on, that cannot run EFI, bla, bla, bla... Did I miss anything?

My one question to 97SPX680 is, why no EFI?

I'm with POO KID what a bunch of blah, blah. I tell you what 97to680 excuses. I really think you should be blah, blahing to the factory reps if your so sure that these chambers are the thing to have. I still haven't read where you are going to get off your wallet to replace or repair (and I'll say it) a test dummies engine or sled. I mean if you really think that (for example) I let you test on my sled and the chambers toast my motor, you're just going to walk away and tell me "I guess that didn't work out" I can tell you this. I would have my foot in your chamber.

 

[powersledder]

Cliff notes for those of us with the attention span of a.... hey look! Something shiny!

Bla, bla, bla, not selling anything, bla, bla, bla, race gas sucks, bla, bla, bla, new concept proved but not validated (I thought the two meant pretty much the same thing), bla, bla, bla, need 5 very specific machines to test on, that cannot run EFI, bla, bla, bla... Did I miss anything?

My one question to 97SPX680 is, why no EFI?

I'm with POO KID what a bunch of blah, blah. I tell you what 97to680 excuses. I really think you should be blah, blahing to the factory reps if your so sure that these chambers are the thing to have. I still haven't read where you are going to get off your wallet to replace or repair (and I'll say it) a test dummies engine or sled. I mean if you really think that (for example) I let you test on my sled and the chambers toast my motor, you're just going to walk away and tell me "I guess that didn't work out" I can tell you this. I would have my foot in your chamber.

Nobody is forcing you to run these heads are they? I was skeptical about him trying to get people to test them out for him at first, but what he's saying is true. And you are testing them at your own risk. So since you're not going to test this design nor add anything relevant to the topic your input is not needed.

Now, I am still skeptical about a design like this, everybody should be. But so far what he has been posting is true. Since non of guys seem to actually know much about engines or engine design you'll probably be shocked to learn that most gasoline engine are around %30 efficient. You know what that means? There's lots of room for improvement yet!


I was also informed that due lack of knowledgeable posting capability on this forum the discussion here is pretty much over. Anyone that would like to continue following this design click the link posted by 97SPX680 and follow the thread on snowest.

http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185986

 

[polaris1man]

Cliff notes for those of us with the attention span of a.... hey look! Something shiny!

Bla, bla, bla, not selling anything, bla, bla, bla, race gas sucks, bla, bla, bla, new concept proved but not validated (I thought the two meant pretty much the same thing), bla, bla, bla, need 5 very specific machines to test on, that cannot run EFI, bla, bla, bla... Did I miss anything?

My one question to 97SPX680 is, why no EFI?

I'm with POO KID what a bunch of blah, blah. I tell you what 97to680 excuses. I really think you should be blah, blahing to the factory reps if your so sure that these chambers are the thing to have. I still haven't read where you are going to get off your wallet to replace or repair (and I'll say it) a test dummies engine or sled. I mean if you really think that (for example) I let you test on my sled and the chambers toast my motor, you're just going to walk away and tell me "I guess that didn't work out" I can tell you this. I would have my foot in your chamber.

Nobody is forcing you to run these heads are they? I was skeptical about him trying to get people to test them out for him at first, but what he's saying is true. And you are testing them at your own risk. So since you're not going to test this design nor add anything relevant to the topic your input is not needed.

Now, I am still skeptical about a design like this, everybody should be. But so far what he has been posting is true. Since non of guys seem to actually know much about engines or engine design you'll probably be shocked to learn that most gasoline engine are around %30 efficient. You know what that means? There's lots of room for improvement yet!


I was also informed that due lack of knowledgeable posting capability on this forum the discussion here is pretty much over. Anyone that would like to continue following this design click the link posted by 97SPX680 and follow the thread on snowest.

http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185986

Sign up Powersledder, you seem to be the only one interested in walking back to your Dakota!!! I doubt you would drop this into your new sled

 

[powersledder]

hmm, wow Dennis, I never figured you would turn out to be just like the other uneducated members of this forum. With all these vehicles going in and out of the so called "nashwaulk industries" garage I figured you'd be one of the people interested in something new.

 

[polaris1man]

hmm, wow Dennis, I never figured you would turn out to be just like the other uneducated members of this forum. With all these vehicles going in and out of the so called "nashwaulk industries" garage I figured you'd be one of the people interested in something new.

Wow Billy, and that's why you're on the 20 year plan for your education, or better yet, still uneducated. As for Nashwauk Industries, it's doing just fine, and thank you for your interest. As for new, always interested, but this theory came out sometime ago, posted all over the sled websites, and no one really jumped on board, and here it is again, and it appears that "you" are the only one grasping.

 

[powersledder]

No, I'm not the only one, read the snowest thread.

I know in your old age its hard to count now but I'll be out in far less than 20 years. And at least I'm not the one that condones stealing....

 

[MX4life]

I like the idea, i dont see why everyone is so agenst a new idea [confused]