Norse396

Sorry, my bad.

I think the article took a pretty simplistic view on it, but was good overall.

Norse396

That would be me, which is why my response has been limited to my limited understanding of which I'm limited too which limits my response. Yeah, thats it!

Skeedatl

Like the article stated, fluid mechanics isn't one of those intuitive sciences. Very little of it "makes sense" on the surface which is why 1LE is having such a difficult time with it.

The only reason I do it is cause was my concentration for my engineering major and my M.S. is 90% fluids work. And my hatred of fluids is part of the reason I was a pure math major and not an applied math major. I hated fluids.

TLover

Hehe. Me, too. I was about three semesters away from getting my B.S. in aerospace engineering, but I probably couldn't answer a first-semester calculus question I'm so rusty.

harddrivin1le

No, it wouldn't. They MEASURED THE AIR BOX PRESSURE with a mamomter. Did you even bother to read the article?

harddrivin1le

No, it isn't correct.

1) Air IS compressible @ lower speeds

2) The Bernoulli effect will create positive static pressure; the higher intake velocities permitted by RAM AIR will enhance that effect to a power of 2.

harddrivin1le

Originally Posted by TLover
Wouldn't the power increase experienced in the motorcycle article HD cited to be linked cooler, therefore denser, air?

No, it wouldn't. They MEASURED THE AIR BOX PRESSURE with a mamometer. Did you even bother to read the article?

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9508_ram/

"...so the manometer was cunningly strapped to the gas tank, green food coloring added to the fluid for added visibility, and a portable datalogger-yours truly-mounted to the bars.

Just riding from the dyno facility to the strip was illuminating. We'd reckoned on needing 90 mph before boost would register, but at an indicated 70 mph the manometer already showed 8mb of boost.

At the strip we were able to give the big Kwakker its head, with one eye on the slowly rising column of green fluid and the other on the rapidly rising speedo. At the end of each run we logged boost pressure against indicated speed.

The results were even better than we'd hoped for. At lower speeds (under 120 mph) the gauge was easy to read and the results quite consistent: at 70 mph pressure was 8mb; at 80 mph, 10mb; at 100 mph, 12mb; at 110 mph, 14mb. From this point things really took off: At 120 mph (indicated) the airbox pressure was approximately 19mb, at 130 mph about 23mb, at 140 mph, 26mb and at an indicated 150 mph, the gauge was beginning to pump out green liquid as it bubbled over the 30mb limit.

At a real speed of 167 mph, past experience shows that the ZX-9R's speedo indicates 181 mph; there was obviously even more to come, perhaps as much as 30 mph worth of additional air pressure. Plotting the air pressure figures against speed for a rough representation of the way the air pressure increases suggests that the progression isn't linear.

This is as we'd expected. Air drag doesn't increase at a linear rate but relative to the square of the speed. At above 25 mph, air resistance builds in proportion to the square of the air speed over the motorcycle: twice the speed, four times the resistance. The faster the bike goes, the greater should be the increase in pressure and thus intake pressure. When we plotted the rough course of the pressure increase on a graph and continued it upward, we came up with a projected 44mb (or more) of pressure at an indicated 180 mph, when the bike would actually be traveling at its real top speed of 167 mph.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

The maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.

At an indicated 150 mph on the road, the inlet pressure had already neared the 30mb figure. We can therefore say with confidence that the ZX-9R is producing at least 131 bhp at the rear wheel in real world conditions-8 bhp more than at rest on the dyno.[/color]

Flat out, however, the Ninja indicates another 30 mph on the speedo. If boost at this speed was, as seems likely, 40mb, then the gain over atmospheric pressure would be approximately 11.5 bhp, giving a peak figure of 134.5 bhp. If inlet pressure reached 45mb, which it might well do, then the increase would be as much as 12 bhp, or a peak of 135 bhp. In other words, 123 bhp measured normally on a static Dynojet rolling road dynamometer could translate to as much as 135 bhp or more on the street. Ram air works.

harddrivin1le

harddrivin1le

Here you are implying to Don Vogel that Ram Air will begin to work @ 90 MPH....

The article above states Mach 0.5.

So, which is it?

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

harddrivin1le

harddrivin1le

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

"The basic concept behind ram air....The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:

P = .5 x r x v2"

http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bic...Bernoulli.html

Skeedatl

Oh great, so now in addition to V being Velocity in the Combined Gas Law, you have Bernoulli's Principle giving you higher than atmospheric static pressures.

You are an ubertard.

harddrivin1le

Show me where I EVER attributed VELOCITY to the Combined Gaw Law.

Skeedatl

Despite your flawed articles, you won't see any HP gains from ram air in street applications. And no, NO STREET RAM AIR APPLICATION WILL BUILD HORSEPOWER.

Tard, at mach .5 is where you see appreciable pressure gains above atmospheric (which BTW is impossible via Bernoulli's Principle).

You can't be this stupid by accident.

harddrivin1le

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

"The basic concept behind ram air....The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:

P = .5 x r x v2"

http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bic...Bernoulli.html

"One of the most immediate applications of Bernoulli's equation is in the measurement of velocity with a Pitot-tube."

Skeedatl

I and others have already showed you on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS where you ARGUED V was Velocity. Okay, for the nth time.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=80

Here you are using the Combined Gas Law as "the principle of flight"...stating that the formula for the Combined Gas Law is the same as for Bernoulli's Principle.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=70

Here you show the Combined Gas Law again...contributing it to VELOCITY.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=68

Here's the Combined Gas Law AGAIN
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=80

Here's me correcting you about the Combined Gas Law
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=84

And here you are saying IT'S VELOCITY
The forumula used here is the Combined Gas Law NOT Bernoulli's Principle which is the link you posted http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=85


Here I am again, CORRECTING YOU.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=87

Here you are again...mixing up the Combined Gas Law with Bernoulli's Equation.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=88

Here I am correcting you again

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=89

Here you are REWRITING BERNOULLI'S EQUATION AS THE COMBINED GAS LAW :LOL:

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...2&postcount=91


Here is assorted people laughing at you.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=93
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=94

Here you are EXPLICITLY claiming V is Velocity in the Combined Gas Law.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=95

Here I am SHOWING YOU THE DIFFERENCE between Bernoulli's Equation and the Combined Gas Law.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=96

Again you argue that V is Velocity while quoting the Combined Gas Law

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=98
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=100

Here you go trying to prove that V is Velocity in the Combined Gas Law
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=102

After being made a complete fool again...you double your idiocy by returning the the Aluminum head arguements.

Now you CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT and produce and ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FORMULA
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=155
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=156
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=157

And again act as if you were correct the whole time about V being Velocity.

Here's another poster EXPERIENCED in fluids laughing at you.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=159
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=161


More laughter
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=163

Here you are FINALLY ADMITTING that you are retarded.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=164

More laughter
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=165
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=167

Now here you are, ALREADY denying having posted the Combined Gas Law
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=168

Here's you already swapping out the Combined Gas Law equation for Bernoulli's Equation...also resorting to Mach .5 airplane articles trying to prove ram air works (ignoring the fact that I already stated that ram air works at Mach .5).
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=176

More laughter
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=177

Here I am calling you out on the EQUATION SWAP
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=178

Here you are acknowledging that ram air doesn't work at street speeds.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=184

Here you are trying to make 150MPH, a street application
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=190

Of course you run right back to Aluminum Heads :LOL:

When the topic is brought back to ram air
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=212
You are shown again your magic formula swap.

But you ignore it and go back to your failed aluminum head arguments.

Here you are now claiming that you weren't using the Combined Gas Law...must instead misquoting the "shock wave law"
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=215
Which is equally irrelevant.

More laughter
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showp...&postcount=222

Shall I continue?

Skeedatl

:lol1: Now you're misusing some other "theory" you don't understand...AGAIN.

I'm finished explaining this to you. You go on believing ram air works in street applications. You wouldn't be the only dumbass who does.

Skeedatl

I've (B.S. Pure Mathematics, B.S. M.E. with concentration in fluids, working on my master's thesis on metal flow in cold forming...that's fluids in case you couldn't figure it out) shown you where you're wrong, a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering has shown you where you're wrong...yet you still don't get it.

If you continue this course, it's only because you're trolling.

Norse396

Skeedatl,

I think you have set some sort of new link record in one post. :bowdown:

harddrivin1le

Nope...not ONE TIME do I say, "'V' in the Combined Gas Law" is Velocity." In fact, I continued to make references to the BERNOULLI EQUATION from the start.

My error was failing to square the Velocity Function and devide it by two. YOUR error was ASSuming that I was referencing the combined gas law, when, in reality, I never once even mentioned it!

For the sake of this discussion (where many variables cancel), I should have wrote:

P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)

Instead I mistakenly wrote:

P1 V1 = P2 V2

harddrivin1le

Sure I get it:

"The basic concept behind ram air....The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:

P = .5 x r x v2" :smokin:

Velocity is a 2nd order determinent of STATIC Pressure.

Ram Air increases velocity, hence it increases STATIC pressure. :thefinger

Skeedatl

:lol1: Well, when you show formula for the Combined Gas Law, what are we all supposed to think?

While you claim to reference Bernoulli's Equation (which BTW has ZERO to do with ram air) you repeatedly post the Combined Gas Law. What's next...when you post E=MC^2 you really "mean" the area of a circle?

Nice try. Your error is trying to argue fluid mechanics when you have ZERO comprehension of it. Your error is cutting and pasting other's work without actually understanding it yourself.

Skeedatl

:lol1: Oh boy. Continue living in ignorance. You're used to it by now.

Do the math and show us this great pressure that is translated into HP. Not just a cut n paste of someone else's work as you usually do.

YOU SHOW US the application of THAT formula as it pertains to the WS6. Show us the math proving the HP gains from the WS6 ram air kit. You act so versed in the mathematics of fluid mechanics and have spend endless hours on the toilet reading Hot Rod benchtop racer guy. That should be very simple for you.

TLover

You caught HD red-fuckin'-handed and he still hangs onto the argument like a pit bull. Anyone got a newspaper to swat him with?

TLover

Yes, I did read the article. What do you think happens to the air once it reaches the throttle plate? It's the difference between measuring airflow at the leading edge rather than the trailing edge.

Skeedatl

OMFG 1LE! First you say ram air increases static pressure through Bernoulli's Principle, by slowing the air (of course ignoring the fact that you don't get higher than STP from Bernoulli's Principle and you even quoted the wrong formula on SEVERAL occasions). Now you're saying ram air increases static pressure though the Pitot theory by increasing intake velocity.

Which is it guy? I've already shown you that the concept of ram air is COMPRESSION...you're just NOW getting to that point...this after having molested classic physics...yet still fail to understand that the amount of compression is so small as not to be translated into measurable quantifiable HP. Do the math yourself and PROVE IT, not rely on some flawed bogus experiment from a completely different application that we've already shot a million holes in.

Come on, do the applied mathematics (as if you know what that means). Show us the application of the Pitot Theory as it pertains to the WS6. IOW, using the Pitot Theory you claim to understand oh so well, show us all genius, what the static pressure increases occur in the WS6 system, how they occured mathematically, and then show is the combustion mathematics showing what HP gains that pressure increases translates to. I'll even ignore the pressure and velocity losses due to bends and diameter changes of the intake (as you have absolutely ZERO clue how that affects static pressure).

YOU make the claim that WS6 ram air works. PROVE IT. Show us all WHY it works in the specific case of the WS6. DO the math for us and PROVE IT. Don't just cut-n-paste OTHER's work...DO IT YOURSELF and show us.

What are the HP gains from ram air on the WS6 and show us the math of how YOU (not someone else) got those numbers.

You say you took a year of fluid mechanics and you also claim to be an engineer.

This should be a piece of cake for you. I've already shown you mathematically that the pressure increases in these applications are so tiny that air at these speeds is considered non-compressable for calculation sake.

You PROVE otherwise.

Skeedatl

:lol1: It will take him a few hours to find an article that explains to him what you're saying. Then another 30 minutes to find an article to cut-n-paste as a reply.

TLover

Wait ... so let me understand this: Not only did you get the equation wrong, you misunderstood what the variables in the equation stand for? I hope you don't make your living as an engineer.

Norse396

Maybe 1le is a paid endorser for GM... :lol1:

Skeedatl

Oh yeah. Here's 1LE logic and covering for his repetitive stupid mistakes (while claiming to be an engineer).

What a dumbass you are 1LE.

Skeedatl

:lol2: It's a poor endorsement for GM. I certainly wouldn't want to be associated as driving the same make as that retard. Makes me ashamed to own a Buick.

Pushing_Tin

Pathetic, how many times do I have to read posts from the same people rehashing the same tired shit? Can the troll feeders just make a thread where you can talk about the same thing over and over and over and over again without starting a new one every three days? The other 98% of us would really appreciate it.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TLover

I doubt it as he touts a car GM no longer makes. :lol2:

Skeedatl

Point taken but as some of 1LE's lies are brought back up (ALWAYS by 1LE), unsuspecting browsers, unfamiliar with 1LE, his lies, trolling and being banned from other forums like the TSX forum may believe his bullsh!t if not refuted. IMO it's worse if the board becomes a source of disinformation from the likes of trolls like 1LE than have the troll beaten down every week.

harddrivin1le

That's significant, given that it's essentially FREE POWER! And it's also significant in that they ~ matched those results ON THE OPEN ROAD - with a manometer and NO "blower." That's the part you continue to IGNORE.

Not ONE TIME have I stated, "'V' in the Combined Gas Law" is Velocity." In fact, I continued to make references to the BERNOULLI EQUATION throughout this discussion and NEVER ONCE MENTIONED the combined gas law in this discussion!

My error was failing to square the Velocity Function/divide it by two.

YOUR error was ASSuming that I was referencing the combined gas law, when, in reality, I never once even mentioned it!

For the sake of this discussion (where many variables cancel), I should have wrote:

P1 * (V1^2/2) = P2 * (V2^2/2)

Instead I mistakenly wrote:

P1 V1 = P2 V2

TLover

You are correct. The point that is getting lost here is that power was gained. However, it's not because of the ram-air effect, but rather lower intake temperature and denser air.

Skeedatl

You quoted the combined gas law, then defended it as shown previously by me and others. Then you magically changed it from the Combined Gas Law to Bernoulli's Equation (as I've also shown)...now you're on Pitot Theory.

Speaking of Pitot Theory, we're still waiting for you to show us the applied mathematics of Pitot Theory on the WS6. Show us mathematically in the case of the WS6 where this "free power" you're toting comes from.

Do the math for us and PROVE that the WS6 ram air adds HP and show us mathematically how much.

Your bogus articles and flaws tests don't prove SH!T. The MATH says different.

TLover

Since HD is a proponent of links to back up arguments, here are two. Now tell me what you think about ram air.

http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/

http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml

harddrivin1le

Show me where I once said (in my own words) "Combined Gaw Law" in the context of this conversation.

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:

P = .5 x r x v2

We took one of Pi Research's advanced, System 3 data-acquisition systems and hooked up one of its air-pressure sensors into the airbox of eight different modern sportbikes. We also mounted a wheel-speed sensor which allowed us to precisely measure and compare roadspeed with airbox pressure. Absconding with all the motorcycles to our top-secret, high-desert test site, we then proceeded to wring the piss out of each machine and gather data from each of the top-speed runs.

The results will-as Doran stated in his test four years ago-surprise you. All ram-air induction systems are obviously not created equal. In the following graphs, the upper line denotes wheel speed and the lower line represents airbox pressure."

Skeedatl

Your bogus articles and flaws tests don't prove SH!T. The MATH says different.

P1 V1 = P2 V2

Is the Combined Gas Law where temperature is constant. Now you're saying it's not? Then you said in THIS FORMULA, V IS VELOCITY. Then you magically went from the Combined Gas Law to the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Bernoulli's Equation, then on the COMPELTELY DIFFERENT Pitot Theory (which BTW is a direct oppositive static pressure argument than Bernoulli but you're too stupid to realize it).

Let's all keep repeating articles now.

http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/

http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml

BTW, still waiting for your Pitot Theory application to the WS6. Your continuous diversions show us all that you're full of SH!T.