"Performance" air filter hype
#42
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Bad for an environmental control filter maybe. But you don't use automotive filters for environmental controls and vice versa.
Bad for an environmental control filter maybe. But you don't use automotive filters for environmental controls and vice versa.
#43
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
http://www.ws6.com/ramtest.htm
http://www.ws6.com/ramtest.htm
There is no ram effect from ram air at automobile speeds. Air isn't compressable at automobile speeds.
Any benefit from ram air comes from charge temperature, not from the magic "ram" effect.
And your dyno numbers...didn't you just get done claiming those differences are well within the error margin of the Dynojet?
Put down the magazines and get some PERSONAL experience racing and building power for a change.
#44
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
You'll have to phrase the question using proper grammar first.
And don't tell me "by increasing the surface area."
You'll have to phrase the question using proper grammar first.
And don't tell me "by increasing the surface area."
The speed of the air, measured in feet per minute, traveling across a given media makes all the difference in the world when it comes to pressure loss.
#45
Simple test:
Take two cone coffee filters. Cut one so it opens flat. Put your mouth up to it and blow/suck. You should be good at that j/k Then take the other one, stick the cone end in your mouth and do the same thing. Note the difference. Sure it's unscientific and I'm sure there are crappy engines out there that can't pull more air in even with an intake with more surface area, but the more surface area, the more flow, the better the filtration given the same output size.
Maybe we should lock you guys in the room as TLover suggested but with blunt-tipped safety scissors, a pack of coffee filters, and a high-speed fan.
Take two cone coffee filters. Cut one so it opens flat. Put your mouth up to it and blow/suck. You should be good at that j/k Then take the other one, stick the cone end in your mouth and do the same thing. Note the difference. Sure it's unscientific and I'm sure there are crappy engines out there that can't pull more air in even with an intake with more surface area, but the more surface area, the more flow, the better the filtration given the same output size.
Maybe we should lock you guys in the room as TLover suggested but with blunt-tipped safety scissors, a pack of coffee filters, and a high-speed fan.
#46
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
http://www.ws6.com/ramtest.htm
http://www.ws6.com/ramtest.htm
How about coming up with your own? 0-60 mouse and keyboard performance isn't experience.
Put down the Hot Rod mag for 2 seconds and take your 1LE to the track (if it can make it without breaking) and make a few passes. Then go build power and go back.
How about getting into a sport before feigning expertise in it.
#47
Originally posted by Skeedatl
There are 2 types of intakes, warm air and cold air.
There is no ram effect from ram air at automobile speeds. Air isn't compressable at automobile speeds.
Any benefit from ram air comes from charge temperature, not from the magic "ram" effect.
And your dyno numbers...didn't you just get done claiming those differences are well within the error margin of the Dynojet?
Put down the magazines and get some PERSONAL experience racing and building power for a change.
There are 2 types of intakes, warm air and cold air.
There is no ram effect from ram air at automobile speeds. Air isn't compressable at automobile speeds.
Any benefit from ram air comes from charge temperature, not from the magic "ram" effect.
And your dyno numbers...didn't you just get done claiming those differences are well within the error margin of the Dynojet?
Put down the magazines and get some PERSONAL experience racing and building power for a change.
#48
There is no such thing as ram air at automotive speeds. Air is not compressable at automotive speeds. Any benefit from ram air comes not from any mythical ram effect, but ONLY from intake charge temperature.
Take fluids and you would understand this.
Take fluids and you would understand this.
#49
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Not always true.
Any given engine can only inhale so many cfms of air.
Any properly selected OEM paper filter is fully capable of handling that task.
Not always true.
Any given engine can only inhale so many cfms of air.
Any properly selected OEM paper filter is fully capable of handling that task.
#50
Originally posted by Skeedatl
There is no such thing as ram air at automotive speeds. Air is not compressable at automotive speeds. Any benefit from ram air comes not from any mythical ram effect, but ONLY from intake charge temperature.
Take fluids and you would understand this.
There is no such thing as ram air at automotive speeds. Air is not compressable at automotive speeds. Any benefit from ram air comes not from any mythical ram effect, but ONLY from intake charge temperature.
Take fluids and you would understand this.
two semesters...
and you don't know what you're talking about.
REAL WORLD PROOF:
http://www.rrzone.com/929products/ra...amairexp.shtml
#51
Originally posted by Skeedatl
"The darker deposits indicate poorer filtration, and lighter ones better filtration."
Wow, now the SAE should have make their testing procedures as easy as this.
What nonsense from a bunch of benchtop racers. Their test doesn't show ANYTHING other than the wrong way to conduct experiments.
The changing environment is enough to change the results of these tests, which is why the SAE insists on highly controlled conditions and measurable particulate sizes. You're talking 500 miles a filter times how many filters? If you drive all the time the environment changes significantly.
The guy claims to be an engineering student. I have an M.S. in Mechanical engineering and a B.S. in Mathematics and this joke experiment doesn't confirm to ANY standards. They act as if simply using the same car is enough of a control. How amateur.
My profs would have thrown this "study" in the bottom of their birdcages as the methods are sloppy and the conclusions wholly unsupportable.
"The darker deposits indicate poorer filtration, and lighter ones better filtration."
Wow, now the SAE should have make their testing procedures as easy as this.
What nonsense from a bunch of benchtop racers. Their test doesn't show ANYTHING other than the wrong way to conduct experiments.
The changing environment is enough to change the results of these tests, which is why the SAE insists on highly controlled conditions and measurable particulate sizes. You're talking 500 miles a filter times how many filters? If you drive all the time the environment changes significantly.
The guy claims to be an engineering student. I have an M.S. in Mechanical engineering and a B.S. in Mathematics and this joke experiment doesn't confirm to ANY standards. They act as if simply using the same car is enough of a control. How amateur.
My profs would have thrown this "study" in the bottom of their birdcages as the methods are sloppy and the conclusions wholly unsupportable.
#52
Let me start by saying I'm a designer, not an engineer, but let's do some math. I could be completely oversimplifying this and missing conversions, but you can fill in the blanks. Let's make it simple: a one liter engine. And it's a terrible one liter engine. Every cycle it can only pack that one liter of air into its cylinders. At 2000 RPM, it can flow 500 cc/minute.
#53
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Show me any REAL "independent test" (like the one below) that shows any SIGNIFICANT difference in rear wheel HP between aftermarket "performance filters" and OEM paper ones.
Many LS1 owners swear by paper FRAM filters and have dyno runs to prove it.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/70738/index.html
Show me any REAL "independent test" (like the one below) that shows any SIGNIFICANT difference in rear wheel HP between aftermarket "performance filters" and OEM paper ones.
Many LS1 owners swear by paper FRAM filters and have dyno runs to prove it.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/70738/index.html
Dude, I have this mental picture of you with a beard, not having bathed for a few weeks, and empty wrappers and pop cans all over the room. You are frantically typing on the computer trying to access all your links, as you frantically puff on your cigarette. Your 38 years old, jobless, and your elderly mom is yelling in the background for you to get off the computer and come rub her feet.
#54
Originally posted by Swat Dude
I've heard of magazine racers but now we have Harddrivin, a web based scientist.
Dude, I have this mental picture of you with a beard, not having bathed for a few weeks, and empty wrappers and pop cans all over the room. You are frantically typing on the computer trying to access all your links, as you frantically puff on your cigarette. Your 38 years old, jobless, and your elderly mom is yelling in the background for you to get off the computer and come rub her feet.
I've heard of magazine racers but now we have Harddrivin, a web based scientist.
Dude, I have this mental picture of you with a beard, not having bathed for a few weeks, and empty wrappers and pop cans all over the room. You are frantically typing on the computer trying to access all your links, as you frantically puff on your cigarette. Your 38 years old, jobless, and your elderly mom is yelling in the background for you to get off the computer and come rub her feet.
#55
Then you should know the difference between static and dynamic pressure.
Lemmie explain it slowly so you may understand it.
There isn't enough energy in the dynamic air to convert it to increased static pressure.
Here are some sample calculations.
RAM AIR
Operating Conditions
temperature = Tair = 20C = 293K
atm. pressure = Pair = 14.7PSIA
Cpair = 1005J/KgK
K = 1.4
the Cpair and K are constants for air.
Case 1 @ 100Kmh (62Mph) = 27.78m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((27.78m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 293.4K
the temperature increased by 0.4K or 0.4C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (293.4K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.75PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.05PSIG (gauge pressure)
so as you can see driving 100kmh will only have a gain of 0.05 psi! now lets try for 200kmh.
Case 2 @ 200Kmh (124Mph) = 55.5m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((55.5m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 294.5K
the temperature increased by 1.5K or 1.5C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (294.5K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.97PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.27PSIG (gauge pressure)
You haven't had fluids otherwise you would already understand this.
Lemmie explain it slowly so you may understand it.
There isn't enough energy in the dynamic air to convert it to increased static pressure.
Here are some sample calculations.
RAM AIR
Operating Conditions
temperature = Tair = 20C = 293K
atm. pressure = Pair = 14.7PSIA
Cpair = 1005J/KgK
K = 1.4
the Cpair and K are constants for air.
Case 1 @ 100Kmh (62Mph) = 27.78m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((27.78m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 293.4K
the temperature increased by 0.4K or 0.4C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (293.4K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.75PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.05PSIG (gauge pressure)
so as you can see driving 100kmh will only have a gain of 0.05 psi! now lets try for 200kmh.
Case 2 @ 200Kmh (124Mph) = 55.5m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((55.5m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 294.5K
the temperature increased by 1.5K or 1.5C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (294.5K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.97PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.27PSIG (gauge pressure)
You haven't had fluids otherwise you would already understand this.
#56
Originally posted by Skeedatl
There are 2 types of intakes, warm air and cold air.
There is no ram effect from ram air at automobile speeds. Air isn't compressable at automobile speeds.
Any benefit from ram air comes from charge temperature, not from the magic "ram" effect.
And your dyno numbers...didn't you just get done claiming those differences are well within the error margin of the Dynojet?
Put down the magazines and get some PERSONAL experience racing and building power for a change.
There are 2 types of intakes, warm air and cold air.
There is no ram effect from ram air at automobile speeds. Air isn't compressable at automobile speeds.
Any benefit from ram air comes from charge temperature, not from the magic "ram" effect.
And your dyno numbers...didn't you just get done claiming those differences are well within the error margin of the Dynojet?
Put down the magazines and get some PERSONAL experience racing and building power for a change.
#57
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Then you should know the difference between static and dynamic pressure.
Lemmie explain it slowly so you may understand it.
There isn't enough energy in the dynamic air to convert it to increased static pressure.
Here are some sample calculations.
RAM AIR
Operating Conditions
temperature = Tair = 20C = 293K
atm. pressure = Pair = 14.7PSIA
Cpair = 1005J/KgK
K = 1.4
the Cpair and K are constants for air.
Case 1 @ 100Kmh (62Mph) = 27.78m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((27.78m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 293.4K
the temperature increased by 0.4K or 0.4C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (293.4K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.75PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.05PSIG (gauge pressure)
so as you can see driving 100kmh will only have a gain of 0.05 psi! now lets try for 200kmh.
Case 2 @ 200Kmh (124Mph) = 55.5m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((55.5m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 294.5K
the temperature increased by 1.5K or 1.5C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (294.5K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.97PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.27PSIG (gauge pressure)
You haven't had fluids otherwise you would already understand this.
Then you should know the difference between static and dynamic pressure.
Lemmie explain it slowly so you may understand it.
There isn't enough energy in the dynamic air to convert it to increased static pressure.
Here are some sample calculations.
RAM AIR
Operating Conditions
temperature = Tair = 20C = 293K
atm. pressure = Pair = 14.7PSIA
Cpair = 1005J/KgK
K = 1.4
the Cpair and K are constants for air.
Case 1 @ 100Kmh (62Mph) = 27.78m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((27.78m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 293.4K
the temperature increased by 0.4K or 0.4C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (293.4K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.75PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.05PSIG (gauge pressure)
so as you can see driving 100kmh will only have a gain of 0.05 psi! now lets try for 200kmh.
Case 2 @ 200Kmh (124Mph) = 55.5m/s
Calculating temperature of the ram air
Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((55.5m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 294.5K
the temperature increased by 1.5K or 1.5C.
Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (294.5K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.97PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.27PSIG (gauge pressure)
You haven't had fluids otherwise you would already understand this.
you've just ignored every REAL WORLD test I've posted.
http://www.rrzone.com/929products/ra...amairexp.shtml
#58
And you ignored the physics behind fluid mechanics. You have NEVER taken fluids and don't understand the mathematics so you ignore them. All of these ram air tests you keep posting are subject to variables, intake charge temp, position of the intake without the ram air, etc...
The MATHEMATICS behind why the RAM in Ram Air doesn't doesn't do sh!t are indisputable.
The MATHEMATICS behind why the RAM in Ram Air doesn't doesn't do sh!t are indisputable.
#59
Originally posted by Skeedatl
And you ignored the physics behind fluid mechanics. You have NEVER taken fluids and don't understand the mathematics so you ignore them. All of these ram air tests you keep posting are subject to variables, intake charge temp, position of the intake without the ram air, etc...
The MATHEMATICS behind why the RAM in Ram Air doesn't doesn't do sh!t are indisputable.
And you ignored the physics behind fluid mechanics. You have NEVER taken fluids and don't understand the mathematics so you ignore them. All of these ram air tests you keep posting are subject to variables, intake charge temp, position of the intake without the ram air, etc...
The MATHEMATICS behind why the RAM in Ram Air doesn't doesn't do sh!t are indisputable.
#60
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
great,
you've just ignored every REAL WORLD test I've posted.
http://www.rrzone.com/929products/ra...amairexp.shtml
great,
you've just ignored every REAL WORLD test I've posted.
http://www.rrzone.com/929products/ra...amairexp.shtml
#61
Originally posted by Swat Dude
Real World? Isn't that a show on MTV???? Or this case, real world usually means "gut-feel" and what's that term, Skeed, help me out here. It's been a while since college and I pretty much brain flushed all my Fluids, Thermo, Diff EQ, Mat. Analysis, etc., etc. by being a cop for 10 years. You know, when the outcome of your experiment is influenced by what you want to happen or what you think should happen. The controls in these supposed "real-world" experiments are non-existent. None this real world stuff would be accepted by any scientific journal as having any validity whatsoever.
Real World? Isn't that a show on MTV???? Or this case, real world usually means "gut-feel" and what's that term, Skeed, help me out here. It's been a while since college and I pretty much brain flushed all my Fluids, Thermo, Diff EQ, Mat. Analysis, etc., etc. by being a cop for 10 years. You know, when the outcome of your experiment is influenced by what you want to happen or what you think should happen. The controls in these supposed "real-world" experiments are non-existent. None this real world stuff would be accepted by any scientific journal as having any validity whatsoever.
#62
The test you posted is flawed...they too confused static with dynamic pressure by substituting supercharging for dynamic air flow. Their "fan" doesn't simulate the real world. It actually compressed the air, something that DOES NOT HAPPEN with ram air.
Obviously they've never taken fluids either...but their readers are obviously too stupid to dispute their claims.
Obviously they've never taken fluids either...but their readers are obviously too stupid to dispute their claims.
#63
Originally posted by Skeedatl
The test you posted is flawed...they too confused static with dynamic pressure by substituting supercharging for dynamic air flow. Their "fan" doesn't simulate the real world. It actually compressed the air, something that DOES NOT HAPPEN with ram air.
The test you posted is flawed...they too confused static with dynamic pressure by substituting supercharging for dynamic air flow. Their "fan" doesn't simulate the real world. It actually compressed the air, something that DOES NOT HAPPEN with ram air.
#64
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
http://www.vararam.com/reality_of_ram_air01.html
http://www.vararam.com/reality_of_ram_air01.html
...And so it detiorates. Harddrivin is in the fetal position now, no longer able to think. So instead of responding he goes it to repeat the link mode.
Go rub your momma's feet, Dweeb.
#65
Of course you laugh...you're a benchtop racer who takes their flawed logic of others and make it your own.
You've never taken fluids otherwise you would understand why their test (just like the bogus filter test) was flawed.
You've never taken fluids otherwise you would understand why their test (just like the bogus filter test) was flawed.
#66
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Of course you laugh...you're a benchtop racer who takes their flawed logic of others and make it your own.
You've never taken fluids otherwise you would understand why their test was flawed.
Of course you laugh...you're a benchtop racer who takes their flawed logic of others and make it your own.
You've never taken fluids otherwise you would understand why their test was flawed.
#67
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
http://www.ws6.com/ramtest.htm
http://www.ws6.com/ramtest.htm
#68
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Of course you laugh...you're a benchtop racer who takes their flawed logic of others and make it your own.
You've never taken fluids otherwise you would understand why their test (just like the bogus filter test) was flawed.
Of course you laugh...you're a benchtop racer who takes their flawed logic of others and make it your own.
You've never taken fluids otherwise you would understand why their test (just like the bogus filter test) was flawed.
A properly designed scoop SLOWS the velocity of the air, thereby INCREASING pressure. That's why cars have HIGH PRESSURE areas.
You're ignoring that fact.
Some lights planes can achieve flight @ 70 MPH take-off speeds...
#69
Static pressure is not dynamic pressure.
You're ignoring that fact. Why am I wasting time trying to explain fluids to you.
Explaining fluids to you is like explaining calculus to a toddler.
Continue to live in ignorance.
You're ignoring that fact. Why am I wasting time trying to explain fluids to you.
Explaining fluids to you is like explaining calculus to a toddler.
Continue to live in ignorance.
#70
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Static pressure is not dynamic pressure.
You're ignoring that fact.
Static pressure is not dynamic pressure.
You're ignoring that fact.
That's the principle of FLIGHT.
That last time I checked that was DYNAMIC.
You're pretending that Bernoulli's equation doesn't exist...
Yet, it does.
#71
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
P1V1 = P2V2
That's the principle of FLIGHT.
That last time I checked that was DYNAMIC.
P1V1 = P2V2
That's the principle of FLIGHT.
That last time I checked that was DYNAMIC.
#72
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
P1V1 = P2V2
A properly designed scoop SLOWS the velocity of the air, thereby INCREASING pressure. That's why cars have HIGH PRESSURE areas.
You're ignoring that fact.
Some lights planes can achieve flight @ 70 MPH take-off speeds...
P1V1 = P2V2
A properly designed scoop SLOWS the velocity of the air, thereby INCREASING pressure. That's why cars have HIGH PRESSURE areas.
You're ignoring that fact.
Some lights planes can achieve flight @ 70 MPH take-off speeds...
Faster moving air has less static pressure than slow moving air (another reason ram air doesn't work). The air on top of an air foil has to move faster to cover the increased distance compared to the bottom side of the wing. The faster moving air exerts less pressure on the top of the wing. This unbalanced force creates lift.
Jeez. Get educated.
#73
Originally posted by Skeedatl
You really HAVEN'T taken fluids. Bernoulli's principle is why airplanes fly. It has nothing to do with absolute velocity, only differences in absolute velocities and the effect on sideways pressure.
Faster moving air has less static pressure than slow moving air (another reason ram air doesn't work). The air on top of an air foil has to move faster to cover the increased distance compared to the bottom side of the wing. The faster moving air exerts less pressure on the top of the wing. This unbalanced force creates lift.
Jeez. Get educated.
You really HAVEN'T taken fluids. Bernoulli's principle is why airplanes fly. It has nothing to do with absolute velocity, only differences in absolute velocities and the effect on sideways pressure.
Faster moving air has less static pressure than slow moving air (another reason ram air doesn't work). The air on top of an air foil has to move faster to cover the increased distance compared to the bottom side of the wing. The faster moving air exerts less pressure on the top of the wing. This unbalanced force creates lift.
Jeez. Get educated.
#74
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
P1V1 = P2V2
That's the principle of FLIGHT.
That last time I checked that was DYNAMIC.
You're pretending that Bernoulli's equation doesn't exist...
Yet, it does.
P1V1 = P2V2
That's the principle of FLIGHT.
That last time I checked that was DYNAMIC.
You're pretending that Bernoulli's equation doesn't exist...
Yet, it does.
Bernoulli, live him, love him...
For God's sake UNDERSTAND him.
I know you're just ignorant about fluid mechanics. Go to a fluids page and study up on static vs. dynamic pressures...then come back and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
#75
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Static pressure is not dynamic pressure.
You're ignoring that fact. Why am I wasting time trying to explain fluids to you.
Explaining fluids to you is like explaining calculus to a toddler.
Continue to live in ignorance.
Static pressure is not dynamic pressure.
You're ignoring that fact. Why am I wasting time trying to explain fluids to you.
Explaining fluids to you is like explaining calculus to a toddler.
Continue to live in ignorance.
If I may direct your attention away from Harddrivin (by the way, I think that refers to his hard disk). I take a little exception to you converting static pressure from water guage to psi. It seems like your attempt to make the impact of small changes in static pressure seem more miniscule than they are. Just for S and G's, take the attached HEPA filters static pressure loss vs. cfm curve. Pretty significant increases in cfm can cause relatively small changes in pressure loss and vice/versa.
http://www.camfilfarr.com/files/prod...solute%20XH%20(high%20capacity).pdf
#76
Originally posted by Skeedatl
You're right. It is dynamic, but dynamic flow exerts less "side" pressure than static air. Increases in horsepower from from increases in STATIC, NOT DYNAMIC pressures.
You're right. It is dynamic, but dynamic flow exerts less "side" pressure than static air. Increases in horsepower from from increases in STATIC, NOT DYNAMIC pressures.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Faster moving air has less static pressure than slow moving air
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So
1) Increases in HP come from increases in Static Pressue
2) Faster moving air has less static pressure (meaning that slower moving air has more).
And we all know that air scoops SLOW the air.
Thanks - you just explained how air that is slowed creates more HP.
#78
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Faster moving air has less static pressure than slow moving air
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So
1) Increases in HP come from increases in Static Pressue
2) Faster moving air has less static pressure (meaning that slower moving air has more).
Thanks - you just explained how slower moving air results in added HP.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Faster moving air has less static pressure than slow moving air
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So
1) Increases in HP come from increases in Static Pressue
2) Faster moving air has less static pressure (meaning that slower moving air has more).
Thanks - you just explained how slower moving air results in added HP.
This is the whole point. You are good at cutting and pasting but it's OBVIOUS you don't understand the concepts.
The whole concept of "ram air" is that faster air makes more power.
It doesn't.
Never has.
Never will.
#79
Originally posted by Swat Dude
Skeed,
If I may direct your attention away from Harddrivin (by the way, I think that refers to his hard disk). I take a little exception to you converting static pressure from water guage to psi. It seems like your attempt to make the impact of small changes in static pressure seem more miniscule than they are. Just for S and G's, take the attached HEPA filters static pressure loss vs. cfm curve. Pretty significant increases in cfm can cause relatively small changes in pressure loss and vice/versa.
http://www.camfilfarr.com/files/prod...solute%20XH%20(high%20capacity).pdf
Skeed,
If I may direct your attention away from Harddrivin (by the way, I think that refers to his hard disk). I take a little exception to you converting static pressure from water guage to psi. It seems like your attempt to make the impact of small changes in static pressure seem more miniscule than they are. Just for S and G's, take the attached HEPA filters static pressure loss vs. cfm curve. Pretty significant increases in cfm can cause relatively small changes in pressure loss and vice/versa.
http://www.camfilfarr.com/files/prod...solute%20XH%20(high%20capacity).pdf
http://www.camfilfarr.com/script/pro...ppic=top18.jpg
#80
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Slower moving than what genius?
This is the whole point. You are good at cutting and pasting but it's OBVIOUS you don't understand the concepts.
Slower moving than what genius?
This is the whole point. You are good at cutting and pasting but it's OBVIOUS you don't understand the concepts.
That results in higher pressure (@ the intake manifold).
P1V1 = P2V2
THAT is where the added pressure is coming from.