Notices
TL/TLX Frequently Asked Questions No New Threads Please.

"Performance" air filter hype

 
Old 03-21-2004, 12:38 AM
  #161  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your equation fails when the fluid velocity is zero because the pressure has to go to infinity in order to satisfy your equation. Whether you mention it or not, your equation has to hold for all velocities. Also, a Pitot tube works by bringing the fluid velocity to zero - which is precisely why I alluded to it.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Where have I mentioned bringing the fluid velocity to zero?

Answer: Never

But as the velocity of a fluid deceases, pressure increases:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
Yaaro Dhana is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:40 AM
  #162  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
Your equation fails when the fluid velocity is zero because the pressure has to go to infinity in order to satisfy your equation. Whether you mention it or not, your equation has to hold for all velocities. Also, a Pitot tube works by bringing the fluid velocity to zero - which is precisely why I alluded to it.
The fluid velocity CAN'T be zero in any case where the mass air flow is greater than zero!

If there is ANY mass air flow then there MUST also be velocity!

The main discussion here is RAM AIR systems and how they "convert" air velocity into increased pressure @ the intake manifold.

You are aware of that, right?
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:47 AM
  #163  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This blanket statement is false firstly. This is true only for fluid flow under certain conditions and when gravity is neglected.

Secondly, even in the case where it is true, the equation governing it is (p + 1/2 rho*v^2 + rho*g*h) = const.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
True or false:

A drop in fluid velocity causes a rise in fluid pressure.
Yaaro Dhana is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:51 AM
  #164  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
This blanket statement is false firstly. This is true only for fluid flow under certain conditions and when gravity is neglected.

Secondly, even in the case where it is true, the equation governing it is (p + 1/2 rho*v^2 + rho*g*h) = const.
Yes...apparently that's the equation.

How about getting to the core argument:

Can a "ram air" system increase pressure @ the intake manifold in an automobile traveling @, say, 100 MPH?

I say that it can.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:54 AM
  #165  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of fluid mechanics. Equations of fluid motions have to hold true even at stagnation points, i.e., points at which the fluid velocity drops to zero (clue: this can occur anywhere, including an intake manifold). Please go look them up before making further ignorant statements.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
The fluid velocity CAN'T be zero in any case where the mass air flow is greater than zero!

If there is ANY mass air flow then there MUST also be velocity!

The main discussion here is RAM AIR systems and how they "convert" air velocity into increased pressure @ the intake manifold.

You are aware of that, right?
Yaaro Dhana is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:56 AM
  #166  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of fluid mechanics. Equations of fluid motions have to hold true even at stagnation points, i.e., points at which the fluid velocity drops to zero (clue: this can occur anywhere, including an intake manifold). Please go look them up before making further ignorant statements.
Premise:

You have a tube.

In order to have any mass flow through the tube, there must be a velocity component (SOMEWHERE in the tube) that is greater than zero.

Is that true or false?

Post your opinions on RAM AIR if you have a doctorate on this topic.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:08 AM
  #167  
Excels at nothing
 
svtmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago
Age: 54
Posts: 36,110
Received 2,834 Likes on 1,547 Posts
Now wait a minute, you guys mean to tell Harddrivin that in addition to V in the Combined Gas Law not being velocity:

V = IR in Ohm's Law doesn't mean the velocity of a speaker is the product of the current and the resistance of the speaker????

and

V = 4/3 * pi * r ^ 3 doesn't refer to the velocity of a sphere?



Mike
svtmike is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:12 AM
  #168  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by svtmike
Now wait a minute, you guys mean to tell Harddrivin that in addition to V in the Combined Gas Law not being velocity:

V = IR in Ohm's Law doesn't mean the velocity of a speaker is the product of the current and the resistance of the speaker????

and

V = 4/3 * pi * r ^ 3 doesn't refer to the velocity of a sphere?



Mike
V in THIS equation equals VELOCITY (flow velocity).

And I have never ONCE reference "the combined gas law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

"The qualitative behavior that is usually labeled with the term "Bernoulli effect" is the lowering of fluid pressure in regions where the flow velocity is increased."
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:18 AM
  #169  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of fluid mechanics. Equations of fluid motions have to hold true even at stagnation points, i.e., points at which the fluid velocity drops to zero (clue: this can occur anywhere, including an intake manifold). Please go look them up before making further ignorant statements.
Stagnation POINTS.

You can't have MASS FLOW without also having a VELOCITY component at SOME point(s) in the flow path.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:23 AM
  #170  
Renaissance Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
And aluminum takes a CNC bender and most likely 3D scanner (to scan the welded up prototype) which is only cost effective at volume.
I didn't bring up equipment...

Plastic needs CNC mill and 3D scanner to make a quality mold, as well as an injection molder with either a laser welder or 2-axis movement. It was a nice try, though
Flanagan is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:35 AM
  #171  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by flanagan
I didn't bring up equipment...

Plastic needs CNC mill and 3D scanner to make a quality mold, as well as an injection molder with either a laser welder or 2-axis movement. It was a nice try, though
The plastic is utlimately far cheaper than aluminum for large scale production runs/once the price of the molds are covered.

If it weren't then every production car would be using aluminum intake ducting instead of plastic.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:36 AM
  #172  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by flanagan
I didn't bring up equipment...

Plastic needs CNC mill and 3D scanner to make a quality mold, as well as an injection molder with either a laser welder or 2-axis movement. It was a nice try, though
The plastic is utlimately far cheaper than aluminum for large scale production runs/once the price of the molds are covered.

If it weren't then every mass produced car would be using aluminum intake ducting instead of plastic.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 02:06 AM
  #173  
Powered by Guinness
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stockton, CA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Still at it? My advice is a good bottle of wine and a Kevin Smith film - any of them - for a good laugh. I chose a decent syrah and Dogma tonight. After that, you won't care if V = volume or velocity. A second bottle and you won't care about this thread at all. I'm going for the second right now and suggest you do the same!
Aegir is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 03:05 AM
  #174  
Renaissance Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
The plastic is utlimately far cheaper than aluminum for large scale production runs/once the price of the molds are covered.

If it weren't then every mass produced car would be using aluminum intake ducting instead of plastic.
I already said that. We're discussing aftermarket intakes, buddy. It's your topic, remember?

Watch Dogma with the commentary on. It's much funnier. :p
Flanagan is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:25 AM
  #175  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by flanagan
I already said that. We're discussing aftermarket intakes, buddy. It's your topic, remember?

Watch Dogma with the commentary on. It's much funnier. :p
How many aftermarket intakes are they going to sell? 2?

Those things are advertised all over; they'll sell tens of thousands of them.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:27 AM
  #176  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
I think we have already established that he has no practical knowledge of fluids (or even the mathematical background to understand what you're saying about evaluating his "magic math" at V1=0 if V is velocity which of course it isn't).
What's "V" in this equation?:

p + 1/2 rho*v^2 + rho*g*h

and:

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

"Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:36 AM
  #177  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who said that the velocity was zero everywhere in the flow? You claim was:
The fluid velocity CAN'T be zero in any case where the mass air flow is greater than zero!
which is nonsense. Fluid velocity is not a monolithic quantity. When you have mass flow, the average velocity is non zero, but at different points in the fluid flow, the velocities are typically different and zero at stagnation points.

Once again, your (now retracted) pV = constant was invalid for the simple fact that it does not hold true for points where the fluid velocity drops to zero.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Stagnation POINTS.

You can't have MASS FLOW without also having a VELOCITY component at SOME point(s) in the flow path.
Yaaro Dhana is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:38 AM
  #178  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
True or false:

V is velocity here, where a decrease in velocity = an inrease in pressure:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
That page doesn't show the P1*V1 = P2*V2 equation you showed.

A decrease in velocity does result in an increase in sideways pressure, but this is irrelevant in ram air for making power as you aren't going to generate more pressure than that is already present in the atmosphere.

Automotive Ram air is based on the flawed concept that air is RAMMED into the motor, somehow creating a pressure above normal atmospheric pressure.

This does not occur.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:39 AM
  #179  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Yes...apparently that's the equation.

How about getting to the core argument:

Can a "ram air" system increase pressure @ the intake manifold in an automobile traveling @, say, 100 MPH?

I say that it can.
Mathematics says it doesn't.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:45 AM
  #180  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually, there is no equation below (yes, I am being pedantic).
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
[B]What's "V" in this equation?:
p + 1/2 rho*v^2 + rho*g*h
Yaaro Dhana is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:47 AM
  #181  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Automotive Ram air (per all the bullsh!t articles you've posted) is based on the flawed concept that air is RAMMED into the motor, somehow creating a pressure above normal atmospheric pressure. To deny this is the case is simiply retarded.

And that being the case, it does not occur at automotive speeds; it only STARTS to occur at around Mach .5, speeds FAR higher than automotive applications like the WS6 example you posted.

You don't understand ANY of the applications of the forumlas you're posting. You've confused the two most basic formulas in fludids. You've even confused the definitions of the variables....all this after CLAIMING you took 2 semesters of fluids. Then you come back changed the formula and all your claims as if they didn't happen.

Give it up. You simply don't have the experience to argue this. You don't have the fluids background to support your lunacy. And you don't have the mathematics background to prove your lunacy correct.

AGAIN, I'll say this slowly so you may understand.

At automotive speeds there isn't the compression of the air required to increase static pressure.

Ram air is flawed. In the WS6 example you provided...it's complete B.S. for 2 reasons.

1. The WS6 isn't capable of the speeds needed to compress the air.

2. In order to "slow" the air as you claim, you need a divergent scoop, one that is narrow at the front and wide at the rear. Not a straight or convergent scoop like the WS6 and SS have.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 07:58 AM
  #182  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
What's "V" in this equation?:

p + 1/2 rho*v^2 + rho*g*h

and:

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

"Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
All of the automobiles and bikes in your posted examples including the ZX motorcycle and the WS6 aren't capable to those speeds off a cliff in a hurricane.

You simple can't compare a racing airplane capable with Mach .5 with a car going 100MPH.

There is no ram air effect at only 100MPH.

And in this example you're contradicted yourself yet again.

You first post examples of B.S. experiments trying to prove that Ram Air works by ramming more air into the motor, increasing the pressure above the outside atmospheric pressure; one experiment so flawed that they mildly supercharge the motor to "simulate" increased static pressure (confusing dynamic with static press). This conversion does not happen in street cars, even in fast race cars it doesn't happen.

Strike 1.

Then you screw up all the forumulas and start claiming that Ram Air works by slowing the air, which you still can't generate static pressure higher than the outside pressure, and certainly not higher than through a normal air box. In the WS6 example you posted, the ram air design isn't even built that way. And even if it were, this too doesn't make more power.

Strike 2.

Now you're posting and example, which I've already shown, where at sufficiently high velocities, (Mach .5 and higher), there is enough energy in the dynamic pressure to start converting it to static pressure if restricted...that is at around Mach .5 at STP, you do start getting compression of the air, which is what all these magazine dorks think happens at 50MPH or 100MPH...which is not the case. THEY ARE SIMPLY WRONG AS ARE YOU.

Yer out.

You f-ed up. Face it. This goes to what I've been saying all along. Quite often these magazine guys are just plain wrong. Their theory is wrong, and their "experiments" to try and prove their theories is massively fatally flawed.

You are better off learning from personal experience and talking to racers at the track, rather than relying on the fools writing for Hot Rod, none of which seem to have taken 11th grade chemistry, nevertheless understand more complicated applications of fluids to cars.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 08:06 AM
  #183  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If even after all of this, you still insist on automotive ram air makes additional horsepower, then I must let you live in ignorance. I made the mistake of thinking you would listen and absorb the concepts of fluid mechanics in their most basic forms. I made the mistake to think you would actually question those dorks at Hot Rod and start thining for yourself rather than take everything they say as gospel.

I made the mistake to think you were actually interested in learning something.

I won't make these mistakes again. Next time you pull one of these flying monkeys out of your butt, I'll simply laugh and move on.

If you're actually willing to shut up and learn something, we're all ready to help you.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 09:28 AM
  #184  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
If even after all of this, you still insist on automotive ram air makes additional horsepower, then I must let you live in ignorance. I made the mistake of thinking you would listen and absorb the concepts of fluid mechanics in their most basic forms. I made the mistake to think you would actually question those dorks at Hot Rod and start thining for yourself rather than take everything they say as gospel.

I made the mistake to think you were actually interested in learning something.

I won't make these mistakes again. Next time you pull one of these flying monkeys out of your butt, I'll simply laugh and move on.

If you're actually willing to shut up and learn something, we're all ready to help you.
Ram Air provides a quantifiable increase in static presssure (@ the intake manifold) @ speeds that one would normally associate with "racing."

Its effect @ "street speeds" (e.g. 60 MPH) is negligible, though I have never claimed otherwise.

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

"Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 09:31 AM
  #185  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
All of the automobiles and bikes in your posted examples including the ZX motorcycle and the WS6 aren't capable to those speeds off a cliff in a hurricane.

You simple can't compare a racing airplane capable with Mach .5 with a car going 100MPH.

There is no ram air effect at only 100MPH.

And in this example you're contradicted yourself yet again.

You first post examples of B.S. experiments trying to prove that Ram Air works by ramming more air into the motor, increasing the pressure above the outside atmospheric pressure; one experiment so flawed that they mildly supercharge the motor to "simulate" increased static pressure (confusing dynamic with static press). This conversion does not happen in street cars, even in fast race cars it doesn't happen.

Strike 1.

Then you screw up all the forumulas and start claiming that Ram Air works by slowing the air, which you still can't generate static pressure higher than the outside pressure, and certainly not higher than through a normal air box. In the WS6 example you posted, the ram air design isn't even built that way. And even if it were, this too doesn't make more power.

Strike 2.

Now you're posting and example, which I've already shown, where at sufficiently high velocities, (Mach .5 and higher), there is enough energy in the dynamic pressure to start converting it to static pressure if restricted...that is at around Mach .5 at STP, you do start getting compression of the air, which is what all these magazine dorks think happens at 50MPH or 100MPH...which is not the case. THEY ARE SIMPLY WRONG AS ARE YOU.

Yer out.

You f-ed up. Face it. This goes to what I've been saying all along. Quite often these magazine guys are just plain wrong. Their theory is wrong, and their "experiments" to try and prove their theories is massively fatally flawed.

You are better off learning from personal experience and talking to racers at the track, rather than relying on the fools writing for Hot Rod, none of which seem to have taken 11th grade chemistry, nevertheless understand more complicated applications of fluids to cars.
An measurable increase (~ 0.18 psig) occurs @ 100 MPH, which is far less than Mach .5.

In fact, that delta P is about equal to the difference between a K&N air filter and a standard paper filter.

Yet, you claim that the K&N filter makes more power, but ram air (@ elevated speeds) doesn't.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 09:44 AM
  #186  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Mathematics says it doesn't.
The conservation of energy for fluid flow, as expressed by the Bernoulli equation, says it:


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

and:

http://www.vararam.com/reality_of_ram_air01.html

harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:06 AM
  #187  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Conservation of energy includes a heat component that your example lacks.

The conversion of dynamic pressure into dynamic pressure results in heat. You wouldn't see .176PSI increase in pressure...you would see that energy equivalence given off as heat, and only a tiny amount of heat. Bernoulli's equation makes some non-real world assumptions. Laminar flow and infinate viscocity. Actually READ what you're posting. Bernoulli's equaltion doesn't work in the "real world", just as acceleration formulas don't work in the "real world" because of air resistance.

However, for "math problems" in class, these concepts are difficult if not impossible to fully quantify.

And again, you're confusing static and dynamic pressures so all of this is moot anyway.

You've now switched your argument previously supported with Ram Air articles to one of slowing air increases pressure; failing to realize that you will NEVER achieve a pressure higher than that of the surrounding still air.

With the argument you've laid out, you're better off with a standard air box.

The WHOLE flawed concept behind ram air is that air is rammed into the motor, just as it would with a very fast airplane.

These concepts do not translate to automobiles as air doesn't not compress as automotive speeds like those in your previous examples of the ZX motorcycle and the WS6 Trans Am.

You have to ask yourself, what are you trying to prove. Sure Bernoulli's principle shows that slow air has more "side pressure" than fast air...but that doesn't help your argument for ram air BUILDING HORSEPOWER.

Benoulli's equation shows that you will have a maximum side pressure when the velocity is ZERO. This hardly supports the concept of sticking a scoop on the front of a car.

The concept of Ram Air solely relies on the conversion of dynamic to static pressure...hense RAMMING THE AIR into the motor via overpressure. Bernoulli's equation doesn't not show this relationship. It merely shows differences in static pressures with velocity in a closed space.

The enivronment a car moves through is not a closed space. Bernoulli's principle requires this fixed space, but no other variables.

Basically, you're going to see in a car the air flow into the scoop until atmospheric pressure is reached. At the point, the front of the scoop will become a "solid" just like the rest of the car and the rest of the air will flow over the scoop just like it would anywhere else. Any additional air is not going into the scoop, it OVERFLOWS into the airstream moving aroud the car. Only if the car goes fast enough, Mach .5 or thereabouts will you see pressurization inside the scoop rather that it just being pushed aside with the rest of the air.

Now, the only benefit from ram air at slow speeds, comes not from an increase in pressure, but a filling of the void created by the vacuum of the engine. But even then, you're not conserving enough energy (saving the motor work) to even be measurable given the uncertainies involved.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:08 AM
  #188  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Conservation of energy includes a heat component that your example lacks.

The conversion of dynamic pressure into dynamic pressure results in heat. You wouldn't see .176PSI increase in pressure...you would see that energy equivalence given off as heat, and only a tiny amount of heat. Bernoulli's equation makes some non-real world assumptions. Laminar flow and infinate viscocity. Actually READ what you're posting. Bernoulli's equaltion doesn't work in the "real world", just as acceleration formulas don't work in the "real world" because of air resistance.

However, for "math problems" in class, these concepts are difficult if not impossible to fully quantify.

And again, you're confusing static and dynamic pressures so all of this is moot anyway.

You've now switched your argument previously supported with Ram Air articles to one of slowing air increases pressure; failing to realize that you will NEVER achieve a pressure higher than that of the surrounding still air.

With the argument you've laid out, you're better off with a standard air box.

The WHOLE flawed concept behind ram air is that air is rammed into the motor, just as it would with a very fast airplane.

These concepts do not translate to automobiles as air doesn't not compress as automotive speeds like those in your previous examples of the ZX motorcycle and the WS6 Trans Am.

You have to ask yourself, what are you trying to prove. Sure Bernoulli's principle shows that slow air has more "side pressure" than fast air...but that doesn't help your argument for ram air BUILDING HORSEPOWER.

Benoulli's equation shows that you will have a maximum side pressure when the velocity is ZERO. This hardly supports the concept of sticking a scoop on the front of a car.

The concept of Ram Air solely relies on the conversion of dynamic to static pressure...hense RAMMING THE AIR into the motor via overpressure. Bernoulli's equation doesn't not show this relationship. It merely shows differences in static pressures with velocity in a closed space.

The enivronment a car moves through is not a closed space. Bernoulli's principle requires this fixed space, but no other variables.

Basically, you're going to see in a car the air flow into the scoop until atmospheric pressure is reached. At the point, the front of the scoop will become a "solid" just like the rest of the car and the rest of the air will flow over the scoop just like it would anywhere else. Any additional air is not going into the scoop, it OVERFLOWS into the airstream moving aroud the car. Only if the car goes fast enough, Mach .5 or thereabouts will you see pressurization inside the scoop rather that it just being pushed aside with the rest of the air.

Now, the only benefit from ram air at slow speeds, comes not from an increase in pressure, but a filling of the void created by the vacuum of the engine. But even then, you're not conserving enough energy (saving the motor work) to even be measurable given the uncertainies involved.
So "ram air" NEVER yields an increase in manfold pressure at ANY speed?

Is that what you're claiming?
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:11 AM
  #189  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
No, and I've never claimed that. Are you actually reading my posts?

Jeez guy...

This is from my post on PAGE ONE OF THIS THREAD!!!!

" Below about Mach 0.5 (or about half the speed of sound), air is considered “incompressible. That is, even if the correct nozzle is selected, and the air is slowed down (the official term is “stagnated”) there will be zero trade. No kinetic energy will be traded in as work capable of compressing the air. The reasons for this are not discussed here; the reader may consult any reputable fluid mechanics textbook for confirmation of this fact. In plain English, a car is just too slow for ram air to work. "

That's when you started posting car and bike article one after another, with flawed logic and experimentation.


DO US ALL A FAVOR AND ACTUALLY READ THE POSTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM!!!!!!!!!!!
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:13 AM
  #190  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
So "ram air" NEVER yields an increase in manfold pressure at ANY speed?

Is that what you're claiming?
Originally posted by Skeedatl
No, and I've never claimed that. Are you actually reading my posts?
Then you can't make the blanket statement that it's a myth.

A bone stock WS6 will exceed 150 MPH with no problem. That equates a rise in static pressure @ the intake manifold of ~ 2.75%.

http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:16 AM
  #191  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
No, and I've never claimed that. Are you actually reading my posts?

Jeez guy...

This is from my post on PAGE ONE OF THIS THREAD!!!!

" Below about Mach 0.5 (or about half the speed of sound), air is considered “incompressible. That is, even if the correct nozzle is selected, and the air is slowed down (the official term is “stagnated”) there will be zero trade. No kinetic energy will be traded in as work capable of compressing the air. The reasons for this are not discussed here; the reader may consult any reputable fluid mechanics textbook for confirmation of this fact. In plain English, a car is just too slow for ram air to work. "

That's when you started posting car and bike article one after another, with flawed logic and experimentation.


DO US ALL A FAVOR AND ACTUALLY READ THE POSTS BEFORE REPLYING TO THEM!!!!!!!!!!!
YOUR car might be too slow.

A bone stock WS6 will exceed 150 MPH with no problem. That equates a rise in static pressure @ the intake manifold of ~ 2.75%.

http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:17 AM
  #192  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
How many times did I say ram air doesn't work below Mach .5 and that the ram air effect doesn't work until around Mach .5? About a zillion.

You just got caught in your own web of bullsh!t and now you're embarrassed. You then molested all the equations trying to support your article postings. Then reversed yourself thinking no one would notice.

Fortunately you can't go reedit your threads. Everyone can see you're full of sh!t to the point your eyes are brown.

Next time don't speak of what you don't understand.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:19 AM
  #193  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
How many times did I say ram air doesn't work below Mach .5? About a zillion.

You just got caught in your own web of bullsh!t and now you're embarrassed.

Next time don't speak of what you don't understand.
It's good for a ~ 2% plus increase in pressure @ the intake manifold @ 150 MPH.

That's Mach ~ 0.2.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:20 AM
  #194  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BZZZZZZ, wrong. That energy is conserved in the form of heat, not increased pressure. Less than 2% on paper, even at 150MPH, a speed the WS6 would have trouble attaining, you won't measure it in "reality".

But thanks for playing.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:21 AM
  #195  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
BZZZZZZ, wrong. That energy is conserved in the form of heat, not increased pressure. 2% on paper, you won't measure it in "reality".

But thanks for playing.
Tell that to people who race @ elevated speeds.

You won't measure the difference between a K&N air filter and a paper one "in reality," either, yet you hype the K&N filter.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:24 AM
  #196  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Like you? Those WS6 dorks? Those dorks from the ZX article?

You forget everyone can see your previous posts.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:27 AM
  #197  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Like you? Those WS6 dorks? Those dorks from the ZX article?

You forget everyone can see your previous posts.
I forget very little.

And I haven't forgotten your claim that aluminum heads (by default) make more power than iron ones, either.

And you took that argument WAY out of context.

The L-78 aluminum and iron heads were essentially IDENTICAL and ran THE SAME COMPRESSION RATIO.

Yet, the guy was implying that engines equipped with the aluminum head option made SIGNIFICANTLY more power solely due to the difference in material.

They didn't.

And that was the crux of that argument.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:28 AM
  #198  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BTW, I run cotton filters cause they stay cleaner and more efficient longer. Not 'cause I'm getting "monster HP".
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:29 AM
  #199  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
BTW, I run cotton filters cause they stay cleaner and more efficient longer. Not 'cause I'm getting "monster HP".
Good.

But you've agrued that they produce more power...

In THEORY they may...but certainly no more than a decent ram air system on a vehicle traveling @ ~ 100 MPH.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 10:32 AM
  #200  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I forget very little.

And I haven't forgotten your claim that aluminum heads (by default) make more power than iron ones, either.

And you took that argument WAY out of context.

The L-78 aluminum and iron heads were essentially IDENTICAL and ran THE SAME COMPRESSION RATIO.

Yet, the guy was implying that engines equipped with the aluminum head option made SIGNIFICANTLY more power solely due to the difference in material.

They didn't.

And that was the crux of that argument.
Yeah sure. Nice history revisionism there sport.
Skeedatl is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: "Performance" air filter hype


Contact Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.