My Cool 750 Commando

Status
Not open for further replies.
hobot said:
Those who use 5 xtra lb twist do so from experience which may not apply to everyone. Gas pressure pluses can't pulse up pushrod tunnels to matter as pressurized oil is being forced out the small lifter groves and even factory system vented enough pressure rocker back wash is non issue and less so with a active one way valve. Granted not much pressure can develop in rocker area from small volume of oil pumped in to drain out the rear intake drain exposed to crank pressure too. To run less than a 2S cam generally requires lowering CR or tends to detonate so unless the head gap in narrower than other fin valleys its likely got less than a 2S cam. Its ok to run 2S on less CR but it will not be very responsive engine till about redline.

If I understand Hobotese, I agree that back flow thru the pushrod tunnels is torturous, but neither will the engine freely draft thru the rocker boxes for the same reason. The situation becomes more complex at elevated frequencies (high rpm) as pumping air (or any fluid) back and forth becomes a matter of diminishing returns as inertia and viscosity act against each other, and set up counterflows (some fluid going in, some going out simultaneously). Sounds bizarre? It is.

I think (think means I am not sure because the inside of an engine and it's air pathways are too complex) Needling's drafting thru the rocker boxes may work at very slow rpm's, if most (>80%?) of crankcase gas is expelled thru the reed valve. However, slow rpm's is when the rocker box path offers least back-flow resistance....hence a contra indication exists.

I am sure Needling's engine runs cool, likely 99% due to the oil cooler and little, if any, due to drafting outside air thru the rocker boxes. Perhaps his idea can be developed to get around the limitation imposed by the pushrod tunnels. OTH, needlessly pumping air is a waste of horsepower.

Slick
 
needing said:
texasSlick said:
@Needling

When pistons are in descent,what keeps crankcase gas from blowing back up the pushrod
tunnels and out the air inlet in the inlet rocker box? Do you have a second reed valve at the rocker box allowing air in, but not out?

Have you made any crankcase pressure measurements, at idle and high (>3000 rpm)?

Slick

Hi Sick.
No objective readings but audible reedvalve operation with bursting of a balloon in seconds when placed over outlet at idle. High revs = Path of least resistance - 1/2" hose to reed valve exit - 3/8" hose from intake can with 50 micron screen. Reedvalve vents to area of low pressure while intake is (now in tank tunnel behind headstem) at area of high pressure.

Hi Hobot.

I do not understand you.

Funny typo there :wink: :wink: Leave you with it.

But you can burst a balloon is second over the outlet. I have never tried that but is sounds really strange to me...
If my assessment is wrong others hopefully will correct me or explain why... I have fitted reed valves (2 bikes) and from my research on this site i was under the impression that the valve created a negative/minus pressure in the crankcase and once the C/Case volume of "air?" was expelled to minus the XS650 reeds were designed to maintain that neg pressure. Granted the reed will be continually working .

I have held my finger over the outlet from the reed valve and on initial startup felt air being pushed out but stops to none (i think cos i cant feel pressure) once first rev up has returned to idle. I cant understand how you case burst a balloon that quickly, if fact at all :?: :?: :?: Unless you have another opening to atmoshphere which will neurter the reed valve... IMO...
 
Well, I agree with:

fullAuto......the Norton engine (assuming no rust, mud, etc on the cylinder fins) has sufficient cooling capacity to deal with high air temps.....providing there is sufficient forward movement.

Rohan.....an oil cooler is nearly useless unless there is sufficient forward movement.

OlChris......the air expelled from the reed valve tends to fall to minimal unless there is a source of air replacement.

Hobot.....the pushrod tunnel and oil return galleries are poor pathways for air flow.

Now further discussion:

Needling's balloon method is a clever test, and unless the initial evacuation of the crankcase was sufficient to burst the balloon, then a source of air replacement exists. This is easily tested by applying the balloon after a startup period has elapsed. My query about pressures was an attempt to elucidate this very point.

If a source of air replacement exists, it must be Needling's draft thru the rocker box. Then, a second reed valve (allowing air in but not out) would be of benefit, as some blowback is to be expected. Any blowback dilutes any drafted fresh air and thus reduces the benefit from the draft system.

At high engine rpm (high is hard to define owing to the complexity of the engine's air passages, and the aerodynamics of oscillating flow), it is very likely the draft will be reduced to a much smaller value. The balloon test could be applied at say 3000 rpm to gauge if replacement air rate remains similar to that at idle rpm. Pressure measurements could also be made with rocker box inlet open and blocked to estimate the draft effect.

If the draft system works only at idle rpms, that is just fine. If the rpm is above 1500, the bike should be in gear and moving down the road, with plenty of moving air over the fins (and oil cooler) so draft air is not needed.

The location of the air inlet filter is irrelevant. Dynamic ram pressure is minimal unless the air speed is say 30 mph or more. Yes, I know if one sticks his hand out the window of a car moving at 30 mph, one seems to feel a lot of pressure. This is a force, pressure times the area of the hand....the actual dynamic pressure at low speed is only little more than the free stream static pressure. Besides, if one has 30 mph forward speed, one has all the cooling necessary, and enhancing the draft is superfluous.

It is well known that moving air is a very good medium to extract heat by convection. The exterior of an air cooled engine is designed to capitalize on the physics of convection. The interior is not. Air is actually a poor conductor, and it's capacity to absorb and store heat is poor as well. Thus, the question arises, even if the engine drafts air into the crankcase, how much heat is actually extracted from the engine internals and pumped outside?

Here in Texas, we routinely encounter summer temps above 40 C, and I once suffered a piston seizure (due to fin contamination, not high temp per se). I run an oil cooler for some insurance...others will object to an oil cooler citing cook off issues, etc. Each has to make his own determination of what is important. I require more convincing that the draft system is effective before I were to apply it to my Atlas.

Slick
 
hobot said:
Reports of decades of tests with and w/o oil coolers seem to indicate it hardly ever matters either way but for some rate obvious extremes. Did Police shut down or run around in circles when holding station ready to spring into action. Did they have oil coolers?

I agree with this theory. Would be interesting to map how often the oil temp is high enough to actually open the flow to the oil cooler under normal riding conditions.
 
needing said:
Hi all.
I'm not seeing where the difficulty is.
The crankcase airflow concept is simple as is the implementation.
I have avoided verbosity and the use of jargon/initials and am prepared to draw a picture for you if that will help?
Validation through replication is the next step.
Thanks for the interest.

Oops. Should have been "Hi Slick".

The difficulty is convincing me that your airflow system on a Norton "sucking in one end and puffing out the other" is a worthwhile diversion from accepted, proven and tried crankcase ventilation modifications...
Please show me some drawings cos i am always willing to accept new ideas/concepts and im sure other are also. I dont read very well but i love pictures.
It aint that hot here downunder and your not racing? so "what is the point"???? .. Oil cooler great but the rest is blablabla........................

Have i seen your bike around Mittagong Qld ??
 
I have more than a few comments on the performance of this, but I'll just put in my $0.02 on the really basics.

1) Breathing in an norton, from the factory setup, is....not that good. On a 750, the timed breather is a neat idea, but is not really a smart way to implement it. On the combats, the breathing problems and oiling problems together cause the whole system to be a little....funny. By the time the mk2/mk3 850's were around, the breathing made more sense but is still not great. To breathe a 360 twin correctly, you need two things: you need the crankcase to not be under pressure when the pistons go down (i.e. air needs to escape through an orifice without restriction at an average rate of 0.03 CFM per rpm), and you need to pull some partial vacuum when the pistons are going up (i.e. air needs to escape through an orifice with restriction at an average rate of 0.03 CFM per rpm). If you pull too much vaccum, you induce a fair bit of pumping loss at speed and also end or sucking in gas past the piston rings. On the stock setup on an 850, the crankcase is pressurized on the downstroke, and is connected to the timing chest via holes. The timing chest breathes through a 1/2" port at the old mag area. this goes to the top of the oil tank (at the filler) which acts as a catch can, with the outlet at the highest part of the oil tank (the raised middle section). The air from the outlet goes right to the stock breather into the airbox. On piston upstroke, the crankcase pulls a vaccum which then pulls air through through the timing case breather, which pulls air through the top of the oil tank from the breather. This leads to no real vaccuum when the pistons move up and due to the restrictions in the breather, there is also some crankcase pressure when the pistons are moving down. To solve this setup, the simplest thing one could do is check the flow out of the timing chest (using a reed valve or other style of check valve) and restrict the flow inwards. This can be done by punching a small hole in the reed valve or putting a check valve ~12" away from the timing chest and teeing off a small line before the valve to allow air to come in in a restricted manner. That should provide more than adequate breathing.

2) Your breather setup half makes sense (because the reed valves follows this method) but in some regards doesn't make sense. First off, because the airflow is not checked or restricted on that inlet, the crankcase pressure can also come out of that filter. This is not reall a problem because.... secondly, the filter requires that all the breathing go from the crankcase up the pushrod tunnels to the head, of which there is not any real unrestricted path. This means that when the crankcase tries to pull a vaccum, it's easier to pull gasses blowby past the piston than it is to pull 0.03 CFM per rpm of air through the cam follower tunnels, which is NOT what you want. Thirdly, at speed there will not be appreciable pressure at that filter to cause a positive effect. Ram air intake systems almost always end up being more of a gimmick than anything based on actual performance, especially when filtering/restricting the intake flow a lot. If the flow is restricted below the net air speed a small positive pressure builds up over the entrance which causes fluid to flow around instead of into the filter.

3) "Internally cooling" an engine is not going to happen reasonably as the internal castings of the engine are all smooth and don't really get a good convective cooling effect, and the thermal conductivity of oil is very very poor. All that's happening is you're letting in a lot of air with moisture from outside inside the engine to react with hot oil, which will end up producing a tan coloured goopy mixture anywhere the oil is allowed to foam. The concept that the hot breathed air inside the crankcase "contaminating" the oil is not a real concept as the breathed air from the crankcase is already interacting with that oil in regular engine running. All the breather gasses in the crankcase interact with oil inside the crankcase (at the sump) as well as in the timing chest before going to the oil tank. On the plus side of the stock system, once the engine heats up on a somewhat closed system the moisture from the air is removed, but if you continually introduce large quantities of outside temp air you're continually pumping moisture into the engine (not good).

Not to say the work isn't neat, but I think you should spend a little time looking at the details of why the bits work before making statements that your system is fixing problems.
 
midnightlamp said:
On the combats, the breathing problems and oiling problems together cause the whole system to be a little....funny.
:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top