Plenum Spacer pulled 3 times on Dyno FYI
05-09-2006, 04:39 PM
#121
Barc, some comments:
1. Ever heard of air-cooled engines like the old VWs had? Of course water is much better for cooling metal parts, but air cooling worked well enough to keep those engines running, no matter what you or anyone says about the poor thermal transfer properties of air.
2. How does a hairdryer or heat gun work? The air is blown quickly at x cfm over a hot heating element, and it comes out feeling pretty toasty, even though it was at room temperature a second before.
3. If you walk fast enough on hot coals, you won't get burned but the soles of your feet WILL heat up significantly, no matter how fast you walk.
4.
Think of it thus: If you had a thermometer on the intake plenum and measured the temperature at various throttle positions, it would go down as the throttle position increased due to the greater quantity of air passing through it and cooling it. As you know, when two substances come in contact with each other, the one with greater heat transfers it to the other. So the metal intake is transferring heat to the air, and where is the air going? Right into the engine. The faster the air is going, the MORE heat is going back into the engine and the less dense that air is.
5.
Patently false. Any material at 150 degrees will transmit heat to anything it contacts faster, yes FASTER, than if it were at 100 degrees.
6.
Of course not. The air itself transfers little heat to the engine. You are confused. Pinging is due to early detonation, which has to due with the fuel octane rating and air-fuel ratio and other factors. The intake air temperature has an extremely minor effect on the temperature inside the cylinder. HOWEVER, (and this is the whole point) the cooler the intake air the more you can pack in due to its greater density.
7.
Your entire argument is founded on the decidedly unscientific notion that hey, the air is going REALLY FAST so it doesn't make a difference how hot the intake is, beacuse the air is going REALLY FAST. It's in such a rush that it doesn't gain any heat from its surroundings or obey the laws of thermodynamics because it's just going REALLY FAST!
1. Ever heard of air-cooled engines like the old VWs had? Of course water is much better for cooling metal parts, but air cooling worked well enough to keep those engines running, no matter what you or anyone says about the poor thermal transfer properties of air.
2. How does a hairdryer or heat gun work? The air is blown quickly at x cfm over a hot heating element, and it comes out feeling pretty toasty, even though it was at room temperature a second before.
3. If you walk fast enough on hot coals, you won't get burned but the soles of your feet WILL heat up significantly, no matter how fast you walk.
4.
Originally Posted by Barc
So, no matter how hot the intake gets, the air will never get any hotter than it normally would unless you are decreasing the rate of flow or increasing the thermal transfer rate of air, which the spacer does none of.
5.
Originally Posted by Barc
Yes, the specific heat is greater but air is not absorbing it any quicker at a high or low temperature.
6.
Originally Posted by Barc
If this was such an important factor, don't you think your car would permanently be pinging after it warms up due to detonation now since the intake is so hot? It doesn't, does it? Why?
7.
Originally Posted by Barc
Given the amount of time it spends in the intake plenum, whether spaced or not, the air does not have enough time to heat beyond any point it normally would have reached so my arguement that the amount of time it spends in the chamber IS material.
05-09-2006, 04:49 PM
#122
Stillen, let me ask you a question if I may. I may be way off but I've not done this in a while:
Can we use the change in heat formula (delta Q = m c delta T) to prove anything? I realize that heat is energy but hear me out and maybe I'll make a bit more sense. I have racked my brain trying to think of a short, simple way to prove that this is ineffective (in terms of temperature gradient) and this is the simplest way I could think of so anyone can understand. If it works, here is what we can easily show.
Change in heat (energy) = mass of the air X heat capacity of air X change in temperature.
Just to keep everything VERY simple, let's assume we have 1 kg of air coming into the system and staying. We already know that the change in the intake temperature is 10*F but we'll just say it is actually 10 K because this is still going to work... Therefore
Change in heat = 1kg of air X 0.963 kJ / kg X 10
Change in heat = 9.63 kJ
1 kJ = .239 kcal
So, the Change in heat = 2.3 kcal or 0.0023 Calories as measured on food...
Anyway, I may be way off but that's the simplest thing I could think of. I'm tired of trying, to be perfectly honest. I'm still in the Missouri camp!
Can we use the change in heat formula (delta Q = m c delta T) to prove anything? I realize that heat is energy but hear me out and maybe I'll make a bit more sense. I have racked my brain trying to think of a short, simple way to prove that this is ineffective (in terms of temperature gradient) and this is the simplest way I could think of so anyone can understand. If it works, here is what we can easily show.
Change in heat (energy) = mass of the air X heat capacity of air X change in temperature.
Just to keep everything VERY simple, let's assume we have 1 kg of air coming into the system and staying. We already know that the change in the intake temperature is 10*F but we'll just say it is actually 10 K because this is still going to work... Therefore
Change in heat = 1kg of air X 0.963 kJ / kg X 10
Change in heat = 9.63 kJ
1 kJ = .239 kcal
So, the Change in heat = 2.3 kcal or 0.0023 Calories as measured on food...
Anyway, I may be way off but that's the simplest thing I could think of. I'm tired of trying, to be perfectly honest. I'm still in the Missouri camp!
05-09-2006, 05:01 PM
#123
What about at 7400' elevation... would this change anything. 
Ambient air pressure is less (760 vs 590 torr)
Instead of splitting the hairs of physics, why not get a cryogenic intake from custom maxima?
... 
Ambient air pressure is less (760 vs 590 torr)
Instead of splitting the hairs of physics, why not get a cryogenic intake from custom maxima?
...
05-09-2006, 05:08 PM
#124
Originally Posted by VQuick
Barc, some comments:
1. Ever heard of air-cooled engines like the old VWs had? Of course water is much better for cooling metal parts, but air cooling worked well enough to keep those engines running, no matter what you or anyone says about the poor thermal transfer properties of air.
1. Ever heard of air-cooled engines like the old VWs had? Of course water is much better for cooling metal parts, but air cooling worked well enough to keep those engines running, no matter what you or anyone says about the poor thermal transfer properties of air.
Originally Posted by VQuick
2. How does a hairdryer or heat gun work? The air is blown quickly at x cfm over a hot heating element, and it comes out feeling pretty toasty, even though it was at room temperature a second before.
Originally Posted by VQuick
3. If you walk fast enough on hot coals, you won't get burned but the soles of your feet WILL heat up significantly, no matter how fast you walk.
Originally Posted by VQuick
4. Think of it thus: If you had a thermometer on the intake plenum and measured the temperature at various throttle positions, it would go down as the throttle position increased due to the greater quantity of air passing through it and cooling it. As you know, when two substances come in contact with each other, the one with greater heat transfers it to the other. So the metal intake is transferring heat to the air, and where is the air going? Right into the engine. The faster the air is going, the MORE heat is going back into the engine and the less dense that air is.
Originally Posted by VQuick
5. Patently false. Any material at 150 degrees will transmit heat to anything it contacts faster, yes FASTER, than if it were at 100 degrees.
Originally Posted by VQuick
6. Of course not. The air itself transfers little heat to the engine. You are confused. Pinging is due to early detonation, which has to due with the fuel octane rating and air-fuel ratio and other factors. The intake air temperature has an extremely minor effect on the temperature inside the cylinder. HOWEVER, (and this is the whole point) the cooler the intake air the more you can pack in due to its greater density.
Originally Posted by VQuick
7. Your entire argument is founded on the decidedly unscientific notion that hey, the air is going REALLY FAST so it doesn't make a difference how hot the intake is, beacuse the air is going REALLY FAST. It's in such a rush that it doesn't gain any heat from its surroundings or obey the laws of thermodynamics because it's just going REALLY FAST!
I'm still awaiting the dyno, runfiles, and video... Remember, I've moved to Missouri.
05-09-2006, 05:34 PM
#126
Originally Posted by BARC
OK.........
In thermodynamic terms, a system is defined as a part of the total universe that is isolated from the rest of the universe by definite boundaries
so Try plugging in this formula barc
∑(∆Q)=0
05-09-2006, 06:22 PM
#129
500 cfm is not an actual figure... its as close an approximation as I can get without doing a flow test and is entirely based on other engines flow rates that I can't quote number for number but can give a good estimate of the required volume of air required at WOT... such as the small block listed in my signature and a few others I know pretty well right off hand.
Yes, less volume is required at lower RPMs, however, WOT and high RPMs is the way dynos are done so I wanted to make sure we were on equal footing. Even at half loads, you are still swapping in new air 2 to 4 times per second.
Again, I'm tired of trying so I'm still in Missouri. Thanks for the useful input, it is appreciated!
Yes, less volume is required at lower RPMs, however, WOT and high RPMs is the way dynos are done so I wanted to make sure we were on equal footing. Even at half loads, you are still swapping in new air 2 to 4 times per second.
Again, I'm tired of trying so I'm still in Missouri. Thanks for the useful input, it is appreciated!
05-10-2006, 04:21 AM
#130
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_abs.htm
-At 77F and 29.235 inches-Hg pressure and 0% humidity your engine will output 100% horsepower.
At 108F and 29.235 inches-Hg pressure at 60% humidity your engine will output 91.1% relative horsepower.
-At 98F 29.235 inches-Hg and 60% humidity your engine will output 93.5% relative horsepower.
Net Gain 2.4 % for 10 degree drop, air density increases by about .025Kg/m3
-At 77F and 29.235 inches-Hg pressure and 0% humidity your engine will output 100% horsepower.
At 108F and 29.235 inches-Hg pressure at 60% humidity your engine will output 91.1% relative horsepower.
-At 98F 29.235 inches-Hg and 60% humidity your engine will output 93.5% relative horsepower.
Net Gain 2.4 % for 10 degree drop, air density increases by about .025Kg/m3
05-10-2006, 04:25 AM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by Barc
500 cfm is not an actual figure... its as close an approximation 
as I can get without doing a flow test and is entirely based on other engines flow rates that I can't quote number for number but can give a good estimate of the required volume of air required at WOT... such as the small block listed in my signature and a few others I know pretty well right off hand.
as I can get without doing a flow test and is entirely based on other engines flow rates that I can't quote number for number but can give a good estimate of the required volume of air required at WOT... such as the small block listed in my signature and a few others I know pretty well right off hand.(source: http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/math.html )
Given the above 214 X 6500 X .85 / 3456 = 342.1 CFM for a 3.5L
How about we spend a little more of the time researching our thoughts, and ideas before posting numbers. So, we are not wasting space and time following up with words like " not an actual figure" then going into a long drawn out post as to why it's not an actual figure.
05-10-2006, 05:10 AM
#132
Originally Posted by bpe383
CFM = CID x RPM x VE ÷ 3456
(source: http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/math.html )
Given the above 214 X 6500 X .85 / 3456 = 342.1 CFM for a 3.5L
How about we spend a little more of the time researching our thoughts, and ideas before posting numbers. So, we are not wasting space and time following up with words like " not an actual figure" then going into a long drawn out post as to why it's not an actual figure.
(source: http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/math.html )
Given the above 214 X 6500 X .85 / 3456 = 342.1 CFM for a 3.5L
How about we spend a little more of the time researching our thoughts, and ideas before posting numbers. So, we are not wasting space and time following up with words like " not an actual figure" then going into a long drawn out post as to why it's not an actual figure.
Spend more time researching my thoughts? That's sort of a slap in the face, don't you think, especially coming from someone who looked up cfm conversions and then misrepresented them. How about I just sit back and laugh my butt off at the fact that, even though I overestimated the cfm, the air still is swapped at a high enough rate that it still doesn't matter. And then laugh even more when every other formula quoted on here all point to the fact that this ain't gonna work as advertised.
In any event, I guessed wrong according to using a carb on the engine and I couldn't care less. Still doesn't change the outcome nor the fact that the flow is still too high.
Think I'm upset? Think you've "got me?" Think again. I told you, I've moved to Missouri. I'm having fun awaiting the dynos, video, and runfiles promised a week and a half ago now by someone who has obviously had the time to post 10+ times in various threads since then.
I'm done now fooling with this.
05-10-2006, 05:32 AM
#134
Originally Posted by Epacy
Smartest comment I have seen in this thread in 2 pages.
Yep, I've been
almost the entire time I've started posting but people are getting too serious, myself included. I'm just gonna wait out the dynos, video, and runfiles like everyone else. I should have just listened to you several pages ago when you started asking about the validity of this guy, and not the validity of the product.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CorollaULEV
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
30
08-09-2021 08:11 PM
MaximaDrvr
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
08-19-2015 08:20 PM