Even runner flow

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Still out in left field, we are talking about single plane manifolds designed by the aftermarket.

[Kevin Johnson]

95%

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

95%

95% of what?

[Kevin Johnson]

95%

95% of what?

While you ponder that enigma, read the little story about the single plane Tarantula manifold introduced at the beginning of the 1970s. Damn if Bobby Meeks isn't photographed for posterity holding a fiberglass prototype of a SBC version for dyno testing! There is a side bar about "in the old days" which is probably what you are thinking about. Somewhere I heard a rumor that Edelbrock might have made a few aftermarket intake manifolds. Same with Holley* and Weiand**.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iCWTCO ... ng&f=false

So, please be a little more careful when you attempt to rewrite history and then accuse people of living in fantasy dream worlds when they call you on it.



PS: Look up the Z design by Duntov* and the G designed with the help of Grumpy Jenkins**. Next time do your homework.

Oh yeah. Bases were loaded at the top of the ninth and a grand slam into left field brought everyone home.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

95%

95% of what?

While you ponder that enigma, read the little story about the single plane Tarantula manifold introduced at the beginning of the 1970s. Damn if Bobby Meeks isn't photographed for posterity holding a fiberglass prototype of a SBC version for dyno testing! There is a side bar about "in the old days" which is probably what you are thinking about. Somewhere I heard a rumor that Edelbrock might have made a few aftermarket intake manifolds. Same with Holley* and Weiand**.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iCWTCO ... ng&f=false

So, please be a little more careful when you attempt to rewrite history and then accuse people of living in fantasy dream worlds when they call you on it.



PS: Look up the Z design by Duntov* and the G designed with the help of Grumpy Jenkins**. Next time do your homework.

Oh yeah. Bases were loaded at the top of the ninth and a grand slam into left field brought everyone home.

Too bad you get your understanding from internet articles. It really gives you a distorted understanding.
They are written by people that don't understand what they are writing about based on story telling made to be interesting.

You are getting a little closer though.
When those prototypes are made, they are handed to a pattern maker that makes his interpretation of what they want, that can be tooled and cast within budget. As I explained before with band saws and files. It simply isn't possible to make the shapes that you would want in a manifold and cast and then machine it for $50. That is why they had such thick walls, undersize cores and misalignment. Even when they cut the corners they do, the ROI on these projects is often about 2 years.

If you would have seen the patterns and core boxes, and made repairs and modifications to some of them, as I have, and know how they were made, and who made them, you would understand. Most of the patterns from that era were destroyed about 10 years ago as the decay in the wood became so bad that they could rarely finish a production run without a piece breaking and falling off. The repairs are typically made with bondo by a person with no knowledge of engines. Some have been remade in urethane with aluminum or iron core boxes.

Edelbrock uses the software that I develop to model cylinder heads and manifolds. They were one of the first in the aftermarket to do 3D designs of manifolds and heads. I saw the first port cores when they were made by 3D printing in Rick Roberts office (it was a big step for them), it was somewhere around 2003. That would have been the first time that 3D data that was mold-able would have existed there that could have been used to make a pattern or core box. At the time, the pattern shops that serviced the automotive aftermarket didn't have CNC equipment required to make core boxes or patterns from that data. They would have cast impressions off the printed cores in plaster and then cast the tools from that.

GM (who also uses the software I develop to design their castings) was capable of doing full 3D designs about 10 years earlier but it wasn't efficient and practical until about 1999 when the features required to model a head or manifold became parametric and associative.

[Kevin Johnson]

Too bad you get your understanding from internet articles. It really gives you a distorted understanding.
They are written by people that don't understand what they are writing about based on story telling made to be interesting.

Try your song and dance on someone who was not informally and formally trained in a guild craft system. I think you rarely deal with people that more than match your education and experiences. Draw in casting mold design? Well, duh. Try surveying human anatomy to design retention claps in a specific path of insertion and removal.

When a Meister designs a pattern and gives it to one of the step workers -- who may or may not also have informal or formal training beyond their position in the manufacturing process -- the Meister has an understanding of what is desired and this is imbued in the design.

You are getting a little closer though.
When those prototypes are made, they are handed to a pattern maker that makes his interpretation of what they want, that can be tooled and cast within budget. As I explained before with band saws and files. It simply isn't possible to make the shapes that you would want in a manifold and cast and then machine it for $50. That is why they had such thick walls, undersize cores and misalignment. Even when they cut the corners they do, the ROI on these projects is often about 2 years.

Yawn. Read Duntov's 1960 patent cited by Weiand in his then contemporary D-port patent. Now you are living in a fantasy dream world if you think the designers did not understand the capabilities and economics of manufacturing processes. It is sad that you are not willing to invest your time in reading primary source materials and choose to mock those that do.

If you would have seen the patterns and core boxes, and made repairs and modifications to some of them, as I have, and know how they were made, and who made them, you would understand. Most of the patterns from that era were destroyed about 10 years ago as the decay in the wood became so bad that they could rarely finish a production run without a piece breaking and falling off. The repairs are typically made with bondo by a person with no knowledge of engines. Some have been remade in urethane with aluminum or iron core boxes.

Gosh. In my field I had to deal with injection and compression molding of waxes and plastics; casting, plating, welding, brazing and electroforming of metals; repairing damaged molds in the middle of production. My Grandfather (Meister) explained to me that experience is what allows you to soundly execute those repairs if needed.

Edelbrock uses the software that I develop to model cylinder heads and manifolds. They were one of the first in the aftermarket to do 3D designs of manifolds and heads. I saw the first port cores when they were made by 3D printing in Rick Roberts office (it was a big step for them), it was somewhere around 2003. That would have been the first time that 3D data that was mold-able would have existed there that could have been used to make a pattern or core box. At the time, the pattern shops that serviced the automotive aftermarket didn't have CNC equipment required to make core boxes or patterns from that data. They would have cast impressions off the printed cores in plaster and then cast the tools from that.

Lord Almighty, how did Edelbrock --- and GM --- manage to do it thirty years prior to your help. Wait, I can read a published book or article written while Bobby Meeks was still alive and it will tell me. Or I could read Duntov's patent discussion from 53 years ago.



Look, you have identifiable psychological argumentation techniques that work 95% of the time. I am sure you use them very effectively in your day job as well. That's wonderful. They just don't work 100% of the time. Just ignore me and you will be much happier.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Kevin, I have worked on both ends of the spectrum in patterns for automotive castings.
As a part-time hobby I have enjoyed working on and maintaining many of the old patterns in my own shop. I do it as a favor to my casting broker, it is a win-win for both of us, I like to see the old tooling and he likes that I can fix them over-night in most cases. In most cases these are old wood patterns with dry-rot and cracks in them and covered with bondo that falls off each year due to expansion and contraction differences in the wood and bondo. When the bondos fall off you can see exactly how they were made, the sawn and filed finish is still there.

In my regular job I develop the software that the leading edge uses. GM, Chrysler, Cosworth, Nissan, Daimler and more. I have done CAD work for Ford racing of cylinder-head castings and the tooling to make them.

I don't need to read articles on the internet to guess about how it is done.

I understand the skills involved in the old and new methods, and use both of them still today as needed. I learned how to do plaster casting at LA cast tooling.
When they were in business, that was one of the main places to get tooling made.
When someone would bring a model of a manifold they wanted to have tooling for, it was never complete, people always take it about 90% of the way knowing that the pattern maker will have to change it anyhow, at a minimum for molding draft and scaled for shrinkage.
The guys that do the plaster work don't know anything about engines. In a typical year automotive castings will be less than 10% of their work. You would be just as likely have projects for boat anchors and deck cleats to man hole covers and plumbing pipes. One day I saw a full body casting being made of an actress (breathing through straws).

The point I am trying to get across is that most of those old castings were made by process and people and budgets that precluded any advanced engineering from getting into the final product if it was ever done in the first place.

If you look at the aftermarket stuff being made today, you can see the difference in the designs. The development process technology moving from band saws to 3D CAD and CNC patterns making is the primary determinant of the final result. People would have made the modern designs a long time ago, it was just to difficult and expensive with the old methods. It was possible to do, Ferrari as an example made nice sculpted patterns but they worked differently than the LA pattern shops did. LA is an expensive place to live, and as we can see most of those shops went out of business a long time ago. They just didn't have time to make really great stuff.

When you look at an early single plane manifold, the design was conceived as a way to make a product that could be sold at the impulse price point in Summit ads in Hot Rod and Car Craft magazine. More than one of the patterns for those were partly made from wood that was taken from a pallet that was found in an LA alley.

When you have actually designed and made a manifold or head and tooling, I will be interested in your opinion.

[Kevin Johnson]

Yes, when I received shipments of steel sheet on pallets made of oak flooring I saved the wood too. I used it to make hammer molds. I admire thrift.

Before my Grandfather came to the USA he and my paternal Great Grandfather and Great Uncle made a beautiful storage box for 78 rpm records. It was made of oak salvaged from 19th century carriages in England.

My maternal Grandmother and Grandfather built their home in Drayton Plains, MI and used cement blocks from a local 19th century church that had burned down for the cellar walls. Construction materials in the Detroit area were difficult to come by after the war.

It just occurred to me that a maternal Great Grandfather helped install the oak flooring at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. He was a surveyor and gunsmith and is listed on a large number of county documents in Oakland county. During the depression people were happy to find work where they could and still proud of it.

Yes, I understand the new methods as well. I have already spelled out limitations in formal logic that govern computer systems. Maybe in my lifetime they will display themselves more prominently.

[A Atwood]

Jon, Kevin, it is Ok to agree to disagree sometimes.
Both of you have expressed intelligent opinions from different view points. I see valid information from both. We do not need to be all in agreeance on any given tech discussion. We all know there is always more than one way to accomplish a given goal in this profession.
Let's be respectful of others on this board, especially the professionals, as we all love the same sport/hobby here. This is the best forum on these subjects. Let's keep it that way.
Now, back to the OP's question.

ARN

[JoePorting]

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Jon, Kevin, it is Ok to agree to disagree sometimes.
Both of you have expressed intelligent opinions from different view points. I see valid information from both. We do not need to be all in agreeance on any given tech discussion. We all know there is always more than one way to accomplish a given goal in this profession.
Let's be respectful of others on this board, especially the professionals, as we all love the same sport/hobby here. This is the best forum on these subjects. Let's keep it that way.
Now, back to the OP's question.

ARN

Maybe you can explain what this video has to do with the OP question.

Thermodynamic balance is different for the inner versus outer cylinders.

You should watch that NASCAR engine video.

http://youtu.be/rBZCnG1HwDM?t=1s

[Kevin Johnson]

Maybe you can explain what this video has to do with the OP question.

Thermodynamic balance is different for the inner versus outer cylinders.

You should watch that NASCAR engine video.

http://youtu.be/rBZCnG1HwDM?t=1s

In a complex system it can be possible to adjust or "even out" the output of that system by simultaneously manipulating other variables. You need to start thinking in more than one dimension -- evening out airflow is one dimensional thinking.

The video discusses multiple ways to approach/consider this problem and the thermodynamic balance is one aspect. It is even written down on a chart in the video for you.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Maybe you can explain what this video has to do with the OP question.

Thermodynamic balance is different for the inner versus outer cylinders.

You should watch that NASCAR engine video.

http://youtu.be/rBZCnG1HwDM?t=1s

In a complex system it can be possible to adjust or "even out" the output of that system by simultaneously manipulating other variables. You need to start thinking in more than one dimension -- evening out airflow is one dimensional thinking.

The video discusses multiple ways to approach/consider this problem and the thermodynamic balance is one aspect. It is even written down on a chart in the video for you.

Still waiting for you to explain how it answers to OPs question. Please be specific, that is all I have asked and what you have not answered.

Having coded all of the math in this video about 10 years ago, I think I understand it well enough.

[Kevin Johnson]

I am sorry, Jon. The difficulty appears to be conceptual or how you are able to process information.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

I am sorry, Jon. The difficulty appears to be conceptual or how you are able to process information.

You have not made a specific explanation to process.

Frankly, you are full of BS.