Volumetric Efficiency
Moderator: Team
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9633
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
Seems the issue still needs clarification. Here goes.
Momentum is the product of mass times velocity: M = m * V.
Since the mass is moving at constant velocity, momentum must be constant as well.
But at any different steady state velocity, the mass momentum will be different.
Now for Inertia, which is completely different and defined as I = M * A.
The Laws of Motion state that a body at rest, tends to stay at rest;
a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
A body at rest has an acceleration value of zero, as does a body at any steady state velocity.
It must then have an inertia value of zero.
But it takes energy to move a body from a resting state, or to change the velocity of a moving body,
or to change direction, which is reflected by its required inertia force. Since the mass is constant,
inertia is determined by the rate of change or its acceleration.
Momentum is stored energy. Inertia is required energy to cause a change of position, velocity or direction.
Easy to say on paper or backlit screen. In the real world it becomes a bit more complex.
Air particles are compressible and therefore their mass (density) will change.
Pulsed air flow causes local variations in air velocity (and acceleration) which then results in changes
to V and A. And to Momentum and Inertia numbers.
Steady state air mass measurements never match pulsed air mass measurements. Nor should they.
Momentum is the product of mass times velocity: M = m * V.
Since the mass is moving at constant velocity, momentum must be constant as well.
But at any different steady state velocity, the mass momentum will be different.
Now for Inertia, which is completely different and defined as I = M * A.
The Laws of Motion state that a body at rest, tends to stay at rest;
a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
A body at rest has an acceleration value of zero, as does a body at any steady state velocity.
It must then have an inertia value of zero.
But it takes energy to move a body from a resting state, or to change the velocity of a moving body,
or to change direction, which is reflected by its required inertia force. Since the mass is constant,
inertia is determined by the rate of change or its acceleration.
Momentum is stored energy. Inertia is required energy to cause a change of position, velocity or direction.
Easy to say on paper or backlit screen. In the real world it becomes a bit more complex.
Air particles are compressible and therefore their mass (density) will change.
Pulsed air flow causes local variations in air velocity (and acceleration) which then results in changes
to V and A. And to Momentum and Inertia numbers.
Steady state air mass measurements never match pulsed air mass measurements. Nor should they.
-
- Pro
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:09 pm
- Location: TN
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
"Momentum is stored energy. Inertia is required energy to cause a change of position, velocity or direction" Is it correct to say something that has mass has inertia and to have inertia you have to have mass?
Are inertial effects more significant that acoustical resonance effects in a racing engine? I'm trying to get it in my head how this applies to VE.
Are inertial effects more significant that acoustical resonance effects in a racing engine? I'm trying to get it in my head how this applies to VE.
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
How about: "The momentum of the in-flowing mixture contributes to cylinder filling at the end of the induction cycle, increasing in effect as the RPM and hence gas velocity and momentum rises, whereas the finite amplitude pressure waves in a 'tuned' intake runner, while increasing in intensity with RPM, will over a band of ~800 RPM add, subtract or have no effect, depending on how they are synched with the RPM and valve timing."
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.
Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.
Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
For fluid momentum in a tube it isDavid Redszus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:47 am Seems the issue still needs clarification. Here goes.
Momentum is the product of mass times velocity: M = m * V.
Since the mass is moving at constant velocity, momentum must be constant as well.
But at any different steady state velocity, the mass momentum will be different.
Now for Inertia, which is completely different and defined as I = M * A.
The Laws of Motion state that a body at rest, tends to stay at rest;
a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
A body at rest has an acceleration value of zero, as does a body at any steady state velocity.
It must then have an inertia value of zero.
But it takes energy to move a body from a resting state, or to change the velocity of a moving body,
or to change direction, which is reflected by its required inertia force. Since the mass is constant,
inertia is determined by the rate of change or its acceleration.
Momentum is stored energy. Inertia is required energy to cause a change of position, velocity or direction.
Easy to say on paper or backlit screen. In the real world it becomes a bit more complex.
Air particles are compressible and therefore their mass (density) will change.
Pulsed air flow causes local variations in air velocity (and acceleration) which then results in changes
to V and A. And to Momentum and Inertia numbers.
Steady state air mass measurements never match pulsed air mass measurements. Nor should they.
Momentum.= Density x Area x velocity squared
Inertia is not M x A
"Mass" is the inertia for translation motion
"Mass moment of inertia" is the inertia for the rotational motion
-
- Pro
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:09 pm
- Location: TN
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
The bold part is the negative, positive and equal pressure differential waves that arrive at the valve, correct?MadBill wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:01 pm How about: "The momentum of the in-flowing mixture contributes to cylinder filling at the end of the induction cycle, increasing in effect as the RPM and hence gas velocity and momentum rises, whereas the finite amplitude pressure waves in a 'tuned' intake runner, while increasing in intensity with RPM, will over a band of ~800 RPM add, subtract or have no effect, depending on how they are synched with the RPM and valve timing."
The column of air traveling down an intake of an engine at 100MPH or 500MPH can't have much momentum. It doesn't have much mass. It therefore doesn't have much inertia. So in that respect it doesn't contribute much to the VE of an engine compared to the many other factors that do in my head.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
Pretty much!Roundybout wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:34 pmThe bold part is the negative, positive and equal pressure differential waves that arrive at the valve, correct?MadBill wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:01 pm How about: "The momentum of the in-flowing mixture contributes to cylinder filling at the end of the induction cycle, increasing in effect as the RPM and hence gas velocity and momentum rises, whereas the finite amplitude pressure waves in a 'tuned' intake runner, while increasing in intensity with RPM, will over a band of ~800 RPM add, subtract or have no effect, depending on how they are synched with the RPM and valve timing."
The column of air traveling down an intake of an engine at 100MPH or 500MPH can't have much momentum. It doesn't have much mass. It therefore doesn't have much inertia. So in that respect it doesn't contribute much to the VE of an engine compared to the many other factors that do in my head.
It's all about pressure differentials and catching the waves!
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
I always think of the strength of the wave (diameter and taper) and harnessing the wave at the right Crank angles by tuning the length of runner
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9633
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
I agree.MadBill wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:01 pm How about: "The momentum of the in-flowing mixture contributes to cylinder filling at the end of the induction cycle, increasing in effect as the RPM and hence gas velocity and momentum rises, whereas the finite amplitude pressure waves in a 'tuned' intake runner, while increasing in intensity with RPM, will over a band of ~800 RPM add, subtract or have no effect, depending on how they are synched with the RPM and valve timing."
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9633
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
Quite wrong. please check your sources.digger wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:22 pmFor fluid momentum in a tube it isDavid Redszus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:47 am Seems the issue still needs clarification. Here goes.
Momentum is the product of mass times velocity: M = m * V.
Since the mass is moving at constant velocity, momentum must be constant as well.
But at any different steady state velocity, the mass momentum will be different.
Now for Inertia, which is completely different and defined as I = M * A.
The Laws of Motion state that a body at rest, tends to stay at rest;
a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
A body at rest has an acceleration value of zero, as does a body at any steady state velocity.
It must then have an inertia value of zero.
But it takes energy to move a body from a resting state, or to change the velocity of a moving body,
or to change direction, which is reflected by its required inertia force. Since the mass is constant,
inertia is determined by the rate of change or its acceleration.
Momentum is stored energy. Inertia is required energy to cause a change of position, velocity or direction.
Easy to say on paper or backlit screen. In the real world it becomes a bit more complex.
Air particles are compressible and therefore their mass (density) will change.
Pulsed air flow causes local variations in air velocity (and acceleration) which then results in changes
to V and A. And to Momentum and Inertia numbers.
Steady state air mass measurements never match pulsed air mass measurements. Nor should they.
Momentum.= Density x Area x velocity squared
Inertia is not M x A
"Mass" is the inertia for translation motion
"Mass moment of inertia" is the inertia for the rotational motion
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
Be more specific please, it's actually correctDavid Redszus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 pmQuite wrong. please check your sources.digger wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:22 pmFor fluid momentum in a tube it isDavid Redszus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:47 am Seems the issue still needs clarification. Here goes.
Momentum is the product of mass times velocity: M = m * V.
Since the mass is moving at constant velocity, momentum must be constant as well.
But at any different steady state velocity, the mass momentum will be different.
Now for Inertia, which is completely different and defined as I = M * A.
The Laws of Motion state that a body at rest, tends to stay at rest;
a body in motion tends to stay in motion.
A body at rest has an acceleration value of zero, as does a body at any steady state velocity.
It must then have an inertia value of zero.
But it takes energy to move a body from a resting state, or to change the velocity of a moving body,
or to change direction, which is reflected by its required inertia force. Since the mass is constant,
inertia is determined by the rate of change or its acceleration.
Momentum is stored energy. Inertia is required energy to cause a change of position, velocity or direction.
Easy to say on paper or backlit screen. In the real world it becomes a bit more complex.
Air particles are compressible and therefore their mass (density) will change.
Pulsed air flow causes local variations in air velocity (and acceleration) which then results in changes
to V and A. And to Momentum and Inertia numbers.
Steady state air mass measurements never match pulsed air mass measurements. Nor should they.
Momentum.= Density x Area x velocity squared
Inertia is not M x A
"Mass" is the inertia for translation motion
"Mass moment of inertia" is the inertia for the rotational motion
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
To be exact the +, - and 0 psig portions of each wave.Roundybout wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:34 pm ..The bold part is the negative, positive and equal pressure differential waves that arrive at the valve, correct?
Not much compared to say a speeding bullet, but still enough to produce pressure spikes of several psi, as predicted by Dynomation and other software programs, and shown by in-cylinder sensors systems such as offered by TFX.Roundybout wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:34 pm The column of air traveling down an intake of an engine at 100MPH or 500MPH can't have much momentum. It doesn't have much mass. It therefore doesn't have much inertia. So in that respect it doesn't contribute much to the VE of an engine compared to the many other factors that do in my head.
Felix, qui potuit rerum cognscere causas.
Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.
Happy is he who can discover the cause of things.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:54 pm
- Location: central Florida
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
Holy crap, i did not expect for my O.P.to end up starting a class/discussion/arguing/session on physics LOL. Volumetric Efficiency is------HOW efficiently the combined parts of the engine that fill the cylinder volume with air and fuel do their job, correct ?? And the objective is to obtain/produce/reach a pressure inside the cylinder after the intake valve has closed that is GREATER than the atmospheric pressure outside the engine, correct ?? Assuming the two above statements/questions are true/correct, can we give answers to what choices when building an engine help make a higher V.E. Mark H. "ONLY" a N.A. engine deal here.
-
- Vendor
- Posts: 11003
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
- Location: CA
Re: Volumetric Efficiency
An engine must effectively capitalize on momentum of intake charge to be competitive.Roundybout wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:34 pm The column of air traveling down an intake of an engine at 100MPH or 500MPH can't have much momentum. It doesn't have much mass. It therefore doesn't have much inertia. So in that respect it doesn't contribute much to the VE of an engine compared to the many other factors that do in my head.
Everything beyond the sophistication of a lawn mower benefits from it.
Speaking of lawn mower, the Briggs & Stratton themed Jr dragster engines could not make the anywhere near the 10-20 times the power with short ducts.
Helping to Deliver the Promise of Flying Cars