Simple Tunnel ram Question

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Pretty amazing, 19 pages of people arguing over something that in no way will play a part on engine modification.

Lets say you find out one or the other... What are you going to do about it?

People have argued about scientific and mathematical topics for thousands and thousands of years and in the process greatly advanced practical engineering. The idea is to get people to figure things out and not simply be told everything.

Testing the theory would save thousands of years of argument.

Lets say gravity does effect it? Great! the carb is on top of the motor, lets say it hurts it?... Then what?

In theory based on atmospheric pressure wouldn't an engine make more power with the air inlet dragging the ground vs sitting above the hood? Could you even measure that difference in power if it even existed?

To some extent I have seen it tested in various prototypes for LS and Coyote manifolds.
The manifolds with the straightest runners make the most power.
If they curve up or down seems to hurt them about equally.

[Kevin Johnson]

Ok, some pretty basic errors in your diagram. Since gravity is in question and varies according to the distance between centers of mass, using the term "height" and then normalizing it to a Cartesian system rather than a physical one is incorrect. This is a basic error wherein you genetically import your assumptions into your answers, i.e. "both = h1."

I assume you are speaking more properly of altitude or elevation. Both of these concepts are well-known to racers.

^^^^Distinction with no difference^^^^

A small difference to be sure but a difference nonetheless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Spend some more time learning about science instead of arguing here.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Pretty amazing, 19 pages of people arguing over something that in no way will play a part on engine modification.

Lets say you find out one or the other... What are you going to do about it?

If it turns out to matter, don't mount your tunnel ram engine upside down.nembo-32-upside-down-motorcycle-engine-18.jpg

beautiful bike.

[digger]

change in potential energy is real

In this diagram, what potential energy is different for port A vs B?

Port A has the height of h1
Port B has the height of h1 +h2 - h2
(both = h1)

tunnel_ram.jpg

change in potnetial energy is with respect to something.

with respect to the tee branch the change in height is
A = h1-0 = h1
B = 0-h2 = -h2

if h1 is equal to h2 then

one gains a bee's d**k amount one loses a bee's d**k amount of potnetial energy

so energy is a scalar but enregy balances need a sign

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

change in potential energy is real

In this diagram, what potential energy is different for port A vs B?

Port A has the height of h1
Port B has the height of h1 +h2 - h2
(both = h1)

tunnel_ram.jpg

change in potnetial energy is with respect to something.

with respect to the tee branch the change in height is
A = h1-0 = h1
B = 0-h2 = -h2

if h1 is equal to h2 then

one gains a bee's d**k amount one loses a bee's d**k amount of potnetial energy

so energy is a scalar but enregy balances need a sign

It is with respect to the column of atmosphere to space to the chamber.

Are you accounting for the difference in atmospheric pressure at the openings of A and B?

h0 is the same regardless of the routing.

tunnel_ram.jpg

[digger]

In this diagram, what potential energy is different for port A vs B?

Port A has the height of h1
Port B has the height of h1 +h2 - h2
(both = h1)

tunnel_ram.jpg

change in potnetial energy is with respect to something.

with respect to the tee branch the change in height is
A = h1-0 = h1
B = 0-h2 = -h2

if h1 is equal to h2 then

one gains a bee's d**k amount one loses a bee's d**k amount of potnetial energy

so energy is a scalar but enregy balances need a sign

It is with respect to the column of atmosphere to space to the chamber.

Are you accounting for the difference in atmospheric pressure at the openings of A and B?

actually doesnt matter what point used, the principle is the same as long as the 'sign' is consistent with refernece point

no its the simply the potential energy due to change in height, it ends up being negated by buoyancy for the most part unlike in a hydroelectric plant using water

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

actually doesnt matter what point used, the principle is the same as long as the 'sign' is consistent with refernece point

no its the simply the potential energy due to change in height, it ends up being negated by buoyancy for the most part unlike in a hydroelectric plant using water

The change in height is h0 regardless of the rout it takes.

Do you think the image on the right has an advantage over the image on the left (negating friction)?

[digger]

actually doesnt matter what point used, the principle is the same as long as the 'sign' is consistent with refernece point

no its the simply the potential energy due to change in height, it ends up being negated by buoyancy for the most part unlike in a hydroelectric plant using water

The change in height is h0 regardless of the rout it takes.

Do you think the image on the right has an advantage over the image on the left (negating friction)?

you are doing it wrong. only on the RH side is it the same from a PE perspective

imagine a reservoir of CO2 (a bit denser than air) at each location of A and B on the LHS and again two reesevoirs at A and B on the RHS

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

actually doesnt matter what point used, the principle is the same as long as the 'sign' is consistent with refernece point

no its the simply the potential energy due to change in height, it ends up being negated by buoyancy for the most part unlike in a hydroelectric plant using water

The change in height is h0 regardless of the rout it takes.

Do you think the image on the right has an advantage over the image on the left (negating friction)?

you are doing it wrong. only on the RH side is it the same from a PE perspective

imagine a reservoir of CO2 (a bit denser than air) at each location of A and B on the LHS and again two reesevoirs at A and B on the RHS

I think you are looking at it wrong.

The force doesn't begin at the top of the ducts, it begins at the top of the atmosphere.

With your CO2 example you are negating the reality that, regardless of the route, the the head is h0.

According to the way you are looking at it, if h3 went up miles, it would have a greater advantage?

Regardless of the route, the the head is h0.

tunnel_ram.jpg

[digger]

The change in height is h0 regardless of the rout it takes.

Do you think the image on the right has an advantage over the image on the left (negating friction)?

you are doing it wrong. only on the RH side is it the same from a PE perspective

imagine a reservoir of CO2 (a bit denser than air) at each location of A and B on the LHS and again two reesevoirs at A and B on the RHS

I think you are looking at it wrong.

The force doesn't begin at the top of the ducts, it begins at the top of the atmosphere.

With your CO2 example you are negating the reality that, regardless of the route, the the head is h0.

According to the way you are looking at it, if h3 went up miles, it would have a greater advantage?

Regardless of the route, the the head is h0.

tunnel_ram.jpg

you are confusing PE with an effect. it does have higher PE at h3 but this does not produce anything in the way of KE

in the case of a column of fluid like water h3 does have greater advantage, in the case where you reduce density of the fluid in the column down to 1.0001 x density of air it still does have more PE. if the working fluid is air it still does have higher PE but the result does not produce any effect in the way of being able to transfer the PE to KE to create velocity like water would as the airs own buoyancy cancels it out.

so the only net effect of gravity is when there are local density differences (similar to the case like cold air sinks and hot air rises) within the fluid which is obvious when you do a free body diagram of a small element of air in the port

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

so the only net effect of gravity is when there are local density differences (similar to the case like cold air sinks and hot air rises) within the fluid which is obvious when you do a free body diagram of a small element of air in the port

Given that there are no local density differences in the original scenario, I think it is fair to say that my argument is correct.

[digger]

so the only net effect of gravity is when there are local density differences (similar to the case like cold air sinks and hot air rises) within the fluid which is obvious when you do a free body diagram of a small element of air in the port

Given that there are no local density differences in the original scenario, I think it is fair to say that my argument is correct.

no the PE you stated was plain wrong. i.e the change in height going from point A to point B on the original picture was incorrect irresepective of whether or not this results in additional KE

[Geoff2]

And to think that the title to this thread had the word 'Simple' in it......

[GARY C]

If it turns out to matter, don't mount your tunnel ram engine upside down.nembo-32-upside-down-motorcycle-engine-18.jpg

Well Crap!!!!! I already built motor mounts to turn my SBC upside down.

You should mount it vertically with the intake facing forwards. That way the g forces from launching will supercharge it.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

so the only net effect of gravity is when there are local density differences (similar to the case like cold air sinks and hot air rises) within the fluid which is obvious when you do a free body diagram of a small element of air in the port

Given that there are no local density differences in the original scenario, I think it is fair to say that my argument is correct.

no the PE you stated was plain wrong. i.e the change in height going from point A to point B on the original picture was incorrect irresepective of whether or not this results in additional KE

I am open to being convinced, but your analogies with differing densities don't fit the actual scenario.
Could you please edit one of the images in paint to make your point?
When you do, please include the difference in the atmospheric pressure at the different openings; I think your previous explanation ignored that.

BTW, I just did a quick estimate of the acceleration of air in an engine and got 2,000 G's
If that number is correct, and in the best scenario, gravity added 1 G to that, it is 0.0005 significant.