I believe in physics :)
Printable View
I believe in physics :)
You have completely failed to comprehend nearly every explanation and formula I have provided. Your responses completely misrepresent what I have said, or state irrelevant information/facts/etc.
For example:
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Your statement does not at all back up your claim that my formula is wrong. Your statement is not in disagreement with my formula. I challenge you to prove that my formula for estimating volumetric flow rate of the engine is incorrect... with actual explanation of the physical processes and use of complete formulas as I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by KaiserBill
Again, a clear indication that you do not actually understand the relationship between pressure, volume, mass, and density of a gas. Two different devices both feeding air into the same engine at the same engine speed with the same amount of pressure in the same atmospheric conditions and same temperature cannot possibly be providing air at different densities (Lbs/ft3) it is absolutely physically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by KaiserBill
Density (Lbs/ft3) is directly proportional to pressure. All else equal (same engine, same rpm, same atmospheric conditions, same intake temp, etc). The only way one device could provide denser air is to provide air at a higher pressure. If both produce the same pressure, then they are both providing air with the same density and same flow rate.
You're making a HUGE assumption that I looked at (and misinterpreted) a turbo compressor map to determine the exhaust:boost pressure ratio. I never said anything about the compressor map. Where did you come up with this assumption?Quote:
Originally Posted by KaiserBill
If you must know, I used my knowledge of how the wastegate works combined with the rated boost level of the wastegate spring used in the kit (rated based on a 1:1 exhaust:boost pressure ratio), compared to the actual amount of boost that the spring allows in this turbo kit.
Anyway, it is very clear that you do not have a solid foundation of the physics involved to properly discuss this subject. Please stop. Seriously, this is going no where. Go take a physics class. Learn the Ideal Gas Law, and truly understand it. When you come back and re-read your posts, you will see how completely incorrect and/or irrelevant some of your arguments are. I truly do not intend this as an insult. I'm encouraging you to learn to understand things in a formal/logical/mathematical way that will allow you to more completely/formally express your ideas in terms of math.
I'm also not pulling a "I'm right, you're wrong, no matter what you say". I like to be proven wrong, because I like learning new things. You are, however, failing to provide any complete logical explanations to back up any of your claims. You have made several technically correct statements (by themselves), but have failed to bring them together with any consistency to prove/disprove any particular relationship. You say my formulas are wrong. Please, explain what's wrong with them. Show me the correct formulas. " take CFM x .076Lbs/ft3 and poof that is the magic number" does not count. Start with complete formulas (like the ideal gas law, formula for volumetric flow rate, formula for mass flow rate, etc) and combine/rearrange them to mathematically prove a relationship you are trying to communicate.
So then regarding the dyno results you're trying to reconcile it's looking like an erroneous claim or a different calibration. Question, does Prodigy use Diablosport to generate their calibration files or are they working independently with the CMR software? I wonder how different each mfg's calibration file can be. You'd think that Prodigy, Magnuson, RIPP have all gotten their hands on the others' calibration files and are looking at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by UselessPickles
Yes... my assertion is that either the claim is exaggerated, or RIPP just has a much better calibration at low rpms than Prodigy, or a mix of both. The difference in gains is too much to be explained by differences in efficiency of the RIPP vs Prodigy systems themselves.
Prodigy does their own tuning with the CMR software.
I do remember talking to either RIPP or Prodigy at one point, and they said they worked closely with Diablosport to develop some proprietary tuning capabilities in the CMR software so that they could properly account for boost in the calibrations. All the FI manufacturers work closely with Diablosport for CMR support. I don't know if there's some special calibration capabilities that are available to some manufacturers and not others, so it's tough to know whether it would even be meaningful to compare calibrations between different manufacturers.
I'm curious about whether the CMR software gives them control over the variable valve timing. I was just reading about how ideal cam timing is different at low rpm for a turbo, as compared to NA, to help the turbo spool more quickly.
Anyway, Prodigy is working on an improved tune. I know that low RPMs is an area they will put some effort into, because that have received feedback from multiple people about low RPMs feeling sluggish. It's possible that low RPM just was not a priority for Prodigy previously, so the hadn't yet put effort into optimizing it.
CMR had better include authority over cam phasing!!! If not, then what are we doing? Playing with AFR and spark timing?
And you've got four independently phased cams each with their own electronic actuator/sensor. According to Borg Warner the advanced VVT system is responsive to load in addition to RPM which sounds like torque management to me. Whatever it is it can most likely be optomized for a turbo. Most VVT systems phase intake and leave exhaust alone but not Pentastar. Huh. . . wonder if they included exhaust cam phasing in anticipation of someday bi-turboing the RAM 1500 or some other similar application. Ugh. . . It kills me that all of the raw materials are there but you have to have the software - ALL of the software - so you can make it work and the darn OEM won't release the code. And from my conversations with Magnuson, DiabloSport can be difficult at times. In fact, in one conversation a person at Mag who does not want to be on the record went on a five minute all-out rant regarding DiabloSport. In among the explitives were some salient facts such as the fact that DiabloSport actually generates the calibrations which goes beyond "support" to actual partnership. Also of interest was the fact that Mag pays thousands and thousands of dollars for the calibration engineers that DS provides. Of editorial color was the statement, "we are slaves to these guys. . . " I'll leave the rest out.
Speaking of cam phasing... I found a decent intro explanation of how cam phasing affects both NA and turbo engines: http://www.hamotorsports.com/cam-gear-tuning.html
With full control over the VVT system, it could be optimized throughout the RPM range. I'll try to get some details about how much control CMR has over the VVT.
Yeah, the exact nature of the relationships between the turbo/supercharger manufacturers and Diablosport is a bit of a mystery to me still. I know it's definitely more than a basic customer support relationship with regards to the CMR software. That's one reason I'm patiently waiting for Prodigy to improve their tune rather than running out to a local tuning shop. Prodigy is going to continue to work closely with Diablosport to improve their tune and to address issues reported by many customers around the world, and the resulting improved tune will be made available to all Prodigy owners. For free!
A local tuning shop will only work on my tune for the couple hours that I paid for. I'm sure they'll gladly allow me to pay for more tuning time if I come back and report some mild driveability issues, but they won't have the benefit of feedback/logs from many people around the world, and they sure don't have any motivation to continue tweaking, testing and improving the tune once I've handed them my money and drive away. And they won't have as strong of a partnership with Diablosport as Prodigy, RIPP, etc., to be a driving force to improve the CMR capabilities for the application.
Kinda off-topic, but not worth it's own thread...
I got bored and took pixel-perfect measurements at every 100 rpm increment from Magnuson's own dyno chart to add their boost curve to my collection:
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/...uson_boost.png
I don't know why that chart stops at 6100 rpm. looks like the torque curve is leveling out, so it probably doesn't go up any more, if at all, as it approaches 6500 rpm.
I'd like to add Sprintex to the chart, but I can't fund any charts with a boost curve. Has anyone seen anything?
This chart really belongs in a thread about comparing all major power modifications in general. Seems like it would be good to have a continuously updated post that lists all the options, gives basic info about each, provides links to more info about each, etc.
What do you say to letting me take the post and start a new thread. I only hesitate because you specifically state "not worth its own thread".Quote:
Originally Posted by UselessPickles
If anyone could chart it out pickles, its you. What do you say? Everyone loooooves to O.D. on charts and graphs.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but if RIPP and Mag indicate they are producing 8 PSI of boost with std pulley, and 11 PSI of boost with High Elevation pulley, why does your chart (or their data) only show Magnuson with a max of 6 PSI?Quote:
Originally Posted by UselessPickles
Good explanation Pickles! I kept scratching my head with what was being written in the other posts regarding CFM... As an example... The idea that you could push 1000 CFM @ 1 PSI vs. 1500 CFM @ 1 PSI through the same pipe, what the!?! Did someone not play with a garden hose as a kid enough to know that to obtain an increase in CFM at the same pressure would require an increase in the diameter of the garden hose!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by UselessPickles
For those who didn't get to play with a garden hose as a kid, here's the real formula.
cfm = area of pipe * sqrt (2*Pressure/density)
The idea that one turbo could deliver higher CFM at the same pressure, on the same engine, at the same RPM versus another turbo is just silly. That goes against the laws of physics (as previously stated by said poster named Pickles.)