Radical design?? need lots of feedback

[R33LS1]

Okay i know it's been a while since i've been on but i had this radical idea while i was playing golf today and i don't know if this has ever been attempted or done before..

okay everyone knows that the dimples on a golf ball allow for better airflow around the ball.. right well say you took a cylinder head for any motor and did a hand port job taking just a small shave of metal from the ports then dimpling the ports like a golf ball.. this would create small pockets of turbulence (or rotating air pockets) allow the middle portion of air in the cylinder heads to flow better.. (i've taken 2 physics classes)

now for a few answers i know will be asked
Taking a small shave of metal prior to dimpling would allow the air in the pockets to rotate better as the pockets of air will circulate slightly higher than the base of the metal.

reason for doing this would be.. a port in a cylinder head is one massive turbulence of air.. but i belive by dimpling you could reduce the turbulence to just the side areas of the ports allowing for much better airflow in the center of the ports

So before i go try to make this happen what do ya'll think??

edit: also sorry if i seem scatter brained my mind is racing

[Hi-Po]

Good luck. Theres a reason why cylinder head runners look how they do. The big 3-4 head companies have done hundreds of thousads of USD's by now worth os R&D on head concepts.

Ship your head to me and Ill throw them in the bead blast for 12 hours at work.

Thats my take on it. But your the physic's guy.

[blackout5.3]

i wish i had some heads to donate to the cause, id like to see the results

[5abivt]

I read a book that had f-1 head porting stuff in it many years back. The walls of the ports are all rough because it actually allows higher airflow. So in theory I think you are correct. But also remember that a golf ball goes in 1 direction. the air inside a port goes forward, stops, backwards a bit then forwards again etc.

[TransAm11973]

we are talking about two different things here. One is air moving around a ball suspended in air, no compression heat etc... the second is air inside of a chamber with a strict flow and heat. Dont think you want dimples in a flowing chamber, this will cause more disruption in the flow in my opinion. You dont want turbulence inside your intake chamber, more turbulence equals less flow....the opposite of what you want.

[masterZ28]

we are talking about two different things here. One is air moving around a ball suspended in air, no compression heat etc... the second is air inside of a chamber with a strict flow and heat. Dont think you want dimples in a flowing chamber, this will cause more disruption in the flow in my opinion. You dont want turbulence inside your intake chamber, more turbulence equals less flow....the opposite of what you want.

true, if anything polished and spink n' span.

[R33LS1]

we are talking about two different things here. One is air moving around a ball suspended in air, no compression heat etc... the second is air inside of a chamber with a strict flow and heat. Dont think you want dimples in a flowing chamber, this will cause more disruption in the flow in my opinion. You dont want turbulence inside your intake chamber, more turbulence equals less flow....the opposite of what you want.

from doing some research on this.. in vacuum conditions air is in turbulence.. but you could reduce the central turbulence by adding dimples, close lines, ect.. instead of having one large mass of turbulence you could have hundreds of smaller masses of turbulence while the central area of the port would be nearly turbulence free allowing for a more free flowing mass of air..

i'm actually getting ready to test this idea with a local engine builder using his engine dyno and the same 290hp 350 sbc.. instead of doing the work dirrectly to the heads we are going to make a long box cylinder that would come from the carbuerator.. the box cylinder will we composed of 4 sides of sheet metal spot welded together prior to the test.. of course normally this wouldn't increase horsepower but it would cause further strain on the motor... our test is going to see if we can reduce the turbulence enough inside the box tube that we could get back up to or as close to the original power of the engine..

test 1 - engine dyno without box (optimal condition) (control 1)
test 2 - engine dyno with box tube (non dimpled) (worst condition) (control 2)
test 3 - engine dyno with box tube (dimpled inside) (variable 1)
test 4 - engine dyno with box tube (closely slotted inside) (variable 2)

doing the test we run the engine at it's normal output, then with the additon of the box tube should give us the lowest output and if my theory is correct then we would see an increased output with test 3/4 over test 2.. this would tell me right away that it works but to what degree thats what the test will prove

what i'm trying to do is.. make more areas of a smaller mass of turbulence instead of one large area with a large mass of turbulence

[TransAm11973]

from doing some research on this.. in vacuum conditions air is in turbulence.. but you could reduce the central turbulence by adding dimples, close lines, ect.. instead of having one large mass of turbulence you could have hundreds of smaller masses of turbulence while the central area of the port would be nearly turbulence free allowing for a more free flowing mass of air..

i'm actually getting ready to test this idea with a local engine builder using his engine dyno and the same 290hp 350 sbc.. instead of doing the work dirrectly to the heads we are going to make a long box cylinder that would come from the carbuerator.. the box cylinder will we composed of 4 sides of sheet metal spot welded together prior to the test.. of course normally this wouldn't increase horsepower but it would cause further strain on the motor... our test is going to see if we can reduce the turbulence enough inside the box tube that we could get back up to or as close to the original power of the engine..

test 1 - engine dyno without box (optimal condition) (control 1)
test 2 - engine dyno with box tube (non dimpled) (worst condition) (control 2)
test 3 - engine dyno with box tube (dimpled inside) (variable 1)
test 4 - engine dyno with box tube (closely slotted inside) (variable 2)

doing the test we run the engine at it's normal output, then with the additon of the box tube should give us the lowest output and if my theory is correct then we would see an increased output with test 3/4 over test 2.. this would tell me right away that it works but to what degree thats what the test will prove

what i'm trying to do is.. make more areas of a smaller mass of turbulence instead of one large area with a large mass of turbulence

if you want real results, you need to test it on what you are really talking about HEADS, not some box tube, what ever that is. Experiments need consistency, you cant do a test on a orange if what you are really looking for is info on apples. Unfortunately you are not testing what you were talking about in your OP. Mind you as well.....you are testing air thats in a closed unit.......what the difference between one large mass of turbulence or lots of areas of smaller turbulence....its all in the same closed space, it will all be affected.....for example............make yourself throw up....ok so you puke on the floor...no big deal......now put a bag over your head and make yourself puke...........see the difference it made being enclosed???? Look bottom line save yourself some money......in chambers you want the quickest smoothest most free flowing air possible......dimples are not going to give you these results

[pajeff02]

Not related to internal air flow, but interesting nonetheless: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...-surfaces.html

[R33LS1]

if you want real results, you need to test it on what you are really talking about HEADS, not some box tube, what ever that is. Experiments need consistency, you cant do a test on a orange if what you are really looking for is info on apples. Unfortunately you are not testing what you were talking about in your OP. Mind you as well.....you are testing air thats in a closed unit.......what the difference between one large mass of turbulence or lots of areas of smaller turbulence....its all in the same closed space, it will all be affected.....for example............make yourself throw up....ok so you puke on the floor...no big deal......now put a bag over your head and make yourself puke...........see the difference it made being enclosed???? Look bottom line save yourself some money......in chambers you want the quickest smoothest most free flowing air possible......dimples are not going to give you these results

alright well you have stated your close mindedness.. the test i'm performing is moving air on an internal port with dimples.. which would lead to the next step (if it works properly) dimpling the ports on heads.. you don't seem to understand the reason why i'm doing a tube first.. why ruin a set of heads if it doesn't work when i can test dimpled effects in vacuum turbulence.. next time you want to act like an ass do it elsewhere

[Speed_kills_WS6]

Interesting & good thinking. But I don't believe you'll find the results you're looking for. A golf ball moves thru the air. The air will be moving through the port in this situation. Also, it will be a mixture of gas & air on the intake side. Also spent gases from combustion. Dont think they'd have the same properties as normal air.

[blackbirdbrain89]

hey good idea, thats why when u see afr heads they not polished... mill markings and things are left in the head for that reason.. the marks all go the same way and are round bottom they fore making the same air pocket letting the other air glide over it ...

ps if u do the to heads and u take the time to do it right there's no need for a dyno its called a flow bench made to test heads, ect. if u talk to a eng builder they will probably tell u more on this but u would have to cc each port and mach them with a flow bench, then dimple them all to get a good true number

and every one get off the dudes, he just posed an idea and wanted some feed back for ppl that might want to add to or learn...

who in the world would think spraying meth would work like it does alcohol burns quicker there for having a lower oct rating, but much less likely to detonate some one was like hey lets try this and it worked

[TransAm11973]

alright well you have stated your close mindedness.. the test i'm performing is moving air on an internal port with dimples.. which would lead to the next step (if it works properly) dimpling the ports on heads.. you don't seem to understand the reason why i'm doing a tube first.. why ruin a set of heads if it doesn't work when i can test dimpled effects in vacuum turbulence.. next time you want to act like an ass do it elsewhere

Not being an ass, I am realistic and trying to save you some money......dont make me have to act like an ass....

[Bama99z]

R33ls1,
Do you still have your old LS1 hanging around? Or did you get rid of it, after you sold your car?

[INMY01TA]

alright well you have stated your close mindedness.. next time you want to act like an ass do it elsewhere

You asked for feedback, he did'nt seem like an ass to me and def didn't do any namecalling.

[TransAm11973]

You asked for feedback, he did'nt seem like an ass to me and def didn't do any namecalling.

i think maybe he thought my comment about puking with a bag over your head was being an ass, but I didnt mean it that way. It was just the example that popped into my head haha

[Marc 85Z28]

hey good idea, thats why when u see afr heads they not polished... mill markings and things are left in the head for that reason.. the marks all go the same way and are round bottom they fore making the same air pocket letting the other air glide over it ...

That's from the CNC machine. And it's certainly not there to help with the port. AFR will hand finish their ports for additional cost. They do not leave the CNC ridges anywhere on the casting. Guess what? They flow more and make more power. Your alcohol example is pretty poor too. Alcohol is used not for octane purposes, but rather for combustion temperature reduction.

To the OP: I suggest you find a sick motor, but still runs. Put a ton of timing in it and pour some ball bearings down the intake while at WOT. Trash the engine and rebuild the heads. The heads will be covered in pock marks and should increase airflow 50%.

[blackbirdbrain89]

this is not worth my time to break it down... meth does more then one thing.... there are cars runing 13.0-1 + cr on pump gas n/a and the only way is meth... and ive seen first hand on trickflow heads the taking the milling marks out of the ports will lessen the flow of the head... if u dont think so get a good head and flow bench it and see for ur self... the kid has a good point

[Marc 85Z28]

and ive seen first hand on trickflow heads the taking the milling marks out of the ports will lessen the flow of the head... if u dont think so get a good head and flow bench it and see for ur self... the kid has a good point

I have seen for myself. I had AFR clean up my 190cc heads on my SBC powered 85 Z28 years ago. They were sent back to AFR for valve issues. I had them go over the heads, and then they were only hand polished and they provided a before and after flowsheet. The runner volume increased on both intake and exhaust by just under 1cc. IIRC it picked up from 265 to 272 on the intake, and an increase was seen from .1" to .55" lift. The exhaust picked up much more, but I can't remember the numbers. I was told to expect a little gain on the intake, but the exhaust REALLY likes a smooth runner.

[TransAm11973]

does anyone know what port and polish means!!!!????............ If it wasnt about higher flow there would be no such thing as a P and P.