darin morgan and joe mondello answer BBF's questions

[MadBill]

Originally Posted by big block fiero

This is exactly why I think some of this wet flow stuff is perplexing. For these guys to say that anything you do, to a point, to increase vaporization, do it, even if there is some loss in flow. So now a flow bench without wet flow is fairly inefective. 30 degree valve seats are out (alltho they average more flow for many applications) because 55 degree seats have more low lift vaporization due to velocity from the restriction. Any mod (other than a vaporization mod) that anyone has ever reported to be a gain is now in question because it can be said that that gain may only have been because there was somehow increased vaporization.

And so now on to your point that a super carborator that could solve all this means that the flow bench is now again significantly important, We can run 30 degree seats, valve movements as aggressive as we want, and whatever connecting rod to stroke ratio's that we want. some could even start advocating the old school polished intake ports again, (ok, maybe this is an exageration). In summary as much flow as we can find anywhere in the opperating cycle.

So then it appears that smokey was right with his hot air vaporizing engine, long connecting rods, ect, but then why is this so important now rather then back in 1984. The only difference being that smokeys vaporization occured more upstream and at 450 degrees which reduced intake air density. Joe mondello's vaporization occuring later and comparatively colder for more air density. Or is this because joe didn't even ever have a flow bench till 1997 and it took him till 2002 to reinvent the wet flow testing imageing.

David vizard has allways in the past outlined ways to increase vaporization but has generally stopped short of things that would measurably reduce cfm. perhaps his carborator mods have generally allways had more vaporization.

These clues all seem to be fitting together untill davids motor and others that Ive seen, that make more power with larger droplets are considered. The only way I can make this all fit the picture at this point is, as I surmized with darin morgan, to assume that these engines on smaller droplets have wet flow problems that create a vortecy at the plug that wets the plug. Then wile running larger droplets the vortecy changes location or mannor due to the centrifugal force within these droplets, within the vortecy, which then dosen't wet the plugs as much. An intresting test would be to run this motor with the small droplets but then try a dished valve, flat valve combination to move the vortecy somewhere else within the chamber so as to dry up the plugs. Any comments david vizard?

Matt

If anyone really wants to know if such changes are solely due to wet flow effects, all they have to do is test on propane or natural gas...

Hello Greg,

I have not seen a noticeable change in wet flow patterns in the combustion chamber with different droplet sizes.

Air speed of the short turn, throat, valve seat area has a larger effect on droplet size in the combustion chamber vs the size coming out of the carb.

When I first started wet flowing the wet flow pattern in the chamber with a carburator vs pouring in fluid with a cup at the manifold made no difference in the pattern!

The signature in the chamber is largely due to the shape of the short turn, throat, number of angles used on the valve job and angles, air speed and chamber shape.

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management

[automotivebreath]

Lloyd,
In your experience would something like this have a positive impact on wet flow?

[gregory]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Creek

Hello Greg,

I have not seen a noticeable change in wet flow patterns in the combustion chamber with different droplet sizes.

Air speed of the short turn, throat, valve seat area has a larger effect on droplet size in the combustion chamber vs the size coming out of the carb.

When I first started wet flowing the wet flow pattern in the chamber with a carburator vs pouring in fluid with a cup at the manifold made no difference in the pattern!

The signature in the chamber is largely due to the shape of the short turn, throat, number of angles used on the valve job and angles, air speed and chamber shape.

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management

Hi Llyod,
When you do your tests,do you increase the test pressure over 28" to see if there are iny noticeable changes with that effect?

You say that there was no difference in the pattern..what about the intensity of the dye...was there less of it when you entered the fuel via a carb? i mean as to say..was the signiture left by the dye less?

Automotive Breath,

I never like to leave the CNC grooves in the runner, it's just another place for fuel to collect cause you are not going to get every last gram of fuel out of those grooves.

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management

Greg,

Let me put it this way... if we poured in the exact same amount of fuel that also was discharged by a carburator with the same amount from start to finish say in five seconds the signature would be the same.

Higher the test pressure less volume of fuel left behind but it's still the same signature.

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management

[big block fiero]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Creek

I first started wet flow testing in 1993 with a bench I built and designed my self, just like the one I designed & built for Darin Morgan at Reher Morrison.

Mondello did'nt reinvent wet flow testing. While attending the AETC conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado I, Lloyd Creek mention to Joe that I had an idea for a wet flow bench.

We decided to form a Corporation called Mondello/ Creek Flow Management, Inc.

From that I designed and engineered the WFB-2000, WFB-1500, and Dart's WFB-2800.

Just wanted to set things straight, seems like the real story gets buried these days

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management

Thanx for correcting this misinformation, it's impressive to me that this forum has such innovators such as yourself. I will take special notice of your posts for all the information that you share.

Any thoughts on why an engine would make more power by running larger fuel droplets? ----- In my earlier post I suggested a reason why this could be but I don,t want to spread any misinformation and I should say that this was my hypothesis based only on my visualization and that this was not endorsed by morgan or mondello.

[gregory]

Hi Lloyd,
How do you determine the size of the droplet that comes out of a carb for your wet flow testing?

Do you use different droplet sizes for injection heads,and if so how do you determine their size that would be taking place in a "live" engine?

Do you know the general size of the fuel droplet and the percentage of air saturation that a pro-stock carb delivers to a "live" engine?

BBF, what type of engine are you talking about? Type of heads manifold, drag, oval?

Lloyd Creek

Hello Gregory,

I am still in the Patent proccess for the wet flow benches, some methods I can't talk about now.

The WFB-2800 can test your complete induction system, using the carb used in competition, or injection just as you would in competition.

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management