darin morgan and joe mondello answer BBF's questions

[gregory]

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

Hmmmm..boy that patent process takes a long time..thats a pity you cant talk about the droplet size.

Perhaps holley should buy one of your benches to help design their holleys with smaller droplet exit sizes..it sure would improve air saturation.

[big block fiero]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Creek

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

Lloyd Creek

In this forum,----- go to technical articles, ----- then to the tenth item, turbulence and combustion dynamics,------ then to the paragraph heading, in the beginning,------- and then start reading about this example of an engine that will only run best with larger fuel droplets. This is a situation that I am referring to, that I've tried to understand, and that I created A hypothesis for.

[big block fiero]

Originally Posted by gregory

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

Hmmmm..boy that patent process takes a long time..thats a pity you cant talk about the droplet size.

Perhaps holley should buy one of your benches to help design their holleys with smaller droplet exit sizes..it sure would improve air saturation.

If something was posted about these wet flow patents then that information would become public knowledge. Even something spoken to a friend or family member without a disclosure document signed becomes public and some patents have been invalidated because during cross-examination, the friend or family member admits to there knowledge of something without a disclosure document signed.

You can file a letter of intent and just start manufacturing, selling and posting information about a product but you then have one year to file the provisional patent. Sometimes this is better, to explore the marketability of a product before you spend, in my case, $34,000.00 on the patent and $2,000.00 annual maintenance fees. You can enjoy one year of sales (with the option to patent), saturate the market, bring in revenue to pay for the patent, or never get the patent (if sales are slow) or find an investor to buy it and pay for the patent. Make sure your patent covers everything and is worded such that all your claims cannot be challenged by a simular product other wise you will have to file a continuation in part to modify and expand on this wording so now your patent will cost double. Its the bait and switch game of the patent attorneys but you should verify the accuracy of what I'm saying all-though This is ,I believe, generally correct.

[automotivebreath]

Canadian Patents Database

[big block fiero]

Originally Posted by MadBill

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...

Yes and I would be very interested in the results if david vizard tested this motor this way alltho he has said that he tried even more finer vaporization at the carborator but there again is were I hypothesized that a spark plug vorticy is the culprit regardless of the improoved vaporization. Anyone else out there with a hypothesis as to how this could be?

[gregory]

Originally Posted by big block fiero

If something was posted about these wet flow patents then that information would become public knowledge. Even something spoken to a friend or family member without a disclosure document signed becomes public and some patents have been invalidated because during cross-examination, the friend or family member admits to there knowledge of something without a disclosure document signed.

You can file a letter of intent and just start manufacturing, selling and posting information about a product but you then have one year to file the provisional patent. Sometimes this is better, to explore the marketability of a product before you spend, in my case, $34,000.00 on the patent and $2,000.00 annual maintenance fees. You can enjoy one year of sales (with the option to patent), saturate the market, bring in revenue to pay for the patent, or never get the patent (if sales are slow) or find an investor to buy it and pay for the patent. Make sure your patent covers everything and is worded such that all your claims cannot be challenged by a simular product other wise you will have to file a continuation in part to modify and expand on this wording so now your patent will cost double. Its the bait and switch game of the patent attorneys but you should verify the accuracy of what I'm saying all-though This is ,I believe, generally correct.

Oh,okay..so i should be able to view that patent then?
Sorry i dont know about that stuff..me just an Aussie..

[automotivebreath]

One thing I like more than developing theory is explaining my theory to others.
The way I see it David being the aggressive type had the cylinder pressure as
high as the fuel could stand, possibly into early stages of autoignition. With
him driving in circles with no time to cool down, cylinder temperatures
were very high to boot. All this adds up to a very sensitive engine.

The not so ideal chamber had a large squish area and a compact combustion
chamber, normally this is considered to contribute to some sort of fast burn.
I'm thinking the well atomized mixture added to this fast burn chamber
consumed much of the charge early in the burning phase. One problem
presents itself. Although the chamber resembles a efficient heart shape
design that's not necessarily so. The chamber is of the bath tub variety with
the valves sunk deep into the head. What this does is create fast initial burn
which is good but contributes to poor burn late in the cycle leading to autoignition.

The way I see it David may have found a fix, that is to use the large droplets
of fuel to slow down the burn and to cool the large quench area to with liquid
keeping this region cool in comparison to the chamber cavity. Basically the
air/fuel mixture in the region was too rich to burn resulting in detention of
flame propagation into the quench zone.

In contrast the ultra fast burn of the atomized fuel resulted in auto-ignition
setting in to the end zone. The fine mist did not prevent flame and heat from
penetrating this area and the resulting tune needed to keep this combination
out of auto-ignition was far from what the engine needed for power.

Originally Posted by DavidVizard-GFN

I now had a burning question that defied an immediate answer. Why did
delivering a more finely atomized fuel spray cause the engine to drop so
much power? The Weber carb was, in truth, not so good at atomizing the
fuel - it came out of the auxiliary venturi (booster venturi) in globs rather
than anything that resembled a spray. Yet that ‘A’ Series engine loved it,
and too this day, I have never figured out why globs (yes - globs) work
and even a moderately good spray does not. I put this down to the fact
that there is always more to anything than meets the eye!

[big block fiero]

Originally Posted by gregory

Oh,okay..so i should be able to view that patent then?
Sorry i dont know about that stuff..me just an Aussie..

Lloyd greek may have filed his pattent but we wont be able to view it untill or unless it is awarded. takes usually 4 months to a year, or longer/never if the examiner sites other patents that describe prior art and you cant clarify the significant difference of your originality.

[big block fiero]

Automotive breath, your hypothesis could explain this but I really doubt that david didn't think to try more fuel octane or cooling remedies to cure detonation. some of this is simular to when I suggested to morgan that the evaporization may have a cooling effect within the cylinder but in this example I thought it was because of a volumetric efficiency improovement.

Im still stuck on things relating to centrifugal force on the fuel molecules that causes wetting of the plugs. This because the reported power change is so great and the volumetric efficiency change would I think be much smaller. your thoughts?

Also, I wonder if the power gains were because the larger droplets made the engine tolerate more ignition advance. If this were true then the power change would be greater and it would help support yours and my original theory. Still, I would think that david adjusted the fuel and spark and so would have discovered this correlation and thus the reason for this horsepower gain if this were the case.

More hypothesis anybody?

Hello BBF,

If an engine likes large fuel droplets it could be a bandaid fix for a size, shape, or air speed problem in the manifold and or cylinder head.

Lloyd Creek
Creek Flow Management