A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine

[revetec]

Originally Posted by 3yearsharehold

Have you compared the X4v2 with a motor that your hoping to replace (light aircraft engine) ?

Yes. About 9% increase. Most people don't know enough about aircraft so benchmarking to automotive engines is more understandable to the average person.

The benchmarks we supplied is for an engine with mild aviation camshafts. We are in the process of modifying components to automotive type spec which will only increase the power/torque. Of course with modifications we can improve engine performance like any other engine. If you weren't so argumentative you would probably be chuffed with our initial figures using far less top end technology. It only gets better now.

Originally Posted by 3yearsharehold

Sorry , I assumed it was X4v2 in the Trike .


Quote #762
"Not much time was spent on the trike mods. Note that it is the X4v1 engine in the trike, not the X4v2."


Quote #728
"Firstly at the time we announced that we were putting it into a vehicle we hadn't received the trike and we were considering a car at the time of the announcement. So at the time the comment was accurate. GTM has now supplied us with a new trike, so we are now fitting it to that. Some things do change on a day to day basis and one of them is the vehicle we are first trialling the X4v2 in. This in no way means that we are not fitting it to a car after that."


It doesn't help potential Investors when your announcements are all over the place.

Cant you get your hands on a old (crop duster, plane) to trial X4v2 in.

For a start the plane wont fit in our workshop. A huge amount of trials on the road has to be completed to confidently put it in the air. Liability insurance will kill us at this stage. We cannot perform tests and mods as readily as on the dyno or trike. I'm not going on any further, it's just common sense.

Originally Posted by 3yearsharehold

The Rapptor seems to be familiar with parachutes , and by the look of what he does with a motor strapped to his body
he would probably test pilot it , (no adventure no gain) this would receive international media attention & possibly a small fine.
If this can be done , wouldn't it be worth it.

I don't think you need to strap a 2.4litre engine for powered parachutes, but he'll probably address this on further.

Originally Posted by 3yearsharehold

Quote #752
"It'll be about a month before I'm back on here, at which time I'll answer any questions then. Just go to our webpage until then.
cheers
Brad"

Are YOU still going to ?

Not if the questions are something you could logically answer yourself with a little bit of thought what is involved in developing an engine.

BTW: Didn't you notice by my posting on 11th that I came back, and also our testing report?

[revetec]

Originally Posted by The Raptor

For the current X4 to be adapted to the above PPG buggy, their would need to be HUGE weight reduction as one of the best ultra light engines is a 313cc (@ cost AU$2`000.oo) & weighs in at about 19kg fully dressed.

2400cc/313cc = 7.667
Current weight (fully dressed) 130kg/7.667 = 16.9kg
Est Prod. weight (fully dressed) 105kg/7.667 = 13.7kg

Of course scaling down doesn't quite work that way, but it is probably achievable to get it close.
And the X4v2 is water cooled, air cooled is lighter by far.

Cheers

[The Raptor]

Originally Posted by revetec

2400cc/313cc = 7.667
Current weight (fully dressed) 130kg/7.667 = 16.9kg
Est Prod. weight (fully dressed) 105kg/7.667 = 13.7kg

Of course scaling down doesn't quite work that way, but it is probably achievable to get it close.
And the X4v2 is water cooled, air cooled is lighter by far.

Cheers

Typically in the PPG industry, a water cooled engine would be a lot better, as the water jacket insulates the radiating noise from the engine.
Nothing worse that a loud whipi-snippier, so to speak !
Although, if the X4 is designed to run at low revs, this would also assist with noise pollution as the 313cc engine revs out to 6`250rpm.

Q: Is it possible for the X4 to be configured to run with a 2 stroke cycle ???
As I think I recall one of your early engines did this.

Thanks Brad, I think we are all awaiting the first contract to bitch slap the sceptics.

[The Raptor]

Originally Posted by hightower99

That is a totally unproven claim and it only refers to frictional losses (and sorry to burst your bubble but a normal bottom end is also 90% in the same sense). What is the translative efficiency? (how efficient is it at making torque from a given cylinder pressure). Also Revetec has not proved any increase in top end thermal efficiency.

If this is confidential, it should come out in good time ....be patient.

Originally Posted by hightower99

Another unproven claim and again current systems are only slightly worse (roughly 80% efficiency) The biggest advantage of CRSV system is the increased breathing efficiency.

I was ONLY trying to compare the INDIVIDUAL technologies by leaving out the worst part of each engine.
That is the "bottom end" of the CSRV engine & the "top end" of the Revetec engine! (I may have NOT made myself clear on that point ..sorry)

Originally Posted by hightower99

You forgot about a whole host of other things to consider. You obviously know absolutely nothing about ICE design so I suggest you stop contemplating it until after you take the neccessary classes.

No...

When I did my apprenticeship, you weren't even conceived grasshopper & their were no computer controlled engin management systems around then.
However, you are partly right, I have forgotten what you probably know or are currently reading from your student books.

But then, I have been semi retired from this industry for nearly 30 years now, that is my excuse.

Originally Posted by hightower99

Also I would like to mention that the recent rapport on the testing of the X4V2 engine is a sham. Not even close to objective, or even technically accurate! Really I am not impressed at all, I don't really expect much from revetec but this was really well under what I was expecting.

You are a real bitch to please, ....then scepticism is a form of intelligent interest & I don't think that is all that bad, young lad.

Q: What were you "Expecting" ?

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by The Raptor

If this is confidential, it should come out in good time ....be patient.

That is assuming that it actually has any advantage

Originally Posted by The Raptor

I was ONLY trying to compare the INDIVIDUAL technologies by leaving out the worst part of each engine.
That is the "bottom end" of the CSRV engine & the "top end" of the Revetec engine! (I may have NOT made myself clear on that point ..sorry)

Why? that is an excercise that is so pointless that I would advise you not to even think it privately in your own head (but you posted it here?)

Originally Posted by The Raptor

When I did my apprenticeship, you weren't even conceived grasshopper & their were no computer controlled engin management systems around then.
However, you are partly right, I have forgotten what you probably know or are currently reading from your student books.

what did you apprentice as? hopefully something that had at least alittle to do with ICEs (do you know what ICE stands for?)

Originally Posted by The Raptor

But then, I have been semi retired from this industry for nearly 30 years now, that is my excuse.

The rules of physics haven't changed in that time and the Laws and Constants are still the same yet you still would like to use your age as a cover for you lack of understanding?

Originally Posted by The Raptor

You are a real bitch to please, ....then scepticism is a form of intelligent interest & I don't think that is all that bad, young lad.

Actually it wouldn't take much from revetec to please me at all. and yes rational scepticism is a good thing.

Originally Posted by The Raptor

Q: What were you "Expecting" ?

Well first I was expecting the article to be free of incorrect techincal information. But what I got in the article is really astounding.

First they continue to claim that because the new X4V2 only uses 2 valves per cylinder with no variable adjustment (as opposed to 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing and variable intake length) that it's peak torque is held back? This is incorrect. 4 valves per cylinder helps high rpm breathing (which they don't need if they are running at a true 3000rpm) they do not increase peak torque. Also variable valve timing and variable intake length systems only increases the width of the torque peak (it does not increase the actual peak value). They obviously want people to think that they are held back by the top end tech when they are not.

On top of that when descirbing variable length intake port systems they incorrectly state that:

Originally Posted by Revetec

"A short port provides better responsiveness and torque at lower RPM ranges, and thus a longer intake port provides greater torque in the higher RPM ranges."

This is the opposite of what is true. SHORT ports are used for HIGH RPM and LONG ports are used for LOW RPM.

The article is filled with simple "rule of thumb" guesses and large delta values, with no math at all. They also assume that the people who read the article aren't intelligent enough to put 2 and 2 together. The claim to estimate an imcrease in torque in the lower RPM ranges of anywhere up to 30% (can you get any more vague and meaningless than that?) but then they show a chart that compares the torque of their engine against a toyota 2.4L engine and a scaled representation of a GM 5.7L engine. The Toyota is only beat up to roughly 2000RPM by less 4 procent, and on top of that the toyota engine goes on to produce a peak torque of 220Nm (a whopping 9% increase!). They mention that the toyota engine has VVT, VLIP, and 4VPC, but again that didn't increase the peak torque it only gave the toyota a broader torque curve that is still excellent for it's size even at the low RPM shown.

They then go on to say how good they did against a "GM 5.7L engine" which is the LS1. Well the interesting thing is that the valve train system in the LS1 was optimised for higher RPM and because it isn't variable it suffers badly at low RPM. That explains why the revetec engine produces more than what 2.4L of LS1 can. So basically they have failed at producing any great increase in torque compared to convectional technology.

Also they mention that this was all done witha piston stroke of only 65mm but how does that matter in a revetec engine when the lever arm is based on the crank cam radius and not the piston stroke? they are again trying to attract the unitelligent.

They have a horrible section with a graph of the A/F ratios used during the dyno run, but they go on to say that the graph is ony a guide and that basically their engine is capable of fooling a high speed Lambda sensor (which isn't physically possible) because the graph conflicts with earlier (unpublished) testing.

They then go on to give a completely misunderstood idea on the concept of BMEP. BMEP has very little to do with thermal efficiency and design optimization. The true value they should be disclosing that allows you to compare it to any other engine is BSFC not BMEP. What they fail to mention is that BMEP is a fictional, theoretical value. BMEP is only good when talking about the same engine.

They also show a raw dyno chart which isn't corrected to SAE regulations, which means it looses some of it's value. The graph should be considered a single, unique, performance with very little value. It does show that the engine is capable when the right conditions are present though.

The conclusion at the end is therefore of little real value as it is not the case.

[revetec]

Originally Posted by hightower99

On top of that when descirbing variable length intake port systems they incorrectly state that: This is the opposite of what is true. SHORT ports are used for HIGH RPM and LONG ports are used for LOW RPM.

I made an error in my report and have amended it to remove the reference to port length effects. Thank you for your input.

Originally Posted by hightower99

They then go on to say how good they did against a "GM 5.7L engine" which is the LS1. Well the interesting thing is that the valve train system in the LS1 was optimised for higher RPM and because it isn't variable it suffers badly at low RPM. That explains why the revetec engine produces more than what 2.4L of LS1 can. So basically they have failed at producing any great increase in torque compared to convectional technology.

The top end of the LS1 is similar to the X4v2 and the gains are consistent through the tested range. If you are correct, the gap should decrease significantly as the revs increase. So your point is?

Originally Posted by hightower99

Also they mention that this was all done witha piston stroke of only 65mm but how does that matter in a revetec engine when the lever arm is based on the crank cam radius and not the piston stroke? they are again trying to attract the unitelligent.

It does matter when it comes to thermal loss. A shorter stroke engine dissipates less heat into the cylinder wall. But a conventional engine with a short stroke produces less torque than is practical in automotive use.

Originally Posted by hightower99

They have a horrible section with a graph of the A/F ratios used during the dyno run, but they go on to say that the graph is ony a guide and that basically their engine is capable of fooling a high speed Lambda sensor (which isn't physically possible) because the graph conflicts with earlier (unpublished) testing.

The Lambda sensor measures Oxygen not fuel. If the desired combustion is achieved there is a trace of Oxygen in the exhaust gas. If the combustion is on the rich side, oxygen is reduced, and if the mixture is too lean a greater amount of oxygen is measured. The Lambda readings are a guide because we have proven independently that running a leaner mixture in the 2,000-4,000rpm range provided a normal lambda reading. This means that the desired combustion was achieved using a leaner mixture. Either that or we had a 50% restriction in the intake at 4,700rpm. Torque was good so I think there was little restriction.

Originally Posted by hightower99

They then go on to give a completely misunderstood idea on the concept of BMEP. BMEP has very little to do with thermal efficiency and design optimization. The true value they should be disclosing that allows you to compare it to any other engine is BSFC not BMEP. What they fail to mention is that BMEP is a fictional, theoretical value. BMEP is only good when talking about the same engine.

Please go to Autospeed where they explain BMEP. BTW. We have used a Kesler BMEP plotter that has a sensor in the combustion chamber measuring and plotting pressure, so BMEP is not fictional. It is the average cylinder pressure over 4 complete cycles.
You can work out a theoretical BMEP pressure with the following formula which is close to the real thing:

BMEP =

kW x 1200
----------
litres x rpm

Originally Posted by hightower99

They also show a raw dyno chart which isn't corrected to SAE regulations, which means it looses some of it's value. The graph should be considered a single, unique, performance with very little value. It does show that the engine is capable when the right conditions are present though.

The conclusion at the end is therefore of little real value as it is not the case.

In the right conditions? The dyno we have corrects to standards using air temp and barometric pressure adjustments.
For your Info the test conditions are as follows: Room temp (26.7 degC) Humidity (60%) Barometric Pressure (1010 mbar) Intake Temp (26.5 degC)

With all your arguments in mind, go to TopSpeed.com and read the article on our engine.

Look if I published everything and all data and calculations, it would take me a year to tabulate it. This report was aimed as an overview of recent testing. If we used the same technology as current engines and had a budget to optimise all the systems, then the result would be even better. We are currently making further upgrades and will better these figures soon.

It is quite easy to sit and criticise anyone, it quite different to do the job. Have you done any actual published development on engines?

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

I made an error in my report and have amended it to remove the reference to port length effects. Thank you for your input.

Well that makes me happy. I thought you might have disagreed.

Originally Posted by Revetec

The top end of the LS1 is similar to the X4v2 and the gains are consistent through the tested range. If you are correct, the gap should decrease significantly as the revs increase. So your point is?

The only shared things between the heads of your engine and a LS1 is the fact that they are both pushrod operated 2VPC heads. Other than that I would wager that unless you based the total head design on the LS1 (which would be a bad move on your part) that the designs are not overly similar. First the tested range is only from 1250RPM to 3000RPM (Only a 1750RPM spread). The LS1 valvetrain is optimised at something around 4500-5000RPM and therefore is actually causing a loss in performance everywhere else in the RPM range. Furthermore I don't even know how you got torque ratings for such low RPM from a LS1 the majority of dyno charts I have seen start above 2200RPM. The gains are not consistent at all. As revs increase the gain is decreasing until about 2600RPM where your engine closes in on it's optimized RPM while an LS1 is still more than 2000RPM away from it's optimized RPM. It is plain to see that the torque curve of the LS1 is steadily increasing as revs rise.

Originally Posted by Revetec

It does matter when it comes to thermal loss. A shorter stroke engine dissipates less heat into the cylinder wall. But a conventional engine with a short stroke produces less torque than is practical in automotive use.

Yes but that aspect was not mentioned or even implied it is plain to see that in the context of the article you are referring to the fact that you are producing almost as much torque with a shorter piston stroke as if a shorter piston stroke should be considered a disadvantage (like it would be in a common crank system). This is mainly used as an excuse for the fact that the Toyota engine produces more torque for more than half of the shown range even though you claim an increase "anywhere up to 30%". You are making excuses for the apparent lack of any advantage.

Originally Posted by Revetec

The Lambda sensor measures Oxygen not fuel. If the desired combustion is achieved there is a trace of Oxygen in the exhaust gas. If the combustion is on the rich side, oxygen is reduced, and if the mixture is too lean a greater amount of oxygen is measured. The Lambda readings are a guide because we have proven independently that running a leaner mixture in the 2,000-4,000rpm range provided a normal lambda reading. This means that the desired combustion was achieved using a leaner mixture. Either that or we had a 50% restriction in the intake at 4,700rpm. Torque was good so I think there was little restriction.

Firstly I know exactly how a Lambda sensor works so lets assume it is a known for both of us. You cannot cheat or fool a Lambda sensor without doing so on purpose (by injecting excess air into the exhaust of by burning excess fuel in the exhaust). You apparently are forgetting that you fuel metering sensor system could also be defect. Explain to me how your engine can burn less fuel but still fool/trick the Lambda sensor into thinking that you are running 14.7:1? If you are burning less fuel then more oxygen will be present in the exhaust and the sensor will detect that and tell you that you are running lean. How are you fooling it?

Originally Posted by Revetec

Please go to Autospeed where they explain BMEP. BTW. We have used a Kesler BMEP plotter that has a sensor in the combustion chamber measuring and plotting pressure, so BMEP is not fictional. It is the average cylinder pressure over 4 complete cycles.

Unfortunately Autospeed doesn't do a good job of describing what BMEP actually is. They do however make one simple point: BMEP is a better value to compare different engines than Specifc Power. However BMEP has very little to do with efficiency. Think about it some of the most inefficient engines in the world produce extremely high BMEP figures while some of the most efficienct engines produce relatively low BMEP figures. However BMEP is even better suited for talking about the same engine. Because for the same displacement engine more torque requires a higher BMEP.

I suggest you read this: MEP

Notice where it says "It’s important to remember that the values produced by the formula are for theoretical analysis only, and do not reflect the actual pressures inside an individual combustion chamber."

Originally Posted by Revetec

In the right conditions? The dyno we have corrects to standards using air temp and barometric pressure adjustments.
For your Info the test conditions are as follows: Room temp (26.7 degC) Humidity (60%) Barometric Pressure (1010 mbar) Intake Temp (26.5 degC)

That is all important information that should have been in the article! The article says that the Dyno chart is raw output with no SAE smoothing which leads me to think that it isn't corrected to SAE standards for ambient conditions.

Originally Posted by Revetec

Look if I published everything and all data and calculations, it would take me a year to tabulate it. This report was aimed as an overview of recent testing. If we used the same technology as current engines and had a budget to optimise all the systems, then the result would be even better. We are currently making further upgrades and will better these figures soon.

the article is referred to on your site as a "Comprehensive testing report" it comes no where near comprehensive. I am not asking for a full on totally complete technical analysis of all systems and aspects, but I am certainly asking for actual data as opposed to your own interpretations of the data.

[revetec]

Originally Posted by hightower99

Firstly I know exactly how a Lambda sensor works so lets assume it is a known for both of us. You cannot cheat or fool a Lambda sensor without doing so on purpose (by injecting excess air into the exhaust of by burning excess fuel in the exhaust). You apparently are forgetting that you fuel metering sensor system could also be defect. Explain to me how your engine can burn less fuel but still fool/trick the Lambda sensor into thinking that you are running 14.7:1? If you are burning less fuel then more oxygen will be present in the exhaust and the sensor will detect that and tell you that you are running lean. How are you fooling it?

To explain: At the normal ignition point our piston is twice as high in the cylinder than a conventional engine. This means that the fuel molecules are closer together. We learn't on our first injected engine that if we use a normal air fuel ratio at the lower RPM ranges then provide a fuel map that is consistent with a conventional engine that our engine runs very rich, especially in the higher RPM ranges when the ignition timing is higher and the effect on changed piston position is at its greatest. We then leaned off the mixture (in some tests to 45% less at around 4,000rpm). At this point the engine fired cleanly, the plugs were at the right colour, and the Lambda sensor was reading a normal type reading. We then took the 1.35litre engine to India for testing in their facility. One of the tests was fuel consumption, and it was found that the engine in that test was using roughly the same fuel quantity per hour at 4,000rpm (full throttle) as it was at 2,000rpm (full throttle) This related directly to our fuel map. Throughout the test the Lambda sensor was reading normally. We have found that when the mixture is compressed to a denser state at the point of ignition, that the fuel mixture requires to be leaner to provide the same level of combustion. It actually wasn't expected that the Lambda sensor would read in the way it does.

I'm not trying to run a theory by you. We didn't expect it and we experienced this trait during testing.

I have noticed that Toyota have a development engine with two injectors, one in the port that injects a lean mixture and one in the head to provide a richer mixture for ignition. From our testing, I would assume that they experience the same trait to some degree from their Lambda readings. Is there anyone who knows about this? I'm very interested.

Originally Posted by hightower99

Notice where it says "It’s important to remember that the values produced by the formula are for theoretical analysis only, and do not reflect the actual pressures inside an individual combustion chamber."

Did you note that I said we have a kesler BMEP tester with a sensor in the cylinder head. The figures work out about the same, equipment or theory.

Originally Posted by hightower99

That is all important information that should have been in the article! The article says that the Dyno chart is raw output with no SAE smoothing which leads me to think that it isn't corrected to SAE standards for ambient conditions.

The release was a cut down version of the one sent to the automotive companies we are talking to, with a little added for those who don't understand as well as you do. Well I posted the data for you, all you had to do was ask instead of getting all uptight about it. The test environment was a little higher in temperature than a normal test but our dyno compensates for it.

Originally Posted by hightower99

the article is referred to on your site as a "Comprehensive testing report" it comes no where near comprehensive. I am not asking for a full on totally complete technical analysis of all systems and aspects, but I am certainly asking for actual data as opposed to your own interpretations of the data.

Sorry it was not comprehensive enough for you, but it is more information than normally released by any manufacturer. It's a hard balance to reach.

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by revetec

To explain: At the normal ignition point our piston is twice as high in the cylinder than a conventional engine. This means that the fuel molecules are closer together.

What exactly does that mean? I assume it means that when you fire the spark plug that the piston is closer to TDC, right? But what exactly does "twice as high" mean?

Originally Posted by revetec

We learn't on our first injected engine that if we use a normal air fuel ratio at the lower RPM ranges then provide a fuel map that is consistent with a conventional engine that our engine runs very rich, especially in the higher RPM ranges when the ignition timing is higher and the effect on changed piston position is at its greatest.

To help me understand you are going to have to be alittle more specific. Does "normal air fuel ratio" mean 14.7:1? (i.e Lambda 1.00). Also I am confused again if you are feeding the engine so that a 14.7:1 mixture is made then it can't run rich... Rich means that you put in more fuel then the can be burned with the air that is ingested. There is a difference between homogenous rich mixtures and local rich formation. I assume you are referring to the later.

Originally Posted by revetec

We then leaned off the mixture (in some tests to 45% less at around 4,000rpm). At this point the engine fired cleanly, the plugs were at the right colour, and the Lambda sensor was reading a normal type reading.

Again be more specific. is Lambda 1.00 a "normal type" reading? I think you are being confused by local rich formation.

Originally Posted by revetec

We then took the 1.35litre engine to India for testing in their facility. One of the tests was fuel consumption, and it was found that the engine in that test was using roughly the same fuel quantity per hour at 4,000rpm (full throttle) as it was at 2,000rpm (full throttle) This related directly to our fuel map. Throughout the test the Lambda sensor was reading normally.

Ok lets think about this for a moment. If you were running at 14.7:1 (Lambda 1.00) at 2000RPM at full throttle, then in order to only ingest that same amount of fuel per hour at 4000RPM you have to run 29.4:1 (Lambda 2.00) under full throttle conditions. You cannot fool a Lambda sensor to read Lambda 1.00 when you are feeding it with Lambda 2.00, that is just not physically possible. Also if that related directly to your fuel map then you are saying that the fuel map shows that it decreases the amount of fuel injected (The fuel map in the article did not show that). Also what about power at 2000RPM and 4000RPM in that test?

Originally Posted by revetec

We have found that when the mixture is compressed to a denser state at the point of ignition, that the fuel mixture requires to be leaner to provide the same level of combustion. It actually wasn't expected that the Lambda sensor would read in the way it does.

I think what is happening is that for some reason your engine seems to be good at concentrating the fuel in a small area of the combustion chamber (focussing it around the spark plug I would assume) meaning you are running Heterogenous mixtures. This allows you to be able to ignite much leaner (homogenous rating) mixtures because you are effectively making the mixture directly around the spark plug rich. However this will still not fool a Lambda sensor. You can't get the same amount of fuel to use more oxygen then it chemically can.

Originally Posted by revetec

I'm not trying to run a theory by you. We didn't expect it and we experienced this trait during testing.

Well until you find the cause and confirm a theory then you really are just guessing and assuming that your equipment hasn't been fooling you.

Originally Posted by revetec

I have noticed that Toyota have a development engine with two injectors, one in the port that injects a lean mixture and one in the head to provide a richer mixture for ignition. From our testing, I would assume that they experience the same trait to some degree from their Lambda readings.

I assure you that Toyota engineers would not except faulty readings in their Lambda readouts. If the lambda readings don't match what you are feeding the engine with then something is very wrong.

Originally Posted by revetec

Did you note that I said we have a kesler BMEP tester with a sensor in the cylinder head. The figures work out about the same, equipment or theory.

You mean you have a cylinder pressure sensor. MEP is basically meant to mean the pressure that would have to constantly be exerted on the piston (during down strokes) to make the same torque as the engine actually makes. It is not the average cylinder pressure. It isn't even a good indicater of peak pressure.

Originally Posted by revetec

The release was a cut down version of the one sent to the automotive companies we are talking to, with a little added for those who don't understand as well as you do. Well I posted the data for you, all you had to do was ask instead of getting all uptight about it. The test environment was a little higher in temperature than a normal test but our dyno compensates for it.

I wish I could get a copy of the full report then? glad to hear that your dyno compensated (that should have been mentioned in the article instead of referring to it as raw info).

Any chance I could read the full report?

Originally Posted by revetec

Sorry it was not comprehensive enough for you, but it is more information than normally released by any manufacturer. It's a hard balance to reach.

My point is you shouldn't dumb things down at all. Everyone you want to attract will be able to understand the majority of information you can put out.

[Matra et Alpine]

ht, WHY are you asking for details that requires Brad to release info that would clearly be sensitive.

Also, the disparity between theory and practice doesn't mean the practice is bad. It CAN mean the theory is flawed CCEs take engines into areas few have ventured ! If you can take advantage of the practical knowledge someone else can do the theory after the success MANY inventions are built and not fully understood till later. Engineering history study will help explain that for you and give insight into wht TOyota's experience as reported may be totally valid.

You also are mis-reading "fooling Lambda" imho.
Sensors use a component to measure and produce a value which in "normal" combustion engines aligns closely with actual air/fuel burn. If there is something different happening then it's method of measrement may be invalid ! It's like using a colour film in your camera instead of b&w and then realising that you can't determien contrast the same way you did before !!

Brad, continue with your business and please don't go roudn the path previously trod of trying to appease analyticals who can't accept the gaps or fill them in with their own experience and intellect.

[hightower99]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

ht, WHY are you asking for details that requires Brad to release info that would clearly be sensitive.

Because apparently if i ask I shall recieve... and actually I didn't ask for anything that would be sensitive. I asked what his definition is of the general terms he used.

Originally Posted by Matra

Also, the disparity between theory and practice doesn't mean the practice is bad. It CAN mean the theory is flawed CCEs take engines into areas few have ventured ! If you can take advantage of the practical knowledge someone else can do the theory after the success MANY inventions are built and not fully understood till later. Engineering history study will help explain that for you and give insight into wht TOyota's experience as reported may be totally valid.

Relax matra it is still just a piston moving up and down inside a cylinder. And usually when you find disparity between theory and a single practice you normally look for flaws or faults in the practice before you throw the theory out. So far revetec are the only people who don't think something is wrong when there lambda readings don't match what they are feeding the engine with.

Originally Posted by Matra

You also are mis-reading "fooling Lambda" imho.
Sensors use a component to measure and produce a value which in "normal" combustion engines aligns closely with actual air/fuel burn. If there is something different happening then it's method of measrement may be invalid !

Lambda sensors measure the oxygen content in the exhaust. Since we know exactly how much oxygen it takes to burn any given amount of fuel completely and since we can measure pretty accurately how much oxygen enters the engine and because we control how much fuel goes in then the Lambda readings can not be fooled. The only way the revetec engine could fool the lambda sensor is if they are somehow getting the same amount of fuel to burn more than completely and use more oxygen or the engine somehow absorbs oxygen itself? (maybe due to the use of unobtanium??? ) those are the only ways that you can get a lambda 1.00 reading even though you are feeding the engine at lambda 2.00 (without overly obvious things like faulty sensors ect.)

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by hightower99

Because apparently if i ask I shall recieve... and actually I didn't ask for anything that would be sensitive. I asked what his definition is of the general terms he used.

Your words ..."Any chance I could read the full report?" From that I thought you meant all th details, all the facts, nothing sanitised.

Relax matra it is still just a piston moving up and down inside a cylinder. And usually when you find disparity between theory and a single practice you normally look for flaws or faults in the practice before you throw the theory out. So far revetec are the only people who don't think something is wrong when there lambda readings don't match what they are feeding the engine with.

erm, Brad pointed out Toyota have been seeing somthing similar ?
The theories built up over the years are based on "normal" piston movement.
THis has differences.
Even small ones can make a difference in our theories -- butterfly effect.
Nobody suggested THROING THE THEORY out, very seldom does a theorem get discarded, usually it is enhanced as chamber compbustion HAS done for decades. Small changes, especially in the area of flame-front burn.

Lambda sensors measure the oxygen content in the exhaust

That's OK, that's a classic measurement mistake