Rocker arm recommendations?
B3,
It is a pity you cannot mount an argument without resorting to insults & name calling. Includes your cheer squad [ not IQ52 ].
Insults and name calling? Let's take a walk back in time to post #8 where you insulted my knowledge and value by encouraging people, in a public open forum, to not give credence to ANY advice I might give. If not for that unprovoked insult, you likely wouldn't have heard a peep out of me on this thread. I've given you ample opportunity to backtrack enough to still disagree with my tech article, but concede that I am a thinker and might actually have valuable input. I was very nice and professional with my initial responses, but it is clear you have no shame for your insults, so you have escalated the tension in this discussion. When you make such attacks, it isn't just against me, but the livelihood of my family as well.
For what it's worth, I am not name calling. I have called a spade a spade. You started off with the insult, then when confronted with the misrepresentations of Smokey's quotes, you pivoted the argument elsewhere. You used Smokey as a reference, and when shown that wasn't what he said, you continue to make the same arguments, just without referencing Smokey. Then, you started quoting me as saying things that I didn't say, and when called on it, you tried to make it appear that I was the one to blame. You dragged other people into the argument trying to make a case that was shown repeatedly to be flawed with CAD drawings, debate, explanations, and referral to other references that also make the case in point, ie, the Reid Rockers video link, mid lift geometry info, etc. (Did you actually follow up on these?). That qualifies as a psychological condition called delusion. That's simply a recognition of behavior, and not just attaching a name to be spiteful. Maybe you're not delusional, but you're missing out on a great acting career.
As stated previously, I have already seen, analyzed, and discounted with mathematical and practical application, everything you have been saying or referring to. You don't seem to have taken the time to digest the alternative view, whether it be from me, someone else on this thread, or the thousands of other professionals around the world who have the same views, if you only looked for them. After all, you like the strength in numbers approach.
I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence in the above post. If you mean the rocker is pretty much vertical [ prod side up in the air ] when it is normally ~ horizontal, then yes valve side has zero length.
That's a bold statement, because I can hold one in my hand at that angle and clearly see the valve side lever. It didn't disappear at all. It's still the same length as it was before. You seem to be saying that a rocker requires a relationship to a static linear object to have a ratio, in this case the valve stem. Again, that would be incorrect and make it impossible to ratio a rocker at manufacture.
And you are still not getting it....
The engine builder you describe 'bending' the rules did indeed change the overall ratio. Which anybody with any common sense can see because the lobe lift remined the same, but valve lift changed with different length prods. Example, 1.5 ratio with short pushrods, 1.57 with long prods. How the change occurred, wasted motion you claim & I agree with that, is besides the point. The fact is that ratio change occurred.
He didn't change the ratio, he changed the lift. He increased the inefficency of the set up, It didn't morph the rocker into something different. And, how do you know the lobe lift remained the same? The pushrod sweeps too, so did you measure the rocker input to see if it stayed the same? You are in way over your head.
Assigning dimension to one part by measuring a different part is misguided. If you actually measured the input at the rocker vs. the output at the rocker (not the valve), you would find the ratio is exactly the same, which is shown in my CAD drawing. To see the real results of ratio, the measurements have to be taken through the same arc as the input and output arcs, not in the straight line of the valve stem. The straight lines simply show the inefficiencies of converting arc motion to linear motion, and those inefficiencies can be manipulated to a great degree, hence the engine builder reference. This, by the way, is also addressed in my tech articles, but you must have missed that part.
And yes, you are right, the roller & the adjuster didn't get any further from the fulcrum centre. But what you keep failing to understand is the contact points DID change. And these contact points changed in your short/long prod example, which changed the valve lift, & the overall ratio.
The contact points changed, but the arc remained the same. Exactly as I showed in my Earth example. If the arc is the same, the ratio is the same. A shoe type rocker increases the arc, a roller does not.
If your theory was correct, a rocker arm's ratio at any given increment of lobe lift will always be the same. It is not & this is known from measurements taken.
No, rocker input, not lobe lift. Have you verified input? See above. Linear to arc, arc to linear. The inefficiencies are on both sides, but, and you knew I was going to say this, the ratio stayed the same.
The longer this goes on, I believe, the more credibility I gain. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, I'm thinking the more you lose, also.
