What do you think of this technical pitch? BS???

[T-N-T]

I read this on a different forum, what are your thoughts? It basically leaves me shaking my head while face palming....

[1]: there are numerous negative physical acts in the two and four stroke engines that prevent a robust intake into the engine. Those are residual compression, and exhaust pressures that overlap into the intake system when the intake port or intake valve/s is open. During the period of intake port and intake valve opening; they are subjected to valve overlap; and simultaneous exposure to the exhaust port. The exhaust back pressure and residual combustion pressure will enter into the intake system [aka, carburetors and fuel injection]. Normally aspirated engine [no turbo/super charger] relies on a term called differential pressure to function. Meaning the engine and fuel system must have a lower pressure than that outside atmospheric pressure, [14.7 psi at sea level] to cause the carburetor to deliver fuel and or air/fuel to travel into the engine; this also applies to fuel injection. In fact, as the back pressure increases under load, the differential pressure diminishes; and it will lessen the amount of air and fuel delivered to the engine. There are several other negative back pressure things that happen at the same time, and I will go into that later.



Here is the basic problem; back pressure can become so great that the carburetor fuel delivery is diminished to near zero. When this starts to happen; the engine combustion process diminishes, and the intake system diminishes to the point where it will eventually slow, engine hesitates, as it no longer has proper intake and air fuel delivery. It is important to understand these problems as this is the reason you see smaller carburetors, new expensive carburetor wings, auxiliary power jet systems and other devices. What they do; they increase the carburetor air velocity, and the power jet delivers additional fuel as the carburetor differential pressure diminishes. In summary, these systems are crutches and tend to supplement a carburetor that has diminished fuel delivery. Fuel injection somewhat overcomes this issue by having pressurized injectors that deliver fuel independent of differential pressure. The engineering and scientific community came to a conclusion; that they would utilize fuel injection and use turbo/supercharging to overcome the diminished intake signal that is negated [diminished] by back pressure.



[2]: how do we solve the problem? As you research the issues above as I have over the last +50-years; there was a conclusion as recent as today. A single jet carburetor could not deliver the proper air-fuel mixture to the engine under all conditions unless there were new mathematical formulas based on real facts; no presumed measurement, that would not relate to the real world. For the normally aspirated system to work, it must be able to sense several fluctuating values including air flow and back pressures at the same time and it must make calculated delivery within microseconds; [less than 60,000ths of one second].



This problem for the Internal Combustion Engine [ICE] engineering community, continued for over 150-years with no apparent resolve. This problem continues to exist as recently as today, 2016. The methodology has been kept secret; a portion of the physical structure was first revealed in a new World patent filing during 2013 by the inventor X. There is more to come.



The bottom line; the oxidizer [O2/O] molecule/atom must have great proximity to the fuel [HC] molecule/atom to realize the full potential energy release within a hydrocarbon fuel. There must be an extraordinary mixing process, as well as a method to calculate air/fuel delivery in microseconds. Hello, I respectfully introduce you to the system. The internal workings are sophisticated and complex, yet simple. I will not go into all of the details as you would probably find it boring and you would think that I am a dreamer; I admit; yes I am a dreamer and a visionary of the future for the ICE two and four stroke combustion process. If you do not believe this current mysterious fuel delivery systems; just wait until you see what’s coming for 2017 and the future projects. Respectfully Inventor X


It kinda strikes me as a "lets baffle them with BS" attempt to sell a product.

 

[TrailBeast]

So it is basically explaining how and engine works and how fuel needs to be atomized, but they have a better way?
I was good with the entire thing until they tried to get molecular technical about saying they have a better way of atomizing fuel.
Then it went to snake oil from there.

Who knows, maybe they do but I doubt it.

 

[T-N-T]

They also claim a 10% increase in power everywhere on 250cc motorcycle that already puts out 50hp and better fuel control then fuel injection has with a lower emissions output too. It requires race gas otherwise the result is enough detonation to wipe the engine out.

From the looks of their patent they will be producing metering blocks for holleys that have produce the same results.

I say snake oil too, I just can't say it on that forum since they pay to advertise and I'm a mod....

 

[AJ/FormS]

Well, the application there seems to be a small-turbo engine trying to rev to the moon, so I guess I will never see a STIC engine,lol. I mean how could an NA engine ever build that much backpressure in the exhaust to where it stifled the intake.

 

[TrailBeast]

Is this a big hp gain for an introductory price of $350?
Looks like the BS is deeper than the facts are to me.
Maybe if I was racing for money and that tiny bit at 7800-9000 RPM was at the last straight away.

 

[T-N-T]

That is an independent test. Notice the low line, that was with the stock rich jetting, once they made some jetting corrections there was a loss in power for a good part of test. The only real gains are in over-rev from the looks of it. Most riders hardly spend any time up there unless they are hardcore racers. Not worth $350.00 in my eyes since the bike needs 104 octane fuel to go with the part. The stock bike runs on 91 octane pump gas. I wonder if it just runs slightly leaner at those high RPM's and that's why it needs race gas yo avoid detonation.

Here's a link to the their patent. Patent WO2015031696A2 - Fuel air delivery circuit with enhanced response, fuel vaporization and recharge

Seems like a bunch of gobblyguk to me. I wonder they have anything to do with or in common with the thread about the fuel vaporing dealy that was posted in the sb engine forum.

 

[AJ/FormS]

yeah and if the tranny ratios were 80% splits
And you gotta love the 300 extra Rs at the top there. That's about 3%. So at say 80mph, that represents 2.4mph. At 100 that would be 3mph,of course. So down the back straight, that plus 3% could make the difference. But so would skipping supper the night before,lol.

 

[T-N-T]

Well, the application there seems to be a small-turbo engine trying to rev to the moon, so I guess I will never see a STIC engine,lol. I mean how could an NA engine ever build that much backpressure in the exhaust to where it stifled the intake.

It's not a turbo engine just a single cylinder MX bike. I thought the same thing about the backpressure.

He posted up this in response to someone's question...

Perhaps you have observed engines that are on an engine dyno with the air box off; you will note at certain times it appears that two things are happening at the same time. [1]: You will notice that there is a large plume of fuel vapor exiting the carburetor/fuel injection at the same time the engine is running. [2]: In the real world in the intake process; there are two or three things happening in both directions at the same time. During the intake process, there are sonic shocks waves traveling back and forth in the intake system at the speed of sound [approximately 750 mph] see Wikipedia:

Wikipedia: “A sound wave as it propagates through an elastic medium. In dry air at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343.2 meters per second (1,126 ft. / s; 1,236 km/h; 768 mph; 667 km).”

Here is what happens; as the engine vacuum [suction] decreases under hard acceleration; there is a proportional increase in positive back pressure and this combined with the sonic pressure waves allow two things to happen at one time. Thus you will have an induction into the engine in an area of the carburetor bore, and at the same time, you may see a process called double fueling wherein a portion of the intake air/fuel mixture is traveling backward in another area of the carburetor away from the engine.

 

[AJ/FormS]

I have seen that.
On an engine with a jumped timing chain at low revs. On an engine with very late ignition timing and a partially restricted exhaust.At mid revs
On an engine with a severely restricted exhaust, again at low revs.
On an engine with pumped up lifters at maybe 4000 or so rpm.
Of course 2-cycle marine engine engines do this as a matter of course.
And there were certain superbikes in the early 2000s that had a problem with this at higher rpms and the factory built special air boxes to handle it.
It seems to me, the devil is in the details.
Ima thinking for us regular old-school guys, with well-tuned combos,Especially streeters, we probably don't need to worry too much about it; at least I'm not gonna.
Oh yeah I've also seen snowmobiles do it. Mostly 3-bangers with the PTO cylinder fried.heehee.
But 2-cycle piston-port engines have always had trouble with that. Rotary valves, only when the disc is on wrong, and reed valves only when the reeds are done. But yeah, piston-port engines do that all the time. Their air boxes have drain holes,heehee.And have fun tuning them with the airbox or velocity stacks removed.