Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey Sydneykid,

I was wondering how long it would take for you to bite... :P

Yes harmonics are indeed a fascinating subject. Hmmmm...overbalancing...an intriguing concept...and one that I've only rarely seen made a frustrating mention in my theoretical travels. This will no doubt occupy considerable brain time on my part. My inital hypothesis of the notion is that an artifical harmonic is induced through the overbalance, such that it destructively interferes with the troublesome primary natural harmonic at 7500RPM....

I assume you have built engines to this specification. How do they perform and survive the onslaught?

The Phantom seeks harmony from the Oracle....

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It would be interesting if you could create a mirrored (180 degrees out of phase) frequency to the harmonic, with the same amplitude, and then it would be completely cancelled out.

they do this with sound, in high noise environments, so it shoud work with an engine.

Ah theory.....

The answer just hit me! a horizontally opposed 12 cyl 6 litre engine!:P

Sorry got a bit carried away.

Having been left intrigued by Sydneykids mention of overbalancing vs crankshaft harmonics I have attempted to dig deeper into theory to try to explain it or at least understand what is going on. Very little is out there on this specific subject however, with only a few good texts found at the local Uni and state libraries, explaining engine balancing and vibration theory for the various engine configurations.

Anyway, based on closer scrutiny, I have changed my mind in regard to the previous hypothesis I made regarding the mechanism wherby this is achieved...it is much more complex.

Since the crank is essentially a complex torsional tuning fork, two mechanisms exist to alter this frequency. One is material stiffness, and the other is weight. Since there is not much you can do with the stiffness, other than perhaps nitriding or some other treatment, this leaves weight. By overbalancing I can only assume added weight on the counterweights over and beyond the factory level, possibly with a heavier-than-steel tungsten alloy inserts. This would effectively lower the frequency of vibration. Theoretically at least if you double the weight you would also double the inertia. Relations show then that the resonant frequency of each crank throw would also lower by a half. The resonances are still there, but have shifted in frequency leaving the more power productive 7500 RPM plus region clear for a hammering. Ofcoarse this leaves the 3750 RPM band at a peak, but since we are probably talking full on race engines here that isn't a problem, particularly if the critical RPM is quickly passed through and that relatively little power will be made there.

I am left curious as to how the standard RB30 crank handles the lateral as opposed to torsional crank deflections at these ludicrously high RPM's. Perhaps this is the reason for the heavy crank girdle made by Nizpro on their powerhouse RB30/26 hybrid with a standard based crank. Although heavier counterweights would help counteract this, the RB30 standard crank has NO counterweights directly over number 2 and 5 crank throws. Compare this to the OS Giken 3.0 billet crank which has EVERY crank throw counterweighted an as such would greatly assist in reducing the lateral deflection. No girdle is used on this engine either, which one can only assume is because of the superior stiffness of the billet crank. These counterweights present opposite all of the crank throws are also significantly bulkier, which is in line with what Sydneykid is suggesting....and the OS engines supposed ability to reach over 10000 RPM.

This thread however began with a discussion on light weight accessory pulleys and harmonic dampers, with their lower rotational inertias and theoretical power gains. The MUCH heavier OS crank would have significantly higher inertia, but since the engine can handle such absurdly high power outputs anyway, this is obviously of secondary relevance, even in the super time critical world of drag racing....

I await Sydneykids further input into this discussion with great anticipation...

Originally posted by benm

Is it just me or does anyone else look at the above posts and just see chinese ? :D

actually, its been an interesting read, once you can translate it :D Keep up the good chat guys

Apologies for appearing to hijack your thread and moving off topic. That wasn't the intention, just thought you and others might want to learn more about a related subject in which detailed information is very rare. Even rarer is finding someone with Sydneykid's experience willing to share some of this knowledge...

:D

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...