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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...