Talk:Cylinder head porting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first graphic has a label typo on it: "origionial" -> original --Hooperbloob 04:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

oops, ok fixed. Thanks!--=Motorhead 13:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ????

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry. Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations

Whats all this????--=Motorhead 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Someone didn't like your writing style; you have to admit it's more "prescriptive" than "descriptive". I'm fine with it and unless the person who tagged it has more specific issues, I support you removing that tag. As for the lack of references, that is a point well taken. Any good books on this topic you can add to a references section? Samw 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This information was gleaned from many sources bit by bit. Thats why its important that someone wanting to know it can get it all in one bite here, similar to reading spark plugs. Besides, I haven't written a book to refer to yet! I can list books but to pick out the information sentance by sentance?

I write the way I teach, using carefully thought out analogies when needed. prescriptive? hmmm I dunno. Just trying to decribe a hard subject which has been preceded by tons of misinformation. I cant see a better way.--=Motorhead 10:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the intro slightly. I think that's what the editor meant when it was flagged for "cleanup". See also[1] for a sample of some recent copyediting. Like I said, I'm fine with it as it is so by all means remove the cleanup tag.

As for references, I guess you'll have to write the book and quote yourself! Samw 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think he objected to that whole paragraph. I put it in last because I recall the problems I had understanding the true phenomenon back when. I know its tone is not strictly encyclopedic but I couldn’t leave the article without it because I know where the problems in understanding it all lie. I write for the person who does not know with the goal of having him know it in the end. It would have saved me a whole lot of time and effort to have this article when I started out. Elsewhere he could search and search and never find this information out there.

I don’t mind the reference thing. It’s irksome that most articles don’t have any but I am being asked for them! I could put some general references but the real meat comes from assembling bits of many such sources with a heavy dose of actual (unpublished) research. For every reference I’d have to qualify which parts are good and which parts are outright wrong.

For instance Honda did a paper on high-speed four stroke engines that became and still is a foundation block of the whole science. In that paper there is a discussion at the end where Prof. Blair disagrees with Honda engineer’s contentions and that little nugget is the most important part of the whole paper. (Time has borne out Prof. Blair’s Ideas) --=Motorhead 03:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like "thick, sticky, elastic, gooey and heavy" and will let someone else remove it!  :-) As for references, that is a requirement for Featured articles. I suspect it was tagged because this is an expert subject without any references. By all means cite just the last paragraph of that paper. Anyways, we're spending far too much effort on random comment by an anonymous user! Remove the tags as you see fit. Samw 03:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be revised: "Interestingly, this head received extensive flow bench development by Ford at design time but because of engine height restrictions, the use of cast iron and lack of knowledge at the time, this was the best that could be manufactured. Today, manufacturers are able to do much better although they still cannot approach the quality of hand porting." To begin with, today all serious race heads are CNC machined rather than hand ported as you can't by match the accuracy of a CNC machine by hand, and CNC porting is today also found in some production engines as the accuracy is better than te raw casting. Secondly, it's generally not the lack of knowledge that is the reason for ports being shaped as they are, but rather dimensional restrictions and manufacturing limits as was mentioned and other factors like the effect on cycle-to-cycle variations, maximum rate of pressure rise, fuel consumption, emissions and so on. How to dimension a port for a good flow has been known for quite some time, so has the knowledge that desirable flow motion can reduce the port coefficient. JEdlund 22:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All the cnc stuff in in there if you read further down. You do have to show a bad port in order to explain the subject and that ford mold is what I happened to have on hand. As far as the lack of knowledge goes that was exactly the case for that engine. Manufacturers have always led from behind and likely always will. Its in the racing community that the cutting edge is found, only later does the technology appear in factory built engines. Most often the factories farm out advanced work like this to small companies who actually do the real work.--=Motorhead (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)