Timing Theory and Science

In another part of CR4 the OP developed an ABS trailer for hauling a canoe over rough terrain. Although everything had a mathematical component, it was not discussed.

While I appreciate the rigor sometimes to, there are times when you develop your project, then maybe go back and fit the math to it.

There are lot of times that you have to be satisfied to just make a log-log straight line and call that science. Nothing in life is linear, everything is hyperbolic.

Ooh you remembered!

I was so tempted to link it but then I thought I would be coming off as a jerk and you know how I hate to do that.

Well no not really I was just to lazy to track it down but thanks for once again being more motivated than me.

Ah, come on, jvrj, I think you will make a great mechanic.

Really? Have "they" tried? Can you quote sources on this trying? Know of any record of attempts and failures? Or are you just guessing?

Hint: check Peter's latest links. I think you will find "they" have done the math. And it wasn't unsatisfactory. And check John Haywood's book, mentioned by drbobwoolery. It's definitely not a failure.

" But why do we specify peak pressure at 10-15 degrees ATDC?"

We don't specify it, that's what works.

Where do you suppose peak pressure should be??? I mean really, can you not apply a little common sense?

Where would you have the peak pressure occur?

When I started out as a clerk in the drafting room (although it was in London so it was a draughting room), in the structural group, they told me that a structural designer was someone who multiplied two by two on a sliderule and got three point nine nine, and then rounded it off to four for convenience.

"...who multiplied two by two on a sliderule and got three point nine nine, and then rounded it off to four for convenience"

Well obviously he was either using his slide rule incorrectly or it was in need of calibration.

The story is cute and I will relate it to some of my friends. But...I wonder if an astronaut, sitting on the pad waiting to blast off, would appreciate such an attitude from the engineers who designed his rocket ship?

The fact is that a huge number of devices (even space ships) are designed not knowing every little detail. Engineers use theory to design, however, there comes a point where it the theory either doesn't exist or is too time consuming (read expensive) to develop or follow through on.

Where it's impractical to compute on paper, experiments are performed, tests are run. One can know how big (or small) to make something by trial and error and sometimes it's more cost efficient (in hours as well as dollars). The product may end up being the result of an evolutionary process using theory/calculation and experimentation.

If the astronauts insisted on a risk free space craft before climbing in, no footprints would exist on the moon today. It's my understanding most of the early astronauts were test pilots....the guys who jumped in aircraft to test them out...see how high they could go, how much stress they could take. Of course that doesn't mean the engineers had a "this is good enough" attitude, but they knew and lived within the constraints they had (or pushed the boundaries of those constraints such as schedule and budget).

Actually, Heywood's book (and others) and some of Peter's links have the theory and the math that I seek. And if you like to listen to the engine, by all means do so. I enjoy the sounds myself and want to have a deeper understanding of their origin. I imagine cosmologists, like many of us, enjoy just looking at the stars at night, but they too want to know more about the music of the spheres. And that gets really into theory and math.

woodpower, english rose, jvrj, shame on you. Obfuscation and attacking the asker are the tricks of the uninformed. It's painfully obvious you haven't read the entire thread. I've repeatedly said that this is not about real world, not about how to tune a real engine, not about a super model. It's about the theoretical science and math of ignition timing.

Peterg7lyq, thank you so much for your efforts. The latest links are excellent and show that the work has been done and the math is out there. You alone have grasped my question and responded appropriately.

Perhaps, in the future, you could do us all a favor and just deal directly with Peter by PM. That way you wouldn't have to endure the ignorance of the rest of us.

I'm on a campaign to be nice, or I would have told you how I really feel. In your case, I believe arrogance is appropriate.

Goodbye.

Yes, Peter was the only one who really got it. Ignorance was never mentioned or intended, except for me; I asked the question because I was ignorant on that topic! I didn't mean to offend, but some folks veered off, and I had to restate my original question. I did appreciate the comments (well, most of them), most were really trying to help, but they were just off-target. That's human nature. Engineers are human, even if we think more clearly than the unwashed masses.

And if you want to vent, PM me and we can have a right to-do.

I don't need to vent. Just seems to me that you were rude to well intentioned people.

Cheers.

Engineers tend to think in logic and scientific facts and math; we sometimes appear rude because opinions, dearly held by most individuals (and sometimes useful), don't get the job done. I never had it in my mind to be intentionally rude. I never told anyone they were ignorant or dumb or too stupid to understand the question. But by repeatedly restating my question to get back on track I'm sure I stepped on a few toes. Such is life.

Thanks for the follow up. I am all too human and it hurts when your peers say mean things.

SSCpal

Engineers tend to think in logic and scientific facts and math

WELL THAT RULES ME OUT my math is appaling i am lost wothout a calulator

When I was employed, I kept a slide rule and a 40-year-old TI 4-banger on my desk to remind me of how far we have come. The youngsters would gaze at the slide rule like it was from an alien civilization.

Talking about being rude tak a look at some of the links here

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/60407/Wind-Powered-Cooler

Why the outburst? Have I offended you somehow, or did you not read my OP? I asked for a source for the theory, science and math re the timing of IC engines. I'm not interested in real world applications. And only two people responded appropriately with links and a book suggestion.

I haven't GA'd the ER answer (yet). though have read her post, and the others. Your question (as any) is fair enough, but read the respnces. Painful for you , maybe, but informative yes. I hope this does not descend into an argument of personality. You asked a question, it has been answered.

I'm not interested in real world applications - that is going to leave you open to a world of pain. Engineering is about translating the theoretical into the useful. Moving into the theory is fine, but be prepared for the knocks.

I read all the posts, and answered appropriately. And two people did come up with the answer. The rest wanted to offer opinions and war stories and attack me for asking. I don't understand that mentality. And I've been designing and building real world applications for 45 years.

theres a lot of that on here

people answering non existent questions, adding things that dont make sense just ignore them

Thank you. I was beginning to doubt my sanity!

What good is theory, without real world applications[rwa]?

D has directed you to organizations involved with the hated RWA's

These organizations have the resources to develop & document the mathematical relationships you desire.

Organizations that have spent large sums developing RWA's are unlikely to offer up proprietary information to the public [or their competitors].

I think you are struggling with the nature of CR4 [& forums in general]

The threads have a life of their own. Berating the participants won't improve the quality of the responses.

How did this thread get so twisted? I asked a simple question, and people explode with nasty comments. Only two people responded with links and a book that answer my question. The rest seem to take pleasure in ranting about RWA's (which I repeatedly reminded them was not the question) or taking pot shots at me. Good grief, I expected a much higher level of discourse from engineers, and, in real life, have usually found it. I'm beginning to suspect that many of the posters are either not engineers, or just like to roam around and cause trouble.

The question was simple, and two people answered it simply and correctly. The rest were off-topic or offered opinions, war stories or made nasty comments unbecoming of engineers or any decent person. I restated the question repeatedly to help people understand how, and if, to respond. If one doesn't have the answer, then one should not respond. CR4 is not a chat room.

Never asked for a discussion of anything; that is a different type of thread.

Good Answer Very diplomatic, I am not that curios nice to be of help

Garthh...this conversation will serve no useful purpose...goodbye.

I am curious to know which of Peter's links was/were the best at answering the OP's question.

And me Cos as Usual i have posted quite a few.

But what he was after was the theoretical timing as opposed to the actual timing.

Peter, it looks like the first two links of your response #31 are really on target. The others may have some nuggets of good info, or will lead me to other good places; I have a lot of reading to do.

The Haywood book mentioned by drbobwoolery (#17) looks like an excellent reference work, and I have it on order.

Good I thought some of them looked promising, I only scanned them quickly to see if the contained what i was looking for Funnily i didn't discover what i was looking for but discovered what i though you needed.

What i was looking for shows the valve timing, ie overlap when both valves are open, the Timing cycle and when projectiles igniton should occur, which is then taken over by the Engine management unit which modifys the timing to keep the engine close to detonation ( pinking) as it monitors detonation by pizeo senders listening to the engine for the onset of of pinking noise. the noise of the engine combined with the oxygen content of the exhaust etc etc.

anyway nice one

Detonation is another area of interest for me. I am experimenting with a programmable distributor and getting into some scary areas of high advance. Here is one aftermarket knock sensor I've been looking at. I imagine modern ECU's are more sophisticated, but I'm working with an old fashioned engine.

I wonder if the OT vote is from the OP or from Wiki7000?

OP said I 'm a dooty head & promised not to talk to me, I wonder if that extends to voting?

I never heard Wiki7000 express any views one way or the other about the subject of GA/OT

& yes Del's reply was in fact comprehensive, getting right to the heart of the issue [he should take a tin of tuna & a peck of atta boy's from petty cash]

"Oh no they are not they are one in the same different name same thing"

What? Try punctuation - maybe that would help.

"taken from above link to re inforce my point"

'reinforce' is a word.

But perhaps you meant Whohoo!

But - still - they're not.

What you need to do is get a copy of Sir Henry's book - absorb that - then get some real engine modification understanding from 'books' - not dweebs on interweb who say things like;

"I've got this timing advance thing for cold starting"

(or what your "guest" is giving you the GA's on account of)

..... whereas the actual functional term is "retard".

What? Try punctuation - maybe that would help.

what has that to do with the question. you constantly correct me on my typing errors i don't care i am not a typist, I don't care about the mistakes, Your wasting your time.

The only thing you may do is drive me and others of this site, That will harm the people who need answers, And not the likes of you.

Have you ever thought of teaching

or what your "guest" is giving you the GA's on account of)

..... whereas the actual functional term is "retard".

So you are calling me a retard, Do you know how offensive that is to people who have learning problems.

You really need to consider why people post on here

I was talking about ignition timing.

You, if I recall correctly, put up the colour coding of spark plugs as "relevant"

You are again telling me I'm "wrong" - so I guess expect "offense" to be taken.

You should be caring about ALL your mistakes - if you "consider why people post on here"

"Have you ever thought of teaching"

Ok, let's look at that new tack;

"The only thing you may do is drive me and others of this site, That will harm the people who need answers, And not the likes of you."

This should be typed thus;

The only thing you may do is drive others and myself from this site. That will harm the people who need answers. And not the likes of you.

Naturally I disagree with the sentiment expressed - but expressed it is, on your behalf.

I am happy to 'give answers' - but 'giving' does not engender 'learning'.

Teaching is about learning. This guy realised that, and you need to too.

"Harm" is a multifaceted concept - or why the OP 'offended and ignored' most posters on this thread.

Now pull your wimpy little "personalizing" head in and think about that.

thanks for your comments, i feel so much better now

you have now succeeded in driving me away.

have a nice life.

You didn't read it - did you

You will get nowhere if you don't read and learn from the experience.

I generally don't give your posts more than a cursory glance.

your method is well known

you've learned how to search, cut and paste which means you have some skill with the keyboard. there are many fine spell check programs & other aids available to help make your writing easier to understand

I generally assume your posts contain no original content what so ever

That my not be the case, but due to the sheer volume & your style of presentation, how could any one tell?

You could try some other methods to make your replies more useful.

when you have no particular knowledge of a subject, you might try offering insights into the process of formulating an effective search

Another method is to provide a short synopsis & a link or other attribution of the source material which is the proper protocol to avoid concerns regarding plagiarism

your comments noted.

I thought the idea on here is to help the OP with their questions, Now if that means getting links that relate to the question so that the OP can see what is available on the net then thats not a bad thing is it.

Some of my comments are from experience, But whats the point of typing a thousand words when there is information already on the net ? as for plagiarism surely that only applies if one claims the work as one`s own ? this i have never done.

My sole purpose is to respond with as much information relating to the subject the OP requests, Whats wrong with that ?

By the way the spell checker does not correct my grammar

as for usefulness i believe i was one of only 2 people on this thread who gave the correct answer

I'm sure most everyone can type in a search.

If you don't help OP's improve their information gathering techniques, you will continue being a research assistant for those that are too lazy or dim to do their own searches, feel free.

When you paste huge blocks of text with out clearly citing your source it is plagiarism

If you are unable to provide any sort of commentary [add value] what's the point of more than link

or http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=plageriarsm#hl=en&sa=X&ei=1PitTMP2OY6asAPxrOzNDA&ved=0CCoQBSgA&q=plagiarism&spell=1&fp=5a996d56de453056

You take pride in the fact that the OP found some of the blizzard of info you provided useful

you had no idea which part had value, do you actually study the information you are posting?

"you had no idea which part had value, do you actually study the information you are posting?"

Now this statement is very puzzling ? If i had no idea what part was of value, How do you suppose i found the link in the first place?

Its not as if the links are random ie question from OP .Timing Theory and Science

and i provide a link like this

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+to+grow+cactus&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGLT_en&redir_esc=&ei=eAauTKW3LMWOjAe8kpVH

or http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-Grow-Cactus-18630283

Plainly has no value, But as all the links i provided on this occasion had Value, it would be hard to pinpoint which exact link was the one he required.

Also i use this simple method i Get all the relevant links in one place HERE, then i go through them in more detail to find what i consider is the most like what i think the OP needs, But and the beauty of posting them all here is if i am wrong in selecting what i think is the most relevant the OP may find one of the links i haven't selected as the one the OP needs.

Is the world going to explode if i enter to many links ?

or is it just you like being the top DOG, i cannot understand what your problem is.

So instead of providing no information which is what you seem to be advocating,

I post all the links relating to the information i can find.

Now as this is not using up vast resources and turning England into more of a waste land than it is now, I can not see what you dislike about it.

Other than i CAN find the information and you plainly cannot

"When you paste huge blocks of text with out clearly citing your source it is plagiarism"

How do you make that out if i don't claim it as my own work ?

the following disagrees with you ( not me )

What is plagiarism?

At UNC, plagiarism is defined as

"the deliberate or reckless representation of another's words, thoughts, or ideas as one's own without attribution in connection with submission of academic work, whether graded or otherwise." (Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, Section II.B.1.). Because it is considered a form of cheating, the Office of the Dean of Students can punish students who plagiarize with course failure and suspension. Full information can be found on the UNC Honor System page.

taken from

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html

Now you will also see at the bottom of the page a disclaimer about my posts and on my avatar there you will also find a disclaimer

Ive even started putting note on the page as well

also take from http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html

How can I tell whether I've plagiarized?

If you've followed the above guidelines but still aren't sure whether you've plagiarized, you can double-check your work using the checklist below.

You need to cite your source, even if:

1. you put all direct quotes in quotation marks.
2. you changed the words used by the author into synonyms.
3. you completely paraphrased the ideas to which you referred.
4. your sentence is mostly made up of your own thoughts, but contains a reference to the author's ideas.
5. you mention the author's name in the sentence

So as i read it i Havent plagiarized Have i or am i missing somthing ?

this one should cover just about any situation link

From the FAQ's

Can I post copywritten material? If you own the copyright, then post away. If you're not the owner, then limited presentation of material is permissible via the "Fair Use" Doctrine. A reasonable rule-of-thumb is that copying three paragraphs from a normal-length news article or editorial (approximately 300 words) is acceptable as long as attribution is provided; however, this is not a hard and fast rule. If there is a question, simply don't do it. If you do not know the copyright status of a given block of text, assume it is owned by someone else.

you regularly cut & paste several screens of text on a single post

SSCpal (22) [OP responses]

peterg7lyq (20) [clear winner in screen inches @ 8.89 feet]

Garthh (9) [8 on; 'which of the 106" was the useful half inch?]

34point5 (5) [nasty Russian ignoring "you're wrong" & "emotive cards" insults/squeaks]

Others covered by line 2 in #81

Tornado (4)

Del the cat (3) lynlynch (3), tcmtech (3)

Coldspot (2), JBTardis (2), jvrj (2)

drbobwoolery (1), dvmdsc (1), English Rose (1), Kris (1), passingtongreen (1), smokingwheels (1), TrevorM (1), woodpower (1), Yuval (1)

Oh, I feel a link or two coming on ....

I may be biased, but I think my post was the most helpful/insightful/pre-cognitive/peace-brokering one here.

Having been so nice as to OT it myself, some complete and utter bastard added another OT vote. This thread is pants !

Kris, you're a nice fella: Could you explain to me, in very simple terms, what is this thread about.

Maybe I'm in the first (or last) stages of dementia, but I really can't figure out what is it about

the op wanted to know information on theorectical timing of ice engines.

most peopl told him there was no such thing, or it didnt matter. but they did not answer the question.

i and some one else gave the op the answer he wanted. the end

some of the other posters thena attacked me for giving to much information ????

the others in question then attacked my grammar, spelling and typing, none of which had anything to do with the original question.

the end

Is that clear enough ?

The original question is a fairly simple:

what is the mathematical formula used to determine the ideal ignition timing of an internal combustion engine

there were certain members who questioned the need for such a formula & outlined various methods of determining the ideal timing to optimize certain characteristics, that didn't involve any math what so ever

this upset the OP who then felt the need berate or other wise express his displeasure at the normal modes of operation [for which there aren't any mathematical formulas either]of this place

on this end of the thread there has been some discussion of the relative merits of the methods employed by a certain member

this member has taken exception to the observation that quantity is not superior to quality & much like any class in an institution of higher learning there is extra credit when one can demonstrate a mastery of the subject beyond the ability to simply regurgitate massive quantities of other peoples work.

Though this member continues to assert the superiority of his post(s), due to OP's feedback on the subject.

Del's post demonstrates an understanding of the forces governing the problem, while Tornado outlines a path to developing the formula in question. These are clearly the most relevant posts, unless the question is how do I do a search?

in the case of search prowess there would also be some disagreement as to the usefulness of the scatter shot method being employed by the member claiming the supremacy of his contribution...

in the case of search prowess there would also be some disagreement as to the usefulness of the scatter shot method being employed by the member claiming the supremacy of his contribution

since i didn't know exactly what the OP required giving him a wide selection of appropriate links seemed like a good idea.

and it worked the OP is happy with one of my links. JOB SORTED

Q Was he happy with any of your links or answers ??

Q where on the OP `s question did it specify that all answers had to be TYPED,SPELT, AND GRAMATICALY CORRECT ?

ORIGNINAL QUESTION

What sources would you recommend for hardcore timing theory and science? Not the basics, but more like why do we want peak CC pressure at 10-15 degrees ATDC, and what is the actual mathematical relationship of MAP and timing, and RPM and timing. Not opinions and practices, but how we scientifically came to the ignition timing we use today.

OP`S ANSWER TO ONE OF MY POSTINGS

woodpower, english rose, jvrj, shame on you. Obfuscation and attacking the asker are the tricks of the uninformed. It's painfully obvious you haven't read the entire thread. I've repeatedly said that this is not about real world, not about how to tune a real engine, not about a super model. It's about the theoretical science and math of ignition timing.

Peterg7lyq, thank you so much for your efforts.

The latest links are excellent and show that the work has been done and the math is out there.

You alone have grasped my question and responded appropriately.

JOB DONE

Just Like the OP you assume that he is the only one gaining any knowledge from this thread.

JOB SORTED

do you mean i should try to answer the unasked question of the persons reading these threads ??

i answered the OP`s question what more is there to do ??

Just Like the OP you assume that he is the only one gaining any knowledge from this thread.

But he/she the OP was the only one asking the question to be answered.

So what your really saying is this site if for the few long time users for there own private use.

And we are as newcomers to YOUR site are not allowed to use it as a question and answer service.

Now you see thats where i was going wrong, I assumed that when someone asked a question, that the idea was to give an answer and not to drift off with unconnected gibberish relating to something Else completely different.

Sorry my mistake.

So why did you set up this site ? was a form of old timers social club ?

I'm actually saying quite the opposite. I advocate the open exchange of ideas

threads have a life of their own. the OP is actually an old timer, by virtue of seniority having joined in 06, you on the other hand have many more posts in your tenure, even rhkramer meets my minimum standard a registered member who has posted.

within many threads there are other discussions on & off topic,

you blundered into Vlad & proceeded to make certain observations, which I found to be in line with your usual mode of reasoning. This prompted me to explore your methods & comment a bit.

I'm not suggesting that we drift off into unconnected gibberish. Your method is about one step above that, hurl a bunch of links & text, hoping something will stick. that some find worth in these types of posts does not increase the actual value.

As the OP, I chose to ask a question, not start a discussion. Those are the two options CR4 offers. The fact that many ignore the distinction does make it difficult for those who only seek an answer. One fellow offered a reference work which I have ordered. And Peter offered many links, including two I have found very good, and the rest I will be reading as time permits. I'd sooner have a lot of links than opinions, war stories and way-off-topic comments, and, worst of all, snarky posts that just are not what I would expect of engineers. I never intended to offend anyone, but felt I needed to restate my question to get us back on track. If threads do indeed take on a life of their own, then maybe we need to rethink how CR4 operates; the majority of the posts on this thread were of no use to anyone except maybe the poster who wanted to opine,vent or hurt others for fun.

As I said a few posts back there is no distinction between a question & a discussion

the only purpose the checkbox serves is to cause the original poster to waste a mouse click

when I look at the top of the page I see

The Engineer's Place for News and Discussion

Home>Automotive>Automotive>Timing Theory and Science

nary a mention of questions or any indication of your ownership of the thread

all members are welcome to unsubscribe at any time, should they lose interest or for any reason what so ever

what a member finds interesting or useful in no way dictates what others may find useful or interesting.

as to the operation & nature of CR4, it is what it is....

just like most things on the internet, participation is completely voluntary

should you feel as if you can do a better job of running a forum, you can build your own, maybe you could use the wiki for advanced "T" bucket building