Help design flowbench similar characteristics superflow S60

[pierre]

Hello

I do not speak good English I am French.

My needs are largely covered by the capabilities superflow SF60. I work mainly on small 2-stroke engine.

I want to make a model similar Characteristics.

Do you have any additional information other than brochures ?

Pictures of the inside of the device? Archives of the forum I was able to learn that principle and similar to that of SF110.

The SF60 uses you there one or two vacuum engines ?

Best regards.

[Tony]

Welcome to the Forum mon ami.
Your English is excellent.

You will find all the information you need right here at this Forum to build yourself a flow bench that is as at least as good, or possibly better than any SF product at a very small fraction of the cost.

This has to be the most friendly and helpful Forum on the internet anywhere.

All the information is right here, but you will need to do a lot of reading through many hundreds of previous threads to learn all there is to learn about flow bench construction and ideas.

Over the years, much has been discussed and many different ideas debated and tried, and very slowly a design has been gradually improved upon and perfected.

You can get everything for free by spending a vast amount of time here reading, or you can buy a set of low cost flow bench plans from Bruce (the Forum owner) and save yourself a lot of time.
The cost of these plans helps to support the Forum, as you will have noticed, this Forum carries no intrusive advertising like most other Forums on the internet.

The flow bench plans contain all the latest proven ideas, and you can fit as few or as many motors as you either need or have the electrical power to support.
It can be built to use either the traditional water manometers, or be fully electronic with Forum software.
The low cost and convenience of the Forum electronic manometer and flow bench software, makes building home made water manometers hardly worth the trouble.

[86rocco]

I say the same thing to everyone that wants to learn about flowbench design and construction and that is start by getting a good working understanding of the mathematics involved. Once you understand the math, you'll know how to read and interpret vacuum motor performance charts to aid you in motor selection, you'll understand how to select the right size orifices, you'll understand how those selections influence the way you instrument your flowbench, etc. Without an understanding of the math, you'll be relying on others to give you the information you need and you'll have no good way of assessing the quality of the information you're given.

[pierre]

I am aware that flowbench requires an understanding of mathematics.

I read a lot of documents and book on the subject to understand.

I do not need 200 CFM for my application. Small 2-stroke engine not running has such a flow.

To low flow can be produced by a small flowbench, well for me because my studio is small

The main application is to check the scavening symmetry

The schematic diagram of superflow SF 110



I think the SF 60 must be as



it is right ?

I am searching the operator's manual for the SF 60, Unfortunately there are only those of the SF 110 and SF 120. Perhaps it is the schematic diagram represented in

Best regards.

[Darcy R]

My replys are more to stimulate discussion, rather than to direct Pierre to what would be best sooo....
Could a bench not be constructed to Bruce's plans, but half or 1/3 size, nd to use 2 or 4 motors?
Possibly multistage motors so testing would be possible with more pressure differential?
With a smaller box, of the same volume, couldn't the safe pressure be much greater?
Bruces plans IMO are fare better than the SF60 or SF110 in that temperature compensation is really not required. In a 2 stroke as you said you would test for transfer symetry, but should also be trying to identify and correct transfer turbulence that occures at higher velocities as well. Having the transfer streams meet in the bore, combine and form a smooth loop is very important, and testing with a low pressure differential will not be as good at identifying turbulence as a greater pressure differntial would be. Simulations show that a running (race tuned) engines likely has around 5 psi of pressure diffential thru the transfer ducts to the bore, so the closer you could represent that in your tests, the better your final result could be.
The other area of interest in a two stroke will be the exhaust blowdown phase. More pressure differential is likely a benifit there too.
Darcy

[jfholm]

Here is a link to the old forum. I built a bench that uses 2 shopt vacuums. It is basically half of Bruce's plans. If you would like I can post the pictures again.

John

http://www.tractorsport.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=9&t=910

[Brucepts]

John, beat me to it!

He built one-half of my bench, you could do this and use a shop vac for low flows or build a box to hold your motors.

Building a simple orifice style flowbench for 1-2 motors is not that complicated. Rick and I have actually started a design on one that would sit on a table top, project has sat for a few months now but will be coming out again now that I will have some time to develop something . . .

[86rocco]

Hey Bruce, any thoughts on when you might be coming out with that design.

Pierre, in my opinion, there's NO need to design a flow bench is such a way that temperature compensation is required, for that reason, I believe the design of the small Superflow benches is fundamentally flawed. If it fits your timetable, I think you'd be very well served to wait for Bruce's new design to come out, it will almost certainly be superior to the small Superflow benches.

[Brucepts]

Hey Bruce, any thoughts on when you might be coming out with that design.

No idea of when, it's a concept right now. Drawings were done, we or I just need to build one and try it out. Basically a down-sized PTS style bench with 2 motors.

Probably start working on it sometime in the near future now that I am working solely on flowbench "stuff".

[Brucepts]

It was Rick's idea, we have been hashing it out for a while now. He finally got me to do some drawings of the concept and refine it. After that we have kinda left it sit now for a few months so he and I need to discuss it again sometime and figureout what we are doing with it.

We both have had some other issues to deal with so it's taken a backseat . . .