View Full Version : Internal vs External - What's your opinion?
JoshH
11-22-2010, 03:05 PM
I have one question. If the engine is internally balanced, why does the flywheel have a counterweight on one side? I thought it would be zero balanced with an internally balanced engine?
I give up Josh - Somebody would know though......
Thanks Ken. The ATI Balancer is off the engine getting a Drive Pulley made up for the Superchargers. It is a neutrally balanced pulley. Im no authority at all but Internally Ballanced normally means that all the ballancing is done with the Crank, Rods, Pistons as a rotating assembly and the Flywheel/Flexplate and Front Balancer are all Neatrally Balanced and put on after.Here is a writeup on Internal/External balancing that pretty well says most of it.
The process of balancing begins by equalizing the reciprocating mass in each of the engine’s cylinders. This is done by weighing each piston on a sensitive digital scale to determine the lightest one in a set. The other pistons are then lightened to match that weight by milling or grinding metal off a non-stressed area such as the wrist pin boss. The degree of precision to which the pistons are balanced will vary from one engine builder to another, and depends to some extent on the application. But generally speaking pistons are balanced to within plus or minus 0.5 grams of one another.
Next the rods are weighed, but only one end at a time. A special support is used so that the big ends of all the rods can be weighed and compared, then the little ends. As with the pistons, weights are equalized by grinding away metal to within 0.5 grams. It’s important to note that the direction of grinding is important. Rods should always be ground in a direction perpendicular to the crankshaft and wrist pin, never parallel. If the grinding scratches are parallel to the crank, they may concentrate stress causing hairline cracks to form.
On V6 and V8 engines, the 60 or 90 degree angle between the cylinder banks requires the use of "bobweights" on the rod journals to simulate the reciprocating mass of the piston and rod assemblies. Inline four and six cylinder crankshafts do not require bobweights. To determine the correct weight for the bobweights, the full weight of a pair of rod bearings and the big end of the connecting rod, plus half the weight of the little end of the rod, piston, rings, wrist pin (and locks if full floating) plus a little oil are added together (100 percent of the rotating weight plus 50 percent of the reciprocating weight). The correct bobweights are then assembled and mounted on the crankshaft rod journals.
The crankshaft is then placed on the balancer and spun to determine the points where metal needs to be added or removed. The balancer indexes the crank and shows the exact position and weight to be added or subtracted. The electronic brain inside the balancer head does the calculations and displays the results. The latest machines have graphical displays that make it easy to see exactly where the corrections are needed.
If the crank is heavy, metal is removed by drilling or grinding the counterweights. Drilling is usually the preferred means of lightening counterweights, and a balancer that allows the crank to be drilled while still on the machine can be a real time saver.
If the crank is too light, which is usually the case on engines with stroker cranks or those that are being converted from externally balanced to internally balanced, heavy metal (a tungsten alloy that is 1.5 times as heavy as lead) is added to the counterweights. This is usually done by drilling the counterweights, then press fitting and welding the heavy metal plugs in place. An alternate technique is to tap the hole and thread a plug into place. Drilling the holes sideways through the counterweights parallel to the crank rather than perpendicular to the crank is a technique many prefer because it prevents the metal from being flung out at high rpm.
After drilling, the crankshaft is again spun on the balancer to determine if additional corrections are required. If the crank is for an externally balanced engine (such as a big block Chevy), the balancing will be done with the flywheel and damper installed. On internally balanced engines, the flywheel and damper can be balanced separately, or installed on the crank and balanced as an assembly once the crank itself has been balanced.
New machinery has been introduced that both simplifies the balancing process and increases the accuracy of the job. Electronic equipment that allows accurate measurement of not only the amount of unbalance force, but also accurately reports the unbalanced vector position is now available to engine rebuilders. Typically, balancing machines have assumed that the unbalance force was equally opposed, so they would require the technician to correct the excessive amounts of unbalance on the excess side to the point of making them equal. Technicians have had to ‘stair-step’ the corrections equally until the final tolerance was attained.
This should sum it up Josh. Personally, and I know this is not my engine in the thread, tungsten is high priced and so long as the balancer is neutral ( Which Mick NEEDS ) the weight on the flywheel is all about economics to me. I'm sure, since this one was built as ordered, if he would have asked for something more he would have got it.
Diesel Tech
11-29-2010, 03:52 PM
This should sum it up Josh. Personally, and I know this is not my engine in the thread, tungsten is high priced and so long as the balancer is neutral ( Which Mick NEEDS ) the weight on the flywheel is all about economics to me. I'm sure, since this one was built as ordered, if he would have asked for something more he would have got it.
So for what it's worth Mick has a half and halve motor when it comes to the balance job as an internally balance motor requires both ends to be netural and that it is not. Personally we've never seen any gains going one way or the other until you start running the motors above 6500 RPM then an internal balance seems to give better bearing wear.
Got to be fun to be able to play with a new combination
So for what it's worth Mick has a half and halve motor when it comes to the balance job as an internally balance motor requires both ends to be netural and that it is not. Personally we've never seen any gains going one way or the other until you start running the motors above 6500 RPM then an internal balance seems to give better bearing wear.
Got to be fun to be able to play with a new combination
I'll can tell you this, anytime a pulley size has been increased or decreased on the balancer to drive the supercharger, $6000. With the balancer neutral, it's in the hundreds and is now feasible to try different drive styles and sizes. Half or not half, Mick got what he asked for. I too will get a half balanced, 1/4 balanced or whatever provides me more options for moving on with supercharging my engine.
Diesel Tech
12-01-2010, 10:51 AM
I'll can tell you this, anytime a pulley size has been increased or decreased on the balancer to drive the supercharger, $6000. With the balancer neutral, it's in the hundreds and is now feasible to try different drive styles and sizes. Half or not half, Mick got what he asked for. I too will get a half balanced, 1/4 balanced or whatever provides me more options for moving on with supercharging my engine.
Since the supercharger runs on an external pulley why are you paying so much for it? It makes no sense, as all that is required is to make the pulley neutral balance and it can be bolted to either and internal or external balanced motor. If your needing any more of those $6000 pulleys send us a drawing of what your looking for and I'm sure we can beat that price for you. If Mick asked for an internal balanced motor that's not what he got and it should not be advertised as such. If all he asked for was the motor to use a neutral balance front balancer then that's what he got, either way it's Mick's deal and as long as he is happy with it that all that counts.
Since the supercharger runs on an external pulley why are you paying so much for it? It makes no sense, as all that is required is to make the pulley neutral balance and it can be bolted to either and internal or external balanced motor. If your needing any more of those $6000 pulleys send us a drawing of what your looking for and I'm sure we can beat that price for you. If Mick asked for an internal balanced motor that's not what he got and it should not be advertised as such. If all he asked for was the motor to use a neutral balance front balancer then that's what he got, either way it's Mick's deal and as long as he is happy with it that all that counts.
Thanks Steve for the offer on the pulley. I chose a different route in my drive pulley. Instead of using an ATI balancer, I chose a stocker and had a pulley made that would mount and drive off of it. Not near the costs for Micks system but still costly and something I couldn't do with my mill and lathe. Also, as my drive system was made, my drive gear was mounted to the harmonic ring to the outside of the balancer. Acted just as if I added more grooves and a much larger load on the rubber within. Not to mention the side load. Not an ideal system such as the one Mick had made. As you know, to machine the inset for the mounting of Micks pulley, the weight then had to be compensated. So every time Mick made a change to diameter or drive style, the then new pulley would have to be rebalanced as zero, not just a build and drive option. The dollar figures weren't exact costs but instead shown to give reason as to why a neutral front balancer decreased costs and allowed for an easy swap out with minimal associated costs. As far as the balance of the engine and it being internal, external or whatever, I just don't know. Why is the weight on there? Don't know that either. As far as the balancer is concerned, that is what my comments regard. Reading that post Mick made earlier on tells me that there is more that one way to accomplish the task. As you said though, Mick is the customer on that deal.
Diesel power
12-01-2010, 04:22 PM
Since the supercharger runs on an external pulley why are you paying so much for it? It makes no sense, as all that is required is to make the pulley neutral balance and it can be bolted to either and internal or external balanced motor. If your needing any more of those $6000 pulleys send us a drawing of what your looking for and I'm sure we can beat that price for you. If Mick asked for an internal balanced motor that's not what he got and it should not be advertised as such. If all he asked for was the motor to use a neutral balance front balancer then that's what he got, either way it's Mick's deal and as long as he is happy with it that all that counts.
I agree, i saw from the pics he posted on compd weeks ago that it was not internally ballanced. i have proof that internal ballance jobs are more reliable in the duramax engines...
Honesty is hard to find these days.
I agree, i saw from the pics he posted on compd weeks ago that it was not internally ballanced. i have proof that internal ballance jobs are more reliable in the duramax engines...
Honesty is hard to find these days.
Wade, give us a break, you are one to talk about honesty. You have no proof that can be backed up with more than an engine running in a video and pictures of some aluminum rods. Then, a light truck running great times in a half track. If you can't spill the beans and support sites you are parading your charm with unbiased facts, ( ie. dyno sheets, build proof, disassembly verification, facts to back your claims ) you deserve a beating just as the one you insinuate here. If you have ever published this build or any two of the following facts, showing complete internal assembly with specs and 10 people to verify your building it on video while they too are present in said video ( credible clause ) and dyno sheets ( at near 1200lbs/ft at 5200 rpm as posted by you ) from a verifiable third party, I will take back every word I am about to say and go to 10 of your major BS callers and personally call them assholes to thier face. Until then, take your super squirrely, top secret, self hyped, Mr. Innovator, least creditable, expert builder, physics defying, unsupported proof back to your NON Innovative thread. When you can offer for sale an engine built by you which I or anyone can buy and verify to be as ordered and represented as you offered for sale, come on back in and go toe to toe with someone who has built an engine, under no false pretences, for public sale and verifiable as is and runnable. Keyboard slander internet marketing and one duramax engine does not put you in any league other than the ole' mighty league you have put yourself into. Look up " Libel " before you go to far, you would be suprised to find out what you must know before you begin running your mouth.
Make a mountain out of a mole hill somewhere else Wade, there are facts to be posted in this thread regarding Micks build. I promise you I loose more sleep thinking about what is coming up in this build and loose no sleep over whether the engine is internal or external balanced. That engine is as perfect as it can be in supporting this current truck build. If more is needed later, 10,000 rpm, he may just have to look up the expert " God on the subject " for his advice. Otherwise, I'm grinning from ear to ear in anticipation and Mick is irritated as hell the whole project can't be accomplished in one day. However, he takes his time and works towards the best possible job he can accomplish. And, shares facts with supporting pictures or documents when requested. I am a little slow regarding technology. For me, it's hard to keep abreast of newer technology when both eyes and mind are focused on actually achieving a step towards the completed path.
Unlike you, I have shared every scrap of information requested of me regarding my trials and errors. Whether right or wrong, it is what it is. I just don't loose focus or cry for attention. I also don't cut my nose off despite my face.
JoshH
12-02-2010, 09:17 AM
^^^ x2
From my dealings with Guy, I must say he is as honest as they come, and he delivers what he says he will. I see no need to question his credibility and/or business practices. I didn't mean to say there was something wrong when I asked about the flywheel; I only asked because I don't know everything and thought there might be something to learn. Without knowing all the details on the build, it's pretty low of you to basically call someone a liar and a thief. Maybe you should look in the mirror when looking for your next target...
^^^ x2
From my dealings with Guy, I must say he is as honest as they come, and he delivers what he says he will. I see no need to question his credibility and/or business practices. I didn't mean to say there was something wrong when I asked about the flywheel; I only asked because I don't know everything and thought there might be something to learn. Without knowing all the details on the build, it's pretty low of you to basically call someone a liar and a thief. Maybe you should look in the mirror when looking for your next target...
I tell you this, poor Guy has gotten a pushing and a pulling over the last couple of builds Mick has requested. I would not be the least bit surprised Guy delivered every request to this engine build from every conversation relating to dreams and fantasies Mick or myself has dreamed up to beat air into this thing. When a builder listens to goals and wishful thinking from a customer and then delivers after detailing a proposed build, that is knowledge and confidence in himself. Mick has never built anything that is ordinary or easy, why would guy build him an ordinary engine. He wouldn't. With that, Guy built what Mick needed. Guy made recommendations and thouroghly understood the hardware that may be bolted to this thing and delivered, no promises that could not be supported and always had real world examples and proof of experience. If you think I wouldn't give Guy every bit of confidence in successfully building a new concept engine for me, you are mistaken. With Guys credibility and customer service, I know there is service after the sell. Even if we screw up on what we want and he delivers what we want, without a doubt, Guy will have an answer and rememdy our screw up.
So your pro charger was not over driven enough, or your engine was useing more air than it could provide?
Sorry I missed this one and hope it doesn't bring up a spent topic. I am including this very topic in a book entitled ' Up the Road with Lunitic Mick and that Texas Redneck '. I know the title sucks but it's a rough draft. Neither Wade.
You remember what happened here Mick. This is when we were dealing with that huge amount of surge. Not enough rpm to get the pressure ratio up and way too much volume and giving you the phah phah of just coming on boost and loosing it back through the compressor. Even made the engine feel as look as if it were fixing to torque out of the engine bay. Way, Way, Way worse when you did the compound superchargers. Nice little trick though which curred that. But the remedy is classified till 2091 when our rights have expired and the book is published or someone asks whichever comes first.
Ok I suck at humor and sarcasm.
We vented volume by controlling volume to increase pressure and bringing the compressor back into a higher efficiency part of the map. Too far into surge and not only was the heat out of the supercharger tremendous ( very low efficency ) but, so was the wear on the drive gear. By mechanically controlling the volume down low and cutting our pressure ratio manipulation down to nothing up higher in the rpm range, we could achieve maximum pressure ratio and volume into the engine. Just made the engine think it had a smaller supercharger more in line with engine size down low and a big one for up top supercharger and engine rpm efficency.
Diesel Tech
12-02-2010, 12:57 PM
Mike
Not sure why you have the bug up your a$$ that you do but the facts are the facts. If you bothered to do just a little research you would have found it out on your own but like always you do not. As far as a supercharger on a duramax you are correct in that we have not been doing it, as for the rest of what you've said it's way out of line. A 14-71 blower takes about 200 -300Hp to spin at speed with a centrifugal unit like you guys are using takes around 50 - 75 Hp according to the manufacture. Side load can be handled much in the same way it has been done for the past 25 years by most blower guys and it works fine, no reason to reinvent the wheel here. Go look at a blown big block chevy crank support and copy it. Nothing super secret as it all been done long before you even knew what a supercharger was.
Steve
As usual, you have a one sided opinions and cannot steer one way or the other. You clearly don't know what centrifugal power requirements are, very doubtful for roots style to boot. Do a little interwebby search for " Vortech V4 Z-trim and you will clearly see a map depicting hp requirments and by all means not under full load. Here, I'll save you the steps and post a link, again my current charger of choice. http://www.capa.com.au/vortech_v4z.htm Do some more searches would you, the Procharger does not have compressor map available nor do they have hp draw. Go ahead and try a search for the f-2 get some real information before your fingers overload your brain again. You old gasser guys think the diesel has got to be the same don't you, man get out of the cave and live a little by learning something from others. Been there, still doing it. You know Steve, you are not too old to stop and learn a few things from the youngin' folk around here and elsewhere. The days of being on top of the ever changing world can slip by when you live with such an abrasive personality and a blind eye with cotton in your ears. That bug up my ass really does keep me moving, if I stay too still, I get bit. However, I must be at my prime now as you were years ago. No need to be hateful buddy. This is how we get to know one another.
You are really one sided again. Funny how this always turns into a peat and repeat confrontation. I peat and you repeat the peat. Wow, one more time. Turn off the hearing aid and all other back ground noise. Go to the bathroom and wash your face with cold water. Have a smoke, kick the dog or whatever you have to do to clear your webs so your eyeballs can concentrate on the following words.
Your four bolt pulley support has what kind of bolt center??????????? Now, the drive pulley size required to drive a centrifugal supercharger on a duramax engine at a maximum engine rpm of 4500 will be almost 13". Again, the crank snout has a much larger lateral load for two reasons. One is the torque required to spin the supercharger as volume and pressure increase multiplied as the distance from the center of the crank increases. Two is the distance from your bolt circle and outer diameter of your flange to the outer diameter of the belt surface with absolutely no belt slip. Your little 6" drive pulley has nothing near the multiplied load the pulleys we are required to use have. If you can't understand this, maybe you should ask one of us how a centrifugal supercharger works, why it works and a list of damaged parts in inventory proving what works and what doesn't.
Your poor ole roots uses so much torque because of inefficiences and you also have a broader rpm range as well as positive displacement. Your poor ole 14-71 is giving up the ghost when the centrifugal is just getting started. Comments like you like turbochargers better than superchargers is very valid in the gasser world. However, you have egg on your face now that you say your zero experience supercharging a duramax diesel. Get some experience or let us help you with three years of ours. You may think we are dumb but if you will clear your mind, you will learn different.
Again, how do or would you know I know nothing about big blocks and gassers and forced induction? I didn't mention one word one way or the other but I will tell you this. I will gladly increase my knowledge by shutting my mouth and opening my ears. I live to learn buddy, even from you.
Come on Steve, be a nice guy from here on out.
Diesel Tech
12-02-2010, 02:37 PM
You just will not listen much will you. Lateral load was solve back in the days of a big block blower setup, do what you do best and COPY IT. It works well. Now as far as the rest of your rambling, its just that. The poor old roots blower is very poor and everyone knows it but it will kick the $hit out of most Centrifugal units and the newer twisted rotter and screw compressors just run away and hide from a centrifugal. You need to move a lot of air and that's what the roots does well, otherwise we would be seeing Centrifugal units in all the top racing categories that require larger air volumes and guess what there not there! Why is it is simple, they do not work well when the requirements are high air volumes. They have there place just as the old roots units do but not for what is trying to be done with a diesel engine and guess what, it didn't take running to the internet and reading all the sales BS to be smart enough not to go waste money on it.
Your three years of not getting anywhere close to whats going on in the real world of making power with a duramax diesel you can keep to yourself. All you needed to do was understand some of the basic principles and you could have saved yourself three years but then again your again showing what little you really know to everyone now. All your broken and busted parts with no real power just backs it up.
As for being a nice guy, it's real hard when your trying to help someone who is just to smart for his own good. You tried to jump us about an internal balanced motor because you believe all the BS that gets spoon feed to you by certain people and your not even smart enough to understand what it is! Then when we prove to you we know a thing or two you try to play kissass to those who mislead/lied to you. Get a life and go get some books on how an engine works and how an air compressor works and then you just might learn a thing or two from us old farts.
By the way since you say were past prime where's that leave you at.
Diesel power
12-02-2010, 03:05 PM
Wade, give us a break, you are one to talk about honesty. You have no proof that can be backed up with more than an engine running in a video and pictures of some aluminum rods. Then, a light truck running great times in a half track. If you can't spill the beans and support sites you are parading your charm with unbiased facts, ( ie. dyno sheets, build proof, disassembly verification, facts to back your claims ) you deserve a beating just as the one you insinuate here. If you have ever published this build or any two of the following facts, showing complete internal assembly with specs and 10 people to verify your building it on video while they too are present in said video ( credible clause ) and dyno sheets ( at near 1200lbs/ft at 5200 rpm as posted by you ) from a verifiable third party, I will take back every word I am about to say and go to 10 of your major BS callers and personally call them assholes to thier face. Until then, take your super squirrely, top secret, self hyped, Mr. Innovator, least creditable, expert builder, physics defying, unsupported proof back to your NON Innovative thread. When you can offer for sale an engine built by you which I or anyone can buy and verify to be as ordered and represented as you offered for sale, come on back in and go toe to toe with someone who has built an engine, under no false pretences, for public sale and verifiable as is and runnable. Keyboard slander internet marketing and one duramax engine does not put you in any league other than the ole' mighty league you have put yourself into. Look up " Libel " before you go to far, you would be suprised to find out what you must know before you begin running your mouth.
Make a mountain out of a mole hill somewhere else Wade, there are facts to be posted in this thread regarding Micks build. I promise you I loose more sleep thinking about what is coming up in this build and loose no sleep over whether the engine is internal or external balanced. That engine is as perfect as it can be in supporting this current truck build. If more is needed later, 10,000 rpm, he may just have to look up the expert " God on the subject " for his advice. Otherwise, I'm grinning from ear to ear in anticipation and Mick is irritated as hell the whole project can't be accomplished in one day. However, he takes his time and works towards the best possible job he can accomplish. And, shares facts with supporting pictures or documents when requested. I am a little slow regarding technology. For me, it's hard to keep abreast of newer technology when both eyes and mind are focused on actually achieving a step towards the completed path.
Unlike you, I have shared every scrap of information requested of me regarding my trials and errors. Whether right or wrong, it is what it is. I just don't loose focus or cry for attention. I also don't cut my nose off despite my face.
Oh thats really profesional for a moderator, Who knows so much with no more than hearsay.....
Mike, im not sure what blew your fuse, but my statment was clear, micks engine was not 100% internally ballanced,(Front to rear.ECT) that fact is true. Guy came on here and cleared it up, thats was end of storie. I said nothing bad about Guy, You ASSumed i did. i just made a general statment that honesty is hard to find and it is.
Not sure why you desided to try and cause trouble for me....I respect Guy and what he does.
Trust me i have every spec and photo needed to prove my case, but why should i give it to a snail like you?
No one likes a ball swinger, you are Guys suck Boy Or mouth piece, which ever you prefer.
Steve is right you dont have a clue!
Mick sorry about the derails, but your bud Mike is known to bligerantly start trouble, with little to no facts....He needs to use his all knowing knowledge to accually do something instead of Talk bad about Racers/ Builders who are out making it happen.
Diesel power
12-02-2010, 03:33 PM
You just will not listen much will you. Lateral load was solve back in the days of a big block blower setup, do what you do best and COPY IT. It works well. Now as far as the rest of your rambling, its just that. The poor old roots blower is very poor and everyone knows it but it will kick the $hit out of most Centrifugal units and the newer twisted rotter and screw compressors just run away and hide from a centrifugal. You need to move a lot of air and that's what the roots does well, otherwise we would be seeing Centrifugal units in all the top racing categories that require larger air volumes and guess what there not there! Why is it is simple, they do not work well when the requirements are high air volumes. They have there place just as the old roots units do but not for what is trying to be done with a diesel engine and guess what, it didn't take running to the internet and reading all the sales BS to be smart enough not to go waste money on it.
Your three years of not getting anywhere close to whats going on in the real world of making power with a duramax diesel you can keep to yourself. All you needed to do was understand some of the basic principles and you could have saved yourself three years but then again your again showing what little you really know to everyone now. All your broken and busted parts with no real power just backs it up.
As for being a nice guy, it's real hard when your trying to help someone who is just to smart for his own good. You tried to jump us about an internal balanced motor because you believe all the BS that gets spoon feed to you by certain people and your not even smart enough to understand what it is! Then when we prove to you we know a thing or two you try to play kissass to those who mislead/lied to you. Get a life and go get some books on how an engine works and how an air compressor works and then you just might learn a thing or two from us old farts.
By the way since you say were past prime where's that leave you at.
:clap::clap::clap::exactly: What a tard.):h
JoshH
12-02-2010, 03:57 PM
:clap::clap::clap::exactly: What a tard.):hPot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Now you're introduced.
JoshH
12-02-2010, 04:22 PM
I said nothing bad about Guy, You ASSumed i did. i just made a general statment that honesty is hard to find and it is.
Not sure why you desided to try and cause trouble for me....I respect Guy and what he does.
You know what? The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off. You
are sitting there talking about how the motor is not internally balanced after it was stated that it is, and in the same breath you say honesty is hard to find. With that statement, you are saying one of two things. You are either saying Mick isn't honest, or you are saying Guy isn't honest. Now, I seriously doubt you are calling Mick a liar because it just doesn't make sense. However, I can easily believe you would INSINUATE that Guy is a liar. You obviously wouldn't come right out and say it because then you can't say you didn't, but anyone with half a brain can read your post and figure out what you're saying. I've read a lot of your bullshit, and this is right up there with the best of it. Not only are you insulting Guy, you are insulting all the readers of this board (by acting like we're idiots for not figuring out what you're saying), including me, and it is pretty offensive.
Diesel power
12-02-2010, 06:15 PM
Stock stroke cranks are no problem to internally balance. The strokers have proven problematic. The stroker has smaller diameter counterweights to clear the pistons as they travel further down the bore, the mass of the piston/rod assembly is moved away from the center of the crank .125 more than a stock crank on a crank that has .250 more stroke.
After filling all of the counterweights with heavy metal, we basically run out of places to put heavy metal. We haven’t been able to get the “rear and the front” of the stroker crank internally balanced at the same time. It is one or the other.
The counterweight on a Dmax balancer is approx 6 inches extension away from the C/L of the front main bearing without any additional support on a 2” dia snout. The leverage that this exerts on the crank snout at rpm is severe.
The weight on the flywheel is approx 3 inches extension away from the main bearing C/L with some support and deadening characteristics offered by the converter/trans and transmitted through a much larger dia. flange. We had to make a choice between getting the front internal or the rear. We chose the front. The front of Mick's crank is 100% internal with absolutely no weight on the damper. The rear of the crank is external.
Hope this clears it up for everybody.
Guy
You know what? The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off. You
are sitting there talking about how the motor is not internally balanced after it was stated that it is, and in the same breath you say honesty is hard to find. With that statement, you are saying one of two things. You are either saying Mick isn't honest, or you are saying Guy isn't honest. Now, I seriously doubt you are calling Mick a liar because it just doesn't make sense. However, I can easily believe you would INSINUATE that Guy is a liar. You obviously wouldn't come right out and say it because then you can't say you didn't, but anyone with half a brain can read your post and figure out what you're saying. I've read a lot of your bullshit, and this is right up there with the best of it. Not only are you insulting Guy, you are insulting all the readers of this board (by acting like we're idiots for not figuring out what you're saying), including me, and it is pretty offensive.
Josh your not reading everything and you only missleading yourself. I stand by my privious statement IT is NOT a 100% front and rear internally ballanced. im not agreeing with the method of ballance, but the truth is in RED
You know whats offensive, you and other turning a good thread into what it shouldent be, Trust me i've said whats on my mind several times in the past , and if i had something to say about guy or to guy i would. This thread was not started by me, nore was the direction chanaged by me. Steve brought up the honesty thing i just agreed and said the it's hard to find honesty these days. Mike Flipped the whole thread upside down and braught Slandering me into this. then trying to pin me and guy up against one another, and now you Josh are doing the same thing!!!
Grow up!
Steve
I'll post this at the top because you will never get to the bottom. You can be a nice guy. Put the fact that I hurt your feelings aside and type it out like a man. It's easy, just read carefully and repeat as necessary. Take a deep breath. Not patronizing, just irritating. The man himself told you it was not completely internally balanced, just as I said the balancer is nuetral and that pleased Mick to no end and gives me an option for my build.
It's very obvious you can't be a nice guy at first and gotta work your way into it to make sure someone is not watching and judging you as soft hearted. You think the world is out to screw everyone who does not deal with you or kiss your feet. You are not GOD, you can't be GOD and will not have all the answers. You could never prove to me you are anymore than a bully.
For your two cents worth of rambling, you have only backed up that you are just as pig headed as I am accept you will not read the typed print before you. Only you, Steve Cole, can work miricales no one else can. Only you have the experience to build anything for and fix all ailments. Just like me, you have nothing but failure to work from. One big difference is I could care less who knows how I failed. I bet whoever reads that kind of screw up will not be brave enough to try something as crazy. Kissing ass is what you call it do you? I call it respect for someone that has never lied to me or cheated anyone I know. Everyone I know calls the man honest and friendly. Two traits you lack in forum land. You big ole bully. Guy never explained to me the engine was completely internally balanced, I never talked to him on this build. I spoke directly to Mick. If there were questions or comments Mick and I would discuss our business and if Mick decided to inquire, he would. However, I did talk with Guy and Mick throughout the first build he provided and Guy certainly remembered, for Mick, options he could include on this build. Mick only spoke of the balancer being neutral and I always left it at that and never questioned further. I never represented the engine as internally balanced. Just because I chose not to be a know it all, as you are, doesn't mean I don't have a clue. I have no idea why you can't read and comprehend the english language but it's clear you read what you want and the rest is just rambling. I was courteous to you through out and thanked you for offering your services. I did too explain why I know your solution would not work. You took offense and started barking. You would always tell me why it worked on a gasser with 25 years of proven history, gasser world again. Get some supercharged diesel experience or don't comment on what you clearly don't have a clue over.
I still believe there is a chance you can be a nice guy even through your ego but, you gotta let go and walk with we dumb inexperienced kids. Too bad you get set off so easy and loose your grip on reality. It's pretty funny how we could run stock long block engines till rods failed with dual fueler and 60 pounds of boost and yet have stock head gaskets and bolts with no issue besides cylinder pressure greater than what the rods could withstand. You Steve preached head studs and the works even with stock rods. One thing you failed to comprehend over this whole time you have been judging me is up until now high hp figures have not been a target.
So what are you doing now besides pushing your weight around?
You just will not listen much will you. Lateral load was solve back in the days of a big block blower setup, do what you do best and COPY IT. It works well. Now as far as the rest of your rambling, its just that. The poor old roots blower is very poor and everyone knows it but it will kick the $hit out of most Centrifugal units and the newer twisted rotter and screw compressors just run away and hide from a centrifugal. You need to move a lot of air and that's what the roots does well, otherwise we would be seeing Centrifugal units in all the top racing categories that require larger air volumes and guess what there not there! Why is it is simple, they do not work well when the requirements are high air volumes. They have there place just as the old roots units do but not for what is trying to be done with a diesel engine and guess what, it didn't take running to the internet and reading all the sales BS to be smart enough not to go waste money on it.
Your three years of not getting anywhere close to whats going on in the real world of making power with a duramax diesel you can keep to yourself. All you needed to do was understand some of the basic principles and you could have saved yourself three years but then again your again showing what little you really know to everyone now. All your broken and busted parts with no real power just backs it up.
As for being a nice guy, it's real hard when your trying to help someone who is just to smart for his own good. You tried to jump us about an internal balanced motor because you believe all the BS that gets spoon feed to you by certain people and your not even smart enough to understand what it is! Then when we prove to you we know a thing or two you try to play kissass to those who mislead/lied to you. Get a life and go get some books on how an engine works and how an air compressor works and then you just might learn a thing or two from us old farts.
By the way since you say were past prime where's that leave you at.
Diesel power
12-02-2010, 06:27 PM
EDP ain't got any problems http://www.competitiondiesel.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1301239#post1301239
Selling pro charger kits for cummins and d-max.......:thumb:
Mike did you sell them your trade secrets? ):h):h):h
Unlike you Wade, I read and understand before I post a comment. Go back and read the part you posted regarding an honest person. You are repeat #2, are you a Chiwawa? Tell me what the hearsay is......
I posted to Micks post regarding the balancing of the engine. IF THE FLYWHEEL HAS A WEIGHT ON IT, it becomes part of the rotating assembly and the remainder or change to balance is internal. NOT CHANGING THE FLYWHEEL TO ONE THAT IS NEUTRAL. AGAIN, BIGGEST NEED WAS AN EASY MOUNT FOR THE DRIVE PULLEY. Neutral balancer. We'll see what Micks impression was regarding the balance location.
Take Your honesty somewhere else Wade. You have stretched beyond the point of breaking.
Snail? Wow, that's awesome of you. You are a pipe dream with the pipe extended up your own rear. You couldn't prove anything on this forum or any other for that matter. Go hide behind your Bull Mastiff and keep his tail warm.
Do you realize how you make yourself look? " You respect Guy and what he does " ???? Do you want me to swing on yours? Or be a mout piece. I get it, you are jealous. And you are an Innovator?
Oh thats really profesional for a moderator, Who knows so much with no more than hearsay.....
Mike, im not sure what blew your fuse, but my statment was clear, micks engine was not 100% internally ballanced,(Front to rear.ECT) that fact is true. Guy came on here and cleared it up, thats was end of storie. I said nothing bad about Guy, You ASSumed i did. i just made a general statment that honesty is hard to find and it is.
Not sure why you desided to try and cause trouble for me....I respect Guy and what he does.
Trust me i have every spec and photo needed to prove my case, but why should i give it to a snail like you?
No one likes a ball swinger, you are Guys suck Boy Or mouth piece, which ever you prefer.
Steve is right you dont have a clue!
Mick sorry about the derails, but your bud Mike is known to bligerantly start trouble, with little to no facts....He needs to use his all knowing knowledge to accually do something instead of Talk bad about Racers/ Builders who are out making it happen.
:clap::clap::clap::exactly: What a tard.):h
" Just a swinging " LOL
I swear you are fixing to have a visitor. ):h
Diesel power
12-02-2010, 07:07 PM
You have more questions then answers..... You dont understand simple engine building physics.....But that dont surprise me.
Your just a coat tail rider, like Houge. Mike, my time is not worth your ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel Tech
Since the supercharger runs on an external pulley why are you paying so much for it? It makes no sense, as all that is required is to make the pulley neutral balance and it can be bolted to either and internal or external balanced motor. If your needing any more of those $6000 pulleys send us a drawing of what your looking for and I'm sure we can beat that price for you. If Mick asked for an internal balanced motor that's not what he got and it should not be advertised as such. If all he asked for was the motor to use a neutral balance front balancer then that's what he got, either way it's Mick's deal and as long as he is happy with it that all that counts.
I agree, i saw from the pics he posted on compd weeks ago that it was not internally ballanced. i have proof that internal ballance jobs are more reliable in the duramax engines...
Honesty is hard to find these days.
__________________Dont believe what people say, believe what they do!
2007 NHRDA Pro street champion
2007 NHRDA Pro 1 champion
2007 Big rig nationals Champion
2008 NHRDA Pro street champion
2008 NHRDA Pro 1 runner up
2008 Big rig nationals 3rd place
2008 first aluminum rodded d-max built
2010 first aluminum rodded d-max running!
Special thanks to
Curtis @ DPR
Mike @ SBU
Brady @ II
Joe @ PPE
Matt @ Snow performance
Nathan @ XS batteries
Everyone @ NGM Diesel
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????
You Chiwawa are in the same boat as your buddy Bull Mastiff. I stand by my statement of you first have to understand what you are reading before you can post a comment you can back up. You said " what is in red above regarding Steve's comment of " NOT an internal balanced engine" As Josh said, what more can be interpreted by a sane literate reader than " hey, Mick got screwed by Guy and looky here, I have an internally balanced engine and ' no actual publicly documented proof of such '. I'm With Josh and I too take your comment as you trashing Guy. I further add that you and Bull Mastiff were trying to bark up a tree with no coon. You both tried to know what is going on with a supercharged diesel with absolutely no grounds to back up your directed statements.
If I build a half wood and the rest brick house, do I call it a wood house or a brick house? Does it have brick on the inside and wood on the outside? Yes , does it have brick on the outside and wood on the inside? Yes. Since the front and half of each side is brick my appraiser lists it as brick. So, I too would have to understand this engine as being internal balanced. Go ahead Chiwawa and speculate on the demensions of the exterior walls.
You have more questions then answers..... You dont understand simple engine building physics.....But that dont surprise me.
Your just a coat tail rider, like Houge. Mike, my time is not worth your ignorance.
You are the man, congratulating Greg one day and hanging him the next. I promise he is a much better person than you. Greg, in Aledo Texas, delivers when he is supposed to and is honest with very fair pricing? Oh, he must sell tampons cause I surely wouldn't have bought Ford head studs from him. He must have saw right through you also. Oh that's right, he actually showed proof of some Cummins roller rockers when everyone else was asking for you to prove yours. I can only speculate as to what happened but history does repeat itself.
As usual, you pass off the real questions presented you as a hassle and degrading to you, only to tuck your tail and run. Since you have read through the webby forums so often you have picked up on and exploited passive ways to bug out. Thank god this is a pattern of scared cornered Chiwawa's. We know what to expect. How can I prove my knowledge when you won't stay and keyboard fight and defend yourself with actual proof? Oh that's right, you are too busy degrading and slandering other companies actually selling viable parts proven. You must fear someone will find out your innovations have actually been stollen. No proof from you so I gotta speculate and read through the bs you have been laying.
EDP ain't got any problems http://www.competitiondiesel.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1301239#post1301239
Selling pro charger kits for cummins and d-max.......:thumb:
Mike did you sell them your trade secrets? ):h):h):h
How about you do some research on a few boards and decide for yourself. Unlike you towards your competition, I look forward to as many supercharged diesels as possible. See, I don't see it as competition, only future success. The more combinations the more communications as to what will work and won't work. Unlike you, I've been a part of sharing success and failure and have never stripped credit from another buisness. Start at the diesel place using old6200 then go to duramax diesels and here as well as on to diesel bombers. Yes, full of prove it and I have been glad to share my experience and knowledge no matter if it's right or wrong.
How about the diesel stop, ford_7point3, oilburners same name. I go back far enough to know I could never know it all and don't choose to. I simply support my statements with facts.
You are a Chiwawa and you must have been castrated. Only you would be so childish. PLEASE!
Diesel Tech
12-02-2010, 09:28 PM
Mike
You are still wrong as it's cut and dry when it comes to balancing an engine. It's one or the other and not half of one. You trying so hard to play kissass it's not funny. Go to any real engine builder or balancer out there instead of being spoon feed BS. None of this matter anyways because if Mick is happy that's what counts as its his money. If you sit back and shutup for just awhile you might learn some of the things all the rest of us have learned. Instead you keep running at the mouth and making stupid statements.
Just enjoy the fact that you've run another good thread down the drain with your stupid statements.
blksmok
12-02-2010, 09:51 PM
Okay, back on track. :)
Mike, you said high HP numbers were not the target...
Mick or Mike, care to elaborate on the goals for this build?
Rambling below.
I'll say these facts for you for the umtenth time. I could care less about how the engine is balanced so long as the balancer is neutral. I know the engine is not a total internal balanced engine only the mass of the balancer offset has been included for compensation to the crank and rest of the rotating considerations. I know the flywheel has a weight. You got your feellings hurt regarding your drive apparatus and me not kissing your feet by giving in to your " I like turbos better " when this is a supercharged diesel thread. Guy has never lied to me and Mick has never told me Guy lied to him. This engine was not represented as an " Internally Balanced Stroker Engine ". This engine was delivered with a neutral harmonic balancer installed for a specific application. I am an avid supporter of Guy Tripp due to his customer service skills and knowledge with my preferred duramax power plant.
I'll be glad to take half the credit for ruining this thread. You take the other half and let Chiwawa have a nibble of yours. As usual you are in no way to blame. You have so much experience being a kissass you must be right. You have made the mountain, and you have yet again failed to follow through with explaining your view. Oh so high and mighty, please bless us with your knowledge. I surely wouldn't know the difference in a 427 chevy rotating assembly versus a 454 chevy rotating assembly. Since I didn't list the difference and argue the 40 years of proven race configurations, I must be a dumbass. You set back with your fingers crossed and learn from experienced people for once. Blowing smoke at every corner gets old, I can't believe you are not all stopped up at this point.
Mike
You are still wrong as it's cut and dry when it comes to balancing an engine. It's one or the other and not half of one. You trying so hard to play kissass it's not funny. Go to any real engine builder or balancer out there instead of being spoon feed BS. None of this matter anyways because if Mick is happy that's what counts as its his money. If you sit back and shutup for just awhile you might learn some of the things all the rest of us have learned. Instead you keep running at the mouth and making stupid statements.
Just enjoy the fact that you've run another good thread down the drain with you stupid statements.
Diesel power
12-03-2010, 03:04 AM
Mike
You are still wrong as it's cut and dry when it comes to balancing an engine. It's one or the other and not half of one. You trying so hard to play kissass it's not funny. Go to any real engine builder or balancer out there instead of being spoon feed BS. None of this matter anyways because if Mick is happy that's what counts as its his money. If you sit back and shutup for just awhile you might learn some of the things all the rest of us have learned. Instead you keep running at the mouth and making stupid statements.
Just enjoy the fact that you've run another good thread down the drain with your stupid statements.
Ding,Ding,Ding, we have a winner.
i wasent going to start anything about the half ballance, it will work but i dont agree with it, makes little since other than guy is just fixing the front issue's alone, while the back half is left hanging in stock config.
BTW guy posts about a 1/4 of the info i post on engine building.....you just cant read!
Diesel power
12-03-2010, 03:06 AM
How about you do some research on a few boards and decide for yourself. Unlike you towards your competition, I look forward to as many supercharged diesels as possible. See, I don't see it as competition, only future success. The more combinations the more communications as to what will work and won't work. Unlike you, I've been a part of sharing success and failure and have never stripped credit from another buisness. Start at the diesel place using old6200 then go to duramax diesels and here as well as on to diesel bombers. Yes, full of prove it and I have been glad to share my experience and knowledge no matter if it's right or wrong.
How about the diesel stop, ford_7point3, oilburners same name. I go back far enough to know I could never know it all and don't choose to. I simply support my statements with facts.
You are a Chiwawa and you must have been castrated. Only you would be so childish. PLEASE!
Fail.
Diesel power
12-03-2010, 03:09 AM
You are the man, congratulating Greg one day and hanging him the next. I promise he is a much better person than you. Greg, in Aledo Texas, delivers when he is supposed to and is honest with very fair pricing? Oh, he must sell tampons cause I surely wouldn't have bought Ford head studs from him. He must have saw right through you also. Oh that's right, he actually showed proof of some Cummins roller rockers when everyone else was asking for you to prove yours. I can only speculate as to what happened but history does repeat itself.
As usual, you pass off the real questions presented you as a hassle and degrading to you, only to tuck your tail and run. Since you have read through the webby forums so often you have picked up on and exploited passive ways to bug out. Thank god this is a pattern of scared cornered Chiwawa's. We know what to expect. How can I prove my knowledge when you won't stay and keyboard fight and defend yourself with actual proof? Oh that's right, you are too busy degrading and slandering other companies actually selling viable parts proven. You must fear someone will find out your innovations have actually been stollen. No proof from you so I gotta speculate and read through the bs you have been laying.
Your a dick bag, check this months diesel power mag, my rockers are featured in there.......
Guess what in FEB DP with have my Diesel engines in there.....Looks like you got some reading to do..
Mike im so far past your stupidity it's not even funny, your just sad.
RickDLance
12-03-2010, 07:13 AM
You guys are more then welcome to discuss the parts and the principle, but from here on out leave the attack on others out!
neversatisfied
12-03-2010, 09:45 AM
Im curious how the other engine builders would make the engine in question a complete internally balanced engine. With the issues Guy posted what would you do?
Stock stroke cranks are no problem to internally balance. The strokers have proven problematic. The stroker has smaller diameter counterweights to clear the pistons as they travel further down the bore, the mass of the piston/rod assembly is moved away from the center of the crank .125 more than a stock crank on a crank that has .250 more stroke.
After filling all of the counterweights with heavy metal, we basically run out of places to put heavy metal. We haven’t been able to get the “rear and the front” of the stroker crank internally balanced at the same time. It is one or the other.
The counterweight on a Dmax balancer is approx 6 inches extension away from the C/L of the front main bearing without any additional support on a 2” dia snout. The leverage that this exerts on the crank snout at rpm is severe.
The weight on the flywheel is approx 3 inches extension away from the main bearing C/L with some support and deadening characteristics offered by the converter/trans and transmitted through a much larger dia. flange. We had to make a choice between getting the front internal or the rear. We chose the front. The front of Mick's crank is 100% internal with absolutely no weight on the damper. The rear of the crank is external.
Hope this clears it up for everybody.
Guy
Love you man. You're my hero.
Vague posts are your specialty is all I'm saying.
Ding,Ding,Ding, we have a winner.
i wasent going to start anything about the half ballance, it will work but i dont agree with it, makes little since other than guy is just fixing the front issue's alone, while the back half is left hanging in stock config.
BTW guy posts about a 1/4 of the info i post on engine building.....you just cant read!
Fail.
Your a dick bag, check this months diesel power mag, my rockers are featured in there.......
Guess what in FEB DP with have my Diesel engines in there.....Looks like you got some reading to do..
Mike im so far past your stupidity it's not even funny, your just sad.
Diesel power
12-04-2010, 03:09 AM
Im curious how the other engine builders would make the engine in question a complete internally balanced engine. With the issues Guy posted what would you do?
On a external ballanced crank the harminic and torsonal waves/ diturbances have to travel the whole length of where they started to the end of the crank for correction.
On a internal crank ballance the harmonics and torsonal flex has to only travel inches before correction.
This translate to a quicker torsonal correction, less wear, and higher HP/ RPM stability.
On a half internal ballance crank like what mick has, the front will be acting as it's internal, but the back torsonal and harmonic ditortions will have to travel to the flywheel to get correction. Because the back is external ballance.
JoshH
12-04-2010, 03:47 AM
On a external ballanced crank the harminic and torsonal waves/ diturbances have to travel the whole length of where they started to the end of the crank for correction.
On a internal crank ballance the harmonics and torsonal flex has to only travel inches before correction.
This translate to a quicker torsonal correction, less wear, and higher HP/ RPM stability.
On a half internal ballance crank like what mick has, the front will be acting as it's internal, but the back torsonal and harmonic ditortions will have to travel to the flywheel to get correction. Because the back is external ballance.That's all well and good, but you didn't even answer the question. You just typed a bunch of technical sounding words.
Out of curiosity, how many motors have you personally balanced?
These comments are my opinions. Correct were due. Vague replies do not count ( too easy to draw conclusions not intended ). If this is rambling, I give up on conveying my thoughts.
The advantage of an internal balanced engine is marginal at best. The otto cycle alone cause more flex and harmonics from " dynamic moment of unbalance " and constent " center of gravity " changes than the weight of the two external measures could possibly cause. I'm not saying internal is not best, only Harmonics ( noise ) flex ( twisting ) are different as all phasis of the otto cycle require different forces to and from the rotating assembly which are further compounded by rpm change as well as resistance from load ( center of gravity displacement ). Both internal and external balanced engines have a harmonic balancer ( Damper, absorber ), but both internal balanced and external balanced engines do not have a balancer weight ( when spun on its own will not have a common point center of gravity axis equal to it's rotational axis ). Harmonics don't travel in one direction only through an object, air or liquid, but instead travel in every direction originating from the source outward until they have reduced to zero energy mechanically or distance and density etc. Of course, the speed of harmonics may not be equal in all directions from the source. After all, the term balance an engine is used to explain the process that " Static Balanced " an " Unbalance " of spun rotating components at various rpms or at least a chosen practical rpm. Ofcourse this does not explain how to balance, but considerations for reciprocating weight, constants and formulas should be considered in center of gravity axis to rotating axis balance. To be nice to bearings, the static balanced rotating assembly should be on the same plane as the center of the shaft in the main bearing journals.
My opinions in red below.
On a external ballanced crank the harminic and torsonal waves/ turbances have to travel the whole length of where they started to the end of the crank for correction.
How can this be when a static balanced rotating assembly is defined as 'center of gravity axis and rotational axis equal'? Using Unbalanced flywheel and harmonic balancer components[ dampner ], the crankshaft center of gravity axis and rotational axis are equal by way of external means. You make it sound as if the balance of a rotating assembly is what reduces harmonics to zero and, the benefit from internal 2 axis rotating assembly balancing is the distance between to points on the crankshaft absorbing ( harmonic energy reduced to 0 ) all harmonics produced to the rotating assembly for an internal crankshaft only balanced rotating assembly. Are you installing a dampner within the crankcase on the crankshaft by some means or, are you installing dampening matieral withing the crankshaft its self?
On a internal crank ballance the harmonics and torsonal flex has to only travel inches before correction.
Internal balanced is compensating unbalanced gravity axis and rotational axis at the crankshaft its self therefore, internal flex is no longer relavent due to the balance. Again, unless assuming you are saying the internal balance eliminates dynamic unbalance completely.
This translate to a quicker torsonal correction, less wear, and higher HP/ RPM stability.
Agreed on the torsional correction but only slighty. Not quicker but instead because of the Otto cycles effects on the two axis' eliminated compensation weight, those inconsequential harmonics are no longer but instead new potential harmonics could be created by adding and moving mass for different parts of crankshaft. Also agree on reduced wear at higher rpms.
On a half internal ballance crank like what mick has, the front will be acting as it's internal, but the back torsonal and harmonic ditortions will have to travel to the flywheel to get correction. Because the back is external ballance.
I agree with part of this. The distortion caused by the weight on the balancer from the force required to accelerate or decelarate that weight will be reduced but only slightly, However, Internal compensation of the balancer weight does eliminate that part of the harmonics otherwise being diffused by the harmonic balancer ( damper ). The rest of the noises still have to be absorbed ( cancelled ) by other means, length ( can't do ) material type ( restricted to factory OEM provider or a couple of providers that I know of ) etc. This part would be hard to simulate, No downward forces are being applied on journals to balance " Moment of Unbalance ".
The flywheel rotational axis or center of gravity axis weight could not possibly provide much harmonic dampening in partial internal/external balanced rotating assembly. Compensating this required weight in the crankshaft would reduce the marginal amount of distortion and associated harmonics otherwise associated with the added mass of a rear only flywheel compensated two axis balance but, not eliminate harmonics. Harmonics from the Otto cycles are still required to be cancelled by material type, shape, mass and the front harmonic balancer ( damper ) Internal or External two axis compensated. Heck, oil plays a roll in harmonics.
It makes since too that the two axis' compensated crankshaft ( internal balanced ) will have new harmonics induced which were not present in the external components of that two axis' compensated ( external balanced ) rotating assembly. I'll admit inconsequential at most. While not completely internal balanced, any partial removal of mass, compensated for in the crankshaft, furthest from the balanced rotational axis would have to be an improvement for acceleration and a reduction in crankshaft torsional harmonics. Between the beggening location of torquing and ending location where torquing is no longer measurable, not completely sure, but potentially produces vibration which need to be dampened. Not to mention, not completely sure, the energy stored in the crankshaft at the moment that torque difference in the 2 locations of seperation on the crankshaft equals the energy required to accelerate the additional mass of the external compensated flywheel would need to be returned to pre-twist state. That energy release could not be any greater than the energy required to accelerate that additional mass in the first place. But, how much energy is it? Some energy could infact be included in the next power cycle of a journal forward of the seperation which is probably already beginning to become less and less of a seperation. The force applied on the crankshaft rod journals converting energy into torque, increasing with resistance on the output of the engine would have to be grossly more relevant than 200 or 300 grams near the outer edge of the flywheel.
I truely believe whether it is an I or an E is not as important as taking the best advantage of potential or opportunities for every possible improvement to reduce fatigue, wear and mass.
How does everyone involved feel about moving the " who's the bigger idiot posts " and internal / external balance debate posts to a new thread? As we all agree, the derailment is not fair to Mick's project progress. Yes, I accept most of the deserved embarassment and responsibility derailing this thread.
Thread Split
Diesel Tech
12-04-2010, 03:27 PM
Just remember one thing when balancing is concerned. If your removing parent metal and replacing it with something not part of the parent metal you have weaken the original part. So when you drill it like swiss cheese the original part is much weaker. Care has to be taken when removing metal and pressing slugs back in as the slugs are NOT part of the parent metal. A crankshaft acts like a whip as it turns and the harmonics change throughout the operating range of the motor. When designing and testing a damper/balancer you never solve the issue but instead you work to take the worst of it away without creating it at a different operating speed. So if you get caried away with adding heavy metal to the crankshaft you had better make sure that the damper effect of the balancer still does the job it needs too. Believe me if it's not done you will find out in soon enough. Just because you made the static balance correct you can screw the damping effect very badly.
I have not seen any pictures of what Mick has other than what he posted here so Mike do not start with your BS again, please.
Diesel power
12-04-2010, 03:46 PM
That's all well and good, but you didn't even answer the question. You just typed a bunch of technical sounding words.
Out of curiosity, how many motors have you personally balanced?
I guess if you dont get it, you dont get it.....
about 36 engines since 2006
These comments are my opinions. Correct were due. Vague replies do not count ( too easy to draw conclusions not intended ). If this is rambling, I give up on conveying my thoughts.
The advantage of an internal balanced engine is marginal at best. The otto cycle alone cause more flex and harmonics from " dynamic moment of unbalance " and constent " center of gravity " changes than the weight of the two external measures could possibly cause. I'm not saying internal is not best, only Harmonics ( noise ) flex ( twisting ) are different as all phasis of the otto cycle require different forces to and from the rotating assembly which are further compounded by rpm change as well as resistance from load ( center of gravity displacement ). Both internal and external balanced engines have a harmonic balancer ( Damper, absorber ), but both internal balanced and external balanced engines do not have a balancer weight ( when spun on its own will not have a common point center of gravity axis equal to it's rotational axis ). Harmonics don't travel in one direction only through an object, air or liquid, but instead travel in every direction originating from the source outward until they have reduced to zero energy mechanically or distance and density etc. Of course, the speed of harmonics may not be equal in all directions from the source. After all, the term balance an engine is used to explain the process that " Static Balanced " an " Unbalance " of spun rotating components at various rpms or at least a chosen practical rpm. Ofcourse this does not explain how to balance, but considerations for reciprocating weight, constants and formulas should be considered in center of gravity axis to rotating axis balance. To be nice to bearings, the static balanced rotating assembly should be on the same plane as the center of the shaft in the main bearing journals.
My opinions in red below.
It makes since too that the two axis' compensated crankshaft ( internal balanced ) will have new harmonics induced which were not present in the external components of that two axis' compensated ( external balanced ) rotating assembly. I'll admit inconsequential at most. While not completely internal balanced, any partial removal of mass, compensated for in the crankshaft, furthest from the balanced rotational axis would have to be an improvement for acceleration and a reduction in crankshaft torsional harmonics. Between the beggening location of torquing and ending location where torquing is no longer measurable, not completely sure, but potentially produces vibration which need to be dampened. Not to mention, not completely sure, the energy stored in the crankshaft at the moment that torque difference in the 2 locations of seperation on the crankshaft equals the energy required to accelerate the additional mass of the external compensated flywheel would need to be returned to pre-twist state. That energy release could not be any greater than the energy required to accelerate that additional mass in the first place. But, how much energy is it? Some energy could infact be included in the next power cycle of a journal forward of the seperation which is probably already beginning to become less and less of a seperation. The force applied on the crankshaft rod journals converting energy into torque, increasing with resistance on the output of the engine would have to be grossly more relevant than 200 or 300 grams near the outer edge of the flywheel.
I truely believe whether it is an I or an E is not as important as taking the best advantage of potential or opportunities for every possible improvement to reduce fatigue, wear and mass.
Sort of reminds me of this ad mike
YouTube - Funniest Milk Ad Ever! (Australian)
Steve,
Mild BS is ok, just as you had to add the Mike BS comment. No concern or offense taken from your comment, take mine equally. Just words on a screen that I walk away from. I think I got rid of the last of the chips on my shoulders. All these posts are all my opinion but may be interpreted as some standard, not the case. It's all good, we all blow up.
Moving along... I am not referring to Micks engine. I more or less expressed my general view as to the difference between an internal balance job and an external balance job and how I accept partial or mixed balance techniques. Noted precautions as well. Seems our last posts are similar. I'm not sure if you glanced over my passage and continued on or gave it a read. I just assume you most likely would not have reinterated similar text in your post. If you did read the post then accept my interpretation as unique. I'd be more than willing to discuss openly, our clash in views and, unheated.
I would like to touch on the swiss cheese packing analogy. Drilling holes alone without adding weight but instead decreasing weight will also have the weaking and/or harmonic deflection effect but, techniques such as polishing, rounding/radiused corners, releaving stress, riser precautions and so on are proven insurance when implemented properly. Similar practices are successfull in density alterations ( packing ). Heated/cooled one plug cooled, on plug heated ect.... Expansion rates between types of metal and their mass and so on are all prospects for success. All about keeping it all within tolerance.
I'd also like to clear the air a bit. By the included quoted post, I now understand you are not referring to Micks engine specifically but instead a general cautious state until you get to look at one similar for study. Correct?
Again, just being straight forward.
Just remember one thing when balancing is concerned. If your removing parent metal and replacing it with something not part of the parent metal you have weaken the original part. So when you drill it like swiss cheese the original part is much weaker. Care has to be taken when removing metal and pressing slugs back in as the slugs are NOT part of the parent metal. A crankshaft acts like a whip as it turns and the harmonics change throughout the operating range of the motor. When designing and testing a damper/balancer you never solve the issue but instead you work to take the worst of it away without creating it at a different operating speed. So if you get caried away with adding heavy metal to the crankshaft you had better make sure that the damper effect of the balancer still does the job it needs too. Believe me if it's not done you will find out in soon enough. Just because you made the static balance correct you can screw the damping effect very badly.
I have not seen any pictures of what Mick has other than what he posted here so Mike do not start with your BS again, please.
I guess if you dont get it, you dont get it.....
about 36 engines since 2006
JoshH is just saying the actual question was either overlooked or ignored and asked if you could answer for NeverSatisfied as it was most probably directed to you. No grips from him for sure, he just wants to know what you would do to correct another engine similar to Micks, to make it totally balanced within. It's a matter of your opinion so address it as such. If they are fact based comments just support the facts. That's all. No hard feelings.
How does everyone involved feel about moving the " who's the bigger idiot posts " and internal / external balance debate posts to a new thread? As we all agree, the derailment is not fair to Mick's project progress. Yes, I accept most of the deserved embarassment and responsibility derailing this thread.
Mike I think it would be a good idea to start a thread about internal/external balancing of engines - seems like there is a need for it:thumb:
Diesel Tech
12-04-2010, 06:05 PM
My opinions in red below.
It makes since too that the two axis' compensated crankshaft ( internal balanced ) will have new harmonics induced which were not present in the external components of that two axis' compensated ( external balanced ) rotating assembly. I'll admit inconsequential at most. While not completely internal balanced, any partial removal of mass, compensated for in the crankshaft, furthest from the balanced rotational axis would have to be an improvement for acceleration and a reduction in crankshaft torsional harmonics. Between the beggening location of torquing and ending location where torquing is no longer measurable, not completely sure, but potentially produces vibration which need to be dampened. Not to mention, not completely sure, the energy stored in the crankshaft at the moment that torque difference in the 2 locations of seperation on the crankshaft equals the energy required to accelerate the additional mass of the external compensated flywheel would need to be returned to pre-twist state. That energy release could not be any greater than the energy required to accelerate that additional mass in the first place. But, how much energy is it? Some energy could infact be included in the next power cycle of a journal forward of the seperation which is probably already beginning to become less and less of a seperation. The force applied on the crankshaft rod journals converting energy into torque, increasing with resistance on the output of the engine would have to be grossly more relevant than 200 or 300 grams near the outer edge of the flywheel.
I truely believe whether it is an I or an E is not as important as taking the best advantage of potential or opportunities for every possible improvement to reduce fatigue, wear and mass.
If you ever get a chance to really see what happens what you will see is that each cylinder firing speeds the crankshaft up and then it slows until the next firing. So depending on which cylinder your firing the twist that is induced into the crankshaft moves in location which causes pressure waves through the crankshaft. Just change the metal, change the hardness, change the shape or change the location of weight really changes how all the twisting occurs. The only way I know of is to run on and engine dyno with the proper equipment in place to measure crankshaft twist at various operating speeds and loads to know what is truely going on. I've seen internal balanced motors that are way worse than external motors and vise versa when it comes to crankshaft twisting. In top fuel it is measured and camshaft and crankshafts are machined with a proper amount of pretwist in them so that under load and running everything is true. Static compression ratio is also changed cylinder by cylinder to help as well.
The purpose of the dampener is to cancel out the worst of it and taking the approach of one size fits all typically doesn't work out. I can tell you from racing just use one manufactures crankshaft over another is a big change in how things work. By that I mean make them all the same in stroke and balance and we can see major differences in how they work, what parts wear and how the dampener must be adjusted to work properly with them.
So Mike I disagree with the statement that just moving the weight internal is a help. It could be but it could also make it much worse than before.
Mike
Typically any balancing shop worth a shit will remove weight from the outer edge of the counterweight area which does not weaken the crankshaft. In order to keep heavy metal in place you must cross drill the counterweight and then press the slug in, this does weaken the crankshaft. The more you cut to add heavy metal the weaker you make it. Heavy metal also changes the damping effect of the parent material so it stands to reason that it will take a much different damping device ( balancer) to do the same job. In fact it has been proven for years that you need to change the dampener effect when making large changes with heavy metal.
What I can tell you is we built a few stroker motors (441cu in) by offset grinding a stock crankshaft. This was done prior to there being stroker cankshafts made. It was done as a cheaper way to see the effects and outcome when going racing in classes that had limited turbo rules. Also we needed to build an "A" class motor to race at Bonneville. I design the rods and pistons to work with the stock crankshaft and keep the oil ring out of the wrist pin area. We removed 3/16" off the outside diameter of the counterweights as well, this made the counterweights run true to the crankshaft centerline and gave us the clearance we were looking for. After all this weight removal from our crankshaft modifications when we went to balance we found the assemble was still way heavy and we needed to remove weight from both the front and rear. We started with using LB7 parts then had to cut weight away on the balancer and flywheel assemble. So what's all this tell you? It just means there are many ways to skin the cat and you need to look at them all and pick the best one for what your looking to do. The easiest is not always the best.
Diesel power
12-04-2010, 06:16 PM
i dont care what you do witn the thread, as long as mike is allowed to pester us folks who build engines and accually know what were talking about, the new thread will, as useual turn into a mike knows more than god thread....and will argue his point untill we all stop coming over here.
Diesel power
12-04-2010, 06:21 PM
JoshH is just saying the actual question was either overlooked or ignored and asked if you could answer for NeverSatisfied as it was most probably directed to you. No grips from him for sure, he just wants to know what you would do to correct another engine similar to Micks, to make it totally balanced within. It's a matter of your opinion so address it as such. If they are fact based comments just support the facts. That's all. No hard feelings.
Oh, Now you wanna talk like you got some sence.....are you by-polar?
honestly i would run the crank the way it is, untill it breaks, like i said(if you fully read my posts) it will work the way it is, but it's not the way i would have done it. i would have done a 100% internal crank.
But i dont think mick will have any issue's with a stock crank, the stroker is the one i would worry about....
If you ever get a chance to really see what happens what you will see is that each cylinder firing speeds the crankshaft up and then it slows until the next firing. So depending on which cylinder your firing the twist that is induced into the crankshaft moves in location which causes pressure waves through the crankshaft. Just change the metal, change the hardness, change the shape or change the location of weight really changes how all the twisting occurs. The only way I know of is to run on and engine dyno with the proper equipment in place to measure crankshaft twist at various operating speeds and loads to know what is truely going on. I've seen internal balanced motors that are way worse than external motors and vise versa when it comes to crankshaft twisting. In top fuel it is measured and camshaft and crankshafts are machined with a proper amount of pretwist in them so that under load and running everything is true. Static compression ratio is also changed cylinder by cylinder to help as well.
The purpose of the dampener is to cancel out the worst of it and taking the approach of one size fits all typically doesn't work out. I can tell you from racing just use one manufactures crankshaft over another is a big change in how things work. By that I mean make them all the same in stroke and balance and we can see major differences in how they work, what parts wear and how the dampener must be adjusted to work properly with them.
So Mick I disagree with the statement that just moving the weight internal is a help. It could be but it could also make it much worse than before.
Mike
Typically any balancing shop worth a shit will remove weight from the outer edge of the counterweight area which does not weaken the crankshaft. In order to keep heavy metal in place you must cross drill the counterweight and then press the slug in, this does weaken the crankshaft. The more you cut to add heavy metal the weaker you make it. Heavy metal also changes the damping effect of the parent material so it stands to reason that it will take a much different damping device ( balancer) to do the same job. In fact it has been proven for years that you need to change the dampener effect when making large changes with heavy metal.
What I can tell you is we built a few stroker motors (441cu in) by offset grinding a stock crankshaft. This was done prior to there being stroker cankshafts made. It was done as a cheaper way to see the effects and outcome when going racing in classes that had limited turbo rules. Also we needed to build an "A" class motor to race at Bonneville. I design the rods and pistons to work with the stock crankshaft and keep the oil ring out of the wrist pin area. We removed 3/16" off the outside diameter of the counterweights as well, this made the counterweights run true to the crankshaft centerline and gave us the clearance we were looking for. After all this weight removal from our crankshaft modifications when we went to balance we found the assemble was still way heavy and we needed to remove weight from both the front and rear. We started with using LB7 parts then had to cut weight away on the balancer and flywheel assemble. So what's all this tell you? It just means there are many ways to skin the cat and you need to look at them all and pick the best one for what your looking to do. The easiest is not always the best.
Originally Posted by mick
My opinions in red below.
It makes since too that the two axis' compensated crankshaft ( internal balanced ) will have new harmonics induced which were not present in the external components of that two axis' compensated ( external balanced ) rotating assembly. I'll admit inconsequential at most. While not completely internal balanced, any partial removal of mass, compensated for in the crankshaft, furthest from the balanced rotational axis would have to be an improvement for acceleration and a reduction in crankshaft torsional harmonics. Between the beggening location of torquing and ending location where torquing is no longer measurable, not completely sure, but potentially produces vibration which need to be dampened. Not to mention, not completely sure, the energy stored in the crankshaft at the moment that torque difference in the 2 locations of seperation on the crankshaft equals the energy required to accelerate the additional mass of the external compensated flywheel would need to be returned to pre-twist state. That energy release could not be any greater than the energy required to accelerate that additional mass in the first place. But, how much energy is it? Some energy could infact be included in the next power cycle of a journal forward of the seperation which is probably already beginning to become less and less of a seperation. The force applied on the crankshaft rod journals converting energy into torque, increasing with resistance on the output of the engine would have to be grossly more relevant than 200 or 300 grams near the outer edge of the flywheel.
I truely believe whether it is an I or an E is not as important as taking the best advantage of potential or opportunities for every possible improvement to reduce fatigue, wear and mass.
Steve - these are not my words - I never wrote that - Dont know why it says its my quote - Its not - Think its Mikes
Diesel Tech
12-04-2010, 06:59 PM
Hell, see what happens when you hit the Quote button and do not pay attention!
Sorry Mick and I guess my whole previous post should be address to Mike instead of both of you.
Hell, see what happens when you hit the Quote button and do not pay attention!
Sorry Mick and I guess my whole previous post should be address to Mike instead of both of you.
No problem Steve - You probably know I dont have half of those words in my vocabulary anyway:thumb:
Mike I think it would be a good idea to start a thread about internal/external balancing of engines - seems like there is a need for it:thumb:
Working on it now Mick. Sorry for the troubles.
If you ever get a chance to really see what happens what you will see is that each cylinder firing speeds the crankshaft up and then it slows until the next firing. So depending on which cylinder your firing the twist that is induced into the crankshaft moves in location which causes pressure waves through the crankshaft. Just change the metal, change the hardness, change the shape or change the location of weight really changes how all the twisting occurs. The only way I know of is to run on and engine dyno with the proper equipment in place to measure crankshaft twist at various operating speeds and loads to know what is truely going on. I've seen internal balanced motors that are way worse than external motors and vise versa when it comes to crankshaft twisting. In top fuel it is measured and camshaft and crankshafts are machined with a proper amount of pretwist in them so that under load and running everything is true. Static compression ratio is also changed cylinder by cylinder to help as well.
The purpose of the dampener is to cancel out the worst of it and taking the approach of one size fits all typically doesn't work out. I can tell you from racing just use one manufactures crankshaft over another is a big change in how things work. By that I mean make them all the same in stroke and balance and we can see major differences in how they work, what parts wear and how the dampener must be adjusted to work properly with them.
So Mike I disagree with the statement that just moving the weight internal is a help. It could be but it could also make it much worse than before.
Mike
Typically any balancing shop worth a shit will remove weight from the outer edge of the counterweight area which does not weaken the crankshaft. In order to keep heavy metal in place you must cross drill the counterweight and then press the slug in, this does weaken the crankshaft. The more you cut to add heavy metal the weaker you make it. Heavy metal also changes the damping effect of the parent material so it stands to reason that it will take a much different damping device ( balancer) to do the same job. In fact it has been proven for years that you need to change the dampener effect when making large changes with heavy metal.
What I can tell you is we built a few stroker motors (441cu in) by offset grinding a stock crankshaft. This was done prior to there being stroker cankshafts made. It was done as a cheaper way to see the effects and outcome when going racing in classes that had limited turbo rules. Also we needed to build an "A" class motor to race at Bonneville. I design the rods and pistons to work with the stock crankshaft and keep the oil ring out of the wrist pin area. We removed 3/16" off the outside diameter of the counterweights as well, this made the counterweights run true to the crankshaft centerline and gave us the clearance we were looking for. After all this weight removal from our crankshaft modifications when we went to balance we found the assemble was still way heavy and we needed to remove weight from both the front and rear. We started with using LB7 parts then had to cut weight away on the balancer and flywheel assemble. So what's all this tell you? It just means there are many ways to skin the cat and you need to look at them all and pick the best one for what your looking to do. The easiest is not always the best.
Thanks Steve. I was trying to keep from writing a book. I was mostly replying to Wades post. The last was just a summary supporting what I believe could be a benefit. It's hard to cover all bases on a subject this indepth without it looking like a man asking for some milk. That video Mick posted. This post of yours fits more into Josh ( NeverSatisfied ) asking Wade to explain what he would do to balance an engine similar to Micks to make it completely internally balanced. Great information and appreciate it.
I wasn't about to do another two pages on reciprocating vs rotating weights and bob weights, maybe we could work up to that point in the new thread. Oh damn I'd be in so much hot water. LOL So explaining 1. An engine I did not build and 2 An engine I have no weights on would be about guessing and being wrong for sure. I was hoping Wade would answer that one. Maybe we could work Josh's question sometime with a few different scenarios.
LBZRCKS
12-04-2010, 11:33 PM
Mike I think it would be a good idea to start a thread about internal/external balancing of engines - seems like there is a need for it:thumb:
Working on it now Mick. Sorry for the troubles.
Confused, there's two duplicate threads now:confused:
blksmok
12-04-2010, 11:39 PM
Confused, there's two duplicate threads now:confused:
I believe Mike is in the process of splitting the threads. This one will remain for tech talk, on Mick's specific build, the other will be for a more general discussion on engine balancing.
Please bear with us.
Ya, I know. Double the fun.
I'm working to screw it up worse as we speak. Nah, just working the two so nothing is lost.
Reefermax
12-05-2010, 01:12 AM
no pro/con its more like fine vs. course or thorough vs quick
i have always had the motors i took in balanced damper to clutch/tq converter, and man it costs, but you cant beat the buttery feeling of not knowing its running etc...
Oh, Now you wanna talk like you got some sence.....are you by-polar?
It's crak
honestly i would run the crank the way it is, untill it breaks, like i said(if you fully read my posts) it will work the way it is, but it's not the way i would have done it. i would have done a 100% internal crank.
But i dont think mick will have any issue's with a stock crank, the stroker is the one i would worry about....
:Handshake:
no pro/con its more like fine vs. course or thorough vs quick
i have always had the motors i took in balanced damper to clutch/tq converter, and man it costs, but you cant beat the buttery feeling of not knowing its running etc...
On your diesels or gassers or all engine types?
We have a local converter builder here, he has a converter unbalance machine and I've tested against as shipped converters for the allision. His seem to be right on to there manufacture balance. Do you have them balanced at your specified rpm or do they do as this guy and pretty well stick to one rpm for all converters?
Hell, see what happens when you hit the Quote button and do not pay attention!
Sorry Mick and I guess my whole previous post should be address to Mike instead of both of you.
I did that also Steve. Mine was a Pm blunder though. I opened a post to quote in a thread. I got a pop up at the same time and clicked to open it. Well, not quit sure how I did it for sure but I typed my reply to the Pm in the thread window and posted that pm to a thread. Damn the crak.
Do you want it fixed or just leave it alone?
This should sum it up Josh. Personally, and I know this is not my engine in the thread, tungsten is high priced and so long as the balancer is neutral ( Which Mick NEEDS ) the weight on the flywheel is all about economics to me. I'm sure, since this one was built as ordered, if he would have asked for something more he would have got it.
So for what it's worth Mick has a half and halve motor when it comes to the balance job as an internally balance motor requires both ends to be netural and that it is not. Personally we've never seen any gains going one way or the other until you start running the motors above 6500 RPM then an internal balance seems to give better bearing wear.
Got to be fun to be able to play with a new combination
Man o man... When I get my knickers in a knot I do exactly what I made fun of Wade and Steve for doing. I didn't read the post of Micks showing the balance difference very well and got this whole Mike, Steve, Wade shit fight started. Steve, Wade I apologize for being antagonizing. Damn the Crak
Right on, you can't say I'm vague. LOL
All just thoughts from years of being bored but too busy to do anything at a fast rate.
This one is pretty funny too Steve. In my defensive mode, I thought it was Wade that posted this. Good thing I was nice in my reply right. :o
This coming from Mick is not a good sign. Damn the Crak
Mike I think it would be a good idea to start a thread about internal/external balancing of engines - seems like there is a need for it:thumb:
Done.
neversatisfied
12-05-2010, 10:01 AM
Oh, Now you wanna talk like you got some sence.....are you by-polar?
honestly i would run the crank the way it is, untill it breaks, like i said(if you fully read my posts) it will work the way it is, but it's not the way i would have done it. i would have done a 100% internal crank.
But i dont think mick will have any issue's with a stock crank, the stroker is the one i would worry about....
What could be done differently to make this engine 100% internal? Guy stated he ran out of places to put heavy metal...
"After filling all of the counterweights with heavy metal, we basically run out of places to put heavy metal. We haven’t been able to get the “rear and the front” of the stroker crank internally balanced at the same time. It is one or the other"
Diesel power
12-05-2010, 01:44 PM
What could be done differently to make this engine 100% internal? Guy stated he ran out of places to put heavy metal...
"After filling all of the counterweights with heavy metal, we basically run out of places to put heavy metal. We haven’t been able to get the “rear and the front” of the stroker crank internally balanced at the same time. It is one or the other"
It can be done with heavyer metals and also with other ways like welding the weight in instead of just pressed metal. that adds weight
again all combo's are not the same, my crank needed a lot of metal, but it's100% internal, i also took weight off the throw......cause what you do to one side you need to do to the other, remember i run aluminum rods and a much lighter assembly.
Diesel Tech
12-05-2010, 02:26 PM
As a general rule of thumb you design the crankshaft to start with for one or the other. Since the stroker production crankshafts were designed and built by Crower as an external balance that's what you really have to work with. To properly make it an Internal balance design the counter weights would have been designed and placed differently.
JoshH
12-05-2010, 02:29 PM
It can be done with heavyer metals and also with other ways like welding the weight in instead of just pressed metal. that adds weight
again all combo's are not the same, my crank needed a lot of metal, but it's100% internal, i also took weight off the throw......cause what you do to one side you need to do to the other, remember i run aluminum rods and a much lighter assembly.
I'm just curious what material you would use that is denser than tungsten. Just to make it easier for you, here is the list of choices.
Americium, Uranium, Rhenium, Platinum, Iridium, Osmium
Diesel power
12-05-2010, 03:19 PM
I'm just curious what material you would use that is denser than tungsten. Just to make it easier for you, here is the list of choices.
Americium, Uranium, Rhenium, Platinum, Iridium, Osmium
I was refering to mallory, as thats what 99% of all builders use to internally ballance cranks. so yes tungston would be the next heavyer metal.....
JoshH
12-05-2010, 04:14 PM
I was refering to mallory, as thats what 99% of all builders use to internally ballance cranks. so yes tungston would be the next heavyer metal.....
Have you ever thought that just maybe tungstEn is what was used? So I will repeat my question, what material would you have used that is more dense than tungsten. You can refer to my previous post if you don't want to search for your choices, or search for yourself if you don't trust me.
Diesel power
12-05-2010, 04:27 PM
Have you ever thought that just maybe tungstEn is what was used? So I will repeat my question, what material would you have used that is more dense than tungsten. You can refer to my previous post if you don't want to search for your choices, or search for yourself if you don't trust me.
What is it with you guys who cant understand what i post!!!
Was i not clear in saying that i was refering To mallory initially........So the next step was/ or would have been tungston. After tungsten is not cost prohibitive to use anything else, only welding can fix the issue, depending on how far out it is.
This dont make much sence anyway when you look at a crank and realize that the bob weight on the rear is bigger than the front..........No reason that it would ballance in the front and not the rear anyway. Unless the crank was WAYYY out to begine with, in that case the crank should not be a internal ballance prospect to begin with.
find a more closely ballanced stock crank and start from there, i've seen these cranks off more than 300 grams....and some within 45 of one another......
Josh trust what i say, it's obvous i know what im doing. Guy is not the only human with a brain.
JoshH
12-05-2010, 05:20 PM
What is it with you guys who cant understand what i post!!!
Was i not clear in saying that i was refering To mallory initially........So the next step was/ or would have been tungston. After tungsten is not cost prohibitive to use anything else, only welding can fix the issue, depending on how far out it is.
This dont make much sence anyway when you look at a crank and realize that the bob weight on the rear is bigger than the front..........No reason that it would ballance in the front and not the rear anyway. Unless the crank was WAYYY out to begine with, in that case the crank should not be a internal ballance prospect to begin with.
find a more closely ballanced stock crank and start from there, i've seen these cranks off more than 300 grams....and some within 45 of one another......
Josh trust what i say, it's obvous i know what im doing. Guy is not the only human with a brain.
First of all, I understand completely what you post (I do a pretty good job of sorting out your horrible grammar and spelling), but I question whether or not you understand what others post. Perhaps you poor grammar carries over into poor reading comprehension.
Secondly, Guy's stroker crankshafts are not stock, so that theory is out the window. While it may be possible to redesign the crank to be fully internally balanced, I don't know because I'm not a self professed SME on engine balancing like you are, but if it can be done, I'm sure Guy is working on it.
Is it obvious you know what you're talking about? I know it is obvious you can't read a question and answer it directly. I'm left to assume you either don't understand it or don't know the answer since you reply by posting some crap that is totally irrelevant and comes nowhere close to answering the question. Did you even read what Guy wrote? Did you fully understand why he said the crank could not be balanced 100% internally? You said you would have balanced Mick's motor completely internally. When asked how, you rambled on, and when pressed, you finally said:
It can be done with heavyer metals and also with other ways like welding the weight in instead of just pressed metal. that adds weight
I asked what you would have used that is more dense (or heavier) than tungsten. You said you were talking about mallory, and tungsten is what you would have used. Guess what. Tungsten is what was used, so therefore your "fix" wouldn't work. Also, welding the weight in will not add any weight unless the filler metal is more dense than the parent metal. There is no way you are going to use any filler that is denser than tungsten, and I doubt it is going to be more dense than steel by a significant amount.
Diesel Tech
12-05-2010, 06:05 PM
For the record Guy did not design the crankshaft he just buys/sells them the same as the balancers from ATI. If you want to redesign them then you would need to go to Crower and see what they would want to make an Internal Balance crankshaft. There are a few more crankshaft manufactures now making Duramax crankshafts but they are pricie and not what I feel is worth the gain you see from them. If your out for every last little bit of power then go for it but the testing we did showed clearly that the extra displacement was not worth the expense. Also for the few of them out there running there has been way to high of a failure rate.
Diesel power
12-05-2010, 06:17 PM
First of all, I understand completely what you post (I do a pretty good job of sorting out your horrible grammar and spelling), but I question whether or not you understand what others post. Perhaps you poor grammar carries over into poor reading comprehension.
Secondly, Guy's stroker crankshafts are not stock, so that theory is out the window. While it may be possible to redesign the crank to be fully internally balanced, I don't know because I'm not a self professed SME on engine balancing like you are, but if it can be done, I'm sure Guy is working on it.
Is it obvious you know what you're talking about? I know it is obvious you can't read a question and answer it directly. I'm left to assume you either don't understand it or don't know the answer since you reply by posting some crap that is totally irrelevant and comes nowhere close to answering the question. Did you even read what Guy wrote? Did you fully understand why he said the crank could not be balanced 100% internally? You said you would have balanced Mick's motor completely internally. When asked how, you rambled on, and when pressed, you finally said:
I asked what you would have used that is more dense (or heavier) than tungsten. You said you were talking about mallory, and tungsten is what you would have used. Guess what. Tungsten is what was used, so therefore your "fix" wouldn't work. Also, welding the weight in will not add any weight unless the filler metal is more dense than the parent metal. There is no way you are going to use any filler that is denser than tungsten, and I doubt it is going to be more dense than steel by a significant amount.
Thats where a keyboard makes me sick......
Are you the grammar patrol?
When i said welding it i surely did not mean inplace of mallory or tungston....
i said very clearly instead of JUST pressing it in, to weld around it.....All of them, guess what, it adds weight, and useally plenty to ballance the crank, when no more mallory/tungston can be added....
Get it now?
Vrabel
12-05-2010, 06:41 PM
The tech to b/s ratio is declining. Can we put the personal insults in the trash?
JoshH
12-05-2010, 06:57 PM
For the record Guy did not design the crankshaft he just buys/sells them the same as the balancers from ATI. If you want to redesign them then you would need to go to Crower and see what they would want to make an Internal Balance crankshaft. There are a few more crankshaft manufactures now making Duramax crankshafts but they are pricie and not what I feel is worth the gain you see from them. If your out for every last little bit of power then go for it but the testing we did showed clearly that the extra displacement was not worth the expense. Also for the few of them out there running there has been way to high of a failure rate.
You are correct, Steve, and I didn't mean for my post to sound like I was saying Guy did design them. I guess I should have said, "I'm sure Guy is working on getting it done." I also happen to agree with you on the benefits of stroking. I see the biggest benefit coming from having more displacement to more easily spool a larger charger than you could with stock displacement.
Thats where a keyboard makes me sick......
Are you the grammar patrol?
When i said welding it i surely did not mean inplace of mallory or tungston....
i said very clearly instead of JUST pressing it in, to weld around it.....All of them, guess what, it adds weight, and useally plenty to ballance the crank, when no more mallory/tungston can be added....
Get it now?
No, I am not the "grammar patrol." Did I make any corrections to your posts? I simply implied that your poor grammar and spelling can make it difficult to understand what you're saying.
As far as your welding thing goes, unless you are building up material when you weld, you are not going to add any weight. Besides that, you have no idea how much more weight needed to be added, so your statement is mere conjecture. If it could be done and done safely/reliably, I have no doubt that Guy would have done it.
As far as I can tell, you have done nothing ground breaking or all that impressive in the diesel world. Sure, you have a truck that has potential to do something impressive, but it has yet to perform outstandingly. You like to act like you are a big player in this sport, but your performance thus far has been sub-par. I know I'm a nobody, but I don't pretend to be something I'm not. What I don't like is for someone to put up a facade and expect me to fall for it. Your BS posts only push me further towards thinking you are a phony. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Get it now?
Diesel Tech
12-05-2010, 07:27 PM
You are correct, Steve, and I didn't mean for my post to sound like I was saying Guy did design them. I guess I should have said, "I'm sure Guy is working on getting it done." I also happen to agree with you on the benefits of stroking. I see the biggest benefit coming from having more displacement to more easily spool a larger charger than you could with stock displacement.
We seem to be able to spool a GT45 on a stock displacement just fine so I cannot really see where the extra displacement would help but who knows. What I can tell you is when your look at the power to cost side of things a little more boost from either turbo's, blowers or NOS is much cheaper for a larger gain than displacement alone gets you. With the high failure rate of these stroker crankshafts I just could not recommend them to anyone at all. The real issue we found was the block, as we got the power higher and higher. So until you deal with that I just do not see any of this really make a hill of beans. The block shifts as the power goes higher and the heads lift. We had high dollar head studs made and they solved the issue with the heads but they are costly. I would never oversize the studs as the wall thickness around the threaded area in the block is just too thin. When you check a stock bore block under load and then take a over bored block with high head torque and check it under load you will find what I mean right away. For our race motors the block prep is huge and it has to be done just so and we still know we are playing with fire. So at some point you must put the breaks on until a new block comes along that will handle what we are currently doing to them.
I see no problem with the base design as it was done for 310 Hp to start with, they have tweaked the molds a small amount for them to handle the 397 rating, but were well north of 1600 Hp and 2000 ft lbs now! We do this on a stock displacement to a increase of +10 cu in due to over boring but we like to use a standard block when possible and I will not go over +.060" bore unless it is a race only motor and the customer has been warned.
There are limits and I feel you need to tell the customer that. I would rather tell people to stop at xxx power and have no issues than to tell them sure its fine, go right ahead, it will last no problem.
Diesel power
12-05-2010, 08:05 PM
You are correct, Steve, and I didn't mean for my post to sound like I was saying Guy did design them. I guess I should have said, "I'm sure Guy is working on getting it done." I also happen to agree with you on the benefits of stroking. I see the biggest benefit coming from having more displacement to more easily spool a larger charger than you could with stock displacement.
No, I am not the "grammar patrol." Did I make any corrections to your posts? I simply implied that your poor grammar and spelling can make it difficult to understand what you're saying.
As far as your welding thing goes, unless you are building up material when you weld, you are not going to add any weight. Besides that, you have no idea how much more weight needed to be added, so your statement is mere conjecture. If it could be done and done safely/reliably, I have no doubt that Guy would have done it.
As far as I can tell, you have done nothing ground breaking or all that impressive in the diesel world. Sure, you have a truck that has potential to do something impressive, but it has yet to perform outstandingly. You like to act like you are a big player in this sport, but your performance thus far has been sub-par. I know I'm a nobody, but I don't pretend to be something I'm not. What I don't like is for someone to put up a facade and expect me to fall for it. Your BS posts only push me further towards thinking you are a phony. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Get it now?
man you still dont get it....
Welding does add weight, what else would you even think it would do?
once you get the weight close to the positive side, you take it off little by little untill it 0's out. it's really simple, but i can see it's over your head. i've done it several times and it works.
As for ground breaking innovations and achievments, i could care less what you think, but say i have my fair share. Matter of fact I was as far as i know the first to make a stock LBZ crank 100% internal ballance, First to make aluminum rods work in a duramax, First to Make aluminum rockers for the CR cummins, First to have a full shaft needle bearing aftermarket Rocker design for the duramax, First to run In the 5.30's with a single injection pump,First to run a low 12, and a low 11 in a CR cummins, Won 3 diesel championships and 17 other championships since 1997. First to offer light weight(1000g) Cummins CR pistons, and wrist pins (505g) First to consecutively turn 5800 RPM with a duramax engine. I've built 4 record setting cummins engines. and a total of 36 since 2006. And the list goes on.
you asked for it so there is a few things for you to chew on. Everyone here is not as stupid as you think, especially not me.
it's hard for me to get across what im trying to say 100% of the time because i hate typing, and try my best to paraphrase.
stingpuller
12-05-2010, 08:34 PM
Did I just waste a hour of my life to see more of Wades stupid, I know it all, me me me me stuff???!!! I have run many motors with a internal front external back back. They work fine! There is no power in a internal motor at the rpm's these motors run. Wade, If you can name your championships, all of them I will leave you alone. I would also like to see names of these record setting motors! If you can prove all of this I will go on every forum and say your the man! I will even wear a shirt that say's i'm your BIT!! at all racing events next year! You (Wade) make Greg H look like the saint! WOW is all I can say. Unreal, there just isn't word's for you. Jeff
neversatisfied
12-05-2010, 09:08 PM
How much weight have you been able to gain by welding the weight(tungsten) in? Are you removing any material before welding like a v-groove weld?
It can be done with heavyer metals and also with other ways like welding the weight in instead of just pressed metal. that adds weight
again all combo's are not the same, my crank needed a lot of metal, but it's100% internal, i also took weight off the throw......cause what you do to one side you need to do to the other, remember i run aluminum rods and a much lighter assembly.
blksmok
12-05-2010, 09:36 PM
I'm far from an expert on any of this, but from a laymans perspective, if there is room to add material with a weld, why would you fill it with a lighter weld metal rather than plugging it with a heavier metal?
JoshH
12-05-2010, 09:53 PM
man you still dont get it....Ok Wade, you win. I'm done talking to you now.
JoshH
12-05-2010, 10:03 PM
We seem to be able to spool a GT45 on a stock displacement just fine so I cannot really see where the extra displacement would help but who knows.
I have no experience with a stroked Duramax, but from what I have read and been told by guys who are smart with turbos, more displacement helps spool turbos. It makes sense to me. Not that a stock displacement can't spool them, but more displacement spools them easier and doesn't fall off as soon/easy.
subman
12-05-2010, 11:57 PM
Did I just waste a hour of my life to see more of Wades stupid, I know it all, me me me me stuff???!!! I have run many motors with a internal front external back back. They work fine! There is no power in a internal motor at the rpm's these motors run. Wade, If you can name your championships, all of them I will leave you alone. I would also like to see names of these record setting motors! If you can prove all of this I will go on every forum and say your the man! I will even wear a shirt that say's i'm your BIT!! at all racing events next year! You (Wade) make Greg H look like the saint! WOW is all I can say. Unreal, there just isn't word's for you. Jeff
Jeff standby for Wade's favorite line, "Man you just don't get it". ):h Guess I kind of started this asking about internal balancing. I like this site because there usually isn't too much of the personal insults here, and the tech info is good. The pecker measuring gets old however. Wade much of what you post is totally tap dancing behind a smoke screen. Can't you just keep to the tech stuff and add your insight without all the self serving me me me crap you always have to add? -:t
neversatisfied
12-06-2010, 12:02 AM
I have no experience with a stroked Duramax, but from what I have read and been told by guys who are smart with turbos, more displacement helps spool turbos. It makes sense to me. Not that a stock displacement can't spool them, but more displacement spools them easier and doesn't fall off as soon/easy.
I think that is prolly the biggest thing right there. Thats a ton of $$$ just for a little bit more rpm range
JoshH
12-06-2010, 12:45 AM
Yeah, I could never run a stroker. One more thing you get with the stroker over stock displacement is the cool factor. Some guys care more about that than anything else. It's almost as cool as aluminum rods... ):h
In the old days, it was no replacement for displacement. Now boost is easy. Boost, the displacement replacement. However, same boost in more displacement is that much better.
You are right ken about the drama, not saying I'm not guilty, hows-bout' I copy this thread to another thread and edit out the drama. Then for the heck of it, see how it reads. If the admins go for it that is.
What do y'all think?
I'm far from an expert on any of this, but from a laymans perspective, if there is room to add material with a weld, why would you fill it with a lighter weld metal rather than plugging it with a heavier metal?
Use these Dave ):h
Amazon.com: Weldcraft Tungsten Electrode Rare Earth 1/8" X 7": Home Improvement
Diesel power
12-06-2010, 02:59 AM
How much weight have you been able to gain by welding the weight(tungsten) in? Are you removing any material before welding like a v-groove weld?
on the back side of the counter it is cleaned up, no need for a v-groove, thats for structural welding--counter weights have no structural bearing.
Folks this is where you would weld--Around the Heavy weight's added, and if needed, on the back of the counter weight.
oh and sting, i'll send you a PM with your info in it.
stingpuller
12-06-2010, 06:14 AM
Mini Me, Any engine shop worth anything welds the weights in! It doesn't add the the weight put in. You just keep diggin deeper, you might need a backhoe to get out of this one. I'm still waiting????? Jeff
Diesel Tech
12-06-2010, 10:39 AM
I have no experience with a stroked Duramax, but from what I have read and been told by guys who are smart with turbos, more displacement helps spool turbos. It makes sense to me. Not that a stock displacement can't spool them, but more displacement spools them easier and doesn't fall off as soon/easy.
This isn't balancing but let's get back to a little basic stuff for just a moment.
What is boost pressure?
It is the resistance to flow. So when you increase flow, boost will drop just as decreasing flow and boost will rise. Now with that in mind remember each turbocharger has a limited amount of air it can pump so when you use more of it up sooner (larger displacement) you also run out of it sooner (less RPM). So you get a larger RPM range out of a larger turbo and smaller displacement.
This is a real rob Peter to pay Paul deal as currently there is no one turbocharger that fits the whole bill. VNT technology is trying to make it so we can use a larger turbocharger on a smaller engine but for what ever reason there are a set of problems not yet resolved to allow it to cover a large enough range yet. Also let's not forget about a very important thing called drive pressure. As you move more air through the engine into the same size turbine section of a turbocharger the drive pressures go up. There is a fair amount of free power to be had by controlling drive pressure correctly.
OTHRGRL
12-06-2010, 10:57 AM
This isn't balancing but let's get back to a little basic stuff for just a moment.
What is boost pressure?
It is the resistance to flow. So when you increase flow, boost will drop just as decreasing flow and boost will rise. Now with that in mind remember each turbocharger has a limited amount of air it can pump so when you use more of it up sooner (larger displacement) you also run out of it sooner (less RPM). So you get a larger RPM range out of a larger turbo and smaller displacement.
This is a real rob Peter to pay Paul deal as currently there is no one turbocharger that fits the whole bill. VNT technology is trying to make it so we can use a larger turbocharger on a smaller engine but for what ever reason there are a set of problems not yet resolved to allow it to cover a large enough range yet. Also let's not forget about a very important thing called drive pressure. As you move more air through the engine into the same size turbine section of a turbocharger the drive pressures go up. There is a fair amount of free power to be had by controlling drive pressure correctly.
I agree with everything you said, but what Josh is saying is that with more displacement you can run a larger turbo than you would be able to on a smaller dispalcement motor. While an 80mm compressor and 87mm turbine is pretty laggy on a 6.6L, it is a whole lot more responsive to 7.1L or 7.4L breathing through it - but as you said it will also fall off at a lower RPM in the top end than it would with a 6.6L.
Diesel power
12-06-2010, 02:39 PM
on the back side of the counter it is cleaned up, no need for a v-groove, thats for structural welding--counter weights have no structural bearing.
Folks this is where you would weld--Around the Heavy weight's added, and if needed, on the back of the counter weight.
oh and sting, i'll send you a PM with your info in it.
sting
Are you blind? i said around the weight.....your a tard
stingpuller
12-06-2010, 08:12 PM
I'm not blind but my little girl is from birth. I have 20/20 and can see your as stupid as always. Add weld around the mallory isn't going to add anything you rock star. Were is my PM with all these awards there CHAMP?? Or is it CHUMP??? Your biggest fan. Jeff
RickDLance
12-06-2010, 08:42 PM
Guy's Please don't call each other names. I know some of you are frustrated with others, but try to keep the insults to a minimum.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.