Cool. Who wrote that originally?

B

 

That would be me.
There are a couple of paraphrases of Jeff Hartman mixed in, but most of it is my original material.

 

Paraphrases?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ze_...qxmM#PPA136,M1

Nice work!

B

 

Yeah, most of his timing/pulse width stuff is pretty generic, so I had to go through it and rework some of the math so it would apply to the rotary.
"Overview of the Combustion Process" (which is what we were talking about here), is completely bespoke.
That is what was cumulative to this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/rotary-math-106294/

 

Ahhh. Right.

B

 

Yep.

 

You've gotta be kidding me. I can't let this go in good conscience. This is really quite humorous. I juxtaposed your post under the 'Target Air/Fuel Ratios' portion up against what's written in Jeff Hartman's book. Here's the only two differences in what you wrote vs. what's written in the book:

- You removed the sentence, "Bob Norwood typically saves up a calibration by removing 2-3 percent timing and adding the same percentage of fuel" from the tail-end of the paragraph starting, "Assuming the engine is not knock-limited..."
- You added the words, "ported engines" and "highly ported engines" when the words "big-cammed" and "mild-cammed" popped up twice

Perhaps you should credit Jeff Hartman for having written this section of his book How to Tune & Modify Engine Management Systems (page 136). Otherwise, it's complete plagiarism. You certainly didn't write this and it's nowhere near "paraphrasing".

B

 

Quotation of sources have been added as applicable.

You gotta realize, I soak this stuff up like a sponge. I dial 411 and I've forgotten the first 3 numbers before I get to the end of the next 4.
But when I even skim an SAE paper or something similar, all of the content gets stuck in my brain like a thorny burr.
I can tell you what my datalogged ignition timing was at 7200 RPM on my last 4th gear run last Thursday off the top of my head.
However, I have no idea what's the date of Thanksgiving.

 

Baloney. You plagiarised; plain and simple. You took credit for someone else's research and work in three ways:

- Implicitly by implying that it was yours in your initial posts
- Explicitly when your response to my question was, "That would be me." but also when you tried to pass it off as, "paraphrasing"
- Tacitly when you neglected to respond to the many posts by others on this forum who responded to your initial thread. You were willing to accept the praise but none of the responsibility by way of your lack of forthright response regarding the real source.

I think you're trying to assume the glory of Jeff Hartman's work instead of having the fortitude to tell the truth -- he wrote that and you did not. What's even more noteworthy about it is the scant, few words you added/modified still don't even give it the impression that it has anything to do with rotaries even though that appears to be your motive. If you're willing to borrow someone else's writing, it compels me to wonder that perhaps you really don't know what you are talking about, especially seeing as how your attempt to show-off and one-up me with this link to Jeff Hartman's plagiarised work that you so dutifully cut and pasted had little to nothing to do with what I was writing about in the first place.

That's called backpeddling. I hope it doesn't fool anyone.

B

 

Would you like for me to just delete it? Or, is it more fun for you to just keep bashing me?
Either way is fine with me, just let me know what you prefer.

 

Ok this has gone on long enough. Back on topic please.

 

maybe on your Renesis, but not on mine

we proved beyond a doubt over many dyno runs that the difference between 91 and what I run (yeah, I'm not telling you the specific higher number) was an automatic 10 HP peak loss, 87 was substantially worse than 91 ...

 

Wow. The "peak combustion pressure" argument is going on in a bunch of different places on this forum simultaneously!

 

Pick one! I need to prepare. This scotch is kicking my ***!

 

Yeah, and we proved beyond a doubt over many dyno runs that the difference between 96 and what I run (yeah, I'm not telling you the specific lower number) was an automatic 15 HP peak loss, 96 was substantially worse than 91 ...

 

And I've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that due to my wallet being lighter (I'm not telling you by how much though), expensive high octane fuels make me faster!

 

Indeed. I have a copy of that movie around here, somewhere...

I can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my wallet, being exactly the same weight as it was when I bought it a Target 6 or 7 years ago, indicates that I have absolutely no conclusive proof that high octane fuel makes any God damn difference other than knock resistance.

 

Which do you drink Jeff?

 

I've got the 21-year-old bottle of Glenlivet in front of me.

 

I love that movie! I watch that back-to-back with "Death to Smoochy".

I'm only sipping, though. I not big on getting drunk, especially on a weekday afternoon, by myself at home.

 

But in any sense, its hardly an equal comparison to match pump gas vs. your special blend that probably cost you $7 a gallon.

 

I'll kick his ***!

 

But here gas DOES cost $7 per gallon. Does it mean that my Fiat Grande Punto produces 90 hp instead of the advertised 75????

 

Glenmorangie


thats just not correct.

octane is not a measure of how fast or slow any given gasoline will burn. it is only a measure of the fuel's resistance to pre-ignition. pre-ignition is defined as the fuel igniting on its own due to pressure and heat before the arrival of the flame front.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/ importantly 6.2 and 6.3 as well as 6.13 6.16 and 6.17

on modern engine management systems you will only get the most power out of a given engine by using the octane that limits knock effectively. if you go lower than that number the PCM will hear the knock and adjust your timing to reduce power.

If you're using a standalone and doing your own tuning you may be able to tune for a lower octane than originally called for by the manufacturer - since they always leave a margin of error- but by doing so you leave yourself at the mercy of one bad tank of gas.

 

I think I'd like to see a renesis with a small auxilary peripheral exhaust port and the centre plates merged side exit welded up, keeping the other side exits to give 4 exhaust ports as normal but two of them peripheral and far better flowing with no pulse interferance.