Another bearing paper
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
www.diva-portal.org I don't know why it won't light up with the whole address?
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
www.diva-portal.org I don't know why it won't light up with the whole address?
Just cut and paste the address, that works.
www.diva-portal.org I don't know why it won't light up with the whole address?
Just cut and paste the address, that works.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
www.diva-portal.org I don't know why it won't light up with the whole address?
Because you need to stop posting through your telephone.
Here's a correct, live link, achieved by using the correct tool in the Reply window.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:897460/FULLTEXT01.pdf
www.diva-portal.org I don't know why it won't light up with the whole address?
Because you need to stop posting through your telephone.
Here's a correct, live link, achieved by using the correct tool in the Reply window.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:897460/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Yeah Shannow, stop posting from your phone.
I think the whole problem is that Shannow's laptop is upside down compared to ours in the US and the underline on the links gets all confused...
;^)
;^)
Good paper ... note in section 2.1.5 that the additional flow caused from the oil supply pressure (Qp) is also based on the number, size and shape of feed holes and grooves that supply oil to the bearing (ie, the "factor S" in equation 2.11).
Wonder how much the hydrodynamic flow rate (Qh) found by equation 2.16 differs from the classical flow rate calculation method using the Summerfeld number.
Wonder how much the hydrodynamic flow rate (Qh) found by equation 2.16 differs from the classical flow rate calculation method using the Summerfeld number.
I thought that youd like the part
Quote:
Commonmistake is to add Qh and Qp for a total oil flow rate
bit of a rookie mistake that one, eh ?
and the modified martin method
Q=QM^S x QP^(1-S)...S being 0.6 for a wide range of bearings gives a bit of information on which is the major influencer (just like Orlov did too).
Quote:
Commonmistake is to add Qh and Qp for a total oil flow rate
bit of a rookie mistake that one, eh ?
and the modified martin method
Q=QM^S x QP^(1-S)...S being 0.6 for a wide range of bearings gives a bit of information on which is the major influencer (just like Orlov did too).
The point is not which one is the "major influencer" ... the point is that pressure fed bearings flow additional oil volume due to the supply pressure (which you didn't believe at one time early in these discussions). And this paper (as well as other sources) says exactly that.
The fact that oil pressure pushed additional oil out the unloaded side of the bearing was always self evident...
The role of the oil pump in making up for the side leakage, plus assuring sufficient pressure to get it to the worst delivery point was always my premise...your was that you have to jam an oil pump's worth of oil through them (for temperature control), and have zero relief flow, backed by a pre-oiler on a stationary engine, and Shgley that started with "if you can't control temperatures, then up the pressure"
But digital Zee0Six, with the "if not then this" strawman....well you know where that came/went.
Do you still consider all the oil paths in an engine as purely resistive, like you did at the start ?
Do you still consider that the water cooled cylinder heads and valleys are conducting heat INTO the oil like you did at the start ?
The role of the oil pump in making up for the side leakage, plus assuring sufficient pressure to get it to the worst delivery point was always my premise...your was that you have to jam an oil pump's worth of oil through them (for temperature control), and have zero relief flow, backed by a pre-oiler on a stationary engine, and Shgley that started with "if you can't control temperatures, then up the pressure"
But digital Zee0Six, with the "if not then this" strawman....well you know where that came/went.
Do you still consider all the oil paths in an engine as purely resistive, like you did at the start ?
Do you still consider that the water cooled cylinder heads and valleys are conducting heat INTO the oil like you did at the start ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The fact that oil pressure pushed additional oil out the unloaded side of the bearing was always self evident...
Not to you in the beginning of these discussions (stared in the motorcycle thread about gear shift feel) ... because it took literally pages and pages of discussions before you realized that pressure fed bearings actually flow more oil than non-pressurized bearings. Want me to post up all your quotes showing that you never once discussed flow due to supply pressure, but instead always maintained the claim that the bearings only "draw/suck" what they need to make up for side leakage ... regardless of what the supply pressure in the gallery is.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The role of the oil pump in making up for the side leakage, plus assuring sufficient pressure to get it to the worst delivery point was always my premise.
We're not talking about the "role" of the oil pump, we are talking about pressure fed bearings. More diversion.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
your was that you have to jam an oil pump's worth of oil through them (for temperature control), and have zero relief flow, backed by a pre-oiler on a stationary engine, and Shgley that started with "if you can't control temperatures, then up the pressure".
But digital Zee0Six, with the "if not then this" strawman....well you know where that came/went.
So what, the point is that pressure fed bearings flow more oil regardless if they "need it" or not - we've been down that road multiple time. But you always seem to divert to change the argument when you don't have traction on the one at hand. I maintain that designers have the supply pressure variable as a design factor if needed, and it very well could be needed depending on other bearing design variable which might be limited if extra temperature control is needed. Talk about grasping at straws with your strawman arguments.
I shouldn't even answer your questions because you never answer the many questions I've asked you in these discussions.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you still consider all the oil paths in an engine as purely resistive, like you did at the start ?
If you know anything about fluid dynamics you'd know that any time there is fluid flow through any path that there is a level of flow resistance. So yes, all oil paths within an engine are restrictive to flow. Why do you think the PD oil pump creates pressure when trying to force oil volume through the flow paths. You don't think the engine's oiling system, including the bearings, is restrictive to flow? Not another misconception in the making ...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you still consider that the water cooled cylinder heads and valleys are conducting heat INTO the oil like you did at the start ?
If the surfaces of the pistons, cylinder walls, heads, etc are hotter than the oil, then of course heat is conducted into the oil - it's basic heat transfer. Your misconception is that you think a cooling system will carry away all the heat of combustion even at max HP levels, but that's simply not true regardless of how well the cooling system is designed. Therefore, at high HP levels the oil will absorb additional heat from combustion and the oil temperature will rise even more - just like all the examples in the technical papers on sump temperature rise show. Why are you still on that merry-go-round? ... seems you still haven't grasped that simple thermodynamic concept.
The fact that oil pressure pushed additional oil out the unloaded side of the bearing was always self evident...
Not to you in the beginning of these discussions (stared in the motorcycle thread about gear shift feel) ... because it took literally pages and pages of discussions before you realized that pressure fed bearings actually flow more oil than non-pressurized bearings. Want me to post up all your quotes showing that you never once discussed flow due to supply pressure, but instead always maintained the claim that the bearings only "draw/suck" what they need to make up for side leakage ... regardless of what the supply pressure in the gallery is.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The role of the oil pump in making up for the side leakage, plus assuring sufficient pressure to get it to the worst delivery point was always my premise.
We're not talking about the "role" of the oil pump, we are talking about pressure fed bearings. More diversion.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
your was that you have to jam an oil pump's worth of oil through them (for temperature control), and have zero relief flow, backed by a pre-oiler on a stationary engine, and Shgley that started with "if you can't control temperatures, then up the pressure".
But digital Zee0Six, with the "if not then this" strawman....well you know where that came/went.
So what, the point is that pressure fed bearings flow more oil regardless if they "need it" or not - we've been down that road multiple time. But you always seem to divert to change the argument when you don't have traction on the one at hand. I maintain that designers have the supply pressure variable as a design factor if needed, and it very well could be needed depending on other bearing design variable which might be limited if extra temperature control is needed. Talk about grasping at straws with your strawman arguments.
I shouldn't even answer your questions because you never answer the many questions I've asked you in these discussions.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you still consider all the oil paths in an engine as purely resistive, like you did at the start ?
If you know anything about fluid dynamics you'd know that any time there is fluid flow through any path that there is a level of flow resistance. So yes, all oil paths within an engine are restrictive to flow. Why do you think the PD oil pump creates pressure when trying to force oil volume through the flow paths. You don't think the engine's oiling system, including the bearings, is restrictive to flow? Not another misconception in the making ...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you still consider that the water cooled cylinder heads and valleys are conducting heat INTO the oil like you did at the start ?
If the surfaces of the pistons, cylinder walls, heads, etc are hotter than the oil, then of course heat is conducted into the oil - it's basic heat transfer. Your misconception is that you think a cooling system will carry away all the heat of combustion even at max HP levels, but that's simply not true regardless of how well the cooling system is designed. Therefore, at high HP levels the oil will absorb additional heat from combustion and the oil temperature will rise even more - just like all the examples in the technical papers on sump temperature rise show. Why are you still on that merry-go-round? ... seems you still haven't grasped that simple thermodynamic concept.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you still consider all the oil paths in an engine as purely resistive, like you did at the start ?
If you know anything about fluid dynamics you'd know that any time there is fluid flow through any path that there is a level of flow resistance. So yes, all oil paths within an engine are restrictive to flow. Why do you think the PD oil pump creates pressure when trying to force oil volume through the flow paths. You don't think the engine's oiling system, including the bearings, is restrictive to flow? Not another misconception in the making ...
Nice little diversion with a play on words...your statement in the motorbike threads was that they were all resistive (in the electrical analogy), and in parallel, so they all changed in parallel...lights on moment was when you finally accepted that bearing speed and eccentricity changed everything.
Evidenced by you using the Hagan Pouiselle stationary shaft as the definitive, and your "equal flow splits" caper, which was later changed to "well except for" for the ones that didn't fit.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Do you still consider all the oil paths in an engine as purely resistive, like you did at the start ?
If you know anything about fluid dynamics you'd know that any time there is fluid flow through any path that there is a level of flow resistance. So yes, all oil paths within an engine are restrictive to flow. Why do you think the PD oil pump creates pressure when trying to force oil volume through the flow paths. You don't think the engine's oiling system, including the bearings, is restrictive to flow? Not another misconception in the making ...
Nice little diversion with a play on words...your statement in the motorbike threads was that they were all resistive (in the electrical analogy), and in parallel, so they all changed in parallel...lights on moment was when you finally accepted that bearing speed and eccentricity changed everything.
Evidenced by you using the Hagan Pouiselle stationary shaft as the definitive, and your "equal flow splits" caper, which was later changed to "well except for" for the ones that didn't fit.
- Status
