greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on Apr 26, 2017 9:16:53 GMT -5
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on Apr 26, 2017 20:43:29 GMT -5
|
|
CH3NO2
Senior Member
Joined: March 2017
Posts: 455
|
Post by CH3NO2 on Apr 27, 2017 12:00:46 GMT -5
Nice sheet metal forming work.
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on Apr 27, 2017 22:11:15 GMT -5
i have marked out and started working on the adaptor plate. the procon pump is designed to use a vband clamp so i have turned up a captive plate (pic 3) that i will cut in half and that will sandwich the pump to the plate when bolted down tight
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on Apr 29, 2017 18:52:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by racket on Apr 29, 2017 23:13:40 GMT -5
Very nice :-)
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on May 2, 2017 23:45:41 GMT -5
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on May 2, 2017 23:46:44 GMT -5
here os a poor illustration of the shaft boss and rollpin
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on May 3, 2017 23:48:49 GMT -5
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on May 5, 2017 7:08:54 GMT -5
after testing the pump hooked upto the jets oil system at full rpm, it delivers about 120+ psi with the oil at room temp so i either need to keep the speed controller or install a bypass. would anyone have any idea if a nedel valve would be too small of an opening to reduce the pressure enough? maybe i should just use a small ball valve. ill have a play on sunday it i can find some taps and valves in the shed!
|
|
|
Post by racket on May 5, 2017 21:34:31 GMT -5
A 1/4" needle valve would probably do the job
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on May 11, 2017 7:26:58 GMT -5
i raided the work stores for a tee but only found elbows and straight sockets so i improvised and combined the two for the oil flow test. it was a success with very fine control of the pressure with a needle valve. i may make or buy a pcv to replace the valve in the future but for now the oil system is running smoother and more leak free than ever. next i plan to redesign the combustion chamber its unnecessarily big heavy and inefficient i was looking at marks garrett GTC20-1 thread and would live to make a unit tidy and compact like that. i have ordered a sheet of 1.5mm stainless steel for stock that i could make the chamber components from but if i can salvage some of the old chamber that would be better my old combuster (just the cylinder part) is 280mm long and 150mm wide if i was to cut this from the rest of the existing one removing the square to round reducer and elbow that add a total of 300mm extera distance befor the turbine scroll. would this be too small an area to have it run? i could make a wider one slowing the air more giving more time to burn but id like the height to stay at 280mm or less cheers ryan
|
|
|
Post by racket on May 11, 2017 17:13:58 GMT -5
Hi Ryan
You should be OK with a 280 mm length as long as your fuel and air presentation is relatively sophisticated , having a 90 degree bend going into the turb scroll isn't a good idea , much better if its a straight in approach , also don't have the air delivery tube join the combustor at the Primary Zone , you'll notice the asymmetric effects on your trunk and branch evaporator caused by the air blasting in from one side.
Cheers John
|
|
greazy
Veteran Member
Joined: December 2015
Posts: 128
|
Post by greazy on May 11, 2017 18:08:33 GMT -5
yes thanks john i planed to cut and spin the cylinder so it delivers at the other end and also make a straight through design. i may also put a deflector to stop the air forcing straight onto the flametube as it enters the c/c if you think that would be smart.
my old flame tube was 100mm is it wise to make it wider this time round? 25mm airgap around the outside seems like its a bit large to me.
|
|
|
Post by racket on May 11, 2017 18:45:30 GMT -5
Hi
A 100 mm flametube is far too skinny , axial airspeeds will be very high making combustion margin .
76 mm - 3" inducer has 7.07 sq ins of inlet , multiply by 3 =21.2 sq ins minimum for the flametube cross sectional area , so 5.2 " ID minimum for "hassle free ??" combustion.
No need for a deflector plate if the delivery tube is at the Tertiary end , as long as its not anywhere near where combustion is taking place
Cheers John
|
|