"I've also never found it particularly useful to pay attention to the closed-valve effects." This would indicate that communication is impossible. As the old saying goes: If I were to agree with you, we'd both be wrong.
OK, I wasn't planning on doing this, but I'm going to have to present things as I would back in the fifties and then we'll try and work out a translation.
For calculations, I used a K&E Log-Log Duplex Decitrig slide rule. Many years later, I'd get a self assembly electronic pocket calculator...
But, it must be emphasized that a "wave" most certainly cannot be assumed to be the same as a "front." When we speak of a wave, we normally would picture a pressure that is varying in magnitude as a function of location along the runner. With water hammer, the pressure is essentially constant...
Rod, I can understand your confusion. Back in the fifties, I objected when others at Chrysler used words like "harmonics" when describing tuned manifolds. Water hammer fundamentals are confusing enough without the idea that we have to call on music majors.
Rod, that which needs to be considered are the pressure fronts which traverse the intake runner while the intake valve is closed. That's pressure FRONTS and not pressure WAVES. The number of water hammer cycles ("water" being an unfortunate misnomer) determines the "harmonic" under...
Unfortunately, CFD is of no assistance. We've passed the problem on to the programmers and dynamic fluid flow compressibility programs are often difficult to write. In this case, we're dealing with the existence of what are often called harmonics. For instance, Offy engine owners in the fifties...
I was an engineer at Chrysler in the fifties. (Yes, I'm that old.) At that time, it was quite easy to talk with other engineers about dynamic compressibility effects in gaseous flow. In other words, we realized that the sonic wave nonsense in Phillips' book simply could never explain the dyno...
Here's his response and I think we'd best leave it at this:
"Hate to disagree, but there IS a Panhard bar on the late 40's Fords. I happen to own a '47, and it has them, fore and aft, as did all the '42-'48 cars. In the Ford master parts book, it is called a "passenger stabilizer", and is...
Here's the response from my Ford mechanic friend:
"The early Ford rear suspension was, for the most part, unchanged between the Model T days of the early 1900's, and the last of the type, in 1948. The spring was a transverse leaf type "buggy spring" secured to the axle by a set of shackles at...
Brian, I'm going to forward your comments to a friend (also in his mid-70s) who was a line mechanic in a Ford garage while in his teens and who must have come into contact with all the early Ford suspensions. I saw them, but was not interested enough, at the time, to really "see" them.
I know...
"Well, my '56 Buick had a torque tube same as Ford, except (istr) it used coils instead of transverse leaf springs.
It drove ok, no noticeable difference between right and left turns. But, I wasn't a racer."
I had a '53 Buick, which was probably the same, but, again, I was no racer. I remember...
I would like to apologize. I'm afraid I became so fixated on the triangle I described that I began to talk about the major roll axis and the rear suspension roll axis interchangeably and without distinction.
The roll axis I described...a line passing through the ball and the chassis end of the...
Yes, I considered this, Norm, which is why I said "essentially." But, it would seem that the chassis motion from the Panhard rotation would be more of a translation than a rotation. This would be the case, for instance, with Panhard rotation without the presence of a lateral acceleration...
Not really a "Helpful Tip," but there's no "Interesting Trivia" choice.
The simplicity of the old Ford torque tube suspension (used in the first half of the last century) is to be admired. It actually reduces to a triangle with 3 links: The axle assembly, the Panhard, and the rest of the car...
