454 Peanut Port Food for thought

General Discussion
#25

Nope BruceJ. I am mile wide smiling.
I have these same engine books . . . mostly.
I somehow lost track of a “High Performance Motors Fuels” book that covered this all better than the engine books.

Fellows, cursor sweep over his graphs, and they name to explain.
You are right. A rapid pressure building up milliseconds whoosh into an expanding space. (Actually, that part of it is the same as in a primer liting off the cartridge power burn started the pressure pulse building up pushing against a bullet that must get moving making an expanded combustion space to limit that pressure from going excessive.)

In the IC engine the applied combustion burning increasing pressure force versus effective crank angle is critical. Give way to moderate the pressure.
Effnecnecy engine use up crank turning most of the pressure with just enough residual to assist getting the gases out of the cylinder.
Max power engine over fuel to maintain a real blow it out pressure. Jack up the rpms to get back to another power push asap.

Back to the poor firearms comparison the magnum revolvers blowing out the barrel still burning powered kernels.

Woodgas I agree short stoke, but LONG rod. Hey, hey, your Old Ford FE’s you love.
Not so much a Ford 302 short stroke short rod.

But Bruce increasing the static compression ratio speeds up all fuel combustion speeds rates. Then as proven, woodgas ain’t so “slow” anymore. A dynamic factor.
S.U.

We goona’ get to piston crown shapes and combustion chamber shapes too? Yes. Yes. Please. Please.

5 Likes
#26

Hmmm, oh boy, hmmmm…and a C-6…brb…I gotta go study.

What are your thoughts on the piston shapes?

3 Likes
#27

The big boy gaseous engine manufactures all use a flat cylinder heads with four valves. The actual combustion chamber is mostly in a deep cupped piston crown. Minimizing heat lost transfers I figure. Heat making gas expansion is the name of the game. Heat losses into coolants, oils, exhaust count against.

The Kubota DG672 and DG1005? factory methane converted engines retained the diesels three scooped injector spray swirling piston crowns and have a very shallow combustion chamber in their labeled “Special Methane cylinder Heads”. ~11.5/1 liquid cc measured c.r.
Realize these are all fixed RPM applications.
Mobile rpm is dynamic, changing the game some.
Like the Kubota conversions we will be locked in a lot to pre-existing.
S.U.

4 Likes
#28

I, being the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” kind of mechanic, have never actually looked at the FE/FT specs…a 360 is just a short stroke 390.
I bet, back in the day, I had some of those bigger engines too. I have two in a boat, I want to retrieve as well. I was told they turn in opposite directions…how to tell them apart? Hmmm

3 Likes
#29

360 versus 390? I’ve been told by the block height. Like the inline 250 versus longer stoke 292. That’s easy. The V-8’s I could never develop, the knack.

CW versus CCW? The way the vacuum advance stick out of the distributor. If the marine even have vacuum advances. Failing that pull the starters. The drive gear teeth entry angle and overrunning clutch will be reversed. One starter running back wards.
S.U.

2 Likes
#30

Hey William we drifted on you. We do that. Interesting thing show up in those rabbit holes.
Here are some previous 454’s gasifed out to running and using.
So been done successfully:

The next read for maybe what to avoid:

A few more in the DOW archives but either never completed or light weight 1/2 ton or cars not really applicable for your heavy fast towing wants.
Regards
Steve Unruh

3 Likes
#31

There were a few Ford 454 builds on DOW about 10 years ago, Then people got more interested in Dakotas. There were discussions of big blocks on the yahoo groups back at the time.

3 Likes
#32

images
Is this what you need to put a car manifold on a tall deck BB Chevy?

My 366, has a Rochester 2G.

1 Like
#33

When you first showed me those diagrams I didn’t know what they represented Bruce. Good to hear the further explanation even if most of it goes over my head. I do want to talk about piston shape. I still say that without some visual means to see how wood gas actually burns in a cylinder we lack sufficient data to determine optimum piston shape. We know, from the project farm demos, that less volatile fuels tend to ignite and then spread relatively slowly across the surface of the piston building pressure as they ignite. When you add oxy into any fuel it will burn faster with more pressure. It seems to me that it is much harder to move more oxy into wood gas than almost any other fuel. Less oxy, less power. That’s why cylinder volume becomes important. Bruce’s bigger bore. In my mind, the issue with bigger bore is that a low power fuel that tends to burn in a path across a piston takes longer to reach maximum pressure. A crowned piston further increases that surface area the flame path must follow unless you are using a hemispherical head where the ignition point is center of the piston crown so that burn is equal down both sides of the piston slope. Firing that spark at any other point in that combustion chamber and you sacrifice a lot of power. I’m totally open to other views and never have had the chance before to discuss things like this with knowledgeable people. I’m still leaning toward longer stroke, smaller bore. I’m thinking that a punch from a fist is better than a slap from an open hand.

5 Likes
#34

Tom, and all,
Please believe me when I say I am from the “run what you brung” camp. I only talk about building a hypothetical engine. In practice, I would use existing parts to build a Woodgas-ish engine. The hard part is going back to the fundamentals. In my studies, the work just prior and during world war one by sir Harry Ricardo, surmises what we have today. Prior to that, the internal combustion engine WAS predominantly running on producer gas. I believe we have to look there to how best to build or adapt a modern engine.
I think we have to start here, with tetraethyl lead.
“…General Motors patented the use of TEL as an antiknock agent and used the name “Ethyl” that had been proposed by Kettering in its marketing materials, thereby avoiding the negative connotation of the word “lead”.[28] Early research into “engine knocking” (also called “pinging” or “pinking”) was also led by A.H. Gibson and Harry Ricardo in England…”
-Wikipedia
Every automotive engine that ever burned gasoline has been designed around detonation. Too much compression, the wrong spark plug placement, having a hot spot in the combustion chamber all made detonation. Detonation is interesting. It is the near simultaneous rise in pressure through out the combustion volume. This pressure wave, when involving gasoline and oxygen, is considered an explosion. Some detonation is the clashing of two simultaneous pressure waves meeting. No matter how it happens, when gasoline (with 89 times more power then dynamite) detonates, it will destroy an engine in a very short time.
Woodgas will not detonate. Look at it’s composition. The air/fuel ratio is 1/1. The woodgas is 40% nitrogen, and the air is 77% nitrogen. Most of the gas in the charge is inert. So the combustion has to sneak around these blocking nitrogen molecules. They are N2 (diatomic) and are just as big as carbon monoxide molecules.
I say we should revisit how we think about arranging the piston shape, combustion chamber shape, and spark plug placement, inorder to encourage detonation (extreme rapid burning).
As Tom says, high compression is expensive. It’s also costly in pumping losses. I think there are many other low hanging fruit to be picked first.

4 Likes
#35

Just being involved in this discussion is making me as happy as a puppy with two peters.

5 Likes
#36

Hang in there WilliamW. , this will all come back to your core choice, which-one-to- woodgas decisions.

TomH and BruceJ great post you put up.
On engines, combustion chambers, piston crowns shapes, bore/stroke & rod length/crank throw ratios every engine designer taking it out to manufacturing first must select a primary favored fuel.
Once that is prioritized then they are stuck, just as us, with the basics adapting it to another fuel type. The initial compromises they had to make, pale compared to the fuel adaptation compromises they then have to accept later.

Ha! For gasoline fuel Hemi-combustion chamber the best? Or turbulence inducing reduced quenching area Wedge combustion chamber? Or?? Tom you gonna’ piss stones reading this one . . . the weirdest, rarest of the bunch in the GM/Chevy small kidney with an intentional sharp shear edge?? Pulled a sisters Chevy-Geo Metro cylinder head. What!? A Chevy kidney combustion chamber! Where is my “better” Suzuki hemi-head? Ha! They both made power and mileages alright. The Chevy-kidney had lower unburned hydrocarbons in the gasoline fueled exhaust.
So mainline engine manufactures still promoting, and making as better, these different overhead valve combustion chambers .
Nobody. Nobody, makes up new designs valve in block T, I flat-heads anymore. Limited c.r.'s possible before you choke even off worse the flows. Torturous, long convoluted flows pathways. Just too much heats robbing not-directly over the piston surface areas in those.
Chevy sixes ditched out of those in the 1920’s. Even many for the better farm tractor engines like Case iron wheeled moved on to much better overhead valves. Why on into the late 1950’s (Rambler sixes) flatheads. Costs to redesign and retool.

Three approaches to selecting a better to be woodgases engine.
No replacement for displacement.
WayneK first did some big block Fords. 1, 2, were 460’s. He wanted more towing power. Him an avowed Ford guy, studied and then swithed over to the large displacement Dodge V-10’s. Kept his ohv, pushrods, rocker arms, cam-in-block simplicity. Got a surprise that the Chrysler/Dodge distributor-less was giving him no hands ignition timing changes.
He still recommends Ford 460’s. Chevy 454’s. Dodge 440’s. Dodge 318’s and 360’s in the smaller, better, hp-to-weight ratio hyway speeds rigs.

Second approach.
The replacement for displacement is higher compression ratios.
All of the historic make-better woodgas literature , those 1930’s and 40’s guys knew if they could just get above 5 to1, 6 to1 flatheads compressions to oooh-wow 8 to1, 9 to 1 compression ratios they’d zoom-zoom up in woodgas performances.
Wellie, well, well. These were the common factory compressions by the 1960’s and on.
Better even. Unbelievable to them back then of 10 to1, even 11 to 1 factory engines compression ratios factory made and sold.

The third approach - forced boosted induction of air and woodgas. When the 1940 and 1950’s gasoline racing, and military power engine guys wanted for-any-cost power that is what they did. Watch some of the military airplane guys on youtube and see this. late 1930’s, early WWII single boosted. By 1943-44 most all US, British, German and Soviet fighter aircraft were double boosting.

A fourth way not really viable. Practical. Or able to wide spread emulate. The dedicated gaseous single fuel engine approach. Idealized.
Tom you don’t know this. BruceJ can remember, think back to the 2007-2012 woodgas trying era and know that was me, and a bunch of others. Oversized 950 pound Lister design clone engines made in India. Or, cute as a bug little German design origin - tech transfer to thier ally 1940’s Japan Occupiers in China, left behind, copied/improved new-made Chineese clone engines. Changfa’s.
Boy was I ever dumb. One near $2,000 to get bought and shipped here. The literal running hopper needing a true 2200 pound, one-ton base to keep it from hop-walking away.
The other relatively inexpensive as third-hand, load into my trunk for $300.
Hey! Factory electric start. The wife would even turn key start it, stand within 10 feet of it.
No bloody parts available. No more 2nd, 3rd engines allowed imported, available for back up, and spare parts boning. Thanks Greens. Thanks EPA.
Yeah. I was sure dumb.

So Willian go for the 454 you already own, with readily available parts. Hotrod parts, and systems galore for it.

Added to my no-more never-again, of no-more flatheads; no more under-flywheels ignition points, is now no more large engine carburetors. The 1984 Ford F150 with the 300 cid feedback carburetor I gave away to a local 14 year old wrench turner. He got the older 74 Ford F250 camper special pick up 360/390 too. Towed away.
He had stopped wanting the 1994 Ford F150 302 as a preference; and would have given real cash money for it. No. No. That big bore, short stoke SEFI is mine. Mine. Half dead computer, it still starts and runs, ok, acceptable, still. And these been proven easy woodgased now.

Steve Unruh

Steve Unruh

5 Likes
#37

I agree that in 36 posts we have beat Williams thread into the ground. Hell, that’s just how we roll. Can’t apologize. As far as optimum wood gas designed engine without access to a foundry or machine shop I am shifting back to the idea of creating a spark fired engine from maybe Marcus’s buddies 12 valve Cummings. It has everything you need except a way to sequentially spark the fuel.

3 Likes
#38

I’m sure Steve’s got a cure for that one I bet you!
but yes William I believe your motor will be just fine on wood, but the only way to prove it is start building!

5 Likes
#39

:smirk: :grin: :smile:
Look up Francois Pals working project pictures for the industrial engine off-shelf ignition systems, in-use. Individual coil-near-plug.
S.U.
:wink: Altronic; MOTORTECH; Heinzmann; HOERBIGER; Gill Instruments for starters.

5 Likes
#40

I think I see a new feature that should be added to this board. We need a “Select All” button for the little heart thingys. LOL. Every reply was appreciated and full of useful information. Thanks to all of you for being such a welcoming crowd!

7 Likes
#41

HOLA I iz back and I gots a new plan! I literally have this Engine sitting in an RV in my yard. It’s even a 1986 just like this video. With bolt on parts these boys made 560 HP and over 500 ft lbs of torque all while maintaining a motor that still has the same amount (and maybe a little more) vacuum at idle.

Yes, I will be spending a little money but not nearly as much as you think it would be. The proof is in the pudding.

2 Likes
#42

Haven’t watched the video yet but hey if it adds horses in the barn then by all means I’d do it if I could.

2 Likes
#43

Back in the 80s all these V8s were just absolutely ruined with the SMOG stuff. Even my Mazda had a ridiculous amount of Emissions garbage. Replaced the exhaust, deleted “Air Injection” but kept EGR because it was simple vacuum control, and replaced the Carb and it was like driving a new truck.

4 Likes
#44

Never watched this channel before William. I guess with 241 thousand subscribers you get to play with Steve Brule at Westech.

What does it mean? You drop four grand, double your HP but only raise your torque a few hundred foot pounds. Maybe if you are going out to set a new WG speed record at Bonneville that would be worth it but a work truck gets it done with torque. For that purpose, the longer you can keep that torque curve flat the more you will accomplish. Of course just looking at those heads would give any engine guy a boner, and those Rockers. Is anything uglier than stamped steel rocker arms? If I’m spending that kind of money I’m getting air lockers and some of that stainless steel they seem to give away in Sweden.

5 Likes