by smitty » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:40 am
Thanks, Eric. I've tried elsewhere with no answer, and maybe he thinks I'm pursuing him around the internet, so I've decided to forget it. If we run into each other, good; if not, that's life.
t120r, if you look at Singh's own site, and at the photos of his grooves, you can see they were NOT done on a milling machine, but were probably done with a skunk-wheel (very narrow abraisive disk) in a hand-held air-motor or side-grinder. Not particularly precise work, in fact a little rough, it seemed to me. The air doesn't know the difference. I haven't been to Singh's site in a long time; maybe he has a milling machine now. But if your hand is steady and you have some feel for what you are doing, then surely the point at which you aim the groove is going to matter a lot more than whether it is made with machine tool accuracy. Automotive Breath gave some guidlines on what he felt, after having done a bunch of engines, was a workable size range for a groove, but I don't think he or anybody else has yet "proved" anything about that or about aiming the grooves. I don't know that such things CAN be proved in such a way as to give us universal guidlines applicable to a wide range of combustion chamber shapes. Anyway, if you happen to luck out and get the aim exactly right, I can't see where you'll be hurt by a hand-made groove, and if you aim for the wrong place, a machined groove won't make it work any better, IMOH. This principle is emphatically the case for grinding on ports, esp. 2-stroke ports, and anybody who does this will tell you that size and shape and aim-point count for a whole lot more than surface finish and minor disuniformities along the way.