which harmonic balancer?? - Reply to Topic

Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: which harmonic balancer??

Your Message

 

Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces)

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 10-03-2008, 08:02 AM
    Warp Speed
    Quote Originally Posted by CK7684 View Post
    Race engine is one thing. Does it get rebuilt after every run? I'm not racing and want my engine to last a long long time...

    Racing or not, use the proper ATI for your application!

    IMO
  • 10-03-2008, 06:02 AM
    CK7684
    Race engine is one thing. Does it get rebuilt after every run? I'm not racing and want my engine to last a long long time...
  • 10-02-2008, 11:15 PM
    ol guy
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    Thanks Warp. Old, I think you're thinking of something different. To re-phrase what Warp said, we're not talking about rotational balancing or vibration from being out of balance, we're talking about harmonic vibrations (much higher frequency) which occur naturally due to the dynamics of the engine's operation. They are uncontrollable, and left unchecked, can be (and most likely will be) destructive. This is why the need for a vibration dampener. If you've run a solid hub on a race engine and never had it fail, then I'd say you are lucky. Also like Warp said, there's really no performance benefit.
    BTW...you're not OLD!
    Hey Steel, Thanks for the not old comment, as I stated it's a handle the kids gave me. As far as Warp and you agreed, yes I do understand the differience between RPM ranges and areas where dynamics will distroy a motor. Hubs have a place and when possible I will use them. Long term or marathon motor no way. I may have thrown out a statement that could have been missunderstood so for that I humbly appologize. And for the record there were weeks that I would push out 4 motors a week. Not real proud of the fact cause when you hang your'e name on something you want it to be right. But when people come in and want you to do it, It calls for a 14 hour day. But the record still speaks never a fail. Most were sbc and I stumbled on a combo that would pull 300 h/p with smog heads and a cam that I had ground and still passed smog. Carb and manifold were also changed. Still using a Quadra-jet. YES recurve was aslo done and by HAYS in Westminster CA. M
  • 10-02-2008, 10:51 PM
    scott foxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp Speed View Post
    It's not the "state of balance" the damper is controling, but more the torsional twisting of the crank as it goes through various load angles (constantly being pushed and pulled at varying amounts) coupled with the natural harmonic frequencies caused by the mass rotating through various rpm ranges. It really has nothing to do with it being balanced or not.
    Now if the assy is out of balance it will magnify these problems, and so can an improper tune up, but that's not the real contributing factors, just self induced problems.........IMHO
    Thanks Warp. Old, I think you're thinking of something different. To re-phrase what Warp said, we're not talking about rotational balancing or vibration from being out of balance, we're talking about harmonic vibrations (much higher frequency) which occur naturally due to the dynamics of the engine's operation. They are uncontrollable, and left unchecked, can be (and most likely will be) destructive. This is why the need for a vibration dampener. If you've run a solid hub on a race engine and never had it fail, then I'd say you are lucky. Also like Warp said, there's really no performance benefit.
    BTW...you're not OLD!
  • 10-02-2008, 09:42 PM
    ol guy
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp Speed View Post
    3520 engines/10950 days (30 years) that's an engine every 3.1 days, 7 days a week for 30 years (right?).
    I'm junk when I have to do that for a month or two!!
    You Go Boy!!!!

    BOY, I wish!! I built my first motor when I was at the ripe old age of 15. I was born in 1958 you can do the math. (buy the way the term OL GUY comes from my kids so I used it as a handle) My father and I had a small parts store and machine shop in 1971. Again you do the math. Yes alot of the motors I built were ALITTLE better than a production rebuild. AND at every chance I got I would build a custom motor for customers that came into our shop. It was alot of what do you want and what is it going into. More street apps than race. The race motors were done after hours and with no interupptions by other crap. I did my own heads and used only one machine shop and one cam grinder. NEVER had a complaint and many happy people. As to your'e response on harmonics and inertia. I FULLY agree. But if an application calls for all its got now then I would use a hub. Also believe it or not I have never in over 35 years had a motor fall into a pile of shit. M
  • 10-02-2008, 09:13 PM
    Warp Speed

    Hell Ya!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by ol guy View Post
    Rebuilder engines about 3K. N/A motors for a race or competition application, I would geuss at 500. Blown motors I would figure on 20. M
    3520 engines/10950 days (30 years) that's an engine every 3.1 days, 7 days a week for 30 years (right?).
    I'm junk when I have to do that for a month or two!!
    You Go Boy!!!!

  • 10-02-2008, 09:03 PM
    Warp Speed
    Quote Originally Posted by ol guy View Post
    Steel, let me first clear this up. I am not a typist or a computer wiz. As far as the amount of engines I have built? I lost track along time ago. But hell lets just give it a shot. Rebuilder engines about 3K. N/A motors for a race or competition application, I would geuss at 500. Blown motors I would figure on 20. As far as run with just a hub, that would be depending on the application. I fully understand your'e response as to internal harmonics built into the mass under a running situation. Which is created by poor tuning, be it timing,carburation or valve adjust. Now back to the original question on this. Why would a perfectly balanced motor with same on the externals and tuned correctly need a dampner to eliminate unbalance? I do understand that mass will get out of balance for one reason or another. Also I do agree that a balance serves a purpose. M
    It's not the "state of balance" the damper is controling, but more the torsional twisting of the crank as it goes through various load angles (constantly being pushed and pulled at varying amounts) coupled with the natural harmonic frequencies caused by the mass rotating through various rpm ranges. It really has nothing to do with it being balanced or not.
    Now if the assy is out of balance it will magnify these problems, and so can an improper tune up, but that's not the real contributing factors, just self induced problems.........IMHO
  • 10-02-2008, 08:45 PM
    Warp Speed
    Typicaly, if your pressing your componants any, a good damper will always pick up power (and durability) over just a hub, especialy through and just after peak torque. Many dyno's and/or testing procedures may not be able to measure it, but the added inertial weight (damper vs hub) has very little losses compared to the gains you will get from the "calming" effect it has on the reciprocating componants. Again, depending on the degree your pushing your parts design (block, caps, fasteners, crank ect.) is the amount of gain that can be found.
    You need to see what just the crank snout does (high speed camera) with a damper that is too small/wrong design for the job (let alone without one!). Tough to film exactly what's going on inside the block, but FEA simulation and numerous tear-down inspections will tell you it's not good!
    I would not suggest running just a hub on anything.

    But that's just me.
  • 10-02-2008, 08:23 PM
    ol guy
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    You want to try that sentence again?
    Simply put, you're adding weight to absorb the energy of the harmonic vibrations. The vibrations "move" the mass, thereby disbursing the energy. The movement is dampened by the design of the dampener. Google "resonant frequency" and "harmonic vibration".
    I'm curious...how many engines have you actually run with just a hub, and what kind of engines were they? Size, type, rpm, power, etc.
    Steel, let me first clear this up. I am not a typist or a computer wiz. As far as the amount of engines I have built? I lost track along time ago. But hell lets just give it a shot. Rebuilder engines about 3K. N/A motors for a race or competition application, I would geuss at 500. Blown motors I would figure on 20. As far as run with just a hub, that would be depending on the application. I fully understand your'e response as to internal harmonics built into the mass under a running situation. Which is created by poor tuning, be it timing,carburation or valve adjust. Now back to the original question on this. Why would a perfectly balanced motor with same on the externals and tuned correctly need a dampner to eliminate unbalance? I do understand that mass will get out of balance for one reason or another. Also I do agree that a balance serves a purpose. M
  • 10-02-2008, 07:56 PM
    scott foxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by ol guy View Post
    Well if you say so. I have ran hubs on blown and unblown engines and never had a problem. Geuss I'm just lucky! Just one question if I may? If the internal and external mass is at zero need for a harmonics. Why add more weight? I'm serious on this question and not poking fun. I really would like an answer. M
    If the internal and external mass is at zero need for a harmonics.
    You want to try that sentence again?
    Simply put, you're adding weight to absorb the energy of the harmonic vibrations. The vibrations "move" the mass, thereby disbursing the energy. The movement is dampened by the design of the dampener. Google "resonant frequency" and "harmonic vibration".
    I'm curious...how many engines have you actually run with just a hub, and what kind of engines were they? Size, type, rpm, power, etc.
  • 10-02-2008, 06:53 PM
    ol guy
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokinLowriderSS View Post
    So you put on an UNWEIGHTED harmonic damper, instead of a weighted one for external balance.

    396 and 427 Chevy, run an UNWEIGHTED damper, due to internal balance, from the factory, thus a different one on a 454, due to the external balance, untill you internal balance the 454.

    Actually I fail to see where a sealed, 100% fluid filled damper will alter balance one whit "till it gets with the spin". It is completely filled, with no "heavy spot", due to "settling", because nothing has anywhere to "settle" to.
    If ya think so, then go with solid elastomer material (rubber), like the ATI's anyhow.
    Just don't call the UNWEIGHTED one a "balancer" then if you don't want to.

    Just solid hubbing it is asking for breakages.
    Well if you say so. I have ran hubs on blown and unblown engines and never had a problem. Geuss I'm just lucky! Just one question if I may? If the internal and external mass is at zero need for a harmonics. Why add more weight? I'm serious on this question and not poking fun. I really would like an answer. M
  • 10-02-2008, 03:39 PM
    SmokinLowriderSS
    Quote Originally Posted by ol guy View Post
    GOOD GOD GUYS!!!!! Read the thread, he is going internal balance. Fluid is going to mess up balance till it gets with the spin. JUST USE A HUB. M
    So you put on an UNWEIGHTED harmonic damper, instead of a weighted one for external balance.

    396 and 427 Chevy, run an UNWEIGHTED damper, due to internal balance, from the factory, thus a different one on a 454, due to the external balance, untill you internal balance the 454.

    Actually I fail to see where a sealed, 100% fluid filled damper will alter balance one whit "till it gets with the spin". It is completely filled, with no "heavy spot", due to "settling", because nothing has anywhere to "settle" to.
    If ya think so, then go with solid elastomer material (rubber), like the ATI's anyhow.
    Just don't call the UNWEIGHTED one a "balancer" then if you don't want to.

    Just solid hubbing it is asking for breakages.
  • 10-01-2008, 10:57 PM
    scott foxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by ol guy View Post
    Let me respond this way. The external parts bolted to the internally balanced mass should be at zero wieght to match the balance of the mass. This would be why for a high RPM application, a zero balance light wieght flywheel is recomended. For alot of years hubs have been used in racing applications, and not in just a blower application. But let us think that if a blower motor can live with just a hub, then why can't a N/A motor. Again it's been done for years. Blower belts do not help harmonics, they add to it by belt flap and blower harmonics. The bottom line would be reduce the reciprocating mass wieght and more RPM and H/P will be achieved. IMLAO. M
    Not by my education or understanding, but if you say so!
  • 10-01-2008, 10:07 PM
    ol guy
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcomp View Post
    Old, what on Earth are you talking about? Just a hub, as in solid hub, like on a blower?
    Let me respond this way. The external parts bolted to the internally balanced mass should be at zero wieght to match the balance of the mass. This would be why for a high RPM application, a zero balance light wieght flywheel is recomended. For alot of years hubs have been used in racing applications, and not in just a blower application. But let us think that if a blower motor can live with just a hub, then why can't a N/A motor. Again it's been done for years. Blower belts do not help harmonics, they add to it by belt flap and blower harmonics. The bottom line would be reduce the reciprocating mass wieght and more RPM and H/P will be achieved. IMLAO. M
This thread has more than 14 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95