*hits blunt*
"bruh, what if we change the butterfly valve of the throttle body, for a diaphragm system like a photography camera"
Actually, i think this could be a good idea, wich would be the pros and cons?
Comments
In theory it could be a good idea but the butterfly valve in a throttle body builds up carbon and if that were to happen on an aperture system I think it would bind up and get stuck much easier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxsYtEV2XCs works like at 1:47
nope, it’s a conventional rotating plate :)
on a supercharger … :D
I think response time and weight, complexity, cost. Not to burst your bubble.
WAT. are you kidding me? I was thinking about the same thing for couple of days now!
Let’s say it happened… what would be the value? I don’t see any positives unfortunately. It would likely work, but it’s more complex and therefore more likely to fail. Keep Calm and be like Lotus… simplify and add lightness.
I think its a bit poitless.
today with injection and economical ecu’s (i thought) the throttlebody valve is always open.
The ecu is responsible for the amount of fuel that is injected in the cylinder and at wich moment.
The air intake is seperated with another valve that opens when you go full throttle.
so in low rev/stationairy the engne runs on a arm gas/air mixture(more air than fuel)
and with high revs when the second valve opens in the intake, the ecu changes the injection time and the engine runs on a rich fuel/air mixture
im not a 100% sure, but i though most of the new engines work like this
not exactly.
On diesel engine, there is no throttle body, because you don’t control the power by controling the airflow, but by controling the injection timing (wich is also the ignition timing on a diesel since the fuel ignite as soon as it enters the combustion chamber) and amount of fuel.
on gas engine, we have been using throttle bodies to control the amount of air that enters the engine, and so, its power. Then the ecu (or carburetor and distributor) controls the amount of fuel needed and timing.
We have first used cable driven throttle bodies, directly tied to the pedal.
Then, we’ve used Fly-by-wire TB. where the pedal has a position sensor, and the throttle valve is entirely controled by the ECU(for a better control of the amount of air needed, and lest pumping loss.
pumping loss… that’s the keyword !
The trottle body is responsible for a lot of loss in the intake, even at full throttle when the plate is fully open, there is still loss, and that’s why diesels are a little bit more efficient than gas engines.
And that’s also why we are trying to get rid of the TB ! Fiat is doing its multi air engine, and BMW too on the … I don’t remember … ^^
but they got rid of the TB and instead the ECU control the valve lift and timing to control the power delivery. It’s way more complicated, but also more efficient !
there are other types of throttle bodies also, the guillotine type doesn’t use a rotating plate, but a sliding plate, there is more pumping loss during part throttle application, but none at full throttle ! This is commonly used on race engines.
throttle bodies would get bigger as a result, more moving parts for it. And it would get stuck far easier.
It would have more parts necessarily. It doesn’t need to have exactly the shape and function of a hexagon or octagon diaphragm, just a couple of plates sliding up and down to open and close should do it.
I think its a great idea. I was just thinking the other day how I still feel like we don’t maximize how the air flows through an engine. Mostly I was thinking how a single exhaust would be better than dual because I recall from my hydraulics class in college how you get better flow with one big round pipe rather than multiple small ones due to the added friction from the extra surface area of the inside of the pipe (this was regarding HVAC airflow). Your best flow is a circle, second is an oval, and last is a square/rectangle. I’ve always thought a butterfly valve gave a funky flow since it leaks air around the sides of it and still has a decent amount of material in the middle during wide open throttle. The only catch I could see, or maybe just a thought to redesign, is that the orifice is flat against the surface. I remember an example in class that if you had a round pipe flush on the wall on a pool, you’ll get a certain amount of flow out the hole. The flow would increase if you made the pipe stick out from the wall. You would get the max amount of flow if you had a velocity stack on the pipe that was sticking out of the wall. This is precisely why velocity stacks are designed like they are.
Highdeas are great, aren’t they?