+- STD (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std)
+-- Forum: Tuning (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Engine (https://www.superturbodiesel.com/std/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) (/showthread.php?tid=2505)
5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - dieselmeken - 04-12-2011
Hi.
I did a small clip around the 7 mm Chinaelement, Take a look if you have intrest in this.
aybee this can be of any help in your discussion around tuning pumps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hpKUK128o&feature=player_embedded
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - Spaceraver - 04-12-2011
So.. Correct me if I'm wrong..
Anything less than full boost and throttle gives too much spread?
I have zero experience with diesel pumps.
Other than that I know for a fact that it's vital for my engine to run and I will need more fuel to make more torque.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - DeliveryValve - 04-12-2011
Göran, thank you again for posting these videos and sharing your knowledge.
In your M-Pump videos it would seem that you can put out more fuel with the 6mm Bosch element with modified DVs = 153cc vs 7mm Chinese Element- 117cc. Although you didn't show any boost levels with the 6mm Bosch, would that matter?
Now comparing the 7mm Chinese to the 5.5mm Bosch, we see you gave us the 7mm figures in the following pictures.
What would be a comparable 5.5mm figure at the same rack travel and boost in each picture? Also may I ask what RPM was at each picture?
.45 Bar or 6.52 PSI Boost 14mm rack 80cc
.8 Bar or 11.60 PSI Boost 15.5mm rack 108cc
1.5 Bar or 21.75 PSI Boost 18mm rack 117cc
.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - dieselmeken - 04-12-2011
(04-12-2011, 11:53 AM)DeliveryValve Göran, thank you again for posting these videos and sharing your knowledge.Thanks for positive feedback
In your M-Pump videos it would seem that you can put out more fuel with the 6mm Bosch element with modified DVs = 153cc vs 7mm Chinese Element- 117cc. Although you didn't show any boost levels with the 6mm Bosch, would that matter?
Now comparing the 7mm Chinese to the 5.5mm Bosch, we see you gave us the 7mm figures in the following pictures.
What would be a comparable 5.5mm figure at the same rack travel and boost in each picture? Also may I ask what RPM was at each picture?
'With 5,5 mm you get app 65-70cc depending on the status of the deliveryvalve at 1500rpm & app 18-20 mm rack.
I have not yet driven a pump with 5,5 and full rack, but maybee I shall test it next time I have a standard pump up in bench. The people that wants power always use bigger element so it have never been done measuring that.
The 6 mm pump didnt have any ALDA, it went straight up to 20 mm at WOT so therefore, no boost in that clip.
All the measuring on the clip is at 1500 ( 1530 or something) pump rpm
The 6 mm pump gives 153cc with modifies valves, and I think it was around 120cc with standard valves, This was good enough for 274hp@4000 rpm on a 5 cyl engine.
Next time the car goes up in dyno, it will be with modified valves.
( gearbox went down on #3 gear, but it is replaced & modified now)
Yes, My own reflection is that the 7 mm Chinaelement dont hold the standard that I want. The one that I have used before was from Italy, www.firad.it A manufactor that had a nice quality on their stuff.
One thing only disturbs me, I cant buy from them
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - DeliveryValve - 04-12-2011
(04-12-2011, 01:05 PM)dieselmeken ...Is rack travel correct? The 7mm Chinese is putting out 80cc @ 14mm rack.
'With 5,5 mm you get app 65-70cc depending on the status of the deliveryvalve at 1500rpm & app 18-20 mm rack.
...
(04-12-2011, 01:05 PM)dieselmeken ....In the video, you stated the idle was not so good. Is that the way it's going to be or did you smooth it out?
The 6 mm pump gives 153cc with modifies valves, and I think it was around 120cc with standard valves, This was good enough for 274hp@4000 rpm on a 5 cyl engine...
(04-12-2011, 01:05 PM)dieselmeken Yes, My own reflection is that the 7 mm Chinaelement dont hold the standard that I want...The variances between them are pretty large. Were you able to adjust them closer together and how close did you get?
.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - JTY - 04-15-2011
This proves why idle was very poor with first generation mynä pumps that used 7mm elements (maybe china), they sounded crap and part throttle was also little funky. But aftet that they started to modifie the elements to get better response and delivery.
Still i have very nice idle with PP-diesel first gen 7mm element pump, maybe PP-diesel used better elements from the first place
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - DeliveryValve - 04-15-2011
(04-15-2011, 02:32 AM)JTY This proves why idle was very poor with first generation mynä pumps that used 7mm elements (maybe china), they sounded crap and part throttle was also little funky. But aftet that they started to modifie the elements to get better response and delivery.
...
I think were on the same wavelength there for modifying the plunger. Although I did not know the first Gen Mynä was rough, it would seem logical they would do something like this if they used some inferior elements.
In taking a page out of dieselmeken's diagrams in his video,
he notes the design cut of the different plunger's and how they would operate.
For reference on element operation.
Looking at the the 7mm Chinese plunger it would seem it has enough material to further modify the Helix and Annular Groove to improve it using dieselmekem's recipe.
If JTY is correct, this is probably what Mynä is doing.
.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - jeemu - 04-15-2011
![[Image: full]](http://jeemu.kuvat.fi/kuvat/Kaikkee/IMG_2075.JPG/full)
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - tomnik - 04-15-2011
(04-15-2011, 03:58 AM)DeliveryValve Looking at the the 7mm Chinese plunger it would seem it has enough material to further modify the Helix and Annular Groove to improve it using dieselmekem's recipe.
If JTY is correct, this is probably what Mynä is doing.
what do you want to gain when modifying the element like you marked?
helix, not retarding edge.
Tom
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - DeliveryValve - 04-15-2011
(04-15-2011, 07:52 AM)tomnik ...
what do you want to gain when modifying the element like you marked?
helix, not retarding edge.
Tom
Tom, I am only speculating on JTY's theory that Mynä could have modified these 7mm Chinese Elements. Following dieselmeken's statements in his video, I gather the short Helix on the 7mm Chinese is not ideal. Both the Bosch 5.5 plunger and dieselmeken's "perfect" plunger on paper show a longer Helix. As I am not a Injection Pump specialist, I do not know what this modification would achieve. But I am sure with your research and knowledge you would have a better understanding hence your question. Basically I am making these posts for further discussions and corrections if needed, and ultimately to help me understand this better.
.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - dieselmeken - 04-15-2011
What I ment with this picture was to show, as I do in the clip, is that when you have 16 mm rack travel, the element goes maximum. No difference if you have 16 mm or 21 mm rack.
The explanation is in this pic. Hope you understand what I trying to show. between app 90cc and maximum there is nothing, just bang. MAX.
If you have a helix that goes all the way you will have the oppurtunity to regulate the power.
Sorry for bad spelling, It´s Friday at home in Sweden and Friday means beer and singlemalt day.
Hopfully someone learns something in my small clip.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - Einar - 04-15-2011
I think it`s very interesting Göran.
I`m thinking about borrowing a test bench(Bosch) on a local school and try some myself, but I have to learn more to understand it.
I want to build a mechanical pump for a 606 with at least 250 hp, I`m not intersted in going past 300 at all.
I have a 5,5 M-pump from 603A.
6,5 or 7 mm pump elements, pro`s and con`s?
Very interesting I think.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - winmutt - 04-15-2011
(04-15-2011, 06:50 AM)jeemu
Jeemu, what are these?
(04-15-2011, 07:52 AM)tomnik what do you want to gain when modifying the element like you marked?
helix, not retarding edge.
Tom
Tomnik, can we get a pic of the same area on your elements?
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - tomnik - 04-15-2011
Floyd M75, Tom
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - 300D50 - 04-16-2011
I take it a more shallow, spread out (over the rotation) helix is better than a steep short one as far as control and balancing go? Both would have the same overall travel for the port opening/closing of course.
In that regard, if you were to have a plunger that maximized rack travel (leaving some headroom of course), and tuned the governor to allow that travel, would it be any different?
I can see having a profile on the top that allowed for a non-flyweight controled advance/retard as well, but that would take away from the useable stroke. Something akin the the startup edge on Tom's plungers, but starting a little lower, and tapering towards the top over the whole rotational range.
You would need to angle the heli downward a bit more by the same amount to keep the curve the same.
This is all wild brainstorming, so feel free to inform me of the implications of what I'm thinking.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - tomnik - 04-16-2011
the thing is that first of all the amount of delivery near idle should be similar to stock to have the governor in its familiar range.
Important later is that there is a certain usable stroke of the plunger in regards to the cam profile (and to the engine's crank shaft position) that gives the limits.
Increasing the usable stroke by creating an aggressive helix is not the solution as you should not use the complete stroke, end of delivery goes too late.
I could also lower the position of the horizontal delivery limiting groove to get more fuel but this area is way out of range of usable stroke.
Once you understand what I try to explain you will see that increasing rack travel with "small" elements is the "dirty way" to increase delivery.
You will end up with bigger element diameter and adapted geometry of the helix.
Also the supply port is an important area. You want a big bore for fast filling the element but the diameter eats up the usable stroke... as the plunger has to travel the diameter without doing anything.
Tom
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - dieselmeken - 04-16-2011
(04-16-2011, 12:45 AM)tomnik the thing is that first of all the amount of delivery near idle should be similar to stock to have the governor in its familiar range.
Important later is that there is a certain usable stroke of the plunger in regards to the cam profile (and to the engine's crank shaft position) that gives the limits.
Increasing the usable stroke by creating an aggressive helix is not the solution as you should not use the complete stroke, end of delivery goes too late.
I could also lower the position of the horizontal delivery limiting groove to get more fuel but this area is way out of range of usable stroke.
Once you understand what I try to explain you will see that increasing rack travel with "small" elements is the "dirty way" to increase delivery.
You will end up with bigger element diameter and adapted geometry of the helix.
Also the supply port is an important area. You want a big bore for fast filling the element but the diameter eats up the usable stroke... as the plunger has to travel the diameter without doing anything.
Tom
That´s tru. Small element, long racktravel = dirty way, but also a slow injection comparing to a bigger plunger and shorter stroke that gives a faster injection with all that positive things that comes along, better combustion etc.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - 300D50 - 04-16-2011
(04-16-2011, 12:45 AM)tomnik the thing is that first of all the amount of delivery near idle should be similar to stock to have the governor in its familiar range.I agree, the hypothetical element would have the same delivery characteristics at that point.
Quote:Important later is that there is a certain usable stroke of the plunger in regards to the cam profile (and to the engine's crank shaft position) that gives the limits.the end of delivery had slipped my mind completly, I now see that my brainstorm was mostly a brainfart.
Increasing the usable stroke by creating an aggressive helix is not the solution as you should not use the complete stroke, end of delivery goes too late.
I could also lower the position of the horizontal delivery limiting groove to get more fuel but this area is way out of range of usable stroke.
My thought was to make the helix of a hypothetical element less-agressive, over a longer rack travel, in order to allow for element-set variation of begin of delivery timing that did not rely on the centrifugal advance mechanism.I now see that is a pointless road to go down, since there is no fixed relationship between RPM and rack position.
Quote:Once you understand what I try to explain you will see that increasing rack travel with "small" elements is the "dirty way" to increase delivery.
There's no doubt that it is, my hypothetical element had a less agressive helix spread out further on the circumference that allowed for greater rack travel. Sorry if I didn't transcribe my thoughts well enough, sometimes I forget not everyone can see what's in my minds eye.
Quote:You will end up with bigger element diameter and adapted geometry of the helix.Could the supply port be made slightly ovoid in shape? If the top and bottom edges were kept at the same relative points along the stroke as the plain circular bore, you would only be sacrificing a small amount of useable circumference, and would increase fuel flow in from the gallery. The shutdown grove might need to be adjusted to deal with that though, mainly by moving it back along the circumference the same distance the hole was stretched out.
Also the supply port is an important area. You want a big bore for fast filling the element but the diameter eats up the usable stroke... as the plunger has to travel the diameter without doing anything.
Again, all brainstorming on my end, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for the discussion, it's turning out well!
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - tomnik - 04-16-2011
(04-16-2011, 01:42 AM)300D50 There's no doubt that it is, my hypothetical element had a less agressive helix spread out further on the circumference that allowed for greater rack travel. Sorry if I didn't transcribe my thoughts well enough, sometimes I forget not everyone can see what's in my minds eye.increased rack travel is necessary to operate the plunger at an area of the circumference where the usable stroke is enough for increased delivery, that's what you say?
This is not the issue, but the plunger travel there is an issue because usable plunger stroke is too short.
(04-16-2011, 01:42 AM)300D50 Could the supply port be made slightly ovoid in shape? If the top and bottom edges were kept at the same relative points along the stroke as the plain circular bore, you would only be sacrificing a small amount of useable circumference, and would increase fuel flow in from the gallery. The shutdown grove might need to be adjusted to deal with that though, mainly by moving it back along the circumference the same distance the hole was stretched out.
you got it. Have a look on the Floyd M75
Tom
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - OM616 - 04-16-2011
I modified the helix on the 10mm (P) elements that are in the 10mm MW I built. I reduced the max out put to a reasonable amount and spread it out over the full plunger rotation that is available.
I also added additional fill ports to the barrel to increase fill capability.
Very tricky precision work, but doable none the less.
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - yankneck696 - 04-16-2011
I think that it's a possibility that I might be possibly somewhat understanding the principals of what you all are getting at...... That's scary.
Ed
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - DeliveryValve - 04-17-2011
(04-16-2011, 01:29 PM)tomnik ...
...
(04-16-2011, 01:42 AM)300D50 Could the supply port be made slightly ovoid in shape? If the top and bottom edges were kept at the same relative points along the stroke as the plain circular bore, you would only be sacrificing a small amount of useable circumference, and would increase fuel flow in from the gallery. The shutdown grove might need to be adjusted to deal with that though, mainly by moving it back along the circumference the same distance the hole was stretched out.
you got it. Have a look on the Floyd M75
Tom
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - 300D50 - 04-18-2011
Great minds seem to think alike!
I wonder if any of the aftermarket MW elements could be modified/manufactured to have one line that... hmm
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - tomnik - 04-18-2011
(04-18-2011, 08:33 AM)300D50 Great minds seem to think alike!
I wonder if any of the aftermarket MW elements could be modified/manufactured to have one line that... hmm
the Holly MW elements have a similar supply port...
Tom
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - lpumb3 - 01-14-2013
(04-16-2011, 03:04 PM)OM616 I modified the helix on the 10mm (P) elements that are in the 10mm MW I built. I reduced the max out put to a reasonable amount and spread it out over the full plunger rotation that is available.
I also added additional fill ports to the barrel to increase fill capability.
Very tricky precision work, but doable none the less.
do you have any before afte rpics of this ?
RE: 5,5 & 7mm element, difference here (filmclip) - g wizz - 10-22-2018
so the way these things work is they partially bleed out full delivery of the DV for partial throttle, close up and bleed nothing for full? vent completely for no delivery? the fuel curve is controlled by the angle of the helix as the element spins/is cammed up and down as it travels across the spill port essentially controlling the volume by cutting the injection time/injection event?
iis the vertical groove is the shut off circuit?
is the bottom horizontal groove what stops the injection event?
i just dont see how you can modify these by removing material. i could see adding some to the base of the helix to bleed less and extend the injection event but whats useable is determined by the cam and the dv bore. or is there room to add to the injection event? and even then that is a less ideal way to get more fuel.
how do you modify the dv for more flow with out going bigger diameter?