TB vs TB Spacer?

Really? Do you have the dyno and airflow results to back this up? I am not arguing with you, I just want to know where you are getting this from.

Um, no. The volume is based on the amount of air that manages to get into the cylinder in any given cycle and there is nothing all that consistant about that. If this were true, there would be no need for a throttle body.

Tom Lawrence did some testing of TB's a while ago, not sure what all it included, but the results were minimal improvements at best.

LOL, nope. If you were correct, compression ratio and cylinder pressure would mean nothing.

Cool, now I know not to waste my money on false claims.

LOL, do you even know what a compression ration is? Here is a hint, it is the change in cylinder volume between bottom and top dead center and has nothing to do with the amount of air in the cylinder. Adding a blower or turbo does not change the compression ratio of an engine but it does drastically increase the volume of air pushed into the cylinders, hence, the recommended drop in compression ratio to a reasonable level on engines where they are used.

You're confusing volume and mass, or moles... the VOLUME of air in the cylinder is ALWAYS equal to the volume of that cylinder (unless it's a complete vacuum, which doesn't happen). A gas will always expand to fill it's container. Whether a gas is at 2psi, or 20psi, if it's in a 20cu.in. container, it's volume is 20cu.in.

But I'll assume that the engines that you "know" about are the same as the ones I've actually fixed, built, torn down, etc, and that the voulume of the cylinder is the same on each and every cylinder and stroke.

Sorry, no. It increases the density of the air in the cylinder, but again, ALL cylinders have the same volume on each and every stroke.

Sorry Tom, but you are incorrect here and your vacuum description proves that. The volume of a cylinder is a DIMENSIONAL measurement of space within the cylinder while the volume of a material whether liquid, gas, or solid, is the AMOUNT of that material. within the space If I were to put 1 molecule of oxygen into a 20 cu in container, it most definitely would not have a volume of 20 cu in. It would take up the same molecular amount of space that a single oxygen molecule always takes up, it would just be in a

20 cu in space.

volume is 20cu.in.

No, unless the pressure was zero at sea level, it would be X cu in of gas compressed or decompressed into a 20 cu in container.

Well, in order for the volume to be the same on each cylinder, that would mean that every cylinder, connecting rod and piston is EXACTLY the same size and we all know that is impossible. Now besides that, unless the pistons don't move in your maxworld engines, the volume between all cylinders is never the same and the volume in any one cylinder is constantly changing (with the exception of the small instant in time while the piston changes direction) as the crankshaft turns. How do you think that an engine compresses the air fuel mixture?

Wrong again! A cylinder does not have the same volume at TDC as it does at BDC and if you think that it does, lets see you get the same volume of water into the cylinder at both TDC and BDC. I think that is why they call it compression :-)

Wrong. Material is measured in weight or fluid increments. Volume will always be the amount of space the material can fill, not the amount of material.

Thats terrific, but we aren't talking about one molecule, we're talking about millions. As such, we are also talking about density.

Wrong. Refrigerent is not sold by volume, its sold by weight. Welding gas is not sold by volume, its sold by weight. Liquids are not sold by volume, they are sold by fluid measure.

Bullshit. Try buying some compressed gas sometime.

???? Once again proving you are full of shit.

Ok, lets go into idiocy with this. In Tbone world, the volume is never the same from cylinder to cylinder, despite all cylinders, rods, and pistons having the same dimensions within .001". Now, unless you are concerned with such minute diferences as .0005" or so, I think we can move on. Regarding the "constantly changing", thats rubbish. There are two points where the piston will "dwell", at BDC and TDC, at these points the piston is still. Regarding "changing" the volume of each cylinder is referred to as the "swept volume", and is the same from cyinder to cylinder, and is noted by the moniker most enhgines pick up, eaither CID or Litre, both of which refer to a volume measurement, and are NEVER changed unless the engine is modified.

With a piston.

The cylinder remains at the same volume.

You keep complaining about my mastery of the language but don't loke it when your childish actions are used on you. Exact means exact and unless there is absolutly no difference in any measurments between cylinders, they cannot be exactly the same.

The fact that you have that variance says that they cannot be "exactly" the same and since all of the pistons are never in exactly the same position in their bores as the others, the volume cannot be the same in all cylinders.

I believe I already said that.

LOL, while true, it has nothing to do with the actual volume of each cylinder in a given point in time. The CID refers to the total volume of all cylinders at their maximum capacity and unless the engine is modified, that as you say will never change. As for the actual volume of each individual cylinder, that changes according to the position of the piston.

Correct, by reducing the volume of each cylinder or compressing the volume and the gas contained within it.

LOL, impossible.

LOL, material is not always measured in weight and fluid increments are a volume measurment and you can get 100 oz of liquid in a 200 oz container and it is still sold or measured as 100 oz. The same goes for gas although gas is usually sold in a compressed or liquid form, IOW, more CU IN of gas than the cu in volume of the container.

It doesn't matter. If the rule works for millions, it also has to work for just one or the rule is invalid.

It is also in a liquid form when sold, LOL, and the container does have a volume measurment as well.

And a fluid measure is a volume of liquid, genius. Actually 1 oz =

1.7338714 ci so your argument is once again, nothing but semantics.

I have. It is either measure as just CU FT where it usually has a large number or by the size of the container along with the pressure. If it is in a liquid form, it is sold by weight but then again, that would not be a compressed gas now would it...

To answer the op only. A spacer won't do diddly for a relatively stock engine. It should become obvious to even the most opinionated or just plain friggin' stupid folks (figure out which label fit's who) around here that if the turbulence was an issue to squeezing out a couple of HP the big 3 would have done it. For an exercise go lift the hood of your truck. On mine, a 05

325HP Cummins, from the airbox there air travels through a ribbed hose through a 90 and down into another 90 to the turbo. Doesn't really seem to be a concern about smooth airflow there. The wife's 05 GMC 255HP l6 Has pretty much the same no, turbo of course. Oh, no spacer on either of them. I'd submit that both DC&GM have engineers who probably spend months watching air flow, that's what they come up with. Further they probably know a hell of a lot more than most of the folks here about getting HP and economy out of a stock engine.

Roy

True for a liquid and a solid... gas is different. From a basic definition of this state of matter, "Gases will expand to fill any container, regardless of it's size". Therefore, for a given volume of any container, the gas in the container has the exact same volume as that container. Always.

It absolutely would... see below.

You are aware that gas, at virtually ANY pressure, has space between the molocules of said gas? Again, from another section of the definition of gas: "Many of the properties of gases can be understood by considering the fact that only a small part of the volume of a gas is occupied by it's atoms or molocules, which are in rapid, random motion." Essentially, the gas molocules (or molocule, in your rediculous example) are constantly moving around, bouncing off each other, or the cylinder walls.

What you're getting hung up on, is you want to measure the volume of a gas as the "space" physically occupied by the molocules of that gas, and discount the "nothingness" between them. It doesn't work that way, for reasons stated above.

Wrong. It's 20cu.in. of gas at X psi. Again, to describe the AMOUNT of gas, you express it either in mass (grams), moles, or a COMBINATION of volume AND pressure. You can then freely convert between the various measurements. As a real-world example, an 80cu.ft. tank of argon is a measurement of the volume of that gas at standard temperature (32°F) and pressure (14.7psi)

What you're referring to, (the "X" cu.in. of gas compressed/decompressed...) is the measurement of a gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure). That's a measurement of MASS (again, because we know both volume and density).

Using the above, let's take my 80cu.ft. tank of argon again. 80 cu.ft. of argon (or any gas, since we're calculating moles, and not mass) at

32°F/14.7psi is 101 moles. Now, approximating the size of said tank (because I don't feel like going outside and measuring it), let's call it 6" in diameter and 36" tall. That's about 1018cu.in. 1018cu.in. of gas, at 70°F (room temp.), and 2200psi (again, a rough approximation, but that's about what my gauge reads when it's full), calculates out to 103.5 moles. Close enough...

So, you see... we can take 80 cubic feet of gas, and convert it's volume to .59cu.ft. (1100cu.in.), and have the exact same AMOUNT (moles). And why can we do that? Because the volume of a gas is always equal to the volume of that which contains it.

This is basic high-school chemistry.... nothing overly complex here.

LOL, no it isn't. If they all have a mass, then the same rules apply.

Wrong. While a gas has a property unique to it that allows it to change size while maintaining the same mass, there are limits on this ability and the container can be too small for a set volume of gas to fit inside. And going the other way, a set amount of gas may expand to the size of a larger container but the container is not necessarily full by definition.

No, it may always change its size to the volume of the container, the amount or volume of gas remains the same. If you take 1 cu ft of gas and COMPRESS it into a 1 cu in container, you still have 1 cu ft of gas simply compressed into a smaller space.

Incorrect. The standard unit of measure says this in simply not true. A standard cubic foot of any gas has a specific mass and changing the size of the container does not change the mass of the gas within it.

Correct, but as you should also be aware, a standard cubic foot of any gas is an industry standard of measurement. This standard cubic foot takes the gas molecules and the space around them into account in the measurement which is indicated by the measurement being made at a specific temperature and pressure.

Actually Tom, that is you doing that. The nothingness as you put it, is taken into account with the unit of measure. By setting a pressure and temperature when making the standard measurement, you are removing the nothingness out to the equation and are only concerned with the mass of the molecules alone. Because of this, a standard cubic foot of any gas is nothing more than a measurement of the mass of the molecules contained in 1 cubic foot at specific conditions. Because of this, the space between them no longer has any meaning so if you increase the space between them (expand the gas) of reduce the space (compress the gas), the volume of gas as a quantity measure does not change.

Really??? Do you have natural gas goint to your home? What is the meter maeasuing it in? I would bet that it is cubic feet, not moles or grams. I do find it funny that not to long ago you accuse me of only seeing things my way and here you are doing exactly the same damn thing. As they say, those in glass houses....

Exactly my point. Now unless the measurement of the inside of that tank has an actual volume of 80 cu ft (and that would be one huge tank), your example proves my point. If the tank has an actual internal volume of 2 or 3 cu ft and it is said to contain 80cu ft of the gas, then the volume of the container does not always equal the volume of gas contained within it... I rest my case. BTW, I do believe that a standard cubic foot is measured at (60°F) not (32°F) but I could be wrong.

compressed/decompressed...)

This is correct and a volume of any material is a measurement of the mass of the material which is very different than the volume of a container which is a measurement of space within the container.

We need go no further. Unless your container has a physical size of 80 cu ft, you have just demonstrated that the physical volume of a container has little to do with the volume of the gas that can be contained inside.

This is completely incorrect. The volume or mass of gas is what it is. You may compress or expand it to fit within a predefined space, but since the mass doesn't change, neither does it's volume. Remember, volume has very different meanings depending on what it is referring to. When used on a container, it is a measurement of area but when used on a material, whether solid, liquid, or gas, it is a measurement of quantity or mass of the material. And with a gas, unlike a liquid or a soild, it can change it's size and density to fit into whatever container but the mass remains the same, and if the mass remains the same.... so does its volume and your 80 cu ft tank of argon which is physically what size... proves my point.

I agree and am wondering why you are having such a hard time with it or are you just having a hard time with the definition of volume?

He called me a "h*mo", he called me a "h*mo", or lordy, is there anything worse he could do to me?

I give up, there is nothing good that can emerge from debating anything even remotely mathematical or scientific with an imbecile who's train of logic (if you could call it "logic") is this far out of whack with the rest of the thinking world...

DJ

David - 05 KTM 200EXC djonesLSidaho.com

Gas is compressable.... liquids and solids are not.

Alright - then explain to me what constitutes a "full" container of any gas? Is a CO2 tank "full" at 20psi? 200psi? 2000psi? Or is it not "full" until just before it bursts?

You're interchanging "amount" and "volume", and that's not correct. I can have the same amount of gas in a 20cu.in. container, or a 2 cu.in. container. It will just be at a higher pressure in the smaller container.

You're still not getting it.... unless you're talking about a measurement at STP, the term "1 cu.ft. of gas" is completely meaningless in terms of the amount of that gas.

Yes - at a specific temperature and pressure (in this case, 60°F and

14.7psi - different than STP). See, that's the whole problem here. You're always assuming that a volume of any gas, regardless of it's pressure, is measured AS IF that gas were at STP (or 60/14.7). What the rest of us (going WAY back to talking about the volume of air in an engine's cylinder) is that regardless of the pressure, the gas will have a volume equal to the size of the cylinder - just a simple measure of volume.

No - the standard cubic foot is a measure of the VOLUME of a gas at STP. A mole is a measurement of the AMOUNT of gas (counting the actual number of molocules). The two are completely separate and distinct measurements.

Sure it does - it defines the volume.

No... the AMOUNT of gas does not change - it's volume is certainly changing, inversely proportional to it's pressure. Textbook Boyle's Law...

I give up.... you're now claiming that a gas contained in a .5cu.ft. container actually has a volume of 80cu.ft. Forget about pressures, forget about temperatures, forget about other definitions. That gas is PHYSICALLY occupying .5cu.ft. That is it's volume in that tank. Yes, if allowed to expand to a pressure of 14.7psi, and 60°F, it would THEN have a volume of 80cu.ft. So what? If allowed to expand to a pressure of

13.2psi, and 40°F, it would then have a larger volume.

Bottom line: a measure of volume is just that - a measure of the physical space that matter occupies, at the time of measure. A measure of a standard cubic foot is a short-hand measurement of MASS, because we're defining additional parameters (ie. temperature and pressure), along with volume.

Yes, you're correct there. STP, which is used in scientific circles, is indeed 32°F/14.7psi. I wasn't sure which standard was used on something like a welding tank, but you're probably right - they use the SCF standard.

NO!!! Dammit, Tom... a measurement of a VOLUME of a gas has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the measurement of it's MASS. You need the volume, pressure, AND temperature to measure it's mass. The same applies to any matter - a cubic inch of aluminum does not have the same mass as a cubic foot of lead. Why? Different densities.

No - it has EVERYTHING to do with the volume of the gas inside it. It has NOTHING to do with the volume of gas AT A CERTAIN TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE.... a qualifier that you seem to be hung up on at all times. And since you seem to think of volume of a measurement of mass (as seen above), I understand where the confusion is occurring.

Mass does not equal volume. Until you understand this, we're at an impass here.

Mass does not equal volume.

Absolutely - we are in complete agreement here.

Mass does not equal volume.

Mass does not equal volume. I'm not the one having the hard time here.

well now.......you probably do consider me a friend because i give you some attention. i understand that you tried to pretend to be sarcastic but i think you are reallybeing serious. i am convinced that we are the only "friends" that you have. hey, i supposse you just have to take what you can get, but then you would be a better judge of that.

yes, but obviously you don't

if it has the same mass, the only way to alter the weight is to change the gravitational pull of the planet

weight = mass x gravitational acceleration

you really are too much....................

this from someone who has trouble with 3% / 2% = 150%