question for b[r]ent, the "engineer"

Not even changes... if you care about 2 degrees or less, that may be within the tolerances of the machining of an aftermarket camshaft WRT the keyway on the nose and the real centerline of the lobes, that's why the instructions tell you to break out the degree wheel. (I would ASSume that if he's using a factory cam however the keyway or whatever is machined to tight tolerances, as degreeing in is not part of a typical factory engine assembly procedure.) And likewise with the TDC mark on the harmonic balancer or however crank rotation is referenced; since in the modern era timing is not usually set by a light but by the ECM using a crank position sensor, any visible marks may not be stamped/machined to the same tolerances that they were back in the day (and even then you had to take those readings with a grain of salt.)

I've rarely laughed so hard in my life. In lieu of presenting an actual mathematical challenge for an engineer (which he provides proof of not having the first clue in how to approach), an attempt something along the lines of integro-differential or partial differential equations, Fourier or Laplace transforms perhaps, he yet again exposes his own inimitable, risible ignorance by instead posing a quasi incomprehen- sible, amateurishly worded problem (which he doubtlessly considers demanding) the possible intent of which is easily solved by applying nothing more rigorous than the techniques of high school level trigonometry.

from an "engineer", that statement is completely unreal - it's like a software guy not bothering with code.

unbelievable - another arithmophobic "engineer". disgusting actually.

tegger is the closest so far. and the gear wheel diameter [and thus radius - hint] should be a dead giveaway...

So you'd rather take the time to do completely useless math that will tell you what you know already - that a degreeable pulley will work - and then have to degree in the cam anyway, rather than just skipping to the important step and getting the job done?

I hope you're getting paid by the hour.

nate

"Heron" wrote in news:jv3m1p$nk$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

Not even that. Simple grade-school algebra solves it.

but you don't "know already", that's the whole point, retard. and you certainly don't if you change the head thickness with machining or use a different thickness gasket. or a combination thereof.

unbelievable.

frankly, i doubt you could compute even that kind of math.

there's trig if you have a different gear size. but it is indeed simple.

*sigh*

you just proved my point. You don't know how much the head is milled, you don't know how thick the head gasket is. All you really need is a back of the envelope proof of concept, Tegger already showed that the change in angle is going to be within the range of adjustability of the cam pulley, just put the damn thing together already and break out the degree wheel and dial indicator.

You can spend hours looking up all the variables, or you can just do it.

nate

And yet you can't answer a simple drafting problem which has real engineering concepts behind it and requires nothing more than good sense and being able to understand the concept of adding numbers.

Meanwhile you think a backyard hot-rodding question poses engineering value.

Certainly across the stack up of tolerances worrying about 1 degree or so on mass produced stuff is kind of silly. The reason someone goes through the excerise of degreeing the cam is to eliminate the effect of the tolerances stacking up. By adjusting specifically for that engine the differences of all the involved parts from nominal are compensated for.

but not as silly as the person that can't do the math making wrong assumptions - as you just have.

no they're not. but you wouldn't know that from your "analysis".

your question is merely a matter of convention - and one accessible to

11-year olds [i think that was my age when i did technical drawing at school]. something so trivial as if it were some kind of high level challenge speaks volumes.

my question otoh requires that you use your "engineering" skills, and for someone who purports to be an engineering graduate, the answer should be trivial. that you /can't/ answer because you're not what you purport to be concludes the series.

eh? the adjustability is so that you can dial in the result once you've determined what it needs to be!!! utterly bizarre comment.

but there's nothing to "look up" retard. unless you need to "look up" high school trig.

oh, and do you also need help to "look up" what a killfile is?

no, there was nothing changeable and nothing withheld. it was a simple math question any "engineer" should have been able to answer. [or even high school math student come to that.] it was designed to determine whether you were actually what you said. and the answer is now very clear. thank you.

the real irony is that my question, with answers, is already here on the google groups archive from several years ago. but apparently you're too retarded to even look it up.

anyway, thanks for playing. just remember, what matters on usenet is not whether you can pretend to have a hat, but whether you can show you have the cattle.

game over.

*yawn* go back under your bridge already.

I think a homeless guy might be moving in under that bridge you better get back there before he steals your duct tape and WD-40.

Just admit you can't answer.

It's backyard hot rodding, not engineering. Not that you know the difference.

I answered even though you couldn't even articulate a question in anything approaching the proper language and left so many gotchas in it with your piss poor grammer and leaving out details as to always have an escape for yourself. Go back under your bridge.

won't answer != can't answer, retard.

back to your old favorite of accusing me of exactly /your/ own problem.

wriggle. squirm. there's no gotchas - you just can't do the math.

You didn't even specify if the engine was SOHC, DOHC, OHV, or something else entirely.

It's a backyard hot rodding question to be able to set up the math problem. Except your piss poor language abilities make it impossible to do so without making assumptions.

I never claimed to be a backyard hot-rodder, nor a four stroke engine designer. Thus, even if I were wrong, which I wasn't, because if I was you wouldn't have gone this route, it proves absolutely nothing.

You're just buying time until you figure out how to exploit your own piss poor problem statement.

Why should I look up your old posts? Read your backyard hackary and drivel and get a wrong answer? And what's "here"? This is usenet, not "google groups". Oh wait, you don't know the difference, do you?

The fact of the matter is, for the assumptions I had to make, the answer is correct.

You're just a backyard hack, with hack question, that you can't even articulate well. Teenagers on web forums articulate their questions better than you can. Why? Not just because they are smarter than you but because they want a useful answer. You're simply a troll.

And you lost. Buying time trying to find an out exploiting your piss poor language skills isn't going to change that.

You were given a numerical answer days ago. Go look it up.