4" exhaust?
Community Organizer
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 31,070
Likes: 566
Originally Posted by sbrodacz,Sep 23 2009, 12:06 PM
Why do my post always turn into pissing matches?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
exhaust flow = ((EGTF + 460)/540) x Intake CFM
velocity = (4 x cfm)/Pi*D^2
If I really need to ill scan a page of a textbook with what I am using for optimum velocity but I have no reason to lie about any of this. I'm just trying to help the OP by telling him what I know instead of just guessing...
Anyone need those units converted lol
Anyone stubborn enough to think that a theory they randomly came up with is still right I guess I shouldn't bother trying to convince. I could do a CFD on the 2 size tubes but for something as basic as this the CFD is going to come out almost exactly like those two equations so it's not worth my time.
velocity = (4 x cfm)/Pi*D^2
If I really need to ill scan a page of a textbook with what I am using for optimum velocity but I have no reason to lie about any of this. I'm just trying to help the OP by telling him what I know instead of just guessing...
Anyone need those units converted lol
Anyone stubborn enough to think that a theory they randomly came up with is still right I guess I shouldn't bother trying to convince. I could do a CFD on the 2 size tubes but for something as basic as this the CFD is going to come out almost exactly like those two equations so it's not worth my time.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Just want to quickly chime in here. the one dude (i think it was momentum) said physics says X, but he didn't link to any journal/anything backing up those physics.
So when bstone says "check your physics" or whatever, that can be interpreted as, "provide some evidence showing that that's how physics say this situation would play out."
It's not "evidence" if you say "according to physics the sky is black", you have to show that physics (or whatever) supports that statement.
I'm not jumping in on either side of the argument, just trying to enlighten as to how something would actually be considered "evidence"
So when bstone says "check your physics" or whatever, that can be interpreted as, "provide some evidence showing that that's how physics say this situation would play out."
It's not "evidence" if you say "according to physics the sky is black", you have to show that physics (or whatever) supports that statement.
I'm not jumping in on either side of the argument, just trying to enlighten as to how something would actually be considered "evidence"
