×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

OHV valve train "short-side" weight?

OHV valve train "short-side" weight?

OHV valve train "short-side" weight?

(OP)
I've seen many comments that any reduction in tappet, pushrod or rocker short side lever weight has almost no effect on determining spring rate and RPM.
This must, IMHO, be due to the amplified movement of the long-side bits (valve, collar, locks, lash cap, long lever) by the rocker ratio. Although no longer common, fairly competitive engines were once built with 1:1 rockers (H-D knucklehead, BSA Gold Star), and in these cases the short and long side parts must have equal effect, yes?
What I cannot grasp is what relative value to assign to the differences between short and long side parts based on a rocker ratio of more than 1:1, let's say 2:1 to keep the math easy.
1. The long side parts travel 2X the distance, have 2X the mean and maximum velocity, and accelerate at 2X the rate of the short side parts.
Are these factors cumulative? Duplicative? Exponential?
2. To balance this, the short side parts have 2X the spring load at all points.
If common wisdom (short side parts less important) prevails, clearly factors 1. & 2. are not equal and self-cancelling, with 1. higher, but how much?
IMHO it can't be a direct addition, subtraction or proportion but must be a (fractional) exponent, or the values would not match on both sides for a 1:1 rocker.

Possible answer #1 is to ignore acceleration in 1., multiply speed and distance to get (rocker ratio^2), then divide by ratio to compensate for spring load.
This leaves the relative value of a gram of short side weight as proportionate to long side weight X (1/rocker ratio), or 50% in this case. A 1.5:1 rocker would yield 66.7%, etc.

Possible answer #2 is to use all factors in 1., multiply acceleration, speed and distance to get (rocker ratio^3), then divide by ratio to compensate for spring load.
This leaves the relative value of a gram of short side weight as proportionate to long side weight X (1/rocker ratio^2), or 25% in this case.
A 1.5:1 rocker would yield 1/(1.5^2) or 44.4%, etc.

Too easy?
Partial exponents rather than squares, like ^1.5?
Better idea?

RE: OHV valve train "short-side" weight?

I think you'll find that acceleration is the all-important factor.

RE: OHV valve train "short-side" weight?

I think Mr Newton would be very upset if this was not the case.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources