• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Exploration into Somender Groove Theory

My experience for whatever it is worth.
1994 940T, 15g, #46 injectors, MBR, 3" MAF, ebay intercooler, exhaust. Sucked the intake gasket in, decided to do head gasket because why not. Before the intake gasket, it pinged audibly on 91 octane. I prepped a non-shaved head with mild porting and SS grooves. It never pinged again on 91 octane.

https://i.imgur.com/5JeFTg9l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Gz31koHl.jpg
:rockon: Are you suggesting the initial head was shaved?
 
Just wanted to say, no conclusion would be valid unless you can prove the results are statistically significant.

To do this, you must have enough repeat tests/measurements to establish two (gaussian probably?) distributions for the two scenarios, and you can perform the appropriate statistical test to determine at which confidence interval you can say that the distribution means belong to two different statistically different distributions.

There is something also called uncertainty which will kill your results unless you can prove, through the uncertainty magnitude formula (in which you'll need precise measurements of every single variable you are holding as constant that would affect the dependent variable you are measuring (torque?)) that the test was well enough controlled to be able to mathematically validate your results.

I'm guessing somender grooves will yield a result on the magnitude of a couple percent, so you will need very precise measurements for all your constants...
These constants are identified from the mathematical derivation of Torque, which involves lots of efficiency parameters which all have sub-formulas themselves.
So you're looking at at least a dozen (maybe 2 dozen?) constants that you'll need to precisely record (imprecision will bloat your uncertainty) with top notch instruments just to be able to even say that the numbers you are getting are believable and fair

Eq0lF6lh.jpg


So basically, unless you are planning on taking on a task that is usually assigned to whole companies/universities, this test cannot possibly be scientific. It can only be anecdotal.

Long story short, I'm an active degreed M.E., been there done that with the inspiration and testing. What you are doing is not scientific unless you follow the above. I suggest you get with your school's IC engine department, help out with some experiments, and try to convince them to let you run your experiment there.
 
If you want to truely validate this stuff, it could be worthy of a senior thesis project. Its not a light undertaking.
 
I had presumed that the gains were had by improved swirl/tumble. I just did what my dad told me and cut the groves pointing towards the spark plug.

Watching the explination is this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6vZESKZSw
It is suggest that the groves create jets towards the spark plug improving ignition. That made me think of the Mercedes F1 engine ignition https://www.enginelabs.com/news/f1-tech-what-is-turbulent-jet-ignition/

It would be great to be able to see what effect it does have on the flame
 
Back
Top