- Local time
- 9:44 PM
- User ID
- 309
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 7,839
- Reaction score
- 49,444
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
That picture is worth more then a thousand words.
That picture is worth more then a thousand words.
I leave all that to Julian!well getter done brad. you will need a few thing for the test.
2 new ms 461's
a climate controlled lab, you know, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure. that kind of stuff.
2 dynameters
2 of them muffler sniffers
2 tachometers
a hole bunch of temp sensors , egt, head, cylinder wall, bearings, piston, you get the idea
some sort of air flow sensor on the carb
determine how much fuel is being used per second of run time
determine that both saws run the same within these parameters, if not then buy more saws till you get 2 the same
nothing to it, now chop chop
anything less just would not be fact, right?
Interesting stuff.
Makes one think.
In designs with side fed lowers. charge gets pressed through the piston side ribs, cooling the piston and rod/bearing. Without this bridge/flange, the charge would get pushed through the case to the front fed transfers and miss a lot of the piston.
I guess this answers why Stihl used an open sided piston in the 461/661 in lieu of a closed/full round piston. With a closed piston design, the upward directed flow would have nowhere to escape. This was a question I’ve seen asked a bunch of times as well.
So, I’m imagining, the guys who have cut in JMS style side wall transfers and have eliminated the front fed ones could safely eliminate the bridge. Would increase case volume though.
He has tried to take credit for this idea in the past.Interesting stuff.
Makes one think.
the guys who have cut in JMS style side wall transfers .
So if I’m understanding correctly it would look like 395 style transfers with them done that way?He has tried to take credit for this idea in the past.
Truth be told, it wasnt even his idea to do so in the 661
I remember the day this all went down, even still have the text messages from it
Mike Lee suggested it
Jason cut in dual feeds
I cut in single feeds
The same day that Mike suggested it, Jason cut in his duals
The next day after Mike suggested it, I cut in mine
I know for sure, found out that week, others fed the 661 transferrs from the sides before any of us on here even tried
Yep. I did a single hole to feed the secondary similar to what treemonkey did on his 385 wild thingHe has tried to take credit for this idea in the past.
Truth be told, it wasnt even his idea to do so in the 661
I remember the day this all went down, even still have the text messages from it
Mike Lee suggested it
Jason cut in dual feeds
I cut in single feeds
The same day that Mike suggested it, Jason cut in his duals
The next day after Mike suggested it, I cut in mine
I know for sure, found out that week, others fed the 661 transferrs from the sides before any of us on here even tried
What this does not prove:
1. The saws which incorporate this technology otherwise have cooling issues
2. Removal of this part would lead to imminent over heating and failure of the saw
1. Some are blocking off the original port openingsInteresting stuff there Kevin, but I have some questions.
1) Do you leave the original opening open, or block it off? I'm thinking to make it work effectively you would block the port right under your opening to force the direction of flow.
2) In addition to a performance gain, do you notice a difference in the operating characteristics with this change? (like exchanging low end for high end, etc).
Thanks!
Ah, I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying I had to be a chemist to pass judgement on an oil, so figured you must be one.
1. Some are blocking off the original port openings
2. It got angry, without any trade offs on either the high or low ends
What exactly is “the John Deere effect” ?I seem to remember a john deere effect