Lean Sieze... oh man

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks for the pic.
I can't help but wonder why that concept can't be tuned to the power peak.
(think of a mini "pipe" in a can)
I expect it already is though, so maybe I'm way off base in my ponderings.

Just think in terms of the bass whistles that are used for speaker boxes.
Only smaller.
http://www.google.nl/patents/US7103193
 
Thanks for the pic.
I can't help but wonder why that concept can't be tuned to the power peak.
(think of a mini "pipe" in a can)
I expect it already is though, so maybe I'm way off base in my ponderings.

Just think in terms of the bass whistles that are used for speaker boxes.
Only smaller.
http://www.google.nl/patents/US7103193
I believe its possible, the only problem with that expansion chamber is that it isn't a flow design. What I mean is that the hole on the side is the exit, the front is the front, and the exhaust can exit through that hole before it hits the chamber on the end, or it can go right through to the end. I'm not an engineer but it seems the exhaust prevents the exhaust from exiting. :dizzy: Either way removing it changed everything.
 
SLR is different to deal with. The dolmar concrete saws have the same SLR
 
Yep. That is what is inside of them. Your warranty should still be good. Dolmar won't cover a raw gas failure so the dealer most likely ate the repair himself which means No claims have been filed on your saw
 
Yep. That is what is inside of them. Your warranty should still be good. Dolmar won't cover a raw gas failure so the dealer most likely ate the repair himself which means No claims have been filed on your saw
I'll probably be handling repairs myself or dealing directly with dolmar, I'm just about finished with my dealer.
 
While I don't envision being able to get any appreciable i.e. useable negative pressure to the cylinder from that chamber,
I'm mostly thinking if you exploit the original design intent of it to use that positive pulse
and perhaps could go a bit more aggressive on the porting ??

Could take a bit of repositioning or a bit of change in volume and/or effective length.
Where's Terry Syd ? He seems to like tangential thinking sessions.
 
DanTheCanadian said: ↑

“I'll probably be handling repairs myself or dealing directly with dolmar, I'm just about finished with my dealer.

John R said:
You are a forgiving man, if it were me I'd been done with him as soon as I found out he straight gassed my saw.

But I do remember in the first post you said you didn't want 50:1, and he made sure you didn't get it.
 

Attachments

  • thats just wrong bears.jpg
    thats just wrong bears.jpg
    59 KB
Wow, I ain't never seen anything like that SLR. According to the blurb on it, it's a Scavenging Losses Rejection (SLR). (I think something may have been lost in the English translation)

It looks to be a simple backpressure device that bleeds down. Conceptually it is suppose to add backpressure to the cylinder just before the exhaust port closes, thereby reducing the amount of fresh mixture that can escape out the exhaust port.

However, as the RPM increases, so does the backpressure in the SLR. If anything, you would want the opposite, a backpressure device that gives more backpressure at lower revs and less at higher revs.

They could have done the same thing with a small restrictive muffler, so why do it this way? Maybe they wanted to keep a larger muffler volume to help with noise and at the same time use the SLR to help past the emissions requirements.

I know if I had such a muffler the SLR would get 'lost'.

EDIT: On second thought, a small restrictive muffler would increase the backpressure during blowdown. They worked around that by having a 'volume' to accept the initial blast during blowdown and then letting the back pressure rise to prevent scavenging losses - I'd still 'loose' the device.
 
Wow, I ain't never seen anything like that SLR. According to the blurb on it, it's a Scavenging Losses Rejection (SLR). (I think something may have been lost in the English translation)

It looks to be a simple backpressure device that bleeds down. Conceptually it is suppose to add backpressure to the cylinder just before the exhaust port closes, thereby reducing the amount of fresh mixture that can escape out the exhaust port.

However, as the RPM increases, so does the backpressure in the SLR. If anything, you would want the opposite, a backpressure device that gives more backpressure at lower revs and less at higher revs.

They could have done the same thing with a small restrictive muffler, so why do it this way? Maybe they wanted to keep a larger muffler volume to help with noise and at the same time use the SLR to help past the emissions requirements.

I know if I had such a muffler the SLR would get 'lost'.

EDIT: On second thought, a small restrictive muffler would increase the backpressure during blowdown. They worked around that by having a 'volume' to accept the initial blast during blowdown and then letting the back pressure rise to prevent scavenging losses - I'd still 'loose' the device.

That is how i understand it to work. It's fun to tune the concrete saws with that feature. Removing it has provided some nice rpm gains in the cut though.
 
Wow, I ain't never seen anything like that SLR. According to the blurb on it, it's a Scavenging Losses Rejection (SLR). (I think something may have been lost in the English translation)

It looks to be a simple backpressure device that bleeds down. Conceptually it is suppose to add backpressure to the cylinder just before the exhaust port closes, thereby reducing the amount of fresh mixture that can escape out the exhaust port.

However, as the RPM increases, so does the backpressure in the SLR. If anything, you would want the opposite, a backpressure device that gives more backpressure at lower revs and less at higher revs.

They could have done the same thing with a small restrictive muffler, so why do it this way? Maybe they wanted to keep a larger muffler volume to help with noise and at the same time use the SLR to help past the emissions requirements.

I know if I had such a muffler the SLR would get 'lost'.

EDIT: On second thought, a small restrictive muffler would increase the backpressure during blowdown. They worked around that by having a 'volume' to accept the initial blast during blowdown and then letting the back pressure rise to prevent scavenging losses - I'd still 'loose' the device.
Device loss... I find the saw is quieter now. Maybe its just me, I should do a decimal test.
 
On the concrete saws we remove the SLR chamber and add a second port. They are definitely louder than stock. With just the stock outlet it has a different sound but not any louder. At least that i can tell
 
Thanks for the feedback guys. The little bugger has just made me curious.
 
Can't speak to the 7310 Saw as that is the only saw i don't stock. $50 more and you have a 7910 so i can't justify keeping it. All my experience with SLR mufflers comes from the chop saws
 
Can't speak to the 7310 Saw as that is the only saw i don't stock. $50 more and you have a 7910 so i can't justify keeping it. All my experience with SLR mufflers comes from the chop saws
I should have done more research when I bought mine. Around here its closer to 100$ but I had not realized there isn't any weight penalty.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top