Kels wrote:?....
With the decades following the 70's and and advancement of 2 stroke complexity and understanding.. came many new dynamic variables and the true complexity of the 2 stroke engine.
These variables add a complexity to the diagnosing of engine failures and their associated remedies.
Ideal gas and fluid dynamic laws pertaining to things like an exhaust system simply fall short in the real world. Ideal laws are just that.. Ideal.. the 2 stroke engine does not fall under the ideal category.
You have made this statement, and others like it, several times over past weeks, but offer nothing other than the statement itself as proof of the idea. It is not enough to say things have changed. If you care to share, identify what it is in internal combustion theory that has, in fact, changed in the past 100 years or so, but please don't just offer links to your self-published opinion pieces on your website. They are not tech articles, and contain no science and no test data. Take any one of your assertions and put it into a context that has application here, and offer, if you can, repeatable test results that support your conclusions. Or, if you rely on the science of others, cite them and their work so we can go and read for ourselves.
Also, to say that just because an engine in function is not an ideal does not equate to the conclusion that laws of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics don't apply or have changed. These laws certainly have not changed, particularly as a result of changes in engine design. Overall efficiency of any internal combustion engine has not changed significantly in the last 50 years (somewhere around 25% efficient) and more to the point, design changes in modern two stroke engines have no bearing at all on an engine designed in 1970. The rules haven't changed, and neither has the Hodaka engine. Folks have found ways to make them more powerful than as originally designed, certainly, but not more efficient, and thus no closer to an ideal. You can't make more power without using more fuel, and you can burn more fuel and also raise efficiency. Engines turn fuel into heat. More fuel, more heat. But 75% or more of the heat generated is lost, through the exhaust, the cylinder and head, and through the engine cases. If this were not so, the engine would not get hot to the touch.
What you assert here is what my English teachers used to call "glittering generalities." They sound great but are meaningless. If you wish to share some of this new theory and new science with the crowd, feel free.
It wasn't my intention to suggest that heat soak was a causal function. It is, rather, a result. In this case we were discussing the spark suppressor only, and it's general effect on the bike. It didn't matter, and doesn't matter, that increased pipe pressures also have a ripple effect on other variables. True or not, it wasn't the point. Citing to these phenomenon without a reason only shows what you believe you know about engines generally, but doesn't help solve the question of what to do with or about a restrictive spark suppressor.
In short, you can't change one aspect of a power plant without affecting the balance of the equation. That's a given. But that wasn't the problem. If you have a suggestion for altering the flow of a Hodaka spark suppressor to the benefit of the engine as built, have at it. I don't have one other than removing it and replacing it with something else. Drilling holes in the baffles will marginally increase flow, but may not really have much of an affect either, other than making it no longer a spark suppressor.
