Power Flat Spots

[dlaing]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, but isn't the whole Algore Green Weenie message to completely ditch the errands that use so much energy and pollute so much in favor of more efficient errands that use much less energy and pollute much less?!

 

Hmmm. It "makes more sense on paper" for a Green Weenie to get far worse mileage than using a vehicle with a dramatically lower carbon footprint?!

 

Aha! The truth comes out!

 

So "pleasure" trumps "saving the planet" in terms of gas mileage achieved, eh, Dave?

 

Now that doesn't quite sound like the "carbon neutrality" that Chief Green Weenie Algore has been preaching to the rest of us (including you, Dave), does it???

 

It rather sounds lots more like wot you and Algore are both actually DOING though -- doesn't it, Dave?

 

See "Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own Inconvenient Truth” here:

 

"In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006."

 

SOURCE: ­The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions. Original article here:

 

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/articl...?article_id=367

 

Thanks for laying out your er, true Green Weenie hypocrisy so well.

 

Again, we all know that for Green Weenies, it's more important to FEEEEEEELL GOOD about "saving Moms Gaia" than it is to actually do something that has measurable results --even when you FOOL YOURSELF with backward reasoning and upside-down facts -- eh, Dave?

Listen here you Energy Pig, sure I have hypocritic tendencies to the degree that I am not living my IDEAL life. I am having trouble budgeting for the many thousands of dollars I would like to spend on solar electric and an electric motorcycle. Even an electric bicycle is difficult to budget for. When I bought my V11 it met environmental standards for the year 2000, which I thought might put Guzzi out of business, but somehow they met those standards. Compared to the 17MPG car I had at the time, getting a 35MPG bike, that I wrongly assumed would get better than 40MPG sure made a lot of sense, in a green way. I am not the greenest person on the planet, but that does not mean I should not talk the talk and advocate being more green. I have tried to optimize the map to get better fuel efficiency, but I hesitate to go leaner than stock without lamda measurement.

Go ahead and call me a hypocrite if it makes you feeeeel better.

I know I am not doing all that I can for humans and the planet, but I am doing OK.

If you want to call Al Gore a hypocrite, maybe you should compare him to other wealthy senators, etc. and while you are at it don't be so selective with your facts.

Or compare his house to the White House for energy usage.

Gore uses his house for business, which increases his demand over other households, especially for air conditioner needs for computers. Can you imagine how many computers this father of the internet needs? He ain't no dumb repub senator who thinks the internet is made of tubes like your internet neutrality buddy boy Ted Stevens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Sure Gore should spend thousands of dollars upgrading the air conditioning so that it only cools where necessary.

Gore buys his energy through a carbon offset program where he must pay more, to help reduce CO2 emissions...one of the reasons for his high energy bill.

Once the neo Nazis in his neighborhood relaxed the zoning laws, Gore put in solar panels. A fiscally un-sound investment, but perhaps a good political move as Ratchet and his buddies spout unbalanced propaganda across the internet that Gore helped get rolling. DickCheney's 2001 electric bill was 186,000, living in the same house that Gore used to live in. I wonder what Gore's bill was?

Maybe spending so much burning carbon makes them both experts!!

If you want find out what Gore really spent and not what Ratchet and his buddies will have you believe, go read:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/...in2522844.shtml

[Guest ratchethack]

Listen here you Energy Pig,

Well now Dave! I do b'lieve we have more classic shooting off in all directions again. . .

 

Now I'm an "energy pig"? Wouldn't this carry with it an implication that I squander energy in a wasteful manner?? And you don't?! And Algore's doesn't??!

 

Didn't we just discuss mileage on our motorcycles, Dave? On what possible basis have you come up with this conclusion, praytell?

I know I am not doing all that I can for humans and the planet, but I am doing OK.

Err, is this kind of statement wot passes for nobility amongst the Green Weenie crowd, Dave? Enquiring minds (well, you know. . .)

The reason Algore spends $30K on energy is because he pays this money for carbon offset credits?!

 

Gore buys his energy through a carbon offset program where he must pay more, to help reduce CO2 emissions...one of the reasons for his high energy bill.

I'd SO VERY MUCH, very much, very much like to hear your explanation for how paying carbon offsets reduces CO2 emissions, Dave. Please, please PLEASE do get back to me on this one, por favor!

 

Um, I do b'lieve you're terribly confused, Dave. In fact, I b'lieve you dreamed this up out o' thin air. . . Gore does NOT "buy energy" through a carbon offset program. Please consult the Tennessee Center for Policy Research source I provided above for the facts.

 

Tell you what, Dave. If you believe you can buy energy from a carbon offset program, you just let me know wot their rates are. I'd like to compare it to wot I pay SDG&E and see if I can get the same deal you and Algore get.

...your internet neutrality buddy boy Ted Stevens...

Err, my "buddy", Ted Stevens? I have no Idea wot y'er talking about, or who this is, Dave. Am I missing something important here? On what possible basis do you make this statement?? I do b'lieve you dreamed this up also.

 

You want to compare Gore's energy usage to the White House?! Why not compare it to the energy use of The Pentagon?!

 

Algore lives in a neighborhood of Neo-Nazi's? Don't you think he could afford any better than that?! I reckon a wealthy man who built his fortune and family trust on Occidental Petroleum stock, with 3 mansions, lives anywhere he wants, and it would appear that he prefers to live with Neo-Nazi's!! Wot d'you make of that , Dave??

DickCheney's 2001 electric bill was 186,000, living in the same house that Gore used to live in. I wonder what Gore's bill was?

WOW! I hardly know wot to think on this one, Dave?!?! Can you provide any more information on this? I have no idea wot y'er angle is here, but wotever it is, sumpin' tells me it ain't gonna work out so well f'er you. Just a hunch. . .

 

I thought by now you'd learned long ago that using Wikipedia and blatantly biased captive mainstream media propaganda like CBS/AP for sources were akin to making up whatever you want, Dave. But then you do tend to suffer relapses, don't you?

[dlaing]

 

My buddy, Ted Stevens? I have no Idea wot y'er talking about, or who this is, Dave. On what basis do you make this statement?? I do b'lieve you dreamed this up also.

 

You don't remember your stance on net neutrality?

 

 

 

 

I thought by now you'd learned long ago that using Wikipedia and blatantly biased captive mainstream media propaganda like CBS/AP for sources were akin to making up whatever you want, Dave. But then you do tend to suffer relapses, don't you?

you are so amazing. The truth bites and you say it was the boogieman.

 

 

I'd SO VERY MUCH, very much, very much like to hear your explanation for how paying carbon offsets reduces CO2 emissions, Dave. Please, please PLEASE do get back to me on this one, por favor!

 

Um, I do b'lieve you're terribly confused, Dave. In fact, I b'lieve you dreamed this up out o' thin air. . . Gore does NOT "buy energy" through a carbon offset program. Please consult the Tennessee Center for Policy Research source I provided above for the facts.

 

Tell you what, Dave. If you believe you can buy energy from a carbon offset program, you just let me know wot their rates are. I'd like to compare it to wot I pay SDG&E and see if I can get the same deal you and Algore get.

I could be wrong about that. I'll investigate at fox news dot com and get back to you

[Guest ratchethack]

You don't remember your stance on net neutrality?

Well of course I do, Dave. But by what possible twist of your fertile imagination could the idiotic statement of some knucklehead Senator on that subject have anything to do with wot we're discussing here?

I could be wrong about that. I'll investigate at fox news dot com and get back to you

An entire Forum full o' expectant and bedazzled students awaits your return, rapt in deepest yearning, filled with expectations of untold riches of knowledge and wisdom.

[dlaing]

Well of course I do, Dave. But by what possible twist of your fertile imagination could the idiotic statement of some knucklehead Senator on that subject have anything to do with wot we're discussing here?

PURELY partisan bickering and the amazing coincidence to which side of the political fence you keep falling on.

 

 

 

WOW! I hardly know wot to think on this one, Dave?!?! Can you provide any more information on this? I have no idea wot y'er angle is here, but wotever it is, sumpin' tells me it ain't gonna work out so well f'er you. Just a hunch. . .

 

you post a falsely inflated 30000 dollar Gore bill and you get confounded when I post a 186000 dollar Cheney bill for comparison?

The right wing propagandists prefer to use the Bush Ranch which has geothermal for comparison. Score one for Bush. In Cheney's defense, I can't imagine why the energy use would be higher for him than for any other VP that lived there.

[dlaing]

Gore purchases green energy which costs more.

Normal people consider it to be an act of walking the walk.

http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/

 

From the TVA (wanna talk about the TVA?)

"Residential Sign-Up

How to Plug In

 

Making the Green Power Switch® is as easy as flipping a light switch. You can buy green power in 150-kilowatt-hour blocks (about 12 percent of a typical household’s monthly use). Each block you buy will add $4 to your monthly power bill, and you can buy just one block or as many as you like. The green power you pay for will be added to TVA’s electric system as part of the Valley’s total power mix.

 

Why does green power cost more? Because although renewable resources like sunlight and wind are free, the technology for capturing their energy is still more expensive than traditional power generation methods. By choosing to pay a little more for Green Power Switch, you help advance the technology and increase the amount of electricity generated from cleaner sources. The dollars from every block of green power you buy go directly back into Green Power Switch.

 

When you fill out the Green Power Switch enrollment form, you’ll also receive the free energy right home evaluation form. The energy right program is a cooperative effort between your local public power distributor and TVA that helps consumers make their homes more energy-efficient. It will provide you with a customized analysis of your home electricity use and detailed suggestions for potential savings."

[dlaing]

 

I'd SO VERY MUCH, very much, very much like to hear your explanation for how paying carbon offsets reduces CO2 emissions, Dave. Please, please PLEASE do get back to me on this one, por favor!

 

Um, I do b'lieve you're terribly confused, Dave. In fact, I b'lieve you dreamed this up out o' thin air. . . Gore does NOT "buy energy" through a carbon offset program. Please consult the Tennessee Center for Policy Research source I provided above for the facts.

 

Tell you what, Dave. If you believe you can buy energy from a carbon offset program, you just let me know wot their rates are. I'd like to compare it to wot I pay SDG&E and see if I can get the same deal you and Algore get.

You are correct he buys them from a company that he is involved in. I hope he does not draw a salary from it. I am sure if he did, Ratchets buddies would be right on it.

I was confusing the carbon offsets with the TVA greenpowerswitch program.

You can learn about carbon offsets here

http://www.nativeenergy.com/Splash/Climate...l?ClimateCrisis

This type of plan works for people that need to consume energy.

For example if you have a family of 9 you would need a big SUV or Van to haul them around, so no Toyota Prius.

Or if you don't live in southern california, holland, or crawford texas solar energy, wind energy and geothermal energy might not be on the table.

This is when carbon offsets let you walk the walk.

Do the offsets work perfectly? I don't think so. There are marketing costs, profits to be made, and you are still setting a bad example living the big life. But every bit helps.

Allegedly after the offsets, Al Gore uses zero carbon!!!!

Think Green!

[dlaing]

Ratchet can continue to hijack the thread.

I am going to try to move on....apologies to all.

Here is an interesting piece on airbox design.

http://www.calsci.com/motorcycleinfo/Airboxes.html

I don't think the author has seen our airbox.

Anyone here smart enough to measure and convert the numbers to our bike?

[Guest ratchethack]

Ratchet can continue to hijack the thread.

No, that's OK, Dave. I'm all done here.

 

Leave us by all means conclude. I will not post again on this (at least in this thread).

 

Once again you've provided a target-rich environment to hone my shooting skills, and I appreciate it.

 

I've always found rapid-fire shooting clays to be great sport. Though I must say that I find it increasingly more of a challenge hitting the great number of easy targets you provide, simply due to the fact that your trademark "shooting off in all directions" style forces me to climb on board your familiar merry-go-round of misinformation and folly with you , and after awhile I find all the deceitful spinning makes it, er, more than a little nauseating. And o' course, after awhile, I find that as your "twist per minute" tempo tends to pick up, that taking aim from a rapidly spinning platform is pretty much out o' the question.

 

I do find it illuminating to peel back the onion a little to reveal the appalling lack of foundation for your, er, notions. We discovered long ago that you'd fallen for the well-worn techniques of the Hegelian dialectic and Marxian dielectical materialism, via the Classic pitting of "rich vs. poor" in this country. You had presented your view of a regressive U.S. tax system "due to payroll taxes", where (incredibly enough) "the rich" don't pay taxes in this country, and "the poor" carry the entire tax burden for the Nation! Now, suffering under this horrific delusion as you were (and no doubt still are), had it ever occurred to you to consider why it is that you keep voting for higher taxes, Dave?? (Well of course you do!) -- But I digress. . .

 

That was particularly informative for Y'ers Truly, Dave, because until then, I hadn't quite realized wot I was dealing with. That anyone of your age bracket could've even made it through high school with such a grossly distorted, pitifully ignorant, false perspective (let alone having no doubt advanced through a minimum of several tax brackets as an adult!!) had previously been unfathomable to Y'ers Truly! Of course, the most frightening part of this was the revelation that there must be literally MILLIONS of fools dumbed-down to this level of ignorance and illiteracy, allowing the deceit of Marxist propaganda from a century ago to be recycled and effectively used on the likes of yourself with no additional effort required to bring it up to the 21st century. Yes sir, like a hot knife through butter. Worked like a Champ back then in post-revolutionary Russia when the proletariat were illiterate in the classical sense, when propaganda opened the door for the most repressive and bloody "bait and switch" tyranny of all time (Socialism), as previously discussed ad nauseum in a previous thread. Of course the identical techniques still work like a Champ on equally propagandized fools here and now, in The (Dis)information Age, when the proletariat is equally (functionally) illiterate, and as poorly informed as yourself, because all remaining traditional forms of knowledge and wisdom that have not yet been "revised" by politically correct propaganda sources are so openly reviled, especially in the captive media and government schools.

 

Now in this latest little slice of heavenly exchange, Dave, it was deja vu with regard to the above, when I similarly found, after I begged you to please provide YOUR EXPLANATION for this simply incredible -- and oh-so-revealing -- ignorant statement of abject absurdity:

Gore buys his energy through a carbon offset program...

-- and in response to my most earnest request for YOUR EXPLANATION of "how paying carbon offsets reduces CO2 emissions", that you dodged my specific request completely, and instead substituted a link to one of the many Algore Propaganda of Global Extortion Fraud sites in reply. This response of course continues your usual pattern of naiveté, denial and deceit, and underscores your continued frightful lack of comprehension of a topic that you and I both spent a year er, debating, just last year. . . .[sigh]. . .

-- And then there was this:

Allegedly after the offsets, Al Gore uses zero carbon!!!!

-- In which it appears that you've become convinced, along with millions of similarly dumbed-down fools, of the thuddingly absurd notion that "carbon offsets" somehow magically "erase" carbon consumption and associated pollution, on the Medeival model of paying indulgences to the Roman Catholic church for sin! Where does the pollution from Algore's 20X average personal energy use go, Dave? Do you believe his "carbon offset" money magically "absorbs" CO2?? On this oh-so-convenient plan, if one can afford to PAY EXTRA for continuing to commit the sins (energy consumption and associated pollution) -- by all means, pay up and sin away (use more energy) to your heart's content, and be absolved of all wrongdoing!!!! Now for Algore, this is not a problem, as he has amassed a huge personal fortune on Occidental Petroleum stock ever since (and long before) he sat on the OP Board of Directors. But if YOU CAN'T AFFORD to pay carbon offsets, Dave, and YOU continue to consume "excessive" energy -- well, I reckon you must be an unrepentant sinner, a BAD PERSON -- and an ENERGY PIG, yourself!!!!!

 

For anyone interested in indulging in reality, The Times had their take on the silly fraud of carbon offsets a month ago:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2337485.ece

 

And The Financial Times conducted their own investigation of carbon trading, the UK being "ahead" of the US on this:

 

The FT investigation found:

 

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

 

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little

[motoguzznix]

Seems apropos in this thread, so I'm posting the dyno charts here, too.

 

 

This one is the chart after mapping the PC III. Configuration is '04 Ballabio with Mistral cans and crossover and airbox cut per Phil A.'s earlier recommendations, using round holes. If there's a torque dip, the chart appears not to show it.

 

This one's an imperfect comparison of the mapped configuration used on the first chart with nothing else changed except that I swapped on a BMC filter and fastened it with an airbox top that was completely cut away save for the rim. Surprising to me was how much more midrange torque it made with the BMC but that the paper filter produced more peak power. Both are contrary to what I would have expected.

Hi Greg

 

bypassing that private discussion I want to return to our technical issue - the torque flat spots.

 

One thing is interesting on your second power graph and maybe typical for the mistral crossover - there is no power increase above approx. 5500 - 6000 rpm. And this is not good for an engine that is designed for 8000 rpm because the engine is not capable to do what he's designed for.

This is normally not the case with the Stucchi crossover. Maybe you should give it an other try on the dyno with remapping to suit.

[dlaing]

Hi Greg

 

bypassing that private discussion I want to return to our technical issue - the torque flat spots.

 

One thing is interesting on your second power graph and maybe typical for the mistral crossover - there is no power increase above approx. 5500 - 6000 rpm. And this is not good for an engine that is designed for 8000 rpm because the engine is not capable to do what he's designed for.

This is normally not the case with the Stucchi crossover. Maybe you should give it an other try on the dyno with remapping to suit.

Hi Everybody,

Interrupting Motoguzznix and Greg's private discussion:

You might find this link useful. Most of us have probably seen it. It is revealing dyno work done by Doug Lofgren a few years ago.

http://www.visi.com/~moperfserv/more_mg.htm

It compares the stock, Stucchi, and Mistral crossovers.

Greg's Mistral curve may not have much power increase above 5500, but it does have some increase in power, and it has a much better increase than the one shown in Lofgren's dyno graph. (not all bikes and dynos are the same, but the curves are revealing)

Admin Jaap used to have a dyno of his with Mistral crossover that had excellent HP. I'd like to see how it compares to his with Stucchi crossover.

[Skeeve]

Hi Everybody,

Interrupting Motoguzznix and Greg's private discussion:

You might find this link useful. Most of us have probably seen it. It is revealing dyno work done by Doug Lofgren a few years ago.

http://www.visi.com/~moperfserv/more_mg.htm

It compares the stock, Stucchi, and Mistral crossovers.

Greg's Mistral curve may not have much power increase above 5500, but it does have some increase in power, and it has a much better increase than the one shown in Lofgren's dyno graph. (not all bikes and dynos are the same, but the curves are revealing)

Admin Jaap used to have a dyno of his with Mistral crossover that had excellent HP. I'd like to see how it compares to his with Stucchi crossover.

 

I wonder if we should term the various "crossovers" differently, according to function? For instance, there's no "front x-over" on my 2003 Le Mans, since the actually flow of gases around the 90deg corners is negligible: it's a front balance tube, since it does help to balance pressure [ie, it's function is more acoustic than flow.]

 

Accordingly, the Mistral & various H-pipe termed "cross overs" in the past would more correctly be called balance tubes, whereas the Stucchi 2->1->2 and the old "pretzel pipe" style from the V7 Sport are flow based and hence, would still be called x-overs...

 

Anyway, it might be more immediately revelatory why the Mistral loses power on the top end vs. the stock or Stucchi designs, since the flow of exhaust isn't really shared between mufflers.

 

But that's just my logical side shining thru...

[dlaing]

I wonder if we should term the various "crossovers" differently, according to function? For instance, there's no "front x-over" on my 2003 Le Mans, since the actually flow of gases around the 90deg corners is negligible: it's a front balance tube, since it does help to balance pressure [ie, it's function is more acoustic than flow.]

 

Accordingly, the Mistral & various H-pipe termed "cross overs" in the past would more correctly be called balance tubes, whereas the Stucchi 2->1->2 and the old "pretzel pipe" style from the V7 Sport are flow based and hence, would still be called x-overs...

One could also argue that both the balance pipes and X-overs create an imbalance, so maybe the H-overs should be called imbalance pipes????

Many things are happening in the X and H pipes, flow and sound waves are split, not balanced, for better or worse between the two exhaust pipes.

We could simply call the front imbalance pipe the front H-Pipe, the Stucchi and FBF could be called X-pipe or X-over, the Mistral could be called a double H-pipe, but do both pipes go through? But what would the stock thang be called? Splitter muffler????

Anyway, it might be more immediately revelatory why the Mistral loses power on the top end vs. the stock or Stucchi designs, since the flow of exhaust isn't really shared between mufflers.

 

But that's just my logical side shining thru...

I'd agree with that.

I predict the Mistral H-over (hang over?) would work best with very free flowing mufflers.

I also predict, Ryland's cross over-less idea will also need very free flowing mufflers, and it will probably have a power curve similar to the Mistral H-pipe, and probably with even less over all power. But once the ECU is optimized, the lack of cross interference will produce a very smooth running bike, with a beautiful clean exhaust note

[motoguzznix]

I predict the Mistral H-over (hang over?) would work best with very free flowing mufflers.

I also predict, Ryland's cross over-less idea will also need very free flowing mufflers, and it will probably have a power curve similar to the Mistral H-pipe, and probably with even less over all power. But once the ECU is optimized, the lack of cross interference will produce a very smooth running bike, with a beautiful clean exhaust note

The Mistral H-over (good idea, that name) costs power even on completely freeflowing mufflers. The measurements by Doug Lofgren are with open mistral mufflers, the measurements by Moto one are with open Leovinci cans and Gregs Billybob sports open FBF cans.

 

I agree with the smooth running using a crossoverless exhaust as I tried this on my LM2 together with open Lafranconi competiziones some years ago. Peak power was lower by feel, but no torque dip - did no dyno test at that time.

 

My best crossover was homecooked and looked alike:

The idea behind it was that every cylinder can make use of both mufflers, like it was intended with the V7Sport Crossover. While the V7S part is down on flow, my crossover is much better in flow characteristics. Power was promising, should once be developed further.

[Greg Field]

The Mistral H-over (good idea, that name) costs power even on completely freeflowing mufflers. The measurements by Doug Lofgren are with open mistral mufflers, the measurements by Moto one are with open Leovinci cans and Gregs Billybob sports open FBF cans.

 

I agree with the smooth running using a crossoverless exhaust as I tried this on my LM2 together with open Lafranconi competiziones some years ago. Peak power was lower by feel, but no torque dip - did no dyno test at that time.

 

My best crossover was homecooked and looked alike:

The idea behind it was that every cylinder can make use of both mufflers, like it was intended with the V7Sport Crossover. While the V7S part is down on flow, my crossover is much better in flow characteristics. Power was promising, should once be developed further.

 

I like that homecooked crossover, and I would like to do a direct comparison between the Mistral and Stucchi on the dyno. It'd cost some money to do this that I don't really want to spend right now, both for dyno time and for the crossover itself. I put on a set of MG Ti mufflers yesterday, and that seems to have given it more pull from 5500 rpm on up, plus that unbeatable sound. It's picked up a hiccup at part throttle from 2,000-3,000 rpm, though, so I'll eventually try a re-map. Perhaps by then I'll be in a position to try the Stucchi, too.

 

Actually, I did a personal audition of all the crossovers once on my own "butt dyno," riding my bike on the same day with the stock, Mistral, and Succhi crossovers, and found I liked the really smooth low and mid-range power of the Mistral more than I liked the top-end rush of the Stucchi. I commute on this bike in fairly heavy traffic most days. For that, the Mistral is far more satisfying. It pulls cleanly from 1500 rpm anytime I ask it to. I could live with the Stucchi, though. But that would mean I'd have to take off the centerstand, and I would miss that more than I miss the 3-5 hp at 8,000 rpm that I'm giving up. Life is all about compromises.

 

I do not believe the Mistral cost me any power compared to the stock crossover. It feels like it has more power everywhere, especially between 1500 and 5500 rpm. I believe it may have cost some top-end power compared to what it would make if I had the Stucchi fitted, though. I seldom ride at 7,500 rpm, though. I'm happy to have nearly 80 hp from 5500 rpm on and absolutely no torque dip.

 

What it feels like it needs most now is port work and more cam. I think it would also benefit form measuring clearances and seeing if I can up the c/r and tighten the squish. I'm doing all this on my Eldo right now. After that's done, maybe I'll play with the V11 engine some to see what's possible.

 

One guy told me of some intriguing work he's involved in. They cut divots in the i.d. of the ports, like those on a golf ball, and the work so far suggests real gains can be had. I may try that.