How an Expansion Chamber Works
Two strokes can function with significantly better power if they are aided in these 4 ways: 1) pulling in extra intake charge up from the crankcase into the cylinder, 2) pulling in extra intake charge from the carburetor into the crankcase, 3) preventing the intake charge from escaping through the exhaust port (so it can be used for combustion), 4) boosting the compression at top RPM for a faster burn and more power. An expansion chamber does just that. But at what part of the powerband it does it is dependent on how far from the engine the diffuser cone and baffle cone are. That is because the pressure wave (created when the exhaust suddenly enters the exhaust pipe) travels at a certain speed, so many meters per second. When the wave enters the diffuser cone the sudden expansion causes a reverse traveling suction wave which, when it arrives back at the cylinder matches the crankcase suction in order to prevent sucking exhaust gas from the cylinder into the transfers, and/or helps to pull up gasoline/air mixture from the crank into the cylinder. When the ongoing pressure wave in the pipe hits the baffle cone the sudden contraction of the wave causes a reverse pressure wave which, when it arrives back at the cylinder, prevents the escape of intake charge if the wave arrives between the time the piston closes the transfer ports and closes the exhaust port.I used to think that explanation was just speculation until I studied professor Blair's work. In his "Design and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines", in chapter two entitled "Gas Flow Through Two-Stroke Engines", he gave the results of tests with pressure waves in pipes that proved the above explanation. For more detailed info on this go to the bottom of this page.
I have made an Excel file for analyzing the dimensions of an expansion chamber to see if they are in harmony with the cylinder port timing and desired peak RPM of the engine. (An Excel file automatically does calculations and displays/graphs the results when information is entered into the correct data "boxes".)
The Hidden Action of Expansion Chambers:
The two main considerations are: how many milliseconds long the return wave has, and what the shape of the diffuser is (whether it is a single cone or if multiple cones then what waveshape do they create so that it matches the type powerband you want). Greater angle of diffuser sections means the diffuser will be shorter. Jennings wrote in his Two Stroke Tuners Handbook that multi-coned diffusers cause a higher return wave peak which increases power. I would add that stronger return waves are more likely to suck out fresh intake charge from the cylinder unless the transfers have a good design so that they are good at directing the intake charge towards the back of the cylinder. Also the transfers roof angle comes into play as the more horizontal they are, the more likely the intake charge can be sucked out the exhaust port instead of heading up to the spark plug. Also a strong return wave may suck out too much intake charge if the front transfers are very close to the exhaust port. You can tell by looking at the pattern the intake flow leaves on top of the piston. (see example). The diffuser angles should also be in relation to crankcase compression ratio because a high ratio (1.5:1 or more) has more need of a strong vacuum wave from the diffuser to counter the crankcase suction as the piston rises after BDC. Otherwise some exhaust gas gets sucked back down into the crankcase. The advantage of a multi-coned diffuser: Since the main factor affecting the strength of the return wave is the percentage change of cross sectional area (every 10mm) then a single angle diffuser cone for my 55cc engine ended with a 6.5% area change (for the last 10mm distance of the cone) whereas a 3 stage cone I designed, although the belly cross sectional area was 9 times that of the header, ended up with a strong 9.1% area change at the end. A 2 or 3 stage diffuser causes the percentage area change to be more evenly spread out along the length of the diffuser instead of having very strong changes at the beginning (15.5%) and very weak changes at the end (6.5%).
Here's the return waves for the 3 types of diffusers:
Click here to read more about diffuser cone angles.
Maximum Cross Sectional Area of
The belly exists to keep the diffuser and baffle waves from overlapping too much which would cause a canceling of their pressure differences. You can see in the graph below (calculated using Boyles Law) that as the belly width increases there is a more minimal pressure change and therefore weaker return wave strength. 10.3 psi is a typical exhaust pressure peak in the header which is the beginning absolute pressure in this graph. (Absolute pressure is psi + 14.7) It is the pressure changes in the exhaust wave going thru the pipe that cause the secondary waves to return to the cylinder. The more pressure change, the stronger the return wave is. So although there are pressure changes all the way up to 4.5 times the header diameter it is just not recommended to expand that far. Using multi-coned diffusers I wouldn't recommend going over 3 times the header diameter.
If the belly is too wide then that causes the end of the diffuser and the beginning of the baffle to be "dead zones" that cause very minimal return wave strength and so in essence lengthens the belly. That is why some people think that having a wide belly widens the powerband (at the expense of peak power). Well, it does but sometimes because it's causing a longer virtual belly section at the expense of the diffuser and baffle lengths which does widen the powerband at the expense of peak power.
With most bikes there is limited space which sets the maximum diameter of the belly and so the diffuser and baffle have to be designed to accommodate the belly diameter. It is always parallel-walled. When designing a pipe it is always best to make variations to it and note the results at the power graph. Below are 3 graphs showing the difference in pipe powerbands for different belly lengths with a single cone baffle. The shortest belly gave the best peak power but the need for the powerband to be wider than each gears RPM range is more important than peak power. When you upshift you want to be within the pipe powerband.
The Baffle Cone
The purpose of the baffle is to create a return wave so that at high RPM the return wave arrives back at the cylinder before the exhaust port is closing in order to increase cylinder pressure. Without it the piston will push intake charge out the exhaust port as it rises. Providing a pressure to match or exceed the pressure created in the cylinder by the ascending piston (~5psi) is the reason for the baffles return wave as well as increasing dynamic engine compression. Doing both things increases engine power at high RPM. Unfortunately, at all engine RPM except near peak RPM, the return wave returns when the transfers are open and tends to push exhaust gas and/or intake charge back down into the crankcase from the cylinder via the transfers which limits mid range engine power. But if you want an engine with explosive power on top then you have to have a strong baffle return wave. The baffle should be designed to match the bikes RPM range of the needed powerband which takes precedence over the peak power you want. A longer baffle due to a lesser angle will allow a slightly wider pipe powerband, but its main advantage is less power loss when the engine RPM is just below the RPM range of the powerband.
The perfect location for the baffle, in distance from the piston, needs to be set to match the desired peak RPM of the desired powerband. The header, diffuser, and belly set its length from the piston. But if the baffle uses many cones of differing angles then using a formula can't accurately determine the tuned length because a formula doesn't take into account the modified baffle wave shape (due to multiple cones).
For a single angle baffle cone the steeper the angle the stronger the baffle return wave and the stronger the supercharging effect. Lesser angles cause less peak power but don't restrict pre-powerband power as much as a steep angle and so are better for trail bikes and street bikes (although you can eliminate most of that power dip with a boost bottle). Making a 3 cone baffle with increasing angles gives more power at the beginning of its pipe powerband. It is normally better for large bore engines or trail/street bikes. A 3 cone baffle with decreasing angles gives more power near the end of the pipe powerband. It is normally better for race engines. Click here to read more on this subject.
Ratio of Diffuser Angle to Baffle Angle
Others have written that the diffuser angle needs to be half that of the baffle angle but that is a crude generality that doesn't apply here because all the best of my pipe designs have multiple cones for diffuser and baffle which complicate the situation. All that really matters is the return waves and so I will speak in regards to them. If the diffuser wave peak strength is too weak in relation to the baffle wave peak strength then you will have that horrible pre-powerband engine drop in power that is common with race bikes (that are intended to only be ridden within their pipes powerband). I had a pipe do that on my 100cc street bike and it was completely annoying. It ruined my riding experience until I redesigned the pipe to not do that (by increasing the belly diameter and the diffuser angles). I wouldn't recommend allowing that to happen with any pipe design for an enduro or street bike. If your ride has that problem then you can try lessening the pipe back pressure caused by the stinger (if it's smaller than what ECcalc recommends on sheet 2) by increasing the stinger diameter. Back pressure adds to the baffle wave strength which increases the pre-powerband power dip.
The stinger acts as a bleed off valve for the pipe. It controls the amount of average pressure in the pipe. More pipe pressure adds to the baffle wave and detracts from the diffuser wave. So too narrow or too long a stinger will decrease the diffuser wave too much. The pipe pressure caused by the stinger increases with RPM so that the highest pressure is at top RPM which is why it hurts the diffuser wave the most there, more so than at mid RPM.
I never believed that the length of a tube would have much affect on its ability to flow air through it till I blew into two tubes of the same diameter but different lengths and could feel the difference of resistance to flow between the two. Then I looked for a good flow calculator and found one that works good. We can use these input parameters: diameter stinger interior in inches (which is mm/25.4), GPM=cc above exhaust port (or 72% of engine size) x 1.5 thermal expansion x .00027 conversion factor cc to gallons x RPM), length of stinger in feet (mm/304.8), .001 specific gravity for air, .168 cP viscosity for exhaust, no couplings, results in a calculation of psi difference from beginning to end of pipe. Experimenting with stinger diameters and using the flow calculator I concluded that a good range of stingers would provide from .1 psi to .5 psi which my Excel file does a good job of calculating diameters and lengths to approximate that range. Although the formula in my Excel file now calculates the minimum and maximum stinger sizes for 3 different lengths of stingers you may want to double check the results at the flow calculator site. For more on stinger sizing click here. Flow restriction from the silencer, if not a completely flow-through design, contributes to total exhaust restriction and to back pressure which restricts the engine a bit. For example my Suzuki 100 gained 10kph more top speed when the silencer was removed. Excessive exhaust restriction also adds to engine heat.
If the stinger originates at the side of the belly, and not the end of the baffle, then the exhaust pulse loses its bark and bite for a much more silent exhaust system (a whopping 84% quieter according to my decibel meter). Although my computer mic doesn't capture the sharpness of the exhaust note exiting a standard stinger, you can watch this video to see and hear how quieter the exhaust is when it exits the belly. Gordon Jennings wrote that a belly stinger adds a little bit of mid range power without losing any high RPM power. His belly stinger was the stinger pipe stuck up into the pipe so that its beginning was at the same distance from the piston that the beginning of the baffle was. Just be sure to weld a little support connecting the inner stinger to the belly so that it won't break its weld from being moved up/down by you hitting bumps at speed. Click here to see a belly stinger "channel" before being welded to my pipe. I cut off the previous stinger and had it welded to the belly stinger channel. Then the end of the baffle cone was welded shut. Click here to see the end product. This graph shows how too much pipe pressure can reduce the diffuser wave at peak RPM when the back pressure is excessive. Notice that the waves "centerline" is at 5psi (not 0) due to back pressure and that the -12psi diffuser wave is reduced to -7 psi by the 5 psi back pressure:
My experience tells me that if the intake of an engine is restricted with too small a carburetor or too small a reed valve then it's best to have a big diameter stinger for no back pressure. But if the carb and reed are good then a little back pressure can give you a little more horsepower. How I analyze a reed valve is by using my fingernails to hold open the reeds and measure the opening height and width (which multiplied together gives the area). The trick is in estimating how much pulling force happens at the reeds as the piston rises to create a vacuum. Here is the formula for determining correct carburetor size:
Carb throat inner diameter = K x square root of (engine cc x (peak power RPM/1000))
K for piston port intakes is .9 and for reed valve intakes .8 is its value.
My Expansion Chamber Calculator "ECcalc", how to use it, how to obtain it, and comparison to a free calculator.
The mathematical basis for the calculations of the return waves in my Excel file.
An example of pipe analysis and redesign.
Pipes built using this method.
My video showing how to make a pipe by hand.
How ECcalc agrees with the real life exhaust pressure graphs from Blair.
Three examples showing how accurate ECcalc is compared to dyno graphs.
Questions and comments can be directed
to me, Michael, at firstname.lastname@example.org
details from "Design
and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines"
Here is the graph from page 181 showing the sensor #1 sensing the initial pressure wave, and then the negative (vacuum) return wave, then the return wave bounced back from the closed cylinder port, then the wave reflected back from the diffuser as a positive wave:
What is most important about this test is the recorded time it takes for the wave to travel these known distances. The distance, in meters divided by the wave speed, in meters per second (mps), gives the time of wave travel. (m/mps=time) This test proves that the negative return wave is reflected back all along the length of the walls of the diffuser cone. Doing a graphical analysis of the wave graph I determined the initial positive wave was 7.2 milliseconds wide and that the negative return wave was 8.8ms wide. The increase in width is due to the length of the diffuser, at the end of which is where the last of the positive wave reflects back from. The way to calculate the return timing and length of the negative wave in a 2 stroke expansion chamber is by this formula: WRT1=(D1x2)/SW where WRT1 is the wave return time for the first part of the wave, D1 is the distance from cylinder port to beginning of diffuser, and SW is the speed of the wave which is determined by the temperature and chemical composition of the exhaust gas (and almost impossible to calculate). To figure the return time for the end of the wave is WRT2=((D2x2)/SW)+WW/2 where D2 is the distance from port to the end of the diffuser, and WW is the width of the initial wave which is figured thusly: WW=(60/RPM)xBD/360 where RPM is the top engine rpm, and BD is the blowdown in degrees (exh ATDC - transfer ATDC).
Baffle Cone and its Return Wave
Next we can glean information from his test on the baffle cone:
Doing a graphical analysis of the wave graph I determined the wave action can be determined in the same way as with the diffuser cone except that the return wave is positive instead of negative. The return wave starts its return at the beginning of the cone, and the end of it begins its return at the end of the cone. This effectively defines the return action of the wave in a very specific way, with no room for other theories.