Parallel vacuum sources

  • #1
11
1
I have two vacuum sources each pulling 1 inHG. If I connect the vacuum sources to a Y-connector, with identical sized hoses, so that each pulls on one tip of the Y, will I get 2 inHG vacuum on the remaining hose, or will I get 1 inHG with more cfm?

Thank you,
B
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Tom.G
Science Advisor
3,386
2,132
1 inHG with more cfm!
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #3
11
1
Thank you. But...Dang it. I don't know what to do with that information.
So the application can be explained like this... The crankcase in an engine is constantly pressurizing from air leaking past the piston. There needs to be a constant vacuum source pulling this pressurized air out of the crankcase and bringing in fresh air from outside. So the crankcase should always be under negative pressure.
It sounds like the most important thing in this situation is how much cfm the vacuum source can evacuate from the crankcase. Having a 15 inHG vacuum that only evacuates 1cfm is not as beneficial as 1 inHG that evacuates 5cfm. Does this sound like a correct statement for this example?
I feel it is more complicated than that because air is compressible.
 
  • #4
Tom.G
Science Advisor
3,386
2,132
The usual approach in an Internal Combustion engine is to vent to the atmosphere thru a rather coarse filter, then run a vacuum line (usually small) from the crankcase to the input manifold. Look up 'PCV Valve' (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) on the internet.

Does this work for you?
 
  • #5
11
1
In this scenario the intake pulls less and less vacuum the more the throttle plate opens until it actually goes the other way and pressurizes the crankcase through the same port. The method you explain would allow pressure to build in the crankcase if the vent(s) it is using to evacuate to atmosphere are too restrictive. Thank you for the input, but I would like to work through the scenario I proposed.
 
  • #6
178
75
I don't see how the intake manifold pressure on a running engine could ever go above atmospheric, since in that case it wouldn't be able to draw in fresh air for combustion.
 
  • #7
11
1
I appreciate the participation but please let's stick to the original question proposed. FYI...The engine is a turbo. The intake pressurizes as you increase throttle.
 
  • #8
779
526
I appreciate the participation but please let's stick to the original question proposed. FYI...The engine is a turbo. The intake pressurizes as you increase throttle.
I have two vacuum sources each pulling 1 inHG. If I connect the vacuum sources to a Y-connector, with identical sized hoses, so that each pulls on one tip of the Y, will I get 2 inHG vacuum on the remaining hose, or will I get 1 inHG with more cfm?
You'll get 1 inHG with more cfm.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #9
11
1
If I want to adequately evacuate the crankcase, by maintaining a constant negative pressure in it, by using multiple sources of vacuum in parallel, it sounds like the most important thing in this situation is how much cfm the vacuum source can evacuate from the crankcase. Having a 15 inHG vacuum that only evacuates 1cfm is not as beneficial as 1 inHG that evacuates 5cfm. Does this sound like a correct statement for this example?
I feel it is more complicated than that because air is compressible. I am thinking I need to measure the amount of psi per minute that the crankcase naturally builds up and them convert that into cfm so I can determine how much cfm I need the vacuum to evacuate. So, back to the question above, does the inHG the vacuum pulls really matter as long as the cfm requirement is met?

Thank you,
B
 
  • #10
FYI, dry sump oil pumps achieve this effect. What kind of pumps are you using? Electric?


Yes, you are on the right track, to pull any vacuum at all you need to be able to keep up with the blowby flow, to pull an actual vacuum, you need to "pull" many times more than the blowby flow.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
11
1
Thank you MRFMengineer, I hadn't heard of dry sumps. I have looked into mechanical vacuum pumps for installation under the hood primarily for running air tools on utility vehicles. They are not really designed to work for this purpose. There were others that need to be rebuilt every year which is not practical.
Looks promising though and expensive, curious if they can be ran completely dry for evacuation purpose only or if at least some oil is required to function and not breakdown.
Electric vacuum pumps apparently don't produce enough vacuum and are not dependable.
I am using air venturi vacuums.
 
  • #12
184
80
The usual item that is used in this situation is a catch can. Turbo engines especially running higher boost can build up crankcase pressure quickly. Making sure that you vent this to atmosphere is important as you have already implied. A secondary issue is that this excess pressure (and high temperatures when operating at high boost states) can cause issues with lubrication due to oil loss and fouling due to the return via vacuum source to intake causing intake track and ignition plug pollution. An oil catch can is a large ( typically 1 liter+) can with internal baffles. These are designed with sufficient air flow capacity to prevent pressurization of the crankcase. They also have internal baffles that allow the expelled gasses to cool and thus oil vapors condense and return to either crankcase or a pool where they are captured and returned.
It is very difficult to stay ahead of blow by gasses. as the throttle conditions vary at a level that cannot be regulated. What I am understanding from your posts is that you are attempting to evacuate the blowby and prevent the accumulation. Up to now other engineers have found it much easier to accept that blowby happens and needs to be accommodated.
Are you searching for a new method of prevention or just for a revision of accepted practice? I believe that a little understanding of where you are leading would be helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes Asymptotic
  • #13
11
1
Not allowing blow by to accumulate. Staying ahead of the blow by with constant negative pressure greater than the positive pressure of the blow by even in boost conditions.
 
  • #14
1,648
991
Not allowing blow by to accumulate. Staying ahead of the blow by with constant negative pressure greater than the positive pressure of the blow by even in boost conditions.
If you are just pulling, then regardless the amount/performance of vacuum pumps the crankcase will be always full of (low pressure) blow by gases. If you wants to prevent accumulation then what you need is not vacuum but venting.
You already mentioned the "bringing in fresh air from outside", but this part seemingly got forgotten.

Your additional air intake holes will be almost as important in determining the ratio of blow by gas and air inside the crankcase as the vacuum pumps.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
11
1
Certainly there must be fresh air that the vacuum draws in. What I am trying to determine is a solution that generates enough constant vacuum to stay ahead of the blow by. I am currently attempting using simple venturi vacuum and looking into how using multiple venturis might work.
 
  • #16
1,648
991
If you want to keep 90% fresh air ratio inside, then your intake holes will be nine times more important than the amount of blow by what you are focused on right now.
 
  • #17
Randy Beikmann
Gold Member
212
133
The solution to your problem depends on your goal, and your application.

1) Goal: Are you wanting to run a vacuum to reduce aerodynamic drag (windage) inside the engine? This is what they do in racing engines with a "dry sump" (which is also there to avoid having oil flung around by the moving parts, which creates more drag, and aerates the oil). It's worth a few HP. In that case you don't really care about how much air is present vs. "blow-by" gases. Or is your goal to keep the concentration of blow-by low, to avoid contamination of your oil by gasoline?

2) Application: Are you talking about an engine where you need to pass emissions laws? If you are, you won't be venting any gases from the crankcase to the atmosphere. It will need to be fed into the engine to be burned.

As far as catch-cans are concerned, they can be part of a system that returns the blow-by into the engine. They will collect liquid content, and allow gases to pass back to the engine. Turbo guys don't like to have their intercoolers fouled by oil, which reduces their heat-transfer rates, and a catch-can can avoid that.
 
  • #18
11
1
Application primarily to vent crankcase to atmosphere and prevent from being recirculated in engine. Not looking for more hp. Not concerned with passing emissions. Just want to make sure whatever solution is implemented it performs better than stock so I don't put engine in more danger of catastrophic failure. Spoke to Moroso and their sumps require oil to operate and will seize if use only for fume evacuation.
 
  • #19
Randy Beikmann
Gold Member
212
133
If you're just venting to the atmosphere, I'm not sure you need anything more than the pressure that's built up from the blow-by gases. If you want to clear them out to reduce oil dilution from the condensing unburnt fuel, that's another story.

There are automotive vacuum pumps that are used to boost brake systems in vehicles that have little manifold vacuum. I don't know their capacity, or how well they would tolerate pumping some amount of exhaust gases through them. But it's worth checking out. Maybe if you ran the crankcase gases through a catch-can or other separator on the way to the pump it would be OK.
 
  • #20
11
1
Want to avoid letting the blow by pressure be the force that evacuates the fumes to atmosphere. Prefer fresh air as much as possible in crankcase to prevent oil dilution. Want to pull vacuum through catch can on its way out to atmosphere to be a little more eco friendly.
 
  • #21
Randy Beikmann
Gold Member
212
133
Want to avoid letting the blow by pressure be the force that evacuates the fumes to atmosphere. Prefer fresh air as much as possible in crankcase to prevent oil dilution. Want to pull vacuum through catch can on its way out to atmosphere to be a little more eco friendly.
If that's your goal then that sounds like a good plan. As I said, there are existing vacuum pumps meant to move air. And since you don't really care about the vacuum pressure, so much as flow, you might even be able to use an EGR pump, with a low-restriction breather leading into the other side of the PCV flow routing. They're meant to pump some nasty stuff. Even so, exhaust gases are liquid-free when hot, so I don't know how they'd handle condensate with some oil in it.
 
  • #22
11
1
Which brings us around to the issue with using a mechanical pump. They are difficult to mount. This is the reason I was exploring venturi type vacuum sources. I have a venturi vacuum source that generates .5 inHG at 35mph and increases to 6 inHG at 75mph. My concern was how much cfm it is pulling. I was trying to find out how connecting multiple venturis will help to achieve the desired result. I would use intake manifold vacuum for idling. But boosting off the line would pressurize the crankcase and vent straight to atmosphere until a sufficient mph speed is reached so that the venturis generate enough vacuum to evacuate the crankcase sufficiently.
Of course a better solution would be a mechanical pump but like I said the difficulty factor goes way up to get it installed. Any ideas on the venturi solution? Are there any high performance venturi designs. I am using a venturi tube that mounts on the outside of aircraft to run the gyros. It works better than venturi tubes installed in the exhaust stream.
 
  • #23
Tom.G
Science Advisor
3,386
2,132
How about an electrically driven vacuum pump? Maybe you could use a heater fan motor. That would relieve the mounting problem.
 

Related Threads on Parallel vacuum sources

Replies
5
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
487
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
739
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Top