The leaning tower of Pisa

Transfer theory part 1

the central column
We want all the port area that we can get for the transfer ports in our two-stroke engines. But at
the same time we want to keep the port heights within limits, so we want a lot of total port width;
we must use as much of the cylinder bore circumference as possible .
The best way to utilize the available real estate would be to aim all transfers radially inward.
That way the cross section widths of all ports would be equal to their chord widths and we can't
do any better than that. All transfer streams would meet in the center of the cylinder, slow each
other down and form a central column with only one direction to go: upwards, in the direction of
the cylinder head.
But since we can't have a transfer port at the exhaust side of the cylinder, an imbalance would
occur, and that central column would be inclined to topple over towards the exhaust side of the
cylinder. We don't want that because too much of the fresh charge would take the direct escape
route into the exhaust duct without first scavenging the cylinder.
How do we prevent this central column from leaning towards the exhaust side? If we omit the
transfer ports directly opposite the exhaust, we would restore the scavenging balance, but we
would sacrifice too much valuable port area. There is a solution, but let me address some other
scavenging aspects first.

We want as much transfer port area as possible, so it would make sense to have all transfer ducts
enter the cylinder perpendicularly, right? Nope.
To begin with, most pistons are domed, so transfer flow entering the cylinder would collide with the
dome. Aiming the transfer ducts axially at about the same angle as the piston dome, usually about
10°, will not cost any effective cross section area and it will noticeably improve the flow coefficient.
Larger-than-zero axial angles at the port floors will also enable us to fit larger inner radii in the
transfer ducts, another benefit for the flow.
Second: those transfer streams entering the cylinder and colliding in the center will convert kinetic
energy into potential energy. In English: their flow velocities will slow each other down in the
collision process and the static pressure in the middle of the resulting central column will be higher
than the pressure in the transfer ducts.
This static pressure in the central column is a good thing: it will provide for a higher density of the
fresh charge in the column and that helps to expel the hot, thin burnt gases from the previous
combustion cycle.

But the static pressure at the foot of the central column can also have adverse effects. Too high a
static pressure will impair the flow, because the higher this pressure is, the smaller will be the
pressure differential that accelerates the charge through the transfer ducts. Aiming the transfer
ducts axially a little will improve the flow, just like it did because of the domed piston. Slightly
axially-aimed transfer streams will provide for a less violent, not completely head-on collision. The
central pressure can be controlled this way, and the transfer streams will keep the axial component
of their velocity, so the central column does not need to begin its journey to the cylinder head with
zero velocity. So the axial column speed can be controlled as well by the axial transfer angles.

Transfer theory part 2

position & direction scavenging angles
Most two-stroke people define radial scavenging directions by quoting the distances where the
ports would intersect the center line (the leading distance and trailing distance in the drawing
below left). Gordon Blair used that notation in his publications, and 95% of us followed suit.
But there is a better, more universally applicable way.
I will explain this with an example, not of scavenging directions but of port timing: I might say that a
transfer port height of 13 mm is perfect for a racing engine. That may be true for a 125 cc engine
but it would be nonsense for a 50 cc or a 500 cc.
But if I say that a transfer port timing of 130° is perfect for a racing engine, then that is valid for
any engine, regardless of its cylinder capacity.

Absolute distance values (millimeters, inches etc.) are not suitable for universal guidelines.
Degrees are, and so are percentages of bore and percentages of stroke. Rpm values are not
suitable; mean piston velocities are.
I express transfer duct directions in degrees. Each duct has a leading flank and a trailing flank.
Each flank intersects the bore at a point which I can define with a position angle. And each flank
hits the fore-aft centerline of the bore with an included angle which I call the direction angle.
With fore-aft centerline I mean the line that points towards the exhaust port which is usually at the
front of the engine. The drawing above left may clarify what I mean. And the drawing on the far
right is an example of an existing cylinder.
Now we can express the radial characteristics of transfer ports with position and direction angles,
regardless of bore and stroke.

We can also express the ports' axial directions with angles, but not regardless of bore and stroke;
we must take the arctangent of the stroke/bore-ratio into consideration, as shown below.
You may notice that short-stroke engines require smaller axial angles.

Transfer theory part 3

the tower of Pisa
As we are on the subject of scavenging angles, now would be a good time to say something about
the axial angles of the A-transfers.
Surely a duct with an axial angle of over 20° offers a smaller cross-section to the flow than a duct
that enters the cylinder perpendicularly?
Yes, it does. But there are two good reasons to angle it upward anyway.

First, perpendicular mixture streams coming from the A-ports would collide and slow one another
right down. The axial angles provide for less velocity losses and less pressure losses, so despite
their smaller cross-section, upward ports may flow as much, if not more, than perpendicular ports.
Now you may well ask why the B-ports do not get the same treatment. It is because the central
scavenging column, resulting from all incoming scavenging streams together, must not have too
much axial velocity, or the loop scavenging will result in a loop-loss into the exhaust.

Second, there is a thing called scavenging balance (I invented the word for my personal use,
so this may well be the first time you ever saw it).
If you looked closely at the scavenging picture I posted above, you may already have noticed that
the 'radial scavenging direction resultant' has a value of 100,622°.
90° would have meant 'straight up'; more than 90° indicates that the central scavenging column is
leaning towards the exhaust side of the cylinder.
But we don't want that; it is bad for the scavenging of the rear part of the cylinder, and it is risky
because it may provoke scavenging losses straight into the exhaust.
How can we prevent a scavenging column from toppling over to the exhaust side like the leaning
tower of Pisa? Not by pushing against its basis, but by pushing higher up. Hence the axial angle of
the A-ports. The pictures below will tell the story.
(If only the Pisa architect had known a bit more about two-stroke scavenging....)
 Transfer theory part 4
vectors

Let us assume that all transfer ports are of the same height. Let's also assume that a port with
twice the cross-sectional width will give twice as strong an impulse (that is already doubtful; it
presumes equal densities and equal flow velocities in all ducts, and as duct contents can have
different inertias, their accelerations may differ, as will their flow velocities at any given moment).

If you accept these assumptions, you can resolve each transfer stream into an axial component,
a fore-aft component over the piston, and a left-to-right component over the piston.
The axial components all work in the same direction: towards the cylinder head.
The left-to-right components will cancel each other out (if they don't, the scavenging is
asymmetric) while contributing to the pressure creation at the root of the central column, which in
turn will accelerate the axial flow and thus enhance the axial vector.
The fore-aft components will result in a vector that may either point towards the rear side of the
cylinder, be zero, or point towards the exhaust side.
This fore-aft vector together with the axial vector will give a resultant that will lean towards the rear
of the cylinder, or point straight up towards the head, or lean towards the exhaust side.

What we want to achieve, is an axial column that clings to the rear of the cylinder, so it can wash
away the spent gases with as little turbulence as possible. Turbulence will result in mixing of fresh
charge and burnt gases, and we don't need that. And mixing will heat up the fresh charge, bringing
it nearer to the detonation treshold. And we certainly don't need that!

I realize this is a crude way of describing a complicated flow dynamics event, but hopefully it will
help you form a mental picture (no pun intended).