Closest thing to an actual dyno run I could find on the web, completely wrong type of load cell/device however and extremely inaccurate way to do any kind of testing...but he did it anyway...got to give him credit for that.
Pretty meaningless output changes as a result.
Test report PDF;
How anyone could draw any kind of conclusions from a test that uses the incorrect type of load cell is beyond me.
Best quote I could find of Mr Singh's groove testing is this from a Popular Science article;
In November 2002 Singh actually received one such permission from a manufacturer to test his modification on its engines. The manufacturer was Briggs and Stratton, and the engines were two 149cc side valves. Singh borrowed $3,000 and drove the 500 miles to the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) test facilities in Pune, but day after day, his test was delayed. He waited in a cheap hotel for two weeks, pacing, smoking, burning money. “It was a very frustrating experience,” Singh says, wringing the tension from his graying temples with permanently grease-stained fingers. “Sometimes it was like a bloody test of will.”
Finally he was allowed to bring his engines and hook them to a Benz EC-70 dynamometer with a five-gas analyzer and a Benz gravimetric fuel-measuring device. A week later, he got his results. According to ARAI, at between 2,000 and 2,800 rpm, Singh’s modified engine used between 10 and 42 percent less fuel than its unmodified twin, with no appreciable losses in torque or power. And, as he suspected, it ran cooler too—as much as 16°C cooler.
This, it would seem, represented success on a massive scale. With record-high gas prices at the pump and intimations of global warming encroaching on the front page, the world’s auto manufacturers are investigating every option to simultaneously comply with federally mandated fuel-economy standards yet continue to feed the market for ever larger vehicles. This spring GM and Ford announced a joint investment of $1 billion to develop their own version of a six-gear automatic transmission already popular in Europe, to achieve perhaps a 4 percent increase in fuel economy. Singh’s invention, in contrast, offered five times that fuel savings.
Unfortunately for Singh, Briggs and Stratton wasn’t interested in fuel economy—it wanted better emissions. And according to the test, Singh’s modification made emissions slightly worse. Things looked dire: Singh had lost his only sponsor and blown his money on a test that was essentially useless.
“The problem is, it’s a side valve,” explains Steve Weiner, a 35-year Porsche race-tuning veteran and the owner of Rennsport Systems in Portland, Oregon. “Nobody’s been using those things in our world since the 1950s. Not even on lawn mowers. They’re hugely inefficient and dirty.”
According to Weiner, what Singh needs to prove his concept is a standard, scientific A:B test, on a standard engine, “preferably something mainstream—a high-efficiency ****box even—and dyno testing with a five-gas analyzer. Then he needs to take one of his modified cylinder heads, swap it out on the same engine, and dyno test that. A to B. Even if the emissions don’t go down a whisker, if there’s an increase in fuel economy—my god, that’s a win. If you can even find that, the world’s your oyster. Whether it’s valid in the U.S. or not.”
In short, what Singh needs to prove his ideas to the world is a test he can neither afford nor gain access to. It’s a simple fact, simple enough to diagram on a child’s chalkboard, and it’s driven him to the point of mania. He screws the green ring round and round his finger, then grabs himself by the face. “This bloody country,” Singh spits. “We have millions of dollars and millions of people for puja [a Hindu festival], but when one bloody inventor wants to get a simple engine tested . . .”
I suggest we redesign all the engines produced today back to side valve design engines to take advantage of this revolutionary technology, think of the savings! We could improve the fuel economy of a side valve engine up to 42% (caveat: in a 800 rpm range), what a concept!
The reality of course is we are into multivalve engines now with pentroof chambers and the output and fuel economy increases have doubled or tripled over side valve technology but who cares...we need grooves!
In case your wondering, grooved heads were tried in the Texaco TCP stratified charge engine in an attempt to get the lean mixture burning by using the groove to spread the flame front across the combustion chamber, this was patented in 1949. You can look it up, SAE has the drawings available. The patent wasn't really developed due to high emissons...mainly due to the grooves providing cool zones in the combustion chamber where excess HC accumulated and the burn rate was only controlled over a low range of engine speeds.
I will say this, if your interested in making your flathead Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine from a 3.5HP to a 3.55HP engine by raising compression and adding grooves to compensate for the increased tendency to knock...have at her...Mr Singh will be very proud and you could mow with ever increasing speed!
Oh wait...I have an overhead valve Honda engine in my new lawnmower and it uses half the fuel of the B&S flathead engined mower it replaced to do the same amount of work, has more available power, has bearings in the wheels that make it easier to push plus large rear wheels, is way way quieter and my eyes don't sting from unburned HC while pushing it...and cost the same $180 I paid for my first B&S flathead engined model back when I first got married 20 years ago?
Dang foiled again! Damn you modern technology...damn you!