Conservative Limits for Injectorants
06-03-12, 10:09 PM
#1
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
Conservative Limits for Injectorants
First a story of my little water injection history that you may find interesting.
In1974 I bought a used 72 Alfa 2000 GTV with all the early emission controls.
The cars at that time were very slow. I decided a turbo might help.
The problem was at that time everyone up to then used suck-through
carbs to limit boost and I was going to try to blow-through the mechanical injection.
I put a .84 AR turbine housing on a Corvair turbocharger.
( I think it had a something like a 1.3 AR housing stock, also to limit boost).
It was my first turbo kit .... followed by making my first waste-gate…
then my first blow off valve ( I called it a “surge and lag pressure relief” because
I didn’t know that they existed).
I even fooled the Spica 400 psi mechanical injection rack to give its full flow,
but it was not enough. It had reached the fuel enrichment limit and I proceeded
to blow the lands off of my forged Mahle pistons...... Detonation!
My dad came to the rescue. He told me about the studies done in WWII which
enabled our bombers and fighters to achieve high boost using water injection.
(He was a lead mechanic on the engine line for B-24s in Ann Arbor at the Willow Run Ford Plant).
Water Injection transformed this car. This allowed performance exceeding a
911S, the fastest car at the time.
Back to the present..... this is one of the papers I used as reference.
If you study Report No. 815 under NACA papers from WWII
the tests show the limits of the different injected coolants on a
CFR test engine (which features an adjustable compression ratio).
The report is very long but this chart summarizes it best for me.
The chart's limits were established with a conservative pressure
safety margin of 7% (backed off from incipient knock pressure).
Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) is listed on the left column
and I added boost in in.HgA and PSI on the right hand side.
They also used Fuel-Air Ratio so I converted it to AFR for our
convienence (some may prefere Lambda).
Knock limit for rich fuel- IMEP 285 lb/sq in. (about 14 psi)
For water IMEP 325 lb/sq in. (about 18 psi)
For water/meth- IMEP 460 lb/sq in. (about 30 psi)
My tests so far show that Rotaries behave similarly.
In1974 I bought a used 72 Alfa 2000 GTV with all the early emission controls.
The cars at that time were very slow. I decided a turbo might help.
The problem was at that time everyone up to then used suck-through
carbs to limit boost and I was going to try to blow-through the mechanical injection.
I put a .84 AR turbine housing on a Corvair turbocharger.
( I think it had a something like a 1.3 AR housing stock, also to limit boost).
It was my first turbo kit .... followed by making my first waste-gate…
then my first blow off valve ( I called it a “surge and lag pressure relief” because
I didn’t know that they existed).
I even fooled the Spica 400 psi mechanical injection rack to give its full flow,
but it was not enough. It had reached the fuel enrichment limit and I proceeded
to blow the lands off of my forged Mahle pistons...... Detonation!
My dad came to the rescue. He told me about the studies done in WWII which
enabled our bombers and fighters to achieve high boost using water injection.
(He was a lead mechanic on the engine line for B-24s in Ann Arbor at the Willow Run Ford Plant).
Water Injection transformed this car. This allowed performance exceeding a
911S, the fastest car at the time.
Back to the present..... this is one of the papers I used as reference.
If you study Report No. 815 under NACA papers from WWII
the tests show the limits of the different injected coolants on a
CFR test engine (which features an adjustable compression ratio).
The report is very long but this chart summarizes it best for me.
The chart's limits were established with a conservative pressure
safety margin of 7% (backed off from incipient knock pressure).
Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) is listed on the left column
and I added boost in in.HgA and PSI on the right hand side.
They also used Fuel-Air Ratio so I converted it to AFR for our
convienence (some may prefere Lambda).
Knock limit for rich fuel- IMEP 285 lb/sq in. (about 14 psi)
For water IMEP 325 lb/sq in. (about 18 psi)
For water/meth- IMEP 460 lb/sq in. (about 30 psi)
My tests so far show that Rotaries behave similarly.
06-04-12, 02:42 PM
#3
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
Neit jnf
Notice the amount of fluid they were using for the test.
1/2 pound fluid for one pound fuel. So add 50% to your injected weight of fuel.
We seem to run the bare minimum and sometimes we get away with it.
The scary part is that they could run the meth/water to 22 AFR at 35 pounds of boost!
Barry
Notice the amount of fluid they were using for the test.
1/2 pound fluid for one pound fuel. So add 50% to your injected weight of fuel.
We seem to run the bare minimum and sometimes we get away with it.
The scary part is that they could run the meth/water to 22 AFR at 35 pounds of boost!
Barry
06-04-12, 02:55 PM
#4
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
In another study (NACA Report No. 756) a comparison of different percentages of just water was done, namely 0, 20, 40, and 60%.
This shows that on average we are not running enough injectorant.
Or put another way, we should run as much as our ignition can handle.
Barry
This shows that on average we are not running enough injectorant.
Or put another way, we should run as much as our ignition can handle.
Barry
06-04-12, 04:06 PM
#5
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
Compare the knock limit pressures when the inlet air temp goes from 150*F to 250*F.
Water stays about the same but the the meth/water curve drops below water when lean.
Remember this when designing safe guards to cut boost if the injectorant pressure is lost.
Also consider the consequences of not running a cold air inlet!
06-05-12, 08:58 AM
#6
Racing Rotary Since 1983
iTrader: (6)
"72 Alfa 2000 GTV"
one of the most beautiful sedans... was running in the Under 2.5 Trans-Am in the early days. Horst Kwech... i was building a car for the series which vanished along w all factory racing just as i finished... so i switched to B Sedan SCCA and later GT3 and later to Mazda (1983)
oh, your thread...
should be required reading for all FD pilottos.
i wonder re the base fuel being 100/130 octane... as to the boost levels being transposed to our 93 octane world.
news flash!
from 1944.
howard
one of the most beautiful sedans... was running in the Under 2.5 Trans-Am in the early days. Horst Kwech... i was building a car for the series which vanished along w all factory racing just as i finished... so i switched to B Sedan SCCA and later GT3 and later to Mazda (1983)
oh, your thread...
should be required reading for all FD pilottos.
i wonder re the base fuel being 100/130 octane... as to the boost levels being transposed to our 93 octane world.
news flash!
from 1944.
howard
06-05-12, 02:27 PM
#7
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,770
Received 2,562 Likes
on
1,822 Posts
great post! and +1 on the Alfa...
Trending Topics
06-06-12, 08:22 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several things to consider, methanol energy was neglected from FAR calculations in this testing, so actual measured Lambda would be tad richer.
Knock limited power apears to be same, but overall engine temperature would be probably lower with richer mixture, which would reflect as less load on cooling system.
Barry, I'm surprized that you didn't post liquid-air ratio charts. I found them much more interesting than fuel-air charts. They clearly show, that at given liquid-air ratio, combination with less fuel but more water allows higher knock limited mean effective pressure. It can be well observed at high water to fuel ratios (0.5, 1, 1,5).
What also is very interesting is test at constant air inlet pressure of 35 inHg abs with three water-fuel ratios (0.2, 0.4, 0.6). At FAR from about 0.065 to 0.09 (15.4 - 11.1 AFR) IMEP and BSFC remains about the same as without wi, what indicates that even these "high" water flow rates have no ill effect on combustion efficiency or power production.
But this makes me wonder if most people are using such weak ignition systems, when they are seeing quite big loss of power at much lower water-fuel ratios. It seems that general thinking concludes, that ignition is sufficient when it doesn't misfire. This is probably not the case.
I agree that most people are injecting far too low amount of water. All these charts indicate, that 20% water to fuel ratio (which is still more than what most people use), with all other variables held constant, allows only 13% increase in IMEP at about 11.1 AFR. On the other hand, 50% water to fuel ratio allows 62% increase in IMEP (torque) at same AFR.
If same applies to rotaries, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, ridiculous power can be produced with right amount of water injection and pump gas.
06-06-12, 10:15 AM
#9
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
Safe isn't the right world. These guys simply didn't consider something as too lean or too rich or dangerous. They just picked what worked best for their application.
Several things to consider, methanol energy was neglected from FAR calculations in this testing, so actual measured Lambda would be tad richer.
Knock limited power apears to be same, but overall engine temperature would be probably lower with richer mixture, which would reflect as less load on cooling system.
Barry, I'm surprized that you didn't post liquid-air ratio charts. I found them much more interesting than fuel-air charts. They clearly show, that at given liquid-air ratio, combination with less fuel but more water allows higher knock limited mean effective pressure. It can be well observed at high water to fuel ratios (0.5, 1, 1,5).
I considered their aircraft focus was more on weight added to achieve any added power, hense the liquid-air ratios.
All of the charts have countless hours of testing that we can use if we study them well.
What also is very interesting is test at constant air inlet pressure of 35 inHg abs with three water-fuel ratios (0.2, 0.4, 0.6). At FAR from about 0.065 to 0.09 (15.4 - 11.1 AFR) IMEP and BSFC remains about the same as without wi, what indicates that even these "high" water flow rates have no ill effect on combustion efficiency or power production.
Libor, at which figure did you find most interesting?
I got lost in the temps of the different parts and how water cooled everything except the exhaust valve area.... like it was working
in the combustion area but the "power/heat" signature was still being shown out of the exhaust.
But this makes me wonder if most people are using such weak ignition systems, when they are seeing quite big loss of power at much lower water-fuel ratios. It seems that general thinking concludes, that ignition is sufficient when it doesn't misfire. This is probably not the case.
Might it be that by using leaner mixtures of multible injectants (water, meth, gasoline, acetone, etc.) the ignition process would be easier?
I agree that most people are injecting far too low amount of water. All these charts indicate, that 20% water to fuel ratio (which is still more than what most people use), with all other variables held constant, allows only 13% increase in IMEP at about 11.1 AFR. On the other hand, 50% water to fuel ratio allows 62% increase in IMEP (torque) at same AFR.
If same applies to rotaries, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, ridiculous power can be produced with right amount of water injection and pump gas.
Several things to consider, methanol energy was neglected from FAR calculations in this testing, so actual measured Lambda would be tad richer.
Knock limited power apears to be same, but overall engine temperature would be probably lower with richer mixture, which would reflect as less load on cooling system.
Barry, I'm surprized that you didn't post liquid-air ratio charts. I found them much more interesting than fuel-air charts. They clearly show, that at given liquid-air ratio, combination with less fuel but more water allows higher knock limited mean effective pressure. It can be well observed at high water to fuel ratios (0.5, 1, 1,5).
I considered their aircraft focus was more on weight added to achieve any added power, hense the liquid-air ratios.
All of the charts have countless hours of testing that we can use if we study them well.
What also is very interesting is test at constant air inlet pressure of 35 inHg abs with three water-fuel ratios (0.2, 0.4, 0.6). At FAR from about 0.065 to 0.09 (15.4 - 11.1 AFR) IMEP and BSFC remains about the same as without wi, what indicates that even these "high" water flow rates have no ill effect on combustion efficiency or power production.
Libor, at which figure did you find most interesting?
I got lost in the temps of the different parts and how water cooled everything except the exhaust valve area.... like it was working
in the combustion area but the "power/heat" signature was still being shown out of the exhaust.
But this makes me wonder if most people are using such weak ignition systems, when they are seeing quite big loss of power at much lower water-fuel ratios. It seems that general thinking concludes, that ignition is sufficient when it doesn't misfire. This is probably not the case.
Might it be that by using leaner mixtures of multible injectants (water, meth, gasoline, acetone, etc.) the ignition process would be easier?
I agree that most people are injecting far too low amount of water. All these charts indicate, that 20% water to fuel ratio (which is still more than what most people use), with all other variables held constant, allows only 13% increase in IMEP at about 11.1 AFR. On the other hand, 50% water to fuel ratio allows 62% increase in IMEP (torque) at same AFR.
If same applies to rotaries, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, ridiculous power can be produced with right amount of water injection and pump gas.
Thanks for the thoughts,
Barry
06-06-12, 05:06 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libor, at which figure did you find most interesting?
I got lost in the temps of the different parts and how water cooled everything except the exhaust valve area.... like it was working
in the combustion area but the "power/heat" signature was still being shown out of the exhaust.
I got lost in the temps of the different parts and how water cooled everything except the exhaust valve area.... like it was working
in the combustion area but the "power/heat" signature was still being shown out of the exhaust.
Well, as I said, I really like the fact, that this research engine practically didn't lost any power by running water injection in range from 20% to 60% of water to main fuel without any adjustment of spark advance or air-fuel mixture, except at very lean and very rich mixtures.
Very interesting thing also is, that highest levels of knock limited power were produced at very lean mixtures - at the expense of higher air consumption as given air mass with leaner than stoich mixture produces much less combustion heat - energy than same air mass with richer than stoich mixtures.
And I'm wondering what causes this mechanism. When we work with model of constant water to fuel ratio, rich mixture contains both more fuel and water and vica versa, so what causes, that really lean mixtures are able to operate at higher power level?
Under influence of latest research papers about engine knock, what really is knock and what part of mixture is most prone to spontaneous ignition, I would say that its vital to have smallest possible amount of partially burned fuel in combustion chamber. And I can imagine that too rich mixtures are recycling much more of these unstable combustion species than lean mixtures. But that's just my theory
I really think that this point is moot, as both leaning of AFR and reducing of water flow rate compromises possible gains of water injection to suit for lack of ignition power. This is what Peter talked about, tuning engine at parameters that we want, not at what weak ignition allows us. All hail to Magneto
06-13-12, 12:31 PM
#11
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,770
Received 2,562 Likes
on
1,822 Posts
06-13-12, 01:53 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is, that most people have really weak ignition systems, it may fire modest amount of air-fuel-water mix, but it doesn't have enough energy to initiate strong flame front so whole combustion process is delayed and efficiency and power drops.
I've done bit of reading and it seems that water doesn't slow down burn rate once the strong flame kernel is created, it lies in that initial phase, when large heat capacity of all these fluids absorbs heat from the space between spark plug electrodes, and delays or prohibits creation of plasma channel.
Why the people spend thousands on unnecessary engine modifications but aren't willing to step up with vital ignition power is beyond me
06-13-12, 11:36 PM
#13
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,770
Received 2,562 Likes
on
1,822 Posts
which means i can run the mixture the engine actually wants, vs what the ignition will fire....
06-22-12, 03:35 PM
#14
I'm just going to quote a couple posts I made in 2009 in another thread. It's been a few years since I did the research so it's not as fresh in my mind, but the graphs should be helpful to the discussion. They were modified to make them easier to read. one thing that's interesting is the amount of power they made with 70/30 methanol with an AFR of 25:1. I am guessing the methanol was able to make additional power since methanol is a fuel source and at those levels the amount of additional fuel they added was tiny or non existent. So for water and no AI the engine essentially had no fuel to burn. That's my take on it anyway. Another consideration is the quality of ignition systems they had at the time? The one thing that can be taken away from these WII studies is that AUX injection system definitely works.
Not to take anything away from alcohol, it does have significant cooling abilities to the air temps, but those planes would be flying so high that keeping the air temps down probably wasn't too much of an issue. I was also reading some articles on WI in the WW planes and the meth used for antifreeze was reduced and even eliminated on lower altitude missions. Other WI systems were used only for take off in certain aircrafts. It is really quite impressive the crude technology they had at the time and how well they made it work. I found a website that had a table/graph that listed and compared the effects of water, methanol, 50/50, and straight gasoline at different AFR's (actually FAR) and boost levels. If i can find it again i'll post it up.
Okay I found the Graphs. They are from a study NACA (previous name for NASA) did on water injection awhile ago.
x axis = Fuel/Air ratio (I took the liberty of converting it to AIR/FUEL in red. EXAMPLE:.08 =12.5:1)
y axis = Break Mean Effective Pressure (basically torque or power output)
Each colored line represents a different mixture tested:
Green = 70/30 Methanol/Water
Blue = Water only
Red = No Aux injection used
They injected 60% as much of the Aux Injection as they did fuel. The engine is fed pre-compressed air from a controlled source. The coolant temp is fixed, the compression ratio is 7:1, The different mixtures were injected just prior to the inlet valve. The first graph is with a controlled 250* F inlet temperature similar to a non intercooled engine, the second graph has an inlet temperature of 150* F which would be more like an intercooled engine.
x axis = Fuel/Air ratio (I took the liberty of converting it to AIR/FUEL in red. EXAMPLE:.08 =12.5:1)
y axis = Break Mean Effective Pressure (basically torque or power output)
Each colored line represents a different mixture tested:
Green = 70/30 Methanol/Water
Blue = Water only
Red = No Aux injection used
They injected 60% as much of the Aux Injection as they did fuel. The engine is fed pre-compressed air from a controlled source. The coolant temp is fixed, the compression ratio is 7:1, The different mixtures were injected just prior to the inlet valve. The first graph is with a controlled 250* F inlet temperature similar to a non intercooled engine, the second graph has an inlet temperature of 150* F which would be more like an intercooled engine.
06-24-12, 07:26 AM
#15
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Dudemaaanownsanrx7
Not to take anything away from alcohol, it does have significant cooling abilities to the air temps, but those planes would be flying so high that keeping the air temps down probably wasn't too much of an issue.
Brent, you are using 25 psi on water but their conservative limit for water is 20 psi.
At first the alcohol was added for its antifreeze qualities but when tested it was found to allow a conservative 30 psi boost.
Notice that these conservative limits closely correspond to the commonly held opinions (and experience)
for the limits of: rich fuel (15psi), water (20psi), and water/meth (30psi).
Notice too on your colored chart how much of an increase the green highlighted Meth/water has over water.
Barry
Not to take anything away from alcohol, it does have significant cooling abilities to the air temps, but those planes would be flying so high that keeping the air temps down probably wasn't too much of an issue.
Brent, you are using 25 psi on water but their conservative limit for water is 20 psi.
At first the alcohol was added for its antifreeze qualities but when tested it was found to allow a conservative 30 psi boost.
Notice that these conservative limits closely correspond to the commonly held opinions (and experience)
for the limits of: rich fuel (15psi), water (20psi), and water/meth (30psi).
Notice too on your colored chart how much of an increase the green highlighted Meth/water has over water.
Barry
06-24-12, 01:54 PM
#16
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
If you are wondering why some people seem to be able to run higher boost than these
published papers this is how it can be done.
The researches for these papers had different goals than we do.
Their idea was to carry the least weight while making the most dependable power.
We are less interested in fuel/liquid consumption or weight of said liquids.
We just want max safe power.
The maximums are usually stated in IMEP (indicated mean effective pressure)
and peak combustion pressure. All we need to do is to lower the peak
pressure, when it is heading toward detonation.
Things to reduce the possibility of detonation:
Lower the intake air temp.
Increase the octane.
Stabilize the burn (water).
or.... we simply retard the spark.
Footnotes-
1- the more retarded we run the higher the EGT.
2- maximize your IMEP for your individual requirements.
This is what it looks like as you optimize your ignition event.
The peak moves closer to 45 degrees.
Once we maximize the the IMEP we increase the boost.
If the peak pressure gets too high we then start to retard the spark.
Timing builds the leading edge of the curve as shown.
Boost will move the whole curvature upward.
Notice that the TDC pressure is about 300 psi. This would relate to about 12 psi boost.
published papers this is how it can be done.
The researches for these papers had different goals than we do.
Their idea was to carry the least weight while making the most dependable power.
We are less interested in fuel/liquid consumption or weight of said liquids.
We just want max safe power.
The maximums are usually stated in IMEP (indicated mean effective pressure)
and peak combustion pressure. All we need to do is to lower the peak
pressure, when it is heading toward detonation.
Things to reduce the possibility of detonation:
Lower the intake air temp.
Increase the octane.
Stabilize the burn (water).
or.... we simply retard the spark.
Footnotes-
1- the more retarded we run the higher the EGT.
2- maximize your IMEP for your individual requirements.
This is what it looks like as you optimize your ignition event.
The peak moves closer to 45 degrees.
Once we maximize the the IMEP we increase the boost.
If the peak pressure gets too high we then start to retard the spark.
Timing builds the leading edge of the curve as shown.
Boost will move the whole curvature upward.
Notice that the TDC pressure is about 300 psi. This would relate to about 12 psi boost.
06-25-12, 04:01 AM
#17
I use the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid. I let the boost make the power.
As far as my ignition timing, I don't tune using a dyno most of the time. I tune on the street so optimal timing for power can't really be achieved as easily. Since there really are only a hand full of guys running high boost there's not a lot of maps to compare to. I basically use the 15* at 15 psi rule and then remove 1 degree per psi added. Which is a pretty common tuning technique for rotary engines. I also increase the timing a bit in the upper RPMs. My timing at 26 psi is around 6 degrees under peak torque (6.5k) increasing to 7 after 7k. I couldn't tell you if the timing is conservative or not. To me it seems about right. It makes gobs of power with no knock and that's all my goal ever was. I think my AFR is leaner than what rice or BDC ran, I usually tune for high 10's under full boost and I wouldn't be concerned if I saw 11:1 at 26 psi. I think they usually stuck to low 10's which personally I didn't see a reason to be that rich. I think tuning for 12's would be possible and make a lot more power, but for now I keep it where its working.
I do believe a 50/50 mix is ideal if your after maximum HP, but you will not see the major power differences like in the charts for the WW2 planes. I think most our engines with proper tuning would do just fine at 18 psi without AI maybe a bit on the edge but not extreme, and the addition of either water or methanol done properly 30-35 psi being more of an upper limit. I think with both water or methanol 25 psi is pretty conservative, again done properly and provided nothing goes wrong. I don't have any charts that show why I believe this, but I'm used to seeing it every time I get in my car so I have confidence from the experience of it. I do tend to find my own way of doing things so who knows really the best way, or what the limits are. They seem to get pushed further and further all the time. I've reached the level where the car scares me everytime I reach full boost, so I have no real reason to go for more power anytime soon.. The Power to weight ratio is close to my R1.
As far as my ignition timing, I don't tune using a dyno most of the time. I tune on the street so optimal timing for power can't really be achieved as easily. Since there really are only a hand full of guys running high boost there's not a lot of maps to compare to. I basically use the 15* at 15 psi rule and then remove 1 degree per psi added. Which is a pretty common tuning technique for rotary engines. I also increase the timing a bit in the upper RPMs. My timing at 26 psi is around 6 degrees under peak torque (6.5k) increasing to 7 after 7k. I couldn't tell you if the timing is conservative or not. To me it seems about right. It makes gobs of power with no knock and that's all my goal ever was. I think my AFR is leaner than what rice or BDC ran, I usually tune for high 10's under full boost and I wouldn't be concerned if I saw 11:1 at 26 psi. I think they usually stuck to low 10's which personally I didn't see a reason to be that rich. I think tuning for 12's would be possible and make a lot more power, but for now I keep it where its working.
I do believe a 50/50 mix is ideal if your after maximum HP, but you will not see the major power differences like in the charts for the WW2 planes. I think most our engines with proper tuning would do just fine at 18 psi without AI maybe a bit on the edge but not extreme, and the addition of either water or methanol done properly 30-35 psi being more of an upper limit. I think with both water or methanol 25 psi is pretty conservative, again done properly and provided nothing goes wrong. I don't have any charts that show why I believe this, but I'm used to seeing it every time I get in my car so I have confidence from the experience of it. I do tend to find my own way of doing things so who knows really the best way, or what the limits are. They seem to get pushed further and further all the time. I've reached the level where the car scares me everytime I reach full boost, so I have no real reason to go for more power anytime soon.. The Power to weight ratio is close to my R1.
06-25-12, 10:03 AM
#18
"Elusive, not deceptive!”
Thread Starter
Brent I use the KISS method also.
But I also use the WAG (wild *** guess) and
my favorite, the SWAG method...... wait for it.....
......(scientific wild *** guess)
Sorry for the off-color work jokes,
Barry
But I also use the WAG (wild *** guess) and
my favorite, the SWAG method...... wait for it.....
......(scientific wild *** guess)
Sorry for the off-color work jokes,
Barry
06-25-12, 03:48 PM
#20
BDC Motorsports
well, i know that these test were comparing fluids on mass basis. So 1000cc/min. Of gasoline would be about 720 grams. 720*0.5=360 grams of water - 360cc/min.
Bottom line is, that most people have really weak ignition systems, it may fire modest amount of air-fuel-water mix, but it doesn't have enough energy to initiate strong flame front so whole combustion process is delayed and efficiency and power drops.
I've done bit of reading and it seems that water doesn't slow down burn rate once the strong flame kernel is created, it lies in that initial phase, when large heat capacity of all these fluids absorbs heat from the space between spark plug electrodes, and delays or prohibits creation of plasma channel.
Why the people spend thousands on unnecessary engine modifications but aren't willing to step up with vital ignition power is beyond me
Bottom line is, that most people have really weak ignition systems, it may fire modest amount of air-fuel-water mix, but it doesn't have enough energy to initiate strong flame front so whole combustion process is delayed and efficiency and power drops.
I've done bit of reading and it seems that water doesn't slow down burn rate once the strong flame kernel is created, it lies in that initial phase, when large heat capacity of all these fluids absorbs heat from the space between spark plug electrodes, and delays or prohibits creation of plasma channel.
Why the people spend thousands on unnecessary engine modifications but aren't willing to step up with vital ignition power is beyond me
06-25-12, 04:01 PM
#21
BDC Motorsports
I use the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid. I let the boost make the power.
As far as my ignition timing, I don't tune using a dyno most of the time. I tune on the street so optimal timing for power can't really be achieved as easily. Since there really are only a hand full of guys running high boost there's not a lot of maps to compare to. I basically use the 15* at 15 psi rule and then remove 1 degree per psi added. Which is a pretty common tuning technique for rotary engines. I also increase the timing a bit in the upper RPMs. My timing at 26 psi is around 6 degrees under peak torque (6.5k) increasing to 7 after 7k. I couldn't tell you if the timing is conservative or not. To me it seems about right. It makes gobs of power with no knock and that's all my goal ever was. I think my AFR is leaner than what rice or BDC ran, I usually tune for high 10's under full boost and I wouldn't be concerned if I saw 11:1 at 26 psi. I think they usually stuck to low 10's which personally I didn't see a reason to be that rich. I think tuning for 12's would be possible and make a lot more power, but for now I keep it where its working.
I do believe a 50/50 mix is ideal if your after maximum HP, but you will not see the major power differences like in the charts for the WW2 planes. I think most our engines with proper tuning would do just fine at 18 psi without AI maybe a bit on the edge but not extreme, and the addition of either water or methanol done properly 30-35 psi being more of an upper limit. I think with both water or methanol 25 psi is pretty conservative, again done properly and provided nothing goes wrong. I don't have any charts that show why I believe this, but I'm used to seeing it every time I get in my car so I have confidence from the experience of it. I do tend to find my own way of doing things so who knows really the best way, or what the limits are. They seem to get pushed further and further all the time. I've reached the level where the car scares me everytime I reach full boost, so I have no real reason to go for more power anytime soon.. The Power to weight ratio is close to my R1.
As far as my ignition timing, I don't tune using a dyno most of the time. I tune on the street so optimal timing for power can't really be achieved as easily. Since there really are only a hand full of guys running high boost there's not a lot of maps to compare to. I basically use the 15* at 15 psi rule and then remove 1 degree per psi added. Which is a pretty common tuning technique for rotary engines. I also increase the timing a bit in the upper RPMs. My timing at 26 psi is around 6 degrees under peak torque (6.5k) increasing to 7 after 7k. I couldn't tell you if the timing is conservative or not. To me it seems about right. It makes gobs of power with no knock and that's all my goal ever was. I think my AFR is leaner than what rice or BDC ran, I usually tune for high 10's under full boost and I wouldn't be concerned if I saw 11:1 at 26 psi. I think they usually stuck to low 10's which personally I didn't see a reason to be that rich. I think tuning for 12's would be possible and make a lot more power, but for now I keep it where its working.
I do believe a 50/50 mix is ideal if your after maximum HP, but you will not see the major power differences like in the charts for the WW2 planes. I think most our engines with proper tuning would do just fine at 18 psi without AI maybe a bit on the edge but not extreme, and the addition of either water or methanol done properly 30-35 psi being more of an upper limit. I think with both water or methanol 25 psi is pretty conservative, again done properly and provided nothing goes wrong. I don't have any charts that show why I believe this, but I'm used to seeing it every time I get in my car so I have confidence from the experience of it. I do tend to find my own way of doing things so who knows really the best way, or what the limits are. They seem to get pushed further and further all the time. I've reached the level where the car scares me everytime I reach full boost, so I have no real reason to go for more power anytime soon.. The Power to weight ratio is close to my R1.
I've re-thought my position that I've held (which was the same as your current one is) concerning methanol only injection and 25psi being conservative. I'd dial it back down and say 18-20psi is. There's just something odd going on in this engine once boost starts to hid low to mid 20's and beyond. It's some weird, odd, intermittent, out-of-nowhere-just-when-you-think-it-works thing that seems inexplicable. I've talked with Arghx and Howard several times about it and the theory is it has something to do with the odd chamber shape and ergo the way combustion occurs in this engine (somewhat rectangular shape, very long stroke, tendency of end gasses to clump up on the trailing edge of the rotor where all the knock seems to occur). The documents we've read indicates some sort of 'surface ignition temperature' that seems to be irrespective of auto-ignition temperature and is something that so many folks have fun into using straight methanol. I wonder if it's just something with alcohol use alone. I don't know.
B
06-25-12, 05:49 PM
#22
Lol sounds like everyone is flip flopping their positions. Rice running alcohol mix and Bdc theorizing with water what has the world come to? I was never an advocate for either side, I remain open minded to whatever works, but I also don't mind playing devils advocate to see what could be on the other side of the coin. The information and research done in the ww2 era is helpful and encouraging, but it's not the tell all when it comes to rotary engines or modern technology with ignition and fuel delivery systems. I run water on my setup but I have encouraged customers to give 50/50 a wirl. I would like to experiment more like I used to, but I have too many jobs and hobbies as it is, plus a 2 year old who is going nuts as a type. Lol
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HalifaxFD
Canadian Forum
126
05-09-16 07:06 PM
SakeBomb Garage
Group Buy & Product Dev. FD RX-7
8
10-09-15 10:05 PM
