Thanks howard. This all adds to the discussion.

Here is an old log

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a32/sdminus/nitro.jpg

Howard. at this level of boost do you know what you inj duty normaly sits at ?

Scott

without alcohol about 90%.

that's another really great thing about AI.... i am obviously out of injectors without it running my turbos. w AI i don't have to go thru all the XXXX about adding more injectors. they run in a nice range now.

part of the new paradigm of AI.

hc

without starting up a totally off-topic discussion about this. . . i have a question. how do you feel about the current duty cycles with AI? do you feel that the addition of AI may have given you the desire to reduce the size of the fuel injectors? im not sure what the efficiency range of an injectors duty cycle would be. . . or even if there is one, but i would assume that if the injectors are running at a very low duty cycle, it could be somewhat like running at a very high duty cycle. is this a moot point?

I was gonna sit here and make a rough estimation of the amount of meth you are seeing as aposed do what the nozzel rating is but...... It will take to damn long and there are far to many factors in it for my brain to deal with atm....

I will have a look to see if i can find the shurflo flo chart for the pump you have and work out how much flow vs pressure you have. Becasue i bet the amount is far lower than you think. I'm not arguing the fact its bad..more out of interest

Scott

He said he was loging flow.

Eh...

Howard said in the "other thread" that he was loging flow on his AI system. The whole "DUH" coment. When we were debating lag issues.

Oh. I dont remember. There was a lot said lol. I know he logged fuel pressure.

Scott

rotorbrain re idc's..

i don't know as to whether there is a sweet spot/efficiency area. i do know that most people that are running 55 pound per minute turbos and have 850/1600 injectors are close to running static (wide open). that's not a good situation.

w the addition of AI you can probably knock 20% off the IDC and i know that's a good thing. beyond that i confess i don't care.

hc

The highest I've hit and have ever hit was 61% DC on 720/1680's, with a base pressure of 40psi, at just over 24psi of boost past 7krpm, and I was putting too much fuel into it, making it flood (richer than 10:1 AFR). My thoughts on this are that anything that's done to reduce IDC is a good thing -- it means we can stretch out not only the life of our fuel systems' components but also have considerably higher power figures (potentially) with smaller injectors and lesser fuel pumps.

B

Good videos to show the pump response to on/off pulses - led and high speed valve was used as datum.

http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/3903020622.jpg


http://img1.putfile.com/thumb/2/3903020695.jpg


Click here to watch fastswtiching
Click here to watch pumpjump
Click here to watch lag-20-33
Click here to watch spraypulses

Be patient - take some time to download

Outstanding Richard!!

Thank you.


You really can see the difference.

The video link was sent to me by a user - they did it as an engineering project.

Wow. there is quite some differance there.

mmm reading this got me thinking. so i made a test rig and started flow testing my progressive controller 'from a ''leading'' brand'.

30 lbs of boost. 50ml/min
20 lbs of boost. 50ml/min
10 lbs of boost. 50ml/min

the 'CONTROLLER' if it can be called that was set at 30psi max boost with a turn on of 1psi.
pumping water. through an 'M1' jet. the pulsation and vibration was increadable. and the run on seen in richard's video was present with or without the checkvalve before the jet.

the tests were repeated three times and the results were conclusive.

NOT impressed.
so Scott's was not a one off...

Ollie.

This kit was a full kit and bought direct mid 2006.

I have mailed the relevent people. However this time we WANT answers.

Scott

still have the test rig attached. so if anyone has anything they want me to try let me know.
will try some more jets on monday.

Ollie

the fact that this is, as scott represents, is a "full" kit makes this test IMO a reasonable test to consider.

obviously there are assumptions as settings & setup etc but it is worth analysis.

i do have one question. you are using an M1 jet? an M1 jet as i understand flows 63 cc/minute. that's almost like no jet. i run two M10s. most people run at least one M5 or 6 or 7.... Ollie please do put a jet on your test setup that flows 300 to 500 ccs and let us know what you find.

i have absolutely no problem w this process and perhaps we will learn something additional of value here.

howard coleman

i have an m5 jet some were will find and test and let you know.

Ollie

First let me say thank you for your effort.


Could I ask you to move the spray nozzles a little further apart. The reason I ask this is the spray paterns are intertangled. As a result its not easy to tell the spray paterns apart. I think moving the nozzles 12in ( or so ) away from each other will add alot of definition to the spray paterns, and really show the diffrence.

Ollie didn't do the video test's

If we can arrange some sample jets could you try differant sizes and catalogue this

Scott

oh ok sry NVM.

I understand why you want ollie to try differant jets BUT. The kit is suposed to flow any jet and clearly from the evedence we have seen this is not the case.

I would like to draw the attention to this thread. David clearly says the controller has the ability to trim the flow.

https://www.rx7club.com/auxiliary-injection-173/hondahaters-ai-questions-never-get-answered-591272/

This post has bought my data back into the public domain as 100 % relevant ?

Scott