Water Injection 2007
09-28-2007, 05:13 PM
#91
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: Water Injection 2007
how was that hand job you just gave yourself? pleasurable i hope. or is your **** hurting?
its not bullshit.
approximately 65kw on mine. however i am making negligible boost at 3k. a shitty setup with a td04 could be making a lot of boost at 3k.
however boost pressure is totally irrelevant for the purposes of calculating time.
if on the other hand you wanted to calculate actual evaporation based on drop size and air temp and density, it would matter a lot.
if my 100% ve assumption is wrong, what do you think that does to the time figure? say it was 50%, that DOUBLES THE TIME. you arent helping yourself, you are just floundering...
for the purposes of calculating time, the density of the air doesnt matter at all. the engine swallows capacity*ve air every 2 revs. it doesnt care what the density of the air it swallows is, it swallows a volume. a volume thats taken from the intake causing a new volume to move up and take its place hopefully at the same density...
pull your head out of your now slippery ****.
this is just drivel. for a start, you are back putting intercoolers that the hypothetical setup doesnt have into the broken equation.
secondly, 250 is 2.5 times the boiling point of water, so if you had an infinite amount of time, it would all evaporate, infact, you wouldnt need so much, it would happen a LOT faster than that. if you are introducing broken imperial measurements into what was supposed to be a scientific discussion, then you are still at 120C which by necessity unless the water cools the air (gasp, could it be true??) will also vapourise 100% of the water regardless of humidity.
how about you do some math and show something with it. dont present half baked ideas you sponged out of some 1930s documents to me and expect me to do your homework for you. if you expect that, you are dreaming.
no one is winning here. no one will till JD stops being lazy and relying on others thinking and work. no one will till he sits down and does his own homework.
heres a question for you JD, whats your educational background? i will accept practical employment as well as full blown education (that is if bryson is wrong and there is some education worth having below uni level over there) in the list... that is if it doesnt extend past reading pdfs on the net and asking "do you want fries with that?".
fred.
Originally Posted by Joseph Davis
It's also a bullshit figure because we aren't spraying water at 3000 rpms and 0 psi. Do you know how much power the average 2 liter four cylinder makes at 3000 rpms? ASSuming that it is at 100% VE at that point in the powerband, which I ASSure you it is very much not.
approximately 65kw on mine. however i am making negligible boost at 3k. a shitty setup with a td04 could be making a lot of boost at 3k.
however boost pressure is totally irrelevant for the purposes of calculating time.
if on the other hand you wanted to calculate actual evaporation based on drop size and air temp and density, it would matter a lot.
if my 100% ve assumption is wrong, what do you think that does to the time figure? say it was 50%, that DOUBLES THE TIME. you arent helping yourself, you are just floundering...
for the purposes of calculating time, the density of the air doesnt matter at all. the engine swallows capacity*ve air every 2 revs. it doesnt care what the density of the air it swallows is, it swallows a volume. a volume thats taken from the intake causing a new volume to move up and take its place hopefully at the same density...
Do either of you care to try to make a real world applicable point, as opposed to manipulating numbers until they say what you want, either intentionally or out of ignorance?
Try calculating the amount of airmass vs watermass you would require for all the water to convert into vapor given an infinite amount of time, Fred. I assure you that at 250 degree charge temps - MUCH higher than you will ever find in an already air-air intercooled setup - you will never bring any significant fraction of the water into vapor form. Just so you have figures to call me out on, I'm going to pull some figures out of my *** witrhout even doing any of the math: 15% water-fuel ratio (hardly anything), 250 degree intake charge temps (insanely high), over an infinite time (LOL - freebie for your cause!), 1% or less of the water changes state.
secondly, 250 is 2.5 times the boiling point of water, so if you had an infinite amount of time, it would all evaporate, infact, you wouldnt need so much, it would happen a LOT faster than that. if you are introducing broken imperial measurements into what was supposed to be a scientific discussion, then you are still at 120C which by necessity unless the water cools the air (gasp, could it be true??) will also vapourise 100% of the water regardless of humidity.
Have fun, provide all work, and make sure to account for the rpms, airmass, and VEs that you would find in a real world turbocharged application when they water injection would be operating. Good luck proving your complete failure to approach the boilling point of water for my amusement.
Fred=WINNER!!
heres a question for you JD, whats your educational background? i will accept practical employment as well as full blown education (that is if bryson is wrong and there is some education worth having below uni level over there) in the list... that is if it doesnt extend past reading pdfs on the net and asking "do you want fries with that?".
fred.
09-28-2007, 06:07 PM
#92
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
Oh wtf, Wesley you're still arguing?
I would have been sure that because of the temperature differential between the incoming charge and the water being sprayed in the IAT would have been lowered, and yes a finer atomization would yield a faster energy transfer between molecules, there is no problem with your assertions other than the fact that the denoted drop in temperature results in little to no change in power output due to thermodynamics;
What I believe JD was making a point about was that in order to make a significant thermal change in the charge you would need a significant amount of water to absorb the latent heat energy of the compressed gas, something you could accomplish with multiple jets or a jet that could flow the correct amount, this would necessitate you also compensating for the dilution of the AFR (adding more fuel, but that's a given). The majority of applications are going to be made using windshield washer squirters
, so the temperature drop isn't going to help very much in application, the point that JD was also making. The main benefit from water injection is the fact that you are introducing a molecule that succumbs to the phenomenon known as ignition less readily than a regular mixture of air and hydrocarbons. The added bonds possible from the introduced hydrogen and oxygen also potentiate the flame propagation in the chamber as well as giving a "cleaner" burn (releasing less carcinogens and ****, i.e. what not and therefore 
).
Do not insult me in anyway by insinuating that I am somehow defending Mr. Davis. He is a hippy-smashing, hindu hating, scum-sucking, alcoholic , pasty ***, balding, Carolina peckerwood who has fathered numerous illegitimate children with scores of trailer-park prostitutes who still fill his cell phone message box with calls about his refusal to pay child support.
my mother is still waiting for that check -------.
But besides that you damn kiwi:
I would have been sure that because of the temperature differential between the incoming charge and the water being sprayed in the IAT would have been lowered, and yes a finer atomization would yield a faster energy transfer between molecules, there is no problem with your assertions other than the fact that the denoted drop in temperature results in little to no change in power output due to thermodynamics;
What I believe JD was making a point about was that in order to make a significant thermal change in the charge you would need a significant amount of water to absorb the latent heat energy of the compressed gas, something you could accomplish with multiple jets or a jet that could flow the correct amount, this would necessitate you also compensating for the dilution of the AFR (adding more fuel, but that's a given). The majority of applications are going to be made using windshield washer squirters
, so the temperature drop isn't going to help very much in application, the point that JD was also making. The main benefit from water injection is the fact that you are introducing a molecule that succumbs to the phenomenon known as ignition less readily than a regular mixture of air and hydrocarbons. The added bonds possible from the introduced hydrogen and oxygen also potentiate the flame propagation in the chamber as well as giving a "cleaner" burn (releasing less carcinogens and ****, i.e. what not and therefore ). Do not insult me in anyway by insinuating that I am somehow defending Mr. Davis. He is a hippy-smashing, hindu hating, scum-sucking, alcoholic , pasty ***, balding, Carolina peckerwood who has fathered numerous illegitimate children with scores of trailer-park prostitutes who still fill his cell phone message box with calls about his refusal to pay child support.
my mother is still waiting for that check -------.But besides that you damn kiwi:
09-28-2007, 06:18 PM
#93
1.5 BAR
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 749
Re: Water Injection 2007
Fred you failed to realize that we use farenheit temperatures. Plus, you're talking about a pressurized environment where the boiling point of water is increased. You didn't address that.
This argument has turned into a debate about how much heat the water will draw from the air. Even if it does draw some miniscule amount of the heat from the intake charge in the milliseconds before combustion, the heat is still carried to the combustion chamber in the water. I think it's pretty obvious that the the vast majority of thermal effect would be in the combuston chamber and not in the intake.
This argument has turned into a debate about how much heat the water will draw from the air. Even if it does draw some miniscule amount of the heat from the intake charge in the milliseconds before combustion, the heat is still carried to the combustion chamber in the water. I think it's pretty obvious that the the vast majority of thermal effect would be in the combuston chamber and not in the intake.
09-28-2007, 06:30 PM
#94
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: Water Injection 2007
waffles, good post, this :
i can address. i have the constants, but i have to go to bed... so i'll post up the calculations tomorrow (rough and ready ones...)
as for the pressure affecting boiling point...
not very much. note the logarithmic scale...
as for not noting degrees F, i did. 120 degrees C is 250 F. i had that covered..
fred.
What I believe JD was making a point about was that in order to make a significant thermal change in the charge you would need a significant amount of water to absorb the latent heat energy of the compressed gas,
as for the pressure affecting boiling point...
not very much. note the logarithmic scale...
as for not noting degrees F, i did. 120 degrees C is 250 F. i had that covered..
fred.
09-28-2007, 06:34 PM
#95
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by klyph
the heat is still carried to the combustion chamber in the water.
what you have said there is wrong. i missed it in the last post. sorry.
fred.
09-28-2007, 06:40 PM
#96
1.5 BAR
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 749
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
change of state man, change of state. the energy is used to make the water into vapour. the temperature of the vapour can be the same as the water was, and you have still sucked in a heap of energy cooing the air....
what you have said there is wrong. i missed it in the last post. sorry.
fred.
what you have said there is wrong. i missed it in the last post. sorry.
fred.
09-28-2007, 07:35 PM
#97
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
Well lets try and work this out for a car running a 10psi wastegate setting, 10 psi is equivalent to 6.89*10+4 Pascal's, so according to your graph that would put the change of state around 250o Kelvin, water boils at 212oF atmospheric.
Assuming our ideal outlet temperature is around 216o F, subtract what you will for intercooling and lest not forget adiabatic efficiency , that would give us an IAT of 375.222 Kelvin which is more than enough heat energy to convert the water to gaseous state at this specific pressure, calculate the mass of the water you are flowing into the charge and you will be able to figure out the amount of energy that will be absorbed, i.e. the temperature drop, given that proper atomization occurs.
You could also calculate the optimal amount of water to flow without dropping the IAT low enough to cause water/fuel to puddle or complications with mechanical tolerances. In the meantime, while you guys are still figuring out what to do with all this water, I'm going to be out jacking the oxygen tanks from old people, and injecting compressed oxygen into my intake charge, a la old school turbine jet afterburners
------- duh good post, I have mofuckin waffles.
If I ever visit New Zealand or OZland I'll be sure to look you up you kiwi bastard, you can hook me up with a foxy looking sheep
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
, that would give us an IAT of 375.222 Kelvin which is more than enough heat energy to convert the water to gaseous state at this specific pressure, calculate the mass of the water you are flowing into the charge and you will be able to figure out the amount of energy that will be absorbed, i.e. the temperature drop, given that proper atomization occurs. You could also calculate the optimal amount of water to flow without dropping the IAT low enough to cause water/fuel to puddle or complications with mechanical tolerances. In the meantime, while you guys are still figuring out what to do with all this water, I'm going to be out jacking the oxygen tanks from old people, and injecting compressed oxygen into my intake charge, a la old school turbine jet afterburners
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
waffles, good post, this
If I ever visit New Zealand or OZland I'll be sure to look you up you kiwi bastard, you can hook me up with a foxy looking sheep
09-29-2007, 02:28 AM
#98
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by talonator1488
Hey man Im sorry if I hurt your feelings but I know quite a bit about chemistry too. Im a mechanical engineering major and have taken plenty of both. Quit posting responses that confirm what I say.
Fredd=WINNER!!
Fredd=WINNER!!
I'm done with pathetic little kids who think they know everything. Use your head instead of running your mouth. Oh, and one other thing - learn to read, ******.
09-29-2007, 02:45 AM
#99
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by Snafubmx234
You're just like the rest of those "I'm an ME major, so I know everything!" kids. As an engineer you'll have to build on that idea you have in your little brain (like the one you have now about water injection!). Once you do some research (which you obviously haven't done) and come to a conclusion, you'll sometimes have to admit you're wrong.... and this is one of those times. I suggest you become an English major since you lack communication skills and you have no future as a ME.
I'm done with pathetic little kids who think they know everything. Use your head instead of running your mouth. Oh, and one other thing - learn to read, ******.
I'm done with pathetic little kids who think they know everything. Use your head instead of running your mouth. Oh, and one other thing - learn to read, ******.
09-29-2007, 06:11 AM
#100
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by wafflesincars
Well lets try and work this out for a car running a 10psi wastegate setting, 10 psi is equivalent to 6.89*10+4 Pascal's, so according to your graph that would put the change of state around 250o Kelvin, water boils at 212oF atmospheric.
also, 10psi is on the low side for anything that needs water injection.
You could also calculate the optimal amount of water to flow without dropping the IAT low enough to cause water/fuel to puddle or complications with mechanical tolerances. In the meantime, while you guys are still figuring out what to do with all this water, I'm going to be out jacking the oxygen tanks from old people, and injecting compressed oxygen into my intake charge, a la old school turbine jet afterburners
------- duh good post, I have mofuckin waffles.
If I ever visit New Zealand or OZland I'll be sure to look you up you kiwi bastard, you can hook me up with a foxy looking sheep
If I ever visit New Zealand or OZland I'll be sure to look you up you kiwi bastard, you can hook me up with a foxy looking sheep
i'll hook you up with a spin in the ute, and some sheep on a plate. thats the only two places i see them anyway. blurred from the side window, or sitting fattily on the plate.
fred.
