Water Injection 2007
08-26-2007, 04:29 PM
#11
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
There is no 20 to 30 degrees K of cooling taking place outside the combustion chamber, Fred, your point means nothing. You aren't the only Aspergers kid on the internet, its pretty easy to pick you guys out linguistically.
08-26-2007, 06:23 PM
#13
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
Look up the equation for thermal transfer, find the R of mild steel, figure the area of 2 to 6 feet of pipe, and time is a factor of the time it takes to traverse the portion of charge pipe that's water injected - easily deduced by cfm to hp relationship. See how much thermal transfer there is at such a small differential on the millisecond time level. Useless. Charge temps are not changed, as the literature based on 250 degree temps states; there is no measurable increase in power.
08-27-2007, 03:02 AM
#14
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 752
Re: Water Injection 2007
you didnt answer my question at all. what the hell has the pipe got to do with anything, unless the air is turbulent as hell (read low flow) only a boundary layer is in contact anyway, the pipes could be glowing red, and be a non issue...
i'm not one to just believe ---- spouted by *big* names like shelby, corky, endyn, etc etc etc whoever it is you are quoting etc etc
i'd much prefer to do my own experiments and think things through, and in this case, with HOT air from high boost on a small turbo, and with a FINE mist injected under HIGH pressure a few feet back, i strongly believe that it will cool that charge some potentially substantial amount. it may even drop pressure in the process and end up inducing the same mass of air, but there will be a temperature drop from such an activity...
i'm not one to just believe ---- spouted by *big* names like shelby, corky, endyn, etc etc etc whoever it is you are quoting etc etc
i'd much prefer to do my own experiments and think things through, and in this case, with HOT air from high boost on a small turbo, and with a FINE mist injected under HIGH pressure a few feet back, i strongly believe that it will cool that charge some potentially substantial amount. it may even drop pressure in the process and end up inducing the same mass of air, but there will be a temperature drop from such an activity...
08-27-2007, 06:49 AM
#15
1.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 247
Re: Water Injection 2007
Okie i have read the Post's at Grassroot's
will water injection work:YES
Will Pure Water Injection work: YES
Will you gain Power from PWI: NO
Will you loose power from PWI: YES
PWI will drop engine Temp: YES.
So injecting Pure Water asif it was water/meth will cause a result in power loss. So you only need to inject between 10-25% of the origianl amount of fluid... thats sound correct?
Oh and you need to be running good boost (+-14.7Psi)
will water injection work:YES
Will Pure Water Injection work: YES
Will you gain Power from PWI: NO
Will you loose power from PWI: YES
PWI will drop engine Temp: YES.
So injecting Pure Water asif it was water/meth will cause a result in power loss. So you only need to inject between 10-25% of the origianl amount of fluid... thats sound correct?
Oh and you need to be running good boost (+-14.7Psi)
08-27-2007, 07:31 AM
#16
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 44
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by Schwitzer Turbo
Okie i have read the Post's at Grassroot's
will water injection work:YES
Will Pure Water Injection work: YES
Will you gain Power from PWI: NO
Will you loose power from PWI: YES
PWI will drop engine Temp: YES.
So injecting Pure Water asif it was water/meth will cause a result in power loss. So you only need to inject between 10-25% of the origianl amount of fluid... thats sound correct?
will water injection work:YES
Will Pure Water Injection work: YES
Will you gain Power from PWI: NO
Will you loose power from PWI: YES
PWI will drop engine Temp: YES.
So injecting Pure Water asif it was water/meth will cause a result in power loss. So you only need to inject between 10-25% of the origianl amount of fluid... thats sound correct?
We are finally getting somewhere. My mates Cabby burnout cos of water/METH inejection, it burns with a invisable flame, and insurance wont pay out if you running water meth so its risky.
Im still running my cast pistons so i think injecting a lil water will go along way to aid the survival of my Engine. I have no detonation or feuling problems just trying to be on the safe side/prolong engine life?
This will not affect the Cermic coating's on my piston's will it? and if i did add "PURE" h20 Injection would i have to change my Feuling Map's.
08-27-2007, 02:31 PM
#18
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 0
Re: Water Injection 2007
Originally Posted by fe3tcourier
i'm not one to just believe ---- spouted by *big* names like shelby, corky, endyn, etc etc etc whoever it is you are quoting etc etc
If you don't know who Sir Harry Ricardo was your education is halfassed at best. Ricardo Engineering Consultants is very much an ongoing concern in automotive R&D, even though Ricardo's been dead for decades. The majority of your internal combustion engineering texts cite Ricardo as a primary source. They at no time mention Carroll Shelby, Corketh Bellshite, or Larry Lying ****** Widmer.
If you want to refer to someone alive, then you can refer to Vizard's work on detonation in the 70s. All the basic premises of thermal transfer are covered there.
You can go do all the research in the world you wish and you will get no gains from water injection which is what cooling of the airmass would provide. You get an increase in knock limit, and nothing more. I imagine you'll pay attention to your IAT at the time and tell yourself that it's giving you valid charge temps... even if and when they read below the ambient temperature the water/diluent is kept at.
I provided referrences to the peer reviewed and approved engineering literature that I derived my information from, I did not get it from the internet posts of Larry Lying ****** Widmer or his ilk. The least your Kiwi *** can do is READ said sources before you start arguing like a twit. As long as you have not READ the engineering-level literature that has existed for decades then you do not have grounds to refute it. You have some mental image in your head of what is going on, and it is incorrect.
08-27-2007, 02:56 PM
#20
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,631
...
Originally Posted by Joseph Davis
Some respect to Shelby, but he was an enthusiast in the right place/right time and not much more. The other two are idiots with histories of bad business practices and putting out mediochre cars while aggrandising their egos. I have paid attention to them as a cognitive exercise at picking apart their bullshit
If you don't know who Sir Harry Ricardo was your education is halfassed at best. Ricardo Engineering Consultants is very much an ongoing concern in automotive R&D, even though Ricardo's been dead for decades. The majority of your internal combustion engineering texts cite Ricardo as a primary source. They at no time mention Carroll Shelby, Corketh Bellshite, or Larry Lying ****** Widmer.
If you want to refer to someone alive, then you can refer to Vizard's work on detonation in the 70s. All the basic premises of thermal transfer are covered there.
You can go do all the research in the world you wish and you will get no gains from water injection which is what cooling of the airmass would provide. You get an increase in knock limit, and nothing more. I imagine you'll pay attention to your IAT at the time and tell yourself that it's giving you valid charge temps... even if and when they read below the ambient temperature the water/diluent is kept at.
I provided referrences to the peer reviewed and approved engineering literature that I derived my information from, I did not get it from the internet posts of Larry Lying ****** Widmer or his ilk. The least your Kiwi *** can do is READ said sources before you start arguing like a twit. As long as you have not READ the engineering-level literature that has existed for decades then you do not have grounds to refute it. You have some mental image in your head of what is going on, and it is incorrect.
If you don't know who Sir Harry Ricardo was your education is halfassed at best. Ricardo Engineering Consultants is very much an ongoing concern in automotive R&D, even though Ricardo's been dead for decades. The majority of your internal combustion engineering texts cite Ricardo as a primary source. They at no time mention Carroll Shelby, Corketh Bellshite, or Larry Lying ****** Widmer.
If you want to refer to someone alive, then you can refer to Vizard's work on detonation in the 70s. All the basic premises of thermal transfer are covered there.
You can go do all the research in the world you wish and you will get no gains from water injection which is what cooling of the airmass would provide. You get an increase in knock limit, and nothing more. I imagine you'll pay attention to your IAT at the time and tell yourself that it's giving you valid charge temps... even if and when they read below the ambient temperature the water/diluent is kept at.
I provided referrences to the peer reviewed and approved engineering literature that I derived my information from, I did not get it from the internet posts of Larry Lying ****** Widmer or his ilk. The least your Kiwi *** can do is READ said sources before you start arguing like a twit. As long as you have not READ the engineering-level literature that has existed for decades then you do not have grounds to refute it. You have some mental image in your head of what is going on, and it is incorrect.
Ah.. (breathes in) I AM ENTERTAINED AT LAST!!!!
Thanks JD!
