methanol/water injection

Most high school students could have drafted more lucid cometary than you did.

You have no idea as to what I know, what I have done, or how credible I am, but you are entitled to your assumptions.

You are admittedly lacking understanding, and you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend the information I provided. I am puzzled how one gets from that to being qualified to critique my responses and pronounce me a dumbass. No matter where I fall on the scale, you are clearly a genius.

You are consistently argumentative, defensive, and critical of anything you don't understand or don't want to hear. Knowing how frequently your posts here degrade into adolescent chest poking and name calling, I was reluctant to answer your questions. Whatever shortcomings you have, at least you are predictable.

As to your evaluation of my past posts, all I can tell you is skip over them if you don't want to know what I have to say. If my posts are truly without merit one would wonder why you waste the time to address questions to me, read my responses, then post comments.

 

Guidelines:
1. If in doubt, don’t post it
2. Stay on-topic and relevant with your posts… OT posts aren’t generally appreciated by our membership.
3. Gotta easy question? Try using the search function first.
4. Your life here would probably be easier if you complete your profile and introduce yourself before jumping into the deep end...

Credibility is formed on past performance.

Once again here on this thread, congruent with past threads, the present self portrait of expertise is a farse.
Statements are made, questions asked with the final answer being this :
"...have no first hand experience or direct knowledge or experience..."
( simple search of your post history shows this )

Credibility could be salvaged , however this same thing happens again and again with you. Pseudo expert advice followed by "I haven't actually done it " . Hence the credibility is no longer in question, because it simply doesn't exist. Perhaps beginning the statement or string of posts with " I have no experience," would add some value, at least it would qualify your statement, but doing so would not follow the guidelines

 

I'll try to find it. I think it is a PHR from a while back.

 

I have several articles on water/methanol injection as a detonation suppressant (sorry, nothing claiming a compression increase) from back in the seventies, I will try to find a couple this weekend and post them.

 

On anything naturally aspirated this will be a complete waste of time.

Only way it could possibly pick up any power is if it had a ton of compression and couldn't be tuned out on 93 octane.

Then, to gain any power you would need to lean the carb out so the air/fuel ratio was correct when meth is being sprayed otherwise the excessively rich air/fuel ratio will negate any potential gains from octane/cooling. (This is true even for forced induction applications) Even best case scenario is likely a handful of horsepower but most likely a loss.

Best thing to do is design the combination to meet your goals around pump fuel (or whatever fuel you want to run) rather than any type of supplemental injection system.

 

You seem to believe I have no first hand experience with ADI. That is incorrect.

You misrepresent what I have posted past and present, then comment oh those false characterizations. The fact politicians do that doesn't validate the practice.

I don't post what I don't know. Anyone who reads and understands my posts knows that. If I do post an opion or educated guess I label it so. Your opinion aside, no apologies are due for what I posted in this discussion, and what I post on this forum in general.

If you want the last word it's yours. I am fine with letting the readers decide which of us is truly an ass hat(your words).

 

Dang . . . . . , this gettin' a bit hairy!!!!

FWIW . . , Back in the day, spent my time as crew and traveling with the quickest and fastest Blown Fuel Hydro in this country. Look it up!!

The only way we could afford to go quick and fast with a huge % of nitromethane and not kill every part in sight was to feed this beast a dose of good ole' H2O (distilled water actually).

Had a set of nozzles above the hat butterflies that were plumbed to a small Moon tank in the back of the boat. Ran the pressure line to the blower manifold. Took exactly 1.1 liters of water on a good pass (I know, I know . . . , that what you have to put up with when you hang out with a Jap brand motorcycle dealer!!) to keep from melting it down.

That the only way we could sit on the boat trailer fender drinkin' Dr. Peppers while the other guys were up to their elbows in 60wt!!!

. . . . . . and we kept a red shop rag or Holiday Inn towel over the little tank . . . . . , those guys all though we were running Hydrazine or some exotic something or other!!!

For all of the experts, you can not tell me that this did not or will not work.

Like anything else, just got to tune it!!

Take care, K

 

Back to the regularly scheduled program.

This is from a LSR forum. I thought it was quality info.
---------------------
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,4138.15/wap2.html

The primary limit to engine power for most internal combustion spark ignition engines is knock limits imposed by fuel octane and heat limits posed by combustion temperatures. If you don't melt it you break it due to detonation. Water injection attacks both of those problems at the same time, by internal cooling and raising the effective fuel octane very substantially. That is where most of the power gain is. By increasing the effective fuel octane you can stuff more fuel and air into the engine than is physically possible on gasoline only.

Water vapor actually assists in the combustion process, as it facilitates conversion of carbon monoxide to CO2. In lab tests you can take a mixture of dry carbon monoxide gas and oxygen and it is nearly impossible to ignite, but add just a bit of water vapor and it ignites easily. This is one of the pathways that water injection uses to help make more power.

It cools the fuel air mixture by evaporation and due to the high specific heat of water (how much energy it takes to raise a water droplet one degree compared to a similar weight of gasoline). It also takes considerably more energy to evaporate the water droplet, to gas (steam) than it does to evaporate the gasoline droplet.

This means that during the compression stroke the fuel air mixture does not heat up as much due to compression, so the work that used to be spent fighting rising pressure due to heat in the cylinder is spent evaporating the water alcohol mist. This gains engine power by reducing compression losses.

The water does slightly retard the effective ignition due to its cooling effect but in many engines that moves the time of peak cylinder pressure slightly later in the combustion stroke closer to its ideal 12-14 degrees after top dead center for maximum power recovery. Also during the burn phase the water gives back the energy that was invested to evaporate it. It lowers peak cylinder pressure (cooling effect during compression and higher heat capacity), but the steam generated during combustion stretches out the pressure peak so although the peak cylinder pressure is slightly lower the total effective pressure goes up because the pressure does not fall as fast as the piston descends down the cylinder due to waters high specific heat (it has to expand more to cool off the same amount as a normal fuel air charge).

The slightly lower peak cylinder temperature, lowers heat stress, and heat losses to the cooling system, and helps keep valves alive at power levels that would melt them without the water injection.



The evaporative cooling as the fuel air water mist enters the cylinder also increase volumetric efficiency of the engine as the fuel air charge heats up less as it passes the hot head of the intake valve, and cools off hot spots like spark plug electrodes and any other possible sources of pre-ignition.

All these effects allow you to produce more useful work out of the same or even more fuel than you could burn before without killing the engine due to high heat loads.

-----------------

 

And this from ADI systems being fitted to small civilian aircraft.

 

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...ackDesc=Results page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1

EPA study from 1966.
To evaluate the effects of NOx emissions with alcohol / water injection..
Test subject stock 1963 Chevy 283.
Fluid to fuel ratios tested up to 1.3 :1 ( more water than fuel !!!!!)

 

This was a factory installation on this particular engine only..Early 50's..May help or not..http://crosleyautoclub.com/EngineTree/QuickSilver.html

 

I'd be willing to bet the reason more OEM applications dont exist is because these systems depend on operator/driver/owner vigilance and participation; without that the engines would melt. Melted engines would be a warranty issue and public relations nightmare.

 

Up for Pączki Day!
(Punchki)

 

Buick considered it on some of their turbo cars of the 80's. (In the sunlight you can see a light on the dashboard that would have illuminated "power injection").

 

" in this corner wearing the white trunks............"

 

My '42 Chevy Coupe street freak/gasser has a blown Dart 540 and should make 1100HP on pump gas and it will have meth injection as that is a wonderful thing to be able to drive on pump gas. The cost for my kit? $1100.00!! But, the engine cost $30K so it is the price to drive a street car, simple math.

Excellent reads:
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352961

http://www.snowperformance.net/

http://www.alcoholinjectionsystems....r-Methanol-Injection-System/product_info.html

 

On the dyno and I'm out of Nitrous, so I thought I would contribute...............

 

Thought you might be interested in these articles I scanned from a couple of old magazines:

 

I emailed David V. to see if he had any advice on the subject. I'll pass anything along that he sends back.

 

Thanks muttley.
That's some cool stuff !

King Karl - that would be fantastic

 

Well that was fast but not much info. Here's the response.

Carl, At college we ran a tractor motor on kerosene at 17/1 CR with water injection. It works.
the best advice I can give here is to call the guys at Snow water injection (google them as I don't have the tel # at hand at present)
Hope that helps,
DV

 

This is a pretty good episode of Horsepower TV on the subject.
http://www.powerblocktv.com/episodes/HP2011-17/horsepower-explores-the-chemical-intercooler

 

Thanks for posting that .
Pretty cool stuff.
Nice gains from the kit. 30 HP gain on 93 pump gas + water meth with smaller jets vs 118 racing gas. Puts that 700+ HP engine into the affordable to drive category.

 

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this:

I used it back in the 80's on a built, hot running Chevy 400, that had some detonation problems on the high end. It solved the problem and I was very pleased. I still have it (somewhere).

 

Back up ^^^^
And still looking for a book

 

31 What exactly are you trying to find out?
I think that it's been proven that it works. Are you more so looking into how it's made to work for building your own?

 

I'm looking for some in-depth information on these systems.
Preferably a book that delves deep into the theory's application but a good discussion is always welcome.

I'm contemplating building a NA carbureted engine to take full advantage of everything the system provides.

Not necessarily build my own but that certainly is an option I haven't ruled out.
I have seen it over and over that they do work. Heres the jist -The alcohol water injection was conceived to cure a problem and it works. I want to build an engine that will take full advantage of these systems. In other words an engine "around " the system instead of adding a system to cure a problem. Maybe the Germans built their aircraft engines around the system, maybe they just added it on. I know they used it before we did and supposedly this was first tried in 1880s.

There's a thread on the engine and that im contemplating -I linked it in an earlier post but hear it is again.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=774709

The EPA report from 1966 that I linked earlier ( very interesting BTW ) has a few books referenced but they are hard to find and pretty old. I was hoping Mr Vizard would have some substance to add, but thanks so much for contacting him.