|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > small engine water injection..
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
small engine water injection..
|
|
| philkryder 2006-02-09, 11:21 pm |
| We recently hooked up the propane connections on our 15 horse power
generator.
This leaves us with an empty plastic gas tank, a carburetor and a
chronic inability to "leave well enough alone"...
It occurs to me that the way the U.S. Carbs propane unit is constructed
and attached, leaves us with a fully functional gasoline carburetor.
Would this engine benefit from any amount of water injection via the
carb?
How would one determine an appropriate jet size for the proper amount
of water to inject.
Frost is no a concern, but fuel economy, and longevity of the engine
are.
Thanks
Phil
| |
| phatty mo 2006-02-10, 12:21 am |
| philkryder wrote:
> We recently hooked up the propane connections on our 15 horse power
> generator.
>
> This leaves us with an empty plastic gas tank, a carburetor and a
> chronic inability to "leave well enough alone"...
>
> It occurs to me that the way the U.S. Carbs propane unit is constructed
> and attached, leaves us with a fully functional gasoline carburetor.
>
> Would this engine benefit from any amount of water injection via the
> carb?
>
> How would one determine an appropriate jet size for the proper amount
> of water to inject.
>
> Frost is no a concern, but fuel economy, and longevity of the engine
> are.
>
> Thanks
> Phil
>
I dunno about generators,but years ago a buddy of mine built up a crude
'water injection' system on a Honda 500 motorcycle he had..
Put some milk jugs full of water in the back storage box,and ran lines
down to the carbs,to let the water drip in..
It had more power,as he burnt the rear tire off,and left a huge strip of
rubber down the street in front of his house..Pretty impressive power
gains,actually.
Maybe it could be helpful to inject water for a few seconds as you start
"heavy loads"..get an extra 'boost' from the engine for a bit,while you
flip on the arc-welder/water heater,etc.
I've heard injecting water into an engine on occasion can actually help
clean out carbon deposits and stuff.I dunno about running it all the
time though..I'd be afraid of rust starting inside the engine,though if
it's kept properly lubricated (all parts always coated in oil),that
shouldn't be much of an issue. ?
| |
| Bughunter 2006-02-10, 7:21 am |
|
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
news:1139539750.405378.37540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We recently hooked up the propane connections on our 15 horse power
> generator.
>
> This leaves us with an empty plastic gas tank, a carburetor and a
> chronic inability to "leave well enough alone"...
>
> It occurs to me that the way the U.S. Carbs propane unit is constructed
> and attached, leaves us with a fully functional gasoline carburetor.
>
> Would this engine benefit from any amount of water injection via the
> carb?
>
> How would one determine an appropriate jet size for the proper amount
> of water to inject.
>
> Frost is no a concern, but fuel economy, and longevity of the engine
> are.
>
> Thanks
> Phil
>
I may be wrong, but I thought the point of water injection was to mainly to
reduce knocking (pre-ignition) effectively making a gasoline engine operate
as if it were running on higher octane fuel. Whereas propane has a very high
apparent octane rating to begin with, much higher than any gasoline, water
injection would not seem to add any value to a propane fueled engine.
A friend added a water injection contraption to an old Volvo and claimed it
ran "smoother" and got a small improvement in mileage. I remain skeptical
that water injection if of any value in any circumstance. Personally, I
would be reluctant to experiment on anything other than an engine that was
near end of life.
Another friend from the same family has a patent on a propane carburetor
system. After investing several hundred of thousands in R&D and testing, he
never made much of a profit on it although it worked well. One of his more
popular markets was converting high performance boat engines. Because of the
higher apparent octane rating of propane, they were able to increase
compression ratio to something like 12 to 1, without any pre-ignition
problems and get a whole lot more horsepower out of these modified engines.
just my $.02
| |
| phatty mo 2006-02-10, 11:21 am |
| Bughunter wrote:
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
> news:1139539750.405378.37540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> I may be wrong, but I thought the point of water injection was to mainly to
> reduce knocking (pre-ignition) effectively making a gasoline engine operate
> as if it were running on higher octane fuel. Whereas propane has a very high
> apparent octane rating to begin with, much higher than any gasoline, water
> injection would not seem to add any value to a propane fueled engine.
>
> A friend added a water injection contraption to an old Volvo and claimed it
> ran "smoother" and got a small improvement in mileage. I remain skeptical
> that water injection if of any value in any circumstance. Personally, I
> would be reluctant to experiment on anything other than an engine that was
> near end of life.
>
> Another friend from the same family has a patent on a propane carburetor
> system. After investing several hundred of thousands in R&D and testing, he
> never made much of a profit on it although it worked well. One of his more
> popular markets was converting high performance boat engines. Because of the
> higher apparent octane rating of propane, they were able to increase
> compression ratio to something like 12 to 1, without any pre-ignition
> problems and get a whole lot more horsepower out of these modified engines.
>
> just my $.02
>
>
Ohh yea,they also use propane and water injection on diesels,to gain
more power.
| |
| Bughunter 2006-02-10, 12:21 pm |
|
"phatty mo" <ptaylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Lh1Hf.5$KY.3429@news.uswest.net...
>
> Ohh yea,they also use propane and water injection on diesels,to gain more
> power.
>
>
What's the theory behind it?
How does injecting water add benefit?
| |
|
|
"Bughunter" <nobody@home.net> wrote in message
news:Tl_Gf.11529$Gg1.2098@trnddc03...
>
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message
> news:1139539750.405378.37540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I may be wrong, but I thought the point of water injection was to mainly
> to reduce knocking (pre-ignition) effectively making a gasoline engine
> operate as if it were running on higher octane fuel. Whereas propane has a
> very high apparent octane rating to begin with, much higher than any
> gasoline, water injection would not seem to add any value to a propane
> fueled engine.
>
Bughunter is right.
Adding water to the combustion does not add any energy. It is used,
often with alchohol, to prevent detonation. It's called ADI (Anti Detonation
Injection), and is common anywhere high horsepower is needed for a short
period of time. Many aircraft use this at the Reno air races, and I've seen
it used in combat aircraft. Because of the corrosive effects of water,
particularly at high pressure & temperature, these systems are seldom used
where longevity is a factor.
If there is any carbon buildup in the cylinder, even a brief squirt of water
will scour the cylinder shiny clean in seconds. Recently my wifes van blew a
head gasket, as evidenced by clouds of water vapor coming out the exhaust. I
pulled a couple of plugs, and found one that looked brand new. The inside of
that cylinder was spotless.
Al
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-02-10, 8:21 pm |
| Bughunter wrote:
> "phatty mo" <ptaylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Lh1Hf.5$KY.3429@news.uswest.net...
>
>
>
> What's the theory behind it?
>
> How does injecting water add benefit?
>
>
>
cools combustion so they can run higher compression. Supposed to keep
exhaust passages cleaner. it's a design tool, not an aftermarket addon.
Although, you could turn up the wick (dump more fuel) without
skyrocketing your egt's, important if you have a turbo. Diesel power
depends on fuel input.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-10, 9:21 pm |
| well, cool is good.
And keeping carbon cleared up is good...
I guess I'm worried about the 100+F days in August and all the comments
about burned valves and valve seats that folks have shared...
I'm going to try very hard not to do anything stupid just because there
is an opportunity...
Steve Spence wrote:
> Bughunter wrote:
>
> cools combustion so they can run higher compression. Supposed to keep
> exhaust passages cleaner. it's a design tool, not an aftermarket addon.
> Although, you could turn up the wick (dump more fuel) without
> skyrocketing your egt's, important if you have a turbo. Diesel power
> depends on fuel input.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| JoeSP 2006-02-10, 11:21 pm |
|
"Bughunter" <nobody@home.net> wrote in message
news:c92Hf.48$CZ4.28@trnddc05...
>
> "phatty mo" <ptaylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Lh1Hf.5$KY.3429@news.uswest.net...
>
> What's the theory behind it?
>
> How does injecting water add benefit?
There seems to be no definitive answer, but obviously the water boils and
produces steam, which adds to the energy of combustion. It also cools the
compression chamber, which is bound to improve engine life and reduce the
number of noxious compounds that form under higher temperatures.
| |
| harry k 2006-02-10, 11:21 pm |
|
Al wrote:
> "Bughunter" <nobody@home.net> wrote in message
> news:Tl_Gf.11529$Gg1.2098@trnddc03...
>
> Bughunter is right.
>
> Adding water to the combustion does not add any energy. It is used,
> often with alchohol, to prevent detonation. It's called ADI (Anti Detonation
> Injection), and is common anywhere high horsepower is needed for a short
> period of time. Many aircraft use this at the Reno air races, and I've seen
> it used in combat aircraft. Because of the corrosive effects of water,
> particularly at high pressure & temperature, these systems are seldom used
> where longevity is a factor.
>
> If there is any carbon buildup in the cylinder, even a brief squirt of water
> will scour the cylinder shiny clean in seconds. Recently my wifes van blew a
> head gasket, as evidenced by clouds of water vapor coming out the exhaust. I
> pulled a couple of plugs, and found one that looked brand new. The inside of
> that cylinder was spotless.
>
> Al
Yeah, just watch a short order cook clean his grill at the end of
shift. Pour water on hot grill and presto! BTDT
Harry K
| |
| harry k 2006-02-10, 11:21 pm |
|
JoeSP wrote:
> "Bughunter" <nobody@home.net> wrote in message
> news:c92Hf.48$CZ4.28@trnddc05...
>
> There seems to be no definitive answer, but obviously the water boils and
> produces steam, which adds to the energy of combustion. It also cools the
> compression chamber, which is bound to improve engine life and reduce the
> number of noxious compounds that form under higher temperatures.
I don't think it adds energy. ISTM that any energy used to produce
steam would result in less energy in the steam. You can't manufacture
energy.
Harry K
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2006-02-11, 12:21 am |
| "harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, just watch a short order cook clean his grill at the end of
>shift. Pour water on hot grill and presto! BTDT
Nuh Uh, a short order cook uses soda water (seltzer) REALLY BTDT. :-)
| |
|
|
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139627528.033184.309550@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> I don't think it adds energy. ISTM that any energy used to produce
> steam would result in less energy in the steam. You can't manufacture
> energy.
>
> Harry K
>
If the exhaust is cooler as a result of water injection, more of the energy
of combustion has been captured and converted to kinetic energy through the
production of steam instead of waste heat.
| |
|
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43ee5721.9762583@news.east.earthlink.net...
> "harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nuh Uh, a short order cook uses soda water (seltzer) REALLY BTDT. :-)
>
It just looks like soda water because it fizzes when it hits the hot grill.
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2006-02-11, 9:21 am |
| "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
>"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43ee5721.9762583@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
>It just looks like soda water because it fizzes when it hits the hot grill.
>
True, plain water can look like that, but the small amount of carbonic
acid in the soda water makes a difference in the ease of cleaning and
grease release, especially if the water is otherwise "hard." The job
can be done with plain water, but soda water is what a lot of the
smarter cooks prefer. It comes straight from the fountain tap, so it
might cost a half a cent more than plain water.
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-11, 11:21 am |
| Water works just fine. Try it on your own cast iron
pan.
Oil works OK too.
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
news:43edde6e.554106@news.east.earthlink.net...
> "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
wrote in message[color=darkred]
grill at the end of[color=darkred]
(seltzer) REALLY BTDT. :-)[color=darkred]
it hits the hot grill.[color=darkred]
> True, plain water can look like that, but the small
amount of carbonic
> acid in the soda water makes a difference in the ease
of cleaning and
> grease release, especially if the water is otherwise
"hard." The job
> can be done with plain water, but soda water is what
a lot of the
> smarter cooks prefer. It comes straight from the
fountain tap, so it
> might cost a half a cent more than plain water.
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2006-02-11, 12:21 pm |
| "Solar Flare" <sfl@hutmail.notvalid> wrote:
>Water works just fine. Try it on your own cast iron
>pan.
Back in my early 20s I spent a summer as manager of a drive-in. I had
more than ample opportunity to test water, seltzer, lard, pumice
scrubbers, paint scapers, boil-out solutions, etc. on a real grill.
Hence the BTDT. Seltzer made the job easiest, and a light wipedown of
lard afterward kept the grill from rusting. YMMV, but I have no
desire to repeat my experiments.
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-11, 1:21 pm |
| Yhey say selzer is good for wine stains too.
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
news:43f10903.11456971@news.east.earthlink.net...
> "Solar Flare" <sfl@hutmail.notvalid> wrote:
>
>
> Back in my early 20s I spent a summer as manager of a
drive-in. I had
> more than ample opportunity to test water, seltzer,
lard, pumice
> scrubbers, paint scapers, boil-out solutions, etc. on
a real grill.
> Hence the BTDT. Seltzer made the job easiest, and a
light wipedown of
> lard afterward kept the grill from rusting. YMMV,
but I have no
> desire to repeat my experiments.
| |
| Robert Morein 2006-02-11, 9:21 pm |
| [snip]
>
> Bughunter is right.
>
> Adding water to the combustion does not add any energy. It is used,
> often with alchohol, to prevent detonation. It's called ADI (Anti
> Detonation Injection), and is common anywhere high horsepower is needed
> for a short period of time. Many aircraft use this at the Reno air races,
> and I've seen it used in combat aircraft. Because of the corrosive effects
> of water, particularly at high pressure & temperature, these systems are
> seldom used where longevity is a factor.
>
In a conversation with a WWII P40 pilot, I learned that water injection
could be actuated for an extra boost to escape pursuit. According to him,
the maximum allowed time was 5 minutes, and the engine was reduced to junk.
However, this was considered acceptable when the alternative was loss of the
plane.
| |
|
|
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:oQbHf.1171$W31.778@edtnps90...
>
> "Bughunter" <nobody@home.net> wrote in message
> news:c92Hf.48$CZ4.28@trnddc05...
more[color=darkred]
>
> There seems to be no definitive answer, but obviously the water boils and
> produces steam, which adds to the energy of combustion. It also cools the
> compression chamber, which is bound to improve engine life and reduce the
> number of noxious compounds that form under higher temperatures.
>
>
as i understand it water injection is to cool the intake charge, all things
being equal you would have less HP. but, the intake charge is cooler so you
get a little more in. you can also run a higher boost or higher compression.
the same can be done by running a richer mixture. the main reasons water is
used(in planes and cars anyway) is the lbs. for lbs. water takes more btu's
to evaporate and if you have a limited fuel tank size(i.e. for car racing)
the water you use doesn't count as "fuel" and in some cases can be refilled
after the race as "essential fluilds", before the car gets weighed.
of course i could have this all wrong, but someone will point it out for me
if i am
| |
| harry k 2006-02-12, 12:21 am |
|
stu wrote:
> "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:oQbHf.1171$W31.778@edtnps90...
> more
>
> as i understand it water injection is to cool the intake charge, all things
> being equal you would have less HP. but, the intake charge is cooler so you
> get a little more in. you can also run a higher boost or higher compression.
> the same can be done by running a richer mixture. the main reasons water is
> used(in planes and cars anyway) is the lbs. for lbs. water takes more btu's
> to evaporate and if you have a limited fuel tank size(i.e. for car racing)
> the water you use doesn't count as "fuel" and in some cases can be refilled
> after the race as "essential fluilds", before the car gets weighed.
>
> of course i could have this all wrong, but someone will point it out for me
> if i am
Yes, that is the way I understand it. Gives a denser charge. The very
minor amount of water actually used wouldn't produce much steam in any
case. Driving old cars out of the 30s and 40s back when I was a pup
you could really tell a difference on how much better they ran on a
rainy day.
Harry K
| |
| harry k 2006-02-12, 12:21 am |
|
Harry Chickpea wrote:
> "Solar Flare" <sfl@hutmail.notvalid> wrote:
>
>
> Back in my early 20s I spent a summer as manager of a drive-in. I had
> more than ample opportunity to test water, seltzer, lard, pumice
> scrubbers, paint scapers, boil-out solutions, etc. on a real grill.
> Hence the BTDT. Seltzer made the job easiest, and a light wipedown of
> lard afterward kept the grill from rusting. YMMV, but I have no
> desire to repeat my experiments.
I ran a snack bar on Kinross AFB (upper peninsula Michigan) in the 50s.
Used just water. No-one ever clued me on anything else/better. Also
do not care to do it again.
Harry K
| |
| m Ransley 2006-02-12, 10:21 am |
| If it was truely beneficial it would be standard on cars. There have to
be negatives not discused, such as what the blowby gasses do to oils
long term stability and the washing effect of oil off cilinders.
Example, a head gasket leaking water into oil turns oil to choclate
milk-mud. For a true benefit a minute amount of oil in gasoline will
help lubricate the upper end, Deisel does just that, this is one reason
of deisels long life. Propane is a dry fuel. A friend who runs propane
GM 350s commercialy for 20+ years states that is propanes downfall,
greater upper end wear, but you benefirt from greater low end life. Do
whats proven to increase engine life, Mobil 1, which is superior to
Castrol.
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-12, 3:21 pm |
| I would never put any deisel or oil product on my
carpets or rugs.
"m Ransley" <ransley@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7299-43EF35BA-46@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
> If it was truely beneficial it would be standard on
cars. There have to
> be negatives not discused, such as what the blowby
gasses do to oils
> long term stability and the washing effect of oil off
cilinders.
> Example, a head gasket leaking water into oil turns
oil to choclate
> milk-mud. For a true benefit a minute amount of oil
in gasoline will
> help lubricate the upper end, Deisel does just that,
this is one reason
> of deisels long life. Propane is a dry fuel. A friend
who runs propane
> GM 350s commercialy for 20+ years states that is
propanes downfall,
> greater upper end wear, but you benefirt from greater
low end life. Do
> whats proven to increase engine life, Mobil 1, which
is superior to
> Castrol.
>
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-13, 3:21 am |
| How would mobil one help UPPER END life?
You keep vamping mobil one but you never give reverences.
One obvious downfall for autos is the issue of frost -
But, it doesn't apply to us in our location.
Water has been used on autos, but usually with boost and methanol..
I was hoping that the cooling effect might help upper end life by:
Cooling both intake and exhaust valves and seats.
And
Carbon removal from valves and ports...
There may be other downsides to water for autos.
But, we're talking about and auto.
A generator is very different from an auto.
In our case RPMS are very contstant and we have about a least a 5
minute cool down at reduced load but full RPM.
We never do "short trip" start stop - we start and run for 7 - 10
hours.
Do you really think that adding water mist from a carburetor will
increase blowby and NOT evaporate at air cooled engine temps???
m Ransley wrote:
> If it was truely beneficial it would be standard on cars. There have to
> be negatives not discused, such as what the blowby gasses do to oils
> long term stability and the washing effect of oil off cilinders.
> Example, a head gasket leaking water into oil turns oil to choclate
> milk-mud. For a true benefit a minute amount of oil in gasoline will
> help lubricate the upper end, Deisel does just that, this is one reason
> of deisels long life. Propane is a dry fuel. A friend who runs propane
> GM 350s commercialy for 20+ years states that is propanes downfall,
> greater upper end wear, but you benefirt from greater low end life. Do
> whats proven to increase engine life, Mobil 1, which is superior to
> Castrol.
| |
|
|
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:p6fHf.5145$bd4.3687@edtnps84...
>
>
> If the exhaust is cooler as a result of water injection, more of the
> energy of combustion has been captured and converted to kinetic energy
> through the production of steam instead of waste heat.
>
More of the energy of combustion has been used, but it has not been
converted to kinetic energy. It went into making steam.
Al
| |
| David Hunt 2006-02-14, 1:21 am |
| OK, I tried not to answer, but I must.
There may be other variables we are not looking into.
Yes; there is the danger of engine destruction if the amounts are
overwhelming.
As in the case of WWII fighter airplanes. The P-51-D's had an
emergency button in some of them.
Push it when your back was to wall and enemy lead might kill you, and
zaammm, you looked like
the guy in the car commercial...your face pushed back into the seat.
Only problem was that if you used it for more than 15 seconds (this; I'm
not positive about, because I've heard
others say 3 minutes) they tore the engine down on your return to
terra-firma.
Now why does this happen?
One reason might be that more of what is going to be wasted heat is
used in a phase change into steam. If
this is the case, then you just used what you were going to waste
anyway.
Another reason, might be in that the conversion to steam of the mist,
might happen at a much later time than
the ignition detonation of the fuel, thus providing piston push
later, and longer, on the piston -when it's
angle on the crank is more efficient in retrieving power. Which is
something high octane fuels do (with
a slower burn -which gives you more power)
Another reason might be magic.
Another reason might be that water in this application is not just a
phase change material, but instead a
phase change material and a fuel. Imagine adding propane to the
intake of your diesel engine. If you did,
you could let-up on the fuel pedal a little, and the engine would
still give you the same amount of output.
Now imagine adding water into the detonation of the cylinder. First
you have the phase change into steam -
giving the piston a longer push. BUT, because the steam is above
1,000F a kewl thing happens.
If there is the presence of carbon (whether in CO form in the engine
gasses, or as carbon on your valves) it
rips the H2O bond to hell. Carbon at this elevated temperature is
quite a nasty substance when it comes to
trying to oxidize. When it looks around for an oxidizer -at these
temperatures- and sees water... it rips the
oxygen right out of it and uses it. What does that make? CO and H.
Both of these are GREAT fuels.
Another reason might be all of the above. But I think the magic idea has
most merit.
As far as the last possibility. What a stupid idea! Not that I've worked on
it for some time -as a teen; I played with the
idea of internal combustion steam engines, etc. And have been on the carbon
& water as fuel issue for a lot longer
than the fuel cell people have been on it for their production of hydrogen.
"Steam-ripping" (my term; since I was a kid) is way kewl, though it is
not as flamboyant as some of the other
perpetual-motion-energy-producing schemes, it is one that has been around
the block a few times. Too bad people
are still looking for the Free Energy Golden Egg, instead of just trying to
make what they have more efficient with
the resources they already have.
I can't tell you if what you claim is true.
Back in the early 70's when M.E. News wrote about it, I made up one of
those jars with the water and the
fish tank diffuser stone. Yup, it added moisture to the intake of my 65
Country Sedan (Ford's version of an
air-craft carrier w/o wood siding). I can tell you one thing... the frame
and wheel wells rusted out. Did it give
me any astounding results? I can, without hesitation, say; I don't know. But
I doubt it. Might it have save me a
gallon in a 100 miles.. .I 'dunno', back then I thought so, but that was
before I took the time to be more adult-like.
Therefore I'm sure I may have wanted it too -more than it actually proved it
to me.
My "Steam-Ripping" is just my interest. I am not promoting, suggesting,
bringing it up for review, or trying to sell
it to you. I didn't with my CoGen (CHP) project, nor this. Why? Look at
yourselves. Beginners come here for
answers that they can't get from any of their co-workers -who only care
about getting drunk, having sex, and
watching sports. They come here because they don't know, and think (for some
stupid reason) that you all are
gurus and want to share your karma. NOT. Most are more concerned with
finding ways to ridicule their
attempts at following an interest that, if guided, could flourish for a
lifetime. As mine does. There are plenty of ways
to improve our group, but ALWAYS ridiculing people is not one of them! I can
spend a month not reading this forum
because somebody pissed me off once too many times. Why do I come back and
read it after awhile? Simple, because
there are a few of you who do mentor the rest. There are a few who spend
quite a bit of time looking into their questions
and preparing well thought out responses. From these people I (we) can learn
from.
My mother taught me to stay quiet if I had nothing good to say about
someone.
Since I am on a ramble, I'll hang up. I think the ETOH may have gotten
to me. Well, tomorrow, hopefully I won't
have to scrape another corpse up off of the road. I also know -nobody made
it this far. g'night
dave
sun-tzu knew.
"Al" <agerhart2@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:1Y2Hf.15$164.11@fe02.lga...
>
> "Bughunter" <nobody@home.net> wrote in message
> news:Tl_Gf.11529$Gg1.2098@trnddc03...
a[color=darkred]
>
> Bughunter is right.
>
> Adding water to the combustion does not add any energy. It is used,
> often with alchohol, to prevent detonation. It's called ADI (Anti
Detonation
> Injection), and is common anywhere high horsepower is needed for a short
> period of time. Many aircraft use this at the Reno air races, and I've
seen
> it used in combat aircraft. Because of the corrosive effects of water,
> particularly at high pressure & temperature, these systems are seldom used
> where longevity is a factor.
>
> If there is any carbon buildup in the cylinder, even a brief squirt of
water
> will scour the cylinder shiny clean in seconds. Recently my wifes van blew
a
> head gasket, as evidenced by clouds of water vapor coming out the exhaust.
I
> pulled a couple of plugs, and found one that looked brand new. The inside
of
> that cylinder was spotless.
>
> Al
>
>
>
>
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-14, 3:21 am |
| David -
Let's try my original questions:
Would this engine benefit from any amount of water injection via the
carb?
How would one determine an appropriate jet size for the proper amount
of water to inject.
David Hunt wrote:[color=darkred]
> OK, I tried not to answer, but I must.
> There may be other variables we are not looking into.
> Yes; there is the danger of engine destruction if the amounts are
> overwhelming.
> As in the case of WWII fighter airplanes. The P-51-D's had an
> emergency button in some of them.
> Push it when your back was to wall and enemy lead might kill you, and
> zaammm, you looked like
> the guy in the car commercial...your face pushed back into the seat.
> Only problem was that if you used it for more than 15 seconds (this; I'm
> not positive about, because I've heard
> others say 3 minutes) they tore the engine down on your return to
> terra-firma.
> Now why does this happen?
> One reason might be that more of what is going to be wasted heat is
> used in a phase change into steam. If
> this is the case, then you just used what you were going to waste
> anyway.
> Another reason, might be in that the conversion to steam of the mist,
> might happen at a much later time than
> the ignition detonation of the fuel, thus providing piston push
> later, and longer, on the piston -when it's
> angle on the crank is more efficient in retrieving power. Which is
> something high octane fuels do (with
> a slower burn -which gives you more power)
> Another reason might be magic.
> Another reason might be that water in this application is not just a
> phase change material, but instead a
> phase change material and a fuel. Imagine adding propane to the
> intake of your diesel engine. If you did,
> you could let-up on the fuel pedal a little, and the engine would
> still give you the same amount of output.
> Now imagine adding water into the detonation of the cylinder. First
> you have the phase change into steam -
> giving the piston a longer push. BUT, because the steam is above
> 1,000F a kewl thing happens.
> If there is the presence of carbon (whether in CO form in the engine
> gasses, or as carbon on your valves) it
> rips the H2O bond to hell. Carbon at this elevated temperature is
> quite a nasty substance when it comes to
> trying to oxidize. When it looks around for an oxidizer -at these
> temperatures- and sees water... it rips the
> oxygen right out of it and uses it. What does that make? CO and H.
> Both of these are GREAT fuels.
> Another reason might be all of the above. But I think the magic idea has
> most merit.
> As far as the last possibility. What a stupid idea! Not that I've worked on
> it for some time -as a teen; I played with the
> idea of internal combustion steam engines, etc. And have been on the carbon
> & water as fuel issue for a lot longer
> than the fuel cell people have been on it for their production of hydrogen.
> "Steam-ripping" (my term; since I was a kid) is way kewl, though it is
> not as flamboyant as some of the other
> perpetual-motion-energy-producing schemes, it is one that has been around
> the block a few times. Too bad people
> are still looking for the Free Energy Golden Egg, instead of just trying to
> make what they have more efficient with
> the resources they already have.
> I can't tell you if what you claim is true.
> Back in the early 70's when M.E. News wrote about it, I made up one of
> those jars with the water and the
> fish tank diffuser stone. Yup, it added moisture to the intake of my 65
> Country Sedan (Ford's version of an
> air-craft carrier w/o wood siding). I can tell you one thing... the frame
> and wheel wells rusted out. Did it give
> me any astounding results? I can, without hesitation, say; I don't know. But
> I doubt it. Might it have save me a
> gallon in a 100 miles.. .I 'dunno', back then I thought so, but that was
> before I took the time to be more adult-like.
> Therefore I'm sure I may have wanted it too -more than it actually proved it
> to me.
> My "Steam-Ripping" is just my interest. I am not promoting, suggesting,
> bringing it up for review, or trying to sell
> it to you. I didn't with my CoGen (CHP) project, nor this. Why? Look at
> yourselves. Beginners come here for
> answers that they can't get from any of their co-workers -who only care
> about getting drunk, having sex, and
> watching sports. They come here because they don't know, and think (for some
> stupid reason) that you all are
> gurus and want to share your karma. NOT. Most are more concerned with
> finding ways to ridicule their
> attempts at following an interest that, if guided, could flourish for a
> lifetime. As mine does. There are plenty of ways
> to improve our group, but ALWAYS ridiculing people is not one of them! I can
> spend a month not reading this forum
> because somebody pissed me off once too many times. Why do I come back and
> read it after awhile? Simple, because
> there are a few of you who do mentor the rest. There are a few who spend
> quite a bit of time looking into their questions
> and preparing well thought out responses. From these people I (we) can learn
> from.
> My mother taught me to stay quiet if I had nothing good to say about
> someone.
> Since I am on a ramble, I'll hang up. I think the ETOH may have gotten
> to me. Well, tomorrow, hopefully I won't
> have to scrape another corpse up off of the road. I also know -nobody made
> it this far. g'night
>
> dave
>
> sun-tzu knew.
>
> "Al" <agerhart2@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
> news:1Y2Hf.15$164.11@fe02.lga...
> a
> Detonation
> seen
> water
> a
> I
> of
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-14, 9:21 am |
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:42:05 GMT, "David Hunt"
<dhunt911@REMOVEverizon.NO-SPAM-OR-CRAP.net> wrote:
>OK, I tried not to answer, but I must.
>There may be other variables we are not looking into.
>Yes; there is the danger of engine destruction if the amounts are
>overwhelming.
> As in the case of WWII fighter airplanes. The P-51-D's had an
>emergency button in some of them.
> Push it when your back was to wall and enemy lead might kill you, and
>zaammm, you looked like
> the guy in the car commercial...your face pushed back into the seat.
> Only problem was that if you used it for more than 15 seconds (this; I'm
>not positive about, because I've heard
> others say 3 minutes) they tore the engine down on your return to
>terra-firma.
<----rest snipped as noise-->
Side effect of supercharging, connonly used on high power aircraft
engines. We are not talking the wimpy 5-8 inches of boost as on
street cars either, typical boost was for cruse power (70-80%) in the
5-10 inch range and could go as high as 50 inches nominal.
It was the throttle that was moved to the stops rather than to
allowable boost from the supercharger. the difference was the extra
20 inches or so of boost represented greater power. The normal
power setting maximum was called METO power Maximum
Emergency Takeoff Power and carried a 3minute limit with
water/alchohol injection(octane boost). There was greater power if
you firewalled the throttle as the supercharger was good for 85-90
inches of boost at great risk to he engine. Nominally the P51 use
avaialtion 130 octane but at higher boost this was insufficient
without water/alchohol injection. Most WWII aircraft had this as
fuels was not always as good as designers and pilots would have liked.
Later this would be used on Reno Air race birds where running
at over boost was a common thing running special aircraft fuels.
Those engines have short lifetimes.
Yes, 50+ inches of boost gave tremendous power but if exceeded
the resulting heat could cook pistons and disassemble that prime
mover.
Allison
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-14, 9:21 am |
| On 13 Feb 2006 22:31:59 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
wrote:
>David -
>Let's try my original questions:
>
>
>Would this engine benefit from any amount of water injection via the
>carb?
Generally no. It might help if you were running at 100% power with
cooling margins if your running low octane fuels. Below 100% there
is no reasonable advantange and plenty of bad side effects.
The best place for water is in a cooling system external to the
cylinder. Water cooled engines while heavier are generally
exhibit longer life due to better temperature control.
Allison
[color=darkred]
>
>How would one determine an appropriate jet size for the proper amount
>of water to inject.
>
>David Hunt wrote:
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-14, 11:21 pm |
| Water cooling isn't in the cards here.
Could you give us a list of some of those "... of bad side
effects...?"
thanks
Phil
Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:[color=darkred]
> On 13 Feb 2006 22:31:59 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Generally no. It might help if you were running at 100% power with
> cooling margins if your running low octane fuels. Below 100% there
> is no reasonable advantange and plenty of bad side effects.
>
> The best place for water is in a cooling system external to the
> cylinder. Water cooled engines while heavier are generally
> exhibit longer life due to better temperature control.
>
> Allison
>
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-15, 9:21 am |
| On 14 Feb 2006 18:40:37 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
wrote:
>Water cooling isn't in the cards here.
>
>Could you give us a list of some of those "... of bad side
>effects...?"
Others already have but it's not what you wish to hear.
Rust and corrosion exhaust system in particular
Water contaiminating the oil (bearing damage as a risk)
Upper end wear rates increased.
Allison
[color=darkred]
>
>thanks
>Phil
>
>Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
| |
| JoeSP 2006-02-15, 11:21 am |
|
<Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:ng76v1pcid5m8j5v9q216puofvdkv093d3@4ax.com...
> On 14 Feb 2006 18:40:37 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Others already have but it's not what you wish to hear.
>
> Rust and corrosion exhaust system in particular
> Water contaiminating the oil (bearing damage as a risk)
> Upper end wear rates increased.
Normal combustion of fuels produces more water in the exhaust than the
amounts being added to modify that combustion process. Research water
injection and look at the results of many years research in that area. I
think you'll find that the knee-jerk concerns are very different from the
actual results.
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-15, 3:21 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:11:38 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
><Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:ng76v1pcid5m8j5v9q216puofvdkv093d3@4ax.com...
>
>Normal combustion of fuels produces more water in the exhaust than the
>amounts being added to modify that combustion process. Research water
>injection and look at the results of many years research in that area. I
>think you'll find that the knee-jerk concerns are very different from the
>actual results.
>
Save for one difference, this is a aircooled pony engine of small size
that generally runs rich mixtures. The side effect is the exhaust is
much dirtier than autos and low on moisture from incomplete
combustion. When you add water, your get a much higher output
of combustion related acids.
None of the engines out there run water injection for general
operation it's there for antidetonation under extreme conditions.
Usually it's related to very high cylinder pressures from some
form of supercharging or high compressions (or both!) where
most fuels have inadaquate detonation margins.
Allison
| |
|
|
<Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:c1s6v11ha36bd7bqpqjdb8nak22sjhfqa9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:11:38 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Save for one difference, this is a aircooled pony engine of small size
> that generally runs rich mixtures. The side effect is the exhaust is
> much dirtier than autos and low on moisture from incomplete
> combustion. When you add water, your get a much higher output
> of combustion related acids.
You said it runs rich. Why not run lean and use water to mitigate the
problems associated with that condition?
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-15, 6:21 pm |
| On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:41:06 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
><Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:c1s6v11ha36bd7bqpqjdb8nak22sjhfqa9@4ax.com...
>
>You said it runs rich. Why not run lean and use water to mitigate the
>problems associated with that condition?
You could, then again blueprinting the engine is possible too but
hey it's fancy lawnmower engine. Seriously, cheap carb.
We aren't talking computer controlled injection and timing.
Most of the small engines are L-heads with fixed timing using
carbs that are straight out of 1930.
The two biggest improvements seen there are valve in head
and electronic magneto (no points). Best thing that happend to
small engine was Honda setting a new standard that moved
small engines from the 1940s designs to the late 1960s.
Allison
| |
| JoeSP 2006-02-15, 10:21 pm |
|
<Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:og87v1pb606u126qmmi9qvrmd388vkmrq9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:41:06 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> You could, then again blueprinting the engine is possible too but
> hey it's fancy lawnmower engine. Seriously, cheap carb.
> We aren't talking computer controlled injection and timing.
> Most of the small engines are L-heads with fixed timing using
> carbs that are straight out of 1930.
I'd be surprised if you couldn't get high-altitude jets for any engine. They
would have the effect of leaning the mixture.
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-15, 10:21 pm |
| On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:39:08 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
><Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:og87v1pb606u126qmmi9qvrmd388vkmrq9@4ax.com...
>
>I'd be surprised if you couldn't get high-altitude jets for any engine. They
>would have the effect of leaning the mixture.
>
Actually some are adjustable. However, "altitude" is a product of
barometric pressure and temperature and can vary considerably
even for a fixed location. So the right jet is variable. Also you
have the issue of the poor carb that does not fully maintain a
consistant mixture with variable throttle position. Add that to the
small engine generally breathe badly (poor volumetric efficientcy for
the L-heads) requiring a richer mixture to run smoothly especially at
lower power settings. Intelligent engine controls would greatly
improve matters.
I fly behind a Continental O200 (air cooled 200CID 100hp @2750 rpm)
and yes apparent altitude does make a very noticeable difference
between a winter day of 30F and 30.1 barometer and a summer day
of 95F and 29.85 barometer! What helps is aircraft engines have
variable mixture for engine management and altitude compensation.
Allison
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-15, 10:21 pm |
| Actually, as I noted, we run propane.
The US Carbs unit has a little adjusting screw that seems to adjust the
mixture from lean to rich and back just fine.
(the gas side does have high altitude jets available).
I don't see how rust is an issue if we run it at a high idle for
several minutes after shutting down the water.
Again this isn't "start stop" low rpm - but high rpm long runs of 7 or
more hours.
Cooling the valves under load seems like it would INCREASE top end
life.
What do you think would DECREASE it?
Where is this extra acid coming from that wasn't in the fuel to begin
with?
Why would water get from the carb through a hot engine and into the
oil?
I'm not proposing INJECTING Water, we would be pulling it in through
carb draft...
Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:41:06 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> You could, then again blueprinting the engine is possible too but
> hey it's fancy lawnmower engine. Seriously, cheap carb.
> We aren't talking computer controlled injection and timing.
> Most of the small engines are L-heads with fixed timing using
> carbs that are straight out of 1930.
>
> The two biggest improvements seen there are valve in head
> and electronic magneto (no points). Best thing that happend to
> small engine was Honda setting a new standard that moved
> small engines from the 1940s designs to the late 1960s.
>
>
> Allison
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-15, 10:21 pm |
| yes, this is an overhead valve engine with electronic ignition.
Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:41:06 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> You could, then again blueprinting the engine is possible too but
> hey it's fancy lawnmower engine. Seriously, cheap carb.
> We aren't talking computer controlled injection and timing.
> Most of the small engines are L-heads with fixed timing using
> carbs that are straight out of 1930.
>
> The two biggest improvements seen there are valve in head
> and electronic magneto (no points). Best thing that happend to
> small engine was Honda setting a new standard that moved
> small engines from the 1940s designs to the late 1960s.
>
>
> Allison
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-16, 8:21 am |
| Tops posted for inconsistancy.
Well go ahaead then, report back in a year after you have accumulated
some run time.
Don't bame us.
Allison
On 15 Feb 2006 18:11:23 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
wrote:
[color=darkred]
>yes, this is an overhead valve engine with electronic ignition.
>
>
>
>Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-16, 11:21 pm |
| Gee - I certainly wouldn't blame you -
I hope you don't blame me for asking what lead to your opinions and how
they are relevant to our specific circumstance.
thanks
Phil
Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:[color=darkred]
> Tops posted for inconsistancy.
>
> Well go ahaead then, report back in a year after you have accumulated
> some run time.
>
> Don't bame us.
>
> Allison
>
>
> On 15 Feb 2006 18:11:23 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
> wrote:
>
| |
| Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net 2006-02-17, 9:21 am |
| On 16 Feb 2006 18:55:51 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
wrote:
>Gee - I certainly wouldn't blame you -
>I hope you don't blame me for asking what lead to your opinions and how
>they are relevant to our specific circumstance.
>
>thanks
>Phil
>
I had two brothers into racing. We experimented with water injection
after the first (1973) arab oil embargo on high compression engines.
While it helped with the octane problem (detonation) we started having
upper end problems (rings and valve stems) with the engines where
before bottom end problems were common. Years later I got to talk to
some ex B29 and P51D pilots and crew chiefs about engine issues and
their side effects. Their answer was simple, the engine only had to
last so many missions and it was replaced, usually it was sooner.
There is more than coincidence that engines with water injection were
life limited or in the case of the Reno air racers often torn down for
inspection.
Like I said tersely, you have recieved advice from several that it's
at best a lot of effort for limited return or worse. Since the advice
was free you have the option to do whatever you care too.
Allison[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
>
>Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-18, 3:21 am |
| I can certainly understand the limited return part - our engine is far
from the extremes of boost in B29 or the P51.
It seems the examples given have been of high output, high stress
environments where the water was a last ditch effort to hold the engine
together given extreme amounts of boost or compression in attempts to
obtain maximum power.
I was hoping that given that we have an empty fuel tank and a
carburetor, that the "effort" (dumping water in the fuel tank) would be
about as minimal as possible.
Which lead to my original questions about how to determine an effective
amount of water in our relatively low stress environment.
"None" seems to be the consensus answer, but I sense that it is not
based on data from comparable environments.
Some of your earlier answers seemed to indicate a basis in cheap carbs
and Lhead side-valve engines and gasoline.
The later racing and aircraft examples seemed like attempts to increase
specfic output at the expense of longevity.
Neither matches our situation.
We have propane vapor, overhead valves and electronic ignition.
And,
We don't need more power, but we would like to save fuel and increase
engine life through better cooling.
Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:[color=darkred]
> On 16 Feb 2006 18:55:51 -0800, "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com>
> wrote:
>
> I had two brothers into racing. We experimented with water injection
> after the first (1973) arab oil embargo on high compression engines.
> While it helped with the octane problem (detonation) we started having
> upper end problems (rings and valve stems) with the engines where
> before bottom end problems were common. Years later I got to talk to
> some ex B29 and P51D pilots and crew chiefs about engine issues and
> their side effects. Their answer was simple, the engine only had to
> last so many missions and it was replaced, usually it was sooner.
> There is more than coincidence that engines with water injection were
> life limited or in the case of the Reno air racers often torn down for
> inspection.
>
> Like I said tersely, you have recieved advice from several that it's
> at best a lot of effort for limited return or worse. Since the advice
> was free you have the option to do whatever you care too.
>
> Allison
| |
| Martin Riddle 2006-02-18, 2:21 pm |
| Look at the snoperformance website.
I believe the W/F ratio is ~1/10-1/15, or 10-15% water to 85-90% fuel.
You can lean out the fuel from the normal mixture levels.
Water atomiztion is very important.
Cheers
"philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message news:1140246381.455082.83440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I can certainly understand the limited return part - our engine is far
> from the extremes of boost in B29 or the P51.
>
> It seems the examples given have been of high output, high stress
> environments where the water was a last ditch effort to hold the engine
> together given extreme amounts of boost or compression in attempts to
> obtain maximum power.
>
> I was hoping that given that we have an empty fuel tank and a
> carburetor, that the "effort" (dumping water in the fuel tank) would be
> about as minimal as possible.
>
> Which lead to my original questions about how to determine an effective
> amount of water in our relatively low stress environment.
>
> "None" seems to be the consensus answer, but I sense that it is not
> based on data from comparable environments.
>
> Some of your earlier answers seemed to indicate a basis in cheap carbs
> and Lhead side-valve engines and gasoline.
> The later racing and aircraft examples seemed like attempts to increase
> specfic output at the expense of longevity.
>
> Neither matches our situation.
> We have propane vapor, overhead valves and electronic ignition.
> And,
> We don't need more power, but we would like to save fuel and increase
> engine life through better cooling.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allison-nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
| |
| philkryder 2006-02-18, 6:21 pm |
| Martis - Thanks!
That percentage and links are very helpful!
Phil
Martin Riddle wrote:[color=darkred]
> Look at the snoperformance website.
>
> I believe the W/F ratio is ~1/10-1/15, or 10-15% water to 85-90% fuel.
> You can lean out the fuel from the normal mixture levels.
> Water atomiztion is very important.
>
> Cheers
>
> "philkryder" <alt.google@Kryder.com> wrote in message news:1140246381.455082.83440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
|
|
|
|