Post Combustion injection of water

[tawnybill]

Hi to all.

Does anybody know of other work/research being done on this subject?

I have worked on this concept since 1981 and have never encounterd any one else on the same wave length and understanding of the diffrence to water entrainment in the fuel/air mixture.

I have constructed a prototype of the injector (very simple design). and tested it with astounding results!

Mail me back to chat further on this. my address is tawnybill@yahoo.ca

Cheers,
Willy.

[JohnA]

So you inject water in the exhaust?
Why?

[tawnybill]

Into the exhaust? Where is that from? or did I not explain the concept sucinctly enough?

No it isn't injected into the exhaust per say..... the object is to inject water into the partialy completed combustion gases to help in completeing their combustion WHILE STILL IN THE CYLINDER...

Check out "The Science" (The document that I copied from the TurboICE website at; ) http://www.waterinjection.info/

and : http://not2fast.wryday.com/thermo/water_injection/water_chemistry.txt

(As quoted from http://not2fast.wryday.com/thermo/water_injection/water_chemistry.txt)


From: Robert Harris <bob@bobthecomputerguy.com>
To: DIY_EFI@lists.diy-efi.org
Subject: Water and its effect on combustion.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:24:08 -0700
Message-ID: <9ptjms0uu4oe292mpk6a6vhm2hn8bu9h1j@4ax.c om>

Let us take a quick look at ignition. Those who have a Heywood can look it up
- mines on loan so going by memory. The first thing that happens is a plasma
cloud is formed by the arc consisting of super heated electron stripped atoms.
When this cloud "explodes" a ball of high energy particles is shot outward.

The highest energy particles are the hydrogen atoms - and they penetrate the
charge about 5 times as far as the rest of the particles. As they lose energy
and return to normal temps - about 5000 k - they begin to react chemically
with any surrounding fuel and oxygen particles. The effectiveness of spark
ignition is directly related to the availability of free hydrogen. Molecules
containing tightly bound hydrogen such as methanol, nitromethane, and methane
are far more difficult to ignite than those with less bonds.

During combustion - water - H2O ( present and formed ) is extremely active in
the oxidation of the hydrocarbon. The predominate reaction is the following:

OH + H ==> H2O
H2O + O ==> H2O2
H2O2 ==> OH + OH
Loop to top and repeat.

The OH radical is the most effective at stripping hydrogen from the HC
molecule in most ranges of combustion temperature.

Another predominate process is the HOO radical. It is more active at lower
temperatures and is competitive with the H2O2 at higher temps.

OO + H ==> HOO
HOO + H ==> H2O2
H2O2 ==> OH + OH

This mechanism is very active at both stripping hydrogen from the HC and for
getting O2 into usable combustion reactions.

Next consider the combustion of CO. Virtually no C ==> CO2. Its a two step
process. C+O ==> CO. CO virtually drops out of early mid combustion as the O
H reactions are significantly faster and effectively compete for the available
oxygen.

Then consider that pure CO and pure O2 burns very slowly if at all. Virtually
the only mechanism to complete the oxidization ( Glassman - Combustion Third
Edition ) of CO ==> CO2 is the "water method".

CO + OH ==> CO2 + H
H + OH ==> H20
H2O + O ==> H2O2
H2O2 ==> OH + OH
goto to top and repeat.

This simple reaction accounts for 99% + of the conversion of CO to CO2. It is
important in that fully two thirds of the energy of carbon combustion is
released in the CO ==> CO2 process and that this process occurs slow and late
in the combustion of the fuel. Excess water can and does speed this
conversion - by actively entering into the conversion process thru the above
mechanism.

The peak flame temperature is determined by three factors alone - the energy
present and released, the total atomic mass, and the atomic ratio - commonly
called CHON for Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. The chemical
reactions in combustion leading to peak temperature are supremely indifferent
to pressure. The temperatures and rates of normal IC combustion are
sufficient to cause most of the fuel and water present to be dissociated and
enter into the flame.

As can be seen above, water is most definitily not only not inert but is a
very active and important player in the combustion of hydrocarbon fuel.
Ricardo and others have documented that under certain conditions ( normally
supercharged ) water can replace fuel up to about 50% and develop the same
power output, or that the power output can be increased by up to 50% addition
of water. This conditions were investigated by NACA and others for piston
aircraft engines. It is important to note that these improvements came at the
upper end of the power range where sufficient fuel and air was available to
have an excess of energy that could not be converted to usable pressure in a
timely manner.

As a side note - Volvo recently released some SAE papers documenting the use
of cooled EGR to both reduce detonation and return to a stoic mixture under
boost in the 15 psi range - while maintaining approximately the same power
output. Notice - they reduced fuel and still get the same power output.

When you consider that EGR consists primarily of nitrogen, CO2, and water ( to
the tune of about two gallons formed from each gallon of water burned ), you
might draw the conclusion that it also was not "inert". They peaked their
tests at about 18% cooled EGR - which would work out to about 36% water
injection and got about the same results under similar conditions that the
early NACA research got.


I hope this explains it better, Strange as it may seem this is combustion chemistry that explains why my tests left me with the conclusion that the water had somehow become volatile

Cheers,
Willy

[tawnybill]

The refrence in my previous post to "The Science" is on this page

http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenciesunleashed/id7.html

on my website at;

http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenciesunleashed/index.html

Cheers,
Willy.

[Richard L]

I have read something about this and it is effective - On of the SAE papers.

The water has to be dissociated into free radials before the marriage of the combustion process. Presence of a catalysis will accelerate the process. A small amount of peroxide will also help as the OH-OH bond is weaker than OH-H.

I stop short of looking into this further due to two reasons:
1) Requires pressure similar to diesel injectors systems - difficult to use a diesel system without causing internal corrosion.
2) H2O2 is not easy to handle.

It is possible to use water only but requires high pressure for good atomisation, droplet size will be the the region of 1-2 microns?

Please do tell us how one can implimenting this concept without massive investment. If you can heat water up you about 300C, you will get some 200 bar of water pressure to work with. The only valve I know to hold thios pressure cheaply is the diesel setup.

Richard

[tawnybill]

:? This a retrofit system, namely something you can adapt to your old Gas/Fuel hog to clean up its' (pig s**t) :oops: dirty emmisions and designed to retrofit of current vehicals. Although it could be intigrated by OEMs' manufacturing on new production. :D

This will help us deal with the status-quo (dirty IC emmisions) giving us time to develop a better energy source.

The instalation/conversion costs would soon be recouvered in fuel savings. :D

Bottom line, we wouldn't need to wait for a new production line, remembering that people will continue useing their current vehicals until they are worn out and replaced through normal attrition. (fiscal responsability, not environmental responsability still dictates, that is why we don't all own hybrids already...Make sense?)

Cheers
Wil'

[JohnA]

..No it isn't injected into the exhaust per say..... the object is to inject water into the partialy completed combustion gases to help in completeing their combustion WHILE STILL IN THE CYLINDER.....
Ah, gotcha now. :wink:
As Richard said, just like Direct Injection systems, the pressures involved would have to be much higher (as the combustion chamber pressures are far higher than those at the intake plenum)
Have you got any ideas as to how a retrofit system can be set up?

[tawnybill]

I have designed/machined/constructed a prototype injector that is adjustable from "0" water delivery to "Optimum and beyond" to achieve any delivery amount.
It delivers into the combustion pressure, and shuts down immediately when the heat reqired to evaporate (turn into steam) the water is not available. It allows the cylinder to "breath" for the (1) fouled ignition rev, then delivers again as soon as the heat is there to evaporate the charge. If it still does not fire it just "breaths" for that rev again.

It is literaly "fail safe" and it had to be since the delivery of that amount (@10:1 to fuel) of water into a dead cylinder would blow the head off in a matter of only a few revs (milliseconds @ high rpm) long before the motor coasts to a stop. Unique eh? (oh-oh that gave me away as a Canadian Eh? :oops: )

It (this system) is not on the "Aftermarket shelf" in the local candy store yet....or you could get it there. Believe me it needs to be on that shelf already......

Oh by the way "The boy George" (G.W.Bush) is touting his new found religion of "Reduceing Oil Dependence" lol :?: :idea: :!:

Just how he expects to do it isn't explained though......

Cheers,
Wil'http://upload2.postimage.org/181009/img16.jpg (http://upload2.postimage.org/181009/photo_hosting.html)

[JohnA]

10:1 to fuel?
Do you mean that you inject ten times as much water as fuel? By weight?

So if a cylinder has a fuel injector squirting 100cc/min, you also inject water at a rate of 1000cc/min?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

[tawnybill]

You've got it ! :D

This is derived from ,
1 btu = raising 1 pound of water 1 degree F + the latent heat of evaporation of 960btu = (or about) 1140btu/pound from water to steam (180 btu+960 btu = 1140) and with about 140,000 btu/gallon of fuel available, it could evaporate (140,000 divided by 1140= 122.8 lbs of water or) more than 10 gallons of water to steam.

Allowing for heat losses and the effect of the cylinder pressure on the charge of steam, it results in a superheated volume of relatively dry steam. (this will help in clearing all of the steam out on the opening of the exhaust valve and drying out the cylinder) simple eh? :?

Wil'

[JohnA]

..simple eh? :?
eeermm, if you say so :smile:
So that's converting the internal combustion engine into a hybrid steam engine, isn't it?

Very interesting ---- you've got a working prototype then?
Very X-Files man, do you realise what an impact such a breakthrough would have in the international balance of power?
Next best thing to cold fusion :cool:

Surely there must be some 'gotchas' in reality, right?
If not, it's stunning how it hasn't been patented :!:

[tawnybill]

Since we needed a radical change of direction on hydrocarbon fuel use, 'well this is radical alright no?

The oil industry won't be replaced (or go broke) by this, your motor will still require fuel, only (about 25%?) less (by the way, since this system relies on HEAT it would be applicable to hydrogen/biodiesel/?/? or any fuel, since the heat is also wasted in a hydrogen/propane/LPG/Diesel converted engine)

My simple explanation of this is; Weather I buy a gallon of diesel fuel for my car or for home heating, either gallon could drive the car or heat the home right?

WHY are we then dumping the heat from the motor without useing it, while in the furnace we defeat/waste the explosive aspect and save the heat?

Both gallons of fuel are capeable of explosion as well as contain the same amount of heat! :roll: Ludicrus! we should be ashamed of such waste.....

?n researching efficiency, it shocked me to find out that apparently 60% of the "total" energy in motor fuel is attributed to "engine loss and the majority is down the exhaust as HEAT!

And yes it will convert the engine to an "Internal combustion Steam Engine" essentialy eliminateing the heat loss from an external boiler (that caused the virtual extinction of the steam engine). Allowing for 100% heat transfer to the water. :D

Cool eh?

Wil

[JohnA]

?n researching efficiency, it shocked me to find out that apparently 60% of the "total" energy in motor fuel is attributed to "engine loss and the majority is down the exhaust as HEAT!..
That's easy, every engineer knows that we only extract 30% of the chemical energy from petrol. Very inefficient. The mere existence of the cooling system is testament to that. (30% of engergy is dissipated through it alone)

[tawnybill]

Thanks for enlightning me...
(the following was coped from; http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=1147 )

Taking a scale of the amount of heat that is produced during combustion, and where it is used shows some interesting things:
In a diesel engine (not spark ignited), about 35% of the combustion energy actually goes to the rear wheels. The rest is consumed in the following ways, within reason, and with some flexibility due to engine and vehicle differences. This is further broken down in three separate areas:
Actual brake engine power
Thermal losses from radiation
Thermal losses from the exhaust
From these numbers, we then extrapolate these figures:
12% is radiated from the engine radiator;
10% from thermal losses through the block through heat radiation;
45% is lost through the exhaust waste heat (a little less if the engine is turbocharged);
About 5% of the energy is consumed by the process of combustion, the physical conversion of chemicals into gasses;
About 10% is lost due to engine motoring friction losses, piston drag, camshaft bearings, lifters, crank drag, oil pump, water pump, valve and rocker arm friction, etc.
Unless a magical means of eliminating these values is discovered, you will NEVER see an engine produce much more than about 40% efficiency, from BTU's of raw heat from burning the fuel, to usable power at the wheels.



This is another ?engineers? claimed understanding of these common known facts also ....

Accounting for 100% of the energy;

Adding it up........ 35+12+10+45+5+10 = 117% on my paper too ..... really? well that is a 17% increase in fuel efficiency just through math!

Fantastic! Since (some other engineer claims that) a 15% increase in efficiency is the threshold of viability, we can all go home now?? Right?

My opinion in this regard is that our universities turn out thousands of engineering graduates every year that have learnt a reasonable percentage (a 70% passing mark/understanding maybe?) of the regurgitated knowledge that they were taught, they have no application for it, constructively. (that?s why the Big Mac I just had was prepared by a PhD?. kind of a waste of tuition eh?)

In my view, ?creativity? is exercising imagination beyond known knowledge and you either have it or not, and although creative thought can be explained, ?it? (creativity) can?t be taught, being dependent on the individuals imagination (or lack of it).

However, by me applying the useful information that I have learnt, pays me 4-5 times what an 'applied PhD.' (my friend the engineer flipping burgers) gets paid.. (Coincidently I am a grade 10 dropout from 1967)

When I give my explanation on the waste of fuel (on a previous post) to my engineering friend, he asked me where I read that......excuse me... this is an analysis... I'm writeing 'The Book' on it for future 'Engineers' (like him) to learn this fundamental reasoning from and hopefully grasp the understanding of.

Makes me wonder though, by the 'magical means' refered to above could he mean my system? (The one I'm writeing the book on here and now)

In conclusion may I include a couple of quotes;


Engineering
A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.
Freeman Dyson (b. 1923), British-born U.S. physicist, author. Disturbing the Universe, pt. 1, ch. 10 (1979).13


Errors
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

.

[JohnA]

So did you post your ideas over there or not?

As far as I know it's the most relevant forum for such questions.

You need what is called a 'peer review' and it's a good place to start.

[tawnybill]

Cool, I hope this stirred the imagination .... :shock:


Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited while imagination embraces the entire world.

Albert Einstein

.

[JohnA]

Bruce Crower of Crower Cams has designed and patented a new six stroke gasoline engine that uses steam to produce a second power stroke that is produced from water injection.

This engine design is supposed to produce equal horsepower, but a 40% decrease in fuel consumption and a significant decrease in emissions.
Not sure if it has a cooling system at all.

suck, squeeze, bang, blow, spray-flash, blow


http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/FREE/60222004/1024

Relevant link:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US3964263&F=0

[maxc]

1/6 steam engine.

[tawnybill]

I think that steam is one of the better answers to recovering/utilizing the heat of combustion in the motor for torque.

And after it has been used in that way, to utilzie the heat in end consumption for home heat as I explain on my website.

and/or;

Has anyone else considered the possability of useing (ever improving) thermocouples for turning the ( combustion exhaust) heat into electricity? especially on a vehicle where the heat is hard to store and must in the final analisys be dumped to the atmosphere?

Oh No! That may just cause a re-write of fuel conservation thinking! How about that? :shock:

Hmmmmm..... Food for thought?

Willy.

[maxc]

I think Smokey Yunick made the first icse.

[maxc]

http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/1705/myfuelsystemdu7.th.jpg

This can make a icse simple and possible.

Here's a link. http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/ptbc/articles/ptbc18.htm

These devices work better than what they say. I should know I built one. :wink:

[maxc]

I have read something about this and it is effective - On of the SAE papers.

The water has to be dissociated into free radials before the marriage of the combustion process. Presence of a catalysis will accelerate the process. A small amount of peroxide will also help as the OH-OH bond is weaker than OH-H.

I stop short of looking into this further due to two reasons:
1) Requires pressure similar to diesel injectors systems - difficult to use a diesel system without causing internal corrosion.
2) H2O2 is not easy to handle.

It is possible to use water only but requires high pressure for good atomisation, droplet size will be the the region of 1-2 microns?

Please do tell us how one can implimenting this concept without massive investment. If you can heat water up you about 300C, you will get some 200 bar of water pressure to work with. The only valve I know to hold thios pressure cheaply is the diesel setup.

RichardLow pressure port injected steam can weaken the bonds. Catalysis can be in the combustion chamber.
Sorry old thread where's Willy?

[Richard L]

Are are trying to split water molecules and use it as a fuel?

Are we talking about the HH-O bonds or the Van de vaal bonds?

[maxc]

Are are trying to split water molecules and use it as a fuel?

Are we talking about the HH-O bonds or the Van de vaal bonds?In the 1977 mechanix illustrated magazine. The university of arizona built a hydrogen asisted car. They used waste heat. It got an estimated 50% in increase in fuel economy. Prototype was on vw engine. Then installed on pinto car. (don't know if pinto engine) Steam is used with Nickel catalyst pellets. Can't find it on google books. I have the magazine artical. You have to remember there is a factional production of hydrogen.
My steam system is simple. Much more later. Maybe a informative vid.

[Richard L]

Do you know the actual process to split/reverse an exothermic bond?

[maxc]

Do you know the actual process to split/reverse an exothermic bond?Yes. But the whole point is that steam injected in an engine will expand higher than if it wasn't in the first place. Steam will go into a superheated (I call it)"mass state" Water already in the air is at the same temp as the air. It won't. Water injection pulls too much heat back too the "water" killing the flame front and increasing ignition delay.
I injected about 1% steam too fuel mass. Remember it only has fraction of a second cool it won't "all" cool. It helps vaporize fuel. It will help keep peak fuel flame temps.
It don't have too turn too hydrogen to make more power.

[Richard L]

OK, it is a thermodynamic topic. Change of Enthalpy within the closed system (combustion chamber). There are no magic in this.

Enthalpy is a measure of the total energy of a thermodynamic system. It includes the internal energy, which is the energy required to create a system, and the amount of energy required to make room for it by displacing its environment and establishing its volume and pressure.

It is not a free energy, you need extra heat to create extra expansion work.

Engine can only produce 30% mechanical work. The other energy is released via the exhaust, cooling system and radiated.

You can recover a large portion of heat energy with the following methods:

1. A turbocharger to increase the effective compression ratio.
2. Water injection/Steam injection into the combustion chamber to absorb any excessive heat that may damage the engine.
3. Stop water circulation to the radiator.
4. Insulate the entire engine so heat is retained internally.

In fact it is better to introduce water droplets at a lower state of enthalpy, allow it to absorb more heat from the combustion process. This is not as simple as it seems. If you are injecting steam or water droplet into an unstressed engine, you will probably loose power. For this to work, the engine has to be in great stress, ie high compression ratio (effective compression), high EGT, ignition timing approaching MBT. Only then, you will see good mechanical gain with water injection . Resulting in better MPG.

THIS IS "NOT" NEW. Do some research on the SAE papers. I remembered reading a project done on a heavy duty diesel engine installed in a bus. It was done almost thirty years ago in Japan, result was very positive but it did not catch on at all. This topic has been studied many time over the years.

[maxc]

OK, it is a thermodynamic topic. Change of Enthalpy within the closed system (combustion chamber). There are no magic in this.

Enthalpy is a measure of the total energy of a thermodynamic system. It includes the internal energy, which is the energy required to create a system, and the amount of energy required to make room for it by displacing its environment and establishing its volume and pressure.

It is not a free energy, you need extra heat to create extra expansion work.

Engine can only produce 30% mechanical work. The other energy is released via the exhaust, cooling system and radiated.

You can recover a large portion of heat energy with the following methods:

1. A turbocharger to increase the effective compression ratio.
2. Water injection/Steam injection into the combustion chamber to absorb any excessive heat that may damage the engine.
3. Stop water circulation to the radiator.
4. Insulate the entire engine so heat is retained internally.

In fact it is better to introduce water droplets at a lower state of enthalpy, allow it to absorb more heat from the combustion process. This is not as simple as it seems. If you are injecting steam or water droplet into an unstressed engine, you will probably loose power. For this to work, the engine has to be in great stress, ie high compression ratio (effective compression), high EGT, ignition timing approaching MBT. Only then, you will see good mechanical gain with water injection . Resulting in better MPG.

THIS IS "NOT" NEW. Do some research on the SAE papers. I remembered reading a project done on a heavy duty diesel engine installed in a bus. It was done almost thirty years ago in Japan, result was very positive but it did not catch on at all. This topic has been studied many time over the years.there are over 10000 patants on steam injection oil company's dont like it. as you would say red tape.

[Richard L]

The oil company cannot stop anyone to offer such product. I think most people just want everything served on a plate.

If we were to prepared to invest and offer a proper system for this market, people will complain on the cost. When the idea takes off, copy cat systems with less capability will appear within a few months for half the price and the R&D and market already created.

Like everything else it is a business decision. Apple's ipad is a fine example. There are too many predatory investors. We were quite lucky insofar that the water injection concept were brought to the market place unchallenged for ten years. In 2003, Snow was the first company that jumped on the band wagon, offering a budget pump speed system. Needless to say, Aquamist have paved the way for them. You know the rest.

The water and steam injection for fuel efficiency concept is sound, but it is unlikely we offer such system anytime soon learning from past experiences. People who warmed to this concept will be the same people that counts every penny, they will always buy the cheapest system alluded to hypes and slick marketing tactics. We have seem it all.

[maxc]

to say, Aquamist have paved the way for them. You know the rest.

The water and steam injection for fuel efficiency concept is sound, but it is unlikely we offer such system anytime soon learning from past experiences. People who warmed to this concept will be the same people that counts every penny, they will always buy the cheapest system alluded to hypes and slick marketing tactics. We have seem it all.


Can you say that you went about your steam injection with the same flow rates as water injection? Or you never did steam injection as in port steam not DI steam?

[Richard L]

Can you say that you went about your steam injection with the same flow rates as water injection? Or you never did steam injection as in port steam not DI steam?

Steam injection goes back as far back as water injection. People rapped copper/stainless tube around the exhaust pipe. Water is feed into one end by gravity and the other end into the induction pipe.

[edited]
We really have not looking into steam injection in great details. I really cannot comment how to do it properly. May be just inject a controlled amount of water into a pre-heated mass, steam is then vented into the inlet tract of the engine. I suppose it can be achieved by PWM'ing an inline solenoid valve from a pressurised water supply line.


Judging from some of the technical papers, it has to be quite accurate.

[maxc]

My utube channel. http://youtu.be/VZmPlTvv7tk

[Richard L]

I looked but not sure what I should be seeing.

[maxc]

I looked but not sure what I should be seeing.A little better. I will make new thread on this. With full details. http://youtu.be/VZmPlTvv7tk