waterinjection.info  

Go Back   waterinjection.info > Injection Theory (what it is and what it does) > General Effects

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21-06-2004, 07:28 AM
cheekychimp cheekychimp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Default WI, NOS, Propane Injection, Cryo Air Intake etc etc

Hi,
I am about to start completely rebuilding a 1990 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4. It will be an extremely serious rebuild limited most likely only by funding, and addressing all aspects of the car from power through transmission and suspension etc.

Now for the purposes of this forum I want to concentrate on the engine. The VR-4 is powered by the now famous 4G63 2.0L DOHC turbocharged engine. The current plan is for a complete rebore and rebuild making this a 2.4 litre, 9:0:1 compression and mating it to a Forced Performance FP3065 turbo.

All my current research and the extremely helpful advice I have been given from people on similar forums suggests that 1.5 bar or 22-23psi is about the limit I can expect on this engine before detonation begins to raise it's ugly head.

The vehicle will be daily driven in Hong Kong where ambient air temperatures and humidity are very high for most of the year.

I am sure that 1.5 bar is going to be more than adequate given this set up and I am not looking to increase boost so much as increase efficiency and reduce the likelihood of detonation/increase reliability at what looks like the threshold of this rather high compression for a forced induction engine.

RIGHT ... TO THE QUESTION:

I have spent hours looking at water injection/water alcohol injection, propane injection, air intakes that are chilled with CO2, NOS, NOS chillers on a FMIC, water to air intercoolers where the water is chilled by a/c refrigerant.

All these systems work ... but are limiteby one factor or another. However having witnessed the effects of a combined air to air and water to air intercooler that reduced charge air to temperatures below ambient, I am now considering using some of these systems in conjunction with each other.

What I am really interested to hear from the experts is, if you are already reducing intake charge temperatures by using a cryogenic air intake, NOS or propane injection would this make WI redundant?

And, if not, would any of these systems be better suited for use together? I have already read some of the tuning issues inherent with using WI and NOS due to ignition timing, would similar issues exist with say propane or alcohol/water or pure alcohol injection.

These are complicated questions and I realise there are many factors that will affect results. What I am trying to avoid is a tuning nightmare caused by different systems creating different a/f ratios and just as importantly buying something that is not cheap only to find it is redundant if used in conjunction with another device.

A prime example here might be a water to air intercooler setup that fails to reduce the intake charge as significantly as using WI or propane injection in conjunction with a good quality FMIC.

Gentlemen if you got this far I appreciate your patience ... now please, any advice !!!

Paul.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21-06-2004, 11:31 PM
Richard L Richard L is offline
Manufacturer sponsor
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 4,936
Default

It sounds confusing at first but they all have one objective - cooling.

I can only speak for water injection and hope someone else will speak about others on this thread - it will certainly be interesting discussion to continue.

I may be wrong, on this, I know only two items that will cool the combustion chamber and the rest belongs to cooling the charge air before entering the combustion chamber.

Water injection's sole job is for in-cylinder cooling - inlet cooling is only a side effect, also applied to alcohol injection. I have to mention that dumping fuel is another method of cooling an egine internally - widely practised.

As regarding your engine, install an intercooler or chargecooler is effective and maintainance free, but all other cooling methods require regular servicing.

I am not answering you question directly, but just to help you to categorize their functions into groups before getting too deep in details.
__________________
Richard L
aquamist technical support
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22-06-2004, 03:25 AM
hotrod hotrod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 307
Default Some observations on compound systems

You raise some interesting questions. The first point to address is can these systems be used in combination.

To that I would say probably yes.
The question to answer before you get much further into the problem is what is your comfort level for complexity, and how much user intervention do you think you are willing to deal with?

Each time you add an additional system your complexity goes up geometrically, ie. 2 power adders are probably going to be 4x as complex to manage and tune, 3 power adders 9x more complicated. Likewise your probability of failure and bad things happening also goes up very quickly. One of the lessons the space program, the aircraft industry, the computer industry and the nuclear power industry learned is that as the number of components goes up, the mean time between failures goes down. If you have a computer with 1000 componets that have an average failure rate of once every 1000 hours the computer will probably crash every hour.

In a compound system, you will also have systems that sometimes reinforce each other and sometimes work against each other. For example, WI works very well when the air charge is at high temp and low relative humidity. It does not provide nearly as much charge cooling due to evaporation when the intake charge is cool and at high relative humidity. The implication of this is that you will need to consider where in the intake system each system will provide the most cost effective benefit, and at the same time the least negative impact on any system down stream.

As a practical matter any one of the systems you mention alone, can push most engines to or near the breaking point, and I doubt if any common engine could survive long making the type of power available from a successful no holds barred combination of more than two of them.

That said, I am in the early stages of experimenting on a compound system for my car, but am not far enough along to give much useful info.

Here's some food for thought though:

Each system has some characteristics that imply how it might be used.

One concept is that the system that is capable of reaching the lowest intake temps should be the last in the chain (closest to the cylinder).

Pure water injection -- Has some charge cooling effect and modifies the effective octane of the fuel air charge. In large quantities it needs leaner mixtures and more ignition advance to produce max power. It has no significant effect on the effective fuel air mixture (ie does not increase or decrease available fuel oxygen ratio). It is less effective when air charge is cold and at high relative humidities. Can freeze out of the air charge if intake temps go too low, liberating significant latent heat of evaporation and solidification back to the mixture, in effect fighting other super cooling systems as temps go significantly below both the dew point of the mixture and the freezing point of water. There is potential for ice build up due to super cooled water dropplets freezing on contact with surfaces at very low temps.

Water alcohol injection -- Same as above but has higher cooling capacity during high humidity conditions, will reach lower intake air temps, and allows operation at moderate below freezing air temps. Alters effective fuel air ratio. In high concentrations of alcohol, it adds additional fuel to the engines intake charge, but modifies the effective fuel air ratio due to the oxygen content of the alcohol. It in effect changes the effective AFR if you consider the alcohol as part of the fuel load.

Chilled intercoolers -- can reach most any temp your willing to push it to (depending on flow rate of chilling medium). Has no direct effect on fuel air ratio, at high cooling rates slows combustion and will probably require more ignition advance. May ice up at high relative humidities in intake charge passing through the intercooler if super cooling is carried too far.

Propane injection -- Has significant potential cooling, is a pure hydrocarbon fuel with high natural octane. Will richen the fuel air mixture. Flow is not usually modulated by engine rpm in most cases cannot be used at low rpm as it will over supply fuel at low rpm and gradually lean out as rpm increases.

Nitrous injection -- Has significant potential cooling, is an oxygen carrier, DEMANDs high octane fuel to avoid detonation, needs fuel enrichment to utilize the additional oxygen provided, and prevent lean out of mixture, raises combustion temperatures and requires retarded ignition advance to avoid detonation, and prevent excessive combustion pressured due to faster combustion speed. Flow is not modulated by engine rpm in most cases cannot be used at low rpm due to enormus cylinder pressures generated.

As a group super cooling systems can act as though they lean out fuel air mixtures, by pushing the fuel pump, injector system over the edge into static flow --- you will need more head room on your injector and fuel pump sizing to allow for this.


Larry
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22-06-2004, 07:42 AM
cheekychimp cheekychimp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Larry,
I could not really have asked for anymore. This was more than I had expected even given your somewhat god like mechanical and physics knowledge acompared with mine which leaves me stumbling around in the dark somewhat.
Clearly the fact that not all of these systems have been implimented together in the past is relevant. The complexity issue is a clear example. Whilst obviously there is every possibilty that these supercooling systems have the potential to produce incredible power, it is of little use if the whole tuning map goes to *$@t across the board leaving flat spots all over the place and running rich at one place and lean in another.
I am given to the thought that it might be better to utilize different methods at different rpm ranges leaving something like propane injection to cut in at near WOT when there is a clear demand for more fuel whilst using WI at lower rpms with the standard fuel supply.
This however is no more easy to impliment and I am reminded somewhat of the old supercharger/turbocharger dual systems that allowed boost from tickover as low as 1000 rpms and ripped through the rev range up to massive boost levels that superchargers alone could not support. Acceleration was phenomenal. So was maintenance and only one vehicle (one of the old Lancia Deltas I believe) managed to use the system semi-reliably in battle.
That said you have radically changed my thinking here and given humidity issues it is quite possible that some alcohol content in any water injection system I use may dramatically benefit my application. I also do not believe that 'carb-icing' or it's equivalent is likely in these climatic conditions and I think I'll be lucky to get charge temperatures below ambient.
I want to throw a spanner in the works here though and act the Devil's Advocate. These opinions are not all my own but they are interesting. It seems clear that this is a 'genuine' DISCUSSION forum after all, and a good discussion yields a wealth of information.
So Larry I want to challenge the propane injection 'cooling' issue. Users of propane injection report significant reduction of knock at high boost but almost no reduction in EGTs. Because it is injected as a vapour and not a liquid, the potential evaporation/heat reduction ability of the mixture has alraedy been lost at the tank. Some argue that the claims of raising octane content are also unfounded because when propane is injected it is a vapour significantly less dense and in lesser quantity than petrol and that it's ability to impart it's own octane rating on the compound fuel mixture virtually impossible. The fact that it burns is beyond doubt however and it burns well. The consensus of opinion I have seen so far therefore is that propane injection is nothing more than fuel dumping with the very possible side affect of rapid expansion of vapour through the combustion chamber leads to near 100% burn of the petrol and evening out of hot spots.
So first Larry (or anyone else !!!) do you think the use of Propane injection removes the need for further 'cooling' whilst still offering the option of leaning out the petrol, or, is there an argument for water injection in conjunction with propane in the same way that alcohol and water injection have become integrated in 50/50 mix systems?

Get your head round that one :shock:

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22-06-2004, 08:55 AM
hotrod hotrod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 307
Default Propane

Back in the late 1950's and 60's was when they first (to my knowledge) began playing with propane fueled vehicles. These were NA applications and the results of their toils left little doubt that propane has a higher octane than most gasoline blends. They were able to consistantly run higher compression ratios than was possible with the gasoline of the day, and this is when 103 octane premium was available from the pump.

Based on that, I would say there is no question it has a higher octane and like in blended gasolines, you will end up with an effective octane that is the weighted average between the fuels in use. Propane is reported to have a RON of 112, and a MON of 97, so it is quite similar to Methanol in those regards, being slightly higher in the research octane number.

It has very nearly the same peak flame temperature as gasoline 1,990 deg C for propane vs 1,977 deg C for gasoline.

The cooling of the propane occurs at the moment it flashes to vapor, this adiabatic cooling due to pressure drop and the absorption of heat heat of vaporization as the liquid flashes to vapor cools the propane gas to approximately the boiling point of the fuel which is about -42 deg C or about -40 deg F. Just like nitrous oxide cools the air charge, the propane will also, but only by dilution in proportion to their gaseous specific heat.


Propane gas has nearly 2x the heat capacity of air under the same conditions so -- for a back of the envelop calculation -- for every degree the gaseous propane warms up, it will cool an equal weight of the surrounding air about 2 degrees.

(someone who plays with thermodynamics all the time, and has authoritative numbers for the relative specific heats can work out the exact numbers )

In the case of Nitrous Oxide it will cool down the intake charge something like 70 deg F at normal injection rates, and I would expect that propane injection will do nearly the same -- perhaps 50 deg F cooling. BUT -- it has to be injected far enough ahead of the intake valve so the engine sees the effect of the cooling in the manifold in order that the VE of the engine increases. If the cooling takes place inside the cylinder, its too late to change the amount of fuel air inhaled on the intake stroke.

The true gaseous nature of vaporized propane certainly appears to help combustion.

For an example of the probable process, in research done of flammable dust air explosions they found that small amounts of flammible gas (like propane) added to the air, greatly speeds the combustion process as it adds energy necessary to heat the dust particles to combustion temp. I suspect the same thing happens in the engine as the flammable gas helps the evaporation of the micro dropplets of fuel and so speeds, and increases the effectiency of combustion.

I would say that a hybrid system of water injection with propane injection would certainly have some possibilities for that last little bit of power. The propane won't have the same cooling effect of fuel dumping, so the WI can provide that, to hold down combustion temps, and the higher VE due to the cooler manifold temps from the propane should push up power levels significantly. Propane is also much cheaper than high octane gasoline last I checked, since in this application it would be a dual fuel system where you only used the high octane fuel when you needed it. Propane of course like Nitrous has the advantage of being self presurzed so you only need a solenoid to turn the flow on and off.

The combination I always wanted to persue was a propane fuel enrichment for a nitrous system. That should be capable of melting your pistons before you know you have a problem

The down side is now you have to manage several high pressure systems and their controls. If some one came up with a universal switching module that had multiple trigger outputs to control solenoids according to manifold pressure, engine rpm and TPS, with a built in clutch safety and low fuel pressure and or blocked water flow safety, hybrid systems would be much simpler to implement.

Larry
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22-06-2004, 09:50 AM
cheekychimp cheekychimp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Larry,
Now we are getting somewhere, but before I take this to the next step take a look at this http://www.btrviper.com/nitrous.html There aren't specific details about the kit :roll: but it shows you aren't the only one thinking along this route. I'll try and dig up some more info.

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 22-06-2004, 04:43 PM
cheekychimp cheekychimp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Default

OK Larry,
Now I have had some more time to let everything you have said sink in I realise that you too are posing some very interesting questions and possibilities.

Clearly I see now the clear differences between reducing air temps in the air intake tract and reducing temperatures inside the combustion chamber. Consequently from a tuning point of view a constant charge air temp is probably better to work with than one that varies greatly between very high and very low. So there seems some scope for liquid to air intercooling even if over longer trips it is recognised as less efficient than air to air.

Right, I concede the higher octane level. Despite the previous arguments I have seen there seems little else that you can conclude when essentially only race gas allows you to run the same boost as propane injection does without detonation.

This brings me onto Nitrous and Propane and "cooling" effects. Now correct me if I am wrong but I thought Propane or LPG was a liquid under pressure in the bottle (as is Nitrous), but that as soon as they leave the pressurized container they are aleady vapours. So technically are they still capable of the real cooling they could do if injected as liquids under pressure? (Consider how cold the spray out of a CO2 extinguisher is for example as it is in the process of vapourizing).

Or do high pressure fuel lines mean these two gases remain liquid inside the lines until injection and exposure to the outside air? I wish this was true but I doubt it.

Now as regards my particular application you have given me considerable cause for thought. Clearly the complexity issue of running several systems suggests we should have a baseline. A lower boost pressure that the engine can handle without detonation suppression systems being required and a solid bulletproof maintenance free intercooling system that even if not highly efficient reduces temperatures sufficiently on its own (a good FMIC for example). This would allow us to drive quite happily and in complete safety even in the event that pumps failed, fuels ran out, leaks occurred or tank pressures dropped. Then the good bit, we OVERRIDE all this by raising boost feedin in additional fuel (lots of it ... Propane) which we could even supplement further by wiring a WOT switch to inject Nitrous if the nitrous is armed at real full power (or we could just make that last part manual.

So the real question now Larry. This is a water injection forum. At that stage when all hell is breaking loose petrol is burning at pretty much optimal efficiency ... Octane is up to around 104-110 ... nitrous is blasting through spreading oxygen everywhere adding to the happy horsepower mayhem, so just what the hell would happen if water was injected into the intake tract at that stage? Is it going to help any, I mean can it reduce combustion temps further (I say probably yes since it has the most optimal conditions for instant vapourization). Could it reduce efficiency (I'm just wondering if we hog space in the combustion chamber with water that cannot produce oxygen as efficiently as nitous are we cutting back on the nitrous injection efficiency? Or thirdly would it be incapable of doing anything at this stage and should it be used at a different stage ... perhaps to simply suppress detonation at high boost without switching on propane and significantly increasing horsepower. Because sometimes too much horsepower is not good.

I'm getting my system together here Larry. Help me put the finishing touches in here.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23-06-2004, 12:59 AM
hotrod hotrod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 307
Default choices

Your right on the state of CO2, Nitrous, and Propane, they are predominately a liquid in the tank, under pressure. In a propane tank like Nitrous, you want to draw the propane from the liquid mass at the bottom of the tank and allow it to flash to vapor at the injection point. It will stay liquid as long as it is pressurized to a pressure above the vapor pressure of the gas at the current temperature.

For a simple example look at water it can be super heated to well over its normal boiling point and remain a liquid if held at pressure ( ie your cooling system). It will not start to boil and flash to steam until the pressure drops below a critical pressure.

In the case of a cryogenic gas/liquid it will flash to vapor at the solenoid valve or in the case of a Nitrous injection system at the restriction provided by the flow control orfice in the injector. That is the point where pressure finally drops below the critical pressure for transition from a liquid to a gas. There will also be a small amount of boiling in the tank as the flow begins to maintain tank pressure for the current tank contents temperature.


I look at the problem from a point of cost effectiveness, reliability, and ease of refill. From that point of view I consider the water injection system the primary system and the others as the adjunct systems.

I consider the water injection as a given and the choice of time place and application of other means to augment it the unknown to be determined.

Larry
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23-06-2004, 07:30 PM
cheekychimp cheekychimp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Larry,
So what you are saying is to put water injection is as an integral part of the system anyway and then decide about propane and nitrous for higher rpms? You think I should have the WI up and running regularly and then work the other injection around it?

Paul.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 23-06-2004, 08:45 PM
Richard L Richard L is offline
Manufacturer sponsor
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 4,936
Default

Just realise that hotrod has just reminded me that heat is absorbed during eveporation only. After evaporation - transfer of heat is by gas dilution only - very little cooling effect, it is similar to ducting the cold air from your air conditioner in front of the intercooler along side with the normal air.

I wonder why people don't just dump liquid CO2 or N2O onto the intercooler surface, similar to water spraying system - it has to be the best way forward?

I guess I have been mis-led in many forums when people said that extreme cooling resulted on injecting a -180C gas into the inlet tract. The final temperature has to be proportional to - the "specific heat" ratio and the "mass" ratio of the two gases.

Thank you Hotrod
__________________
Richard L
aquamist technical support
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.