Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Finally I got a map tuned with the right ignition timing and fuel mixture.

Now I would like some advice to have a good tune with a 50/50 mixture.

Question 1 :

Would water only or a 50/50 mixture need more ignition timing ?

Question 2 :

Methanol is fuel, so the map needs to be leaned out. By how much? is there a formula for this ?

Question 3 :

Water cools combustion more than methanol but if both injected there is a note that water nor methanol do not "see" each other thus mix more with air.

So what about Air Temps? Would using a 50/50 mixture gain cooler air temperatures but increased cylinder temperatures due to methanol burning?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

That's why 50/50 by weight is the best mix.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

If you have a clear answer for the above question I would appreciate your feedback

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

During the time researching about water injection during the past 3 years I never came across into a definitive thread on "How to tune correctly water injection". Let's try to define this here.

Presently I have a basemap tuned by myself on 100% water injection. During this time I came across that eventually the practice of water injection does infact change the theory of fuel & ignition timing needed by far.
Right now I am boosting a 1.5L engine with a GT2560R turbo @ 18psi. The engine is happy with a 13.5 AFR on high load. Insanely this is a ratio a normally aspirated engine should run.

I am using an AEM progressive injection system start injection at 6psi and give it full at 10psi (due to no intercooler). Injecting about 350cc PRE-Throttle body and 150cc PRE-Turbo = Total of 500cc

Pre-turbo comes 4psi later than Pre-throttle body by using a variable check valve.

At this stage I am seeing about 50DegC during high-load/rpm @ 18psi @ 500cc water injection. Ambient is 26DegC and injecting below 10psi temps stay within 30DegC.

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

Water to fuel injection Ratio :


A hard pull on 4th gear up to 7000rpm :

Start of water injection @ 6psi = 250cc of water

End of water injection @ 18psi = 500cc of water

Fuel according datalog :

@ 6psi Boost / 564cc x 4 injectors = 2256cc @ 20% Duty = 451cc

250cc water vs 451cc fuel = 55% Water to Fuel

@ 18psi Boost / 614cc x 4 injectors = 2456cc @ 46% Duty = 1130cc

500cc water vs 1130cc fuel = 44% Water to Fuel


According to the theory of water injection, not more than 15% water to fuel should not be injected as it could cause damage to the engine. Apparantly this is all falks as I am running this setup for more than a year without damage !

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

What are the differences in the burn when injecting 100% Water vs 50/50 Water/Methanol ?

I am not going into chemistry and molecules, all we want to know is "What are the overall effects when injecting Water Only or 50/50" ?

We all know this! Water does not burn so injecting 100% water does it's "100%" to cool the Flame down.

But what happens to the Flame Burn when using a 50/50 mixture?

Methanol burns slowly than Pump fuel so still it does a % to cool the Flame down. So roughly now we have 60% is there to cool down the flame while 40% is there ready to burn.

So if we take a 100% water burn vs a 50/50 Water/Meth burn, the 50/50 is going to burn hotter.
Heat increases pressure - More pressure = More Power. So logically a 50/50 if tuned right! it should produce more power overall.

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

What Happens to the AirTemp when using 100% water or 50/50?

Air is cooled by the evaporation of the liquids during a rush of Air or more boost. The hotter the Air the more the evaporation effect takes place. That's why many find water injection in forced induction applications and many tell not to inject below 20DegC.

There is a theory saying that when two different liquids like methanol and water are evaporated at the same time, evaporation can be increased above the theoretical 100% relative humidity thus cooling more air. (100% R/Humidity means altough there is a rush of air, there is so much water in the air that the air rush is not enough for evaporation to take place thus no more cooling can be obtained)

I still do not have a practical data to confirm this but I am working on it.

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

Tuning on 100% Water then 50/50. Why?

From experience in tuning, I confirm that 100% Water does not change AFR altough if injected more than it should boost could not reach it's maximum since the turbine needs heat/speed of the flame to run. Water slows this process down eventually.

The best is to tune on 100% Water and find maximum power/torque with the least possible AFRs. Mine is about 13.5AFR.

Once tuned right on 100% Water, put a mix of 50/50 and leave all as it is. Make a run and AFRs should go below the 100% water values since now methanol is burning aswell. Put the engine on dyno and check power/torque accordingly. If W/M injection is right you should leave the ignition timing as it is as the extra timing was already put during the 100% water tune.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

What is your goal with your experiment? I believe improving the BSFC (Brake specific fuel consumption) has to be the aim.

I have not heard any reports on engine damage running 50% of water to fuel, it just looses power. More probably due to lack of capacity of the ignition system.

M50/W50 puts less stress on ignition system. For most, it is easier than upgrading up the ignition system. Alcohol engines normally requires multispark ignition system.

I love to see your tests/result involving on monitoring AFR, MBT, EGT and power output. If those figures, you can see estimate BSFC and compare the merits of water and methanol.

Fortunately you have find those experiments on dozens of research papers published.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Richard,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, the aim is to obtain an overall maximum power across all the rev range with the least possible fuel.

Due to that I tune on street all I can monitor is AFR / EGT / AIR TEMP. Next I will datalog a run with 100% water vs another run with a 50/50 mixture and post results.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

why does the pre turbo come in later ?

I also inject pre turbo and I want to learn as much about it as I can ?
how do you determine when to inject pre turbo and when to inject post I.C ?

gr maurice

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Hi maurice

During the time reading on pre-turbo injection, many state to inject as late as possible due to the fact that injecting at "low boost" would eventually result in a possible damage to the compressor blades.

Also you have to understand why are you injecting pre-turbo eventually?

To increase compressor efficiency.
Mainly compressor efficiency is lost on high boost due to the compressor efficiency map and due to heat generated by high boost.

So when would one inject pre-turbo?

One should set pre-turbo to start just before the compressor start to loose it's boost efficiency.

Example : I own a Garret Gt2560r turbo. Comparing this turbo to my engine airflow, it start to loose efficiency past 14psi. Infact between 1 to 12psi the amount of heat generated is low while past 14psi till 20psi it almost doubles.

So in this case injecting @ 12psi progressively increasing till max boost

Check out the attached compressor map

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Water vs 50/50 (By weight) Water/Methanol

Today I made a street run testing with 100% water injection and 50/50 mixture.

All Injection settings and Boost was kept the same . Starting @ 6psi giving full 300cc Post turbo + 150cc Pre Turbo @ 12psi.

The Results:

- It was noticed that with the 50/50 Mix the Air Temperature was seen colder by an average of 5DegC with some moments giving a 10DegC better efficiency. Since I am probably injecting at 100% Dew point of water, the theory of two liquids mixing better with air gave positive results. Thus the theory actually is true.

- AFR dropped by 1 point when using 50/50 Mixture giving from 13.5AFR on water to 12.5AFR on 50/50.

- EGTs were dropped by 50DegC. Strangely the excess fuel from methanol seems a better coolant than giving the engine 100% water. Presently I am below 700DegC.


Next is a trial run on the drag strip and see what we get on friday.

Cheers

A good luck would be appreciated :)

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Good luck and look forward to the results.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Sorry guys but unfortunately I couldn't get a good run as an axle broke within seconds during a burnout!

Since the last tune on water/meth the engine gained too much power.

All I can tell for now that with water/meth vs 100% water the engine was happy with a 10 Degree ignition advance on boost with meth.

True performance is in a 50/50 mixture for sure :)

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

I have a question to the experts:

Lets say I am running 12Afr on a turbo engine using gasoline and installed a 100% meth injection setup.

Lets say meth theory is 6:1 ratio, double the ratio of gasoline.

If I reduce gas to 13afr, meth injection afr target is 11afr.

With 50/50 water meth that would be 12afr right?

What if I want the engine working with more meth lets say reducing gas to 14afr , meth target 9afr or 10afr with 50/50. Would I make more power this way ?

What are the limits?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

The limit is that you run pure methanol at some point, a fuel that can make a lot of power in a turbo application.
I usually measure the AFR with a wideband lambda gauge. You inject your methanol or mix at the rate you want to try and adjust fuel to get to the AFR you want.
I also suggest to get away from AFRs of different fuels. Use lambda or just to for gasoline AFR you need. Thing is that lambda is a more linear scale with lambda 1.1 running 10% less fuel than lambda 1.0. There or no different lambda values for different fuels. The amounts you needs calculate from the ratio of the nerdy densities. In case of methanol about half of that of gasoline. Ethanol has a energy density of roughly 70% of gasoline.
Adding water with identical combustible fuel floe does not change the lambda value.
Substitution does. But again, just run a wideband lambda sensor and fox fueling on the fly.

OTherwise, you are right. For every 1 flow unit of methanol you add, you need to about remove half a unit of flow of gasoline to maintain the same lambda value or gasoline equivalent AFR in the engine.

Recently I had the impression I can extract more power from my engine with more alcohol and less water. Boost is fixed in my car as it is supercharged.,
Going from 50/50 to 75/25 I was able to advance ignition timing and gained feelable power. Was only a quick drive, but still. I can only assume that not all of the water I inject does actually contribute to knock suppression. The water's action is usually indicted though it's flame speed retardation requiring more ignition timing to compensate.
Now, I could also go in the other direction and reduce methanol and inject more water and less methanol......

It seems like those little direct port jets do not produce the fineest mist. Riceracing's air assisted nozzle in the airbox is definitly a better source of very fine droplets helping water being more efficient in the cylinder. The big droplets plains do not evaporate fast enough in the cylinder. The alcohol does. In a recent publication I read they did experiments and simulations on direct vs port injection of fuels with various alcohol content. The author compared the in cylinder knock suppression and cooling effect by adjusting the intake air tempersature of the turbo engine until both injection methods produced the same knock limited power.
The result was that direction injection was always superior to port injection having more knock suppression. Her attributes this, backed by evaporation models, that much of the ethanol droplets evaporate hitting the hot intake valve.

Now for my direct port scenario this could mean adding methanol does two things:
It adds high octane fuel
And it potentially leaves smaller, but effective water droplets behind as the methanol evaporates.

In the past I did experiments with pure water and never found it to be as effective as a mix with methanol. It's knock suppression performance was worse. Mapping both pure water and mix to its knock limit, timing is vastly different with water needing more advance, the mix made more power. This fits rather well with the water not actually doing its thing that well in my setup. It could very well be a in cylinder distribution issue. Here riceracing's system is superior to even a direct port system as he generates a very very fine mist that follows the bends and evenly distributes in the cylinder almost like a gas. My direct port system does not do that.
Bigger droplets plainly do not evaporate even during the critical part of combustion while the flame front still runs across the cylinder. Any droplets that are not evaporated by the time all the fuel has been consumed by the flame do not contribute to knock suppression.

As boost is in my setup is rather low and intake temps are not that high too due to charge cooling, I believe my setup rather likes the alcohol than the water.

I need to try a air assisted nozzle some time, but I only have 0.5 to about 1 bar of air pressure available to drive it.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

........................

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

My setup uses a 8 bar membrane pump, otherwise it is a Aquamist 2c system. The race pump at some pointed started to lose flow.
Metering is done with a HSV controlled by a ECU map (boost control map, PWM % as function of TPS and rpm) of my ECU, a Emerald K3.
4 Aquamist 0.4mm type C jets are placed a few cm in front of the injection valves with a 5th 0.3mm jet being mounted about 10cm in front of the Rotrex C30-94 supercharger. Total flow at max fuel flow is about 500 ml/min or about 30% of fuel flow. Injectors are 470cc/min Bosch EV14 units of a Corsa OPC operated at 4 bar.
The charge is cooled by a PWR racing 4"x6" barrel charge cooler. Water is provided through 19mm coolant lines and cooled by Pro Alloy radiator sized pre rad. Coolant pumped by a Bosch PCA and a Pierburg CWA50 pump resulting in a total measured flow of 17 litres per minute. I have a second Pierburg pump here that should get flow to about 25 litres per minute. That corresponds to 100W of CC coolant pumping power!
IATs on track are about 40-50C above ambient.
Durning no boost cruising IATs are typically 10C above ambient.
Running bigger than a 0.3mm pre compressor jet I can log IAT fluctuations from fluid droplets evaporating on the IAT sensor. During very hot days, I can go a tad bigger.
A 0.9mm pre-compressor jet caused IATs to stay flat after the charge cooler.

The engine is a DIY build Rover K-series with 1800cc mated to a B4BP close ratio gearbox and Torsen Type B limited slip diff in a 1999 Lotus Elise S1.
Head is a VVC160 head with a banking kit, heavier valves springs and Newman ph2 cams. Running a larger pulley I used a rev limit of 7800 rpm.
Bottom end has steel con rods, Mahle Motorsport bearings, Wössner forged pistons and Westwood nodular iron liners. Head gasket is a Rover MLS gasket.
All bottom end bits are weight matched and balanced all the way to the clutch cover. It runs super smooth.
It currently runs 0.83 bar of boost at 7000 rpm with a rev limiter at 7300 rpm.
It has never seen a dyno since I own it (2004). It should have about 250HP.
Straight line speed in Spa is a tad faster that a S2 Elise with a NA Honda K20A2 unit (≈230Hp) and a tad slower than a S1 Elise with a JRSC supercharged Honda K20A2 with about 280HP.

Next step is to measure why my boost is as low as it is. It should be above 1 bar and bring to engine closer to 280HP. Suspicion is the charge cooler. I need to wait for better weather.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

IATs on track are about 40-50C above HOW much ambient?

Regarding boost, you should check for boost leaks from the piping/gaskets...

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Whatever the outside ambient temperature is?
10C on a cold day or 35C on a hot day. The max IATs are then about 30 to 50C higher once everything is equilibrated.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Sounds exactly like the weather in Malta.... where you live ? (just for curiosity)

Decided to take some screenshots from the last datalog I made.

Beginning of first datalog is ZeroThrottle ending GearChange. The second begins from EGT_10PSI till EGT_MAXload

Please remember NO intercooler used. Injecting (60/40 Water/Meth) Post 350cc / Pre-Turbo 350cc.

Enjoy

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

EGT DATALOGING

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Germany. In winter it can get much colder, though. My Elise is in storage between December and February.

I did experiments without any intercooling a long time ago still running the C30-74.
I never got as good results as with charge cooling. Both with water methanol injection of course.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Yet another question came to my mind....

Let's make it simple. Imagine 1degC cooler air has an extra particle of air.

So if we have an ambient temperature of 40degC meaning 40air is being used from the ambient every charge and cooled the charge to 10degC by any means.

From where the extra 30air came from?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

That "extra" air is provided by your turbo or supercharger. All you do is changing its flow and pressure ratio. As long as your boost is regulated, you will maintain the pressure, but get extra air though a increase in air density. In case of a unregulated supercharger like in my set-up, boost actually drops as you cool more. What makes the power is the charge density. It is determined by both pressure and temperature.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

What I am saying is that if keeping a constant boost pressure eg:20psi with a constant ambient temp of 40DegC, injecting post turbo will eventually cool the incoming charge to 20C.

Will the 20DegC difference create more air going into the cylinder or just cool it?

What about oxygen in this case, the primary subject. Will it increase or decrease?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Mass air flow will increase and hence total oxygen.
Someone once did the numbers (enthalphy of evaporation, head capacity of air, vapor density of methanol etc.) and found that for every 1% of methanol (1% of total air flow), mass air flow increases by 2%.
Now evaporating an extra of 4 gram/sec (5 ml/sec or 300ml/min) of methanol wil increase air mass flow by 8 gram/second which would result in an other 10HP from the extra air alone.
Let's try an approximation outselfs:
Methanol has roughly 1.15 kJ/g heat of evaporation and a vapor density of 1.1 g/l. Let's say 1 kJ/g. Makes life easier. The vapor density is very similar to air. The heat capacity of air is roughly 1 kJ/kgK. So evaporating 4 g of methanol per second (300ml/min) consumes about 4kJ of heat per second (4kW). That 4kJ can cool 250g (good for 300HP) of air down by 16K. At the same time it releases 4 g of vapor. The 16 K temperature drop increases air density by about 4%. The vapor replaces about 4/250g or 1.6% of the air. So you gain 4% and lose about 2%. :-)

Water has twice ther heat of evaporation. But it evaporates very slowly compared to methanol. It therefore contributes much less to intake air cooling unless things are very hot.
At 20PSI air is very hot after the turbocharger. Say 150C. Here the water contributes a lot to cooling. Once things get below the boiling point, evaporation speeds drops a lot.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

I don't think water has to be in a vaporized state to do it's job because it will vaporize once the combustion process starts.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

The theory of methanol is good since meth itself is an oxygenated fuel.
Although water does not create oxygen while evaporation but more works as a potent air charge coolant vs meth.

Here comes the thing, water as the best air charge coolant dissipates more air than meth through evaporation.

So would't the theory of denser air work here?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Neither methanol nor Water creates any Oxygen while burning.
My calculations from above are only talking evaporation into account. You were asking about if evaporation of methanol in the inlet increases air and with it oxygen density.
Answer is yes, it does.
Water is much similar except for two things. It's heat of evaporation is twice as large while its vapor density is lower due to the lower molecular weight of water vs methanol.
But let's assume vapor density is the same to keep things easy.
You could conclude water cools twice as much as methanol. That is the theory if all the water would evaporate. In your 40C airstream, it does not. That is the thing. The water's vapor pressure is MUCH higher than the vapor pressure of methanol. Water evaporates MUCH slower than methanol. Cooling power is joules of heat of evaporation per second.
Before digging out any equations a first approximation would be 10x slower. This is very crude since these are highly nonlinear phenomena that happen on a logarithmic scale. Once you hit a boiling point, things change again.

Just put some water over your finger and methanol. What feels cooler?

If you have a very hot environment such as a gas turbine with its 40:1 pressure ratio and 1000C air exiting the compressor, water injection works as theoretically predicted as all water evaporates. In a inlet tracks with 150C 20PSI air exiting the compressor and cooling down to 40C things are more complicated. Here rather less water will evaporate, some of the water evaporated in the compressor will even condensate again. Here methanol will do the majority of the cooling work, not the water.

In the cylinder things will get better as things get hotter, but still big droplets won't even fully evaporate during a entire combustion cycle.

Now water is not best, it is just different. In the cylinder it slows down flame propagation speed. Now if the distribution is not perfect within the cylinder, you still experience knock from the perimeter zones of the cylinder that contain less water.

Water and methanol work well to gether. They work on different temperature and time scales and act differently,

Here are some experimental data on the evaporation speed of a few solvents. Under the same conditions in this rotary evaporator, Methanol evaporates 8x as fast as water.
http://data.biotage.co.jp/products/t...ation_rate.pdf

The evaporation time of a droplet is about proportional to its diameter. A 200µm droplet takes 4x the time to evaporate than a 50µm droplet.
Air assisted nozzles create a finer mist than hydraulically driven nozzles. if the water mist is fine enough, it will also evaporate reasonably fast, at least until the air is saturated. But in the cylinder, the very fine residual water mist will help equilibrate in cylinder temperatures. it will also slow down flame development speed. This is where the extra timing requirement comes from. Methanol on the other hand burns faster than gasoline. a mix of methanol and water requires less extra timing. it is therefore easier to tune and can extract more power than water alone is most instances at the same boost level. You might achieve more power with water alone, but you need to add more boost. And there are limits in most setups.

In WW2 this was well optimised. water is the main agent, but methanol water mixes made more power with less tuning over a wieder AFR range.
As all planes except the FW190, it had a single throttle control lever, had manual fuel control. You had to adjust throttle, ignition timing and AFR yourself while manually open and close oil cooler covers and other stuff. When now folks start shooting at you, you did not want to fine-tune everything and watch EGR gauges while engaging war emergency power = water methanol injection. It only required little adjustments.

Pure methanol would require more adjustments and more of the stuff= weight = less time on big power = potential death.

also remember that those engines were running at very high pressure ratios. A P-47 Thunderbolt would run with up to 1.7 bar of manifold pressure at 30000 feet. Atmospheric pressure at this altitude is 0.3 bar. This corresponds to a pressure ratio of almost 6!!!!! At 0°C and a 75% efficiency you end up at turbo exit temperatures of 250°C. Pre-turbo water methanol injection had a huge effect. The water would literally boil while the air was compressed.
Richard L wrote that the WRC engines were driving the turbos at pressure ratios of 4 due to he inlet restrictors. This makes then very inefficient leading to very hot air temperatures. They used water injection to great effect. Water methanol would have even been better for power, but was not allowed.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Very good. Thanks rotrex for the detailed explanation.

In my case running intercooless setup, what mixture would you recommend to be ideal?

Would mixtures post/pre turbo be the same or there is a potential mixture for pre-turbo that works best?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

From what I can make up now, there are different scenarios:
1. Ditch pre compressor jets and inject post CC or direct port with the mix that gets you the best power. While 50:50 has its merits, I have now seen that for a given mix flow and boost more alcohol can in my car make more power. The other possibility would be to inject even more 50:50 mix.
2. Install a air assisted nozzle upstream of the turbo as in Riceracing's system. A significant portion of it's very fine mist will pass the CC. The evaporation in the turbocharger reduces droplet size even further with the majority of the vapor being the more volatile methanol. This leaves the water to do the cylinder work. As the mist is very fine, little fluid will separate in the CC. Even if, it does no harm.
3. For maximum charge cooling, inject 80:20 methanol water into the compressor. Supplement as needed post charge cooler or direct port. The more you inject, the less the CC will do.
4. If your CC is on the small side of things as in riceracing's system, pre compressor helps to lower overall charge temperatures. The too small CC itself cannot bring down air temperatures as logos as a bigger one. If you can install a big air to air cooler at the front, you will get air temps 10 to 20c above ambient. There pre compressor injection will lead to little extra cooling. Part of the evaporated mix will condensate. Here post CC injection or direct port will be more efficient. Exception would be a undersized turbocharger with a low efficiency.

Don't make the system too complicated, e.g. Two separate fluids and injection systems.
You can get to the same result by plainly injecting more of whatever fluid you use. This is more simple, easier to tune and less prone to failure.

Just my thoughts.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Cheers Rotrex

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

2. Install a air assisted nozzle upstream of the turbo as in Riceracing's system. A significant portion of it's very fine mist will pass the CC. The evaporation in the turbocharger reduces droplet size even further with the majority of the vapor being the more volatile methanol. This leaves the water to do the cylinder work. As the mist is very fine, little fluid will separate in the CC. Even if, it does no harm.

Will consider this... any links for more info/video/pics ?


Just Check riceracing's threat on precompressor injection up in this Section.
He describes in great details his set-up and his way up on the power ladder.

http://www.riceracing.com.au/water-injection.htm
http://www.aquamist.co.uk/forum2/vbu...ead.php?t=1590

Some pictures:
http://www.rx7club.com/race-parts-on...n-kit-1035465/

He mounted his personal system into the air filter. Air assisted nozzles produce a finer mist than hydraulic nozzles.
His system used the boost pressure to drive the spray. It does not employ a high pressure pump. It is all pumped by boost.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Would consider rice racing setup for pre-turbo. Do you have a diagram/picture of the system?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

If you check the links I have posted, You will find plenty of pictures.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

Haha, you sure have posted a lot of information.

Parma's, don't do it. About 70% of the anti detonation properties of WM is performed inside the cylinders. So make it good there.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

If I conside using RiceRacing setup, I will use together with the current system and that will be just for pre-turbo application.

I am sure this setup cannot be used post turbo as with the equal oost pressures of air and water nothing can go out ...

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

??
Why should I post lots of info off a commercial system that can be found on this very same forum? He was asking for pictures. There a few pics in the links of the system that uses a air assisted nozzle.
Getting water as a fine mist efficiently into a cylinder is unfortunately not as trivial as it sounds
So did I do anything wrong in your view?

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

You are both making this too complicated. Use high pressure pump 200+psi to gain better atomization efficiency. You will NEVER have perfect efficiency in ANY system but if you stay with the BASIC you may get as close to 94.2584% to a theoretical 100% efficiency...

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

I agree to that :-)
It is just that parmas currently runs without a intercooler and relies on pre compressor injection to keep temperature under control. If he upgrades to a intercooler, I'd also simplify. If it isn't sufficient, inject more.

I never suggested to do anything complicated. I was merely listing a selection of choices for different scenarios shall he change his set-up. Dual stage dual fluid is crazy for little merit.
IT is strongly against the KISS principle without offering any significant benefits over similarly costing and proven alternatives. On a front ended car there is usually plenty of space to fit a big air to air intercooler. This will have way more benefit than a too fancy of a WI system. A simple one will do fine as you wrote.

Riceracing's Systeme is not complicated, a container, a solenoid or flow control device, a air assisted atomizing nozzle with external mixing and some tubes. It is about as simple as it gets and seems to work well for him and his customers. After all, pre compressor injection is what was used by the American WW2 piston engines with their very high pressure ratios.
This high pressure ratio also where it makes the most sense.

The pump systems are more flexible regarding nozzle location and lower pressure ratio cannot take as much advantage of pre compressor injection as the high pressure systems with their very high turbo exit temperatures and at times inefficient intercoolers.

A pump system with nozzles positioned to get stuff into the cylinders is the most suitable in most cases. For Parmas' set-up as is, no IC, pre compressor is the right choice IMHO.

For my mid engine charge cooled apöication, I'd still would like to give it a goo, but con't as boost is not high enough at all times on WOT (centrifugal SC) to properly drive a air assisted nozzle.

Parmas, any videos of your car? I always love the sound of angry FI engines.

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

I had one in-car video... need to find it. With the next build I will keep this in mind and make as much videos as possible!

Re: Water vs Methanol : Ultimate Tuning
 

This threat shows install pictures:
http://www.rx7club.com/auxiliary-inj...-pics-1031140/

A diagram:
http://www.mx6.com/forums/2g-mx6-for...ml#post2606465

A video:
http://youtu.be/8Lizxy3XIY8

Depending on pressure and flow, you get median droplet diameters of half the total volume in the range of 30-80 microns with air assisted nozzles while hydraulic nozzles are more in the range of 200-500µm. The media diameters over total number of droplets are in the range of some five to 5-20 µm vs. 100-200 µm. These numbers are not hard numbers as every manufacturer and type of nozzle acts a little different.

there is a reason you go for air assisted if smallest droplets are a main factor for performance, e.g. Paint spray, cooling in manufacturing processes, e.g. Plastic milling, or humidification systems.

It has its merits, I'd therefore not slag it off just because Snow XXX does not sell it.

Why would you not even consider a small air to air cooler? The benefits for performance would be tremendous.

Regards
Marko