Aquamist HFS-3 system for 2010 ..... "Q and A"

[srt8-in-largo1]

I guess I should have asked first of all, will I be getting a v3.0? I took it for granted when I ordered that only the latest version is shipping. Or is it possible that I'll get a v1.0 or v2.0? I hope 3.0

So... when the system is configured for "70%IDC / 30% MPS" it is operating as a weighted function (?). I think this can get complicated without both of us sitting in front of a chalkboard together. If we had a fictitious engine whose IDC ramps from 12% to 80% and MPS ramps simultaneously from 0.5V to 4.5V, for example, is it safe to say that at each operating point along the way that some flow of WM is due to the IDC trigger and some is due to the MPS trigger? I think I'm thrown off course by your use of "100%" in your explanation.

Here is the real world concern. When I datalog in my car, many times I will see knock retard when RPM (and hence IDC) is low but engine load (and hence MPS) is high. If I triggered entirely from IDC, I would not have WM spraying in this condition where knock is present.

I like the idea of triggering from IDC, but there are conditions where I need MPS to trigger some spray when IDC may be below 12%. It *sounds* like the 70/30 setting is what I want... but I'm not sure!

Originally Posted by Richard L

I went to the lxforum link you posted. It is weird no one replied to such an important performance gap between the PPS an PWM-V systems. Plenty of people looked in though.

Too complicated to understand or just uninterested? May be you have upset the PPS guys? It was quite an outspoken post.

Thanks for looking! I posted that in the "Power Adder" section and most people who read there (the old timers) have been through the WM conversation many many times and are just not interested. New-timers who see it may not say anything due to their inexperience with meth systems in general.

I agree too that I may have upset the PPS guys... lol. Even though I'm in my 40's I still find occasion where I need to temper my statements! When I get my system from Howerton I'll post some pics and datalogs to try to get a conversation rolling there.

Regarding performance difference between PWM and PPS... do you have experimental data or is this theoretical only? I'm sure the Aquamist system runs more reliably due to the way the pump is controlled, but is there data showing better power?

PPS vendors now state their systems operate as high as 250 psi, some vendors reference 300 psi. I assume this is done to provide better atomization. Most of these systems use the Aquatec-5800 pump... can this pump be configured to run reliably at such pressures?

From what i have seen, the pumps don't actually run at those pressures. They are advertising "dead head" pressure. I have tested a few of the 200psi pumps from different vendors, they all ran within 10psi of the Aquamist pump once you started flowing. At very small jet sizes they do hit about 200psi, but go there nearly immediately after the pump turns on because for a pump that will put out 3700cc a minute free flow, 200cc of flow is dead head with a slight leak.

I have sat in Aquatec's engineering offices for lengthy discussions and to me they categorically said that the pumps cannot run at these pressures. Maybe a dead head spike, but not run.....It's advertising gimmicks. I haven't seen everything, but have yet to see a 250psi line pressure with a M10 or larger jet.

And trying to make them run at higher pressures actually makes they worse for the application. The spec they use makes them run slower(more pulsing) and draw double the amps of the Aquamist spec pump.

[Richard L]

Originally Posted by srt8-in-largo1

I guess I should have asked first of all, will I be getting a v3.0? I took it for granted when I ordered that only the latest version is shipping. Or is it possible that I'll get a v1.0 or v2.0? I hope 3.0

You will get the latest, only v3 is available now.

Originally Posted by srt8-in-largo1

So... when the system is configured for "70%IDC / 30% MPS" it is operating as a weighted function (?). I think this can get complicated without both of us sitting in front of a chalkboard together. If we had a fictitious engine whose IDC ramps from 12% to 80% and MPS ramps simultaneously from 0.5V to 4.5V, for example, is it safe to say that at each operating point along the way that some flow of WM is due to the IDC trigger and some is due to the MPS trigger? I think I'm thrown off course by your use of "100%" in your explanation.

Here is the real world concern. When I datalog in my car, many times I will see knock retard when RPM (and hence IDC) is low but engine load (and hence MPS) is high. If I triggered entirely from IDC, I would not have WM spraying in this condition where knock is present.

I like the idea of triggering from IDC, but there are conditions where I need MPS to trigger some spray when IDC may be below 12%. It *sounds* like the 70/30 setting is what I want... but I'm not sure!

I would wait until the system is installed and in operation. There are a few other options. Instead of using MAP sensor, you can input the throttle angle sensor. This will give you instant dose of water/meth based on user demand.

PS the system can inject based on 100%-IDC, 100%-MPS or 70/30.

Originally Posted by srt8-in-largo1

Regarding performance difference between PWM and PPS... do you have experimental data or is this theoretical only? I'm sure the Aquamist system runs more reliably due to the way the pump is controlled, but is there data showing better power?

PPS vendors now state their systems operate as high as 250 psi, some vendors reference 300 psi. I assume this is done to provide better atomization. Most of these systems use the Aquatec-5800 pump... can this pump be configured to run reliably at such pressures?

Power at WOT make zero difference between the kits if you live your life in the quartermile tracks. For DD applications, the difference is huge,

I do get feedback from PWM-V converted users. Mainly the system more linear and does not bog the engine on low rpm and does not run-on during gear change. This confirms the theory is sound. More readings below:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1413320 (a few PPS WMI makers has responded)

Those claimed pressures are what the pump is capable of when dead headed. You would only have found that out after the purchase; The by-pass valve is actually set to between around 200-220 dead-headed. What else is there for a PPS system to shout about?

You can increase the pressure on the on the aquamist pump to beyond 250 psi by adjusting the set screw on the front of the pump if you wish. The pump will heat up quite quickly.

Two water tanks of the same capacity, one 30 feet tall and the other 18 feet. Open up the same drain tap on both, the water level of the 30 feet tank will drop faster.

[srt8-in-largo1]

Thanks Jeff and Richard, I really appreciate all the info. It will take me a little while to traverse all the info in that NASIOC link!

I really look forward to running this kit.

[Richard L]

For some unknown reason, aquamist is not well represented on the american v8 scenes. Most probably lack of magazine hypes. Another factor has to do with price. It costs less to make a PPS system with just an slow acting valve (off the shelf type).

You could probably tell me more.

[boukman]

Hi,

Could you confirm my nozzle choice please?

4 x 1000cc F-injectors -> 4000cc (running ~65 F-IDC)
15% water -> 600cc
20psi boost -> 140psi pump pressure chart

I think 2 x 0.7mm (M3.9) nozzle is what I would need.

Am I right?

Thank you!

[Richard L]

Please allow 10% system loss and some ceiling in case you need more.

Go for 2x 0.8mm instead.

[boukman]

Hello,

What will be the best dual nozzle location on post-intercooler pipe? 1 or 2?

Regards.

[Richard L]

The "2" is better, 3-6" apart.