Injector"spray"vs.evaporation

[B.E. Herron]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mario Tito <mario at swingbridge.com>
To: fi discuss 2 <diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sunday, September 14, 1997 4:47 PM
Subject: Injector"spray"vs.evaporation

<snip>
>The logic goes, carbs can't do
>this consistently, but the high pressured injectors can atomize better.
>Yes. And fully evaporated gasoline 'explodes' rather than 'burns', right?
>  Please- anyone with the scientific answers to this would be appreciated.
>I am afraid of sparking another "wonder-bra-carb-something-for-nothing"
>discussion.
>  If this point is true, then to make the most efficient engine, I should
>be concerned with not leaving gas-spray on the walls of the intake
>manifold, and consider sequential injection.
>
>Mario T.
>mailto:Freshmar at aol.com-----'76 VW Camper FI A/T,,'79 Fiat X1/9

Mario:

Yes, injectors atomize fuel better than a carb and prevent runner and
cylinder wetting to a greater extent when placed close to the port.  No,
fully atomized gasoline still burns, just at a MUCH faster rate and MUCH
more completely.  A number of years ago, I read about a "Hot Vapor" engine
that Smokey Yunick designed and developed with the intent of selling to the
auto companies (none of them bit though - pity).  This system ran the
air/fuel mixture through a manifold that circulated the engine water around
the charge and then passed the charge to another manifold that the exhaust
system ran around (can you say _dangerous_ here) and then dumped the charge
into the cylinders though a carb.  The mixture was around 400 to 500 degrees
F when entered into the chamber and fully atomized.  He was getting (if my
feeble memory serves me correctly) about 150 HP and 50 mpg from a
three-cylinder sprint engine.  If the danger points can be avoided, I don't
see why this mixture could not be injected, unless the temperature is too
high for the injectors.

BEH
'66 Mustang Fastback    '73 Camaro RS