Flow rates for nozzles

[Barry E. King]

> >I need to mess around with the atomization aspect to see what
> pressure will
> >do the trick.  I want to keep the pressure lower rather than
> higher just for
> >cost's sake but will implement whatever works.
>
> Awfully tempting to go lower on the pressure and try air assisted
> atomization!!

Yeah huh.

>  where the water and fuel were either mixed prior to injection or
> >injected simultaneously.
>
> BINGO!

Bingo?  What did I win?  Come to think of it, I didn't realize I was even
playing.  Damn the '70s took a toll I guess...

> The former wouldn't be much different than a
> >direct port nitrous setup.  The latter injectors do exist but I
> have never
> >seen one for sale.
>
> I'll be the owl--WHO???

Dangit I don't know :\  GE Labs *I think* did some experiments.  I read
about it in some techie industry rag somewhere.

>  They'd be too pricey anyway.  I'll be injecting either
> >immediately before the throttle plate or immediately after right into the
> >plenum.
>
> Doing this will limit your water quantity, cuz the H2O vapor will begin to
> seriously dilute combustion air in the intake tract, and thus lose you
> power at pretty low water mass flow rates.

Hrmm.  HOW low?  This is really what everyone else is doing (BG Customs,
Spearco, ERL) -- just squirting water in the inlet elbow.  Is this something
I just have to experiment with or is it more predictive?  I would like to be
able to calculate it somehow to at least get it within operable parameters.

> >The amount of water you quote sounds quite high unless I am
> misinterpretting
> >your terms.
>
> No, you got them right. What I calculated was how much water it would take
> to get the same total heat of vaporization from water plus a
> stoich mixture
> of gasoline as one would get from a stoich mixture of methanol on
> an engine
> flowing the same amount of air. But you have to evaporate the water mostly
> after the intake valve closes in order to not displace a lot of air and
> lose power. Thus the need to inject the water close to the valve, and to
> time squirt to coincide with inhale.

Yippee.  I understand more or less.  A side benefit of doing this is that it
reduces NOx emmissions.  Neat huh.

> >Yeah, makes sense.  In my particular situation, however, mounting a
> >mechanical pump will be rather tricky and likely not worth the
> grief.  I am
> >pretty much resigned to using an electric pump.
> >
> >I believe I have a decent controller alogrithm worked out which will not
> >require external sensors except for MAP.  Now to get around to
> implementing
> >it.
>
> You are making perfect sense, I am just chasing MORE!! :-)

Heee.   Nothing wrong with that.

> >Regards,
> >
> Greg
>


Ditto.


Barry