You ALL want to know, don't you... (previously refrigerants)

[Danny Barrett]

G'Day there, I'll put my comments between yours to make it easy to see what
I'm addressing...

>I might have been harsh on you in a prior message... however I am one of
>those people you mentioned with the perception you are here to leach
>informaton, run, and get a patent.  While you are entitled to, I thought it
>interfered with the overall scope of the list - sharing, working together,
>and mutually learning something.

No problems.

>Don't forget ASCII is a tough medium, its difficult for everyone to really
>truly percieve what you are thinking, as no one can see your face, hear the
>inflextion in your voice, etc.  The reverse is true, you cannot see us.

I understand this too. So I thought that it might be a good idea for me to
make my intentions clear, for that exact reason.

>That aside, I for one would be very interested in your idea, as I'm in the
>process of building a twin-turbo V6 Buick and have already started
>constructing a refrigerant-based intercooler.  The purpose of this style
>intercooler is to achieve a constant (and controllable) intake temperature
>to the engine, post turbo, which is cold enough to be readily compressable
>in a major way.  More air, means more fuel, means more power.  At least
>until the heads blow off.

Well, my idea isn't really an intercooler, it's basically a fuel
"conditioning" system. However, this aside, if heat energy can be taken from
the intercooler (which is going to be run anyway), and used in the fuel
conditioning system, then why not do it, instead of wasting that good energy
by transfering it to the ambient air... I happen to think that my system
would work well with a supercharger (given a few design mod's to my fuel
system), but I don't know how well with a turbo, as the exhaust heat should
drop significantly, due to otherwise wasted heat being "recycled." However,
this aside, by catalytically cracking the fuel (in the presence of hyrogen)
to get methane, you then have an octane rating of about 116 to 120.
Obviously, this would be better for forced aspirated engines than normal
fuel. What's more, methane burns with a lower temperature than normal fuel,
and with a higher speed/pressure (or this is what I am told - there are
reasons why this was deduced, but I'll have to do a bit of revision on the
subject). This would mean that less intercooling would be necessarry.

>My test engine, which was a 1986 3.8L FWD engine, certainly not associated
>with high performance, I was able to achieve 820HP at 6300 RPM on the dyno
>before the rods flew through the side of the engine, using ice water pumped
>through an intercooler welded into the intake log, integrated into the
>manifold.  My final engine will not be that extreme, but you can see where
>I'm going, and why I'm interested.

WOW! That's not bad at all! I've heard of a 3.1L turbo straight 6 (with a
bit of nitrous) getting 670HP, but a 3.8 (is this the V6 Buick - the one
that's found in Oz in the Holden Commodore?) getting 820HP (I assume with no
nitrous) is nearly past my comprehension, since my 2.8L inline 6 only has
100HP... With my fuel system (with or without the refrigerant) I hope to get
a bit more than the measly 100HP, and a bit better fuel economy too...

>Frederic Breitwieser
>Bridgeport, CT 06606
>
>Homebrew Automotive Website:
>http://www.xephic.dynip.com/
>
>1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental
>1989 HMMWV
>2000 Buick-Powered Mid-Engined Sports Car
>
>-
>
>