atomization enhancement

[David A. Cooley]

At 01:21 PM 5/2/99 -0600, you wrote:

>
>BINGO, Dave!!
>
>Not to mention that this approach to fuel vaporization is thermodynamically
>far less efficient than ATOMIZATION! Using the latent heat of the fuel to
>cool the inlet valve, only so the valve can rob heat from the next power
>stroke to heat back up is a thermal inefficiency. Letting the latent heat
>of well atomized fuel make the compression process in the cylinder more
>nearly isothermal than adiabatic increases net power output by reducing the
>amount of work which the engine must do during the compression stroke!

I would presume thebest of both worlds for efficiency and power would be to
have injectors large enough to be able to inject all the fuel needed for
each stroke while the valve was open... Atomized fuel enters the combustion
chamber with the air.  Problems come at low RPM/load situations where the
injector is now too large to flow small quantities efficiently... How about
2 injectors per cyl, say a 10lb/hr and a 60 lb/hr, the 10 is used for idle,
the larger is slowly phased in as RPM/load increases to keep the total
injection squirt during the valve open time.
===========================================================
           David Cooley N5XMT           Internet: N5XMT at bellsouth.net
     Packet: N5XMT at KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA   T.A.P.R. Member #7068
   Sponges grow in the ocean... Wonder how deep it would be if they didn't?!
===========================================================