atomization enhancement

[Greg Hermann]

>James:
>    I'm firmly in your camp.......Statements recently made about
>Cummins and other engines are absurd.  Either someone is mixing up
>decimal points or mistaking bar for PSI.  I can speak from experience
>with Cummins common rail systems when I say that they are nowhere
>close to these numbers (I've guaged them).  Also The injector pop
>pressures of most diesel engines I've worked with would make me think
>that someone is mistaking bar and psi pressures.  1500 psi would be a
>reasonable breaking pressure for a typical injector, and 4k-5k psi
>would be a very high pressure injector.  I believe that Cummins B
>series and C series engines (not common rail) operate in the latter
>range.... don't quote me here as I have only hearsay numbers on these.
>There is no way on God's earth that a CAV, Roosamaster, or Stanadyne
>rotary pump can produce the pressures people have been throwing about,
>and I have grave doubts that any of the piston pumps can do this
>either.  There is no doubt that diesels develop more power with better
>atomization, and run more efficiently.... as do gas engines...this has
>long been known, but pressures of 20,000 psi are not only difficult to
>achieve, but EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.  The only safe way to achieve these
>kind of pressures safely would be to do it with an injector which did
>the pumping so that there was no danger of line breakage.
>    We are being deluged with bad information here, but unfortunately
>I have no way of convincingly refuting it.  In my opinion it's utter
>nonsense!!    H.W.
>
As far as the Cummins PT and Jimmy two cycle stuff, I think HW is correct.
Not sure about the Cummins B & C series, or L-10. I would take Brock's word
on the late model stuff, particularly anything Deere, as gospel, however. I
will look in the manual for my Hanomag later, as it is a Bosch system, just
out of curiosity, and post whatever it says.

Regards, Greg