Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
PMDF e-Mail Interconnect
postmaster at kauri.lincoln.ac.nz
Tue Jul 11 12:20:31 GMT 2000
--Boundary_(ID_FG2Rymw3eCL6J632DNFliQ)
Content-type: text/plain
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
Message-id: <200007111200.FAA22530 at hektor.valesh.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:00:11 -0700
From: DIY_EFI-Digest-Owner at diy-efi.org (DIY_EFI Digest)
To: DIY_EFI-Digest at lists.diy-efi.org
Subject: DIY_EFI Digest V5 #252
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: baddiehl at hotmail.com
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp; 554 Transaction failed
Remote system: dns; mail.hotmail.com (TCP|138.75.10.7|1899|216.33.151.135|25) (HotMail [NO UCE] ESMTP server ready at Tue Jul 11 05:18:47 2000 ) (ESMTP spoken here) (Requested mail action okay, completed)
--Boundary_(ID_FG2Rymw3eCL6J632DNFliQ)
Content-type: message/DELIVERY-STATUS
Original-envelope-id: 0FXJ0021B8PUH8 at kauri.lincoln.ac.nz
Reporting-MTA: dns; kauri.lincoln.ac.nz
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (Remote SMTP server has rejected address)
Original-recipient: rfc822;baddiehl at hotmail.com
Final-recipient: rfc822;baddiehl at hotmail.com
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.hotmail.com (TCP|138.75.10.7|1899|216.33.151.135|25)
(HotMail [NO UCE] ESMTP server ready at Tue Jul 11 05:18:47 2000 )
(ESMTP spoken here) (Requested mail action okay, completed)
Diagnostic-code: smtp; 554 Transaction failed
--Boundary_(ID_FG2Rymw3eCL6J632DNFliQ)
Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Return-path: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
Received: from tcp-daemon by kauri.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V5.1-11 #D3074)
id <0FXJ002028PVUJ at kauri.lincoln.ac.nz>
(original mail from diy_efi at diy-efi.org); Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:20:01 +1200 (NZS)
Received: from kea.lincoln.ac.nz ([138.75.96.10])
by kauri.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V5.1-11 #D3074)
with ESMTP id <0FXJ0021A8PUH8 at kauri.lincoln.ac.nz> for baddiehl at hotmail.com;
Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:15:31 +1200 (NZS)
Received: from KEA/SpoolDir by kea.lincoln.ac.nz (Mercury 1.47); Wed,
12 Jul 2000 00:19:14 +1200
Received: from SpoolDir by KEA (Mercury 1.47); Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:18:51 +1200
Received: from KEA/SpoolDir by kea.lincoln.ac.nz (Mercury 1.47)
for <diehla at kea.lincoln.ac.nz>; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:18:51 +1200
Received: from kauri.lincoln.ac.nz (138.75.10.7)
by kea.lincoln.ac.nz (Mercury 1.47) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:18:51 +1200
Received: from hektor.valesh.com (hektor.stardot-tech.com)
by kauri.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V5.1-11 #D3074)
with ESMTP id <0FXJ00N788P3ZI at kauri.lincoln.ac.nz> for
diehla at kea.lincoln.ac.nz; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:15:05 +1200 (NZS)
Received: (from majordom at localhost)
by hektor.valesh.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU)
id FAA22543 for diy_efi-digest-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:00:22 -0700
Received: (from majordom at localhost)
by hektor.valesh.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU)
id FAA22530 for DIY_EFI-Digest-Send at lists.diy-efi.org; Tue,
11 Jul 2000 05:00:11 -0700
Resent-date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:18:51 +1200
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:00:11 -0700
Resent-from: diehla at kea.lincoln.ac.nz
From: DIY_EFI-Digest-Owner at diy-efi.org (DIY_EFI Digest)
Subject: DIY_EFI Digest V5 #252
Sender: owner-diy_efi-digest at diy-efi.org
Resent-to: baddiehl at hotmail.com
To: DIY_EFI-Digest at lists.diy-efi.org
Reply-to: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
Resent-message-id: <0FXJ0021B8PUH8 at kauri.lincoln.ac.nz>
Message-id: <200007111200.FAA22530 at hektor.valesh.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Autoforward: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
DIY_EFI Digest Tuesday, July 11 2000 Volume 05 : Number 252
In this issue:
Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the
DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:34:41 -0400
From: "Bruce Plecan" <nacelp at bright.net>
Subject: Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
> It is my general perception that diesel engines runs slower than SI
engine.
Our small diesel (least as called by another in another post) is run at
6,000 to 6,500 rpm
My gas engine I spin to 5,500 rpm.
> Also, it seems that the benefits of water on combustion are realized at
high
> rpm "It is important to note that these improvements came at the upper end
> of the power range where sufficient fuel and air was available to have an
> excess of energy that could not be converted to usable pressure in a
timely
> manner." said Mr. Harris.
> So I'm interested in knowing the approximate speed referred to as "the
upper
> end of the power range". If we are talking F1 engines, it may well be
around
> 18000 rpm or more.
It would seem like the upper 25% might be a resonable figure.
Say 14K+ on that app..
on a 9K engine 7+K
2K rpm probably over 1.5K.
Again this is taking in particular response to that one item in an area
where there are more factors.
> It is my understanding that the combustion should take at most 40-50 crank
> degrees or so, thus there must be a speed above which this cannot be
> realized, the crank turning too fast, and power is wasted.
> Water, speeding up the combustion as I've just learned, should help
release
> the energy quick enough.
There are many elements.
If the WI allows for more boost, then retarding the timing *might* make more
HP. Folks often sem to obsess on advancing, and sometimes miss other items.
> Also, IMHO, the maximum torque speed (as in your statement above) is
> certainly not a speed where any "excess of energy" cannot be "converted in
a
> timely manner" - or it would not be the "maximum torque" speed, indeed.
You've lost me with that statement.
> Then, given that, as noted by Mr. Colon, "the total energy is of course
the
> same" and that you need "sufficient fuel and air" so I still fail to see
how
> you can _gain_ anything by making your engine swallow its air already
> saturated with water vapor.
Saturated?. At what level is that?. My version is, just experimenting with
the mine amount of timing, lean best performance, plus 1-2 graduations
(depends on fueling adjustments), and min water for best performance (again
plus a couple percent). I consider reliability, as a very important
concern.
I argue that you _recover_ a lot of power that
> would otherwise be lost due to abnormal combustion, and I pretend that
you'd
> probably recover more by injecting the water as late as possible. This
claim
> in backed up by information posted on the ERL web site (see Mr. Dennis
Doza
> II's post) where someone saw a power increase of 5-20%, IIRC, by injecting
> water directly inside the combustion chamber.
All kinds of things change with Direct Cylinder injection. It's just sooo
much more effecient and accurate (ok, can be)..
They claim the gain comes from
> vapor pressure, so no complex thermochemistry here, according to them.
I can claim all kinds of things. So all information posted today, just
stops because of their claim?.
That just make sense to me.
> Please note that I mentioned the potential gain due to vapor pressure,
> thanks to in-cylinder evaporation, in my original post.
> Reports and testimonies I've read so far in this thread (and related ones
> recently posted) supports more the "detonation retardant" due to
> "in-cylinder cooling" aspect of things, allowing to safely reach MBT by
> proper spark advance setting, than the "combustion stimulator" side, so I
> come to suspect that this benefit, while apparently tangible and real, is
> only seen at very high engine speed, probably well above a typical diesel
> operating range, running lean of top of that ( "20 percent (or more) lean
of
> stoichiometric" [at maximum engine power] - Heywood 10.1, p492)
Like I said we tune for performance, so I can't guess at actual ratios, if
not visible at our 6,500 rpm I doubt it would be much on your 8,000 rpm
engine either. If I correctly understand what your saying.
so there is
> not that much "excess of energy" to be released anyway. Also, what Saab is
> able to achieve in a research lab may not be easy to reproduce at home.
For
> example, I know they use a variable compression engine in their quest for
> maximum efficiency.
Or anyone with less then oem manufacturing analyse.
Grumpy
> The speed issue may explain why I saw nothing on my own engine, which only
> runs up to 8000 rpm, speed at which gasoline seems to burn fast enough
(too
> fast, indeed, as I'm facing detonation when I insist with spark advance).
>
> Axel
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: dennis <spoolboy at autospeed.com>
Subject: Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
>
>Then, given that, as noted by Mr. Colon, "the total energy is of course the
>same" and that you need "sufficient fuel and air" so I still fail to see how
>you can _gain_ anything by making your engine swallow its air already
>saturated with water vapor. I argue that you _recover_ a lot of power that
>would otherwise be lost due to abnormal combustion, and I pretend that you'd
>probably recover more by injecting the water as late as possible. This claim
>in backed up by information posted on the ERL web site (see Mr. Dennis Doza
>II's post) where someone saw a power increase of 5-20%, IIRC, by injecting
>water directly inside the combustion chamber.
Please show me where they inject it directly into the combustion chamber. I seem to have missed that when I read it 3 times. I did see that part about vapor pressure tho. What is that?
Dennis
They claim the gain comes from
>vapor pressure, so no complex thermochemistry here, according to them.
>Please note that I mentioned the potential gain due to vapor pressure,
>thanks to in-cylinder evaporation, in my original post.
_____________________________________________________________
AutoSpeed - The World's Best High Performance Online Magazine
http://www.autospeed.com
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:49:28 +0200
From: "Axel Rietschin" <Axel_Rietschin at compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
"In 1974, S.J. Lestz, R.B. Melton, Jr., and E.J. Rambie took the above
authors' work further and reported similar conclusions in Feasibility of
Cooling Diesel Engines by Introducing Water Into the Combustion Chamber (US
Army Report 750129)."
"The best improvement was achieved by spraying water into the chamber during
the compression stroke. NOx decreased and HC and CO tended to increase. "
Right there:
http://www.aquamist.co.uk/rescr/faq/diesel.html
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "dennis" <spoolboy at autospeed.com>
To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
>
>
>
> >
> >Then, given that, as noted by Mr. Colon, "the total energy is of course
the
> >same" and that you need "sufficient fuel and air" so I still fail to see
how
> >you can _gain_ anything by making your engine swallow its air already
> >saturated with water vapor. I argue that you _recover_ a lot of power
that
> >would otherwise be lost due to abnormal combustion, and I pretend that
you'd
> >probably recover more by injecting the water as late as possible. This
claim
> >in backed up by information posted on the ERL web site (see Mr. Dennis
Doza
> >II's post) where someone saw a power increase of 5-20%, IIRC, by
injecting
> >water directly inside the combustion chamber.
>
> Please show me where they inject it directly into the combustion chamber.
I seem to have missed that when I read it 3 times. I did see that part about
vapor pressure tho. What is that?
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> They claim the gain comes from
> >vapor pressure, so no complex thermochemistry here, according to them.
> >Please note that I mentioned the potential gain due to vapor pressure,
> >thanks to in-cylinder evaporation, in my original post.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> AutoSpeed - The World's Best High Performance Online Magazine
> http://www.autospeed.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
> To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the
quotes)
> in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:23:45 +0200
From: "Axel Rietschin" <Axel_Rietschin at compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Water injection (was: Re: fuel cooling intake air)
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Plecan" <nacelp at bright.net>
> > It is my general perception that diesel engines runs slower than SI
> engine.
>
> Our small diesel (least as called by another in another post) is run at
> 6,000 to 6,500 rpm
> My gas engine I spin to 5,500 rpm.
We previously mentionned "higly tuned" SI race engine (I assumed "car
engines"), and often, those engine runs well above the speeds you just
mentionned. I've heard of water injection in circles discussing F1 engines
from back in the turbo days, in terms that corroborate the thermochemistry
aspect of WI. I didn't realized it at the time. Sure, those peoples had
different constraints and very different operating ranges. Also, I believe
that Sir Henry Ricardo was involved in some serious competition engine
research. BTW, check out www.ricardo.com - there is a lot of interesting
bits on their site.
> > Also, it seems that the benefits of water on combustion are realized at
> high
> > rpm [...]
> >If we are talking F1 engines, it may well be
> > around
> > 18000 rpm or more.
>
> It would seem like the upper 25% might be a resonable figure.
> Say 14K+ on that app..
At 14K and up, I can more easily imagine having serious problems to burn
that mixture in the 40-50 useful degrees. It's just incredible that some
engine can actually run in the 20K range.
> Folks often sem to obsess on advancing, and sometimes miss other items.
I agree. That's why I believe it is necessary to measure and record things.
> > Also, IMHO, the maximum torque speed (as in your statement above) is
> > certainly not a speed where any "excess of energy" cannot be "converted
in
> a
> > timely manner" - or it would not be the "maximum torque" speed, indeed.
>
> You've lost me with that statement.
Maximum torque speed if where the engine is the most efficient, right? So,
empirically, at that speed the energy is "converted in a timely manner".
> > Then, given that, as noted by Mr. Colon, "the total energy is of course
> the
> > same" and that you need "sufficient fuel and air" so I still fail to see
> how
> > you can _gain_ anything by making your engine swallow its air already
> > saturated with water vapor.
>
> Saturated?. At what level is that?. My version is, just experimenting
with
> the mine amount of timing, lean best performance, plus 1-2 graduations
> (depends on fueling adjustments), and min water for best performance
(again
> plus a couple percent). I consider reliability, as a very important
> concern.
I implied that the air had to be saturated given the water flow you've
mentionned (a gallon/min IIRC). Sure, saturation depends on air temp, but as
it drops, you may well end up at 100% RH at some point in the intake system,
then it would start raining :)
> They claim the gain comes from
> > vapor pressure, so no complex thermochemistry here, according to them.
>
> I can claim all kinds of things. So all information posted today, just
> stops because of their claim?.
> That just make sense to me.
No, nothing stops. It just gives a little more perspective on the subject.
Maybe not black or white. I don't question anyone's credibility, but the
least I can say is that we can observe many different opinions on the
subject.
> Like I said we tune for performance, so I can't guess at actual ratios, if
> not visible at our 6,500 rpm I doubt it would be much on your 8,000 rpm
> engine either. If I correctly understand what your saying.
It is not visible on my engine, indeed.
> > Also, what Saab is
> > able to achieve in a research lab may not be easy to reproduce at home.
> For
> > example, I know they use a variable compression engine in their quest
for
> > maximum efficiency.
>
> Or anyone with less then oem manufacturing analyse.
Axel (leaving for a week)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
------------------------------
End of DIY_EFI Digest V5 #252
*****************************
To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command:
subscribe diy_efi-digest
in the body of a message to "Majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org".
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command
above with "diy_efi".
--Boundary_(ID_FG2Rymw3eCL6J632DNFliQ)--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
More information about the Diy_efi
mailing list