Propane/water/alcohol injection and O2 sensors

[Clint Corbin]

One very important item you left out: Propane runs a much lower 
stociametric A/F ratio and gasoline.  It really doesn't matter that propane 
has 80% the thermal energy of gasoline on a lb/lb basis when you are 
burning 50% more propane.  Look at nitromethane.  It has lower energy than 
gasoline too, but a given engine will make over 140% MORE power than 
gasoline because of the extremely low (around 2.4:1 ration) stociametric 
ratio that pure nitromethane burns at.

At 12:27 PM 4/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I think that you all are being mixed up.  There is one fundamental that
>you cannot escape:  Propane is 95,000 BTU per gallon, Gasoline is something
>like 114,000.
>
>Propane will always provide less thermal energy than Gasoline.
>
>Any gain in HP is entirely due to phase, temperature, and residual 
>efficiencies
>of atomization.
>
>Propane has less energy than Gasoline.
>
>All the commercial Propane injection I've seen puts the injector in the intake
>elbow of the air path, shortly after the air cleaner.
>
>I had a friend with a Propane powered Caballero, he said it was less powerful
>than when it ran on Gas.
>
>It makes sense that liquid Propane would make more power than gas, because of
>the density of the liquid and the neccessary state change to a gas in the 
>combustion
>chamber.  Instead of losing all that thermal efficiency in the intake, 
>where it
>makes a low efficiency cooler, you get it directly inside the combustion 
>chamber.
>
>But cooling the intake charge extremely is counterproductive to 
>combustion, and so
>is the higher octane of Propane.  Unless you need the extra octane, you'll 
>get less power.
>
>So, to sum up:  Propane has less energy per lb than Gasoline.  It has a 
>higher RON
>than pump Gasoline.  Therefore it has less energy and a slower combustion 
>rate than
>pump Gasoline.
>
>Any advantages are NOT attributed to the cumbustible properties of Propane.
>
>--Perry
>
>On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:26:03AM +0100, bill.shurvinton at nokia.com wrote:
> > Now I am confused.
> >
> > In a brief literature search, which left be a little bewildered the 
> following patterns emerged.
> >
> > 1. Vapour phase mixing uses reduces HP by 5% beacause of loss of air volume
> > 2. Liquid injection offers higher HP than vapour phase (figures of 20% 
> more than petrol have been quoted, 60% in one case!)BUT little/no data on 
> how the injection is carried out.
> > 3. Propane has a RON of 112 so needs advanced timing not retarded
> >
> > But it would appear that propane systems are still a bit basic in 97% 
> of cases.
> >
> > What you are saying about expansion makes sense. I need to do much more 
> research.
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
>--
>Perry Harrington             Linux rules all 
>OSes.               APSoft      ()
>perry at apsoft dot com                                          Think 
>Blue. /\
>
>Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary 
>safety
>deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either.
>                              -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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