water injection theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
it takes exactly as much energy to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen as is released in burning hydrogen and oxygen to create water, take into account the system inefficiencies in generating electricity and that current Otto-cycle SI engines are around 25-40% fuel efficient, it's a losing proposition. However, the brown (Browns?) gas (hydrogen/oxygen) seems to act quite a bit like propane in a diesel, causing a rapid hot flame front that helps to burn more of the actual fuel (gasoline) and extract more energy from it.
Seems like the water injection topic is fairly well nailed down, efficiency through steam cleaning and steam-engine effect (water expanding as steam, making more torque)

Another thing i've been reading much about lately is acetone in gasoline, on the order of 2-4oz in 10gallons of gas, lowering the surface tension of the gas to help it evaporate much faster. I've seen many credible reports of this, at least as credible as any other information i've seen online...
my $.02
Ern
 
I plan to try the water injection route, and have an electrical toggle switch in the cab, so when I am pulling/towing heavy items, or am loaded down with firewood, I could turn on the water/alcohol injection for a more stable burn without detonation.

I could run more timing advance all the time for more power, and efficiency running empty, and be protected from knock and ping by the injection system when I am loaded, or towing.

I think the alcohol would keep the water from freezing in the underhood tank during the Winter as well, and wouldn't cost much to have a 40% or 50% solution.

Does anyone know how much water solution would be consumed per hour?
 
Sorry guys. Water injection only reduces detonation due to compression, not lean pre-ignition.

You can't run 17 or 22:1 air fuel ratios or cheat the laws of physics. Water doesn't work that way. It works by suppressing a nasty explosion, not supporting and assisting it.


It's best use is when a high compression late 50's 60's and early 70's engine runs a massive hi compression engine, and the owner has to make it survive. Anything else, and you have to build the engine around a certain stratergy. Adding water on an 8.5:1 300 or 302 or even a modern 10:1 compression alloy head engine is pointless unless you want to run it on a non exsistant 75 octane gasoline.

Adding water also increases the heat from the exhast, as hydrogen comes out from the water as its heated.The air fuel ratio at the oxygen sensor is upset, and the heat is elevated untill later on down the pipe where it can condense.

Adding water will allow a 11 or 12:1 compression engine cope with 91 octane gas if your able to retard the ignition enough.

Adding water at 45 psi from two 15 thou jets will allow a 120 hp, 2liter (121 cube) engine cope with lower octane 87 or 91 gas at 12:1 compresion, or will allow 91 or 95 octane gas run at 13 or 14:1 or more.

The only plus is a good increase in part throttle economy just before the water is added. When added, water reduces the brake horspower from what it would be with the right compression ratio in an engine that doesn't knock.

The example guide of the amount of water is about 20 cc/min from one 15 thou brass window squirter jet with no chamfer.

To quell an effective compression 35% too high (say 12:1 rather than 9:1) for the fuel, you'll need one jet per 60 hp or 60 cubic inches if your engine falls under the catagory of Hi Performance.

E.g.

A 351 V8 running 350 hp net at the flywheel with 87 regular gas, and with a 12:1 compression. It will detonate and kill the engine in a week worth of street driving, and in a less than an hour of wide open throttle driving. In order to run on that 87 octane, it has to have another 25 ccs in the combustion chamber, or a 9:1 compression. Rather than buy or machine the heads, or get low compresion pistons, you can just add water injection. The engine will need 6 jets of 15 thou, or two jets of 26 thou, to kill the detonation. They have to be mounted in the plenumb area where the water can atomise to less than 100 micron balls of fluid. A dual quad, quad IDA, or tri power or 4-bbl carb with a water injection source hitting the booster venturi is perfect to achieve this. Mounting water injection as a port injection source close to the intake hasn't been experimnted with much, it may cause localised fluid focus which could wreck the intake valves unless they are upgraded. The recomendations are to increase the humidity in the intake plenumb, and cool the charge to increase the amunt of stuff going into the engine.

The only plus with water is the engine can run a good deal of advance, and still operate economically without a hole forming in a piston. There is a fair increase in part throttle fuel economy, and a good saving in using cheaper grade gas. Long term, its a Win Win situation. When the water comes on in situatosnwhere the engine is getting ready to detonate, there is a 10% power loss on what it would be if it had a 100 octane in it, and about 5% on what it would be if you had to retard the igntion to run 12:1 compression with 87 octane.

Resultant BSFC at wide open throttle of most engines is about 0.55 gallons of fuel per hour per hp at waterever rpm.

A 350 hp engine might consume 192.5 gallons of gas in an hour at 5500 rpm, and consume 39 US gallons of water, about 20% of the fuel load.

The limit is about 60% of the fuel load if the engine has stainless exhast valves and the right degree of water droplet atomisation.


If you do some calculations for your engine combination, then you'll find one of two things

You can

a) run a cheap grade of fuel on your modified hi compression engine

b) run a really high compression engine with huge power on expensive grade gasoline, and never have it detonate.

Water doesn't ever create much extra wide open throttle power, it just lets your engine survive. Under part throttle conditions, it will run very well.

To gain power add wide open throttle, the engine has to run 20% to 60% load of a half and half mix of water and either ethanol or methanol. Then you can run a huge compression ratio, have no power loss at wide open throttle, and brilliant part throttle fuel economy.
 
xecute®™© he he":23nsbtyv said:
...A 350 hp engine might consume 192.5 gallons of gas in an hour at 5500 rpm, and consume 39 US gallons of water, about 20% of the fuel load...

I presume that you meant "pounds" of gas rather than "gallons".
Joe
 
Lazy JW":3vekvxlw said:
xecute®™© he he":3vekvxlw said:
...A 350 hp engine might consume 192.5 gallons of gas in an hour at 5500 rpm, and consume 39 US gallons of water, about 20% of the fuel load...

I presume that you meant "pounds" of gas rather than "gallons".
Joe

Engine Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per/hr-hp):

This has always confused me a little. Messed me up big time on the fuel economy post a whille back.

Yeah, its pounds. :oops:
 
I am also easily confused :lol: My book of the Nebraska Tractor Tests uses gallons of fuel per horsepower hour so just wanted to be certain.

Question: How many pounds does a gallon of gasoline weigh? I would like to be able to get an idea of how those tractor engines compared to your numbers in efficiency. They used "Regular" grade gasoline during the 1950's-60's. Whatever that was.
Joe
 
I haven't found the weight of gasoline yet, but in the owner's manual of my '68 Ford pickup the recommended fuel to use is "regular gas (94 octane)". And of course this was leaded. In Upper Michigan one time I found leaded 115 octane and filled up with it. I suppose the mixture may have been something like 94. Boy the old six ran great, didn't even sound the same.
 
Gasoline weighs roughly 6.25 lbs per gallon,give or take a little for temperature and grade of gas.
 
xecute®™© he he said:
...Resultant BSFC at wide open throttle of most engines is about 0.55 gallons of fuel per hour per hp at waterever rpm.
Using a fuel weight of 6.25 lb per gallon of gas there were 116 different tractors tested at Nebraska that equalled or bettered .55 lb per hp hour economy. The oldest one was tested in 1938. The best one only used .46 lb per hp hour in 1960. Reckon we haven't improved much.
Joe
 
xecute®™© he he":3diik9f8 said:
It's best use is when a high compression late 50's 60's and early 70's...

Anything else, and you have to build the engine around a certain strategy.

Adding water on an 8.5:1 300 or 302 or even a modern 10:1 compression alloy head engine is pointless...

X - I've enjoyed always the knowledge you share, even if I have to reread it a few times :)

As you know, I've been running WI for some time now. Just yesterday, I went through my WI restrictor valve and cleaned it out. I can't back the "results" with any dyno numbers, but my SOP meter says that the (now functioning properly) WI is giving me very noticeable results!

I just put this engine back together. Refreshed block, hyper pistons, Isky cam & extensive head work - including stainless valves. I finally got the carb retuned, but something still felt amiss. I now believe it was my water injection.

When I got the WI working again, it felt like an extra 20-30 HP (in a ~250ish HP 300).

So I'm curious - am I just feeling a "placebo effect"? Is WI really "pointless" , or perhaps just not as effective. My engine won't melt down without water injection, but it sure seems to run better with it :? !
 
I suspect your engine may be close to what they call the 'incipient' detonation phase. That means its close to almost detonating, but you can't hear it. Best power happens when the engine is just on the brink of knocking. 8% or so is a likely gain if you can rasie the normal advance enough at part throttle, and not have it knock at wide open throttle. Adding water hurts the peak power level, but can improve the part throttle crispness. Pontiac Paul, my mate, says he only uses water injection so he can run 42 degrees total advance on his 455 Formula drag car without wrecking the cast pistons. Off the mark launches, with a 2.73:1 diff in a 4200 pound Pontiac, were right on 2 seconds for the 60 foot time becasue he was able to avoid detonation. He can never leave at 4800 rpm, always about 3000 to avoid wheelspin. The best torque happend with water injection on, but the overall mph was lower. With H20, he'd get 13.8 at 98, or 13.7 at 99 without. So if ignition is adjusted to suit, H20 improves torque, but hurts peak power.

In a high altitude area or with a planed head or any engine that has polished chambers and ports is more likely to detonate than a stock engine. Perhaps the cam is quite aggressive, because in a normal 300, detonation only happens when the engine runs a high compression ratio.

If the block is decked or the normal 80 thou shortfall of the piston from the block is removed, the detonation should be reduced. (Normally, with the dish in the piston, the register is 220 thou down including the piston trough)If your running a lot of intial advance, then water injection may help the engine in moderate engine speed, high load situations.
I keep going back to the things that cause detonation, and it has to be a combination of those 22 things.

1) flame travel due to plug placement (its most often reduced with hi-po pistons),
2) valve shrouding (often increased, but is mitigated by gas flowing with a famous SuperFlow flow bench!),
3) piston dome masking (often, the dome is relief cut to suit flame travel and valve opening).
4) Effective compression (cam related octane demand). Doesn't always go up with increased compression, as the whole reason for it is usually to raise opening duration to increase effective compression. When a racer bolts on a 320 degree cam, he can loose a huge amount of effective compression, which reduces the octane demand.
5) lastly, quench is often increased as at the 10 to 14:1 level, people go to alloy heads with closed chambers or welded iron or alloy production heads.
6) intake heating
7) fuel distribution
8) head material (iron, alloy)
9 Inertial Ramming (Carburation, efi, vee engines have better thermodynamic properties)
10) piston deck impinging , flat or recessed.
11) blue printed to 0.1 c/r or C/R balanced on all cylinders accept the detonation prone ones. (If they are reduced by half a point, you can go up another 0.5 points on the other cylinders)
12)the charted mixture motion of incoming air fuel mix
13) Cold Cranking compression pressure influences the compression an engine can stand.
There are other factors such as road load due to
14)tires,
15)wind drag,
16) frontal area,
17) air density,
18) wind,
19) the slope of the road,
20) weight influence,
21) torque converter,
22) overall gearing steps.

The en gineers set peak advance from tests with all these loads combined.

Whew!
 
That ALL makes sense. Especially as to why MY engine ( in MY Bronco)
seems to benefit.

Thank you for clearing that up! :wink:
 
I've been wondering ( again)...

The vacuum advance hole, into the venturi, is on the wall of the venturi - right at the throttle plate. This is where the water is currently drawn into the air/fuel stream. When the throttle plate is closed, the hole is "covered".

Would adding a needle, to move the water injection point away from the wall, & in towards the center of the venturi, help in the water "atomization"? The "engine side" of the carb seems to be adaptable (to tap a brass fitting/needle through the carb body). True Value has the fine brass tubing & fittings ( :roll: ).

Positioning the needle more into the center of the venturi, so that it would have maximum draw/atomization (while avoiding the throttle plate) would be the tricky part.

This is assuming that the "center" flow would be more beneficial than the "wall" inlet... (?)

Any thoughts?
 
Back
Top