Has anyone ever considered this?
#21
03-02-2008, 10:18 AM
RE: Has anyone ever considered this?
ORIGINAL: Slomojo01
When fuel is sprayed into an engine it is already atomized. The reason to atomize the fuel even more then it already is, is to maximize the amount of surface area exposed to air in order to burn as much fuel as possible and not to just do what most engines in stockers do. That would be burning the outside surface of fuel globules while doing nothing to the inside area of the fuel globules except for allow them to absorb and carry away heat energy, which should not be done for max power and efficiency, as waste to the catalyctic converter to be burned there because of; high pressure caused by the cells in the cat and catalyst materials exposed to very high temperatures.
And water vapor can probably do many things other than what I'm stating but off the top of my head, it's good for increasing compression, lowering temperatures, steam cleaning engine walls, etcetera.
When fuel is sprayed into an engine it is already atomized. The reason to atomize the fuel even more then it already is, is to maximize the amount of surface area exposed to air in order to burn as much fuel as possible and not to just do what most engines in stockers do. That would be burning the outside surface of fuel globules while doing nothing to the inside area of the fuel globules except for allow them to absorb and carry away heat energy, which should not be done for max power and efficiency, as waste to the catalyctic converter to be burned there because of; high pressure caused by the cells in the cat and catalyst materials exposed to very high temperatures.
And water vapor can probably do many things other than what I'm stating but off the top of my head, it's good for increasing compression, lowering temperatures, steam cleaning engine walls, etcetera.
ORIGINAL: aim4squirrels
If you want better fuel atomization, go with a different injector. I believe ford makes a triple head sprayer that is compatible with our engines, but might allow a little larger flow rate than our setups. The singular Dodge one isn't the best for what you're trying to do. I'd start there.
ORIGINAL: Slomojo01
When fuel is sprayed into an engine it is already atomized. The reason to atomize the fuel even more then it already is, is to maximize the amount of surface area exposed to air in order to burn as much fuel as possible and not to just do what most engines in stockers do. That would be burning the outside surface of fuel globules while doing nothing to the inside area of the fuel globules except for allow them to absorb and carry away heat energy, which should not be done for max power and efficiency, as waste to the catalyctic converter to be burned there because of; high pressure caused by the cells in the cat and catalyst materials exposed to very high temperatures.
And water vapor can probably do many things other than what I'm stating but off the top of my head, it's good for increasing compression, lowering temperatures, steam cleaning engine walls, etcetera.
When fuel is sprayed into an engine it is already atomized. The reason to atomize the fuel even more then it already is, is to maximize the amount of surface area exposed to air in order to burn as much fuel as possible and not to just do what most engines in stockers do. That would be burning the outside surface of fuel globules while doing nothing to the inside area of the fuel globules except for allow them to absorb and carry away heat energy, which should not be done for max power and efficiency, as waste to the catalyctic converter to be burned there because of; high pressure caused by the cells in the cat and catalyst materials exposed to very high temperatures.
And water vapor can probably do many things other than what I'm stating but off the top of my head, it's good for increasing compression, lowering temperatures, steam cleaning engine walls, etcetera.
#22
03-02-2008, 10:25 AM
Legend
#23
03-02-2008, 10:40 AM
#24
03-02-2008, 10:50 AM
Legend
#25
03-02-2008, 10:53 AM
#26
03-02-2008, 11:39 AM
All Star
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#27
03-02-2008, 12:54 PM
RE: Has anyone ever considered this?
As mentioned earlier, water vapor introduction is nothing new. Back in the days, it would help smooth out the idle and the resulting denser (carburated) mixture made the engine run smoother in general. Back then on a rainy or foggy day you could feel a difference in engine performance over a hot, sunny day. The advent of multi-port fuel injected, computer controlled engines made such things obsolete as the computer takes care of your fuel trim now regardless of temp. or density of the mixture. The computer will try to keep the desired mix constant.
As far as fuel (vaporization); this is something you don't want in the intake if you are actually talking about turning the fuel into a GAS. What you are missing here is what is already happening in the engine. It's called the compression stroke. The pressurization of the (atomized) fuel in the intake gains temperature and turns to a gas during that stroke, but in the combustion chamber. The lower flashpoint gained by vaporizing the fuel in the intake would be VERY dangerous. Like an aluminum keg-grenade!
As far as fuel (vaporization); this is something you don't want in the intake if you are actually talking about turning the fuel into a GAS. What you are missing here is what is already happening in the engine. It's called the compression stroke. The pressurization of the (atomized) fuel in the intake gains temperature and turns to a gas during that stroke, but in the combustion chamber. The lower flashpoint gained by vaporizing the fuel in the intake would be VERY dangerous. Like an aluminum keg-grenade!
#28
03-03-2008, 11:44 AM
RE: Has anyone ever considered this?
I totally agree WayneC. but i'm thinking we are falling on deaf ears. Slowmojo says he's rebuilding from a fire, My opinion is if he's gonna try and heat the fuel to attempt to acheive more complete vaporization, he will suffer from severe pinging due to the advanced detonation he will get, which could lead to backfires into the intake and then there is a good chance that if the throttlebody is mainly closed(a typical gun the throttle and let off move) there could be chunks of throttlebody and intake comin apart. if not another fire as well. i personally dont wanna be near that rollin timebomb when it gets finished. Hmmm, just curious, would the throttlebody blow apart first or would the injectors get shot out of their holes and the fuel rail start spraying the hot fuel all over a hot engine? Maybe I should get some binoculars and watch from afar. do camcorders work through binos?
#29
03-03-2008, 11:15 PM
RE: Has anyone ever considered this?
Would someone remind me of when I last had a fire? Quote me if I'm wrong but, funny, I don't recollect posting that. Maybe someone should get the oily rags off their manifolds...
What year LS1 motor and from what specific make and model vehicle? I'm going to the junkyard on sunday for the 1/2 off sale and I could definately go for some injector upgrades besides the electric fans & other stuff I'm trying to score like maybe an extra set of magnum heads.
i've heard of Yeaggar bombs but never Keggar bombs. I'll see how I like em... Or maybe I'll advance my timing. Anyone know how to mod the crank position sensor?
Back to the whatchamawhoozit, can injectors really pop off if backfire occurs in the intake manifold? I always thought injectors were screwed into some thread. Haven't yet looked at them that closely, but if I can find an LS1 with some of those 4 nozzle injectors, I certainly will.
And last but not least, I'm not deaf. At the beginning of this thread I was asking for positive criticism, so please keep it coming, all this is going to be taken into account and hopefully put into play on a test vehicle that won't mind catching on fire before anything happens to my truck.
ORIGINAL: IndyRamMan
stock ls1. 26.5 lbs which comes out to 24.01 lbs on our stock pressure
stock ls1. 26.5 lbs which comes out to 24.01 lbs on our stock pressure
ORIGINAL: WayneC
As mentioned earlier, water vapor introduction is nothing new. Back in the days, it would help smooth out the idle and the resulting denser (carburated) mixture made the engine run smoother in general. Back then on a rainy or foggy day you could feel a difference in engine performance over a hot, sunny day. The advent of multi-port fuel injected, computer controlled engines made such things obsolete as the computer takes care of your fuel trim now regardless of temp. or density of the mixture. The computer will try to keep the desired mix constant.
As far as fuel (vaporization); this is something you don't want in the intake if you are actually talking about turning the fuel into a GAS. What you are missing here is what is already happening in the engine. It's called the compression stroke. The pressurization of the (atomized) fuel in the intake gains temperature and turns to a gas during that stroke, but in the combustion chamber. The lower flashpoint gained by vaporizing the fuel in the intake would be VERY dangerous. Like an aluminum keg-grenade!
As mentioned earlier, water vapor introduction is nothing new. Back in the days, it would help smooth out the idle and the resulting denser (carburated) mixture made the engine run smoother in general. Back then on a rainy or foggy day you could feel a difference in engine performance over a hot, sunny day. The advent of multi-port fuel injected, computer controlled engines made such things obsolete as the computer takes care of your fuel trim now regardless of temp. or density of the mixture. The computer will try to keep the desired mix constant.
As far as fuel (vaporization); this is something you don't want in the intake if you are actually talking about turning the fuel into a GAS. What you are missing here is what is already happening in the engine. It's called the compression stroke. The pressurization of the (atomized) fuel in the intake gains temperature and turns to a gas during that stroke, but in the combustion chamber. The lower flashpoint gained by vaporizing the fuel in the intake would be VERY dangerous. Like an aluminum keg-grenade!
ORIGINAL: Svehn
I totally agree WayneC. but i'm thinking we are falling on deaf ears. Slowmojo says he's rebuilding from a fire, My opinion is if he's gonna try and heat the fuel to attempt to acheive more complete vaporization, he will suffer from severe pinging due to the advanced detonation he will get, which could lead to backfires into the intake and then there is a good chance that if the throttlebody is mainly closed(a typical gun the throttle and let off move) there could be chunks of throttlebody and intake comin apart. if not another fire as well. i personally dont wanna be near that rollin timebomb when it gets finished. Hmmm, just curious, would the throttlebody blow apart first or would the injectors get shot out of their holes and the fuel rail start spraying the hot fuel all over a hot engine? Maybe I should get some binoculars and watch from afar. do camcorders work through binos?
I totally agree WayneC. but i'm thinking we are falling on deaf ears. Slowmojo says he's rebuilding from a fire, My opinion is if he's gonna try and heat the fuel to attempt to acheive more complete vaporization, he will suffer from severe pinging due to the advanced detonation he will get, which could lead to backfires into the intake and then there is a good chance that if the throttlebody is mainly closed(a typical gun the throttle and let off move) there could be chunks of throttlebody and intake comin apart. if not another fire as well. i personally dont wanna be near that rollin timebomb when it gets finished. Hmmm, just curious, would the throttlebody blow apart first or would the injectors get shot out of their holes and the fuel rail start spraying the hot fuel all over a hot engine? Maybe I should get some binoculars and watch from afar. do camcorders work through binos?
Back to the whatchamawhoozit, can injectors really pop off if backfire occurs in the intake manifold? I always thought injectors were screwed into some thread. Haven't yet looked at them that closely, but if I can find an LS1 with some of those 4 nozzle injectors, I certainly will.
And last but not least, I'm not deaf. At the beginning of this thread I was asking for positive criticism, so please keep it coming, all this is going to be taken into account and hopefully put into play on a test vehicle that won't mind catching on fire before anything happens to my truck.
#30
03-04-2008, 01:01 AM