Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 02:52:58 -0500
Reply-To: Max Wellhouse <maxjoyce@IPA.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Max Wellhouse <maxjoyce@IPA.NET>
Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water
In-Reply-To: <008401c22d5c$78b93500$5965b783@barrys48a3s4et>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I had a dual stage Spearco Water Injection system on my 71 1600 with thew
dual Kadron carbs and it worked very well... up until the orifices clogged
and I had to unclogg them. Paid about $100 for the kit if memory
serves. Haven't heard of the kitr in over a decade though.
DM&FS
At 02:37 AM 7/17/2002 -0400, Barry E. Muller wrote:
>Some WWII fighters (Mustang, Hurricane, Spitfires mebbe) used water
>injection to temporarily boost performance in extreme situations. Obviously
>they were not injecting pure water into the engine - just adding it to the
>mix. But hey, I read this 25 years ago, so don't start asking (me) any
>details. As I recall they could run in this mode for only about 5 minutes
>or so, before ruining the engine.
>
>bem
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clive Smith" <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
>To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water
>
>
> > 'I have noticed that most internal combustion engines seem to run more
> > smoothly in very wet weather, assuming there are no wiring concerns and
>that
> > the engine is fully warmed up, but this could be another issue
>altogether.'
> >
> > So have I, particularly in absolute downpours where the rain hitting the
> > gound litterly sucks the temperature down by evaporation and the ater is
>not
> > necessarly held as vapour but as fine droplets. Just at this point they
>seem
> > to have the ability to radically alter the combustion process, as I have a
> > job believing that the whole effect is solely due to reduced inlet temps
>and
> > the consequent higher charge mass. Shall we synthesise our 'intuitive'
> > experiences here? Simply injecting water into the inlet without thinking a
> > lot about exactly simulating the actual parameters that produce this
>effect
> > might be too simple.
> >
> > Clive
> > '88 Syncro Transporter
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Various" <AllStuff@HANS-WILLY.MYIP.ORG>
> > To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water
> >
> >
> > > Please let me preface my remarks by saying that I am skeptical to the
> > point
> > > of disbelief whenever someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion
> > > machine or broken the laws of thermo dynamics...
> > >
> > > A few tens of years ago I remember reading (in NEWSWEEK or TIME?) about
> > > someone working on a concept about injecting a small amount of water
> > (finely
> > > atomized) into the hot combustion chamber, just after ignition. The
> > theory,
> > > as explained, was that the thermal expansion rate of the finely atomized
> > > water was greater than the expansion rate of the combustion gases,
>mostly
> > > due to the transition from liquid water to gaseous water, and therfore
> > gave
> > > an extra kick to the piston for "free". Exeptional gas milage was the
> > quest,
> > > the headline giving hope of a 100 mpg future.
> > >
> > > The story continued about the Oil companies' concerns and wanting to buy
> > him
> > > out... The concept seemed to me somewhat possible, but I never heard
>about
> >
> > > the concept since (maybe the conspiracy really does exist ;~) ).
> > >
> > > I say that this seems possible, not knowing much about the thermal
> > expansion
> > > curves of water (steam) and gasoline combustion gases.
> > >
> > > I have noticed that most internal combustion engines seem to run more
> > > smoothly in very wet weather, assuming there are no wiring concerns and
> > that
> > > the engine is fully warmed up, but this could be another issue
>altogether.
> > >
> > > So let's see where this one goes.
> > >
> > > Alias Fred aka Bleu Schtroumpf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Brodbeck [mailto:gull@CYBERSPACE.ORG]
> > > Sent: 17 juillet, 2002 10:04
> > > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > > Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Timothy Crooks wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am no chemist, nor physicist, nor do I claim to be, but it has been
> > > > demonstrated to, when I was about 14, by a chemist, that water can be
> > used
> > > > to make a fire burn hotter. He pointed out that there must be a fuel
> > > > present, but when water as in the form of a steam, a true dry steam,
>the
> > > > caloric output is increased.
> > >
> > > Is it increased by more than the caloric input needed to make the steam?
> > >
> > > _ _
> > > __ _ _ _| | | | David M. Brodbeck (N8SRE) Ypsilanti,
>MI
> > > / _` | | | | | |
>+-----------------------------------------------------
> > > | (_| | |_| | | | @ cyberspace.org
> > > \__, |\__,_|_|_| "Geekdom is fantastic at being AGAINST something, and
> > > |___/ it's hopeless at being FOR something."
> > > -- Andrew Orlowski in The
>Register.
> > >
| 
