Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:11:41 +0100
Reply-To: Clive Smith <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Clive Smith <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
No, I think they were introducing it into the inlet charge stream
independent of the fuel and downstream of the supercharger, to act as an
intercooler does today, to re-establish charge density after compression and
reduce peak cylinder temperatures (Merlins ran pretty close to detonation
when 'through-the-wire'). Methanol could also be used in this way with the
advantage of adding calorific value when subsequently burnt. The later
Focke-Wulfe 190's and Ta 152's could use either water-methanol for the
longer term and in extremis (when a P-51 was getting inquisitive), could
even use Nitrous Oxide for a minute or two - nothing could stay with them
then - even the late model Napier Sabre engined Hawker Typhoons (3,000 HP
ish) had to watch them just fly away, noting the tell-tale white exhaust
smoke.
Many gas turbines of the low by-pass ratio, pre-big-fan era (e.g. RR Spey,
PW JT8 etc) used an inlet spray bar with a mix of water and methanol to
boost static thrust during take-off when hot or high or both - to retain
their take-off and climb-out performance safety margins. As with fuel
injection, the Germans were streets ahead of us up to their capitulation,
lucky they were besotted by a madman and didn't quite get the idea of
designing a really good 4-engined bomber fleet - long range planning - and
of course, Bletchley Park codebreakers knew just about everything that any
of them did, didn't do or was supposed to do, including when Hitler wiped
his arse, than any German Officer whatever his rank and station - quite
useful really!
Water/methanol isn't used as far as I know on the big fan engines today -
they tend to have surplus static thrust and engine out performance is
incredible - but in the 50's and 60's, fully loaded passenger jet take-offs
were a much more precarious business in marginal conditions after an engine
out. As an interesting example, you would think that 10 passengers and
luggage don't weigh much compared to the total take-off weight of Concorde -
but the overall effect including extra fuel burn over a full stage length
means that 110 pax can be taken from Heathrow on a standard day and only 100
from Bahrain in the Middle East - on a standard day there.
As Michael Caine might say '... not many people know that' - more useless
information.
Clive Smith
'88 Syncro Transporter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry E. Muller" <bmuller@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
To: "Clive Smith" <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>;
<vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Running on Tap Water
> 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.
> > >
>
>
| 
