Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (July 2002, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:33:31 -0700
Reply-To:     Todd Last <Rubatoguy@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Todd Last <Rubatoguy@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject:      Re: Running on Tap Water
Comments: To: "Barry E. Muller" <bmuller@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

My understanding that water injection was a mix of water and methonal. Water injection was used in supercharged WWII fighters to cool the intake charge. It does not generate any additional power on its own.

Here is a simple description:

"A water injection system works similarly to a fuel injection system only it injects water instead of fuel. A turbocharger essentially compresses the air going into the engine in order to force more air than would be possible with the atmospheric pressure. More air into the engine means automatically more fuel has to be injected in order to maintain the appropriate stoechiometric value of the air/fuel ratio (around 14:1). More air and fuel into the engine leads to more power. However by compressing the inlet air the turbocharger also heats it. Higher air temperatures lead to thinner air and therefore an altered stoechiometric ratio which can lead to a lean mixture and detonation. In high pressure turbocharged engines the air/fuel mixture that enters the cylinders can explode prematurely (before the spark plug ignites, effect also known as engine knock) due to the extreme engine environment conditions. This situation results in severe engine damage (piston piercing). To avoid damage to the engine, water is injected, along with fuel, in the combustion chambers in order to provide a water/air/fuel mixture which not only burns more efficiently and avoids spontaneous detonation but also provides additional inlet air cooling and, hence, denser air. There are mainly three variations of water injection devices. They are dependent on the location of the water injectors. The first technique consists of injecting water at the entrance of the intake manifold. The second injects water at the exit pipe of the intercooler. The third technique injects water at the entry of the intercooler and is only used in competition vehicles. In this latter variation most of the in-cylinder detonation prevention is done by injecting additional fuel which is used as coolant (i.e. is not burned)."

Todd '88 Westy

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. > > > > >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.