ligerfang

Hello everyone! I'm a new member to this forum community so while none of you know me yet, i hope you can bear with me and accept my nooby-ness!

Anyway, while reading up on Meth/Water injection, and injector placement, i have become intrigued with the benefits of Pre-Turbo injection. Of course, it is commonly known that this is commonly accepted as a "NO-NO". Without extremely good atomization, the droplets will cause wear on the turbo.

BUT, i have the revolutionary idea of using a ultrasonic fogger to completely atomize Meth/Water solution into a fog, before injection into a turbocharger.

Here is a good (short) video i found on you tube that demonstrates gasoline being atomized (and burned) with an ultrasonic fogger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzgqxEU0sVc

And last but not least, a explanation of the benefits of pre-turbo injection.
http://www.alcoholinjectionsystems.c...icle_info.html

So what do you guys think?

240_to_miata

iTrader: (2)

I have messed with ultrasonic cleaners and such at my old work. Cool ****. Search around, there was a "pre turbo injection" thread on here a few months back with some pros / cons.

Welcome.

ligerfang

Oh i already know the pro/cons.
The biggest pro would be the possibility of complete elimination of the intercooler.
Who wouldn't want that! Not only does it save on $, but it saves on weight

But anyway, yeah. My main goal here is to (hopefully) create a completely new way of Pre-Turbo Water/Meth injection, and make it commonly known among the tuner community.

baron340

iTrader: (5)

Physics is not your friend here, no matter how you cut it. You could have absolutely perfect atomization pre-turbo (the finest fog you could imagine). However, that fog still has to get through the direction changes brought on by the compressor blades. All that air moving forwards has a given inertia. The problem is that the water droplets (even very very tiny ones) have higher inertia than the air molecules. The water will end up hitting the surfaces of the compressor blades and collecting there. They simply can't make the direction changes as quickly as the air. The compressor blades moving through the air complicates this even further. Just stick your atomization hicky-jigger shortly after the turbo. You will accomplish the same thing and keep your turbo healthy.

ligerfang

Wouldn't Centrifugal force keep water off the blades?
And surely post-injection near the turbo wouldn't cool the air down where the intercooler could be eliminated, right?

baron340

iTrader: (5)

No I seriously doubt any forces will keep the water off of the blades. In a more macro view you are spinning a 'propeller' through a cloud at 10k+ rpm. You should still be able to eliminate the intercooler depending on your setup. There will be a pressure threshold somewhere that water injection simply can't cool enough anymore. More pressure = more heat. If your goal is to get rid of an FMIC, pick a larger sized turbo, do some port/polish work, a free flowing exhaust etc. Anything you can do to make more power with less pressure is the key. However, all that trouble when you can have a more efficient FMIC for under $200.

sr20ser

iTrader: (1)

It has been done. There are a bunch of patents that my employer holds. We spent a ton of money finding out that this route is not ideal.

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

The point of pre-compressor WI is broaden the compressor map. Having it post turbo will not accomplish the same thing.

Also, this fogger won't work well unless you have a precise way to control the amount of water that is being fogged. Too much or little and you won't see major benefits.


Since your employer owns patents, would you mind talking about the research your company did? I'm interested in the method, the application, and the nonideal results.

baron340

iTrader: (5)

Ah.. I didn't think about it affecting the compressor maps. I was thinking more about the charge cooling aspect. But I would still rather have the regular compressor map and dry turbine blades.

sr20ser

iTrader: (1)

I would love to be able to talk about it, but I am afraid that I do not know enough about it to have an intelligent convseration on it.

What I do know is that we have tried many different types of nozzels, pressures and also running different frequencies to achieve different atomization profiles. There were issues with "hot" cylinders. The first few cylinders were taking a higher percentage of the fogged air, in a common volume manifold. I know that the results were never great enough to justify furhter research at that point.

You can always try it, but a multi-nozzle injection works better, is cheaper, and easier to control.