----- Original Message -----
From: "DaveCole" <davidcole@tk7.net>
To: <MVlist@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Military Vehicles List" <mil-veh@skylee.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MVlist] Re: [MV] runaways
> Very interesting.
>
> I have a water injection system on a early Chevy Camaro and I used it to
survive
> the lousy fuel available in the early 80's while running 11.5:1
compression. It
> worked well. Actually it is quite amazing the amount of water a gas
engine can
> pass without slowing significantly. Running 16 oz through a Chevy V8
(about 5.7
> liters) in a couple minutes is not unrealistic.
>
It was certainly noticeable with older engines here, and most MVs for that
matter, that a noticeable boost in performance was to be had on misty days
owing to the intrinsic water injection helping volumetric efficiency with
poorly designed and usually over "hot-spot" endowed inlet manifolds.
16 fl.oz in two minutes isn't at all unreasonable, consider just 3000 rpm at
half throttle, this equates to 5.7/2 (four stroke firings or inductions
every other stroke)/2 (for half throttle) x 3000 revs-min x 2 mins = 8.550
litres of air moved. 16 oz is 0.480 litres and is only 0.0056% of the
charge over that period.
Thinking of any engine as an air pump, wide open diesels especially, its
surprising the vast volumes of air actually moved in several hours of
driving.
What you were doing is very similar to aircraft practice in raising the
point of the onset of detonation, the civil aircraft application is to allow
absolutely safe operation under the worst circumstances of full power
take-off in elevated temperatures and to afford a margin of over-boost
safety if engine failure occurs necessitating power settings over normal
maximum ratings of the remaining good units.
Richard
Southampton - England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 07:42:39 PDT