Doping an internal combustion engine with water vapor

Edits and changes to engines, experiences, findings and ideas.
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: Doping in the steam




by Flytox » 08/05/17, 23:47

izentrop wrote:Hello,
What is proven is the gain in power thanks to water cooling (logic). Moreover it is announced in the title "the combustion cooled by water on an Audi TTS"
At equal power the engine may be reduced in weight and volume, or probable gain in consumption, provided that only a reasonable quantity of water : Wink:

It is in the air of time, manufactured products are increasingly lightened in raw material.


When it comes to mechanics, you always have a very selective reading ... The cited article concludes with: "
FEV explains that the water injection can optionally be optimized to promote performance, we then get more 10% power, and more 18% torque, Or set to reduce power consumption. The fuel mass can then be reduced to 10%. Interested manufacturers to inquire from FEV.


At equal power, The engine can be reduced in weight and volume, Or probable gain of consumption, provided that only a reasonable amount of water : Wink:

When it comes to F1 this kind of optimization is topical, on a production car it is only a bad commercial argument galore especially when you have much much more power than necessary to respect the regulations of speed of the highway code (and in addition that no one uses). The gain in consumption is not "probable" but real. The quantity of water consumed (weight) remains very reasonable (at least on the BMW) especially on this kind of tank (1693 kg).
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13592
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1499
Contact :

Re: Doping in the steam




by izentrop » 09/05/17, 00:13

FEV explains that the water injection can be optimized to optimize performance, then 10% power, plus 18% torque, or adjusted to reduce fuel consumption.
We can then reduce the fuel mass by up to 10%.
It is not in the same sentence, it does not mean anything and I do not see any evidence in it. Nothing more than the use of the enthalpy of vaporization of water.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Doping in the steam




by Janic » 09/05/17, 08:03

It is not in the same sentence, it does not mean anything and I do not see any evidence in it.
You confuse, once again, proof and explanation of a phenomenon. The proof, in any field, lies in the discovery of an unusual phenomenon, which is called fact, and which is verified by the multiplication of it. For explanations, the beginnings of science have repeatedly demonstrated that theories succeed each other, contradict each other regularly, until the following explanation.
This gives reflections like this attributed to Richard Dawkins, popularizer of the theory of evolution: " The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know that is, in principle, Capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if it was contradicted by the facts, it would still be the best possible theory. It is this last sentence that is important!
Contradiction of a speech that on the one hand dogmatized and the other takes precautions of language. Thus, here too, the facts demonstrate the action of water in thermal combustion, which various explanations seek to give meaning, and all may be right as well as wrong.
But on a practical level, users, of the various methods of adding water, also do not care about theories and seek only concrete results in the decline in consumption or pollution, the rest is blabla Without any practical interest.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13592
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1499
Contact :

Re: Doping in the steam




by izentrop » 09/05/17, 08:39

Hello,
Janic wrote: The users, of the various methods of adding water, are also concerned with theories and seek only concrete results in the reduction of consumption or pollution
Improvements are possible on an engine that is out of control, like any other optimization method, but for a modern engine, I have never seen a reduction in fuel consumption measured by the scientific method. Measurements made by road users do not fall within these criteria.

Even to BMW, to my knowledge we only have the announcements of the manufacturer, no measurements carried out by an independent scientific team.

The enthalpy of the water vapor brings additional cooling to the cooling by oil, water and air of the vehicle, allowing a gain of power, I agree.
"reducing the mass of fuel by up to 10%" does not mean reducing consumption. Compared to what ?
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Doping in the steam




by Janic » 09/05/17, 09:38

Improvements are possible on an engine that is out of control, like any other optimization method, but for a modern engine, I have never seen a reduction in fuel consumption measured by the scientific method. Measurements made by road users do not fall within these criteria
Always this obsession with the scientifically proven, which is only one aspect of the question because what does this term cover for the one who uses it.
For all that you are partly right when adjustments sometimes uncertain of certain vehicles.
But the question is elsewhere because, on well-regulated vehicles (prior pollution measurement), the difference remains clear in favor of the addition of water, in the Gillier Pantone way, and more importantly the improvement results On deregulated or dirty vehicles (according to the formulation) achieve equivalent or even better results than on sophisticated recent vehicles and therefore much more expensive to buy, much more fragile to use and considerably more expensive to maintain and Repairs. Somehow why make it simple when one can make it complicated?
Thus takes the example of the NEDC standards concerning the pollution of thermal vehicles whose rules have been "scientifically" established, but which have no consistency with the use (even in economical driving) with the reality on the ground and it is this reality that matters to the user, not pseudo sciences designed to mislead the user (as usual). However, well-tuned engines are only adjusted over a particular range of use and outside this range, they are in fact poorly adjusted and therefore overconsume fuel. The well-designed Gillier pantone system compensates for these optimum out of range, even on recent and sophisticated engines.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: Doping in the steam




by Flytox » 09/05/17, 23:22

izentrop wrote:
FEV explains that the water injection can be optimized to optimize performance, then 10% power, plus 18% torque, or adjusted to reduce fuel consumption.
We can then reduce the fuel mass by up to 10%.
It is not in the same sentence, it does not mean anything and I do not see any evidence in it. Nothing more than the use of the enthalpy of vaporization of water.


It is true that this expression is not very meaningful / well chosen (crazy translation?). But this is also not proof that there would be no reduction in engine consumption. To use the enthalpy of vaporization of water of course and among others, but at the moment when this occurs in the cycle it is not at all harmless. This makes it possible to "optimize the feed" without clicking and it is better for the output. (You have the explanation in the BMW paper).
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.

[Eugène Ionesco]

http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
kistinie
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 357
Registration: 16/11/09, 09:18

Re: Doping in the steam




by kistinie » 21/10/19, 19:58

Hello everyone.
My stone in the building. On a 807 2,2 HDI 5 speeds.
- Magnetic treatment of fuel
- Injection of water by misting (2 ultrasonic heads)
- Incoming air ionizer
- HHO generator with low amperage, less than 5A

4 seasons tires at 3 bars, roof bars filed

The result is:
5,7 L / 100 stabilized at 100
6,3 L / 100 in mixed road included starts.
6,7 L / 100 in fast driving, foot consistently very heavy acceleration

11 L / 100 with a caravan of 8 1,6T meters between 80 and 100. No effort to save money. Very strong load almost all the time.

More details about FB:

https://www.facebook.com/francois.bouqu ... 614&type=3
0 x
----------------------------------------------

Think global act local ...
et
Do good, that is not emmerdée!

-----------------------------------------------
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Doping in the steam




by GuyGadebois » 21/10/19, 20:07

kistinie wrote:The result is:
5,7 L / 100 stabilized at 100
6,3 L / 100 in mixed road included starts.
6,7 L / 100 in fast driving, foot consistently very heavy acceleration

11 L / 100 with a caravan of 8 1,6T meters between 80 and 100. No effort to save money. Very strong load almost all the time.

The result is, okay, but before the installation of the device? We do not know anything.
1 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
kistinie
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 357
Registration: 16/11/09, 09:18

Re: Doping in the steam




by kistinie » 21/10/19, 20:12

PS: An indisputable gain in torque and driving pleasure.

Best performance achieved 1400Km with 80 liters.
In regular use, 1200 to 1350 Km with full. My next victim should be my military 508 10,5 which is already at 100L / 70 at 80 / 17,5 thanks to its XNUMXP wheelset and magnetic fuel treatment.

FYI magnetic fuel processing is used on jet airliners. The gain is of the order of 8%. It's modest but how to justify not using it knowing that the price is close to nothing, infinite reliability, and universal compatibility?
0 x
----------------------------------------------



Think global act local ...

et

Do good, that is not emmerdée!



-----------------------------------------------
kistinie
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 357
Registration: 16/11/09, 09:18

Re: Doping in the steam




by kistinie » 21/10/19, 20:17

GuyGadebois wrote:
kistinie wrote:The result is:
5,7 L / 100 stabilized at 100
6,3 L / 100 in mixed road included starts.
6,7 L / 100 in fast driving, foot consistently very heavy acceleration

11 L / 100 with a caravan of 8 1,6T meters between 80 and 100. No effort to save money. Very strong load almost all the time.

The result is, okay, but before the installation of the device? We do not know anything.


10L / 100, but with FAP clogged, so not significant.
According to those who have the same vehicle, rarely less than 7,5L / 100 being very careful.

Nevertheless, with the injection of water and H2, the more I roll, the less it is dirty. And at 310,000Km, it changes everything.
0 x
----------------------------------------------



Think global act local ...

et

Do good, that is not emmerdée!



-----------------------------------------------

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Water injection in the engines: the assembly and experimentation"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 62 guests