Water injection
What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember
25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane. The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. |
Water injection
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing.
All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. As for your complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than most. Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote: What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember 25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane. The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. |
Water injection
Tom Gardner wrote:
The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! what about a diesel Toyota Corolla: 50mpg in Europe. The engine 1.380 liter last generation diesel. cheers -- Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬ |
Water injection
Philippe Vessaire wrote: Tom Gardner wrote: The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! what about a diesel Toyota Corolla: 50mpg in Europe. The engine 1.380 liter last generation diesel. Can't get the good small diesels in the US. Only VW. I'd love to be able to buy a Ranger with an efficient turbodiesel. The Liberty CRD is a good move and selling well, but they don't get the fuel economy that diesels are noted for. Lots of power though. Wish they'd put it in the CJ. |
Water injection
"Justin" wrote in message oups.com... Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing. All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. As for your complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than most. Well, I can't put a 1,700 lb. pallet in the Honda like I can in the Ford 4 times a week. Don't buy into the oil shortage thing, there's 250 years worth in Canada oil sand and another 300 years off the US coasts that we can't drill. I agree in abandoning oil as a primary energy source, but I don't buy the bull. With WI you can lean out the mixture without detonation and you CAN get better mileage! |
Water injection
Justin replied (vaguely):
Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing. All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the engine. Piston type aircraft engines are rated in brake effective horsepower, METO (max. except during takeoff). Some of them use water injection at peak power demand times to obtain max HP. Water injection acts as a cooling agent, preventing excessive manifold temperatures and seems to boost power by reducing pre-ignition. It not only *seems* to boost power it also *seems* to prevent engine melt down. Sodium-filled valves also allow more effective heat transfer in aircraft and other engines. Bob Swinney "Justin" wrote in message oups.com... As for your complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than most. Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote: What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember 25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane. The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. |
Water injection
Robert Swinney wrote:
Justin replied (vaguely): Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing. All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the engine. The result of this is a cooler denser mixture. More air and fuel more power. Stan Piston type aircraft engines are rated in brake effective horsepower, METO (max. except during takeoff). Some of them use water injection at peak power demand times to obtain max HP. Water injection acts as a cooling agent, preventing excessive manifold temperatures and seems to boost power by reducing pre-ignition. It not only *seems* to boost power it also *seems* to prevent engine melt down. Sodium-filled valves also allow more effective heat transfer in aircraft and other engines. Bob Swinney "Justin" wrote in message oups.com... As for your complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than most. Tom Gardner (nospam) wrote: What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember 25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane. The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. |
Water injection
Stan Weiss wrote: Robert Swinney wrote: Justin replied (vaguely): Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing. All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the engine. The result of this is a cooler denser mixture. More air and fuel more power. Stan Right. That's exactly what I meant. It allows you to burn more fuel, it doesn't do anything to make the fuel you do burn output more power. In fact if anything it probably decreases the overall efficiency, because a higher operating temperature, in general means higher efficiency. Tom: as far as hauling a pallet, that's not the reason you originally cited, what gives? And regardless of whether oil is going to run out or not, we still need to get off petroleum because of emissions. |
Water injection
Well, if anyone wants to try it, I have a Holley Water Injection kit,
universal application, from the 1970s. As I recall, it uses a WW pump and vacuum sensor/switch. We sold a boatload of these in the 1970s. - - Rex Burkheimer Fort Worth TX Justin wrote: Stan Weiss wrote: Robert Swinney wrote: Justin replied (vaguely): Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing. All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. AFAIK, water injection doesn't "boost power" in any way shape or form. High performance engines running on high octane fuel *seemingly* get a power boost in that water cools the intake portion (valves, manifold, etc) of the engine. The result of this is a cooler denser mixture. More air and fuel more power. Stan Right. That's exactly what I meant. It allows you to burn more fuel, it doesn't do anything to make the fuel you do burn output more power. In fact if anything it probably decreases the overall efficiency, because a higher operating temperature, in general means higher efficiency. Tom: as far as hauling a pallet, that's not the reason you originally cited, what gives? And regardless of whether oil is going to run out or not, we still need to get off petroleum because of emissions. |
Water injection
In article ,
"Tom Gardner" wrote: [...] I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net |
Water injection
After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the
same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin! |
Water injection
I was just discussing this with a friend last weekend.
He was familiar with what your asking about. What I had was much simpler. A vacumm line ran to the top of a container. Another line was open at the top of the container, went down in the water, and terminated in piece of plastic that diffused the air to make smaller bubbles come out. The bubbles made that air on the top of the container moist. Then it was pulled into the engine via the vacuum line. I had this on a '70 Impala with a 400 cu engine. I definitely got better gas mileage with it. No engine mods were made. I got it at Warsharky's. It is something that could easily be made. Wayne D. On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:17:37 GMT, Tom Gardner wrote: What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember 25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane. The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. |
Water injection
Tom Gardner wrote:
After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin! Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a proper nuke plant is waste heat. The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in the ground. A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order. Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly debunked. Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land to grow fuel crops, etc. Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an underground target. Pete C. |
Water injection
Wayne wrote: I was just discussing this with a friend last weekend. He was familiar with what your asking about. What I had was much simpler. A vacumm line ran to the top of a container. Another line was open at the top of the container, went down in the water, and terminated in piece of plastic that diffused the air to make smaller bubbles come out. The bubbles made that air on the top of the container moist. Then it was pulled into the engine via the vacuum line. I had this on a '70 Impala with a 400 cu engine. I definitely got better gas mileage with it. No engine mods were made. I got it at Warsharky's. It is something that could easily be made. Wayne You basically added a vacuum leak, leaning out the mixture. Try that on a new car and the computer will correct for it by richening the mixture. Wayne D. On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:17:37 GMT, Tom Gardner wrote: What ever happened to "Water Injection" for automotive engines? I remember 25 years ago, I did a crude set-up using a Briggs & Stratton carb and tank full of water on a GM 350. It ran good and I got over 22 mpg. I Googled around and see it used for turbo and super charger applications but nothing for a normally aspirated engine with EFI. It looks like it would freak out my Ford van's computer. The OEMs should evaluate the benefits of WI from the factory! My Mazda RX-7 did inject coolant into the Wankle. (cool motor!) WI increases fuel economy and effectively boosts octane. The Ford E-350 gets about 13 city, 17 highway... not terrible, but $98 fill-ups hurt! There is a computer hook-up and you can change a bunch of parameters but you can't dial it to 25 mpg. This seems like the perfect vehicle for WI but Ford has made it difficult. I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. |
Water injection
"Pete C." wrote in message ... Tom Gardner wrote: After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin! Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a proper nuke plant is waste heat. The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in the ground. A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order. Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly debunked. Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land to grow fuel crops, etc. Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an underground target. Pete C. Although I agree with you, I like a good argument. :) You forgot the destruction of natural habitat by the waste water that warms the surrounding lake or river that is used to cool the plant. Many species cannot thrive in water above their ideal temperature. Also, don't assume that terrorist only know how to bomb things. There are plenty of ways to attack things like water supplies and electric plants without a bomb. |
Water injection
Dave Lyon wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message ... Tom Gardner wrote: After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin! Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a proper nuke plant is waste heat. The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in the ground. A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order. Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly debunked. Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land to grow fuel crops, etc. Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an underground target. Pete C. Although I agree with you, I like a good argument. :) You forgot the destruction of natural habitat by the waste water that warms the surrounding lake or river that is used to cool the plant. Many species cannot thrive in water above their ideal temperature. The newer plant designs produce less waste heat (higher efficiency) and the waste heat can be provided to nearby industrial plants for use in industrial processes (canning dolphin safe tuna perhaps). Also, don't assume that terrorist only know how to bomb things. There are plenty of ways to attack things like water supplies and electric plants without a bomb. Correct, however there are thousands (or more) far more attractive soft targets in the US. The tremendous effort to attack a well protected underground nuke plant is simply not worth it. Pete C. |
Water injection
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:55:19 GMT, Pete C. wrote:
Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a proper nuke plant is waste heat. Yup. The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in the ground. And into a controlled, planned, long-term secure and stable environment. A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order. Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly debunked. The perfect proof of that is to look at how the pro-nuke people talk about it, vs. how the anti-nuke folks do. The pro-nuke use actual facts, science, explainations of how no, pebble-bed reactors have nothing at all to do with the technology that was caused to fail at Chernobyl, and so on. The anti-nuke people go for the emotionalism and rhetoric - they want you to "feel" about it, rather than to "think" about it. Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land to grow fuel crops, etc. Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead we're polluting the air and consuming more oil. Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an underground target. Somehow I don't think a reactor vessel would be particularly impressed by an airplane crashing into it. This isn't a soft target, after all. The terrorists know this; they're evil, they're not _stupid_. So even that risk is, I think, overstated. I find it ironic as hell (as in, really annoying also) that the people who are anti-nuke, cause us to continue giving money for oil, to countries where people don't like us, so that we can finance their next attack on us. If we'd go nuke, we can tell certain parts of the world that we're not giving them any more money. They can drink their oil and eat their sand, good luck with that. We have the technology TODAY to be free of this whole mess. This isn't some pipe dream, it's ready to go TODAY. Build it. In my back yard. Dave Hinz |
Water injection
Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead we're polluting the air and consuming more oil. It IS available today. The problem is it's a little more expensive than traditional methods. Or, if you need extreme range (250 miles) it's a lot more expensive than a gasoline car. A small electric car has around a 100 mile range at around 60 miles per hour. That is enough to handle a large percentage of all commutes. Expect to see one like that cost around $20,000. That's a bit pricey for an economy car, but most people could afford it if they wanted to. There are electric cars available that can go for 250 miles between charges, but be ready to spend some money for those. Around $250,000. These cars can't be bought at your local car lot yet, but they can be bought. If more people were willing to spend the extra money, it wouldn't be long before you could buy one locally. |
Water injection
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:36:58 GMT, Dave Lyon wrote:
Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead we're polluting the air and consuming more oil. It IS available today. (snip) A small electric car has around a 100 mile range at around 60 miles per hour. That is enough to handle a large percentage of all commutes. Expect to see one like that cost around $20,000. Got a link for me? If I can buy it, I'm interested. Of course, that's only half the equation, what with not having any new nuke plants. Hell, even France is using nuke more than we are. France?!?!?!? That's a bit pricey for an economy car, but most people could afford it if they wanted to. Well, I'm spending 200 bucks a month on gasoline right now. These cars can't be bought at your local car lot yet, but they can be bought. If more people were willing to spend the extra money, it wouldn't be long before you could buy one locally. Got any power figures for these cars, or a link where I can read more? Also, are they road-safe? |
Water injection
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:55:19 GMT, Pete C. wrote: Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a proper nuke plant is waste heat. Yup. The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in the ground. And into a controlled, planned, long-term secure and stable environment. A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order. Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly debunked. The perfect proof of that is to look at how the pro-nuke people talk about it, vs. how the anti-nuke folks do. The pro-nuke use actual facts, science, explainations of how no, pebble-bed reactors have nothing at all to do with the technology that was caused to fail at Chernobyl, and so on. The anti-nuke people go for the emotionalism and rhetoric - they want you to "feel" about it, rather than to "think" about it. Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land to grow fuel crops, etc. Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead we're polluting the air and consuming more oil. Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an underground target. Somehow I don't think a reactor vessel would be particularly impressed by an airplane crashing into it. This isn't a soft target, after all. The terrorists know this; they're evil, they're not _stupid_. So even that risk is, I think, overstated. I find it ironic as hell (as in, really annoying also) that the people who are anti-nuke, cause us to continue giving money for oil, to countries where people don't like us, so that we can finance their next attack on us. If we'd go nuke, we can tell certain parts of the world that we're not giving them any more money. They can drink their oil and eat their sand, good luck with that. We have the technology TODAY to be free of this whole mess. This isn't some pipe dream, it's ready to go TODAY. Build it. In my back yard. I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop) for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing. Pete C. Dave Hinz |
Water injection
Got any power figures for these cars, or a link where I can read more? Also, are they road-safe? Here's the site that offers the 250 mile range car. Granted, they don't plan on making very many of them, but they do have plans to adapt their technology in a more affordable model. http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm One of the cool things about this car is the ability to use it to power your house if you loose electricity. They will also sell you the electrical stuff to put in your own conversion. This site will teach you how to do your own conversion, and sell you the parts. From a small car you can expect about 100 mile range. The electricals will cost around $12,000 by the time you get batteries and such. This site claims you can convert one for around $8,000 http://www.evadc.org/build_an_ev.html Here's the site for new car conversions. Unfortunately, I didn't remember my facts correctly. $20,000 did not include the original chassis. http://www.cloudelectric.com/category.html?UCIDs=881991 I'm really tempted to find an old MG, or similar car and do a conversion for my soon to be 16 year old daughter. It might be a fun project for us. |
Water injection
Pete C. wrote:
Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a proper nuke plant is waste heat. Funny to read _that_ around the 20'th anniversary of Tschernobyl. Here in Germany there are still mushrooms (and other goods) that you'd better stay off eating because of radiation. BTW: Only metal content I can see is "Uranium". Nick -- Motor Modelle // Engine Models http://www.motor-manufaktur.de DIY-DRO // Eigenbau-Digitalanzeige http://www.yadro.de |
Water injection
Water injection on a newer non-turbo vehicle really has no benefit. It
does have have plenty of potential problems, and will likely reduce your mileage. Your E350 if probably has port fuel injection. It uses an O2 sensor in the exhaust stream for closed loop control of the AFR to a stoichometric Air/Fuel ratio during cruise, which for gasoline is around 14.7:1. This is optimal for operation of the 3 way catalytic convertor, while maintaining best possible economy. Make sure you O2 sensor(s) is fairly fresh, ie less than 50K miles on it for best operation, and avoid cold starts and short trips for better mpg. New engines have vastly better cylinder to cylinder AFR distribution than 25 years ago. Adding water vapor has several possible issues; 1.) Added upstream of the mass air sensor it may damage the sensor, downstream It adds an unmetered volume to the intake, ie the computer has no way to account for the volume. 2.) If it condenses it may cause corrosion damage to the fuel injectors, valves, rings etc., (think moist shutdown with steel & aluminum parts in a confined space). 3.) Metering water vapor accuratly is much more difficult than it seems at first glance, and if not metered correctly, or if it accidentaly drips into the intake it can hydrolock the engine bending rods, breaking pistons. 4.) It needs to be mixed with methanol for freeze protection & atomization. 5.) More water will wind up in your crankcase oil, and the PCV system will likely get hosed up at a higher rate. 6.) On some newer vehicles you may trigger the OBDII and set fault codes for a failed catalyst. 7.) The water, unless it is totally mineral free will eventually clog or foul the metering device unless it is either very crude or very expensive. 8.) On a fuel injected intake manifold which is usually unheated, (unlike most older cars with carbs.), icing may occur, possibly jamming the throttle or screwing up the metering. And probably 10 other things I have not thought of... |
Water injection
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:28:35 GMT, Dave Lyon wrote:
Got any power figures for these cars, or a link where I can read more? Also, are they road-safe? I'm really tempted to find an old MG, or similar car and do a conversion for my soon to be 16 year old daughter. It might be a fun project for us. Thanks for the links. Saved - I've got a Saab Sonett that might be a perfect platform for this. Light, well built, and fun. |
Water injection
Rex B wrote in news:1254e2veqqvno15
@corp.supernews.com: Can't get the good small diesels in the US. Only VW. I'd love to be able to buy a Ranger with an efficient turbodiesel. The Liberty CRD is a good move and selling well, but they don't get the fuel economy that diesels are noted for. Lots of power though. Wish they'd put it in the CJ. That VW TDI gets 55 mpg..and has power to spare... -- Anthony You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make better idiots. Remove sp to reply via email |
Water injection
"Wayne" wrote in message ... I was just discussing this with a friend last weekend. He was familiar with what your asking about. See, I'm not crazy! |
Water injection
Lets not forget the massive leases paid for by the oil companies and then the
loonies got a ban on drilling off the west coast of Ca. Likewise off the East coast and in the gulf of Mexico near Mississippi. That is 100 miles out - but we are happy for China, N. Korea and Cuba drilling 50 miles off Miami. Odd isn't it. There has been fundamental research in the production of oil - and it has been shown and proved that not all oil came from plant or even animal (lots of them it would take) but in a geo-thermo still of sorts that generates chemicals that spew up volcanoes and all sorts. It seems that the mantel does the trick in so many places. Think oil is from green fern or floating bugs - takes a lot of them for that trick. We know that coal came from plants - but the extension to oil was a stretch. Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member Tom Gardner wrote: "Justin" wrote in message oups.com... Water injection is a power-boosting thing, not an efficiency thing. All it does is prevent pre-ignition and/or detonation. As for your complaints about NIMBY, sounds like you've got a case of it too. You don't want to conserve because you're insecure driving a smaller vehicle. Petroleum is not the long term solution. Regardless of where we drill demand will eventually exceed supply. We gotta start finding viable alternatives. Now's as good a time as any, and better than most. Well, I can't put a 1,700 lb. pallet in the Honda like I can in the Ford 4 times a week. Don't buy into the oil shortage thing, there's 250 years worth in Canada oil sand and another 300 years off the US coasts that we can't drill. I agree in abandoning oil as a primary energy source, but I don't buy the bull. With WI you can lean out the mixture without detonation and you CAN get better mileage! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Water injection
"oldjag" wrote in message oups.com... Water injection on a newer non-turbo vehicle really has no benefit. It does have have plenty of potential problems, and will likely reduce your mileage. Your E350 if probably has port fuel injection. It uses an O2 sensor in the exhaust stream for closed loop control of the AFR to a stoichometric Air/Fuel ratio during cruise, which for gasoline is around 14.7:1. This is optimal for operation of the 3 way catalytic convertor, while maintaining best possible economy. Make sure you O2 sensor(s) is fairly fresh, ie less than 50K miles on it for best operation, and avoid cold starts and short trips for better mpg. New engines have vastly better cylinder to cylinder AFR distribution than 25 years ago. Adding water vapor has several possible issues; 1.) Added upstream of the mass air sensor it may damage the sensor, downstream It adds an unmetered volume to the intake, ie the computer has no way to account for the volume. 2.) If it condenses it may cause corrosion damage to the fuel injectors, valves, rings etc., (think moist shutdown with steel & aluminum parts in a confined space). 3.) Metering water vapor accuratly is much more difficult than it seems at first glance, and if not metered correctly, or if it accidentaly drips into the intake it can hydrolock the engine bending rods, breaking pistons. 4.) It needs to be mixed with methanol for freeze protection & atomization. 5.) More water will wind up in your crankcase oil, and the PCV system will likely get hosed up at a higher rate. 6.) On some newer vehicles you may trigger the OBDII and set fault codes for a failed catalyst. 7.) The water, unless it is totally mineral free will eventually clog or foul the metering device unless it is either very crude or very expensive. 8.) On a fuel injected intake manifold which is usually unheated, (unlike most older cars with carbs.), icing may occur, possibly jamming the throttle or screwing up the metering. And probably 10 other things I have not thought of... Right on the money! It would have to be an OEM thing and the costs outweigh the benefits from a corporate point of view. |
Water injection
What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00
per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve, promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars in the middle east-over oil). Tony "B.B." u wrote in message ... In article , "Tom Gardner" wrote: [...] I don't want to drive the Honda CRX daily as it's so tiny, I feel like an ant on the highway. Any way to do this? Why don't we just drill the **** out of Anwr and off-shore of ALL coasts? Oh yea, the NIMBY mentality and the filthy rich tree-huggers. I loved TK poo-pooing the wind farm with in sight of his compound. After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net |
Water injection
One of the reasons water injection lost favor is that the fuel,
especially diesel, has a little sulfur in it. Add water and you get sulfuric acid. It builds up in the engine and starts etching parts. Pretty soon, . . . no engine! Bugs |
Water injection
Tony wrote:
What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00 per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve, promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars in the middle east-over oil). No, we need to force oil companies to allocate a huge percentage of profits into alternative energy development. Speed up hydrogen technologies, etc. |
Water injection
In article ,
"Tom Gardner" wrote: After ANWR gets drilled and eventually runs out we'll be back in the same spot we're in now, but with ANWR full of holes. Makes more sense to go ahead and fix the problem up front by reducing and eventually eliminating fuel usage before we wind up with holes and strip mines all over the place. Get used to feeling like and ant. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net Agreed! I'm a BIG nuke fan, let the flames begin! Actually, I totally agree with that. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net |
Water injection
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message ... Lets not forget the massive leases paid for by the oil companies and then the loonies got a ban on drilling off the west coast of Ca. Likewise off the East coast and in the gulf of Mexico near Mississippi. That is 100 miles out - but we are happy for China, N. Korea and Cuba drilling 50 miles off Miami. Odd isn't it. There has been fundamental research in the production of oil - and it has been shown and proved that not all oil came from plant or even animal (lots of them it would take) but in a geo-thermo still of sorts that generates chemicals that spew up volcanoes and all sorts. It seems that the mantel does the trick in so many places. Think oil is from green fern or floating bugs - takes a lot of them for that trick. We know that coal came from plants - but the extension to oil was a stretch. Martin How about a third political party: "The Common Sence Party" I've read a bit and it's facinating! |
Water injection
"Tony" wrote in message ... What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00 per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve, promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars in the middle east-over oil). Tony Many years ago, I remember it was said that when gas hit some certain price, alternative energy processes would blossom. I wonder what that set point is now. |
Water injection
In article ,
"Tony" wrote: What we need to do is increase the Federal excise tax on gasoline to $1.00 per gallon or more, this will force gaz guzzling Americans to conserve, promote alternative energy, decrease profit to the oil companies & market speculators, fund new technology, and help pay some debt (like from our wars in the middle east-over oil). Giving the govt more money is the LAST thing we want. Either it will waste the $$$ on pork, or will start new wars, or will fund new bureaucracies to harrass the people. Instead, REMOVE all taxes from alcohol and people will start using it and other stuff to replace oil. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Water injection
In article ,
"Pete C." wrote: I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop) for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing. Not to mention you could get free waste heat for the winter and enough to keep your greenhouse warm all winter too ;) -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Water injection
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote: Hell, even France is using nuke more than we are. France?!?!?!? France has no oil, no coal, no hydro and no choice ;) -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Water injection
Nick Hull wrote:
In article , "Pete C." wrote: I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop) for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing. Not to mention you could get free waste heat for the winter and enough to keep your greenhouse warm all winter too ;) -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ And real three phase power :) Pete C. |
Water injection
Nick Hull wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote: Hell, even France is using nuke more than we are. France?!?!?!? France has no oil, no coal, no hydro and no choice ;) -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ A whole lot of potential BTUs in all their lovely rich food though... Pete C. |
Water injection
Dan sez:
" Another off the wall idea is a system that has two gas tanks, one for regular and one for premium. It would let you have a higher compression ratio, and still use regular gasolene most of the time. Just use the premium when you need it." If your car was set up to run on regular why would you ever need premium in the same car? Or it you meant the car already had a higher compression ratio, necessitating premium, what conditions do you visualize that would need regular? Bob Swinney wrote in message oups.com... oldjag wrote: Water injection on a newer non-turbo vehicle really has no benefit. And probably 10 other things I have not thought of... Okay here is another thought. Would there be any advantage to having a Ethanol injection system? Especially as a factory installed item. I would think that Ethanol would provide the same advantages for knock prevention as the water injection system. Dan |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter