Intake Manifold Injection

[Pendragon]

MGB,

I just do not see acetone as a viable additive because of the under the hood temperatures no matter how short the run to the intake, but it is your experiment.

Water/methanol blends add to the mass of the expansion gasses as well as cooling things down. How big a tank you have determines how frequently you need to fill up.

Nitro, in addition to being expensive, takes a pretty good ignition source to get a reliable burn. You may recall that top fuel dragsters (running mostly nitro, with a little alcohol blended in when they need to tone it down) usually run dual magnetos and still have ignition problems more often than they would like. I realize that you will be running a lot less of it, but still....

What indications do you have of improved fuel economy, if that is the objective? I am glad that you have an EGT gauge. At least that way you have a hope of "catching it" if things start to run too lean.

I must confess that I find your experiment interesting as it is not something that readily suggested itself to me as a means of improving fuel economy.

Please keep us informed of your results.

Cheers

P.S. The question I would ask about the plugs is whether you think the combustion chamber has a similar buildup of fouling? Are you using a capacitive discharge ignition system such as MSD? If not and you experience a difficult to ignite lean charge you might want to talk with their tech support people.

I recently spoke with the tech support guy at NGK/USA about some posts on a Canadian web site which had suggested opening up the plug gap and going a step colder. He said that was only recommended in Canada as they run a lot more alcohol in the gas up there. I do not know what change, if any, in the plugs might be suggested by the continuous use of the water/methanol mixture, but you might ask someone in the industry. Anyway, best of luck in your endeavors.

[MGB=MPG]

back in the 50's some mixed acetone [ and others stuff] in the soup.. i discarded acetone because of its low flash point and inherent dangers in a hot engine compartment .. acetone is Flammable ..Nitromethane is only Combustible and has lots available oxygen molecules ..
likewise methanol has more available oxygen molecules than ethanol


Souped up machines are a great American tradition
...

indeed ,, 20/80 nitro is glow fuel .. 50/50 is Hot glow fuel

no theory ,, this is only a test ..

if you go back to page one .. first statement you will see

""Intake Manifold Injection
The question is: will injection of *Various Fluids & Vapors * directly in to the intake manifold enhance Fuel Efficiency,

reference document :
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/devices/pb84163062.pdf
""



if i can establish a baseline w/o the top fuel .. then load top fuel and feed it at 'small rates ' and compare the baseline with the experimental value that may tell us something ..

very likely any FE increase will be below the noise level .. noise level= that inherent difficulty in measuring mileage by filling tank and dividing... error on fill is Noise.. ,

there have been those who claimed *significant* increase with water/, water methanol mixes and other proprietary mixes in to the carb,, intake..

my intent ,, over time .. is to accumulate date with *various mixes * added to the intake manifold .. ..
"Various fluids and vapors "
i will not belabor you with an exhaustive definition of various mixes ..
one mix is 20 nitro.. maybe i will run a set with 80% nitro..
or run a set with MW50 aka windshield washer fluid

Now im trying to set mix Lean of peak RE: EGT .. drive by EGT & Vacuum Gauge ..

today ran 60 miles ...30 out ,, adjusted mix 1/4 turn lean .. 30 back..
outbound EGT was running abt 1300 return running abt 1275..
in consideration the pyrometer is calibrated for ambient of 75F [ as i recall ] on the cold terminal and that for every degree above calibration that the cold terminal is the gauge will read a degree above true..and that my cold terminal is in my cabin , exterior ambient was 93F , and that the temperature of the foot feed just below that cold terminal was 100F and the tunnel just below also was 120F ,, expect my gauge was reading 25-30 F high .. which means im getting dialed right on in for target lean of peak EGT 1250F .. ,,

i was interested to see that i was hitting maximum EGT not on the upgrade with 10INHG throttle applied rather after cresting and 25INHG backed off .. ..

you tell me the theory on that .. Jack

anybody else out there Drive by EGT & Vacuum gauge .. it is an accepted method [in some circles] to obtain maximal FE.. shoot for maximum Vacuum minimum EGT,,

i think i need to get 3 readings about the same to establish baseline .. i need to run 300 miles to get a reading ,, this month ran 100 miles ,, its gonna take a while.. like about 9 months to establish base line ..

edit : ignition system .. ignition is classic points type 25D Lucas .. coil: Lucas sport coil providing 40,000 volts out put.. NON-Ballasted system
[capability is available to convert to a Bosch Super red Ballasted coil ]
bosch super plus plugs set to .032[specification]

[Pendragon]

MGB,

I can tell you that military test pilots in WWII did work on extending the range of a variety of aircraft by various techniques, mostly a matter of getting a high manifold pressure reading and then leaning the mixture out until the EGT and/or CHT approach max allowable temperature. These were obviously cruise settings rather than climb/performance or combat settings. Some aircrews in the Pacific were suspected of getting in sight of the field in Australia and leaning things out to the point that pistons were burned, resulting in a longer stay for them in Australia before returning to some of the truly primitive settings in which they operated.

The problem with this approach is that the airplane, unlike an automobile on public highways, held a constant altitude and used a fixed throttle setting. In the real world an automobile seldom has the same throttle setting for long due to changes in the roadway or traffic.

I recently got an UltraGauge and installed it on my '99 Accord (4 cylinder, automatic trans). It was eye opening, at least to me, how large a change in the instantaneous fuel consumption/mileage even the smallest of throttle settings made. Such changes make establishing the optimal fuel air mixture and volume of additional fluids a complex and frustrating effort. If a computer controlled fuel injection system can do no better than it does, I have to wonder just how complex the problem of additional systems must be.

Just what sort of figures are you getting so far in testing?

[metroschultz]

I am waiting to see how this all works out.
Interesting ideas, good application, very well laid out installation.

[MGB=MPG]

""good application, very well laid out installation."" im not all that sure if that is true but Thank you for the support


i expect it too be a long wait so few miles i run..

Driving by Vacuum gauge is illuminating ..i have done it for years
slightest possible foot feed adjustment can change the reading quite a lot.with no apparent change in power ,
my target value on hill climbs is 10INHG ..minimum 5INHG on hard pulls
\
driving by EGT is new to me ..a learning curve applies .. i got it mainly to check values , try to lean mix by EGT .. i always set my mix lean and do understand that one can get TOO LEAN and cook the power plant
not to mention i love gauges ,, my next gauge might be an oil temp..
it would be nice to have an AFR also
my application is a little *goofy* in so much as : less throttle applied yields
a higher manifold vacuum which *should* pull more of the mix into the intake


steves 4 page

Nitromethane: WiFi for the World
flash point on the Nitromethane is about 35C=95F these summer days my intake temp [another gauge on the panel!] {CAI] is 95F --the carb is running about 115F and the intake manifold higher [ failed to measure for actual value]

no data yet , however observations
if you check my fuel log you will see a value from memory ..
i ran this machine in commuter service several years 330 miles a week 12 gallon tank , .. the a couple setting the advance .. and one ..

initially worked on my mixing methodology
8oz pharmaceutical into a gallon fuel grade methanol ,, the castor appeared to go into solution as expected ,
then one part of nitro in the measuring cup , 4 parts the methanol+castor solution should yield the 20% nitro

appeared to mix up good ..

interesting to observe the changes in density
some mix floated on top of the MMO . some the MMO Floated
*theory* is that the MMO floats and caps the soup from atmosphere -reduced water absorption from atmosphere

then with a *portion* of mix what to do.. dumped it in the jar during ramp runs .. while inital carb mix and timing adjustments , cranked the needle valve open about 2 turns and did ramp runs ..

burnt off quite a lot pretty quick ..
later however the feed rate dropped and i have some concern about something [the castor perhaps] gumming up the feed in the sight glass.

anyone who has spent time on a glow fuel flying field will remember the particular smell of burnt nitro/methanol/castor ,,the nitro has nitric acid as combustion product and the castor a smell all of its own .. quite nice.

the signature smell was apparent

while the cost of fuel grade nitromethane and methanol is not insubstantial the castor oil is the most expensive , by volume ..

and think of the Intangible Value for some one drives a machine looks like this to pull into lot smelling of Nitro & Castor Oil ,, pop bonnet ,, the modern operator looks at engine bay with the SU Carb, the top oiler and coiled copper tube going to the intake manifold and asks ,, whats in that and the reply is .. nitromethane

my minimum measurement amount in my measuring cup is about 5 OZ of mix..

my main malfunction now is the worry about gumming up the feed in the sight glass ,, its a chore to dismount and clean ,, and the possible error in filling the tank for calculations..

if i have a half gallon error on a 10 gallon fill [ 12 gallon tank] thts a 5% error ..

and i would expect any possible gain to get lost in the noise ..

one way to reduce the noise is to increase the number of fills and average
another way is to insure repeatable levels on fills ,,
there are ways .. none easy
another alternative would the valving on the fuel line , an auxiliary fuel pump and a clear header tank with increments in the cabin ,, somehow having a container of fuel in the cabin is not so appealing to me ..rather appalling..


other commercial applications are *messing* with this

some quite exorbitant claims i think

as an example :
Snow Performance: Home

Snow Performance: Nitro Booster?

[MGB=MPG]

1979 MGB Tourer Drop-Hood Coupé Gas Mileage (Old Yellar) - EcoModder.com

still working

m

[MGB=MPG]

it sure would be nice to have a fancy flow meter or a 2 gallon header tank marked off in small increments, however , no flow meter and i am disinclined to have a glass ware header in the cockpit.

it would be nice to have a good way to fill the tank to the same level every time.
lacking all above i just have to go by averages.
back when i had this thing in commuter service i would put on 66 miles a day, now [even though it is *primary* motor transport] im lucky to get 66 miles a month.
i think next time i fuel i will call Baseline .. a year..

of interest : in july 2011 i tested the cyl compression . then added some *restore* just tested again showing a marked improvement after 1100 miles
one wonders if the increase in cyl compression can be attributed to the restore , or the MMO in the top oiler, .. both lay claims to increasing engine compression
cyl ...2011.....2012
#1.....140.......150
#2.....120.......140
#3.....120.......150
#4 ....110.......140

it is generally accepted that readings are*good* if all are within 10%
2011 fails that . 2012 does not.
i would really like to get 4 or 5 more tanks of fuel run through to establish baseline , however i fear i am much to impatient for that.
i think after the next fueling i will change the additive in the top oiler
i have a gallon of methanol with 8 oz of castor oil mixed in, and a quart of 100% nitro methane .

my intention is to add 4 parts methanol/castor mix to one part nitro methane... if i have calculated correctly that will be 20%nitro/70% methanol/10% castor oil.
a product readily available known as 20% nitro Glow fuel

add that to the jar that feeds into the intake manifold and see if my metrics change

[Varn]

Maybe any increase in compression is due to carbon build up from the products.