Water H20 Injection: Anyone have any experiance with it?

[Chumley]

As long as you're building a low time racing
engine and change the oil regularly, (every
weekend) water injection works great. When
properly setup, WI usually will. Practicality
goes out the window for daily drivers though.
Ignition/boost management and the proper octane
rated fuel metered through the existing fuel
system is clearly the long term proven and
prefered answer for knock suppression in high
performance automotive applications.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1943/naca-report-756/naca-report-756.pdf

Take a look at what WI does to the differential
combustion chamber temperatures in the above
report. Ever hear of material fatique stress?

There's no way to get around it. Just like
excess fuel does, unvaporized injected water
eventually gets into the engine oil. And then:

http://www.maintenanceresources.com/ReferenceLibrary/OilAnalysis/oa-m.htm

UOA has proved it thousands of times. It's not
uncommon to see up to 10% fuel saturation in used
motor oils. Even 1% water content seriously
hinders the EP agents, antioxidants, and
dispersants in most automotive motor oils even
without extended oil change intervals.

Chumley

 

[turboICE]

Thank you for the good link on water in oil - this has been brought up to me before and I have sought information like this since.

A few things however:

Water is already present in the combustion chamber in large quantities whether you like it or not - it is a major and significant byproduct of combustion. The addition of around 1% water to the total induction charge is not going to significantly increase the amount of water already present in the exhaust.

It takes much less water to suppress knock than it does excess fuel - high specific heat and also water contributes to complete combustion whereas excess fuel inhibits complete combustion. Max cylinder pressures are also lower with water injection (even though BMEP is higher as illustrated by Sir Ricardo) reducing blowby in general as well as stress on the lubricated parts.

As for mixing with the cylinder surface lubricant - the heated surface ensures that any water approaching it will be in the form of steam and extremely diluted as a result, liquid water is not mixing with the oil only the highly diluted steam is if at all given the boundary layer of gasses along the surfaces. So unvaporized water will never come into contact with the oil or enter the crankcase. I suspect that vaporized water will contaminate oil as well though you were referring specifically to unvaporized injected water - but the fact remains that vaporized water will be present whether using water injection or not and the additional amount presented by water injection is diminus to the existing combustion byproducts.

Other than for manufacturers who don't buy the gasoline wasted into the exhaust to finish combustion in the cats, I beg to differ that fuel dumping is the preferred method of knock suppression. Most papers conclude otherwise that knock is best suppressed by water injection or the injection of a water mixture such as water and methanol. Just a couple examples:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-812/

http://not2fast.wryday.com/thermo/water_injection/1999-01-0568.pdf

All my performance cars that I raced have also been daily drivers, each one that had water injection was in much better shape when torn down than the ones that used fuel dumping (due to restrictions from WI). Also I am no fan of extended intervals in general and definitely not on performance cars. I change the oil every 3,000 miles or 3 auto-cross days or 1 track day. Lastly no oil analysis I have ever had performed indicated that the oil had been saturated or that there was any other problem with water contamination.

[ November 03, 2003, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: turboICE ]

 

[Chumley]

Well, turboice, I guess all the automotive engine
manufacturers and fuel injection manufacturers
are wrong, and you are correct because after 100
years of production, I not aware of one that
offers WI on a factory performance oriented
vehicle, they all use excess fuel to suppress
detonation. That doesn't mean there aren't any
now or there won't be any in the future, I just
don't know of any current use. There is lots of
current ongoing research on water/fuel emulsions.

Again, look at the combustion chamber temperature
charts in the "laboratory test data" in the NACA
report. In the conclusions section note the
water content in the oil. The assumption that
all the injected water flashes to vapor and
leaves via the exhaust needs verification. I
have taken several years of chemistry and I am
familiar with the combustion process. Water
created as a result of combustion must be in
vapor form because of it's temperature. Not so
with injected water. Get out your engineering
handbook and look up the term "wetted perimeter."

Chumley

 

[turboICE]

Auto manufacturers always fight to maintain the status quo - just because fuel dumping has worked for them doesn't mean it is the best solution. Look at the history of the auto industry fighting every innovation ever pushed.

Because fuel dumping does work, they are able to avoid the additional complexity that water injection presents. For the average driver the system is required to be even more complex to account for those who do not properly maintain their systems. However for a conscientious driver water injection produces better results and auto manufaturers do know this but feel that it is not worth implementing from a complexity/cost standpoint. I am not even suggesting that the manufacturers should include it because the averager drive doesn't care they are satisfied with the mediocrity of mass produced cars. However performance enthusiasts feel differently. Also those with environmental concerns feel differetntly as well hence the use of water injection and EGR for lean burn technologies.

I am not a trivia buff and cannot name all the production performance cars that came from the factory with water injection. I have asked why auto manufacturers with aviation histories have not used water injection in their production cars and invariably auto trivia buffs start listing off all the production performance cars that did come with water injection. So manufacturers have done it in performance production cars.

I would never base a conclusion of the technical validity of a technology based on automotive industry decisions - those are financially based decisions more frequently than technically based decisions.

Injected water that makes up around 1% of the induction charge compared to the amount of fuel and air being inducted is atomized prior to the throttle body, absorbs heat throughout the intake, absorbs heat as it passes the valve and continues to absorb heat as it is entering the chamber. Some amount of the injected water is vaporized during that time, the remaining water is vaporized quickly while absorbing the heat of compression. As I understand it wetted perimeter relates to a stream of water hardly the condition of an atomized dilution of 1% water to the air/fuel mixture. I readily admit not having a full appreciation of the implications of wetted perimeter but I don't think the conditions exist to make it as significant an issue as you raise. However, empirically my experience is that fuel dumping contributes to more oil contamination than water injection.

I apprciate the dialogue though, it is the only way that I can gather all the relevant information that I am able to.

Ed.

 

[turboICE]

You have actually listed my point exactly they fought the majority of those items for a decade and more until they were forced to do it through regulation, popular insistance or competition. You have yet to reference one document that shows that water injection is undesirable from a technical standpoint all your examples are that it is not economically desirable for the automobile industry to utilize the technology. The auto industry makes decisions based on economics or regulation not technology.

What do you mean by being honest? What is your affiliation? How many injectors do you sell to people insisting they dump fuel into their cylinders and unburnt carbon emmissions into the atomosphee? I work for an insurance company investment department and do very well there thank you. Yes I do use Aquamist and since you brought it up yes I do also sell them on occasion. But I would not benefit financially from an improved awareness among people about a technology that most aren't aware of. I would benefit from additional users in that there would be that much more experience and information for something I have a personal passion about - but trust me my water injection activities do not make a bit of difference in my financial well-being. I never pitched a sale and my site that I linked is noncommercial with no advertising whatsoever.

I didn't start this thread, I contributed to it and when confronted with unsupported criticism of it I point it out as such. Every claim I have made is supported. And everytime one of these discussions occurs I end up disappointed that those critical of water injection have yet to provide support of the position. Trust me if the support exists I would like to see it - I have been actively seeking it out for a long time now.

There are now two threads I did not start, that I have participated in that you have proposed the same unsupported claims other than the auto industry would not find it profitable to implement in production.

And now you claim that I have some sinister ulterior motive. If I am so wrong and the automotive engineers are so right - why are there people using this technology on the street in dozens of countries, thousands of implementations and they are already discussing it all over the web. I don't need to generate interest it is already present and was already here - I do need to make sure that people know the supported truth, the benefits and the risks and that is all I have done.

You keep saying there are many good reasons but have not detailed them out or shown independent support of them. Lastly water injection or any other modification does not void warranties - warranty service can only be denied not voided and it can only be denied when the aftermarket item can be shown to have contributed to or been the cause of the failure.

My focus has been on research not marketing.

I have never said that it belongs on common man's daily driver. I said it can be on a daily driver which was fully qualified by the driver being conscientious of the system through monitoring and maintenance. I never presumed to be able to overcome the obstacle that water injection is too complex to effectively utilize among drivers that want things out of sight and out of mind. Don't expand your responses to imply that I claimed things I didn't.

Ed.

[ November 07, 2003, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: turboICE ]

 

[turboICE]

double post

 

[dickwells]

A old review of water insertion (not injection) was done by Mechanics Illustrated. I think the method used was foam generation which was fed to the manifold. The conclusion was that increases in power and efficiency were seen....But......The oils was quickly contaminated by the water and would need accelerated change intervals. Just goes to show how long I have been an oil faggot.

 

[Leo]

I dont see the big deal about water getting into the oil. It wouldnt be much unless your injecting too much water into the engine.

The water would boil off anyway so long as u dont do short trips all the time, and you only use WI at WOT, which is <0.5% of total driving time..

 

[Chumley]

turboice:

"You have actually listed my point exactly they
fought the majority of those items for a decade
and more until they were forced to do it through
regulation, popular insistance or competition."

No I haven't made your point at all. It is
irrelevant if the auto industry was forced to
make the changes I mentioned or not. The point
is, they work and demonstrate long term benefits.
If they didn't they wouldn't be there. WI isn't
on the list. Maybe you should go see your
senator and lobby for water injection to be
included. It isn't there because the long term
evidence that supports its use isn't there. I
can't prove a negative.

"You have yet to reference one document that
shows that water injection is undesirable from a
technical standpoint all your examples are that
it is not economically desirable for the
automobile industry to utilize the technology."

Yes I have. Spend a few hours and read the data
in the NACA report I referenced. I can't confer
an honorary engineering degree on you or force you
to understand the value of the data presented in
the report. Either you get it, or you don't. The
auto industry did, they don't offer WI because
the long term performance benefits aren't there.
If you think so, a sales call is in order. Get
a purchase order from a major auto manufacturer
and become a millionaire overnight, in 50 years
no one else could, maybe you know something the
others didn't.

By the way, I don't work for the petroleum
industry, the auto industry, or the government.
I'm just a private guy with a brain. I don't use
WI. As I said before, WI has its place, just not
on anything I own.

Chumley

 

[turboICE]

"No I haven't made your point at all. It is
irrelevant if the auto industry was forced to
make the changes I mentioned or not. The point
is, they work and demonstrate long term benefits.
If they didn't they wouldn't be there. WI isn't
on the list. Maybe you should go see your
senator and lobby for water injection to be
included. It isn't there because the long term
evidence that supports its use isn't there. I
can't prove a negative."

You did and it is extremely relevant to the value added in any company subject to regulation and competition to only make the changes that are necessary and/or financially justified. WI isn't on the list because of its complexity compared to fuel dumping and lack of confidence in consumers properly maintaining the system. The long term evidence does exist it is in garages around the world.

"Yes I have. Spend a few hours and read the data
in the NACA report I referenced. I can't confer
an honorary engineering degree on you or force you
to understand the value of the data presented in
the report. Either you get it, or you don't. The
auto industry did, they don't offer WI because
the long term performance benefits aren't there.
If you think so, a sales call is in order. Get
a purchase order from a major auto manufacturer
and become a millionaire overnight, in 50 years
no one else could, maybe you know something the
others didn't."

I have read that paper many times before you posted it - and I didn't say anything before but your reading comprehension must be lacking - everything points to water injection doing exactly what is claimed. Add to it the references I have posted and you have chose to ignore like Glassman and Sir Ricardo's work.

Conclusions:

I count 3 very clearly supportive statements that water injection is preferable to fuel dumping as fuel dumping can not make any of those claims, one neutral comment regarding an improper application of water injection that is supported by other studies that properly implemented water injection for economy purposes, and one warning along with a how to mitigate the concern - plus in the last fifty years tighter tolerances and more tolerant lubricants hvae been developed. I see nothing here that suggests water injection is anything less than I have claimed and certainly nothing to support a claim that water injection is technically inferior to fuel dumping. The only evidence you have offered is that it is not financially feasible for the auto industry to utilize it - which no one has denied or argued with.

"By the way, I don't work for the petroleum
industry, the auto industry, or the government.
I'm just a private guy with a brain. I don't use
WI. As I said before, WI has its place, just not
on anything I own."

But your mind is closed to the evidence that as you have said is decades old. No one ever asked you to use WI or put it on anything you owned. But I will challenge myths, rumors and flat out misrepresentations when I come across them.

The thread states - water injection: anyone have experience with it? I have applied it successfully for two decades and offered feedback as requested with no ulterior motive - no reference to my sales site, no pitch to use a product or service - but you have not stated one instance of having used it or been involved in its implementation, yet claim that it is inferior and does not achieve the claims made in the very paper you reference.

Over the years I have accumulated, read and ingrained more technical aspects of my automotive hobby than most - I don't need any honorary validation from you. It is proven everytime my cars operate exactly how I intended and I have provided the supporting references to each claim I have made.

 

[Chumley]

Good God! My mind is not closed toward WI. If
you read the opening comment in my first statement
to you, I agree with you. WI works within it's
limited scope of applications.

So, you have got it to work successfully in 2
applications over 20 years. So what! There are
thousands of others out there where WI is/was
nothing but a big problem.

If you think not, again, a sales call is in
order. Become a millionaire overnight. All you
have to do is get a major manufacturer to buy it
and offer it as an option on their cars.

Where I come from, we call that, "putting your
money where your mouth is." To debate with me on
the internet is a waste of your time! At this
point, it appears to be a waste of mine too!

Chumley

 

[turboICE]

Again your replies imply that my posts says something that they do not. I have had water injection on over a dozen of my own cars and been involved in scores of others.

Obviously you are not aware of the cost of marketing, development and the related cost of venture capital. You don't just call a car company and say Hi I want to sell you something, oh and by the way it is something you are already intimately familar with, have done your own R&D, have decided that it is not economically feasible from a retail application to the average consumer who won't maintain it properly - but hey give me money anyway. Your argument is nothing but cliche's and only makes sense in your mind - it does not begin to approach scientific support for your claims that WI is limited in the ways that you have said. I put my money in my pocket everyday that I am not dumping fuel into an engine that will never be burned in the cylinder and am using the most efficient and effective coolant for internal engine use - water.

I comprehend what you have said very well - you have said WI is of limited usefulness and that it is inferior to fuel dumping - I have proven otherwise. Do you remember what you have posted? But I agree that this diaglogue has proven useless since yet again I have not found out anything negative about water injection from it. Though I still wish you would visit my forum and explain to all of them how wrong they all are or how they are missing out on making millions.

 

[outrun]

Had to reply as this thread is becoming a bit personal for the posters.

At least from the reading and other web sites of WI users it seems to be my conclusion that WI is best for Supercharged & Turbocharged applications.

From the other web sites detonation under WOT boost seems to be eliminated...sort of an octane increasing effect??

WI from my readings would not be necessary in NA applications.

Second, WI is most useful in a "hot" engine, as in one that is driven long enough for all the fluids to heat up and stay that way. A highway, long distance driver perhaps.

The main down point is that you may have to be changing your oil more often.

In addition to Oil Analysis may be further necessary to observe H20 level present at changes.

And yes, both sides have presented quite subjective arguments.

Thanks-