Originally Posted by wotnartd (Post 120269)

You don't have to be goody-goody friends and sleep together. Leave sleeping dogs lie.

Phoenix had no business stakes, like you, none. He's just a butthurt loungerat.

Originally Posted by wotnartd (Post 120274)

Simmer, simmer.

Any loungerat, any real loungerat, would have had a snappier comeback with anal sex.

Originally Posted by RotaryResurrection (Post 120277)

I'm just not going to let people come over here and tell us that we shouldn't show disdain for the evil forum, we should forgive, etc. F*** that. They haven't seen fit to "forgive and forget" by reopening our accounts yet. That would be a show of good faith but they arent willing to take that step. So, keep your "live and let live" BS to yourself, mmmmkay?

Originally Posted by RotaryResurrection (Post 120266)

Don't you guys get it? We don't want to be goody-goody friends with rx7club.

Originally Posted by My5ABaby (Post 120292)

There's a difference between showing disdain and outright bashing every chance possible. That I've noticed Kevin you haven't really outright bashed, at least that I can recall lately. Your posts about the 7 club tend to be more factual.

Originally Posted by My5ABaby (Post 120292)

:rofl: Nobody sees "what is". Everyone has their own viewpoint on things and the world of appearance is more appealing to EVERYONE. If you wanted an accurate quote as opposed to one that insinuates that your viewpoint is "what is", it should be "Everyone sees what they want to see. The world of appearance is more appealing than reality". That's human nature. However, there are facts to be had such bashing on stuff is negative. Negativity is unpleasant. People are turned away from unpleasant things. I think where we disagree is that you believe your self-serving bashing is a positive and I don't.

Originally Posted by RotaryResurrection (Post 120294)

Speaking for myself, I dont go around bashing 7club for the fun of it. I dont bring it up in conversation. But if someone ELSE brings it up or mentions it, or asks me about it...what should I say? I'm not the type to beat around the bush...if you ask a straight question you will get a straight answer, like it or not. I'm going to call a spade a spade, that's just the way it is.

Going back to the exgf/wife analogy, you are out at dinner among friends and one of your friends brings up your ex, your first comment is likely going to be "f*ck that bitch". Whether or not you are with someone new is irrelevant. If it was a bad breakup and someone you really cared a lot about, you are going to have that feeling about them for as long as you are alive. IF not, then you were not really ever passionate about it.

IF you were to go around and every day at lunch with your friends, at work, at home, constantly you were saying "man, that ex gf of mine is a bitch, f*ck that whore..." then yeah, you would be going way too far with it.

That's not what is happening here. Someone else brought it up, we are just responding. There's nothing wrong or unnatural about that. And yes, it's likely to always be that way, at least for me, as long as I am part of the community. When the day comes that I walk away from rotaries for good, then I will cease to care about the 7club debacle along with it. Until then, I am still reminded of it on a weekly basis, and I will continue to carry the flag and let everyone know why there is a problem with the way they do things.

Originally Posted by RICE RACING (Post 120089)

I just can't help myself !

*up to date recent example of how much of a keyboard whore that worthless BDC clown is*

Originally Posted by BDC (Post 10047773)

Howdy folks,

I just recently took a long trip from DFW to McAllen, Tx. Each way was over 560 miles and I did it solo. Needless to say, once the "road trip thrill" wore off, I had a lot of time to myself to think about things. I spent the majority of it ruminating over technical stuff and especially the whole AI thing. I'm not interested in making a "water vs. alcohol" thing as I feel that both fluids are powerful in as much as being helpful to the engine for reliability reasons.

I've said it a zillion times both on these forums and in public: The determining factor in making engine power, hardware aside, is the quality of the fuel used. Period.

Even after my experiment w/ the hot-air setup on my Turbo II, I've still got questions about the modes of action and the real efficacy AI has in our engines. It's my contention that both due to the unique nature of the rotary engine as well as its tendency at creating massive amounts of heat under heavy loads compared to piston engines that alcohol and water injection are very desirable. The longer I continue tuning the cars the more I'm leaning towards the notion that every one of our turbo cars need, at the very least, a basic water injection setup, if not a more complex all alcohol setup. I also believe that, due to the experiments that several of us have done up to this point over the last few years, there's an explosive amount of power with reliability awaiting us once this stuff becomes more technically understood and "standardized". It wouldn't surprise me if the somewhat ambiguous "1 bar on pump gas" deal becomes a thing of the past for us.

So far, we've got these basic setups available to us:

-) Pre-turbo water injection, pumpless (pneumatic)
-) Pre-turbo water injection, pumped (electronic)
-) Post-turbo water injection, aft of the throttle body, pressurized system
-) Post-turbo alcohol injection, pre throttle body
-) Post-turbo alcohol injection, hot-air setup (ala Stylemon and myself)
-) Post-Turbo water/alcohol combination

The properties of both fluids that are important in my opinion:

-) Specific Heat Index
-) Latent Heat of Evapouration
-) Autoignition Temperature (Alcohols)
-) Flash Temperature (Alcohols)

Also, I'm not forgetting that both are proven to combat carbon buildup in an engine. I've personally seen what heavy alcohol injection does to the innards - literally zero carbon on the rotors and little carbon in both intake manifolds all the way to the back of the throttle body (via reversion). Amazing stuff. The lingering thorn in my side I've had about carbon build-up is that not only does it theoretically raise compression ratios artificially but it also can produce hot spots that can act as "glow plugs" and intermittently ignite a compressing charge prior to a timed spark event.

As Howard Coleman's written about in his 3rd-gen section thread, the big one here is the latent heat factor in as much as the cooling BTU's that are delivered when the water or alcohol makes a change of state from fluid to vapour:

"The input of energy required by a change of state from liquid to vapor at constant temperature is called the latent heat of vaporization. When a liquid undergoes a change to vapor state at normal boiling point the temperature of the liquid will not rise beyond the temperature of the boiling point.

The specific latent heat of vaporization is the amount of heat required to convert unit mass of a liquid into the vapor without a change in temperature."

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fl...eat-d_147.html

Some latent heat, autoignition, and flash numbers:

-) Gasoline, 150btu/lb, ~500*F, -45*F
-) Methyl Alcohol, 506btu/lb, ~870*F, 52*F
-) Ethyl Alcohol, 400btu/lb, ~790*F, 57*F
-) Water, ~1000 btu/lb, n/a, n/a

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fueltable.pdf

The main differences between the two fluids as I see them: even though water has twice the latent heat of methyl alcohol, it's inert, therefore its only real benefit is strictly cooling. It strikes me that given its high latent heat it makes for a stellar combustion chamber coolant (to more importantly work during the compression stroke when pressures and temperatures are going up to help prevent fuel autoignition) as well as efficacious as a turbocharger's compressor coolant when done pre-turbo. Of course, the question of wheel erosion comes into play here with respect to the atomization of water: Can and will it destroy a compressor wheel over time? Water is extremely tough and I can't see a wheel not being chewed up over time if the atomization is extremely fine. But, that's just me. It might be that it's a moot point in terms of the trade-off of being able to extend the operating efficiency of the compressor by drawing heat out of its job of being an air compressor. I read a lengthy article once about how a gentleman, due to pre-turbo water injection, was able to run higher boosts (and prevent overheating) on his diesel truck when it was challenged by heat and high altitude/steep angle towing on the highway from LA to Las Vegas.

The other thing that comes to mind about pre-turbo water injection is this: Even though from a fault tolerance perspective (of not having to run an electric pump that can fail, etc.), if the latent heat factor is the big benefit of water injection, how much of that desirable property is lost with heat being drawn out of the water into the compressor? In other words, how much would one have to inject to be both beneficial to the compressor as well as ultimately the engine's combustion chamber? How much water here is being converted to steam in the compressor and therefore how much is left over on the compressor discharge to be of benefit in the combustion chamber? That's the meaning behind the thread's title, "Modes of Action and Efficacy". While I'm sure some (like rx72c) may disagree here, and that could just simply be due to my ignorance, it seems to me that a water injection setup belongs on an already tuned, 100% gasoline car where a measure of reliability is desired or when a small margin of that gasoline is to be replaced with water (where gasoline is commonly used as the assumed, de facto chamber coolant with air/fuel mixtures richer than 12:1). Perhaps the disagreement I would have with them is because of the massive amounts (upwards of 700cc/min!) folks like rx72c or Rice Racing use in their pre-turbo setups. Perhaps that amount of water is doing two things - moderate charge temp reduction and massive combustion chamber temp cooling. However, I still can't help but believe it's not the best approach (attempting to fight ever increasingly higher chamber temps by injecting more and more water even though the setup is still using the same, base fuel that's only efficacious in a colder and less brutal environment). From a certain perspective, it seems to make more sense instead to do two things: Create the same chamber cooling effects while bringing the base fuel's stability and "heat range" up to better match the hotter and more ferocious chamber environment we're trying to create.

It's kind of like the difference in approach between bringing cold air to the air filter (ala the cold air box) vs. taking the air filter to the cold air. By the way, in my experimentation with taking an air filter outside of the engine bay to the outside showed a drop of 40-45*F in cruising IAT's and no doubt helped with boost IAT's. The type of material used in the ducting, heat wrapping, and all that other jazz did absolutely nothing to increase that difference in temps.

I also am curious what kind of ignition hardware is required for such large amounts of water injection like this and whether or not said requirements reach well past what's normally equipped on these cars.

Even as little as 100cc of water, assuming 100% of it hits the combustion chamber and isn't converted into steam prior, has the cooling BTUs (due to its unparalleled latent heat) equivalent to that of over 650cc/min of gasoline when being used strictly as a chamber coolant! It's 650% as efficient as gasoline as a chamber coolant! That's undeniably incredible. However, other than the possibility of it occurring on a pre-turbo setup, I can't see water being a big help with IAT's especially on an intercooled setup. To make use of its high latent heat, the charge temps would have to be very, very high; high enough past the point where, with a pump fuel setup, knock begins to occur. That's why I think it's better served at the throttle where more of it can reach the chamber in pure form and do its job there.

The argument I draw from the questions above are why I am philosophically-speaking a fan of post-turbo water injection even though I don't dismiss the obvious benefits of pre-turbo injection. In my view, when a powerplant is using an intercooler alongside an air filter setup whose air source is from the ambient atmosphere and not the engine bay, I can see how a post-turbo water injection would be a powerful addition when running an all pump-gas setup. As shown, even a few hundred cc/min of injection, which is pretty easy to pull off post-turbo with a pump setup running high pressure, will do a gigantic amount of chamber cooling, will stave off heat-related knock, and will enable the ability to run somewhat leaner mixtures. It seems like the "cherry on top" of a typical, tuned pump gas setup when we want reliability, even being sprayed in a static amount. Water's not corrosive, cheap, and doesn't require extensive hardware to make safely work.

One side note.

The real reason why the tuning trend over the past many years for pump gas-only street cars being tuned to ridiculously rich air/fuel mixtures of mid-high 10's:1 is because the gasoline is being used as a chamber coolant (a piss-poor one at that) to try and help prevent blowing itself up. Yes, we run fatter what's necessary for power under acceleration (arguably mid-high 12's:1) because it's easy to manipulate an EFI system to inject more fuel under load as a marginal way to stave off engine knock (and even then it doesn't yield a large margin). Let me re-phrase this for those that may not have gotten it: We put more gasoline in because we're trying to keep gasoline from exploding early. I contend the problem is pre-ignition due to auto-ignition (when a fuel ignites on its own due to the hot environment around it) in the compression stroke. I think because of pump gasoline's lower auto-ignition temperature and instability it's making engines blow up at relatively low boost levels. This causes the power stroke to start too early, create wild chamber pressures in the successive strokes, and kaboom the motor. The same thing happens when a nimrod of a "tuner" manually fires the spark plug too early. It also happens when running too hot The other whammy is real detonation: the possibility of being able to cause a second flamefront behind the one initiated by a timed spark event from running too damn rich a mixture (when the mixture is so rich and the chamber being so hot that a second stage of combustion starts on its own). Running excessively richer gasoline mixtures in a denser and denser chamber environment also challenges the ignition system. It's difficult to get much burning past low-mid 10's:1 on a gasoline setup unless the ignition hardware behind it is really powerful.

Originally Posted by BDC

On to alcohol.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a fuel that burns and therefore lends itself more closely to the rules and practices of tuning. Depending upon which type of alcohol (ethyl vs. methyl), much more of it in volume is required compared to gasoline to create the same heat energy (Heating value in btu/lbs). For example, if running an all pump gasoline setup with even a 200cc/min replacement of gasoline with methyl alcohol, nearly 400cc/min of that alcohol would have to be used to produce the same heat energy and produce the same air/fuel ratio. Side note: This is also the reason, when fuel manufacturers swapped from MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) as a fuel oxygenate over to ethanol up to 10% volumes, why some folks experienced suddenly running mild to moderately leaner air/fuel mixtures with nothing on the tune or hardware changed.

Other than consumption and alcohol's corrosivity (methyl alcohol in particular) which necessarily calls for strict hardware to be used in said injection system (teflon-cored, stainless steel braided lines w/ brass ends and not cheap nylon or rubber tubing for example), I think it carries multiple benefits over and above water:

-) Incredible charge coolant due to low flash temp; so much so that it's possible to run hot-air with big boost, therefore requiring less intake hardware and a shorter plumbing run
-) Even though only half as good as water, still a terrific chamber coolant
-) "Raises" the base fuel's chamber temperature tolerance due to it being a much more stable burning fuel over gasolines and having a higher "effective" octane rating
-) Much less change of knock due to high auto ignition temperature (almost 400*F above typical pump gasolines and about 200-300 over most leaded race gasolines)
-) Robust alcohol injection systems can inject massive amounts of alcohol, which enable the ability to run heavy ratios of gasoline to alcohol (80/20 and richer), therefore yielding the possibility of running a less hardware intensive fuel system (not needing to max out large injectors or run humongous fuel pumps)

One more advantage that alcohol has is this: it contains less carbon atoms than gasolines. Therefore, richer mixtures (in alcohol volume) can be run without flooding the motor and fouling out plugs. When one runs a gasoline to alcohol ratio like I've experimented with (70/30), where alcohol injection is at and over the 1500cc/min range, it's possible to run air/fuel mixtures in the 9's and experience none of the problems associated with that same mixture on an all gasoline setup. The benefit is this: the extra alcohol is used as a chamber coolant. We can throw even more cooling btu's in the mix while still producing power. It's no surprise folks like Howard Coleman run low 20lbs of boost with mixtures in the 10's:1 on gasoline/alcohol ratios around 80/20 to 75/25 and have zero knock. I've done the same thing at higher boost levels, without an intercooler, breaking all of the accepted "tuning rules", over and over and over again.

600cc/min of methyl alcohol injection is roughly equivalent to 300cc/min of water injection. It's got the cooling capacity of nearly 2000cc/min of gasoline. If you do the math, that's a lot of fuel injector.

Take a 680/1680 injector, large-shaft T4 turbo, street port setup. It can run about 25psi of boost on leaded race gasoline, aiming for a conservative 11.0:1 air/fuel mixture, at duty cycles around 90-95%. Total injector output is around 4200/4300cc/min. Removing one air/fuel mixture point (going from 11:1 to 12:1) would remove about 400cc/min of injection. Replace that 400cc/min with 800cc/min of alcohol to aim back to that 11:1 air/fuel mixture. Not only does that 9% replacement reduce the overall carbon being tossed into the motor (allowing it to realistically run a richer mixture without challenging the spark plugs), it's also increasing the cooling btu's of that 400cc/min (38lbs/hr at 5700btu's/hr) to 38500btu's/hr! That replacement of 400cc of gas with 800cc of methanol will cool 6.76 times better. It'll also make for a more stable fuel that burns colder as well as stretch out the maximum power output of the fuel system.


My experience over the last four years of messing with alcohol injection has shown me that alcohol is where its at. Again, I'm not trying to make another soon-to-be-closed thread that's devolved into Internet heroes fighting about "water vs. alcohol"; this is simply a subjective opinion based on observation. While I'm aware that there's a few folks that go for big boost with huge amounts of water injection (all of them pre-turbo, I think), I still like the idea of attacking the heat-related problems in this engine by pointing the guns at the base fuel and making that base fuel more stable and predictable (with alcohol) instead of trying to drown it in massive amounts of water. That's just me and so far that experience, plus the other beneficial effects of alcohol like being able to run a hot-air setup, have pointed me in that direction. Again, not trying to knock water; I like it for certain setups. I just see alcohol injection taking us further.

Those of us that've used alcohol extensively all conclude the same thing: The more alcohol, the better. The rotary loves it.

What's the overall goal here? We're cramming more and more air into the engine in an attempt to produce more power. What makes power? Density of charge. What comes with increase charge density via forced induction? Temperature. When pressure rises, temperature goes right along with it. We generate more pressure with our desire to run more boost and make more power. The high temperature is the negative byproduct of our efforts to run more boost. The rub is trying to keep this temperature within certain limits (depending primarily on the base fuel, spark plug temp heat range, and other hardware). I think the idea that some folks seems to draw glory from in running high boost on strictly pump gas is foolish as it reminds me of the idiot that stands at the end of the cliff, inching his tippy-toes ever closer to the edge, challenging himself on when he'll eventually fall off. This is where the magnificence of AI comes in and I think for the reliability factor on our engines we all ought to delve into it seriously; so seriously that we all consider it necessary in having a tuned street setup.

Barry? rx72c? Howard? Anybody else? Any thoughts?

B

Originally Posted by BDC (Post 10047791)

Of course, this all sounds great, but I still have questions:

-) Even though we can calculate roughly the latent heat values and all that jazz, just how much is actually needed?
-) What's the best delivery method? Pre-turbo (definitely not for alcohol I'd say) or post-turbo?
-) Why is it, on my hot-air setup, the first version of it failed and knocked the motor like a kid feverishly shaking a can of marbles when I had the alcohol injection nozzles downstream at the throttle? Why did it magically work when I moved them way up-stream and staggered them apart (and therefore saw the dramatic drop in IAT's)? What's the difference between flashing in the intake pipe vs. the manifolds?

And on and on it goes...

Originally Posted by BDC (Post 10050549)

I cracked the upper dowel land on the back housing a while back. I was bouncing off the spark cut rev limiter in 2nd gear showing off to my wife, blowing flames out the back at night. Did it several times... then started smell oil.

B

Originally Posted by AndyMac (Post 120090)

Hi Peter


Hope you're doing well mate. We, the selected fuckwits miss you.

I'm not going to disrepect this forum with trawling out your history with our forum, but I will say you where given every chance, more chances then anyone else to fit in like everyone else.

Blame yourself, not us.


Love FDRX7

Originally Posted by Herblenny (Post 120482)

Part 2 of his rant..

Originally Posted by Herblenny (Post 120483)

Someone asked why his engine is apart.. he responded..



I've heard he builds shitty engines :) But that's what I hear...

Originally Posted by Herblenny (Post 120483)

I've heard he builds shitty engines :) But that's what I hear...

Originally Posted by BDC

Hi Michael Moore,

The same thing happened to me except he evidently banned my email address ahead of time when the forum was initially made. I tried to register when it first started, as I was under the impression that it was Kevin's forum (nice guy, btw), but saw that I couldn't get on.

He's still mad at me for defending a guy on rx7club.com that he was insisting had ripped him off (the whole carbon fiber body parts' thing). I even spoke to him over the phone for a couple of hours. He'd offered me a booth at a DGRR event and then a day or two later called back and rescinded it. I gave him no satisfaction and blew it off. That was over 3 years ago.

He still posts bad things about me on his RotaryCarClub forum to this day. I hear about it often enough from folks.

He is a narcissist; probably manic. He's also a coward. He's interested in only one thing: himself and how he feels. He's trouble and I recommend folks avoid him.

B