[killerbee]

You know they used to sell a simple water injection kit for the 6.5's that was just like this. Some installed it infront of the turbo just like KB wants to do.

If you have more details, that would be appreciated.

If the nozzle was cut into the side of the in tube, I would fully expect what you describe.

I have not met, talked to, or even heard of anyone taking aim on the center nut. Mainly becuase it is not easy to accomplish.

I do recall aquamist playing with this concept.

 

[TheBac]

I removed most of the posts that had NOTHING to do with this topic, as they added nothing to the discussion. Stop the personal attacks immediately.

Its just a theory. Even if KB were to ever build something, he already said he'd test it on his own truck first.

 

[Kennedy Diesel]

You know they used to sell a simple water injection kit for the 6.5's that was just like this. Some installed it infront of the turbo just like KB wants to do. Well guess what? It wasn't worth a ****! The compressor wheel on the turbo was eroded away. At least 6.5's don't have Air-to-air coolers on them... Like everyone else has said injecting water on the hot side of the IC is plain old STUPID!!!! If some of you don't get that then too bad, there are just some wheels that can't be re-invented.

You bet!

Add to that, the Vendor that was selling them totally BS'd the GM Diesel Community by stating that he'd been doing these setups since the late 80's when the Banks turbo came out. Some of us knew better then, and know better now...

 

[Kennedy Diesel]

I'll try to focus on the first issue at hand which is going to be blade wear.

To think that one could have instantaneous evaporation on the inlet of the turbo under normal conditions is ludicrous. Maybe you could rig a glow plug and spray it onto the tip. :laugh_explode:

How much (if any) of an "eye" is there to this hurricane? Even IF you could somehow manage to get the stream onto the shaft center, the water will simply splatter and the resultant droplets will hit the blades. The blades are moving VERY fast and the force of impact will take it's toll over time. It will take a considerable increase in energy to spin the turbo. Then there's the potential for recirculation of these droplets through the port shroud slot...

I too can "think outside the box" but I generally float my ideas off of others before making public suggestions. In this case, the public suggestion is flat out dangerous to the long term health of the vehicle. If you think it will work, try it on your own truck but please don't risk the trucks of others...

 

[stevebos]

To members that own any manufacturer / model light duty deisel pickup:

Generally speaking, does use of a water/methanol injection system, injecting water only, have an impact on engine coolant temperatures?

1. Do any members that run a water/methanol injection system inject 100% water?

2. If so, what is the impact on engine coolant temperatures?

Thanks in advance!

 

[killerbee]

a box cutter won't be enough

It takes a lot to get this kind of rise out of me, so I hope this doesn't offend anyone. After 2 days of listening to you say nothing (all deleted now), I felt that somebody needed to say this, and the mods here are just so nice, considering.

John, how much of your post is from ANY experience? Please support, with SOME kind of rationalle, what your basis is for predicting this "failure to evaporate".

It's no hurricane. It sure as heck isn't a motorcycle ride.
The forces within a turbo, dwarf an atomic detonation, when scaled. Forget the hurricane. That will only add 1 psi to your day, at ground level. The weight of an entire atmosphere only starts to approximate this disturbance force potential, soooo drops on a windshield don't pose any real analogous threat to my argument, we throw around 20-30 psi like it was something easy to do. Sorry...

fissiks:RTFM:

I taught propulsion 15 years ago. Jet propulsion. The same multibillion dollar weapon systems that keep you comfortable in your garage and guarantee your right to speak this line of.... And in those million dollar GE engines, megatons of water has been safely sprayed onto radial, and axial compressor blades. When your freedom comes into question, nobody will be whining about a little wear on takeoff roll, nor will taxpayers question the cost of the added thrust resultant on an extend maneuver. So don't worry, your right to free speech is in good hands and very safe. And properly executed, WI is very safe also. And a whole lot more effective

If this was a contest where ego counts, I lose. But it is not. This (thread topic) involves real concepts, out of real science. And yes, it is very possible this is being discussed on a forum, because it involves controversial concepts, that have human opinions and objections. Real concerns. That was understood by everyone, and continues to be understood.

but so it is clear:

Disclaimer: JK believes this may be harmful to your vehicle.







​

There. The forum is safe from me once again. :bow: I just feel better that you will stop kicking the dogs now.

Everyone has seen white vapor form on the top surface of a high speed wing pulling a few G's on a humid day? Water droplets formed from camber induced low pressure. This at much less than 1 psi of lift. In the compressor the exact opposite occurs, on a scale 100X more effective. Millisecond compression and explosive evaporation. Big time temp increase reduction also, derived from waters latent heat of vaporization. How much, depends on several things.

The turbo does less work, not more. In fact, it will slow down, because less rpm will be required to produce the same boost. Physics! FACTS!:RTFM:

Adding insult to injury, the least of your turbos problems is water. I have seen oil coked on the overdriven bearing, molten turbine blades...for some here, the turbo won't last long enough to be damaged by water, when applied less that one tenth of one percent of its operating life, for purposes of cooling expansion. Air molecules carry all the punch necessary to destroy this turbocharger.

 

[killerbee]

To members that own any manufacturer / model light duty deisel pickup:

Generally speaking, does use of a water/methanol injection system, injecting water only, have an impact on engine coolant temperatures?

1. Do any members that run a water/methanol injection system inject 100% water?

2. If so, what is the impact on engine coolant temperatures?

Thanks in advance!

These are good questions. I just don't know of anyone who has measured thermal shedding capacity against it.

Maybe I will be able to.

 

[dieseldummy]

I guess I missed the part that explained why this is a better idea than the high pressure water injection systems that inject after the intercooler? The pre-turbo injection kit I mentioned was installed in the intake tube before the turbo, it didn't point directly at the center of the turbo's shaft... I do beleive that the result will be the same if not worse. Like JK stated above when the stream of water hits the shaft it will turn into large droplets and take its toll on the compressor wheel. Also, last time I checked the purpose of turbochargers on diesels is different than a jet engine in a plane. Just because it works "acceptably" in one application doesn't mean it is ok for another.

 

[killerbee]

Point understood.

To address why I feel pre-turbo is viable, it is a result of what I/we are trying to accomplish. Normally WI is used to lower charge temp in a SI vehicle, thereby permitting more spark advance, power and economy. These vehicles are not concerned about overheating up 8% grades, at 45 mph. Conventionally, the mist is injected post CAC, for mainly one reason: they want the CAC to cool first, then use evap cooling for further temperature reduction, and charge density. And it is hard to argue that route for that intended application

Now trying to adapt WI to the non-spark vehicle, in a completely different context: cooling the charge temp before the CAC, so that the radiator has a cooler airstream for a more effective cooling system. If the heat rejection load on the CAC is reduced, the cooling airstream picks up less heat from it, and the radiator does it's job better. The CAC is a huge burden to overheat resistance, both because of it resistance to ambient flow, and the heat rejection which elevates ambient air (50-60 degrees) right before it goes to work on the radiator. That's huge.

To see how this happens, turbo air enters the CAC at 450, and is expected to cool to 150, a 300 degree reduction, using 5000 cfm of ambient as the cooling media. We know the Dmax sucks down 1000 cfm (uncompressed). Energy balance

(m Cp deltaT)ambient=(m Cp deltaT)charge

The rest of the math is basic, since the specific heat, Cp, of air (same for each media) cancels out.

5000*deltaT=300*1000 , deltaT=60 degrees

And it can be mostly eliminated with effective evaporative cooling, IF enough water can be evaporated prior to the CAC. It remains to be seen. But the only shot at doing that is with something as potent as this egg beater. It is perfect for this. IMO. And it is there waiting for a shot.

I figured the kit you mentioned was done the old-fashioned way, firing into the wall of the cylinder. The video earlier in this thread demonstrates why that is a poor idea, and I can tell you from education, that pooling water stream, hitting a 1200 mph blade tip is the surest way to shorten life. No question. So I would not be surprised to hear that it was a scandal.

To dig further, I did a couple of calcs, and the air traveling in the pre-turbo tube moves at about 50 mph +/-. The spray emitted from a nozzle has a rough velocity of 40 mph. It slows very quickly, after emission (hehe). The spray will hit the other side of the cylinder wall, and pool, before it travels 4 inches through the tube at 50 mph. So unless the nozzle is closer than 4 inches to the compressor, a stream will form: death to the compressor over time.

So I say, screw that, inject at the slow moving portion, let accelerative forces do the rest, it's free. Honestly, as fast as the water is moving, I don't think the wall would ever get wet, I don't think the blade tips would either. If it sounds like it makes more sense, a narrow spray could do the job also, the center of the blades has a fraction of the velocity as the tips, and has less role in compression.

 

[Diesel Tech]

So KB show me a CAC on a jet fighter............. The problem is simple Physics as the moisture hits a cool surface it attaches itself to it, as more and more moisture is present water droplets will form. Water is heavier than air so it tends to fall to the bottom (gravity). The outlet from the CAC is near the bottom so when enough water get sent up into the motor and it ends up in one cylinder it hydrolocks....... now what?

Useing your own example parts are damaged on a fighter plane but due to the way it's used it's OK, as the turbines are replaced every 100 hours or so. Would anyone like to replace your motor every 100 hours or so............... I think not. Idea's are great and I'm all for thinking outside the box but you need to look at the whole system not just one part. KB seems dead set against looking any further than a piece of paper to see what's going to happen. Let's drop the BS your spreading and put your system on your truck. go buy some real gauges and a data logger then report your findings. Something else you have refused to do with anything you've come up with. After that put a few hundred hours of operation on it and test again, then someone might believe you.

 

[Kennedy Diesel]

It only takes 1/2 oz of common sense to know what is going to happen...

 

[killerbee]

I'll talk to myself

The CAC is a huge burden to overheat resistance, both because of it resistance to ambient flow, and the heat rejection which elevates ambient air (50-60 degrees) right before it goes to work on the radiator. That's huge.

So, if water is evaporated in this manner. charge air temp is reduced. Thence the ambient is heated less by the CAC. It is exactly equivalent to operating on a cooler day. If that 60 degree rise, is only a 30 degree rise, then it is much like having a 70 degree day, instead of a 100 degree day.

I will dig out the texts and figure out how much water it takes to do this. In the meantime, if there is anyone who thinks they have anything to say that would support moving forward, you should not sit at home comfortable in your silence.

It reminds me a little of a gradeschool schoolyard. :nunu: Naturally, with no common sense, I was never intimidated by it. I am reminded when reading at night, that the lightbulb inventor wasn't either. The only difference today, is we have the internet to help hasten the humiliation. I live for this.:knight:

How much water, in lb/minute or gallon/hr, when evaporated, will bring 1000 cfm of air, from 400 to 200 F, a mere 200 degree reduction? That will give about a 40 degree improvement to the cooling air for radiator cooling. More than significant. Then the humidity of the resultant air charge must be calculated, it must stay under 90%. That will reasonably assure that no condensation (100% RH) can occur if the charge is cooled further. To make it easy, assume a 100 degree day, with 40% RH. Don't hurt yourself John.

For anyone interested in looking at this, everything needed for the answer can be found in section 12 of "Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook", titled "psychrometry, evaporative cooling..." Most book stores will have a copy. The reference data can be found in other places as well. I would love it if I weren't the only one interested in this.

 

[Guest]

A quick question...as I have lost my way on this thread. Are you proposing cooling engine coolant temps...or EGT's? It seems to me that cooling EGT's would be the biggest advantage if this works...but I'm having a hard time coming to the conclusion that it would cool engine coolant temps, since it appears that the only time this would come close to coolant would be in the cylinders...and the heat of ignition would nearly negate that anyway.

But I'll add again that I don't know anything about GM's and how they operate, and if you are talking about cooling EGT's, well, nevermind.

Dave

 

[killerbee]

OK.

this goes back to a description of what happens to ambient air in the cooling stack. I'm going from memory of tests I have done, and some calcs from long ago, and most of this translates to all intercooled diesel trucks.

100 degree day.

For the purposes of heat exchange, we have a 4 layer cooling stack.

tranny cooler-TOC
ac condenser-ACC
CAC
radiator-RAD

each layer adds temperature to that 100 degree air during WOT conditions. The ambient temperature lifts higher, the deeper it goes.


Temp of ambient air after each stage

TOC-107 (+7)
ACC-122 (+15)
CAC-172 (+50)

See, the radiator suffers most, the coolant must get its cooling from 172 degree air. If you take the biggest rise out of the progression (CAC-50 F rise in this case) you get 122 degree air. Much more effective cooling.

Naturally there are other benefits, increased turbo efficiency, lower temp combustion charge, lower egts, etc, but the focus is on cooling system expansion.

Does this make more sense. Cooling the air charge before it hits the CAC, makes the rad work better in WOT conditions

 

[chloeourdog]

KillerBee,

Back to your question:

"The molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its standard enthalpy change of vaporisation, 40.8 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 JK−1mol−1)."

So my question:

Water vaporizing when it hits the center bolt of the turbo will remove 5 times the heat that water would normally remove when heated a full 212 degrees (by the turbo - although our coolant is heated from say 190 degrees [normal operating temperature] to 255 degrees [65 degree difference with water under pressure so it does not vaporize] during an overheat situation) .... I think I am starting to understand where you are going with this .... bear with me, I am an EE not an ME or CE or fluid dynamics expert

A modern inkjet printer uses a piezo-electric print head to control the size and rate of drops for ink .... I believe it is controllable in picoLiter increments .... very precise control. Could a similar method be employed with water placed very very close to the center bolt of the tubo as posted earlier?

My other question is as follows: The heat pulled from the turbo must go somewhere (removed by the vapor - the CAC would receive the vapor first, then it would be drawn into the engine ....) and ultimately it would end up in the exhaust?

 

[Guest]

Let's stay ON TOPIC, again this is just theory. Why do some people get so upset when people discuss theories.

 

[4wheeln]

Attempting to paraphrase

1)This is just a hypothetical conversation at this point.

2)Post pros and cons or concerns

3)Purpose of the thought is to assist cooling ECT and Engine compartment and not direct power gain although it could be a by product.

The above 3 items are what I think the goals of the post are, yes?

I assume as the feedback is discussed, it will be decided if this is possible or not.

Since this is all theory, I do not understand the testing requirement demands.

Personally I am doubtful that it can become reality. Why? In my mind I also am worried on water spray directly at turbo nut and the condensation in a CAC. However, the conversation is interesting and maybe something can be learned. I am not a diesel owner but some of these discussions I monitor assist me with my ongoing gasser project.

On a side note to KB, I appreciate the Engineering approach to the discussion but in my opinion, a more laymens discussion might help to keep the topic moving forward. For example, stating that a certain amount of btu can be shed with a certain amount of water or evaporation should be good enough for most. The actual math, calculations, theorums, etc, I believe makes the topic too confusing. Just my opinion but I have seen several questions already on what you are trying to achieve. I would just say cooling the CAC to improve the cooling capability of the radiator. Not very scientific, but pretty clear and maybe people can move away from the WI performance discussions.

My 72 cents worth.
;-)
4wheeln

 

[4wheeln]

I posted a Thanks to Cooksville post above.

Idea / input presented and understandable to a reasonable degree. People may not understand how a print head works but obviously it is understood that a print head has metering capability and precision capability.

The comment on the vaporized water vs the radiator water is understandable also. Maybe not the reason or theory behind why the vaporizing water does more work (if you will) then the raditor water but the message is clear as it being more efficient.

Okay, back to the sidelines and I apologize for the deviation.

4wheeln

That is what I was trying to imply on my message above.

4wheeln

 

[killerbee]

"The molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its standard enthalpy change of vaporisation, 40.8 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 JK−1mol−1)."

So my question:

Water vaporizing when it hits the center bolt of the turbo will remove 5 times the heat that water would normally remove when heated a full 212 degrees (by the turbo - although our coolant is heated from say 190 degrees [normal operating temperature] to 255 degrees [65 degree difference with water under pressure so it does not vaporize] during an overheat situation) .... I think I am starting to understand where you are going with this .... bear with me, I am an EE not an ME or CE or fluid dynamics expert

A modern inkjet printer uses a piezo-electric print head to control the size and rate of drops for ink .... I believe it is controllable in picoLiter increments .... very precise control. Could a similar method be employed with water placed very very close to the center bolt of the tubo as posted earlier?

My other question is as follows: The heat pulled from the turbo must go somewhere (removed by the vapor - the CAC would receive the vapor first, then it would be drawn into the engine ....) and ultimately it would end up in the exhaust?

I like round numbers and imperial units, as I am accustomed to it. When water evaporates, energy is absorbed. The endothermic process results in decreases air temp. a pound of water, completely evaporated, consumes 1000 BTU. This is almost unchanged across the pressure spectrum, of 2-3 bar, typical turbo compression.

The turbo takes air at 100 degrees, and compresses it. This compression creates very hot dense air, at 450 degrees, (adiabatic compession). Well above the BP of the water at 2 atm (BP=250 degrees) This is a tremendous evaporation opportunity waiting for a mechanism. We all know water readily evaporates much more readily past its BP. Heating a pan of water demonstrates that.

Back to evaporation. Taking water at it's boiling point and evaporating it at its boiling point, requires 1000 BTU's for every pound. Compare this to the energy required to heat a pound of water, without evaporating it. 1 btu/lb F. IOW, the energy required to evaporate a pound of water, is exactly equivalent to heating it 1000 degrees (same as what you said Mark), without a state change. Impossible for all practical purposes to do, but that demonstrates the power of evaporation.

The heat energy (BTU's) to do this has to come from somewhere. In the kitchen it is supplied by the burner. In the turbo, it comes from the hot air. That air cools as it trades it's energy for water vapor.

Constraints exist however. In our case, the most water that can be evaporated, is constrained by how much vaporous water that the air can hold, referred to as humidity. 100% RH limits us. Beyond that, you get condensation.


Not sure if I am just confusing you more, but the significance of the state change, from liquid to vapor, is not well understood. This is all nothing new. GE and other manufacturers have been using water 24/7 on many of there electricity producing engines for many years. For fuel savings.

I live in a place where I can survive out of doors in 125 degree heat, if I have a water supply. It is the only way I could do a 2 hour mountain bike ride today, after I post this. It has also saved the lives of many people here, as well as my dog. It is not the quick comfort feeling of cool water on the skin, it is the evaporation over the following 20 minutes that is cooling the skin. With a water soaked long sleeved shirt, I feel like it is 85 degrees out, when I am riding 12 mph. My water loss is exponentially decreased, and my skin blood supply keeps my brain and internals from boiling. But don't try this if you live in the tropics. It doesn't work.

Compared to what we are looking at in terms of capacity in the turbo-diesel, this is an extremely mild form of evap cooling, .

Air....in the intake tract...is analogous to skin....in the above example.

(it does need mentioning, that most of the energy that evaporates the water from a cotton shirt, goes to lowering the surrounding air temperature, so the effect of cooling the skin is valid, but it is an inefficient use of water, UNLIKE contained evaporation withing the intake tract. All of the water get used for the intended purpose)

At home you can see this. soak a sock in rubbing alcohol (don't use the good scotch) and fit it over your hand. Now stick your hand out the window of a moving vehicle. You may just get mild frostbite. Yet much of the cooling is cooling the air around your hand, a waste. A residential "evaporative cooler" does this exactly. Pass relatively dry air over a wet mat, and you get cooler air in your house, albeit humid.


Back to the TD: as altitude increases, there is reduced humidity typically, making this more effective in the worst conditions for overheat.

If I haven't answered your question please ask it again

 

[killerbee]

1)This is just a hypothetical conversation at this point. Yup

2)Post pros and cons or concerns Yup

3)Purpose of the thought is to assist cooling ECT and Engine compartment and not direct power gain although it could be a by product. Yup

The above 3 items are what I think the goals of the post are, yes? Yup

I assume as the feedback is discussed, it will be decided if this is possible or not.

Since this is all theory, I do not understand the testing requirement demands. Me neither

Personally I am doubtful that it can become reality. I share the concern

Why? In my mind I also am worried on water spray directly at turbo nut and the condensation in a CAC. However, the conversation is interesting and maybe something can be learned. Not everyone LOL


I am not a diesel owner but some of these discussions I monitor assist me with my ongoing gasser project.

On a side note to KB, I appreciate the Engineering approach to the discussion but in my opinion, a more laymens discussion might help to keep the topic moving forward. For example, stating that a certain amount of btu can be shed with a certain amount of water or evaporation should be good enough for most. The actual math, calculations, theorums, etc, I believe makes the topic too confusing. Just my opinion but I have seen several questions already on what you are trying to achieve. I would just say cooling the CAC to improve the cooling capability of the radiator. Not very scientific, but pretty clear and maybe people can move away from the WI performance discussions.

My 72 cents worth.
;-)
4wheeln

thank you thank you.:Thumbup:

The technical is boring for most, I agree. Trying my best to keep the books closed:thanks: