DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, May 6 1999 Volume 04 : Number 267 In this issue: Re: atomization enhancement Re: alternative engines Re: atomization enhancement Re: Injectors & harness Re: Reverse Cooling patents Re: alternative engines Re: alternative engines Re: O2 == 1.00? volts? Re: alternative engines absurd pressures figures was: atomization enhancement Re: Reverse Cooling patents Re: alternative engines Re: atomization enhancement Re: atomization enhancement Re: Reverse Cooling patents Re: atomization enhancement Re: alternative engines RE: atomization enhancement Re: O2 == 1.00? volts? RE: atomization enhancement Re: absurd pressures figures was: atomization enhancement CFM Continued... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:09:06 +0200 (MDT) From: Fredrik Skog Subject: Re: atomization enhancement On Fri, 7 May 1999, Howard Wilkinson wrote: First: I live in europe and we don't use the unlogical imperial measurements and I have double checked these figures and it says bar not psi. Second: I have the "Bosch Automotive Handbook" in my hand right now and it says that Bosch common rail uses pressures of up to 1600 bar in their common-rail systems. Third: I have actually driven these vehicles and they work, and they work very good, you can't believe it is a diesel engine when you drive it. This is not bad information, and just because Cummins don't have a way to achieve these pressures don't mean that others don't...please, we live in 1999 now and technology are still getting better. And remember that all of these engines where presented to the market last year or this year so they are very new. > James: > I'm firmly in your camp.......Statements recently made about > Cummins and other engines are absurd. Either someone is mixing up > decimal points or mistaking bar for PSI. I can speak from experience > with Cummins common rail systems when I say that they are nowhere > close to these numbers (I've guaged them). Also The injector pop > pressures of most diesel engines I've worked with would make me think > that someone is mistaking bar and psi pressures. 1500 psi would be a > reasonable breaking pressure for a typical injector, and 4k-5k psi > would be a very high pressure injector. I believe that Cummins B > series and C series engines (not common rail) operate in the latter > range.... don't quote me here as I have only hearsay numbers on these. > There is no way on God's earth that a CAV, Roosamaster, or Stanadyne > rotary pump can produce the pressures people have been throwing about, > and I have grave doubts that any of the piston pumps can do this > either. There is no doubt that diesels develop more power with better > atomization, and run more efficiently.... as do gas engines...this has > long been known, but pressures of 20,000 psi are not only difficult to > achieve, but EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. The only safe way to achieve these > kind of pressures safely would be to do it with an injector which did > the pumping so that there was no danger of line breakage. > We are being deluged with bad information here, but unfortunately > I have no way of convincingly refuting it. In my opinion it's utter > nonsense!! H.W. > > > > >> I just looked this up. All the new german diesel engines use > >> common-rail > >> (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) and uses a pressures of approx 1350 bar. > >> VW has a new diesel at 1.9 liter that uses one separate diesel > >> pump/cyilinder and uses a pressure of 2050 bar. According to all > these > >> manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion. > > > >1350 BAR!?! 2050 BAR?!? > > > >20,000psi and 30,000 psi? Tell me there's a missing decimal > >point, or a units mistake here. 13.5 and 20.5 bar sound more > >believable. > > > >james montebello > > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 08:12:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Ford Subject: Re: alternative engines Previously, you (Aaron Willis) wrote: > At 02:22 PM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote: > >How about if ya had a HUGE donut shaped container, in space, and spun i > >REALLY fast so as to force the air to the outside of the donut, THEN fly > >an airplane within that 'SIMULATED' atmosphere? It would work... > > > >Now you've heard of an atmoshpere existing without gravity... don't all object exert a small gravatational pull ( I think I heard that years ago). doc should know? > > Ha...ALMOST! Even I caught this one. I'm going to count that centrifugal > force that threw the air to the outside of the donut as gravity in this > example. > I think gravity is a different animal. > > Aaron Willis > ICQ #27386985 > AOL IM: hemiyota > http://surf.to/garage-te51 Garage TE51 International - -- Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 07:33:27 -0500 From: Matt S Bower Subject: Re: atomization enhancement Actually the Cummins system they are talking about is absolete nowadays. Cummins does use bosch fuel system quite a bit and those presures ate in line for Cummins just the same. Fredrik Skog wrote: > > On Fri, 7 May 1999, Howard Wilkinson wrote: > > First: I live in europe and we don't use the unlogical imperial > measurements and I have double checked these figures and it says bar not > psi. Second: I have the "Bosch Automotive Handbook" in my hand > right now and it says that Bosch common rail uses pressures of up to 1600 > bar in their common-rail systems. > Third: I have actually driven these vehicles and they work, and they work > very good, you can't believe it is a diesel engine when you drive it. > > This is not bad information, and just because Cummins don't have a way to > achieve these pressures don't mean that others don't...please, we live in > 1999 now and technology are still getting better. And remember that all of > these engines where presented to the market last year or this year so they > are very new. > > > James: > > I'm firmly in your camp.......Statements recently made about > > Cummins and other engines are absurd. Either someone is mixing up > > decimal points or mistaking bar for PSI. I can speak from experience > > with Cummins common rail systems when I say that they are nowhere > > close to these numbers (I've guaged them). Also The injector pop > > pressures of most diesel engines I've worked with would make me think > > that someone is mistaking bar and psi pressures. 1500 psi would be a > > reasonable breaking pressure for a typical injector, and 4k-5k psi > > would be a very high pressure injector. I believe that Cummins B > > series and C series engines (not common rail) operate in the latter > > range.... don't quote me here as I have only hearsay numbers on these. > > There is no way on God's earth that a CAV, Roosamaster, or Stanadyne > > rotary pump can produce the pressures people have been throwing about, > > and I have grave doubts that any of the piston pumps can do this > > either. There is no doubt that diesels develop more power with better > > atomization, and run more efficiently.... as do gas engines...this has > > long been known, but pressures of 20,000 psi are not only difficult to > > achieve, but EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. The only safe way to achieve these > > kind of pressures safely would be to do it with an injector which did > > the pumping so that there was no danger of line breakage. > > We are being deluged with bad information here, but unfortunately > > I have no way of convincingly refuting it. In my opinion it's utter > > nonsense!! H.W. > > > > > > > > >> I just looked this up. All the new german diesel engines use > > >> common-rail > > >> (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) and uses a pressures of approx 1350 bar. > > >> VW has a new diesel at 1.9 liter that uses one separate diesel > > >> pump/cyilinder and uses a pressure of 2050 bar. According to all > > these > > >> manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion. > > > > > >1350 BAR!?! 2050 BAR?!? > > > > > >20,000psi and 30,000 psi? Tell me there's a missing decimal > > >point, or a units mistake here. 13.5 and 20.5 bar sound more > > >believable. > > > > > >james montebello > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University > > Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se > Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog > 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 > Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 04:44:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Re: Injectors & harness - -> Hope the description works. Think of the plumbing like a single - -> injector TBI system, with the injector at regulated pressure. The - -> poppets, connected to the injector, require a minimum pressure to - -> open. Injector opens, pressure opens poppet valves, fuel's squirted. The description is adequate, I just don't see how it can work unless the injector's flow rate is *much* larger than what can be handled by all the nozzles together. Hmm... come to think of it, since it's an intermittent system it just might work that way. Do you have any idea what the flow rating of the injector is? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 04:38:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling patents - -> I lloked thru my Evans file and found some info on the Evans patents - -> for aqueous and non-aqueous ( propylene glycol) cooling systems. The - -> patents for PG systems are: 4,550,694 , 4,630,572 and 5,031,579. I went to IBM's patent site and snarfed down the relevant documents. 4,550,694 appears to describe a boiling coolant system using propylene glycol. A number of details are mentioned - a circulating pump, a vapor catch tank and condensor, etc. There is much discussion of prior art systems, and frankly I have difficulty understanding what makes the Evans implementation unique enough to be patentable. 4,630,572 appears to be an extension of 4,550,694. It is completely rewritten, but covers much the same ground, adding emphasis on reverse flow, adding a drawing of a Wankel application, and additional claims for increased engine efficiency with high temperature operation. Emphasis is placed on the use of an anhydrous (not containing water) coolant. 5,031,579, dated July 16 1991 (almost a year after the public introduction of Chevrolet's LT-1) uses the small block Chevy as an example in its drawings. It again stresses anhydrous coolants, and now includes provison for a "dehydrator" to remove water from the coolant. I can't see any infringements by GM's LT1 engine. GM has used reverse flow cooling decades before the earliest of these patents was issued. GM does not use, and does not recommend use of, propylene glycol coolants. The other claims in the patents are not applicable or are prior art. Either there's some other patent Evans is using to justify their lawsuit, or it's just another nuisance suit, which is why GM maintains a large and competent legal staff. ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:15:17 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines It can only be called simulated gravity... Gravity, by definition is merely a force...which applies to ALL mass and this force is caused by mass... NOT by centrifugal means... i.e. spinning a container... Same rules apply to both however....in this scenario... Thanks for responding with your thoughts.... LATER! Todd....!! http://www.c-com.net/~atc347/toddlnk.htm Aaron Willis wrote: > > At 02:22 PM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote: > >How about if ya had a HUGE donut shaped container, in space, and spun i > >REALLY fast so as to force the air to the outside of the donut, THEN fly > >an airplane within that 'SIMULATED' atmosphere? It would work... > > > >Now you've heard of an atmoshpere existing without gravity... > > Ha...ALMOST! Even I caught this one. I'm going to count that centrifugal > force that threw the air to the outside of the donut as gravity in this > example. > > Aaron Willis > ICQ #27386985 > AOL IM: hemiyota > http://surf.to/garage-te51 Garage TE51 International ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:16:35 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines Thanks, should've caught that in your prev post! Whoops, LATER! Todd....!! xxalexx@xxx.com wrote: > > Check your local 7-11 or food stores public reading room for this > issue of Discover Magazine. Also the sci news groups. > alex > > That idea is intriguing to say the least! > > > > How may I ask, can ANY object which exists LOSE mass? > > > > How did they measrue this, where did you hear/read about this, I'd like > > to read the article/book/newsflash? > > > > PLEASE let me know? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Todd....!! > > > > xxalexx@xxx.com wrote: > > > > > > There have been recent reports being investigated of large fly wheels > > > and levitating superconductors loosing mass. > > > alex > > > > It probably uses cold fusion as its power source. > > > > > > > > Gary Derian > > > > > > > > > > > > > Univ. of Alabamba is working on a anti-gravity car. > > > > > Says could be ready within 10 yrs. > > > > > Will not need fuel injection or conventional fuel as we know it. > > > > > There is a photo of a car airborne, but did not say if prototype. > > > > > article in this issue of Discover Magazine. > > > > > alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:49:57 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: O2 == 1.00? volts? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ludis Langens To: Diy_efi Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 4:58 AM Subject: O2 == 1.00? volts? On a GM: I've seen a few go over 1.00v, I think the record has been 1,06v. I know 0 about the Ford stuff, Bruce > Is it possible for an O2 sensor to output a full volt (plus a few > millivolts)? I thought they peaked out at 9/10ths of a volt or so. The > 1+ volts were measured with a DVM. The meter's ground lead was clipped > to the engine<->body braid. The engine end of this braid is where the > computer picks up the O2 ground. This was on an EEC-IV w/ Motorcraft > 2150 feedback carb. > > I got the 1+ volt reading just after starting a cold engine. The temp > guage hadn't even reached "C" yet. This engine is freshly rebuilt - I > was continuing the initial fast idle break-in after fixing a vacuum leak > / major lean misfire problem. At the time, the engine had 20 to 25 > minutes of running time. Once the engine started warming up a bit, the > computer took over and the O2 started swinging back and forth. > > > In a related matter, what is the proper position of the idle mixture > adjustment screws? I assume that they should be set so that the > feedback solenoid is running at around 50%. > > -- > Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com > Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:22:36 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines Speakin of that, Today, I believe, is national prayer day, a LOT of my church, including myself are fasting today.... I'll be thinking of God a LOT today, every time I get a craving for food, I think of God.... I've done it before and have committed to do it today... So far so good.... Tommor I get to do a treadmill test at the doctor's I feel like a car with all the wires they hang on ya during the treadmill as well as when I got en EKG done last Fri.... I went in to get a full physical last fri... Haven't been to a doc in over 16 yrs, that's over HALF of my LIFE!! Will get the report on everything on Fri after I do my treadmill, whatever that checks... I feel good, It's just that everyone around me seems to be developing health problems... my wife is also developing even MORE mental probs.. haha, we're seperated, so I can get away with that.... LATER! Todd....!! http://www.c-com.net/~atc347/toddlnk.htm Raymond C Drouillard wrote: > > >How may I ask, can ANY object which exists LOSE mass? > > I lose mass by eating less and exercising more. > > ___________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 08:13:13 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: absurd pressures figures was: atomization enhancement Fredrik: Not to beat a dead horse here, but there is an error somewhere either in decimal placement or actual units. Let me give a few examples of injector breaking pressures. The popular Cummins B series engine used in pickups which is considered very high technology only runs 4200 lbs. injector breaking pressure. (about 290 bar) The max listed breaking pressure our local pump shop was able to find on an injector was 4500 lbs. (310 bar){note that these people are the licensed service rep for Stanadyne, Bosch, CAV, and numerous other companies and have data available for servicing virtually all currently available injection systems}. The cummins people talk about a system on the new ISB engine which has a pump that will put out 800 bar (11600 psi). They can't keep lines on these engines due to the extreme pressures. Here are some real life injector breaking pressures as listed in service manuals I happened to have handy: VW diesel: 1564 PSI (108 bar) Ford Tractor: 2594psi (179 bar) Perkins (4-236 engine): 2500 psi (172 bar) John Deere: 2600 psi (179.3 bar) International (466 truck engine): 3000 psi (207 bar) Note that the cummins PT common rail system pressures run from 80 lbs to about 300 lbs rail pressure (5.5 bar - 20.7 bar) I don't doubt that Bosch has experimented with extreme pressures, but find it impossible to believe the they have actually released systems with the figures you quote. As I said previously these pressures are deadly, not to mention problems of nozzle erosion when extreme pressures are used. These numbers are in my opinion nonsense...... regardless of what the Bosch book says.... there's an error someplace. H.W. -----Original Message----- From: Fredrik Skog To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 6:02 AM Subject: Re: atomization enhancement On Fri, 7 May 1999, Howard Wilkinson wrote: First: I live in europe and we don't use the unlogical imperial measurements and I have double checked these figures and it says bar not psi. Second: I have the "Bosch Automotive Handbook" in my hand right now and it says that Bosch common rail uses pressures of up to 1600 bar in their common-rail systems. Third: I have actually driven these vehicles and they work, and they work very good, you can't believe it is a diesel engine when you drive it. This is not bad information, and just because Cummins don't have a way to achieve these pressures don't mean that others don't...please, we live in 1999 now and technology are still getting better. And remember that all of these engines where presented to the market last year or this year so they are very new. > James: > I'm firmly in your camp.......Statements recently made about > Cummins and other engines are absurd. Either someone is mixing up > decimal points or mistaking bar for PSI. I can speak from experience > with Cummins common rail systems when I say that they are nowhere > close to these numbers (I've guaged them). Also The injector pop > pressures of most diesel engines I've worked with would make me think > that someone is mistaking bar and psi pressures. 1500 psi would be a > reasonable breaking pressure for a typical injector, and 4k-5k psi > would be a very high pressure injector. I believe that Cummins B > series and C series engines (not common rail) operate in the latter > range.... don't quote me here as I have only hearsay numbers on these. > There is no way on God's earth that a CAV, Roosamaster, or Stanadyne > rotary pump can produce the pressures people have been throwing about, > and I have grave doubts that any of the piston pumps can do this > either. There is no doubt that diesels develop more power with better > atomization, and run more efficiently.... as do gas engines...this has > long been known, but pressures of 20,000 psi are not only difficult to > achieve, but EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. The only safe way to achieve these > kind of pressures safely would be to do it with an injector which did > the pumping so that there was no danger of line breakage. > We are being deluged with bad information here, but unfortunately > I have no way of convincingly refuting it. In my opinion it's utter > nonsense!! H.W. > > > > >> I just looked this up. All the new german diesel engines use > >> common-rail > >> (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) and uses a pressures of approx 1350 bar. > >> VW has a new diesel at 1.9 liter that uses one separate diesel > >> pump/cyilinder and uses a pressure of 2050 bar. According to all > these > >> manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion. > > > >1350 BAR!?! 2050 BAR?!? > > > >20,000psi and 30,000 psi? Tell me there's a missing decimal > >point, or a units mistake here. 13.5 and 20.5 bar sound more > >believable. > > > >james montebello > > > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 10:51:08 -0500 From: steve ravet Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling patents Greg Hermann wrote: > > I am still kind of astounded that Evans was able to get a patent on it! Don't be too astounded until you see this patent: 4,215,330 - --steve - -- Steve Ravet steve.ravet@xxx.com Advanced Risc Machines, Inc. www.arm.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 11:05:37 -0500 From: steve ravet Subject: Re: alternative engines Pat Ford wrote: > > Previously, you (Aaron Willis) wrote: > > At 02:22 PM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >How about if ya had a HUGE donut shaped container, in space, and spun i > > >REALLY fast so as to force the air to the outside of the donut, THEN fly > > >an airplane within that 'SIMULATED' atmosphere? It would work... > > > > > >Now you've heard of an atmoshpere existing without gravity... > > don't all object exert a small gravatational pull ( I think I heard that > years ago). doc should know? Yes. > > > > > Ha...ALMOST! Even I caught this one. I'm going to count that centrifugal > > force that threw the air to the outside of the donut as gravity in this > > example. > > > > I think gravity is a different animal. Gravity and acceleration are equivalent in relativistic physics. There is an "equivalence principle" proposed by Einstein that states that no experiment can be devised that can distinguish between gravitational forces produced by mass, and acceleration forces produced by changes in velocity. This principle caused him to propose that light is bent by the sun, and although that particular experiment was flawed, it's been established since that gravity does in fact cause light to bend. - --steve - -- Steve Ravet steve.ravet@xxx.com Advanced Risc Machines, Inc. www.arm.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:15:33 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: atomization enhancement >James: > I'm firmly in your camp.......Statements recently made about >Cummins and other engines are absurd. Either someone is mixing up >decimal points or mistaking bar for PSI. I can speak from experience >with Cummins common rail systems when I say that they are nowhere >close to these numbers (I've guaged them). Also The injector pop >pressures of most diesel engines I've worked with would make me think >that someone is mistaking bar and psi pressures. 1500 psi would be a >reasonable breaking pressure for a typical injector, and 4k-5k psi >would be a very high pressure injector. I believe that Cummins B >series and C series engines (not common rail) operate in the latter >range.... don't quote me here as I have only hearsay numbers on these. >There is no way on God's earth that a CAV, Roosamaster, or Stanadyne >rotary pump can produce the pressures people have been throwing about, >and I have grave doubts that any of the piston pumps can do this >either. There is no doubt that diesels develop more power with better >atomization, and run more efficiently.... as do gas engines...this has >long been known, but pressures of 20,000 psi are not only difficult to >achieve, but EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. The only safe way to achieve these >kind of pressures safely would be to do it with an injector which did >the pumping so that there was no danger of line breakage. > We are being deluged with bad information here, but unfortunately >I have no way of convincingly refuting it. In my opinion it's utter >nonsense!! H.W. > As far as the Cummins PT and Jimmy two cycle stuff, I think HW is correct. Not sure about the Cummins B & C series, or L-10. I would take Brock's word on the late model stuff, particularly anything Deere, as gospel, however. I will look in the manual for my Hanomag later, as it is a Bosch system, just out of curiosity, and post whatever it says. Regards, Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:15:35 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: atomization enhancement >This is not bad information, and just because Cummins don't have a way to >achieve these pressures don't mean that others don't...please, we live in >1999 now and technology are still getting better. And remember that all of >these engines where presented to the market last year or this year so they >are very new. > Cummins does achieve thes pressures, they just do it at a different part of their system. The Cummins PT injection system is about the envy of every other diesel mfgr there is, as is the performance of their PT injected engines! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:29:09 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling patents > >5,031,579, dated July 16 1991 (almost a year after the public >introduction of Chevrolet's LT-1) uses the small block Chevy as an >example in its drawings. It again stresses anhydrous coolants, and now >includes provison for a "dehydrator" to remove water from the coolant. > If a process type dehydrator is built onto a cooling system (really nothing more than a small still & tower), there is certainly NO reason to pay all sorts of extra money to Evans to buy anhydrous PG- since the separator would remove any trace water from regular PG coolant in fairly short order! If you are getting the idea that I think Evans is a snake oil specialist, with lots of stray money to throw at lawyers, you are right! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:48:14 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: atomization enhancement >Actually the Cummins system they are talking about is absolete >nowadays. Cummins does use bosch fuel system quite a bit and those >presures ate in line for Cummins just the same. > The Cummins PT system is hardly obsolete. The NTC and KT engines both use it, and are very much alive and well! And the 555 HP 855 (an NTC) is a rather healthy engine! Cummins has used Bosch type systems on the B series engines for cost SAVINGS, not for better performance. The Cummins PT system is not as economically adaptable to computer control as things like the new Navistar/International oil driven injectors, but it is still about as good (and responsive) an injection system as money can buy for diesels, particularly in the "Big Cam" implementations. (The larger base circle cam in a "Big Cam" Cummins allows faster ramp rates on the injector squirt cam, thus improving speed of injection and engine efficiency, as previously esplained.) (As well as allowing for faster valve acceleration rates for improved breathing.) The injector lines on a Bosch type system do, indeed see pressures well above 1000 bar. Not only is deflection of the tubes an important consideration in their design, so is the compressibility of the diesel fuel, however slight that is! In fact, the injector lines must be made of equal length, just like a good set of headers, in order for an engine to run properly. And--BTW--the ends of these Bosch type lines are_ NOT _flared. The line ends are screw machine parts and are silver soldered onto the ends of the tubing. Learned all this detail when I balked at paying $85 apiece for a set of four new injector lines for my Hanomag. After learning the details of how to do Bosch injector lines RIGHT, I went ahead and bought them! The pressure does not build up to anywhere near the stated level in the lines when there is any kind of a leak in the line tho--there is simply not enough volume flow to build the pressure up to the design level without an injector on the end of the line. If you had ever had to bleed the air out of a set of Bosch injector lines to get the engine to run at all, you would understand. Regards, Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:07:43 EDT From: A70Duster@xxx.com Subject: Re: alternative engines In a message dated 5/6/1999 10:25:36 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Steve.Ravet@xxx.com writes: << Gravity and acceleration are equivalent in relativistic physics. There is an "equivalence principle" proposed by Einstein that states that no experiment can be devised that can distinguish between gravitational forces produced by mass, and acceleration forces produced by changes in velocity. This principle caused him to propose that light is bent by the sun, and although that particular experiment was flawed, it's been established since that gravity does in fact cause light to bend. >> The light does not bend, it is the mass of the sun that "warps" space, giving the light photos a nonuniform path to traverse. Starts getting weird when space becomes non homogeneous. Just a couple of cents, See ya, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:15:07 -0700 From: "James Montebello" Subject: RE: atomization enhancement > First: I live in europe and we don't use the unlogical imperial > measurements and I have double checked these figures and it > says bar not psi. Second: I have the "Bosch Automotive Handbook" > in my hand right now and it says that Bosch common rail uses > pressures of up to 1600 bar in their common-rail systems. [...] > This is not bad information, and just because Cummins don't > have a way to achieve these pressures don't mean that others > don't...please, we live in 1999 now and technology are still > getting better. It's simply that pressures that high are difficult to believe just from a basic materials standpoint. 2000 bar is approaching the tensile strength of aluminum. To put such incredibly high pressures through any mass-produced part, even now in 1999, is pretty remarkable, and I can't imagine it's cheap to do so. I'd love to know *why* Bosch feels such pressures are necessary. There must be a very good reason to justify the production costs. james montebello ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:36:31 EDT From: Regnirps@xxx.com Subject: Re: O2 == 1.00? volts? In a message dated 5/6/99 4:02:52 AM, ludis@xxx.com writes: >Is it possible for an O2 sensor to output a full volt (plus a few >millivolts)? I thought they peaked out at 9/10ths of a volt or so The 0.9 volts is what you expect for a 12/1 ratio (if the sensors were accurate outside the stoichiometric point at .467 volts). My meters (shameless plug: www.regnirps.com) show a cold sensor indicates full rich and they can be as high as 1.2 or 1.25 volts. Some chemical half-cell potential I suspect but I have yet to find the definitive paper on the electrochemical reaction involved. Charlie Springer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:25:21 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: RE: atomization enhancement >> First: I live in europe and we don't use the unlogical imperial >> measurements and I have double checked these figures and it >> says bar not psi. Second: I have the "Bosch Automotive Handbook" >> in my hand right now and it says that Bosch common rail uses >> pressures of up to 1600 bar in their common-rail systems. >[...] >> This is not bad information, and just because Cummins don't >> have a way to achieve these pressures don't mean that others >> don't...please, we live in 1999 now and technology are still >> getting better. > >It's simply that pressures that high are difficult to believe >just from a basic materials standpoint. 2000 bar is approaching >the tensile strength of aluminum. To put such incredibly high >pressures through any mass-produced part, even now in 1999, is >pretty remarkable, and I can't imagine it's cheap to do so. > >I'd love to know *why* Bosch feels such pressures are necessary. >There must be a very good reason to justify the production costs. Faster injection and better atomization give a more efficient cycle and cleaner burning. Greg > >james montebello ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 23:04:46 +0200 (MDT) From: Fredrik Skog Subject: Re: absurd pressures figures was: atomization enhancement On Sat, 8 May 1999, Howard Wilkinson wrote: > Fredrik: > I don't doubt that Bosch has experimented with extreme pressures, but > find it impossible to believe the they have actually released systems > with the figures you quote. As I said previously these pressures are > deadly, not to mention problems of nozzle erosion when extreme > pressures are used. > > These numbers are in my opinion nonsense...... regardless of what the > Bosch book says.... there's an error someplace. H.W. > I have a hard time believing that all the magazines "and" the Bosch handbook all have the wrong numbers. And the Bosch handbook says pressures between 350 and 1600 bar and I have a hard time believing you can make a typo like that. It's also hard to believe that 3-4 different independet automotive magazines would make the same typos. Even a harvester machine use up to 200 bar in the hydraulics system in steel braided rubber hoses so I don't see why these figures would be so hard to achieve in steel lines. Just my opinion.... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 Living and dying laughing and crying Once you have seen it you will never be the same Life in the fast lane is just how it seems Hard and it is heavy dirty and mean /MetallicA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 14:38:57 PDT From: "David Sagers" Subject: CFM Continued... Thanks to Ken, Todd & Gary for your answers regarding CFM. Perhaps I didn’t ask the question correctly. A stock TPI runs out of flow about 4800 rpm on a stock 350 ci engine. I’m looking for an EFI intake system for my twin turbo 434 ci engine. The guy putting the turbos together said that the stock TPI is a good choice because it will give me something really important for a fun to drive street car, great throttle response and low end torque. The turbo system is designed to start making boost about 2,500 RPM and by 3,000 RPM the turbos are really coming on strong. He explained that about the time the NA stock TPI would be running out of flow the turbos will start pressurizing the intake system and with 15 lbs of boost building even the small runners would flow enough to feed the engine without going to larger tube runners. I realize that if this were a NA engine the stock TPI would be a bad choice, I would need something like a TPIS mini ram. The mini ram flows some good numbers but even TPIS admits it will make the throttle response and low end torque somewhat soggy. However, the situation changes when the intake is pressurized with a turbo system instead of running a vacuum in the intake. Now my question, even with 15 lbs of boost it seems to me that the stock TPI is still small for a 434 performance engine, or will the boost really make up the difference for the small tubes? Finally, no web site yet, but I’ll talk to some computer guys I know and see if I can set up a site with some pics. Thanks for your help. Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:09:44 -0400 From: Ken Kelly Subject: Re: CFM Questions Dave, Flow is measured for a given pressure drop across the runner. I really can't imagine that this means a 600cfm flow with a 15 psi pressure drop. Who would ever spec a runner with that much drop. What is the pressure differential that creates a 600cfm flow through the tube. Then can you live with that much pressure drop? Ken Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:14:46 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" < derian@xxx.com> Subject: Re: CFM Questions Talk of CFM is very confusing. When someone has a 600 CFM Holley, it means if flows 600 CFM at 1.5 in. Hg pressure drop. That same carb will flow 840 CFM at 3" and 350 CFM at 0.5". There is no absolute flow limit until the air reaches the speed of sound. So how much can a TPI runner flow? Those are known to be small and limit power above 4000 rpm. Sure you can boost the daylights out of it but that creates excess heat and backpressure. I think if you had 15 psi blowing through a TPI runner to atmosphere you would have really high flow but that is meaningless. You need flow in pulses and you need to have very low pressure drop. Most guys that build engines don't really know what goes on. Can't help ya with the CFM Calc Formula, sorry, However, a Stock 426 Hemi only flows between 300-400 cfm per runner and it was supposed to outflow ANYTHING... Good luck with your project... Do you have a web site which details your build up? ALSO, is it a single or dual turbo setup? David Sagers wrote: > > Anyone know how to calculate CFM rates? I was talking to the shop that's > building the turbo set up for my chevy engine. He said that at 15 lbs of boost each runner on a stock TPI will flow 600 cfm. I think the stock runners are 1.25" But 600 cfm sounds really high for such a small tube, even at 15 lbs of boost. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #267 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".