Burning Rates

Higher in Bio, hmm. Thanks for posting that little bit Kawi. If you have too aggressive mixture motion you can cause centrifuge of the fuel injected, causing possible cylinder wall wear further harming your rings and reducing power production or you fuel will just become attached to the crown surface and not become reatomized when needed.

Did you compare your injector orifice size between injections as well as the operating pressure? If you run the same pressure with more holes in the tip you could be releaving a certain amount of force the fluid encounters upon injection of fuel, if you provide more exits (area), you are creating a more even window of distribution of fuel, however you won't increase penetration since your pressure is not rising. The more orifice area you have, more pressure should be used IMO, an increase in pressure doesn't have to be drastic, just a product of what you find in your R&D.
 
Hmmm, well on mine the spray pattern is wider but I run lower timing than most. Worst it would do is coke the sides of the bowl and smoke more.
The injectors ran the same pop-off pressure. old ones were 7x.010 148* 275bar. New ones are basically marine 370's.. 5x.012 155* 275bar. Pump fueling stayed the same so the pressure behind the injector was probably unchanged.
Anyone else experienced a change in the power curve going to more holes on a nozzle?

One thing that has me confused. I would imagine that more boost with the same port and valve dimensions would mean higher intake velocity and more swirl. But Ive seen conflicting info on that.
 
Last edited:
You can be reaching a choke situation and the port taking a dive once a certain rpm and boost is hit. You should have the head inspected by a reputable head shop that can troubleshoot with the correct flow tools, otherwise its a waste getting your head tested if they don't have the tools.

Remember our fuel is only going to burn where its vaporized and the air to fuel ratio is best, if we fling our fuel to the bowl surface, we hope it evaporates to utilize the vapor and create adequate pressure rise. We want the atomized fuel to vaporize within the turbulence of the in-cylinder mixing, impinge the least possible.

Seeing your stated injector tip stats, you have 2 seperate injection angles as well as the different count and orifice size holes, more than one variable making it a little more combersome in calculating things. Its not necessarily the pressure behind the injector we are concerned with at the moment, its the area, or, orifice count and size. More exits equal a easier route to leave, whereas with 5 the pressure only has 5 exits. The rate of fuel leaving the injector will be different from the total area employed.

Could the angle change of 7 degrees be that much noticable if that is the only thing directly effecting your power output? Possibly.
 
You can be reaching a choke situation and the port taking a dive once a certain rpm and boost is hit. You should have the head inspected by a reputable head shop that can troubleshoot with the correct flow tools, otherwise its a waste getting your head tested if they don't have the tools.

Remember our fuel is only going to burn where its vaporized and the air to fuel ratio is best, if we fling our fuel to the bowl surface, we hope it evaporates to utilize the vapor and create adequate pressure rise. We want the atomized fuel to vaporize within the turbulence of the in-cylinder mixing, impinge the least possible. Seeing your stated injector tip stats, you have 2 seperate injection angles as well as the different count and orifice size holes, more than one variable making it a little more combersome in calculating things. Its not necessarily the pressure behind the injector we are concerned with at the moment, its the area, or, orifice count and size. More exits equal a easier route to leave, whereas with 5 the pressure only has 5 exits. The rate of fuel leaving the injector will be different from the total area employed.

Could the angle change of 7 degrees be that much noticable if that is the only thing directly effecting your power output? Possibly.

just something for you to ask yourself....when the piston is coming up towards TDC and boost and pressure in the hole is rising 30deg BTDC...is the air (swirl) really occuring at that point...or is the air (swirl) used for exhaust scavenging on in/ex overlap?
 
All the articles I can find have mentioned swirl being used for optimal combustion. Havent seen anything regarding scavenging.
But how else do you push the remaining exhaust out of the bowl? Or do you assume the swirl will take care of mixing the air / fuel and lose a small amount of oxygen in the next event? Not sure on that.
 
but I run lower timing than most.

Elaborate some more on this, I totally forgot to ask you on this earlier as well as which diesel you run too.

Kawi, here is the thing, if our fuel is adhering to the crown surface regardless of being a gasser or diesel, we aren't making heat from it until its vaporized and has been consumed by the flame front or if you like, the reaction front. The distillation temperature has a hand in our point of vaporrization in the chamber as well does timing because our pre-injection heat buildup due to mechanical compression is what gets us as close to if not on that distillation point providing a short and sweet delay angle, in turn swirl will hopefully distribute the fuel vapor next to the oxygen for the power stroke to begin. Remember swirl is not just created by port design, but by squish action in the quench regions (if used) of the chamber (quench region - fixed position w/ the head/ Squish - caused by the piston crown area directly under the head approaching TDC). Sir Harry Ricardo specialized in rapid combustion process, he was the person who had come up with the 'Swirl chamber' that is used in some head designs.If you think about changing the timing always keep in mind the fuel's characteristics.

Speaking of swirl in terms of assisting cylinder evacuation, I see it can be one of a few variables on relieving the cylinder to allow the next clean charge to come in. However, if our intake valve or valves are not designed properly to work in fashion with our converging and diverging sides of the valve throat area, swirl strength could most likely be lost due to disruption in flow, once you look there we proceed to the bore, and piston crown. How will the flow twist and turn into the chamber without causing a reversion type of situation and fill the cylinder the quickest? The valve is our roadblock, if its a big road block, our new charge mass could be lacking in density (pounds of air) therefore combustion will suffer and power will as a result. Once you have burned whats possible, we proceed to the exhausting phase. As far as swirl being a chief factor, I don't think it is in the beginning, our cylinder pressure has more say because of the blowdown phase, once our valve has lifted enough off the seat for flow to begin, thats our initial greatest flow velocity situation. At valve crack, nothing has happened yet. Going back to the convergent/divergent comment, this time we have to flow around a valve face instead of next to a valve curtain everything on this end is needed close attention too for efficiency. Once again, if we have enough turbulence to cause a choke or reversion occurrance, our new charge will be dilluted even if the turbo is spinning, flow can only go as fast as our runner allows and that begins at the valve head and seat area up to the turbocharger. Don't forget about the valve pockets in the head.

The swirl itself, can navigate around the valves coming off the bowl or bore wall and into the exhaust port, but, the only thing with a swirling mass of air is your swirl action in this sense. Exhaust or intake is creating a LONG path for evacuation. For the most part IMO, swirl is used to satisfy our flame front.
 
Lenahan05 or anyone else, whats your view on Bio verse regular diesel? I am sure the total BTU may be lower with biodiesel, but could it be similar to how alcohols produce in a gasser engine?
 
Lenahan05 or anyone else, whats your view on Bio verse regular diesel? I am sure the total BTU may be lower with biodiesel, but could it be similar to how alcohols produce in a gasser engine?

yes, it is an oxygenated fuel like alcohol so it has a lower stoich point. The higher cetane value can also be beneficial.
 
Thanks Kaiserbailey.

The densities between the two, Bio is slightly more at .88 verse .85 (at a temp of 15 degrees Celcius), bio also has better lubrication properties than ULSD. From reading articles, the lubrication capabilities of ULSD & Bio are greatly effected by the actual refining process as well as the product being refined. Bio has an apparent kinetic viscosity of 6.0 verse ULSD 2.6, which has an affect on our atomization clearity too.

Heating BTU per gal of Bio, 128,000 verse ULSD's 130,000. However with Bio Diesel, since somewhat similar to an alcohol fuel with being oxygenated, does anyone have a thought on the actual cooling that may be possibly happening with the Bio changing to a vaporized state?

You have an opinion Kaiser?

For those wanting something to chew on
http://www.chevronwithtechron.com/products/documents/Diesel_Fuel_Tech_Review.pdf

Opening a can of worms, I know :pop:
 
Thanks Kaiserbailey.

The densities between the two, Bio is slightly more at .88 verse .85 (at a temp of 15 degrees Celcius), bio also has better lubrication properties than ULSD. From reading articles, the lubrication capabilities of ULSD & Bio are greatly effected by the actual refining process as well as the product being refined. Bio has an apparent kinetic viscosity of 6.0 verse ULSD 2.6, which has an affect on our atomization clearity too.

Heating BTU per gal of Bio, 128,000 verse ULSD's 130,000. However with Bio Diesel, since somewhat similar to an alcohol fuel with being oxygenated, does anyone have a thought on the actual cooling that may be possibly happening with the Bio changing to a vaporized state?

You have an opinion Kaiser?

For those wanting something to chew on
http://www.chevronwithtechron.com/products/documents/Diesel_Fuel_Tech_Review.pdf

Opening a can of worms, I know :pop:


I doubt there would be much difference at all.
 
Yeah, combustion is a great subject which I believe has a whole lot to be found. Looks like not too many feel like giving themselves a headache trying to discuss fuels and the fuel burning cycle here. :pop:
 
Without some expensive test equipment we're just kind of shooting in the dark and guessing here. Although I find combustion interesting, there is really not a ton we can do/alter in our current form. We can theorize about ignition delay and flame propagation but in reality we have no idea considering our injection timing, volume, spray geometry, fluid continuum, heat retention, velocity, blah blah blah is all over the place. Seeing the fluid impingement models from Ford's 6.7 and how many different combinations they tried, was enough for me to hang up the thermofluids book and take a test and evaluate approach to diesel combustion rather than hard science.
 
It all starts with a simple conversation regardless of whats being discussed, then proceeds to further thoughts and testing which you are aware of very well.
 
I'm not ignoring here, but have just been too busy. Interesting to discuss for sure, but I'm not sure I could say much that isn't available through SAE literature already...

--Eric
 
Yeah, between reading and conversing amongst others, each person may use different words to describe whats going on or what in theory is hopefully going on. Thats what I enjoy, because the way something may be described by one may not be fully understood by another in 'that' context OR it may be opening another thought that may have a 'spark' to the conversation if it were to be comprehended a totally different way. Everyone is different in understanding things.

I can't remember if you had posted a paper number in my other thread, or if it was Joe. I will have to make sure I wrote it down correctly.

I try to squeeze in some reading everyday at lunch during the week at work, I always have a note or two in my shirt pocket of any thought I come across or of the like when I am working.
 
Last edited:
yes, it is an oxygenated fuel like alcohol so it has a lower stoich point. The higher cetane value can also be beneficial.

Another thought: When trying to cram a lot of fuel in per stroke, I can see where higher cetane would not be ideal. To get the most power, you don't want much of the fuel burning before TDC, at the same time, and at high RPM, you have a limited amount of time to spray fuel. A lower cetane fuel might allow you to spray earlier (higher timing) and not have the negative horsepower from burning before TDC.
 
What about retarding the injection point slightly? We would have to test before and after of each fuel No.2 verse No.1 verse higher Cetaned fuel. No.2 from the start has lower cetane but has more BTU due to weighing more than No.1.
 
Top