www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > General Automotive

General Automotive General automotive discussion. This is intended to be a discussion about other not VW and Diesel cars you may have or interested in.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 30th, 2008, 00:03   #1
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default Properties of water injection in the diesel cycle

What effect does water injection have in the diesel cycle?

In trying to understand this, I have read up on use of water injection from WWII warplane days. I'm trying to understand exactly what happens within either the intake tract or within the cylinder when you have saturated the air with water vapor--as it pertains to either the diesel cycle or the otto cycle.

In trying to find helpful information, I went hunting for a good steam table. I have found a most useful Java applet from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST); it is linked/listed in my signature.

What I'm specifically after is a model of cylinder pressure-versus crank angle with and without water vapor. I'd like to know if water injection can allow for running aggressive boost and timing and reduce emissions at the same time.

Using the applet in isobaric properties mode, I put in:

pressure 185 bar (guess at peak pressure)
T-low (immediately prior to fuel injection)= 410 C
T-high (peak temperature) = 2177 C

for a stock 1.9L Tdi. It gives:

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/fluid.cg...m&RefState=ASH

And for a very modded Tdi reaching > 221 bar PCP

If it is possible for a modded Tdi to run > 221 bar PCP, then injected water will be in the form of supercritical steam:
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/fluid.cg...m&RefState=ASH

Moreover, the supercritical steam has lower Thermal Conductivity than normal steam beyond 1137 C which should lower heat losses to cylinder walls during that first fraction of the expansion stroke when pressures > 221 bar until temps drop < 1137 again/ and when pressures < 221 bar again:



I'm hypothesizing that if heat losses are lower during that time, it will preserve peak pressures a smidge longer. If coupled with aggressive Start-of-Injection timing, this could yeild some greater BMEP under some loads and give more useful P-V work upon the crank without the same NOx production the equivilant BMEP-sans-water-injection would produce. (see Michael Willmann's comments in reference 2.) Michael's reference 1 below goes into more detail on emissions effects from flame front temperature and rate of heat rise (RHOR)

Some good reading:

reference 1: http://www.ilot.edu.pl/Journal%20of%...O%201-2/R5.pdf

reference 2: http://www.ilot.edu.pl/Journal%20of%.../01/str275.pdf (relevant point: "there is a high amount of ...water vapor..which cools the reaction zone very well. Apart from this, the combustion process takes more time. As a result the flame temperature is lower."



Q: is PCP lower as well or is it largely insensitive to this?

Finally, the last question of mine is what effect does injecting the water pre or post-turbo have, thermodynamically?

Adding injected water should increase the heat transfer through the intercooler, making it more effective. In a modded Tdi running 2.25 bar absolute (post turbo), water will boil to steam at 125 C. Whether the temperatures post turbo ever get this high, I don't know. I have seen my stock IC temps as high as 65C on a hard run, but I have no idea what pre-IC temps were.

Last edited by nicklockard; January 30th, 2008 at 00:31.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 06:52   #2
Gil
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wallingford CT
Fuel Economy: 38 and 38 :o(
Default

Not sure if this is true but I heard that the water injection was used in WWII aircraft for only short periods of time for extra power. Along with the water injection they leaned out the mixture for the power gain.

.
__________________
02 auto TDI wagon, .185s and RC2
04 PD TDI standard shift, RC1+
Gil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 07:06   #3
dieseldorf
top post dawg
 
dieseldorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MA
Default

Nick:

Quote:
On another clean-diesel front, Chevron is starting to expand its "Proformix" diesel-water emulsion in "selected areas," Ingham pointed out (see Diesel Fuel News 4/29/02, P5). Besides Port of Los Angeles and other customers, Chevron has also converted its own delivery trucks operating from the Montebello terminal to the emulsion fuel. "We're now looking at a marketing opportunity in Seattle, and our Chevron-Canada division is about to commission a plant in Vancouver, B.C.," he said.
dieseldorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 08:01   #4
andypandy
Member
 
andypandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sweden Gothenburg
Default

Issnt it possible to scale down the technology that the tractorpullers have?

Look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI2mTRPpJdc

The pullerclass is called "Super Stock"
(and the pro stock where it's only allowed with diesel as fuel)

The block is the tractor originals, they run mainly on Diesel.. and what more.. water/meth?
about 6 liters engines where they could have from 2000 - 3000hp!

That means if scaled down properly we could have 500-800hp in a 2liter machine like in a TDI.

But where are they???
350hp i have seen/heard of.. but it seems like there is a lot more room for improvements in this area.
__________________
Misspelling will occur... hey try to write something in swedish and you will see! :-)
Golf TDI HL 110 AHF -00 140hp++, VNT2052, FMIC, 2.5" DP. PD150 intake etc.
Chrysler Grand Voyager LE

Last edited by andypandy; January 30th, 2008 at 08:20.
andypandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 11:12   #5
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

Dieseldorf,

I agree, I think there's a lot to be learned and gained here.

Can anyone comment on the discussion of water's role in reducing thermal efficiency but increasing useful work in this link?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Fette, on Stirling cycle's efficiency wrt/complex working fluid (water vapor in cylinders)
The thermal efficiency htherm


The thermal efficiency htherm in case of isothermal heat transmission (TE in the H- and TC in the K-cylinders are constant) and at 100% heat exchange in the regenerator is equivalent to the Carnot efficiency:
hthermC = (TE - TC) / TE
This ideal thermal efficiency naturally cannot be achieved within the real engine. The heat transmission may be good, but is just only nearly isothermal. Temperature losses can be calculated from the heat capacities of the irrigation liquid drops (and/or that of the metal chips) and from the thermal capacity of the gas. They have been proved in experiments by the author.
During the heat transmission to the gas, size and mass of the heat exchange surface, gas velocity on this surface, thermal conductivity of the gas as well as the regenerator's quality |9| are of influence for the thermal efficiency. Further the thermal -and the overall- efficiency is reduced with increasing rotation by friction losses in the liquids flow and by acceleration of the liquid masses. These mechanical losses and the temperature losses at heat transmission are kept low at slow rotation. Therefore, if a high overall efficiency is wanted, the engine is to be driven at slow rotations. Like the large diesel engines for ships, high power is attainable for this stirling engine by a large construction and high gas pressure.
If a compound fluid -gas + vapor- is chosen, the increase of pressure |10| by the steam partial pressure of the evaporating working liquid leads to more work output. Evaporating of liquid has the valuable effect, that it performs an optimal heattransmission to the gas with a very small temperature gradient. This is obtained by the very fast movement of the vapor molecules which are mixing together with the gas molecules. But also the disadvantage of compound fluid must be taken into account: It reduces the thermal efficiency within the condensing phase in the compression cylinder. The reason therefore is, that the amount of condensing energy is taken out of the process. At each cycle it must be produced new. This is well to be seen, when comparing the "frames" in Fig. 4a and in Fig. 4c which in both cases represent ideal stirling processes.
  • Fig. 4a -with gas only- leads to the carnot-efficiency. The mass of working fluid is always constant.
  • in -Fig. 4c- the "frame" is the theoretical ideal stirling process for the vapor component as the only working fluid. You see this frame is not even nearly a parallelogram as is the frame in Fig. 4a. At the isochoric cooling phase at Vmax the mass of vapor is condensed to liquid until an equilibrium is reached for saturated vapor at temperature TC. Only a small rest of vapor is left. The mass of this small amount of vapor is compressed at temperature TC to Vmin. Now new vapor will be produced during the isochoric heating phase and the isothermal expansion phase. The energy needed for the isochoric phase cannot be a regenerator supplied energy. Only the small amount of vapor left during cooling and compressing theoretically can be heated by regenerator energy. The previous condensed liquid must be removed into the expansion cylinders liquid volume; here it is heated and evaporated again. This is the reason for the reduced thermal efficiency of an engine working with compound fluids.
The computer program STMOT2: based on |11| takes into account all these losses.

Let us state: When using a compound fluid -gas + vapor- the work done per cycle is increased but this is done by reduced thermal efficiency.
But inspite of the reduction in thermal efficiency, compound fluid is valuable, whenever the cost for heatgenerating is neglectable, as it is with solar collectors or from waste heat.
press Your browsers Return button to return into previous text
<A href="http://www.stirling-fette.de/english.htm#A0">Back to contents

The Load Exploitation Factor e i


Apart from the thermal efficiency, the load exploitation factor -sometimes called the "Schmidt Factor" - " n " is an interesting parameter. "n" is the relation of the engine's effective work "W" to the effective work of the ideal Stirling process " Wi " , in the same working space between Vmax and Vmin and the same temperatures "TE" and "TC" , but with a regenerator volume of VR = 0. "W" is equivalent to the areas enclosed by the graphs in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 or in Fig. 4a.
The ideal Stirling effective work " Wi " , is equivalent to the area in Fig. 2 represented by: (I) - (II) - (III) - (IV) - (I); or to the frame in Fig. 4a, both areas are created by the isotherms TE and TC, as well as the isochores at Vmax and Vmin.


or

With Mgas = Mass of gas, Rgas = Gasconstant. V0 = expansion- + compression space, P0 = pressure, both measured in idle position.
The effective work output "Wi" of the ideal Stirling process in accordance with these equations is determined by the temperatures TE and TC, as well as by the volume ratio Vmax / Vmin that can be achieved, and it is directly proportional to the gas mass in the engine, which is determined by the idle volume V0 and the idle pressure P0. Principally the same applies also to the effective work "W" of the real engine. The volume ratio Vmax / Vmin is determined by control volume and other deadspaces, regenerator volume "VR" , the phase shift angle d and the geometric conditions of the crank gear movement, which can only aproximate the ideal movement. Vmax / Vmin and thus "W" and the degree of exploitation "n" are reduced at increasing "VR" and other deadspaces. Vmax / Vmin is also reduced, if instead of the purely sinusoidally movement of the pistons through the crank slot gears, connecting rod crank gears are used for "KU1" and "KU2". See the summary in table 1
The above mentioned load exploitation factor "n" is only usefull for comparing the work "W" of a real engine to the work "Wi" to its own ideal process within the same space range of Vmax and Vmin.
It would be more helpfull, if we can compare the work "W" of any real engine to the work "Wi " of an ideal stirling process of a common usable ideal standard reference stirling engine. With this new basis of " Wi " -now better named: " Wir " we should define a new load exploitation factor: " e i " The following proposal may be discussed for the definition of a common usable ideal reference stirling engine, and for the conditions of its process calculation:
  • The ideal work "Wir " of the reference engine should be calculated with the equation above.
  • TE is the maximum temperature, which can be measured on the surface of the real engines heater -if the engine is heated by a burner or by radiation- or, if heated by a liquid, TE is the liquids temperature at the entry to the engines heatexchanger.
  • TC is the minimum temperature within the engines cooler. That is the temperature of the coolant at its entry into the cooler for the engines working fluid. Or TC is the minimum temperature of the coolers surface if the engine is cooled by radiation.
  • The mass of the working fluid is the mass of the gas which is constant within the real engines spaces including all dead spaces. If compound fluids are used, only the mass of the gas component should be taken, otherwise the above formula cannot be applied.
  • The space ratio Vmax / Vmin must be a constant standard value. Here we must set statements, otherwise there is no possibility to have a common usable standard for a reference process. There may be other definitions to define a constant space ratio, but
I know the Stirling cycle differs in that it is closed (non-exhausted volumes), but can any of this discussion help us understand what role water injection plays in either the otto or diesel cycles? I've highlighted the parts of the quote which relate to my question. Specifically, is the statement in red correct for diesel and otto cycles as well?

Last edited by nicklockard; January 30th, 2008 at 11:17.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 11:38   #6
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

It may be true, but there are a lot of other factors to consider that complicate matters tremendously.

As soon as you have a two-phase mixture (gas + liquid), the act of compressing it requires heat transfer between the gas and liquid phases. (The gas is compressing and its temperature goes up, the liquid is absorbing some of that heat, this implies heat transfer.) Heat transfer is an "irreversible" process, i.e. there is a loss of entropy due to heat transfer always being across a temperature gradient. A loss of entropy implies a loss of efficiency in the case of an engine (because you can't get back the loss associated with the heat transfer). If the surface area is enormous (i.e. extremely fine atomization with very even distribution inside the cylinder - Note that high swirl as in a diesel tends to centrifuge-out liquid particles) then perhaps the losses could be negligible.

If you compress what starts out as a mixture of air and water mist, the compression will have a lower ending temperature. I do not know if the pressure will end up lower (due to the lower temperature) or higher (due to the extra space that the water vapor takes up compared to the original liquid) - I suspect it will end up being lower. Thus there is less mechanical work done during the compression stroke - but it means you won't get back as much work during the expansion stroke. The complicating factor is that the reduced temperature and pressure at the end of compression means you have room for burning more fuel before reaching mechanical cylinder pressure limits.

On my previous vehicle, I fiddled with water injection for a while, but my intent was to only inject just enough water to overcome the imperfect intercooling, not enough to significantly affect what happens during the compression stroke. For that, there is a potential power increase due to higher density (lower temperature) of the intake air.
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 11:46   #7
Waldek Walrus
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Fuel Economy: 54/47/42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicklockard
Dieseldorf,

I agree, I think there's a lot to be learned and gained here.

Can anyone comment on the discussion of water's role in reducing thermal efficiency but increasing useful work in this link?

I know the Stirling cycle differs in that it is closed (non-exhausted volumes), but can any of this discussion help us understand what role water injection plays in either the otto or diesel cycles? I've highlighted the parts of the quote which relate to my question. Specifically, is the statement in red correct for diesel and otto cycles as well?
Nick,

In an Otto cycle engine the water injection keeps the combustion chamber temperatures low enough to prevent pre-ignition. This was used in WWII aircraft engines to allow more supercharging to get more power without destroying the engines through pre-ignition. This is still used with heavily supercharged or turbocharged gassers to get the last bit of power out for racing.

In the Diesel engine you won't get pre-ignition, so this use is not needed. Adding a bit of water can limit peak combustion temperartures and prevent melting things like valves and injector tips when running at ultra-high power for a short burst (i.e., the tractor pull engines noted earlier).

In both of these there may be a tiny bit of extra work done by the expansion of the water vapor during the power stroke. This is TINY. The gain from the water is its cooling effect to keep the working surfaces from melting. The extra power comes from being able to burn more fuel in the same size engine.

The Stirling cycle is different. The gain in power is from the extra expansion of the water vapor during the power stroke. It costs a LOT of energy to get that water vaporized under pressure. Most of that energy is lost to condensation at the end of the power stroke. This is basically a steam engine. An eye-opening exercise on this would be to search for the term 'boiler horsepower' - this is the energy to turn ten pounds of water into steam at atmospheric pressure and that is the amount of steam early steam engines needed to make one horsepower. Hence the idea this is only good if you can get 'free' energy.

Does this help at all?
__________________
Doug

'06 TDI NB (Julie Bug)
'11 GMC Acadia
'01 Buick Lesabre - boulevard ride
Waldek Walrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 12:18   #8
TDIMeister
Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast
Moderator at Large
 
TDIMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Canada
TDI(s): TDI
Default

Nick, your first problem is assuming that combustion in a high-speed Diesel engine occurs at constant pressure. Tsk tsk tsk.
TDIMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 12:47   #9
EddyKilowatt
Veteran Member
 
EddyKilowatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Carmel Valley CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDIMeister
Nick, your first problem is assuming that combustion in a high-speed Diesel engine occurs at constant pressure. Tsk tsk tsk.
Aw shucks... I think my first-year thermo textbook tried to warn me about that, but all I can remember is Otto = constant-volume combustion, Diesel = constant-pressure combustion.

Guess it is time to pull out The Tautology of Dave (courtesy of an intinerant engineer I know): "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

Eddy
__________________
2003 Golf GL, 5-speed, 165k miles. Bosio .205 injectors, balanced by DbW. Mobil ESP 5W-30 oil.
EddyKilowatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 15:43   #10
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

Dave (and Dave,)

Yes, I know the modern diesel cycle is probably a hybrid cycle: 60% CP and 40% CV. But with the late late laaaaaaaaaaaate fuel injection hoohaa being pursued in order to kill the mighty mighty NOx monster these days, the cycle is heading back toward's a CP heat addition process, is it not?

What if we were to directly inject water mist/fog inside the cylinder, with a separate high pressure injector? Then, like that hot rod fellow who has proposed eliminating the cooling system and injecting water, we could dramatically lower the size of the radiator and cooling system components: most heat in the diesel cycle happens at high loading: precisely when you would want to inject water for NOx control and for keeping PCP's under control. By dialing down the A/F ratio, smoke could be avoided. The water injection could be mapped to occur at optimal times and delivery volumes/durations to minimize NOx--it looks like, according to Michael Willmann's papers, that staying below 1800 C PCT's entirely avoids NOx, and staying below 2400 C is a practical way to minimize NOx. Instead of retarding timing and wasting fuel to kill this big bad monster, why not just prevent it from forming in the first place? Throwing fuel down the cylinder after the exhaust valve is open is plain dumb, as is lowering the compression ratio. I say raise CR, advance timing, and kill NOx with peak temperature control via water injection. We're slowly seeing all the advantages diesel has being sapped away with the current path.

I think that Crower guy is onto something, but you don't need to add a fifth cycle. However, maybe it could be combined with an Atkinson cycle usefully.

Last edited by nicklockard; January 31st, 2008 at 15:00.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 15:50   #11
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster
It may be true, but there are a lot of other factors to consider that complicate matters tremendously.

As soon as you have a two-phase mixture (gas + liquid), the act of compressing it requires heat transfer between the gas and liquid phases. (The gas is compressing and its temperature goes up, the liquid is absorbing some of that heat, this implies heat transfer.) Heat transfer is an "irreversible" process, i.e. there is a loss of entropy due to heat transfer always being across a temperature gradient. A loss of entropy implies a loss of efficiency in the case of an engine (because you can't get back the loss associated with the heat transfer). If the surface area is enormous (i.e. extremely fine atomization with very even distribution inside the cylinder - Note that high swirl as in a diesel tends to centrifuge-out liquid particles) then perhaps the losses could be negligible.
Hi Brian,

If we presume that all of the heat tranfer to the droplets from the hot compressed N2 and O2 occurs prior to fuel injection (let's define this as step A,) then entropy will be conserved, since there is no chemical reaction, only a state change, correct? We will have used up some enthalpic energy of hot air, which is a poor carrier of enthalpy anyway, IIRC. However, we may recover that enthalpic energy once the fuel is injected, if we can get the steam to flash into the supercritical steam region: it will do as much useful work as it took to reach step A. Now, since the water molecules are crowing the cylinder just prior to fuel injection, the kinetics of combustion will be slowed because there will be fewer collisions between oxidizers and hydrocarbons, but that might actually be a good thing! It might allow for a more complete droplet vaporization prior to combustion. This seems like yet another path toward HCCI, but would require higher compression ratio's and more advanced timing in order to get PCP's sustained over the supercritical steam threshold of 221 bar.

In practical effect, it should mean that PCP is about the same, but extended over a longer time domain (and doing more P-V work upon the crank for a given amount of fuel,) but peak temps are held lower, which is obviously good for NOx reduction.

This seems like it could be another path toward HCCI, but would require higher compression ratio's and more advanced timing in order to get PCP's sustained over the supercritical steam threshold of 221 bar. Higher CR's and more advanced timing have obvious fuel efficiency benefits too.

There is also some work which suggests OH radicals chew up soot, IIRC. Supercritical steam should be chock full of radicals at such high pressures and temps, but I'm only guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster

If you compress what starts out as a mixture of air and water mist, the compression will have a lower ending temperature. I do not know if the pressure will end up lower (due to the lower temperature) or higher (due to the extra space that the water vapor takes up compared to the original liquid) - I suspect it will end up being lower. Thus there is less mechanical work done during the compression stroke - but it means you won't get back as much work during the expansion stroke. The complicating factor is that the reduced temperature and pressure at the end of compression means you have room for burning more fuel before reaching mechanical cylinder pressure limits.

On my previous vehicle, I fiddled with water injection for a while, but my intent was to only inject just enough water to overcome the imperfect intercooling, not enough to significantly affect what happens during the compression stroke. For that, there is a potential power increase due to higher density (lower temperature) of the intake air.


Yes, I agree. Essentially what you did was repeat this: " But also the disadvantage of compound fluid must be taken into account: It reduces the thermal efficiency within the condensing phase in the compression cylinder" in other wording.

Yes, I can see how water injection can reduce thermal efficiency, but still, it can allow for more useful PV work--IOW: it is a direct corrolary to a turbocharger! A turbo decreases VE by backpressure on the exhaust, yet it allows the engine to act like a larger engine--on demand. In effect it is a mock variable displacement engine. It seems that water injection does the exact same thing, but instead of reducing VE or adding backpressure, it reduces TE (for short duration under higher loads, just as a turbo does) while producing more work, on demand.

Now, I am still not sure of this. It all depends on if that statement in red in the quoted section of post #5 is true or not. Can you or Dave or anyone expound on that?

Also, that author mentions a 'load exploitation factor (Schmidtt factor.)" Does this apply equally to all heat engines, and what do you make of it?

Last edited by nicklockard; January 30th, 2008 at 16:16.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 18:47   #12
jnecr
Veteran Member
 
jnecr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Fuel Economy: 40ish?
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicklockard
There is also some work which suggests OH radicals chew up soot, IIRC. Supercritical steam should be chock full of radicals at such high pressures and temps, but I'm only guessing.
Nick!

Theoretically the water would begin to split in to OH and H at such high temperatures. But I think you'll find that at such a short amount of time it just won't happen. Plus, if you think the equation out, what would you get. Well you'd get HOH going to HO and H and then the H would quickly find another H and then just as quickly combust (provided that the diesel hasn't used up on the O2), making what? HOH. Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.


Anyhow, back to the rest of it. I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Water injection is meant for one thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldek Walrus
In an Otto cycle engine the water injection keeps the combustion chamber temperatures low enough to prevent pre-ignition. This was used in WWII aircraft engines to allow more supercharging to get more power without destroying the engines through pre-ignition. This is still used with heavily supercharged or turbocharged gassers to get the last bit of power out for racing.
All water will accomplish is the lowering of chamber temperatures. That's what it's meant for! I've read the thread and I'm still not sure whether you are trying to lower temps or not? If you are, then bingo! you found it!
__________________
-John
jnecr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2008, 18:58   #13
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

Lowering the temperature nowadays also can serve the purpose of reducing NOx emissions.

Re entropy/enthalpy: Entropy involves more than just combustion. As soon as you have a degradation of a high-grade energy into a lower-grade energy there is a loss of entropy. If you compress a two-phase mixture of air and water droplets, the heat transfer from the air (which is going up in temperature as it compresses) into the droplets (which stay at a temperature that corresponds to the boiling temperature as the pressure changes - slower rate of increase with compression) there is a degradation from a higher-grade energy (higher temperature) to a lower-grade energy (lower temperature).

Re injecting water at the end of compression stroke: In my mind, this is thermodynamically the wrong way to do it. Doing it this way maximizes the loss in entropy - it means the full work of compression is done to compress the air, and you throw a good portion of it away by soaking up that heat by squirting in water. If you are going to mix water and air with the objective of reducing peak cycle temperature, you might as well use the opportunity to reduce the work of compression - by creating a mixture of air and water mist at the end of the intake stroke.

Keep in mind that if the objective is to still operate on some semblance of a compression-ignition cycle, there is a limit to the extent to which the peak temperature can be reduced before you have a misfire.
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2008, 12:18   #14
nicklockard
Torque Dorque
 
nicklockard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Arizona
Fuel Economy: No data yet.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnecr
Nick!

Theoretically the water would begin to split in to OH and H at such high temperatures. But I think you'll find that at such a short amount of time it just won't happen. Plus, if you think the equation out, what would you get. Well you'd get HOH going to HO and H and then the H would quickly find another H and then just as quickly combust (provided that the diesel hasn't used up on the O2), making what? HOH. Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.
J,

The possible reactions are:

HOH <--> H(rad) + OH(rad)

H(rad) finds OH(rad) and the reaction is reversed
H(rad) finds H(rad) and forms H2 and combusts with O2 making water
OH(rad) finds other radicals, like carbene centered radicals or partial decomposition radicals of fuel, or other reaction intermediates and forms a new radical.

What the radicals (if they can form in this time scale) react with is purely statistically driven. It has been estimated by many others that the average combustion event in an IC engine has thousands of reaction intermediates, many of them radicals.

Net reaction of combustion is simply: fuel + O2 --(irreversible)---> H20(gas) + heat energy.

The amount of heat is the total enthalpic change, which is path independent. It doesn't matter if you have a million intermediate reactions driven by radical chain reactions or if you only have the one primary reaction, the end result will be the same.

Now, you may be right about the time scale thing. I'll have to look into that. However, it is well known that combustion produces many thousands of radicals from fuel and O2. Radicals, in general, participate in reactions with much higher rate constants due to the harpoon mechanism. At these temperatures, I presume that collisional reactions dominate.

Ultimately, the reaction kinetics determines what reactions can happen. If water formation is much faster kinetically than other reactions, then yeah, that's all you'll get, but if not, then the radical reactions of OH(rad) will proceed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnecr
Anyhow, back to the rest of it. I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Water injection is meant for one thing:


All water will accomplish is the lowering of chamber temperatures. That's what it's meant for! I've read the thread and I'm still not sure whether you are trying to lower temps or not? If you are, then bingo! you found it!
I'm wondering if there is a better way to control NOx than wasting fuel and losing power. And, if soot can be reduced at the same time, that is a win win win situation.

Last edited by nicklockard; January 31st, 2008 at 12:23.
nicklockard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2008, 13:12   #15
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

I've heard (through Tdimeister - ask him!) that water injection can indeed be used to reduce NOx - and the good thing is that a water injection system can be used all the way up to full engine load, which can't be done with EGR without significant de-rating of the engine's power output.
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 18:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.23690 seconds with 9 queries
[Output: 165.10 Kb. compressed to 142.18 Kb. by saving 22.92 Kb. (13.88%)]