Richard L

iTrader: (5)

I have found one, again made by abner. This one has the checkvalve installed at the pump outlet and followed by 16 feet of tubing, is it worth uploading it to youtube?

Sorry, I re-read your post, you wanted to see a PPS system rather an on/off test.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

I went off topic a bit on the Direct port. Sorry.

Just to summerise this thread in my mind. You have posted a 50K miles alcohol injected engine and shown no cracked pistons. So what caused Mike's cracked pistons?

Lets look at it from another direction, why didn't your piston cracked?

1. Is it due to good cylinder distribution?
2. Is it because you have a simple on/off system (HFS-1)?
3. Is it because the system is predictable so there are no lean AFR spots after a tune?
4. Is it because your nozzle location is different from Mike's car?
5. Is it the system has a good failsafe? Has this helped preventing you from having cracked pistons on some occasions?
6. A good installation and a dash gauge to monitor flow?

What is your take on those points?

mt057

iTrader: (6)

All of these points you have brought up are important. I think that monitoring equipment and a failsafe that reponds without the user is important. People can not respond fast enough to a dire situation as an automatic system would. I think that murpheys law says that anything that can go wrong will... So a secondary monitoring system that grabs your attention is a good back up. I use Tephra's flash cel on knock to act as extra back up on top of my DDS3 lol.

We also do not know the mix that was being used in the cars that had issues. If they were tuned for 50/50 then someone forgot and topped it off with water or simply mixed the mixture wrong. Then it could have thrown off the tune. There are so many variables we do not know. I keep stating that people blow engines on all types of fuels. That previous thread on cracked pistons simply pointed a finger at WMI in general. Without data to show why the failure happened. Although there has been a "rash" of spun bearings on E85 cars locally lately. I would not simply blame E85 but how it was used. Maybe to much fuel and not frequent enough oil changes. I would place it on user error.

NS@AEM

Richard my name is Nathan but I go by Nate.

I was not referring to your sequential injection video Richard. I was talking about the Abner videos where he pulses the system on and off over and over again. His single HSV system was designed to pulse just like a fuel injector right? You do understand that a variable pressure injection system delivers flow continously, right? Your old obsolete systems pulsed and a variable pressure system does not. Answer me this: Why was he pulsing a variable pressure injection system that isn't meant to be pulsed? Isn't it a bit misleading to compare two systems together and use the one you're comparing against the way it ISN'T meant to be used?

So there still has yet to be an unbiased, third party, independent video that clearly shows the systems being used how they're designed to be used.

Yeah, I'm such a dumbass sometimes.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that a "pulse-width" and "pulse-position" modulated system is only good for one injection valve per cylinder? Does this mean that your old sequential systems that used a single HSV that actually pulsed just like fuel injector can only work properly for a single cylinder engine? Is this why you obsoleted these systems? Because they don't work properly in multi-cylinder applications?

Yes lots of hype and misinformation about fluid distribution out there right now. Does Aquamist offer a one-valve-per-cylinder kit now? Was Aquamist offering a one-valve-per-cylinder sequential injection system when Abner made his videos?

I thought the topic of this thread had something to do with exposing cheap alky kits? What's your definition of a cheap alky kit Richard?

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Nate,

I believe abner's video was to show how a particular system repsonse to a rapid on/off situation. This base test is important for any systems, PWM-V, PPS or on/off system.

If a system is not able to turn off rapidly, it cannot deliver a predictable amount of fluid. the fuel demand of an engine changes rapidly in relationship to RPM and throttle modulation. When a third party system started to introduce another blend of fuel such as methanol along side the main fuel delivery system, it needs some degree of coherence or otherwise lean spot will appear and induce unnecessary knock event.

The video clearly illustrated the "pump only" system cannot respond quickly to an "off" command. At first, you have suspected the reason for the over spray is due to the effect of the long tubings. So I posted a second abner video without the long tubing. The "dribble" or "after spray" continued. So what caused the run-on? I suspect it was the inertia of the rotating pump motor was responsible. Do you agree?

At this point, I would like to hear from you, as a main supplier of PPS type of WMI system. Would this "after-run" effect muddle your delivery accuracy? I believe your system mirrors the manifold pressure signal against pump duty cycle% with reasonable consistency and linearilty?

I can only work on one topic at a time, I will address the rest of your comments at a later date. Please help me with the questions on this post of mine and try not to go off-topic too much.

3gEclipseTurbo

iTrader: (12)

Honestly more important than even the quality of the kit is the tune. Or well lets say just as important. Who tuned the car before it was brought to mike? Was it evened tuned? The timing could have been passed MBT and the tuner didnt know. Maybe it wasnt on a conservitive tune, and it was pushed ot the max with some knock here and there left in. Then the ****y kit was just the iceing on the cake.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

These days, any system delivers enough methaol that can affect the AFR should carry adequate failsafe.

Realtime flow monitoring is the only true failsafe that can tackle this. One can add as many bells and whistles to a system but ultimately the failsafe has to be a flow based type. This is just my opinion.

SparkTech

iTrader: (141)

Just found this thread. Of course the one this is response to was a bit easier to find.
Just like negative reviews...they get the most hits...Positive reviews just get buried


Great job on clarifying these cracked piston myths of Meth/water Injection. As stated previously this has been used in the aviation arena since world war 2.

Just like nos there are good results and bad.

mt057

iTrader: (6)

Looking back through the old thread the only info that I could scavange was that the car had run 50/50 and that the nozzle was placed 6" or less from the throttle body with only one nozzle. I also believe that the car had no failsafe in place, no way to monitor flow of WMI, no wideband, not even a knock light. Wow. Without any of these there would have been no way to know if the car was in trouble or not. Anyone of these items paired with some attentiveness could have saved lots of trouble. Though, I think that like Richard said a flow based failsafe should be first priority; then a wideband and knock light as back up. In some situations it is better to err on the side of caution.

I have run WMI for a little over 40000mi. I flog on my car. I want a new motor. But I have had no problems. I have hit my failsafe multiple times my different ways, low flow, no flow, low tank level. This felt like hitting a wall as my boost was cut but my engine was saved.

What makes a good WMI kit to me...

1. a failsafe that automatically cuts boost to a safe level when there is lack of or over flow
2. accurately and consistently delievers the fluid injected
3. great atomization of injected fluid
4. does not cost my next born child (current ones are negotiable)

scheides

iTrader: (10)

Yup and I tried to get this point across in Mike's thread but it got mowed down by other garbage posts:

1) yes, having two nozzles, one about 6" from the TB and one halfway down the UICP allowed plenty of time for the meth/water to fully mix with the charge-air.
2) not sure, but the fact that it follows IPW and not boost is def a plus since I used NLTS all the time on that car.
3) consistent AFR certainly helps a ton!
4) see #1, I believe this in addition to a full pressure system providing good, even atomization at all times makes for a great combo.
5) absolutely. In the deep cold of MN winter (-30°F) I'd have issues with the push-lock lines on the old hfs-1 system starting to leak, in addition to some flow problems; the system would go into failsafe mode. Of course doing a ton of boosting at this temp wasn't always the norm but I certainly wasn't nice/easy on the car
6) For sure, the gauge lets you eyeball flow and lets you know if your failsafe has triggered. Plus, you can simply flip the system off from that gauge and run in low-boost, no alky, pump gas tune mode. As we all know pump gas evos are TONS of fun, but having the ability to flip that switch and pick up 50whp/50wtq sure is nice! I'd turn it off a lot in winter or if I was driving my grandma around; my mom on the other hand always insisted that we have it on when I took her shopping!

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

This very true, as a wmi kit maker, we have little or no control over this. All we can do is to provide a good failsafe and recommend people to use reputable tuners.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Just visited your web page, pretty good stuff you are making!

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

I hope this thread will address those negative remarks of wmi. So far only AEM chimed in. I will try to keep within the topic.

A quick glance of your reply. There isn't that many things left for the user to do apart from filling up the tank. Having Tephra on borad developing those great patches and now the X. The latest HFS-3v2 tephra interface is a one-wire affair. No need to to use special cables anymore, the "tephra-link" is within one of the coloured harness.

My best regards to your Mom, keep that button down.

NS@AEM

That video illustrates that the particular variable pressure system (which doesn't appear to use a check valve or solenoid to prevent post injection flow) being used in this test does not quickly cut off flow after commanded injection has been stopped. It does not illustrate that all variable pressure systems will behave this way because not all of the kits available come without a check valve or solenoid. Only some come with no provision to stop flow. AEM, along with a number of our competitors, choose to supply our systems with check valves.

No, I don't agree that the inertia of the rotating pump motor was responsible for the dribble. There is a significant amount of resistive force acting against the pump motor and it tends to stop quickly once it's no longer powered. Even though the pump motor has stopped there is still pressure in the line which will bleed down until it's equalized with atmospheric pressure. A smaller restrictive jet will tend to exaggerate this bleed down problem but a nozzle with a larger orifice allows the pressure to drop quickly.

I also think the video clearly illustrates the affect that gravity has when a system that does not use a check valve or solenoid has its nozzle positioned to spray downwards. There is column of fluid above the orifice and it will obviously try to drain itself plus the fluids own inertia will help pull more fluid with it as it traveling "down hill" with gravity (your basic siphon effect). Abner was very smart to realize this and switched the nozzles around so they would be spraying down instead of up like his first videos showed so the dribble would be exaggerated making the variable pressure system looks even worse. Smart!

I could be wrong but it looks like Abner used the same type of nozzle in his videos to test both the valve system and the variable pressure system. Based on the similar spray patterns and droplet density I assume that he's using your nozzles. I've always considered the Aquamist nozzles to be extremely small and restrictive which again is going to exaggerate a bleed down issue if used on a variable pressure injection system without some means to control post injection flow. To my knowledge, our system does not have an "after-run" problem so our delivery accuracy isn't negatively impacted.

NS@AEM

Mike, you're right on the mark.

We are very proud of our current system. WE know it atomizes as well as or better than any on the market. We know it's repeatable and reliable and we believe we are by far the most cost effective unit on the market. We already offer the industry leading pump, the best in-line serviceable filter available, a custom designed lightweight injector with integral check valve to prevent run-on flow, the biggest standard tank, pre-installed level sensor in every tank, a 52mm stepper motor flow gauge with actual flow values (not just a bar graph display that the user can calibrate to indicate anything), and the best standard system readiness failsafe in the industry. We already make the industry leading wideband AFR systms that allow you to monitor the affect of your water/methanol injection kit and just about the only thing anybody could really say about us was that we were lacking a great flow bsed failsafe.

That's the reason we spent almost the entirety of the last year working on the Injection Monitor. The reason it took so long was because we were not going to do like our competitors have done and simply have a single point reference and say that anything above it is good and anything below it is bad. That's almost useless. That type of system won't see an injector that is slightly clogged unless you make the threshold so high that it will entirely miss a clogged injector while still at a low injection rate. The only correct way to do it is to allow the user to fully define the minimum and maximum allowable flow across the entire injection curve and the AEM Injection Monitor is the ONLY system that does this.

A failsafe that makes you choose between missing real failures or suffering through false triggers is not very good.