Richard L

iTrader: (5)

pmed

1fastevo99

i have a question. why aren't any of the diaphragm pump based systems listed on the aquamist website? don't want to complain but there are so many different models of aquamist injecdtion systems and different versions of these models that it's hard to figure out what is current and what is discontinued and what not and none of the new systems are on your website. i do a google search and all the info i find is coming from dealers. i really like getting my product info straight from the manufacturer because many times the dealers lag on current info. having to surf a bunch of different web forums to find product info is rather loathsome to me. might be a good idea to have all the info readily available in one spot. thanks.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

The aquamist website badly needed updating. My fault. A good website attracts a large amount of traffic and a bad one doesn't. We are the latter.

The quick answer is, I cannot cope with too many emails per day, answering almost the same questions 365 days a year.

In my case, it pays to register as a vendor on a forum, offering pre-sale and after-sale support, this is more effective use of my time. As we sells mostly to the dealers, they can have all the slick website and traffic.

You can purchase directly form us but we are based in England, shipping can be costly. Jeff at Howertonengineering.com has a full aquamist product line and technical filed on all systems for you to download.

Labonte MotorSports

iTrader: (9)

All nice theoretical information, butt the end goal of water/meth injection is to deliver a target Air/Fuel ratio consistent across the entire RPM band which allows optimal engine performance. The simpler the system the more reliable and fault tolerant it will be. A control valve that behaves like a fuel injector will have delays in lift time time resulting in pockets of the intake air charge that are not humidified by the WIS. End result would be uneven cylinder distribution. The progressive pump speed system design insures continuous spray into the intake air charge for reliable performance, even cylinder distribution and consistent AFR.

The challenge is still out there Richard as from a year ago. Take our ISG-S3 system against your new system on any car with no tuning and lets see which delivers the most accurate AFR and repeatability.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Thanks for chiming in, this thread in not about how the end user tune their system. It is about how linear a system response to a preset flow curve.

We are comparing the linearity (accuracy) of a PWM valve system against a pump speed system (PPS). It appeared the PPS system cannot following a simple straight line. If a system does response accurately to an instruction, how can it give predictable resulted.

As regarding to delay, a PWM valve response time is within a few 1000th of a second compared to a PPS system at 10th of second.

I still like to do the challenge, but must include the bench test first as stated before. Until we can establish that a PPS system can accurately follow a curve, the rest of the test is pointless.

I believe your new system is based on pump speed (PPS) with an on/off valve to stop dribble?

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Labonte,

I would be very interested to hear how your system work, in particular the algorithm to control flow.

We are are very transparent on our control alogorithm, PWM-V controls flow based on IDC and boost.

What is yours?

Labonte MotorSports

iTrader: (9)

The VCS3G uses IDC to calculate the fueling into the engine. Then based on the load of the engine, determined by boost, the amount of water meth needed is calculated. The system has the flow maps of all our nozzles and then commands the pump to deliver the correct amount of spray. The net result is a smooth 1/2point drop in AFR across the entire RPM band.

NateDaJew

iTrader: (3)

+1

Labonte MotorSports

iTrader: (9)

Sorry if missed point of this thread. We don't design our systems to meet a linear input requirement, but to achieve a consistent target AFR that optimizes the performance of the engine. Based on our dyno testing, a linear response rate to IDC would not deliver the target AFR desired from a WI system to prevent engine knock and optimize performance in all load states. So based on title of the thread, main difference between aquamist and ... is the input control matching a straight line while the ... is to optimize engine performance. You are welcome to bench test systems all you want, we will continue to dyno test ours for maximum performance.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Contact Jeff at www.howertonengineering.com. He keeps regular stock of HFS-6.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Thank you for sharing the delivery algorithm.

I have a question, if your system's flow is based on the IDC and add extra water/meth based on boost. All those signals are quite fast changing, how do you deal with the PPS system's inability to react to fast transients, due to the large inertia of the rotating pump motor.

Secondly, water/meth flow based on pressure as in the PPS system, have a limited dynamic range. From 60 to 240psi, the flow range is only 2x. How does your system cope with water/meth demand exceeding this 2x limitation?

The whole point of the thread is comparing the difference between a "PWM-V" and "PPS" system, on what well it copes with "response time" and "accuracy".

A small portion of our system is controlled by a third party ECU where they map their own flow curve. It is not always based on IDC. For your information, all our latest systems have a boost compensate input.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Just a quick observation, how do you know the intended target AFR without some feedback from the wideband lambda probe.

Here is a typical bench test:

1, Testing with a straight line, this will tell how well the system follows a known curve in the real world.

2. Measure the speed of response of the flow reponse to change. It involves sending a fast rising ramp into the system and see how quickly the flow reaches its target. Repeat the same but on a fast shut off.

3. Sending a series of PWM pulses between 25-75% DC and see the well the system response to those signal. It will be logged against the input signal.

If a system does not respond well with the above tests, it is pointless to think it will work any better in the real world. I think all car makers will use the PPS delivery system if it works better the the fuel injector, it also half the cost.

I have a question for you, why use the "pump speed" delivery method with such a sound algorithm, as you have shared with us earlier.

Richard L

iTrader: (5)

Howerton engineering has a great website with all the latest aquamist systems, please pay them a visit.

Here is the link: http://www.howertonengineering.com He is also a vendor here so he can speak freely.

Richard

Labonte MotorSports

iTrader: (9)

- good that you now offer boost comp, you are getting closer to our system. A simple circuit would be all needed to control the valve if you are getting your flow map from a third party ECU, no need for an injection controller.

Labonte MotorSports

iTrader: (9)

Your kidding right? How does an ECU know the target AFR when it goes into open loop mode under boost?


Again you have to be kidding me? Port injection is timed to fire the injector at a specific crank angle position of the engine. You don't want continuous spray of a WIS against a closed inlet valve. You do want continuous spray into the air intake charge of the motor from a WIS. A number of car makers now use PPS on the fuel pump. Gets rid of the FPR and allows more accurate control.

- We designed the VCS3G to deliver a very accurate AFR when using WI that reduces the amount of fuel map compensation tuning needed while considering the complexity of the system to reduce potential failure points which increase the reliability of the product.