I understand what you are saying now Max.
It makes perfect sense now because we do not to move as much water to air by weight in the first place
Brilliant idea!
You would not need the throttle shutter, and the idle discharge ports could probably be plugged too because they are not needed.
Really if everything is set correctly you will only draw water into the venturi at high vacuum and flow, and this is exactly the time you need it most.
It’s simply a calibration issue and as you said the density of the fuel works in your favour and a smaller jet is needed since we are not trying to meter 1 pound of water for every 14 pounds of air.
I have tryed a similar methode before with the ventuti effrct and it ran ok but i did not thod of the carburator. Great idea!
In my case I just want a bit of water since the exhaust is cooling my reactor. I have a moped carburator at hand and l will put a T on the reactor intake conected with the air/exhaust intake and the carburator and see what happens.
We have a saying here roughly translated as “more heads more knolidge”. And it sure comes true!
Hi, Kristijan!
14.2.2016
To avoid too much suction resistance, it has to be measured for a 500 – 1000cc four cycle motor.
It can be vertically or horizontally sucking. An important point is, that the float chamber has a screwed-on lid, easy to open and close; it will be opend many times during the testings…
Preferably with a turnable throttle flap, as it has to be taken out sooner or later anyway. (Good scrapyard hunting!)
Such wishings should never be worded…
1 air intake
2 air valve
3 exhaust valve
4 water carburator
5 gasifier
l think a 50ccm moped carburator shuld do the job as i am only going to put a litle water in the air stream
Hope is makes sence to you the skech is just a fast drawn one
Max; I hope no misunderstandings because I respect your ingenuity. I do have trouble “visualizing” your “verbal” descriptions. I try to sketch out what I understand you to be saying. Some time back I posted a drawing of what I thought you were telling us would make a good gasifying system for cold weather. I have another laying on the table next to me that says “Charcoal Gasifier Nozzle” per Max. And then there was the one I recently posted that you tell me you had nothing to do with. I would not work at these drawings if I didn’t have respect for the information you try to give us.TomC
I have to say I agree with Tom sometimes it is hard to imagine some things that are verbaly descrybed (l mean in general ) exspecialy for us members that do not speak english as its primary language. You can imagine it is eaven harder to describe things in a languade you just bearly know.
Dito!
Funny, but to me your english, Kristijan, is easier to read then most of the american’s. However I think TomC, Max, Don and Wayne are fairly easy to read as well.
Maybe it has something to with that our school english text books were made when they were
I had a thought about timing advance on these systems which rely primarily on a cam position sensor. Maybe some of you with more engineering experience could chime in.
It seems to me that it would be relatively easy to build a simple circuit to introduce a delay into the reporting of the cam position.
I am guessing that the cam position sensor is a hall effect sensor, or something like that, which fires when a rotating magnet passes the sensor or something.
If that were the case, then couldn’t you make a simple analog circuit, with a variable capacitor, to introduce a delay in the signal?
For example, if the sensor would normally report 10 degrees before top dead center, introducing the delay would mean that it was now reporting at 5 degrees before top dead center (for example).
I’ve thought about that too, but i think the computer uses info from several sensors to make decisions and altering just the one may confuse the computer and give unwanted difficulties.
Hi guys; Sorry I can’t find it right now, but we just finished a discussion on timing on another thread. I was trying to make a case for using the “knock sensor” Anyway if I could find that thread, I believe some where in the discussion it was stated that the Dodge is one of the few engines that really benefit from “mechanical distribute advance”. In most others the computer does a good job of adjusting it. I know I have heard it said that the Dodge V6 does not gain benefit from a mechanical advance ( on the other hand I do it on my V6 and can NOT say definitively if it helps or not ) Then you come to a computer controlled 4 cylinder and I really doubt if a mechanical control will help.TomC
Right Jo, but not just when suddenly revving up or down. A simple time delay for adjusting the retard (from 10 to 5 in the example) is good for only one speed. At double the speed the same delay would effectively cut the retard in half since the engine would rotate twice as far in the same amount of time.
