Full wet test induction project

[blaktopr]

picture taken using dye and black light on Edelbrock Pontiac head. I need to work on this end of things. Don't know what else I can try to see up unto the chamber while bench is running. Wooops, wrong pic

[blaktopr]

here it is

[bruce]

[200cfm]

Very nice pictures and videos. You are a pioneer in a new land. Now concerning the air to fluid ratio. The fluid seems to be clinging to the walls of the bore adapter and appears rather heavy in the sense of amount or volume. And it is still in liquid form. Now in the real engine world the fuel would be ideally vaporized and much lighter and tracking with the air, etc. unless you had say an issue of fuel separation whereupon it might start to look like some of the above pictures. I am thinking that a vaporized test would be more beneficial as to what is going on. Perhaps smoke or another medium would be closer to a vapor state to simulate fuel fluid.
If you stay with water the test would be more valid if you can mist up the water more. Something like those water cool injectors used on turbo cars might be the ticket. They atomized the water very well for more contact with the air and pull high turbo temperatures down a lot, mainly because they vaporize the water into millions of mist droplets. Aquamist is one name that comes to mind. Keep up the good work. I am learning from your efforts.

[blaktopr]

Bruce, I am aware of that and know there are some from that site that visit here and are members. I was also thinking that anyone interested would register and see what there is to offer from you and the site. I'll say it, be interested in your products like the others are here.

200, Pioneer? I don't see it that way. Maybe for us DIY'ers on the low buck level. But thanks anyway! I can only think that there are numerous people who had to have tried or done this. I don't give myself much credit and wonder how smart I really am. I guess when you get told many times over that an idea won't work, you begin to question yourself.

So far I have been working with fluid amounts that work back to BSCF of a motor for required HP. I know there are other variables involved and will have to fine tune them in the future. I broke down LBS of fuel per cylinder per 10 seconds for 700HP (the target for those heads) from .5lb/hr/hp into cc or ml. I changed hole sizes and amounts and timed measured amounts. For example, 90ml into cup, 60 back out, test then showed 30 taken in over the 10 sec time. The tube in the pic does spray out pretty fine. The uv pic above has maybe half of the liquid entering as the water only tests I posted on youtube. Regardless of how little goes in, the water still tends to saturate that part of the cylinder. Now mind you, I can go all directions in testing dispersing, but if the port/seat/chamber doesnt work well, then what are we looking at? You follow where I am going with this. I have no baseline optimum head to work with in designing a good system. Looking down the port, like I said, so far looks pretty atomized. I figured that the cone shape of the hole and sharp edges would help keep the liquid broken up. There is also so little room in the runner to work with. I will be getting a piece of 3/4 inch thik plexiglass to maybe plum inside it and have a ring around the port in the glass not to disrupt any airflow. From the tube to an idea like this, I have been just thinking of NOS delivery systems. The tube is least efficient but it is still being used. Holes in a tube facing in the direction of the airflow. Now there is perimeter plates. I am going to get some thinner tube from the hobby shop to make the new system. Plus I would like to mess around a little in trying a "water" velocity probe. To stick it far into the port to see direction and turbulence instead of string on the end of a stick.

Going back to what is in the chamber and cylinder. In watching into the port the liquid has lots of areas of separation. Spots like before the guide to the back side of the bowl. You can also see the fluid also comming off the guide itself straight down to the valve. Maybe some liquid build up in some areas then makes its way back in, not having enough time to transition back into a mist. I do also know that on the other hand, if the water is more finely misted that it may follow with the air more. These are a few of the seem to be endless questions I hope to answer. In the intake alone I saw how the floor (on the bench only) can be dead and fuel drop out. We know in a running engine that it happens also and that is why they put waffleing or turtles on the floor. I saw a little bit of liquid dropping out when entering the port where the air speeds up around the radius of the wall divider. These things make me wonder of how "misted" the fuel is when combatting all these issues? How much wall texture and any place where air is sped up can contribute to the mixture going from a mist to less of a mist. How this plays a role upstream before entering the ssr/valve/seats/chamber. Another thing I see. Using the tube with holes top to bottom, the inactive floor does not pull the fluid in. It starts about a 1/3 way up and strongest at the roof. Now I put the intake on and I think it is either A) Following the floor more closely because of how the airflow "signiture" is changed or B) liquid dropping out through the turn and surface texture of the runner. because more fluid now exits under the valve on to the cylinder. Not like in the direction of the above pic but think of a waterfall instead going around the ssr continuing in the same direction to the cylinder. I will try more back to back tests to try to verify something, and take pics/vids.

Geez, this came from only 4 days of messing around! I allmost forgot about the airflow aspect and been looking at the efficiency of fuel through the runner. It does kill me that I can't get my hands on a better testing solution more like gas. Also, when it comes to the fluorecent dye itself, I have found out today that I and other DIY'ers, are on our own to get a good Dye to work. The other key I found out was to stain the chamber to see the results better after running on a bench. I will keep the findings comming.

[106-1194218389]

I don't know if you guys have seen these from Darin Morgan's web site. These are some great clear pictures of wet flow I found these very interesting. Be sure to look all the way down the page. There is also a pretty good thread at Speed Talk.

John

[blaktopr]

John, I been using those pics to study any similarities/differences to my own test data. Things become more clear now that I have something to look at. I am going to have to try a search over there again in regards to wet flow. All I found in past searches were brief talk about the subject and the thread of will wet take over dry benches. I started that topic over there with the videos to get some feedback and throw some ideas around especially since there wasn't much on the subject. Let alone from a backyard DIY'er. I am kinda surprised at the lack of responses. Unki (I think thats his name) seems to give me little bits to help find my way through the testing. Other than that I been mostly contributing with my own views and questions. Is it nobody wants to touch it? Is wet flow that secret that nobody will comment? Or am I just a big boob making a fool out of myself.

[200cfm]

I talked to a guy who had played around with wet flowing and he mentioned dykem powder that when added would "stick" to the areas he "wetted" with something to indicate flow concentration areas. That's all I got out of him and thought the approach was "well maybe that's it."

[blaktopr]

White for colored water, black for fluorecent.

[blaktopr]

White for colored water, black for fluorecent. Im getting some white in the mail.

[106-1194218389]

I am not sure it is totally understood yet and if it is it is really secret Darin did say once when I asked that you do not want the spark plug to be getting wet. I also think you are trying to get something that does not centrifuge the fuel out of the mixture. If you are slamming into the back cylinder wall and it is a huge wet spot I don't think that would be good either. That would be fuel that would not ignite well. You would probably have to run really rich to compensate.

John

[blaktopr]

I am going to wet test the heads that were on my motor and take a look at the piston tops to see if there is any trends. Going to take pics and notes. Unfortunately I will not use those for my tests for my car. They are one year only heads that I may have a buyer for. So I can't get any back to back data, but maybe enough to start out.
John, it's funny you say secret. I felt I been so in the dark and behind in any progression since I took time away from racing. Got back, and pushed back forward to where I am at now. Started my own testing with this relitavely new, but not so new "wetflow" stuff. Built a simple bench that captures the liquid that I feel anyone could have done. But when I question on it or post small things I find, I get crickets. Everything else from valve seat angles to wave tuning comes out. The reason why there are 55 degree seats, Wetflow testing. But then try to add on the subject, nothing. It does feel good that I am able to explore these things that may be "new" and "secret" I'm glad I can share it with others.
I was thinking today about valves. Of how the liquid responds to sharp edges, angles and such. What the more important factor is when the valve is open; the angle and transition at the seat, or the angle at the valve and backcuts? How both play a part of each other. I want to build a rig to test the valve only. I am interested to see what happens to fluid off the edge of the valve if you changed from a 55 degree cut and 90 degree margin, to something like a 55 cut to a 65 degree or 70 degree or to more cuts at the margin, making up the margin. Understand? I know I have to do some more tests before trying this. There seems to be some fluid left at the edge of a 45 degree cut. I want to really see if when the mixture reaches the end of the angle to the margin does some of it separate. If it does, and a 55 helps this phenomenom, could more efficiency be gained from working the margin area. Also if a 45 degree seat can promote better wet flow characteristics through these tests and more, we now increase the seat window area bringing in some better lower lift flow numbers increasing the flow curve. Just some thoughts I had at work today.

[200cfm]

I was on the Goodson tech site trying to educate myself on tooling and valve stones, etc. Came across a comment by Joe Mondello on wet flowing and he stated that backcutting on valves for performance was not good based on wet flow testings. That straight 45 was all that was needed. Yet in my readings a backcut 30 helps out on the air flow. So apparently it helps pure air but changes things when fluid is part of the air. So who is correct?

[49-1183904562]

[color=#000000]Food for thought, remember we all get pigeon holed into the 45/46 degree valve seats because that is where they were from the factory; plus or minus, yes some do others I know. This is brought about from many aspects materials, machining time to accuracy, LONGEVITY, etc. whatever was best for the big three. That does not mean it is the best for flow or the best for horsepower! As racers and performance enthusiast we will often sacrifice longevity for speed, look at the top fuel guy

[blaktopr]

Now that I can wet flow (my crude setup has some flaws but still can test) I am still trying to develop a better dispersing means to try to test those means. I did manage to get a finer mist in the chamber, and there still seems to be a similar "pattern" to larger amounts. Once I get to the finest mist and try to introduce it further away from the test piece, I will see how different the rates "show" and see if anything could be concluded from using multiple means. Between what I seen, read and listened too with "airlow thoughts" cd's, not only is there spray in small particles that is more able to follow the flow but some "loose fuel" so to speak making its way to the chamber. Larry M. speaks on how the pressure pulse inside the runner vaporizes the fuel. I want to test also that "loose fuel" I spoke of which may be found in poorer induction systems. Then put the data together and TRY and I stress try, to formulate an answer. What is good is I get to bounce around from dry to wet testing not keeping myself on a one track mind. This allows me to rotate around and not burn out for one thing. Lately I been back to tooling around on my cast iron Pontiac # 62 to modifying the dry flow aspect. Maybe I'll start 300 cfm thoughts along side your (200cfm) 200 cfm thoughts. I am taking a different approach now to these heads different than the way I used to. (Same as everyone else when starting.....big flow and no regards to avarage and localized velocities) Some gains, some losses, less tubulence, a little less fps here and there. Unfortunately, I am without stones and the old valve refacer has been modified in the past and I don't know if I can revert it back. So, it is a slower process for me and I don't want to go too far until I aquire these items. Money is tight. As for the valves, I guess it can also depend on the port you are testing on in regards to the backuts. The rig I mentioned will not take in consideration of the port, but this is only to test the effects fluid has over cirtain sized, shaped, etc, cuts on a valve and tulip shapes after the stem leading into the cut. I have a few valves, stock, aftermarket, to play with. I may also be able to get a valve on my mini lathe to change some cuts for the testing. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting, or of course, if it seems way out of the ordinary and it works, I'll make it ...Anchient Chineese Secret.., Chris