General injector question

Rustin

Rustin

Let the Beatings Begin!
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
2,212
Please forgive me if this is long and or vague. If I put everything this thread would be looked past for to much content.

I am not out to try to Start a WAR on opinions. However; it might happen with this thread! I am just looking for guidance, and wondering if I am thinking the right way? I want to inspire out of the box thinking, without trying to reinvent the wheel (I seem to get that allot).

I want to go at it a different way. I have seen allot of injectors over the years including performance injectors, and the fuel pressures have increased, as well as injector timing. When looking back at older trucks (5.9 6bt for an example) We notice the evolution of performance injectors. First it was advance injector timing, then increase fuel pressure, followed by installing Marine injectors (after the initial intake exhaust and others, we will just considers this done throughout this post). Performance Shops discovered the weakness of the originals and started to modify accordingly. These shops and businesses are now the pioneers of diesel performance! Injector orifices were increased in size to allow more fuel (not to mention the pumps were modded to produce more fuel flow) when we start to get into black smoke that is when we are maxed out in timing, fuel pressure.

Question 1. What size are the diesel fuel droplets when atomized on a maxed out or fully modded injector?

Question 2. What size are the diesel droplets when atomized on the new power-plants?

Question 3. Does diesel get more volatile when extremely atomized?

29,000*psi (1,999 bar) high-pressure common rail Bosch fuel system on 6.7l this is the pressures that Ford is using. I do not know the pressures of the other power-plants yet. I was just trying to set up my next question. My Idea is to go another direction, fuel economy and power in an older engine. Starting with injector tips.

Question 4. How about smaller nozzles and more of them? I mean really small like half the size of a normal nozzle.

Granted we have a typical star pattern, that works well.

Question 5. How about a Cloud spray or Conical spray pattern that goes directly into the bowl, or maybe have the nozzles juxtaposition (Either against air current or with the current) in the intake swirl. I do know this is already happening in stock setting just looking to squeze mor efficency.

Now I am all for the performance and the search for more power. I just want to look at this in a different angle. I do not care if this Idea is put to good use, and that I do not make anything from it. (The manufacterers are already hip to this any way so no loss. That is besides the point (I cannot afford it anyway) might as well let somebody capitalize on this.

I know the basics about Injectors, I am just trying to see if anybody has the same Ideas. Granted I have no funds to actually do this experiment, nor the funds to process data to see the spray patterns that are actually happening in the combustion chamber. I do know that there are allot of shops out there that might. I would like some guidance please.

Forgive me for posting on a general subject everyone knows, I just want to make sure I am not stupid. I have over 150 new Ideas every day, some have to do with Mechanical, Software, Musical, and Marketing. I was told I would never be taken serious unless I have a degree. Well, I am almost done with my A/S will try to get my B/S. The unfortunate thing is I am late should have done this in my 20s. Now I am being told I am to old to be taken serious.
Thanks
Rustin
 
Last edited:
I must have lost scope some whare, and scared everybody away!
 
NOTHING? WHAT on earth! am I a jerk or something?
 
What you speak of is and has been tested. Several variations in fact. More spray orifices of a smaller diameter, impinged patterns, varying cone angles with different flame front travel, and also offset orifices to overlap one another. Spray dispursion and visualization are all very closely tested, compared, and contrasted vs different types of nozzles, including pintle and sac volume variations. I have also seen pockets machined into pistons to contain each spray jet, much is to be learned. But there are certain trade offs that need to be made when looking for power and not efficiency.
 
"Over 150 new ideas every day" ???

I have interviewed people who have made this kind of statement, and not one ever got hired.

Maybe you should focus on having ONE good idea and following it through to completion.


As for injectors and fuel economy, if you don't work for a university or someone like Bosch, forget it. There are far too many variables involved and the test equipment needed is extensive. Just start reading some SAE papers and in about 15 minutes you'll realize that this has gone far far FAR beyond what any mom 'n pop shop can do.

99% of the injector geeks out there are focused solely on emissions.
 
Smokem said:
What you speak of is and has been tested. Several variations in fact. More spray orifices of a smaller diameter, impinged patterns, varying cone angles with different flame front travel, and also offset orifices to overlap one another. Spray dispersion and visualization are all very closely tested, compared, and contrasted vs different types of nozzles, including pintle and sac volume variations. I have also seen pockets machined into pistons to contain each spray jet, much is to be learned. But there are certain trade offs that need to be made when looking for power and not efficiency.
Click to expand...

I figured as much. I had to ask. I am on a new project, that I know is not Competition Diesel related. However; is Performance related. I was given the task of making a early 1999 F-250 PowerStroke fuel efficient. My goal is around 370hp with 24mpgs or better on straight diesel. I keep going back to injectors. So I thought I would through the question out there and see who will take my to school on the subject.
Thank you Smokem.
Rustin
 
nwpadmax said:
"Over 150 new ideas every day" ???

I have interviewed people who have made this kind of statement, and not one ever got hired.

Maybe you should focus on having ONE good idea and following it through to completion.


As for injectors and fuel economy, if you don't work for a university or someone like Bosch, forget it. There are far too many variables involved and the test equipment needed is extensive. Just start reading some SAE papers and in about 15 minutes you'll realize that this has gone far far FAR beyond what any mom 'n pop shop can do.

99% of the injector geeks out there are focused solely on emissions.
Click to expand...

When your right your right! It is hard to stay focused on one Idea when nobody wants to help follow through, with that one good idea. SO, I move to the next. I find my self in the unable to be hired, I just lost a job for passing kidney stones. I only had it for 3 months. Any links would to this subject is helpful.
Thanks
Rustin
 
There is some very good information out there if you do some searching, nozzle hole geometry being the main premise.

As for your previous questions, it has been found that an increase in orifice count and decrease in hone diameter decreases NOX and soot emissions and increases atomization. These are benefits of efficiency, but not necessarily the goal for great power output. Comparing nozzles of the same flow, nozzle type, and orifice count, convergent vs non convergent, it was found that the convergent nozzle increased soot emissions over the non convergent. The effects on NOX emissions and fuel consumption with the convergent nozzle were not significant over the non convergent.

Increased injection pressure significantly reduces soot emissions at typical timing areas, but is far less significant 5° ATDC and later.
 
Comparing different nozzle types and spray patterns is often very important, in many cases a VCO nozzle has a greater ignition delay than a micro-blind sac type nozzle. The VCO nozzle often has a cooler flame, greater duration, and greater intensity, whereas the micro-blind nozzle often has a hotter flame, slightly less duration, and less intensity. Flame intensity can also be parlayed into meaning basically the length of the jet, and the ability to penetrate the air density in the combustion chamber.
 
Last edited:
I have some mie scattering diagrams to give a visual.

8-hole micro-blind sac type

Graphic.jpg


5-hole VCO

VCO.jpg


5-hole micro-blind sac type

Sac-1.jpg
 
You may also look here for a bit of insight into what is commonly used for the mechanical injection systems.
 
Thank you! for your information. That helps. are their any performance injector builders looking in to blending their knowledge of building performance injectors that are fuel efficient? That would be an interesting process.
 
Instead of a round hole, have they tried other types. it appears a more flat shaped might work to fanout the spray, am I wrong?
 
nwpadmax said:
United States Patent and Trademark Office and search terms "nozzle" / "injector" etc. and assignee "Caterpillar" or "Bosch" and you'll be reading for weeks.

For economy, I doubt you can beat what comes from the factory by any kind of significant margin.
Click to expand...

Your right! I have to really figure out what verbiage to use to find what I am looking for. your not the first person to tell me that it is not possible. If we can modify Manufacturer's injectors for power why is it considered impossible to modify for more fuel economy and power. granted there is more going on to look at. Valve train, cam positions, Sensor calibrations, Volumetric efficiency, Soft ware... ETC, ETC. Hmm... Thanks any way, you all have been a real help. I have more studying and wrenching to do to find the answers.
rustin
 
Well, just off the top of my head...

Making HP is all about adding more and more fuel, at the sacrifice of a complete burn. Just blow it the hell in there....we take a good injector and mess it all up (for economy)!

With a stock injector, you are burning the fuel fairly completely and efficiently already...i.e., particulate matter is extremely low, etc. And I'm sure where you've seen that the injection pressures continue to rise in an effort to support efficient burn.

The gains would have to come from somewhere else...namely, VE and thermal losses. Less heat out and more power out...that's the biggest killer of efficiency. Aren't even the best IC engines only like 30% efficient converting the energy of the fuel into motion? Most of that doesn't have much to do with an injector per se.

And of course, light vehicle weight and good aero mean a ton. Both of which, trucks suck at.

You might want to pay close attention to the VW TDI guys....they have an excellent platform to play with and I bet there's an excellent knowledge base.
 
I figured as much as well. You guys have been a real help. I have a list of Stuff that I am looking at for my project. My goal.... It's a Hard Goal! Been laughed out of a Forum for it. I want to Get at least 24+mpgs and near 390HP out of an early 1999 F-250 Powerstroke.
I have read about the TDI guys Tried to import a Ford TDIC out of a wreaked Ranger from Australia, $5,000 to expensive. I have been noticing that the use of prechaimbers are coming back. I have been wondering if the La Mans diesels are using a prechaimber system of some kind.
 
Last edited:
Don't be fooled, emissions drive configuration, not efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top