AFR Composite Intakes.......

[TC]

Very Wet

Wet is good, better than Vapor........

[anotheridiot]

Wet is good, better than Vapor........

that wet is spraying into metal, not just the composite intake though right? I dont think the one you were looking at had sleeves.

[JeffMcKC]

Vapor is better, you can put a match out in gasoline as a liquid but not as a vapor.

[TC]

Vapor is better, you can put a match out in gasoline as a liquid but not as a vapor.

It's only better in the cylinder/combustion chamber, if the gas vaporizes in the intake runner it will displace air in the intake charge and cost you HP......... Basically you want the gas to enter the cylinder in droplets and then vaporize while being compressed.......

[JeffMcKC]

It's only better in the cylinder/combustion chamber, if the gas vaporizes in the intake runner it will displace air in the intake charge and cost you HP......... Basically you want the gas to enter the cylinder in droplets and then vaporize while being compressed.......

You google to much, Vapor to me is very small droplets, and a liquid gas just makes a boundry layer on the runner this does not make for good power. If you look at the F1 video thats what I would call a vaporizing spray.

[jcharliem]

Glad to see the entertainment factor hasn't subsided on BS!

[TC]

You google to much, Vapor to me is very small droplets, and a liquid gas just makes a boundry layer on the runner this does not make for good power. If you look at the F1 video thats what I would call a vaporizing spray.

No Google been reading Vizard, and he looks at it a bit different than what your explaining..............

[TheSilverBuick]

Glad to see the entertainment factor hasn't subsided on BS!

This completely goes against the better atomization theory. So now less atomization is better.

[dieselgeek]

I think we need to simplify to the "hey, it's a running engine!" theory. Throw Vizard out the window, just like we're supposed to do when we think about tuning on Nitromethane. All these posts are getting old, put a Holley on that POS and fire it up!

[TC]

This completely goes against the better atomization theory. So now less atomization is better.

Atomizing the fuel is only good to a point, if the fuel is atomized to much and vaporizes in the intake runner it ends up displacing air, so your not going to get as much oxygen in the chamber for combustion, which equates to less HP that will be produced....... Vizard writes about it in his book, suggest you read it.........

[dieselgeek]

Atomizing the fuel is only good to a point, if the fuel is atomized to much and vaporizes in the intake runner it ends up displacing air, so your not going to get as much oxygen in the chamber for combustion, which equates to less HP that will be produced....... Vizard writes about it in his book, suggest you read it...

I call bullshit on this, until perhaps you are working on a 110% max effort combination, which you aren't.

Meanwhile, no mention of the Nitrogen that's taking up *way* more volume of the charge than either the Oxygen or the fuel?

My suggestion is, put down the books, learn how to put the engine together, and find out that Vizard is of zero help when it comes to making an engine actually run. Pick the vizard books back up once you're looking for that last 1% power, or better yet - toss the book and turn the wastegates up a quarter turn.

[TheSilverBuick]

Go take a physic's course. If you have the exactly the same mass of gasoline in the runner (rather vapor or big droplets) then it's displacing the same volume of air/oxygen either way, as it's still a liquid and nearly incompressible. The difference between the two is surface area, and general concensus is greater the exposed surface area the better and quicker the burn, hence vapor has more gasoline surface area to react with oxygen so burns faster and better than larger droplets with less surface area. Hence my point about it being a direct contradiction. Go take a physics course.

[dieselgeek]

Should I be scared that I never picked up a Vizard book for ANY of the engines I've tuned on? I never ran into a problem where I needed to be concerned about vaporization, atomization, etc. even on engines making 10hp per cubic inch...

Although I have read two of Vizard's books, and found them interesting, I've also been told by others in the industry that Vizard's books are good for Entry Level thinking, toss them for true max efforts.

In my world, we point the injector down the hole and fire that pig up!! Don't worry about the .01% crap when there are other areas you can gain 5-10%. It's called "grab the low hanging fruit first" and it's how you get a project completed versus yakking on the internet for 10+ years without a single accomplishment to show for it, other than a pile of expensive parts lying around.

[TC]

Go take a physic's course. If you have the exactly the same mass of gasoline in the runner (rather vapor or big droplets) then it's displacing the same volume of air/oxygen either way, as it's still a liquid and nearly incompressible. The difference between the two is surface area, and general concensus is greater the exposed surface area the better and quicker the burn, hence vapor has more gasoline surface area to react with oxygen so burns faster and better than larger droplets with less surface area. Hence my point about it being a direct contradiction. Go take a physics course.

Droplets are denser than vapor, think of water and steam.........

And anyway believe what you want, I'm going to take the word of an engineer with 40+ years of building performance engines.............

[jcharliem]

...I've also been told by others in the industry that Vizard's books are good for Entry Level thinking, toss them for true max efforts...

99% of publications are for the novice...that's the audience. Anyone who plays in the stratosphere isn't sharing.

(This 1,200hp twin turbo small-block TC is dreaming about, is way out of his league. That's why his posts keep the entertainment factor up in the clouds.)