The ULTIMATE Nitrous technology - morphene induced

Noswizard · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:51 am

mrmoo wrote:

and?????????????? :bounce:

TOP SECRET for now.

so the throttle plate is closed when the amount of nitrous overwhelms what the engine can suck in?
Not in my carb option but effectively it is.

at this point wouldnt there no pressure difference across the carb then?? so effectively the fuel supply is shut off too?
closing the throttle plate then would make no difference on air/fuel intake through the carb, only preventing nitrous from escaping
and then in essense SUPERCHARGING THE NOS!!!!!!!! :bow:

as there would be more nos in the manifold than the engine could suck in at 1bar atmospheric
the extra pressure that the nitrous trapped in a sealed manifold creates, a nos forced induction system :bounce:

Correct!

I WANNA RUN A SUPERCHARGED 2BAR NOS SYSTEM!!! :twisted:

LOL

were talking revo levels of control here arnt we??
There wouldn't be much point having the most advanced Semi-Sealed Induction system without using the most advanced flow control.

id just heard a sound like ghostbuster proton pack being started up...............trevs warming up the wallet magnet :omgrofl:

LOL

mgbv8 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:42 pm

Moo!
Looking at your positive manifold pressure idea has given me a thought. If you use a blower or a turbo, does this reduce the effects of reversion in the inlet tract of each cylinder that you could get on a NASP setup?
Just a thought.

mrmoo · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:00 pm

aint that kinda the idea dave?

Noswizard · **Posted:** Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:10 pm

Reversion on a NA engine WITHOUT nitrous is a whole different issue and of a much lesser magnitude than reversion CAUSED by nitrous.

Reversion CAUSED by nitrous is less of a problem on both a turbo & blown engine than on a NA engine.

Reversion caused by the changing pressure in an engine is also less of a problem on a turbo & blown engine.

Makes you wonder how nitrous could ever have ANY chance against blown & turbo vehilces with so much going against it and explains why nitrous is currently lagging behind, when I'm the ONLY person in the world primarily investing a decent amount of time, money and effort in advancing nitrous technology, rather than primarily enhancing the size of my bank account.

mrmoo · **Posted:** Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:24 am

have you done any experiments yet on this trev? or is it top secret?

Noswizard · **Posted:** Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:39 am

Not as such but the hardware is already a WELL PROVEN product and a very simple one at that, plus I can run virtually a full R&D program in my head (thankfully), which is why my ideas ALWAYS work, because they've been through dozens of hours of R&D in there before I even mention them to anyone.

Add these 2 factors together and its a sure bet.

suzook12 · **Posted:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:06 pm

Ok, i have read this thread thru several times and i seem to have missed something.....
The objective seems to be to get more air into the charge,
ICI does this by injecting straight into the sealed combustion chamber, therefore no reversion and no displacement..... OK, i get that

TPI does it by not firing when valve is closed thus stopping reversion

Its the last bit I'm having trouble with. If the inlet tract is closed off, then positive pressure nitrous is acheived

There is no air travelling thru carb

Inlet valve opens and cylinder is charged with positive pressure nitrous, its what happens next im strugglin with..... Now either inlet pressure is high enough to fully charge cylinder and still be a positive pressure (as would happen with turbo or super charger). Now at some point the inlet tract has to open yes? Then would'nt this cause reverse flow as the air thru the carb has stalled and there is no vacuum inlet side, but more importantly, carb side effectively vents to atmosphere???

Alternatively, there is insufficient positive pressure to maintain a pos pressure during intake stroke and a vacuum is created, tract opens and carb works as normal.... OK, so we now have a partially full cylinder so surely this results in less air than NA, plus having something akin to a reed valve in the intake restricting performance.

Now either scenario works fine with positive air pressure before the carb,or fi for that matter but im lost to how you achieve more air using this method, maybe someone could help enlighten me here as im confused

Cheers

Steve

Noswizard · **Posted:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:50 pm

The way to understand the principle is as follows;

1) As things stand, at some level of nitrous injection airflow IN TO THE ENGINE COMES TO A STOP and beyond that point, nitrous flows OUT OF THE INDUCTION SYSTEM ALONG WITH ANY AIR THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE IT'S WAY IN during any drop in manifold pressure.

2) This phenomena becomes the limiting factor that determines how much power a specific engine can make.

3) By shutting off the INDUCTION SYSTEM AT THIS POINT we are NOT shutting off the air flow, because that has already happened.

4) What we are doing, is preventing what would normally escape from doing so and should result in any additional nitrous that is supplied to the induction system, being made available to the engine on the induction cycle, that would not otherwise be possible.

5) The device/system that I have designed will ONLY come in to operation when there is a loss of negative manifold pressure, therefore no loss in performance will occur as there will be no loss in airflow, that would not already be lost in the operation of a conventional nitrous system.

6) Under these conditions I anticipate that it will be possible, to supply adequate nitrous to achieve an increase in performance, over and above that achieved by a conventional nitrous system, rather than it being wasted by blowing out of the intake.

suzook12 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:23 pm

Noswizard wrote:

The way to understand the principle is as follows;

1) As things stand, at some level of nitrous injection airflow IN TO THE ENGINE COMES TO A STOP and beyond that point, nitrous flows OUT OF THE INDUCTION SYSTEM ALONG WITH ANY AIR THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE IT'S WAY IN during any drop in manifold pressure.

2) This phenomena becomes the limiting factor in how much power the engine can make.

3) By shutting off the INDUCTION SYSTEM AT THIS POINT we are NOT shutting off the air flow, because that has already happened.

4) What we are doing, is preventing what would normally escape from doing so and should result in any additional nitrous that is supplied to the induction system, to be made available to the engine on the induction cycle, that would not otherwise be possible.

5) The device/system that I have designed will ONLY come in to operation when there is a loss of negative manifold pressure, therefore no loss in performance will occur as there will be no loss in airflow that would not already be lost in the operation of a conventional nitrous system.

6) Under these conditions I anticipate that it will be possible to supply adequate nitrous to achieve an increase in performance over and above that achieved by a conventional nitrous system, rathyer than it being wasted by blowing out of the intake.

They're the points i did get a grasp of.... What i'm getting at is that at points 4 and 5, should you be using lots of nitrous, is there a danger that after the induction event has occurred that there is still positive pressure in the inlet tract, and you then become a sealed nitrous only system??
I appreciate that at lower pressures this will result in a more efficient use of the nitrous, which im all for. Guess where i tripped meself up was taking it as looking to get more air than NA as opposed to more air than normally associated with that quantity of nitrous.

Steve

Noswizard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:25 pm

suzook12 wrote:

What i'm getting at is that at points 4 and 5, should you be using lots of nitrous, is there a danger that after the induction event has occurred that there is still positive pressure in the inlet tract, and you then become a sealed nitrous only system??
Yes, although I wouldn't call it "a danger", as it might be a benefit and certainly should be an advantage over how things are now. The beauty of my SSIS concept, is that it will function as a fully NA system, just as well as it will function fully as an all nitrous system and anywhere in-between.

I appreciate that at lower pressures this will result in a more efficient use of the nitrous, which im all for. Guess where i tripped meself up was taking it as looking to get more air than NA as opposed to more air than normally associated with that quantity of nitrous.
What I'm actually trying to achieve is to maximise the performance, from whatever air we normally get in to the engine when using nitrous but more importantly, the aim is to STOP the loss of nitrous (which has already stopped the air flow in to the engine), being wasted by flowing out of the induction system and instead it will be FORCED in to the engine. :idea:

What may have contributed to your confusion, is that the other 2 option (TPI & ICI), are both aimed at maximising the amount of air flowing in to the cylinder and minimising the amount of nitrous required.

These 2 options I believe will ultimately achieve better results than the SSIS but the SSIS is much easier to achieve and should produce better results than conventional systems.

suzook12 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:49 pm

Gotcha

So hopefully for next year we will be seeing at least one of these systems in action on the strip???

Will be looking in to the possibility of a twin plug head for an overbored an over valved gsxr motor, as i believe the ICI option could well turn an 8.50 bike into a superstreet contender without the need for a turbo.
Having observed a bike with similar setup to mine, running big hits of nitrous to run 8.50, and seeing the inconsistency of the launches owing to lesser quality components and uncontrollable power, the advent of WON 2nd generation systems cant come soon enough!!

Steve

Noswizard · **Posted:** Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:04 pm

suzook12 wrote:

Gotcha

So hopefully for next year we will be seeing at least one of these systems in action on the strip???
With a lot of luck you might see a MAJOR contender using the system before the end of this year. :shock:

Will be looking in to the possibility of a twin plug head
Not a good idea, stay away from twin plugs with nitrous.

for an overbored an over valved gsxr motor, as i believe the ICI option could well turn an 8.50 bike into a superstreet contender without the need for a turbo.
Do you mean SSIS, because the ICI is a long way from being available (even as a prototype) and will end up being a VERY EXPENSIVE system?

Having observed a bike with similar setup to mine, running big hits of nitrous to run 8.50, and seeing the inconsistency of the launches owing to lesser quality components and uncontrollable power, the advent of WON 2nd generation systems cant come soon enough!!
Even our current pulsed technology would give you a substantial improvement on that example and the REVO alone takes nitrous to another level, so God knows where the next 3 QUANTUM steps will take vehicle performance.

suzook12 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:27 am

Any news on the ICI system yet? Am curious as to what size the injector will turn out at so i know if it will fit the GSXR range heads.
Am guessing this system, with its timing controls, will be very close to coming with its ignition system built in to one box, as it will have to work so closely with the ignition timing to pick up the valve timing?
I still beleive this will be THE system, certainly in race applications as technically there is no limit to how much gas/fuel can be injected per cylinder. Coupled with the ability of multi channel AFR sensing and the possibly of running absolutely stupid times for a given engine should be well within reach :rofl:

Steve

Noswizard · **Posted:** Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:39 pm

suzook12 wrote:

Any news on the ICI system yet?
Unfortunately that is the last on my list.
We are making progress on the Semi Sealed Induction System and the Timed Injection system but it's slow as we're still working on the REVO R&D as well.

Am curious as to what size the injector will turn out at so i know if it will fit the GSXR range heads.
It shouldn't be any bigger than 6mm as we'll be injecting the fuel through the existing injectors.

Am guessing this system, with its timing controls, will be very close to coming with its ignition system built in to one box, as it will have to work so closely with the ignition timing to pick up the valve timing?
That's almost certainly going to be the case.

I still beleive this will be THE system, certainly in race applications as technically there is no limit to how much gas/fuel can be injected per cylinder.
That is likely to be the case but I'm confident that BOTH my alternatives (that will be prototyped before it), will deliver substantial gains.

Coupled with the ability of multi channel AFR sensing and the possibly of running absolutely stupid times for a given engine should be well within reach :rofl:

I'm begining to appreciate that the main limiting factor is how much power a specific vehicle can USE and not how much it can make - UNFORTUNATELY - so I'm not sure how much benefit any of these systems will actually be on most applications. :cry:

Thankfully the Max Extreme & REVO combination should address the control issue so more can be USED.

xclr82xtc · **Joined:** Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:50 pm **Posts:** 246

pretty soon were gonna be able to eliminate the intake valve completely .. lol

Noswizard · **Posted:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:48 pm

Yes even that might ultimately be possible. :twisted:

Noswizard · **Posted:** Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:49 am

In a recent PM I was just asked a question about Nitrous Timed Direct Iinjection & the REVO, which I answered as follows;

The REVO has always been the FIRST STEP in my goal to achieve TDI. I invented the whole sequence of concepts (from the REVO to the TDI system) and then designed all the components, long before I started work on the REVO. I never expected to make it to TDI but if you don't start, then you sure as hell never will and if I don't make it all the way, well at least I've managed to get part way and that's much further than anyone else.

TDI will NOT be possible without a REVO.

To create a Pulsoid that could flow enough and respond quick enough to deliver a PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING (OR DECREASING) AMOUNT OF NITROUS while the inlet valve open time is DECREASING IS IMPOSSIBLE, because they are counter productive factors.

The ONLY answer is to pulse the Pulsoid at a fixed percentage of 50% but with frequency linked directly to RPM.
This alone would produce a fixed delivery PER CYCLE, which would escalate the power as RPM rises but that may be at a rate, that is either too much or too little and either way is UNCONTROLLABLE.

So THE ANSWER is to ADD A REVO to vary the flow to the Pulsoids and just leave the Pulsoids to inject it as and when required.

Before you ask or suggest it, YES it 'MAY' be possible to operate/oscilate the REVO to deliver TDI without the super high flow, super high speed Pulsoids and it 'MAY' be possible to achieve an adequate level of pulsed control over the new Pulsoid design but I like to hedge my bets, so if one options doesn't work out, I have the other. :twisted:

I thought it worth making public for anyone who is interested.

Noswizard · **Posted:** Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:46 am

Further copy of PM discussion.

xclr82xtc wrote:

when you say direct, are you talking about direct into the chamber?
Yes

you have so many different theoretical systems i cant remember them all HAHA.
The overall plan has always been as follows;
1) Create REVO's & perfect design
2) Create Semi Sealed Induction System
3) Create even HIGHER SPEED, HIGHER FLOW version of the Pulsoid using entirely new design.
4) Created Timed Pulse Injection system which has injection point in the runners but only fires just before the inlet valves close.
5) Create Timed Direct Injection system which injects directly in to the chamber once the inlet valve has closed.

i like the idea of the same amount of nitrous per rev. i think that will do a better job of keeping cylinder pressures constant through-out the run, making more power in the high rpm range.
That may be the case but it doesn't provide any adjustability of the kind we currently achieve, so it's extremely unlikely to be adequate, which is where the REVO comes in.

timing this setup is gonna be a big headache. certainly not impossible. but tricky.
I'm not expecting it to be a problem.

GDI cars have a set of wiring for their injectors. and since most newer engines are going to GDI, maybe you could use that for your reference. i think it would be hard to get more precise than the OEMs.
It won't need to be as precise as the OEM fuel injection but I see no reason why we won't be able to achieve the same accuracy as they do.

i think the SSIS is a much "easier" approach,
Which is why it was 2nd on the list (LOL)

but i can see how the TDI would be much better in the scheme of things.
That depends on a number of factors and I'll only be able to determine the potential or the limitations of SSIS once we have the prototype up and running. If SSIS delivers what I expect it to, then there should be no need to take the final steps of my plan, as it will be much simpler, cheaper and it has the 'potential' to be as effective as ANY nitrous concept can be. :twisted:

NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

The ULTIMATE Nitrous technology - morphene induced

Who is online