NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum
http://nitrous-advice.org/

Independent source supports my design principles
http://nitrous-advice.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6863
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Noswizard [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Independent source supports my design principles

David Vizard has been involved in engine tuning for even longer than I've been involved in nitrous and although he hasn't had as much involvement in nitrous as I have, this article proves he's on the ball even on that subject and his comments on the effects on fuel, by the excessive cooling caused by nitrous, PROVE my Pro Series design concepts (which are aimed at MINIMISING the heat exchange between the nitrous and fuel) ARE CORRECT & BENEFICIAL. :twisted:

http://www.motortecmagazine.net/article.asp?AID=2&AP=1

His comments about how the results from dyno testing can be misinterpreted are also valid and worth keeping in mind.

Author:  Noswizard [ Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Independent source supports my design principles

Yet MORE independent evidence to prove my UNIQUE concepts are correct.

We have a US customer who runs a DRY system on a V8.

Prior to switching to our Pulsoids this customer relied on Monte Smith for his nitrous advice.

Even before the Pulsoids were fitted, I STRONGLY advised this customer to switch from his DP arrangement to our Spider, for all the reasons listed in the Spider threads. Unfortunately (or as its turned out for me 'fortunately') he stuck to the DP set up and within a few runs suffered the consequences. The pulses of nitrous bounced off the closed valves and blew the fuel (and nitrous) out of the runners, making some cylinders/cycles run lean while others ran rich, resulting in one or more cylinders suffering terminal failure.

The customer soon switched to the Spider and saw immediate improvements, although he still suffered from the failure of a single specific cylinder a number of times. Unwisely, Monte Smith was quick to blame the Spider but the customer was too smart to fall for that BS and worked out that the cause was a faulty ignition component. Since replacing the ignition components the car has run consistent times totally reliably, proving that the Spider is a BETTER option than a DP set up and that it achieves PERFECT distribution, as he has NO jets fitted.

However, whilst all that is seriously impressive, the most important result from our involvement with this customer is the following information;

1) When using the DP set up he suffered severe reversion (as stated above) and proof of that was that he found the plenum floor was wet after each run.

2) The proof of this is that OBVIOUSLY the only way the fuel could get to the plenum floor is by being blown BACK OUT of the runners.

3) Since switching to the Spider, there's no longer ANY SIGN of fuel on the plenum floor.

THIS PROVES THAT FIRING THE NITROUS FROM A DISCHARGE TUBE REDUCES REVERSION (AT VERY LEAST) AND AT BEST PREVENTS IT ENTIRELY, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED WHEN I FIRST ANNOUNCED THE CREATION OF THE SPIDER & OUR PRO SERIES SYSTEMS.

That FACT alone will result in ANY engine making MORE POWER from a given amount of nitrous, by using discharge tubes (Spider or Pro Series systems), rather than nozzles or conventional plates.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/