NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

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.

aint that kinda the idea dave?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Steve

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

Yes even that might ultimately be possible.

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.

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

Further copy of PM discussion.

Not to get cocky or thread necromatic, but that sounds like a reed valve block in the intake tract for each cylinder upstream of the N20 injector would be a possible solution. You'd still run into the problem of no air getting in once n20 charge volume reached a critical level, but you could just keep on cramming more and more (and more) nitrous in past that point, without loosing any out the intake tract. Seems to match requirements 5 & 6 above, but doesn't really require direct-to-cylinder injection. 2 stroke's already use the same tech to address an analogous problem, so it could probably be built (as a rather expensive custom intake manifold) with off the shelf parts. Not sure just what in-cylinder n20 injection would add, but I doubt I grasp the entire issue.

Considering this further, in cylinder n20 & fuel injection would maybe be interesting in combination with variable valve timing .... if the timing was 'variable' in such a way that the intake never opened, and the 'timing' change could kick in on demand separately from engine rpm or any other condition. In some cases (maybe on a diesel vehicle with a jake brake?), all that might be required (besides the in cylinder injection) would be to re-grind the (intake) cams to prevent the intake valves from opening. You'd run the system pretty much as conventional (na or nitrous boosted) until you hit the point where you were loosing charge out the intake, and then just close off the intake valves with no loss of power, and ramp up the n20 charge even further. Yeah, that sounds like some next level shit. Either system seems to avoid problems of 'reversion' but this would do so more ... gracefully.

Either option is pretty nuts, I doubt anybody would have the guts to buy it if offered as a commercial system. Might make a HELL of a prototype speed record machine, though. I suppose there would be a theoretical limit where you were loading in so much liquid n20, you risked hydro-locking the piston... and more practically, at some point you might have still-liquid n20 going out the exhaust, or cool off the cylinder so much that ignition fails. Like I said, i doubt I grasp the entire issue...

You're on the right track but there is more to both options and I'd love to discuss them further but;
1) I don't want to give away more info on the concepts than I already have
2) Unfortunately I don't have the time it would take to do so right now, as we're busier than we've ever been

If you're not already a customer I hope you will be soon, as we prefer smart guys to the mill dumb ass fools that buy US JUNK kits.