Why other nozzles don't work as well as Crossfires

Noswizard · **Posted:** Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:34 pm

Fogger 'TYPE' nozzle plume on the left Vs Crossfire plume on the right

Which one do you think is going to give a more even distribution in a single point system, where it is essential to spread it about rather than aim it all down one cylinder???? :idea:

There are a number of reason why most US nozzles don't work as well as Crossfire’s and in particular in single point systems;

1) On a well made type of US brand injector/nozzle the fuel is drawn inside the conical plume of nitrous. The inside of the cone is the coldest section of the plume, as the outer sections start drawing heat as soon as the nitrous enters the intake system. The central core of the plume is trying to expand INWARDS, therefore it can only draw heat from the fuel, which makes the fuel more dense (rather than less dense), when what we really need is for the fuel to be atomised. Also as the nitrous tries to expand it can only do so by squashing the fuel (again making it more dense). Being colder and compressed it restricts the movement of the atoms and unless the fuel molecules can expand or be blown to bits, the fuel won’t be atomised very well (if at all).

2) On a badly made nozzle the fuel doesn't get to the centre but that's even worse, because it only makes contact with a small amount of the nitrous and because it's not caught inside the plume it drops onto the manifold wall, rather than being delivered with the nitrous. There is little to no atomisation and a reduced amount of fuel delivered to the engine as a consequence, resulting in lean outs and backfire explosions.

3) With most US nozzles the nitrous plume exits as a very narrow, extremely strong UNIDIRECTIONAL cone shape, with the nitrous ONLY on the outer perimeter, which means that uneven distribution is UNAVOIDABLE. In most instances the extremely strong unidirectional nature of the plume, results in most nitrous and fuel being fed to the furthest cylinder and overdosing it, whilst feeding very little to the other cylinders. Furthermore, as the nitrous/fuel plume passes each of the cylinder intakes, SOME of the nitrous ONLY (in the outer of the plume), is drawn in to those cylinders, causing those to run lean.

In contrast to all the above issues related to US nozzles, the WON Crossfire;

1) Has a UNIQUE WIDE FAN shaped plume that spreads the nitrous and fuel delivery over a wider area.
2) The lack of a cone shaped plume results in the fuel being mixed more evenly with the nitrous as there is NO core suction effect to pull the fuel in to.
3) The creation of the fan shape TOTALLY ERADICATES the extremely strong unidirectional force, that US nozzles deliver.
4) The combined benefits of all the above design features results in a far more even distribution of fuel and nitrous.

There's no wonder that the likes of Vipers have problems with single US nozzle (per bank) and why our customer Jack is doing very well with a Crossfire per bank.

GarethS · **Posted:** Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:55 pm

So basically with a badly optimised nozzle in a worst case scenario you can actually get fuel drop out?

racetested · **Joined:** Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:45 pm **Posts:** 2082

I'm actually more amazed the more I look at the image. What a night and day difference and this doesn't even show the internal problems of many other injectors where they push the fuel backwards.

Noswizard · **Posted:** Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:53 pm

Here's another illustration of why most of this style nozzle don't work.

This shows how the fuel just wets the edge of the nitrous plume closest to the fuel outlet, resulting in no mixing and no atomisation with very poor, uneven distribution.

Even a design that works as it was designed to do (which most don't), still does not achieve an even mix (as the fuel is concentrated in the core of the plume) and fails to give even distribution in anything other than direct port systems.

TrendSetter · **Posted:** Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:37 pm

wouldnt having such a wide spray pattern as shown in the first picture just puddle fuel against the walls of the runners? even the big bad 700"+ motors only have runners ~2-2.5" wide.

do you have any specs on your nozzles? how much power can they support? do you ever mess with large dry systems?

are your solenoids better than the other so called junk out there if they arent used in a pulsing manner? how much power can each one support? i saw the pictures of the pro mod and it had 16 solenoids on it, which seems like it would be quite the financial burden to purchase.

-dave

Noswizard · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:08 am

Dave,

Welcome to my site, I see you've been busy making a few posts since you joined up and I'm pleased to see that. By the way Dave what would your surname be?.

TrendSetter wrote:

thats neat that you can bash all the other guys but how about a little more info on your nozzle?

If you'd care to read the appropriate threads of my Highpower facts section, you should find all the information you need on my Crossfire injectors (nozzles). By the way anyone who wishes to post any "facts" in support of the design of other nozzles is welcome to do so, in fact if you feel strongly enough to support such designs I positively invite you to posts as many "facts" as you can to do so.

wouldnt having such a wide spray pattern as shown in the first picture just puddle fuel against the walls of the runners? even the big bad 700"+ motors only have runners ~2-2.5" wide.

No that isn't the case, for a couple of reasons;
1) The fan is less than 1" wide which you should be able to see by comparing it with the narrow fan of the other nozzle.
2) The fuel is better atomised and consequently is less likely to drop out of suspension and form puddles.

do you have any specs on your nozzles? how much power can they support?

Each injector can flow approx. 200 hp and we're working on a new design which will handle 400 hp.

do you ever mess with large dry systems?

We try not to "mess" with anything :lol:

but joking aside no not as yet, although we wouldn't use Crossfire's for dry systems, as we have the Venom injectors for our dry systems and they can flow over 300 hp.

are your solenoids better than the other so called junk out there if they arent used in a pulsing manner?

Yes they are for numerous reasons (far too many to list specifically again here, so please read the section mentioned previously for all the design advantages of Pulsoids over all generic solenoids. However just to give you one example, just consider the adverse effects of the large internal chambers of generic solenoids and then consider the benefits of a chamber that is designed to minimise expansion. :idea:

how much power can each one support?

The stock answer to that question is 150 to 250 hp (because they are adjustable) but there is more to it than that, as the solenoid can flow far more if the rest of the system design is such that it minimises phase change than when they are fitted to a stock generic system. However we also offer special high flow versions which can handle in the region of 350 to 450 hp.

i saw the pictures of the pro mod and it had 16 solenoids on it, which seems like it would be quite the financial burden to purchase.

My products were never designed to be low budget options, even when sold singularly and the £ to $ exchange rate makes the costs even higher over in the USA (which is lucky for all the American nitrous companies, because if the exchange rate was reversed none of them would ever sell another nitrous kit). However when all things are considered, any other kit that is cheaper is false economy, if you want the best performance from your vehicle.
As with all things in life, you only get what you pay for and if you want the best then you have to pay a higher price for it.
My Pulsoids are not mass produced by robots in a solenoid factory in a 3rd world country, they are CNC machined from billet alloy and each one is hand assembled and pulse tested for 30 minutes before being sold to a customer, so maybe you can see why they are not as cheap as the generic stuff everyone else sells.
Having said all that, the Pro Mod system you've seen only has as many solenoids as a typical 4 stage set up that most of the other Pro Mod cars use, it's just that they are all used as on progressive stage rather than 4 separate stages. Whilst the Pulsoids themselves are more expensive, there are saving to be had in other areas;
1) 24 less nozzles.
2) 16 less distribution blocks.
3) Yards of pipes, fittings, jets, etc.
4) Weight savings are huge.
5) No service costs as Pulsoids never need servicing as they never wear or leak.
6) Labour costs for fitting.
Not to mention the invaluable performance benefits that such a system would deliver over the convention 4 stage systems.

I hope I've dealt with your points adequately and I look forward to your response.

-dave

TrendSetter · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm

Noswizard wrote:

If you'd care to read the appropriate threads of my Highpower facts section, you should find all the information you need on my Crossfire injectors (nozzles). By the way anyone who wishes to post any "facts" in support of the design of other nozzles is welcome to do so, in fact if you feel strongly enough to support such designs I positively invite you to posts as many "facts" as you can to do so.

found the thread, didnt see it before. sounds interesting. one question; the reason i have come to believe that the 'other' type of nozzle uses negative pressure to pull the fuel is to help keep the mixture even throughout the pass.

Yes they are for numerous reasons (far too many to list specifically again here, so please read the section mentioned previously for all the design advantages of Pulsoids over all generic solenoids. However just to give you one example, just consider the adverse effects of the large internal chambers of generic solenoids and then consider the benefits of a chamber that is designed to minimise expansion.

ive seen generic solenoids apart and cant really disagree with you regardign their design, although i havent seen yours.

The stock answer to that question is 150 to 250 hp (because they are adjustable) but there is more to it than that, as the solenoid can flow far more if the rest of the system design is such that it minimises phase change than when they are fitted to a stock generic system. However we also offer special high flow versions which can handle in the region of 350 to 450 hp.

would there be any benefit (enough to warrant the investment) to replacing only the solenoids of an existing direct port using generic solenoids?

My products were never designed to be low budget options, even when sold singularly and the £ to $ exchange rate makes the costs even higher over in the USA (which is lucky for all the American nitrous companies, because if the exchange rate was reversed none of them would ever sell another nitrous kit). However when all things are considered, any other kit that is cheaper is false economy, if you want the best performance from your vehicle.
As with all things in life, you only get what you pay for and if you want the best then you have to pay a higher price for it.
My Pulsoids are not mass produced by robots in a solenoid factory in a 3rd world country, they are CNC machined from billet alloy and each one is hand assembled and pulse tested for 30 minutes before being sold to a customer, so maybe you can see why they are not as cheap as the generic stuff everyone else sells.
Having said all that, the Pro Mod system you've seen only has as many solenoids as a typical 4 stage set up that most of the other Pro Mod cars use, it's just that they are all used as on progressive stage rather than 4 separate stages. Whilst the Pulsoids themselves are more expensive, there are saving to be had in other areas;
1) 24 less nozzles.
2) 16 less distribution blocks.
3) Yards of pipes, fittings, jets, etc.
4) Weight savings are huge.
5) No service costs as Pulsoids never need servicing as they never wear or leak.
6) Labour costs for fitting.
Not to mention the invaluable performance benefits that such a system would deliver over the convention 4 stage systems.

how do the solenoids last? are they prone to sticking open like other designs? are they rebuildable? what kind of amperage do they draw?

I hope I've dealt with your points adequately and I look forward to your response.

yes thanks.
-dave

Noswizard · **Posted:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:39 pm

TrendSetter wrote:

found the thread, didnt see it before. sounds interesting. one question; the reason i have come to believe that the 'other' type of nozzle uses negative pressure to pull the fuel is to help keep the mixture even throughout the pass.

The reverse is true of most nozzles as they actually leak nitrous pressure into the fuel side of the nozzle (which was one of the reasons for starting this thread). Those that don't cause fuel back pressure DON'T create any negative pressure to pull the fuel through the system. The fuel just relies on the pump pressure to push it through the system. If a nozzle did manage to create a negative pressure (as some I've designed have done), it would vary with nitrous density but not linearly and consequently would adversely affect the consistency of the nitrous to fuel ratio. Relying on a constant fuel pump pressure is a much better way of maintaining a constant fuel to nitrous ratio.

ive seen generic solenoids apart and cant really disagree with you regardign their design, although i havent seen yours.

Again if you look at the facts section you'll find a thread comparing solenoids to Pulsoids and there are pictures showing sectioned and dismantled generic solenoids and Pulsoids.

would there be any benefit (enough to warrant the investment) to replacing only the solenoids of an existing direct port using generic solenoids?

Yes there is but to maximise the benefits you not only need the Pulsoids and not only a full system but you also need to change "religion" as the method I preach for applying my products is unlike any other method.

how do the solenoids last?

Forever!!! Because they are designed not to wear and because they use materials that will not wear. When testing the first prototype I set it running for 15 minutes at 20 Hz and then checked for wear, I then repeated the test a number of times and eventually stopped when it was obvious there was no wear and in fact the parts had a slight polish - this was after 500,000 operations.

are they prone to sticking open like other designs?

NO - not unless they are left unused with old fuel in them to gum up the works

are they rebuildable?

Yes but because they never need to be we don't offer service kits. In the last 10 years I doubt I've had more than 10 Pulsoids returned in need of any kind of service or repair work (that would be approx. 0.005%) and of those most problems were self inflicted by brutal customers but should anyone have a problem we will service the unit for them.

what kind of amperage do they draw?

Approx 15 Amps / pair

Once again I hope I've dealt with your points adequately and I look forward to your response.

By the way, what's the purpose of your web site as it seems to just display the one quote?

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:36 pm

Hi Trev - new to the board. We have been reading the board for the last twelve months. With regards to nozzles and the spread and the atomisation and the quantities of fuel/nitrous mix entering the valve intakes ....bla bla..... We were wondering if this has ever been measured in terms of percentages of nitrous/fuel/air per valve?. We understand from the JPG's that crossfire appears to have an increased spread field and therefore one would expect all the increased results / benefits (as output - later on) as you previously defined - Have all the differing type of nozzles/foggers/ whatever been tested on the same engine under the same conditions? Plenty of questions just curious.

Noswizard · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:31 pm

Quote:

Hi Trev - new to the board. We have been reading the board for the last twelve months.

Welcome to my forum, I hope you've enjoyed your visits.

With regards to nozzles and the spread and the atomisation and the quantities of fuel/nitrous mix entering the valve intakes ....bla bla..... We were wondering if this has ever been measured in terms of percentages of nitrous/fuel/air per valve?.

I'm not sure how exactly you'd be able to carry that out on a running engine, without some very expensive monitoring equipment but we have carried out numerous "bench" tests, the results of which support my UNcommon sense assessment that the results would be as reported. These tests include;
1) Monitoring and measuring spray patterns of both fuel and nitrous to compare the spread and mixture of fuel & nitrous from a selection of popular nozzles compared with those from the Crossfire injector.
2) Monitoring and measuring nitrous flow through a selection of dry manifolds using a selection of popular nozzles compared with a Crossfire injector.
Furthermore the results we've had from customers who have used US made kits and experienced engine damage which was obviously caused by uneven distribution have experience no such problems when using my upgrades.
Additional support comes from the fact that certain cars when fitted with US made single injector kits have established poor reputations for specific piston failures (again obviously due to poor distribution), however we've had no such problems when the same types of cars have been fitted with my systems.

We understand from the JPG's that crossfire appears to have an increased spread field and therefore one would expect all the increased results / benefits (as output - later on) as you previously defined - Have all the differing type of nozzles/foggers/ whatever been tested on the same engine under the same conditions? Plenty of questions just curious.

Based on my 25 years of experience and my UNcommon sense appraisal of the available evidence, I'm happy to stand by my statements, however I invite anyone to provide factual evidence of any kind to prove otherwise but as yet I've not had any takers on this component or any other for that matter.

daveg360 · **Joined:** Tue May 24, 2005 2:49 pm **Posts:** 998

I know what I'd really love to see - a vehicle with transparent acrylic runners and plenum running nitrous. You could probably put that dodgy dye ,that people use to mask red diesel, in the fuel to make it easier to see.

TrendSetter · **Posted:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:48 pm

in a direct port application what causes uneven distribution?

racetested · **Joined:** Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:45 pm **Posts:** 2082

Depends how it's set up. To many of the distribution blocks sold by nitrous companies don't feed the injectors evenly. You have high pressure nitrous blasting past the first injector(nozzle) and feeding the last injector the most and then you have the fuel coming in at a much lower pressure where it it can feed more to the first injector and less to the last one until the distribution block is fully pressurized and stabilized.

Noswizard · **Posted:** Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:50 pm

Pipe lengths also affect the amount delivered to each injector / nozzle (longer pipes reduce the volume of delivery).

Noswizard · **Posted:** Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:13 am

At last it looks like one of the US companies has recognised the benefits of a wide spray pattern and moved away from the cone shaped spray pattern that NOS, NX & Co are using, that are so bad for single point set ups.

Whilst the spray pattern is good, the fuel delivery point is the same so it doesn't have all the advantages that the Crossfire features but I must admit it's the closest yet.

Looks like I'll have to bring out one of my new injector designs to make sure I stay in front on this component.

By the way the company is TNT but they're still using generic solenoids and obviously have an inadequate understanding of flow dynamics because they're using 'T's at the solenoid outlets.

Noswizard · **Posted:** Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:45 pm

Then contrast the TNT nozzle with this piece of barbaric garbage to see that not all nitrous kits are the same.

I wouldn't use this piece of junk on a car that was only fit for the junk yard. Not only are the design and manufacturing techniques barbaric but the end results have to be seen to appreciate how bad they are.
1) The fuel side suffers from back pressure from the nitrous side
2) The spray pattern is anything but even and symmetrical
3) The mix of fuel and nitrous is uneven
4) Atomisation of the fuel is virtually non existent

I bet it's impossible for anyone to make a worse nozzle!!!!

The hardest thing to understand is that the people who bodge this thing together claim their kits are great and produce great results and what's even worse is some of their customers believe them and mouth off about it on independent forums.

When we get some spare time we're going to video the results of a few demonstrations showing how bad this piece of garbage is (along with some of the other badly designed/made components out there) and I'll be posting them for the world to see.

So remember - just as the TNT nozzle stands out from the rest of the Fogger brigade "all" of my components stand out from "all" the rest and that's why we get more from less.

Guest · **Posted:** Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:25 pm

I must on this occassion agree - That stuff looks so rough - I mean hows it stuck together?

Noswizard · **Posted:** Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:00 pm

We'll be testing the TNT nozzle shown above soon (thanks to Denny posting one over to me) and we'll also be testing the latest Fogger, Zex & NX nozzles to see how they perform, so watch this thread for the latest clips.

RangeStang · **Joined:** Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:12 am **Posts:** 41

I know it has been over a year but did you get any of those tests done on the other nozzles?

Noswizard · **Posted:** Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:54 pm

Yes we've tested them and videoed the results but I've had trouble editing the results, because of the unique format used by the mini DVD camcorder.

I've now bought a new hard drive camcorder and it may be quicker and easier to redo the tests than sort the editing software for the DVD stuff.

What I can tell you is that there are some GARBAGE nozzles out there and I feel sorry for anyone who is foolish enough to buy the cheaper nitrous brands that are on the market.

Noswizard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:43 pm

Thought I'd update this thread by adding some extra diagrams to my original first post to demonstrate why Crossfires are so much better than any other nozzle, especially on single injector applications.

NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

Why other nozzles don't work as well as Crossfires

Who is online