10 sec NOS setup?...
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: Ca
i have no stake in this debate, but i would like to see the science behind it...
a given jet size at a given bottle pressure to calculate #n2o/min
same boost level w/ and w/o n2o
keeping AF the same for both runs
start the dyno run with the same air temp at the same rpm
results: change in air temp and whp
to see the change in air temp it would have to be a single fogger type of system.
i'd like to see the unbiased results of a test like that just for curiosity's sake.
a given jet size at a given bottle pressure to calculate #n2o/min
same boost level w/ and w/o n2o
keeping AF the same for both runs
start the dyno run with the same air temp at the same rpm
results: change in air temp and whp
to see the change in air temp it would have to be a single fogger type of system.
i'd like to see the unbiased results of a test like that just for curiosity's sake.
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
From: Caldwell, Id, USA
<--- Sits paiently at his desk and lisens to the grown ups talk! 
Good stuff guys! Ur deff. learnin me! Even tho my nutz are still a lil frooze from this morn. hahaha
harv knows what im talkin bout!
Good stuff guys! Ur deff. learnin me! Even tho my nutz are still a lil frooze from this morn. hahaha
harv knows what im talkin bout!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (RMS)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RMS »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i have no stake in this debate, but i would like to see the science behind it...
a given jet size at a given bottle pressure to calculate #n2o/min
same boost level w/ and w/o n2o
keeping AF the same for both runs
start the dyno run with the same air temp at the same rpm
results: change in air temp and whp
to see the change in air temp it would have to be a single fogger type of system.
i'd like to see the unbiased results of a test like that just for curiosity's sake.</TD></TR></TABLE>
This would be a fun lil experiment. I'd need a car with a big external wastegate to pull it off, my car with its stock 50-trim t3 and stock internal gate won't do. The bottle alwas yields monster boost spike.
I would venture to say that you would see a substantial drop in overall air temp, but i'm not quite sure what the goal of this test would be?
One thing that just crossed my mind, thinking back to the pig rich NOS tunes. Turbo cars, in general, run at a much higher BSFC than naturally aspirated engines. I have also noticed through the lil bit of tuning i have done that turbo cars seem to be much more forgiving with lower N/F ratios. A tune that would choke a NA engine out will still run ok on a turbo engine (I would guess because of the BSFC). I have also noticed that my more aggressive tunes tend to make very similar power weather they are on a turbo/supercharged setup or on a NA motor. Looking at it strictly with regard to the difference in BSFC, that model answers all of the questions as to why turbo cars make more power on the bottle. I don't know if that is the real reason, but at least it has fact and common sense behind it unlike the "cooling" ideology.
Many times in racing we get back into that Greek/Roman thought process where we look for the most simple answer to a rather complex question. Always question what you know, question what you are told, and don't create "gods" as an easy answer to questions you don't truly know the answer to.
Teg2die, I hear you man. I'm not too far away from you. 7 degrees this morning at my house.... yay.
a given jet size at a given bottle pressure to calculate #n2o/min
same boost level w/ and w/o n2o
keeping AF the same for both runs
start the dyno run with the same air temp at the same rpm
results: change in air temp and whp
to see the change in air temp it would have to be a single fogger type of system.
i'd like to see the unbiased results of a test like that just for curiosity's sake.</TD></TR></TABLE>
This would be a fun lil experiment. I'd need a car with a big external wastegate to pull it off, my car with its stock 50-trim t3 and stock internal gate won't do. The bottle alwas yields monster boost spike.
I would venture to say that you would see a substantial drop in overall air temp, but i'm not quite sure what the goal of this test would be?
One thing that just crossed my mind, thinking back to the pig rich NOS tunes. Turbo cars, in general, run at a much higher BSFC than naturally aspirated engines. I have also noticed through the lil bit of tuning i have done that turbo cars seem to be much more forgiving with lower N/F ratios. A tune that would choke a NA engine out will still run ok on a turbo engine (I would guess because of the BSFC). I have also noticed that my more aggressive tunes tend to make very similar power weather they are on a turbo/supercharged setup or on a NA motor. Looking at it strictly with regard to the difference in BSFC, that model answers all of the questions as to why turbo cars make more power on the bottle. I don't know if that is the real reason, but at least it has fact and common sense behind it unlike the "cooling" ideology.
Many times in racing we get back into that Greek/Roman thought process where we look for the most simple answer to a rather complex question. Always question what you know, question what you are told, and don't create "gods" as an easy answer to questions you don't truly know the answer to.
Teg2die, I hear you man. I'm not too far away from you. 7 degrees this morning at my house.... yay.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: (Phase Change Racing)
Originally Posted by Phase Change Racing
Chimpo,
The 30% number I used was in relationship to the added gain in HP. i.e. a 100HP tune making 130hp because it was on a forced induction application. That is roughly what I see claimed by you guys talking about the cooling effect. 5-7% isn't even worth debating, I can get more gain out of a system by changing distribution blocks.
Do you understand the concept that as the nitrous "cools" your intake charge it is increasing in volume by 300 fold? How can you possibly think that a volume change in that magnitude cannot negatively offset the minor change in the naturally aspirated. C'mon man, this is 5th grade math here. There is no magic, there is no voodoo, there is just math and science.
Oh and for the record im not saying that there is no intercooling effect, i'm saying that it is completely negated by the fact the nitrous expanding 300x in volume completely negates it.
I'm not quite sure where you are going with the pan of water example? Please elaborate. Of course the water will quit boiling.
My turbo theory is flawed? LOL. I'll give you a great example. My little 88 Shelby Daytona makes 270fwhp on 16psi with a MBC. If you hook the wastegate actuator straight to the manifold without the MBC it only makes around 8psi of boost. With my little 80HP hit of nitrous and the wastegate still hooked up straight to intake vac with no MBC produces 18psi and around 370fwhp (never did it at the dyno, only at the track). The wastegate was wide open the entire way down the track with that poor little turbo spinning its guts out.
You are correct on one thing: Almost everyone has seen this gain in power with nitrous on a turbo engine. What almost nobody has seen is someone taking that same system off the turbo car, putting it on a NA car and seeing if there is actually a power difference. That would actually be a little bit of a scientific experiment (aside from the two engines having different BSFC's which pretty much dicks up any scientific value).
But, again, you are right, people have seen this. What you are wrong about is your uneducated assumption that this gain in power is because of this cooling effect. Using your line of thought a nitrous system that was capable of delivering pure liquid nitrous that didn't phase change in the intake (and thus provided little cooling) would make less power than a standard system. And that little statement is soooo wrong it makes every nitrous researchers head hurt. That is, in fact, exactly what all of us are trying to achieve.. a nitrous system that decreases phase change.
Thanks for the good debate though, this is what keeps threads like these packed full of good info.
If you still don't belive me, i'll bust out the calculator in the next thread and we'll have some fun with numbers.
Yes I am familiar with 88 Daytona Shelbys. I own an '88 CSX-T, 2.5L, FM stage 3 turbo, super 60 spec parts, hybrid 568 w/3.50 gears. My other Shelby CSX-T was purchased directly from Cliff Sebring.
"uneducated" please regale us with your education credentials.
So let me get this straight, you looked at you boost gauge and saw a change? That's your science? You are on the right track. The boost gauge showed you the chemical supercharging. Your bottle is at 900+psi. You released that into your intake manifold, granted, small amounts and your gauge read higher. Yeah that stands to reason because it is reading the 300x expansion that you like to throw around. Do you understand now why your boost gauge read more? FYI, injecting nitrous into the bottom half of a blown engine will cause the boost gauge to go up too. It's not because the blower is spinning harder. It's the release of pressure into a confined space.
In the end companies like NOS who have been around for 40-50 years acknowledge the intercooler effect right on their websites. It is science like you said but you only have a vague understanding of it.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: (Phase Change Racing)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
This would be a fun lil experiment. I'd need a car with a big external wastegate to pull it off, my car with its stock 50-trim t3 and stock internal gate won't do. The bottle alwas yields monster boost spike.
I would venture to say that you would see a substantial drop in overall air temp, but i'm not quite sure what the goal of this test would be?
One thing that just crossed my mind, thinking back to the pig rich NOS tunes. Turbo cars, in general, run at a much higher BSFC than naturally aspirated engines. I have also noticed through the lil bit of tuning i have done that turbo cars seem to be much more forgiving with lower N/F ratios. A tune that would choke a NA engine out will still run ok on a turbo engine (I would guess because of the BSFC). I have also noticed that my more aggressive tunes tend to make very similar power weather they are on a turbo/supercharged setup or on a NA motor. Looking at it strictly with regard to the difference in BSFC, that model answers all of the questions as to why turbo cars make more power on the bottle. I don't know if that is the real reason, but at least it has fact and common sense behind it unlike the "cooling" ideology.
Many times in racing we get back into that Greek/Roman thought process where we look for the most simple answer to a rather complex question. Always question what you know, question what you are told, and don't create "gods" as an easy answer to questions you don't truly know the answer to.
Teg2die, I hear you man. I'm not too far away from you. 7 degrees this morning at my house.... yay. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Think about your last statement, that would mean that a NA car that is running too rich would see a bigger gain than a properly jetted car.
Boosted engines do have a greater BSFC ratio because they are using the added fuel to cool and thus offset detonation. Same thing the Nitrogen does in nitrous. Hence the greater gain from nitrous in boosted engines.
This would be a fun lil experiment. I'd need a car with a big external wastegate to pull it off, my car with its stock 50-trim t3 and stock internal gate won't do. The bottle alwas yields monster boost spike.
I would venture to say that you would see a substantial drop in overall air temp, but i'm not quite sure what the goal of this test would be?
One thing that just crossed my mind, thinking back to the pig rich NOS tunes. Turbo cars, in general, run at a much higher BSFC than naturally aspirated engines. I have also noticed through the lil bit of tuning i have done that turbo cars seem to be much more forgiving with lower N/F ratios. A tune that would choke a NA engine out will still run ok on a turbo engine (I would guess because of the BSFC). I have also noticed that my more aggressive tunes tend to make very similar power weather they are on a turbo/supercharged setup or on a NA motor. Looking at it strictly with regard to the difference in BSFC, that model answers all of the questions as to why turbo cars make more power on the bottle. I don't know if that is the real reason, but at least it has fact and common sense behind it unlike the "cooling" ideology.
Many times in racing we get back into that Greek/Roman thought process where we look for the most simple answer to a rather complex question. Always question what you know, question what you are told, and don't create "gods" as an easy answer to questions you don't truly know the answer to.
Teg2die, I hear you man. I'm not too far away from you. 7 degrees this morning at my house.... yay.
</TD></TR></TABLE>Think about your last statement, that would mean that a NA car that is running too rich would see a bigger gain than a properly jetted car.
Boosted engines do have a greater BSFC ratio because they are using the added fuel to cool and thus offset detonation. Same thing the Nitrogen does in nitrous. Hence the greater gain from nitrous in boosted engines.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (JohnnieChimpo)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JohnnieChimpo »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Yes I am familiar with 88 Daytona Shelbys. I own an '88 CSX-T, 2.5L, FM stage 3 turbo, super 60 spec parts, hybrid 568 w/3.50 gears. My other Shelby CSX-T was purchased directly from Cliff Sebring.
"uneducated" please regale us with your education credentials.
So let me get this straight, you looked at you boost gauge and saw a change? That's your science? You are on the right track. The boost gauge showed you the chemical supercharging. Your bottle is at 900+psi. You released that into your intake manifold, granted, small amounts and your gauge read higher. Yeah that stands to reason because it is reading the 300x expansion that you like to throw around. Do you understand now why your boost gauge read more? FYI, injecting nitrous into the bottom half of a blown engine will cause the boost gauge to go up too. It's not because the blower is spinning harder. It's the release of pressure into a confined space.
In the end companies like NOS who have been around for 40-50 years acknowledge the intercooler effect right on their websites. It is science like you said but you only have a vague understanding of it.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Ahhhh well it must be true, NOS said so on their website. Everyone knows that NOS is the foremost researchers on nitrous oxide... thats why they have sold the exact same **** for the last 12 years. You got me there.
So when the nitrous creates 12 additional PSI of boost in my engine it is because of the release of the nitrous in the intake, but when it creates NO increase in boost on a car with an adequate wastegate what causes that?
As for my last statement, it says the exact oppostie of what you said. A NA car will see a decrease in power with a fuel rich tune. With a lower BSFC the engine can't do anything with the additional fuel and that fuel is displacing oxygen that would otherwise be present if not for the additional fuel. On a higher BSFC car it can make better use of some of that excess fuel and, thus, more power with the same tune.
FYI, turbo cars dont run at a higher BSFC because they use the fuel to cool, they have a higher BSFC because they are far less efficient than a naturally aspirated car and, thus, take more fuel to make the same power. With the largely restricted exhaust side of a turbo engine, it is pretty easy to see why they are less efficient. From a BSFC standpoint the turbo engien loses power becuase the piston must force the exhaust gasses out under pressure. That is what BSFC is, it does not take into consideration a poor tuner who thinks he needs to dump additional fuel in to "cool" the combustion chamber.
Yes I am familiar with 88 Daytona Shelbys. I own an '88 CSX-T, 2.5L, FM stage 3 turbo, super 60 spec parts, hybrid 568 w/3.50 gears. My other Shelby CSX-T was purchased directly from Cliff Sebring.
"uneducated" please regale us with your education credentials.
So let me get this straight, you looked at you boost gauge and saw a change? That's your science? You are on the right track. The boost gauge showed you the chemical supercharging. Your bottle is at 900+psi. You released that into your intake manifold, granted, small amounts and your gauge read higher. Yeah that stands to reason because it is reading the 300x expansion that you like to throw around. Do you understand now why your boost gauge read more? FYI, injecting nitrous into the bottom half of a blown engine will cause the boost gauge to go up too. It's not because the blower is spinning harder. It's the release of pressure into a confined space.
In the end companies like NOS who have been around for 40-50 years acknowledge the intercooler effect right on their websites. It is science like you said but you only have a vague understanding of it.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Ahhhh well it must be true, NOS said so on their website. Everyone knows that NOS is the foremost researchers on nitrous oxide... thats why they have sold the exact same **** for the last 12 years. You got me there.
So when the nitrous creates 12 additional PSI of boost in my engine it is because of the release of the nitrous in the intake, but when it creates NO increase in boost on a car with an adequate wastegate what causes that?
As for my last statement, it says the exact oppostie of what you said. A NA car will see a decrease in power with a fuel rich tune. With a lower BSFC the engine can't do anything with the additional fuel and that fuel is displacing oxygen that would otherwise be present if not for the additional fuel. On a higher BSFC car it can make better use of some of that excess fuel and, thus, more power with the same tune.
FYI, turbo cars dont run at a higher BSFC because they use the fuel to cool, they have a higher BSFC because they are far less efficient than a naturally aspirated car and, thus, take more fuel to make the same power. With the largely restricted exhaust side of a turbo engine, it is pretty easy to see why they are less efficient. From a BSFC standpoint the turbo engien loses power becuase the piston must force the exhaust gasses out under pressure. That is what BSFC is, it does not take into consideration a poor tuner who thinks he needs to dump additional fuel in to "cool" the combustion chamber.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: Ca
the people on this thread that have some knowledge to share need a big spoonful of humble. challenging, bickering, and fighting doesn't advance this thread. cool discusion is far more beneficial. i think i know a significant amount about the juice, but i also know there's alot more to learn. i disagree with several ideas posted here, but questioning what we think we know can lead to learning something else. anyone who thinks they know everything about even the smallest most simple subject is a fool.
anyway, there's my dose of moderation. take it or leave it.
anyway, there's my dose of moderation. take it or leave it.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,304
Likes: 0
From: Plantation, FL, USA
Re: (RMS)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bign2odaddy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">where is the dyno sheet?</TD></TR></TABLE>
which one? i dont really have plans of posting the one of my turbo car....i havent been back to the dyno where i dynoed the nitrous car to get the sheet reprinted. if i have some time this week i will...
which one? i dont really have plans of posting the one of my turbo car....i havent been back to the dyno where i dynoed the nitrous car to get the sheet reprinted. if i have some time this week i will...
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (RMS)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RMS »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the people on this thread that have some knowledge to share need a big spoonful of humble. challenging, bickering, and fighting doesn't advance this thread. cool discusion is far more beneficial. i think i know a significant amount about the juice, but i also know there's alot more to learn. i disagree with several ideas posted here, but questioning what we think we know can lead to learning something else. anyone who thinks they know everything about even the smallest most simple subject is a fool.
anyway, there's my dose of moderation. take it or leave it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I don't think we have much bickering going on in here, just some good healthy debate. Everyone should have some input on the cooling idea, lets hear it. It's not like we have a thread filled with professional nitrous tuners, just a bunch of guys who love the juice. If you disagree with something, post what it is and why you disagree with some supporting info so we have some more good info to discuss. I'm sure you disagree with my idea that the cooling effect is negated (most everyone does), so lets hear why. We are all here to learn.
Hell, I had never even considered the induction of nitrous into a relatively closed and pressurized area as a source of increased manifold pressure before. That was a hell of a good point Chimpo made. I don't think it entirely accounts for the 12psi discrepency I mentioned, but it is most definitly a factor to be discussed.
I'll try to get motivated and bust out the math supporting my point on the volume change due to phase change that negates the cooling effect tomorrow. I'm too tired/lazy to do it right now hehe.
anyway, there's my dose of moderation. take it or leave it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I don't think we have much bickering going on in here, just some good healthy debate. Everyone should have some input on the cooling idea, lets hear it. It's not like we have a thread filled with professional nitrous tuners, just a bunch of guys who love the juice. If you disagree with something, post what it is and why you disagree with some supporting info so we have some more good info to discuss. I'm sure you disagree with my idea that the cooling effect is negated (most everyone does), so lets hear why. We are all here to learn.
Hell, I had never even considered the induction of nitrous into a relatively closed and pressurized area as a source of increased manifold pressure before. That was a hell of a good point Chimpo made. I don't think it entirely accounts for the 12psi discrepency I mentioned, but it is most definitly a factor to be discussed.
I'll try to get motivated and bust out the math supporting my point on the volume change due to phase change that negates the cooling effect tomorrow. I'm too tired/lazy to do it right now hehe.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: Ca
unless i have proof i try to stay silent or i ask questions rather than stating: i am right, prove me wrong. i like to hear what people THINK; unfortunatly, they are more likely to express how they feel. i have no opinion on the cooling effect because there are too many variables and i've never seen an SAE study on the subject nor any other unbiased scientific tests. interesting that you assume my disagrement is with you though. 
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,167
Likes: 1
From: baxter, tn, usa
Re: (RMS)
i'm the step child no one wants.i understand what you guys are saying.
but just don't know how to put it into words.that's why i just keep it
simple and i have enjoyed this thread tremendously.
rms,chimpo,pcr and a bunch of others.i think alot of people
on here want to know how to make more power w/what we already have.
you guys are explaining what nitrous does and it's theorie's of
what goes on inside of an engine w/nitrous in the mix.i have never taken
my knowledge quite that far.but i can assure i can tune a nitrous car w/the best of them.
but i also know there is some more power hidden some where and
it is a simple key that unlocks it that i have never thought of.this is what
i am talking about.we or most of us do know how to make power from
the nitrous.but there are STILL more secerets to be found w/this stuff
that even you and i do not know about.
you see i told you i didn't know how to really explain it. so i just say it
harv
but just don't know how to put it into words.that's why i just keep it
simple and i have enjoyed this thread tremendously.
rms,chimpo,pcr and a bunch of others.i think alot of people
on here want to know how to make more power w/what we already have.
you guys are explaining what nitrous does and it's theorie's of
what goes on inside of an engine w/nitrous in the mix.i have never taken
my knowledge quite that far.but i can assure i can tune a nitrous car w/the best of them.
but i also know there is some more power hidden some where and
it is a simple key that unlocks it that i have never thought of.this is what
i am talking about.we or most of us do know how to make power from
the nitrous.but there are STILL more secerets to be found w/this stuff
that even you and i do not know about.
you see i told you i didn't know how to really explain it. so i just say it
harv
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (RMS)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RMS »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">unless i have proof i try to stay silent or i ask questions rather than stating: i am right, prove me wrong. i like to hear what people THINK; unfortunatly, they are more likely to express how they feel. i have no opinion on the cooling effect because there are too many variables and i've never seen an SAE study on the subject nor any other unbiased scientific tests. interesting that you assume my disagrement is with you though. </TD></TR></TABLE>
An SAE test on nitrous? Thats funny. I'm almost positive this sort of test (at least quantifying the cooling effect) has been done. Next time I talk to Butch i'll be sure to bring it up and see if he has anything in his notes from the days at NOS.
Anyway, I better get off my *** and crunch these numbers so I can show you guys what im talking about. The data will be vague, missing variables, etc... like the rest of my info hehe but it will be worth reading.
There is a reason every high end nitrous tuner that has put cars in the winners circle is trying to develop a system with less phase change and, thus, less cooling. A big reason.
Sorry about the assumption RMS, i was just takin a shot at ya to try to draw you into the conversation a bit more. Don't be affraid to share what you know and to questions what others know.... thats how we learn.
</TD></TR></TABLE>An SAE test on nitrous? Thats funny. I'm almost positive this sort of test (at least quantifying the cooling effect) has been done. Next time I talk to Butch i'll be sure to bring it up and see if he has anything in his notes from the days at NOS.
Anyway, I better get off my *** and crunch these numbers so I can show you guys what im talking about. The data will be vague, missing variables, etc... like the rest of my info hehe but it will be worth reading.
There is a reason every high end nitrous tuner that has put cars in the winners circle is trying to develop a system with less phase change and, thus, less cooling. A big reason.
Sorry about the assumption RMS, i was just takin a shot at ya to try to draw you into the conversation a bit more. Don't be affraid to share what you know and to questions what others know.... thats how we learn.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (Phase Change Racing)
Well to start this off i've got to admit I was wrong for the given example. Below is the wonderful math-o-rama that led to this conclusion. As some point (much higher power levels) the ability to decrease phase change will outweigh the benefits of the increased marginal cooling provided by the nitrous phase changing, but not in this example.
Taking my trusty 180HP plate tune 73/63 @ 900/6.6psi.
We get 1.902 lbs/min of nitrous which we must convert to kg/min.
1.902x.45359237= .8627KG/min of nitrous flow
We know that the density of liquid nitrous is 1222.8KG/m3
With the density of gaseous nitrous being 3.16 KG/m3
Footnote - For those curious the actually care, gaseous nitrous is 386.96X less dense than liquid nitrous and thus 38696% higher in volume. Yup, Thirty-Eight THOUSAND percent increase in volume (it looks so much bigger spelled out).
Ok back on track here, we need to convert our kg/min mass flow numbers into volume flow numbers.
.8627kg/min = .46m3/min in liquid form and .00069m3/min in gaseous form. (this was calculated with the handy lil calculator here http://www.airliquide.com/en/b...ID=55
So now lets kick it back over to the good ol SAE standards into some numbers we might recognize.
.46m3/min x 35.3146667 = 16.245 CFM
.00069m3/min x 35.3146667 = .0244 CFM
Here's where it gets a bit messy since pretty much nobody has been able to quantify ratio of liquid-to-gaseous nitrous that enters the intake manifold. For simplicity sake i'd say its around 50/50 which would be .0122CFM+ 8.1225 = 8.1347CFM
Essentially at this point we can say that 8.1347CFM of nitrous are entering the intake manifold, if we let it completely phase change it will convert to 16.245 and displace 8.1103CFM of otherwise, naturally aspirated air.
Sorry for the lame conversions from SAE to metric and back, I didn't realize the page I got my info from displayed in both forms hehe.
Before we go any farther lets get some volume numbers to work with. Lets take our trusty b16 at 8000rpm (and an assumed 100% VE for simplicity).
1.6L x 61.0237441 = 97.64 Cubic Inches
(8000RPMx97.64)/3456= 226CFM
Footnote - To have a little more fun we can take 226cfm x .075lb/ft3=16.95lbs/min of airflow. Now divide our 16.95lbs/min air flow with a 12:1 Air/Fuel ratio and get 1.4125lbs/min of fuel flow and assuming a nice efficient .45 BSFC (the ammount of fuel it takes to make 1HP for 1 hour) We need to multiply our 1.4125x60 to get 84.75lb/hr of fuel now divide that number by our .45bsfc and VOILA 188.33HP
Ok getting back on track. We now know that with 226CFM we are flowing 16.95lbs/min of air and making 188.33HP from it. Dividing our 226cfm number by 188.33HP lets us know it takes 1.2cfm for every HP we make. And since we know that we lost right around 8cfm of air letting all of the nitrous phase change we find that we are only losing around 6.5HP by this happening. So if the cooling effect can increase the density of the air enough for us to pick up over 6.5HP then we will see HP gains directly from the cooling effect. If anyone can dig up a table of air density as temperature changes, we can finish the math and find out exactly what will happen if we can drop our intake temps by X degrees with the nitrous.
Basically what all this comes down to is the fact I was wrong. 8) At least for lower power levels. As the ammount of nitrous increases the additional marginal cooling is going to decrease while the CFM of NA air displaced by the nitrous will increase and at somepoint the ability to decrease the ammount of phase change will outweigh the benefits of the additional cooling profided. But definitly not in this example.
Does anyone elses head hurt? Mine sure does after all this math.
Taking my trusty 180HP plate tune 73/63 @ 900/6.6psi.
We get 1.902 lbs/min of nitrous which we must convert to kg/min.
1.902x.45359237= .8627KG/min of nitrous flow
We know that the density of liquid nitrous is 1222.8KG/m3
With the density of gaseous nitrous being 3.16 KG/m3
Footnote - For those curious the actually care, gaseous nitrous is 386.96X less dense than liquid nitrous and thus 38696% higher in volume. Yup, Thirty-Eight THOUSAND percent increase in volume (it looks so much bigger spelled out).
Ok back on track here, we need to convert our kg/min mass flow numbers into volume flow numbers.
.8627kg/min = .46m3/min in liquid form and .00069m3/min in gaseous form. (this was calculated with the handy lil calculator here http://www.airliquide.com/en/b...ID=55
So now lets kick it back over to the good ol SAE standards into some numbers we might recognize.
.46m3/min x 35.3146667 = 16.245 CFM
.00069m3/min x 35.3146667 = .0244 CFM
Here's where it gets a bit messy since pretty much nobody has been able to quantify ratio of liquid-to-gaseous nitrous that enters the intake manifold. For simplicity sake i'd say its around 50/50 which would be .0122CFM+ 8.1225 = 8.1347CFM
Essentially at this point we can say that 8.1347CFM of nitrous are entering the intake manifold, if we let it completely phase change it will convert to 16.245 and displace 8.1103CFM of otherwise, naturally aspirated air.
Sorry for the lame conversions from SAE to metric and back, I didn't realize the page I got my info from displayed in both forms hehe.
Before we go any farther lets get some volume numbers to work with. Lets take our trusty b16 at 8000rpm (and an assumed 100% VE for simplicity).
1.6L x 61.0237441 = 97.64 Cubic Inches
(8000RPMx97.64)/3456= 226CFM
Footnote - To have a little more fun we can take 226cfm x .075lb/ft3=16.95lbs/min of airflow. Now divide our 16.95lbs/min air flow with a 12:1 Air/Fuel ratio and get 1.4125lbs/min of fuel flow and assuming a nice efficient .45 BSFC (the ammount of fuel it takes to make 1HP for 1 hour) We need to multiply our 1.4125x60 to get 84.75lb/hr of fuel now divide that number by our .45bsfc and VOILA 188.33HP
Ok getting back on track. We now know that with 226CFM we are flowing 16.95lbs/min of air and making 188.33HP from it. Dividing our 226cfm number by 188.33HP lets us know it takes 1.2cfm for every HP we make. And since we know that we lost right around 8cfm of air letting all of the nitrous phase change we find that we are only losing around 6.5HP by this happening. So if the cooling effect can increase the density of the air enough for us to pick up over 6.5HP then we will see HP gains directly from the cooling effect. If anyone can dig up a table of air density as temperature changes, we can finish the math and find out exactly what will happen if we can drop our intake temps by X degrees with the nitrous.
Basically what all this comes down to is the fact I was wrong. 8) At least for lower power levels. As the ammount of nitrous increases the additional marginal cooling is going to decrease while the CFM of NA air displaced by the nitrous will increase and at somepoint the ability to decrease the ammount of phase change will outweigh the benefits of the additional cooling profided. But definitly not in this example.
Does anyone elses head hurt? Mine sure does after all this math.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: Ca
now this is cool... so to speak much more interesting.
try this airtemp/density page:
http://www.coolingzone.com/Gue...).htm
there is a downloadable spread sheet here. i would tackle it, but alas. studying for finals calls. sorry i can't properly contribute right now.
much more interesting.try this airtemp/density page:
http://www.coolingzone.com/Gue...).htm
there is a downloadable spread sheet here. i would tackle it, but alas. studying for finals calls. sorry i can't properly contribute right now.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (RMS)
Whew, that woman is a lot smarter than me lol. I've got a lot to do tonight (no finals though, been there done that thank god), maybe tomorrow night I can tackle this new info and prove how wrong I was lol. Maybe even find the power level at which point my statement becomes true...... and then, of course, say that is the power level I was talking about the whole time. 
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
From: WA, USA
Re: (Phase Change Racing)
Heres some quick math on 100degrees verses 180 degrees.
100Deg.
2.7 (14.7) / (460 + 100deg.) = density at sea level
= .0709 lbs./cubic ft
226cfm * .0709lbs./cubic ft
= 16.02 lbs./min of air flow
16.02 lbs./min * 60
= 961.40 lbs/hr
961.40/12.0 A/F
= 80.11
80.11 * .45BSFC = 178HP
180Deg.
same math from above
=155HP
178HP - 155HP = 23HP diff
So 80 degrees is worth 23HP IMO
edit; 23HP - 6.5HP = 16.5HP net
100Deg.
2.7 (14.7) / (460 + 100deg.) = density at sea level
= .0709 lbs./cubic ft
226cfm * .0709lbs./cubic ft
= 16.02 lbs./min of air flow
16.02 lbs./min * 60
= 961.40 lbs/hr
961.40/12.0 A/F
= 80.11
80.11 * .45BSFC = 178HP
180Deg.
same math from above
=155HP
178HP - 155HP = 23HP diff
So 80 degrees is worth 23HP IMO
edit; 23HP - 6.5HP = 16.5HP net
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: Ca
unfortunately, i've done this before, too ... like 15 years ago. decided to do it again since this market doesn't pay near what i can earn with a little more education. sucks to be the old guy in most my classs.
i can't wait to sit down and go over this (make sure all your math is right )
great progess.
... like 15 years ago. decided to do it again since this market doesn't pay near what i can earn with a little more education. sucks to be the old guy in most my classs.i can't wait to sit down and go over this (make sure all your math is right
) great progess.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: (Phase Change Racing)
Congratulations on spelling VOILA correctly.
I'm so ******* tired of morons spelling "walla"
You really spent a long time on your math and it seems to work out correctly that's why I hesitate to mention something I saw in it that I thought was wrong.
"1.6L x 61.0237441 = 97.64 Cubic Inches
(8000RPMx97.64)/3456= 226CFM"
Shouldn't this last number be cut in half because the engine is a 4 stroke? Even though the engine is spinning 8000rpm each cylinder is only breathing in every other revolution.
I'm so ******* tired of morons spelling "walla"
You really spent a long time on your math and it seems to work out correctly that's why I hesitate to mention something I saw in it that I thought was wrong.
"1.6L x 61.0237441 = 97.64 Cubic Inches
(8000RPMx97.64)/3456= 226CFM"
Shouldn't this last number be cut in half because the engine is a 4 stroke? Even though the engine is spinning 8000rpm each cylinder is only breathing in every other revolution.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (JohnnieChimpo)
I don't envy ya RMS, but I definitly can understand your situation. My degrees have done little to nothing for me thus far in life aside from give me the ability to rattle off a bunch of BS on web forums and spell VOILA correctly lol.
Chimpo,
The 3456 constant used in that equation is based on a 4-cycle engine so the numbers should work out correctly. You couldn't see it in my numbers..... but I snickered when I found out the trusty ol 1.6L didn't top the 100 cubic inch mark.
Amazingly powerful lil engines though. I'm gonna be the big sellout of this forum that has to build an engine that is just a touch bigger than 6 1.6's lol.
RA166E, why don't you enlighten us on this nitrous bell curve you speak of..
Chimpo,
The 3456 constant used in that equation is based on a 4-cycle engine so the numbers should work out correctly. You couldn't see it in my numbers..... but I snickered when I found out the trusty ol 1.6L didn't top the 100 cubic inch mark.
Amazingly powerful lil engines though. I'm gonna be the big sellout of this forum that has to build an engine that is just a touch bigger than 6 1.6's lol.
RA166E, why don't you enlighten us on this nitrous bell curve you speak of..
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
From: WA, USA
Re: (Phase Change Racing)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Phase Change Racing »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
.
RA166E, why don't you enlighten us on this nitrous bell curve you speak of.. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I would but I will need a napkin, two dinner plates and one steak knife.
( Butch Schrier Nitrous 101) inside j/k
I also thought at first the 3456 number was strange but then figure it was 1728 * 2
I do my math like this.
1.6 * 61.0237441 = 97.64
97.64 / 1728 = .0565
8000RPM/2 = 4000cycles
4000cycles * .0565 = 226CFM
OK you guys get the point.
.
RA166E, why don't you enlighten us on this nitrous bell curve you speak of..
</TD></TR></TABLE>I would but I will need a napkin, two dinner plates and one steak knife.
( Butch Schrier Nitrous 101) inside j/k
I also thought at first the 3456 number was strange but then figure it was 1728 * 2
I do my math like this.
1.6 * 61.0237441 = 97.64
97.64 / 1728 = .0565
8000RPM/2 = 4000cycles
4000cycles * .0565 = 226CFM
OK you guys get the point.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Re: (RA166E)
I can barely get my own brain wrapped around the bell curve right now, I sure as hell have no way of conveying it to someone else and have it make sense. I was hoping you still had those napkins for reference lol.
