Water/Methanol Injection

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:20 pm

I got one area where we miss communicate. i quote:The primary function of water/methanol injection is to provide “chemical intercooling”.

In gasoline engines, as with any intercooler, this suppresses detonation so more power producing boost and timing can be utilized. Water, with its high latent heat of vaporization cools the intake charge and combustion. Methanol cools the charge and combustion but also acts like an extremely high octane fuel (some researchers claim as high as 120 octane) as well as adding more oxygen to combustion.
What I mean is you said methanol is high latent heat of vaporization. Are there any changes that both water and methanol reacts the same with high latent heat of vaporization??

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:38 pm

Now yes, the answer is yes for both and I quote this one:Methanol is a high octane fuel that is extremely resistant to detonation with an excellent cost/benefit ratio. ($1.50 - $2.00 per gallon.) Its high latent heat of vaporization also makes it an excellent air charge cooler which means a denser mixture and more horsepower. Because of these facts, it is a better anti-detonant than ethanol or iso-propanol although they will work in a pinch. It has however only about 60% of the energy content of gasoline by volume so about twice as much is used to make similar power if used as a straight fuel. Quotes stop here.

Now the problem is the different outcome defenitions of your source and mine.

I say water/meths works. I can see and feel it works. I appreciate your ideal design argument and that is fine. I just got the impession that you tell the forum water/meths is a no go.Yes we can make choices.

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:42 pm

And Gary, back to the windsh wash container:Why not use a windshield washer pump?

Water/Methanol must be injected at above 50psi to properly atomize. Lower than 50psi causes greatly reduced air charge cooling as the result of larger droplets and their reduced total surface area.

I think this answers better than my previous attempt.

johansx · Post by **johansx** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:49 pm

Any comments on the Aquamist system compared to the Snow Performance system? Who are the local agents and which system are you using? Cost? I been reeding up on this technology now for a number of years. Very interesting!

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:06 pm

That is also what I would like to comment on. More and more starts to realize the positive outcome of water/meths. Now that racing feul 102.6 is terminated, more an more car ownners will start looking into water/meth.

Back to octane and I quote this:Methanol is also a huge octane booster. We’re not sure exactly how much it raises a typical 93 octane application, but some say as high as 115-120 octane. Not sure about this yet, but it definitely raises the octane substantially from 93 judging from the amount of additional spark we can add to a non-methanol tune. Methanol also lowers the inlet temps quite a bit - as much as 60 - 100+ degrees.

And I quote this, to agree on the octane figure being 1 or 2 left or right:With the cost of today’s fuels it’s not uncommon to grab the nozzle at the local pump and select 93 octane and not really get 93 octane because of several different reasons, including winter blends, regional differences, fraud and many other reasons. This is why I’m very quick to recommend to the guys with the cars that have higher levels of boost to seriously consider race fuels or a mixture of race fuels as opposed to just unleaded pump premium fuels only. There is also a time and place where race fuels are needed exclusively on some applications. Stops the quote.

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:09 pm

I can not comment on aquamist at all. I use Snow Performance. I did not not get involved in cost . I think I was just happy with service received from Snow. Surely aqaumist will be fine.

The Calibrator · Post by **The Calibrator** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:18 am

I never said water/ methanol did not work I said its a BandAid. as far as the systems go I dont like the Snow pump it is larger and seems to be noisier than the Auqamist.

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:36 am

ok. sorted out .Last comment on the octane values and invisible flame:
Water/Meth injection works in two parts to help prevent detonation: Inlet charge cooling and in cylinder cooling. When you increase boost you have to retard timing to prevent detonation. Or the other option is to run a high octane fuel. With W/M you can add back in that timing for greater hp and run on pump gas. During injection, with a 93 octane b fuel, your effective octane is around 116. This higer ocatane number does not come from the higher octane of methanol, but to due charge cooling and in cylinder cooling.
What ever prperly designed system you come up with, and on pump gas, you will get more detonation control with W/M and be able to increase the power.

Yes methanol burns in an invisable flame and is toxic but is safer when mixed with water. -25F washer fluid is on average 36% methanol. HEET gasline antifreeze is almost pure methanol.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:09 am

Nice one, guys! Very informative! I have to say, I used to think water/meth was a "bandaid" as mentioned, because to me it felt like NOS - push a button for more power, then refill your "power juice" again.

However, after seeing it in Freddie's car, and driving in it, I can tell you it is far more practical than I had imagined - the system runs automatically (i.e. no pushing of buttons) and continuously. If the meth runs out, you won't be stranded, car still runs fine. Also the meth lasts about as long as your fuel (depending on driving and size of meth tank), so you can just fill up meth when you fill up fuel. And meth is cheap. And Freddie can now run without an intercooler! Very short pipe from turbo to intake -> almost no lag!

For such a simple and cheap system, the benefits are huge. For people considering it, please check out Freddie's car.

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm

The best reading ever on water/meths and check out their forum: www.snowperformance.net
My source and quotes from these guys.

Desertrat · Post by **Desertrat** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:46 pm

I have been reading up on this a lot and it looks like a good option, it is not perfect but what is? How does it compare to the FMIC cars in terms of response time?

ChemCool · Post by **ChemCool** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:52 pm

The FMIC will still have an influence regardng responses. Remember, I took my intercooler out!! Can do that up to a point depending on such typicall installation and depending nozzels sizes etc.