Donations towards server fund so far this month.

 
£0.00 / £100.00 per month
Page:
Home > Paul S trials and testing > Siamese Code Trial - With Boost

jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

As you say, the input is high impedance so that's not an issue.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


Rod S

User Avatar

5844 Posts
Member #: 2024
Formally Retired

Rural Suffolk

On 9th Aug, 2009 jbelanger said:
As you say, the input is high impedance so that's not an issue.


Jean,

You know I just like the reassurance from you :)

This really does seem a good way of getting symetrical injection paths and high injection flowrates from what we have to work with.

Two extra LM1949 driver circuitry is much less of an issue than trying to get suitable high flow injectors to me.

In Paul's case with high z, I assume there isn't even any extra circuitry to worry about.

Rod.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

With high Z injectors, it's no big deal to drive 2 injectors from one FET. The required 2A is nothing for any FET someone is likely to use in this application.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

On 9th Aug, 2009 Paul S said:
I've just done a quick calc to check the fuel flow and hp relate.

Based on a BSFC of 0.5 lb/hp/hr (5.25 cc/hp/min)
Density of the fuel of 720 kg/m3
12mS gives 60% duty cycle at 6000rpm
60% of 960cc/min is 576 cc/min

Power would be 110 hp at 6000rpm.



I forgot to multiply by two, so it's using enough fuel for 220hp !!!!

Can someone please check these calcs. Unfortunately I have to work today :(

Edited by Paul S on 10th Aug, 2009.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Rod S

User Avatar

5844 Posts
Member #: 2024
Formally Retired

Rural Suffolk

Going about it a different way, I have been using one of the tables off the internet which gives expected HP per injector at 80% duty cycle for a given range of BSFCs. They recommend a BSFC of 0.47 for turbocharged and intercooled, but there is also a table for 0.52

Assuming you mean your doubled up injectors are 960cc/min in total on each port,

From 0.47BSFC table, 960cc/min ~ 156HP @ 80%
So 117HP @ 60%

From 0.52BSFC table, 960cc/min ~ 141HP @ 80%
So 105HP @ 60%

Interpolate for 0.5BSFC gives ~ 109HP

Then double it for both ports ~218HP

So essentially I agree.

Assuming you would know if you were producing 220HP, are you sure about the 12mS ???

When you first mentioned it I commented that it gives 60% duty which is more than the combined valve open time so I was a bit surprised at the AFRs still being balanced.

The only other thing I can think of is open/close times on the injectors.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

Thanks Rod, that confirms my calcs.

Certainly not putting out 220hp !!!!

The MS is reporting 12mS peak pulse widths to Logworks. It's also showing 1.8 mS at idle, 5-6mS at 15 psia so it's about right, allowing for a bit of extra fuel under boost.

On the basis that the cam is still open well into the compression stroke, I do not think that 60% is unrealistic. However, on the basis that I cant get lower than around 13.5:1 on the outers, then 60% is higher than what can be considered useful fueling.

It's odd that the AFRs show that the engine must be passing enough air to burn the fuel.

Puzzling :(

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

Ooops.

Forgot that at some time I must have dropped the fuel pressure to help the pulse widths at idle :$

Fuel pressure is around 2.5 Bar instead of 3 Bar.

So the injectors are only flowing around 70%.

Still enough fuel for 150+hp.

This does mean that I can increase the fuel pressure to get more fuel into the outer cylinders.

Bugger, it also means that I may not need 3 injectors for 250hp.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Rod S

User Avatar

5844 Posts
Member #: 2024
Formally Retired

Rural Suffolk

What's your "Required Fuel" value and did you halve it when you doubled up the injectors (unless that was the time you altered the fuel pressure too).

Having said that, although I can't remember the exact formula, surely 0.5bar down on 3.0bar wouldn't drop 30% off the flow ???

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

My "Required Fuel" is only 1.8.

But remember that I'm running Hybrid mode that should double it to 3.6.

That's still half of what I would have expected. Given that it's running at 12 mS.

I've assumed square law for adjusting the fuel flow. ((2.5/3)^2) = 0.694.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

Bugger, I should have stayed in bed.

Fuel flow adjustment due to pressure should be 1/((3/2.5)^0.5) = 0.913.

So still flowing enough fuel for 200hp.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Rod S

User Avatar

5844 Posts
Member #: 2024
Formally Retired

Rural Suffolk

Surely it isn't square law - otherwise doubling the fuel pressure would increase flow by X4 - my Weber Marelli ones are dual rated (3 bar and 6 bar) but the increase in flow is only about 30% from memory.

But agreed - 1.8/3.6 and 12mS don't appear to correlate.........

I'll have a play on the JimStim later because last time I was also getting much longer pulses than I expected from my injector size calculations.

My "reqfuel" is 3.8, two pulse mode, and I was exceeding my planned 20% duty at 5K RPM with injectors that are sized for 105HP (N/A) at 2 x 20% pulses. Yet I would expect the engine in its N/A form to manage 75HP at the best.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

I'm thinking that the 12mS is being reported incorrectly.

It may be the way that the interface between MS and Logworks is set up. I know Sturgeo had some trouble getting the data stream right.

I'll have to go and do a log with Tuner Studio.

Better gird my loins for some wheelspin.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland


On 10th Aug, 2009 Rod S said:
Surely it isn't square law - otherwise doubling the fuel pressure would increase flow by X4 - my Weber Marelli ones are dual rated (3 bar and 6 bar) but the increase in flow is only about 30% from memory.


No, doubling the pressure will increase the flow by the root of 2, 1.414.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

Mystery solved.

Tuner Studio is showing a maximum of 8mS pulse width under boost, so the Logworks plug-in is not working correctly.

Re-running the calcs with 2.5 Bar fuel pressure and 40% duty cycle gives 135hp.

So in the right ball park after all.

I would have thought that I could get higher than 40% before struggling with the outers, but this does back up earlier tests that showed similar results.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


CR#

User Avatar

140 Posts
Member #: 1367
Advanced Member

Cape Town, South Africa

my head is sore. *groan


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland


On 10th Aug, 2009 CR# said:
my head is sore. *groan


Not as sore as mine.

I've been doing this testing for eighteen months. Destroyed an engine and spent £thousands in the process. Nearly finished.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


jbelanger

1244 Posts
Member #: 831
Post Whore

Montreal, Canada

Paul,

Don't forget to subtract the opening time from the pulse width to compute the amount of fuel. If you have a 1ms opening time that means 7/8 of the 135HP or about 118HP.

By the way, if the logworks plug-in is not designed specifically for this firmware version, I don't see how it would work. Unless it can read the ini file.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland


On 10th Aug, 2009 jbelanger said:
By the way, if the logworks plug-in is not designed specifically for this firmware version, I don't see how it would work. Unless it can read the ini file.
Jean


It's a home made .ini file *oh well*

That's the problem. But I don't undertstand why it has added 50%.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Rod S

User Avatar

5844 Posts
Member #: 2024
Formally Retired

Rural Suffolk

That sounds better.... (lost both my phone lines yesterday lunchtime, BT have only just fixed them...)

8mS minus the openning time sounds more realistic and, to my mind is why you hadn't lost the AFRs.

40% (ie, 2 X 20% in my case) is what I'm determined not to exceed.

Are you still thinking three injectors for the Miglia with these new figures ??? I'm not 100% decided.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland

I wondered where you had gone.

118hp is close to what I had calculated from the airflow etc.

I think 20% per cylinder is a good target that is achievable.

Therefore I will need around 2500 cc/min per port, which is best achieved with three 800s with a bit of extra fuel pressure if required.

Obviously, if you are using low impedance injectors, you may have other options.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


Rod S

User Avatar

5844 Posts
Member #: 2024
Formally Retired

Rural Suffolk

On 11th Aug, 2009 Paul S said:
I wondered where you had gone.


It just shows how much we've become reliant on modern technology - I thought I was secure with two different lines (wifey needs one for business anyway when she works from home) - and two different ISPs, but when it's the main cable into the village that fails......

Anyway, 3 X 800 should be more than enough for you, what's making me a bit dubious is that 1 X 680 plus 2 X 1000 is much more than I need.

Plus I have the hassle of six P&H drives instead of four....

I need to spend the next few days on the bodyshell instead to clear my mind....

Edited by Rod S on 11th Aug, 2009.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???


Andymini

208 Posts
Member #: 438
Senior Member

London

Is injector sizing linear? e.g. it looks like for the siamese code you need about 100cc for every 10hp.
So for an engine of about 150-160bhp you'd need a couple of 800cc injectors.


Paul S

User Avatar

8563 Posts
Member #: 573
Formerly Axel

Podland


On 9th Nov, 2009 Andymini said:
Is injector sizing linear? e.g. it looks like for the siamese code you need about 100cc for every 10hp.
So for an engine of about 150-160bhp you'd need a couple of 800cc injectors.


It is linear.

I'm getting 112hp from 960 cc/min per port. A total of four 480 cc/min injectors. And I reckon thats the limit at 6000rpm.

For 160 hp and up to 7000rpm, I would use a couple of 800 cc/min per port, but would stage them so that two run at idle and light loads, then the other two come in on boost.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."


TurboDave16V
Forum Mod

10901 Posts
Member #: 17
***16***

SouthPark, Colorado




On 9th Nov, 2009 Paul S said:


For 160 hp and up to 7000rpm, I would use a couple of 800 cc/min per port, but would stage them so that two run at idle and light loads, then the other two come in on boost.



Hmmmmmm.....
That is of course assuming 'perfect' mixture distribution - so if you were willing to run slightly richer on the inners, then more could be had for sure. Guess that is defeating the point though.
*indifferent*

On 17th Nov, 2014 Tom Fenton said:
Sorry to say My Herpes are no better


Who remembers this first time around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF0a5aoEGsw


Andymini

208 Posts
Member #: 438
Senior Member

London

The staging is presumably to avoid crippling low pulsewidths for lower RPM/idle operation.

Home > Paul S trials and testing > Siamese Code Trial - With Boost
Users viewing this thread: none. (+ 1 Guests) <- Prev   Next ->
To post messages you must be logged in!
Username: Password:
Page: