The forum has now moved, please visit us at: HTTP://FORUM.NITROUS-ADVICE.ORG

[El Sparticus]

How improtent is it to have the lines the same length?

[Noswizard]

Try telling that to the likes of Tubez (he's a US expert who claims there is no differential in delivery times between fuel & nitrous even on V8 DP systems -

Also try telling the pro US kit brigade that my design is better. They reckon that because my company is small and because I'm a Brit, that I can't possibly know more or do a better job than all those huge US companies that are all still doing it the same way they were 25 years ago - Yeh right!!!

You could have an IQ of 170 and ride the fastest bike or drive the fastest car in the world (using my system) but there will still be some idiots out there that think they know better!!!!!

I've got a good deal more to say but no time at present so back later.

Regards
_________________
Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

[El Sparticus]

I take it you are not dis-agreeing with my comments above then

[Loopy]

He may well be an old fool, but not daft fool

I did suggest Tubecarz actually set up a workshop test to prove nitrous "got there first" using two 20 foot pipes and i even described how his system actually reversed this effect which is why he didn't believe it.
We weren't getting anywhere, which was a shame...........

Did you ever try the same tests using un-matched solenoids ?
The results were
The results are even more when you go progressive.

[Noswizard]

This is a very interesting and often missed subject (and more significant in larger power systems)

VERY VERY TRUE!


Firstly when you activate the fuel and the nitrous (assuming wet system) the nitrous (even if its only vapour to start with) hits quick ('cos its got 900psig odd behind it). The fuel however only has a few psig and so slowly chugs along the line until it comes out the end. This as Trev says is not good, but can be offset by minimum pulsoid to injector lengths.

I wouldn't use the term offset, more a matter of minimising the adverse effects but I know that's what you meant.


I have some excellent dynographs from my developement work showing the initial lean hit and then it being reduced as I minimised the fuel line lengths.

Can you post these by any chance?


Also having a good controller which allows a nitrous delay (think of it as a fuel advance ) so the gas isn't fired until the fuel has filled upto the injectors works well. This is not always as bad as you might think as many carbs have an accelerator pump which gives you a bit of extra fuel. Also purging the nitrous line will make this effect worse

Just for your interest, prior to being given the idea of delaying the nitrous, I'd designed and manufactured a number of prototype systems that acted like an accelerator pump and I'd also designed a system that used a Nitrous solenoid ONLY and as the nitrous entered the combined Nitrous and fuel injector, it activated an integral fuel valve so that the fuel only had to travel just a few mm inside the injector.


Secondly, and this is the bit most often missed, is what happens when you shut off? The fuel is incompressible (its a liquid) so when you shut off it shuts off immediately. The nitrous solenoid is shut immediately but there is still pressurised nitrous in the line and this continues to flow into the motor with no fuel and worse, in shutting off you have usually turned the retard off too 150bhp of nitrous (decreasing) going into your motor with no fuel and no retard - not exactly what you want is it.....

Agreed!!!


There are only a few things that can be done about this. Shortening the lines (and placing the pulsoid/s as close to the injection point) is one. FI (a dry system) is the best for the fuel as it is instant. Another benefit of the dry system is when you shut off you shut the butterflys and these shut off (most) of the dry nitrous. Injecting into the inlet tracts and the butterflys don't help you at all.

On our car systems most injectors are placed with the butterfly between it and the engine, so it benefits from your point. The only problem with your suggestion that a dry system is better because it's instant is that it also switches off instantly. While we're discussing "dry" systems it ESSENTIAL to differentiate between the US dry systems (especially car systems) and the work we're doing with Brad as they are as different as chalk and cheese.


The other is to run a purge pulsoid downstream of the nitrous pulsoid to preferentially dump the line contents to atmosphere when the supply pulsoid is closed (simply set them up toggled)

Complicated though


Now if you consider a system which is jetted at the injector (eg a NOS Fogger etc) your situation is considerably worse.

IS IT EVER!!!!!
AND as Loopy pointed out, pulsing the system makes things far worse.


Not only are the lines filled with nitrous but they are under almost full pressure (900psig) and almost all liquid (as you haven't induced a phase change due to your pressure drop across the pulsoid fitted metering jet) which means you have a significantly greater inventory to squirt into the motor with no fuel and no retard. I believe this is one of the biggest benefits of jetting at the pulsoid as opposed to the injection nozzle.

HOW TRUE and although it may be one of the benefits, it's far from the only major benefit of jetting at the Pulsoid outlet. I've yet to have anyone in the top ranks of bikes use my full system as they have it in their heads that they have to use proven US jet patterns and Foggers. I live in hope that one day people will realise that if I can design the best solenoids in the world it might follow that I've applied the same effort to designing the rest of the system.


It's for all the above reasons that I designed the system below for my top US Promod customer.

http://www.noswizard.com/gallery_jbarb.php

By the way the power figure is wrong, it's an EXTRA 1,500 on top of the roughly 1,200 bhp not all inclusive.

I'd be interested in your comments about the benefits of that system.

The pipe length between Pulsoids to injectors is less than 1"

Regards
_________________
Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

[El Sparticus]

[Loopy]

[Noswizard]

I don't remember saying you're biased!!!

My opinion is that you're right 99.9% of the time.

Any better than that would be considered impossible!!

I still defy anyone or invite anyone to give me JUST ONE design advantage that any US kit has over my systems. The amount of times I've made such a invitation on open forums is getting hard to remember but what I do remember is that NOBODY out of all the millions of people out there has ever come back with a SINGLE, WORTHWHILE response!!

Hey Loopy how about being Devil's advocate and seeing if you can come up with one????

Regards
_________________
Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

[Carnut]

I may have a design advantage. Maybe not realy a technical advantage but an advantage.

With the controllers, yours are digital and I presume you have to scroll through each setting. When using things like these (not nitrous controllers tho), I find its easier to use a digital controller that has an analogue interface, ie knobs). They can still do the same thing and settings can be shown on the screen but I think they are more user friendly.

This is probably all crap as your minimax/maximiser prob have too many feature to make this work. Also I suppose they make the whole package bigger, more liable to be knocked onto a different setting etc.

Ok, so I cant think of anything the US-eless kits do better.

[Loopy]

[Noswizard]

Carnut,

One of the reasons for going push button was that most of the problems with the Powermax (our analogue progressive prior to the Maximiser) were due to the knobs.

Loopy has covered most problems but one more problem is that knobs act as aeriels and conduct HT to more delicate components.

Schnitz use knobs and I've had people who have never seen one before try to set one up and then do the same with a Maximiser. I'll leave you to guess which one they found FAR EASIER to use.

Any further offers from anyone??????

Regards
_________________
Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)

[Carnut]

I stated writing it and then realised all the disadvantages as you can see above.

[El Sparticus]

Your old sqaure distribution blocks compared to a Brock Davidson Showerhead. And you have conceeded to that one yourself

You have strived to minimise changes of direction in the pulsoid, yet the distribution block has 2 tight rightangle bends to get from the common line into each of the individual lines. I know your block has been flow tested but if you use the direction change arguement on the pulsiod then you have to use it on the distribution block too The Brock design has just a slight 30 degree angle. (I actaully use a version of this design which I make myself - instead of using fittings to join the outlet pipes to the showerhead my 1/8" o/d stainless solid lines screw directly into the showerhead so removing all direction changes and cross sectional changes - basically a backwards 4:1 exhaust arrangement)

[Loopy]

I'll admit I don't like the 90 fittings into the distribution block and would usually prefer nice pipe curves as long as it didn't make the feed path even longer, (even direct solenoid mount if there's space) but without the 90 degree direction change on the split from common to individual, how are you dealing with preferential flow ?
Short of a bifuricated (sp?) layout you need a direction change to spread the flow.
Have you got a picture of your block you don't mind sharing ?

Screwing the outlets directly into the block is a nice idea, but it must make life a bitch !
If you're careful with the plastic you'll find you don't get a CSA change when fitting it into Trevs blocks anyway.

Besides which, we're now into the realms of where does the phase change start and which is best ?
We know less changes in direction and CSA works before the seat, but what about after ?
Using a "Y" to split a feed into two has all of the benefits of reduced direction changes AND CSA changes, but doesn't seem any quicker than using half a block (don't ask, i tried it on a GPZ500 once)

[Noswizard]

Sparks,

I conceed that one but I have a couple of points to make;

1) The entry elbow is an option and we do have a coupling that can connect the block directly to the Pulsoid outlet and also a straight connector that accepts a pipe connection.

2) Whilst I conceed that the shower head is a better design in some respects the shower head isn't a perfect design and and my design does have certain advantages. If I ever come up with a design that has the best features of both, then you can be sure I'll put them in to production.

3) I was comparing OEM components with OEM components and as far as I'm aware shower heads are only optional extras on other kits, not standard issue. When you compare the stock blocks other companies use with ours, then I'm sure you'll agree that's ours is vastly superior.

Regards
_________________
Trev (The WIZARD of NOS)