Nitrous/Methanol Anti-Lag System Afterburner!

[DonWG]

Ready for take off.

[DonWG]

The nozzle.

[DonWG]

Finished some testing at the track last night and no funky problems associated with the afterburner occurred. No explosions or melt downs. I still need to study the datalogs to see if the system helped with anything. As far as time slips, no new bests to report. Performance was not drastically off, though. Performance off by maybe hundredths of a second and 1 or 2 mph.
It's really tough to judge by the timeslips though, because the new system seemed to throw off some of the other timed systems throughout the run. For one, the boost control curve needs better dialing in to prevent some traction loss I was getting on the 1-2 shift on more than a couple of the passes.
During some quick checks of the datalog at the track, it appeared that the boost (turbine speed) in relation to the rpm was better, but it appeared the rpm climb was slower. It's as if a trade off was happening.

Was the afterburner helping increase turbine speed, but increasing backpressure and interfering with pressure pulse tuning?

It's a little early to trash the afterburner idea. There's a lot of dialing in to do with it first. Hit size and the afterburner n/f ratio are two very important variables to play with, now that we're sure I'm not going to blow the downpipe off of the turbine housing or melt down the turbine wheel.

[DonWG]

After studying the datalogs, things look very promising. Not one of the passes were really clean. A lot of pedaling on my part due to traction issues, and a lot of mis-timing of the nitrous system shut off and the boost controller. And to still come out with performances that were only slightly off. This afterburner thing just might work.
For the first time, 103 kPa accomplished by 4200 rpm, where as before 103 would come in at closer to 4600 rpm. The small amount of boost that started in at 4200 rpm didn't maintain climb. The boost climb faultered and then came back at 4600 rpm. Most likely a sign that I need to work on the fuel map in the 103-106 kPa section between 4100-4650 rpm to help keep the ALS fired off. A little leaning in that section is probably called for. If I can get the boost climb to stick starting out at 4100 rpm, that would simply be amazing considering the size of this turbine side.
The shot size of the afterburner last night was only 28 hp. Next time out, we'll be upping that size to a 50 shot.

[DonWG]

In reviewing some video of the night runs, I noticed that on the hit of the nitrous at the line, I could hear tinking noises coming from the car. It sounded like loud detonation. I wonder if that was the afterburner. Maybe the ignition of the afterburner is not as smooth as I hoped. Maybe mixture collects, then ignites, collects, then ignites. Just like a gasoline ALS. I'm sure the reason it only sounded like tinking is because the shot size was only a 28, not a whole cylinder full of mixture. I wonder what the 50 shot is going to sound like.

[DonWG]

After comparing the boost trails of before the afterburner and the latest testing with the afterburner, I've found that across the board the MAP to RPM relationship has shifted over at least a solid 210 rpm. In other words, from the point that boost begins to build at 103 kPa, on up to 145 kPa, the rpm is at least 210 rpm less at any given MAP point.
For instance, 103 kPa by 4620 rpm before, now 103 kPa has built up by 4380 rpm. Before, 146 kPa by 5700 rpm, now 146 kPa has built up by 5490 rpm.
I find this rpm to boost relationship difference absolutely amazing, considering these first tests were only a simple 28 hp shot.
The boost actually climbs up in almost a straight line at 4380 rpm from 98 kPa to 110 kPa.
This should be real interesting with the 50 shot. I'm also setting this next shot up richer. 2.50:1 n/f ratio.

[DonWG]

I'm sitting here in the car at the shop just after performing a live nitrous test on the rack of the new 50 shot afterburner. HOT DANG!!!
Details coming up.

[DoubleD]

This is cool stuff dude. update it! I want to read moreeeee

[DonWG]

I still have more analyzing to do with the datalogs, but I'll give you a quicky note.

50 hp shot afterburner.

In about 1.8 seconds with a TC that stalls at 3200 rpm off the nitrous,... 5,179 rpm and 138 kPa MAP. RPM and MAP still on the climb when I backed out of it.
No popping and banging. Just a little bit of a raspy sound to the exhaust and a smooth rpm and map climb.

Boys, another big tuning discovery has just been made. This afterburner WORKS!!! This is just like the gasoline ALS, but without the popping and banging and the large sacrifice in engine power while it's activated!!!

Got video. I'll get it posted soon.

[DonWG]

Without the afterburner, I was lucky to see 145 by 5700 rpm. Really, it was usually at 5800 rpm +.
Now, 138 kPa by 5100 rpm.

I think this is going to improve my launch just a little.

[DonWG]

This will be it for anymore testing on the rack, or stepping up of the afterburner shot size. Time for some track testing.

[DonWG]

I couldn't resist. I performed a third and final test. I set the afterburner to activate .1 second after the activation of the primary nitrous system, instead of the .4 sec I had it set for with the previous two tests. I wanted to see if I needed a delay or not between activating the primary nos and the afterburner. I didn't.
I stayed in it for 2 seconds this time. WOW!

If I had the juevos to stay in it for two seconds before releasing the transbrake, I would be leaving the line at 5,550 rpm and over 160 kPa.
Ahh, hmm, I think that will be more than enough to get the job done.

I'll start out with a transbrake release delay of 1.3 seconds and work it up from there. I'm sure I will stop upping the delay before I get anywhere near 2.0 seconds.

THIS SYSTEM IS FREAKIN' WICKED!!!

[DonWG]

Two datalogs to compare.
The first datalog is test #2. The afterburner was activated .4 sec after the primary nitrous system was activated.

The second datalog is test #3. The afterburner was activated .1 sec after the primary nitrous system was activated.

Note that the rpm and map climb rates were still pretty steep when I ended the tests.

No CO2 was being used to assist the spring of the wastegate during both tests.

[DonWG]

In the second datalog, you can see the flash stall of the torque converter when the nitrous systems are activated.

Conditions during tests.
Engine temp: 80C
Nitrous bottle pressure: 900 psi.

[DonWG]

With the development of this Nitrous/Methanol Drag Turbo Anti-lag System w/Afterburner, I now have a system that can be quickly tailored to the short comings of turbo sizing and torque converter choice.
I can run a turbo size that will guarantee me the best efficiency on the top end with little compromise with consideration to the launch, and I can run a tighter torque converter that gives good efficiency on the top end with little compromise with consideration to the launch. And all that is needed to dial in the combination is the simple changing of two easily accessible jets. 10-15 hp up or down. Gentlemen, this is what I call a perfect combination.

Landmark video coming soon.

[DonWG]

The video.

YouTube - Turbo Nitrous/Methanol Anti-lag System with Afterburner Augmentation

[DonWG]

So, I take it that the reaction out there is,



B, bu, th, tha, that's impossible???!!!

[GNVYUS 1]

That spooled so insanely fast for a 91mm turbo, damn. Great job pulling this off, but you know someone's going to want you to make them a kit, you selling or solo slaying for a while with it?

[DonWG]

Originally Posted by GNVYUS 1

That spooled so insanely fast for a 91mm turbo, damn. Great job pulling this off, but you know someone's going to want you to make them a kit, you selling or solo slaying for a while with it?

Not sure. That would depend on the interest.

[BlownV6]

Way to go!! After watching that video of the quick rpm rise I would even consider switching to a turbo. I can picture just how effective that could be on any sort of tree. Im impressed!! Thanks for sharing!! Mike

[rag231]

From a service standpoint you have to be a mastermind ( aka genius) behind your build I had to put put lables on my lines and wires just to troubleshoot in case of an emergency. You got to have at least 1/8 mile of braid under that car. HAHA just kidding but if you did sell a kit you would have to put it in us "commoners" terms. It would be nice if you had a 274 cu motor for side by side comparisions because I believe there would be difference in all of your "timed" experiments. Your 224 motor probably has very distinct and unique characteristics. Again your acomplishments are a credit towards the buick community, the turbocharged community, the meth com., nitrous com., I mean everyone can benefit. Quick, get a patent if there isn't one already. Thanks.

[DonWG]

Thanks guys. I stuck it out with this small engine, large turbo, tight torque converter combination because I believed that if I finally got the combination to work the way I had always dreamed it could, there could be no doubt in the minds of the naysayers that something truly amazing is going on here.
I wish I could pit beside a big name turbo racer who is checking out his popping and banging gasoline ALS, and show him what a truly technically advanced ALS is supposed to sound like. But then,... my ALS wouldn't excite the little children as much. Oh well.

[kshef]

Originally Posted by DonWG

So, I take it that the reaction out there is,



B, bu, th, tha, that's impossible???!!!

waiting on track videos

[DonWG]

I'm sure this added power at the launch is going to throw off all the timed events throughout the run. After I get those parameters dialed back in, I'll get a track video put together.

[DonWG]

Originally Posted by BlownV6

Way to go!! After watching that video of the quick rpm rise I would even consider switching to a turbo. I can picture just how effective that could be on any sort of tree. Im impressed!! Thanks for sharing!! Mike

Thanks Mike. That simple statement coming from you means a lot to me.

[Nasty Wendy]

Hey Donnie it was a pleasure meeting you. I was thoroughly impressed with your work. Your car is as nice as the weather out there. Sorry I missed the track outing but I'll be following you on Youtube. Thanks for taking the time to make my day.

Oh yeah I'll get those new fuel maps out for you later this week. Hopefully you can plug them in and get rid of those little trouble spots thats been driving you mad.

[DonWG]

Originally Posted by Nasty Wendy

Hey Donnie it was a pleasure meeting you. I was thoroughly impressed with your work. Your car is as nice as the weather out there. Sorry I missed the track outing but I'll be following you on Youtube. Thanks for taking the time to make my day.

Oh yeah I'll get those new fuel maps out for you later this week. Hopefully you can plug them in and get rid of those little trouble spots thats been driving you mad.

And I must say, I had a great time visiting with you also. I just hope I didn't bore you too much.
Waiting patiently for the new fuel map.

Your friend,

[DonWG]

Stoich for nitrous and methanol is 4.13:1.

The latest 50 hp shot afterburner n/f ratio is 2.5:1, or .61 lambda.
The first 28 hp shot was at a ratio of 3.87:1, or .94 lambda.

Equivalency ratios for each of the above values in comparison to gasoline would be 8.93:1 and 13.76:1, respectively.

Would shooting for a mixture closer to 3.75:1 or .91 lambda produce more heat? Gasoline equivalency ratio would be 13.3:1. Methanol equivalency ratio, 5.87:1.

5.0:1 is a common good lean power ratio thrown around for methanol. Lambda would be .78 or 3.22:1 n/f. Gasoline equivalency ratio, 11.42:1. I think I'll try this one at the track testing this weekend. This will require a larger nitrous jet, keeping the fuel jet the same.

Funny. The engine likes to burn the gasoline a/f equivalency ratio of 10.8 - 11.4:1, methanol a/f ratio range of 4.77 - 5.03:1. That would be a lambda range or .74 - .78, or a n/f ratio range of 3.06 - 3.22:1. Hmmm. Could it be that simple?

[Nasty Wendy]

Don't melt your turbine wheel.

[DonWG]

Originally Posted by Nasty Wendy

Don't melt your turbine wheel.

Good point. Maybe I'll keep the richer mixture for now. I'm going to pull the downpipe and see what the wheel looks like.

[S2V6RACER]

Originally Posted by DonWG

Thanks guys. I stuck it out with this small engine, large turbo, tight torque converter combination because I believed that if I finally got the combination to work the way I had always dreamed it could, there could be no doubt in the minds of the naysayers that something truly amazing is going on here.
I wish I could pit beside a big name turbo racer who is checking out his popping and banging gasoline ALS, and show him what a truly technically advanced ALS is supposed to sound like. But then,... my ALS wouldn't excite the little children as much. Oh well.

Don, the big time turbo racer you would be pitting next to would most likely be racing heads up where you can't have 2 power adders. For a bracket car or a grudge race car I can't argue what you are doing with the NOS is working and a big turbo other than the more complex the machine the more that can go wrong.

Time to see some BIG numbers at the track...

[DonWG]

Originally Posted by S2V6RACER

Don, the big time turbo racer you would be pitting next to would most likely be racing heads up where you can't have 2 power adders. For a bracket car or a grudge race car I can't argue what you are doing with the NOS is working and a big turbo other than the more complex the machine the more that can go wrong.

Time to see some BIG numbers at the track...

Yeah, I know. Still, it would be fun to see the look on their faces when I smoothly brought the rpm and boost up.

I'm taking the wheelie bars with me this weekend. We're going to see what kind of 60' best I can come up with. In the 1.2s, maybe?

If people always shied away from complexity, neat discoveries like this would never come to light. From a technical point of view, that would be an awfully boring world.

[DonWG]

Here's an interesting note.
When I was first contemplating switching to the 91mm, I ran some sims on different size turbo compressors to see what large turbo my engine combination might like. There was absolutely no disputing that the sim really liked the 91mm. It was hands down far ahead of the other compressor sizes.
What was real interesting was that the sim also showed that I would need to use a 400 hp shot to get a decent spoolup out of the turbo.

Presently, I'm injecting a 364 hp shot with the port system and a 50 hp shot directly into the turbo. Turns out to be real close to that 400 hp shot the sim showed me I would need to use to spool this monster.

[tom j]

Originally Posted by DonWG

Here's an interesting note.
When I was first contemplating switching to the 91mm, I ran some sims on different size turbo compressors to see what large turbo my engine combination might like. There was absolutely no disputing that the sim really liked the 91mm. It was hands down far ahead of the other compressor sizes.
What was real interesting was that the sim also showed that I would need to use a 400 hp shot to get a decent spoolup out of the turbo.

Presently, I'm injecting a 364 hp shot with the port system and a 50 hp shot directly into the turbo. Turns out to be real close to that 400 hp shot the sim showed me I would need to use to spool this monster.

What simulator are you using?

[DonWG]

Originally Posted by tom j

What simulator are you using?

Engine Analyzer Pro v3.9 by Performance Trends.