Seriously, someone has fallen into the marketing scheme. The guy who makes signh grooves is trying to sell signh grooves to people. You may slightly decrease compression and slightly increase cylinder size. You may increase atomization. You may more thoroughly burn fuel which may add a couple of HP to a stock design. However, it's not a magic cure all for the engine that will make a poor design run perfect. It's not going to make up for engine imbalance. It's not going to net a ton of gas millage. It is not the next gift from god which will revolutionize the car industry. This is simply the icing on the cake modification when you have your engine machined back to manufacturer's specs.

You will still need the same octane gas or higher because the fuel burns more readily. More so then ever. Why? The fuel is more thoroughly atomized. This is a simple scientific fact. When the fuel is more atomized, it increases the flame front speed and burns more readily. Now if you were decreasing the flame front speed, then maybe. However, fuel atomization is the whole principal behind Signh groves.

Octane resists detonation at higher temperatures. You're not going to obtain the same results from any sort of groove. There is no such thing as mechanical octane. Why? Compression flashpoint does not change. You may have lowered your compression slightly because you removed part of the head, but not enough to make a difference in the compression ratio. Compression adds heat, directly.

Compression is the principal of operation behind your air conditioner. When you compress anything, the temperature raises. When you decompress anything, the temperature lowers. An A/C unit compresses the freon, runs it through a radiator to remove lots of heat due to the dramatic difference in the radiator vs ambient temperature, then decompresses it, runs it through another radiator which takes the heat out of the air and blows the lower temperature air on you.

Whenever you compress fuel and air, the temperature will raise up. This makes every bit of fuel and air in your cylinder like a powder keg ready to explode. A single predetonation is not that big of a deal because the engine was designed to compensate for detonation or ping using it's ping sensor. It retards the timing and goes on it's merry way.

When you run nitrous oxide, the fuel air ratio stays the same as when you run 21% ambient air. However, the oxygen concentration is raised to as high as 33%. Still running 14.7 to 1 fuel ratio means you are able to burn alot more fuel and generate alot more power. This makes for a very powerful predetonation if one occours and can destroy the pistons. So if anyone recommends that you attempt to run Nitrous Oxide without the proper grade fuel, you should kick them in the balls promptly for telling you to destroy your engine.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stocker @ Apr 20 2009, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I've heard enough anecdotes to make the grooves worth a try for me (low power N/A build), as obviously iheartmyRD has.</div>
Hey, you won't get much argument from me. If nothing else, it's always nice to have someone give it a whirl to see if it works. Most of the success stories I see are around 2-valve heads; I'm not sure what the relationship is honestly. Either way, what the hell, right? smile.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stocker @ Apr 20 2009, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If I have zero clearance with no gasket, from whatever part of the piston to whatever part of the head it would be touching, then add a head gasket, is THAT ok?</div>
I can't really say, honestly. This is one of those cases were "it depends" is the best answer I could give. The head gasket is, I believe, somewhere around .010-.015" give or take. The unfortunate part is that we have no solid data on expected rod stretch and piston expansion at full operating speed / temps for the stock parts, nor do we (so far as I know) have conclusive data about how much clearance the stock head gasket provides under full compression.

Conversely, the manufacturers for aftermarket rods and pistons (and even had gaskets) can indeed give you those sorts of details (or at least good guidelines to follow.) I suppose, if we say the stocker head gasket is at least 0.005" at full compression, then I would think any combination of stock piston and rod and crank combo should probably have enough clearance.

Here's another, potentially far more risky problem that not everyone thinks of: I generally trust the machine shop to do what I pay them, but did they do it right? In order to properly zero-deck a block, they need to know the exact measurement from crank centerline to piston face at TDC -- with the bearings installed, with the pin inserted, blah blah blah. If they screw up any one of those measurements (even by a few thousandths), then you have the potential to do some uber damage to your poor head.

Or maybe the opposite -- maybe they didn't get it right, and now you've got 0.035" worth of clearance when you wanted 0.010". The best way to find out is to pinch off the tiny segment of clay and roll the assembly around on EACH cylinder to ensure they got it right. And if they didn't? Well, hope the didn't take enough off wink1.gif And if they did? Then tada, you know that you have at least one less problem to worry about. Same goes for any other change they've made, such as turning your crank, milling the head, seating valves, boring cylinders, et al. It's always worth it to double-check their work, because otherwise you're only guessing as to what's underneath.


Now, onto the uglier stuff: sad.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You will still need the same octane gas or higher because the fuel burns more readily. More so then ever. Why? The fuel is more thoroughly atomized. This is a simple scientific fact. When the fuel is more atomized, it increases the flame front speed and burns more readily.</div>
I think we need to rehash what octane does. Higher octane does not burn "more readily". In fact, it actually burns more slowly, which is why it is more resistant to predetonation. Further, higher octane does not equate to better atomization in any way, shape or form -- it is simply a longer hydrocarbon chain that is slightly less volatile than it's lower-octane cousin.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You're not going to obtain the same results from any sort of groove. There is no such thing as mechanical octane. Why? Compression flashpoint does not change.</div>
Yes and no. In a "perfect world" where fuel atomization is at it's absolute best, there's no such thing as mechanical octane. But we don't live there, and perfectly atomized fuel and air isn't a reality in our engines. "Mechanical octane" is a general term given to any physical device that allows the fuel and air to more uniformly mix, thus reducing the lean and rich "regions" in an otherwise stratified mixture. In this scenario, quench area is a form of mechanical octane, as the piston's sudden rush to within ten thousandths of an inch of the cylinder head at almost 11 meters/sec is more than enough turbulence to force quite a bit more of that fuel into fine droplets.

A lean mixture will indeed burn faster, even if it's a localized lean region in an otherwise rich environment. Lean "pockets" can very much cause predetonation, and since we're not in a perfect world, proven mechanical octane methods such as quench area can indeed help us even out the mixture. Singh groves on the other hand have some fallbacks that I'm not entirely certain about...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Still running 14.7 to 1 fuel ratio means you are able to burn alot more fuel and generate alot more power.</div>
This sentence didn't make much sense to me. 14.7:1 air to fuel ratio means you're combusting not-quite 15 parts of air for every part of fuel, as measured by volume. If you want to burn more fuel, you'll want to run a more rich A/FR ratio, such as 12:1, or 11:1, or the like. Burning more fuel does not specifically result in more power, and in fact, after a certain logical point will reduce power. Nobody makes maximum power at 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, most normally aspirated motors seem to make their best power around 13 - 13.5:1 or thereabouts. I'm still not quite sure why this was brought up though, as air/fuel ratio isn't really what we're on about in this thread. At least, not as far as I've seen...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So if anyone recommends that you attempt to run Nitrous Oxide without the proper grade fuel, you should kick them in the balls promptly for telling you to destroy your engine.</div>
I'm not really sure what you mean here either. Given a multitude of options, fuel octane rating isn't specific to a certain amount of nitrous. Now, the higher potential cylinder pressures provided by using nitrous might need some timing adjustments, of which you could avoid or minimize by using higher octane fuel, or you could minimize by cam timing, compression changes, or even some measure of 'mechanical octane' if you don't have absolutely perfect fuel atomization from the factory (most don't.)

As for a 75 shot? Yeah, if you did absolutely nothing else to the engine, higher octane is a pretty solid idea for a ~55% performance increase. A DIS2 unit certainly isn't a requirement though, nor would Singh's grooves. But hey, if these grooves are such a wonderful antidetonant and actually work, then they could certainly help.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Red @ Apr 20 2009, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think we need to rehash what octane does. Higher octane does not burn "more readily". In fact, it actually burns more slowly, which is why it is more resistant to predetonation. Further, higher octane does not equate to better atomization in any way, shape or form -- it is simply a longer hydrocarbon chain that is slightly less volatile than it's lower-octane cousin.</div>

You did not read what I wrote. You said the exact same thing that I said.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes and no. In a "perfect world" where fuel atomization is at it's absolute best, there's no such thing as mechanical octane. But we don't live there, and perfectly atomized fuel and air isn't a reality in our engines. "Mechanical octane" is a general term given to any physical device that allows the fuel and air to more uniformly mix, thus reducing the lean and rich "regions" in an otherwise stratified mixture. In this scenario, quench area is a form of mechanical octane, as the piston's sudden rush to within ten thousandths of an inch of the cylinder head at almost 11 meters/sec is more than enough turbulence to force quite a bit more of that fuel into fine droplets.</div>
thank you. I didn't know that better atomization was called mechanical octane.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This sentence didn't make much sense to me. 14.7:1 air to fuel ratio means you're combusting not-quite 15 parts of air for every part of fuel, as measured by volume. If you want to burn more fuel, you'll want to run a more rich A/FR ratio, such as 12:1, or 11:1, or the like. Burning more fuel does not specifically result in more power, and in fact, after a certain logical point will reduce power. Nobody makes maximum power at 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, most normally aspirated motors seem to make their best power around 13 - 13.5:1 or thereabouts. I'm still not quite sure why this was brought up though, as air/fuel ratio isn't really what we're on about in this thread. At least, not as far as I've seen...</div> Because nitrous was brought up. Wet shots of nitrous deals with changing the amount of oxygen in the cylinder. You should be able to see why it was brought up, or you're nit picking. I pretty much laid it out in order.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not really sure what you mean here either. Given a multitude of options, fuel octane rating isn't specific to a certain amount of nitrous. Now, the higher potential cylinder pressures provided by using nitrous might need some timing adjustments, of which you could avoid or minimize by using higher octane fuel, or you could minimize by cam timing, compression changes, or even some measure of 'mechanical octane' if you don't have absolutely perfect fuel atomization from the factory (most don't.)</div> Nitrous burns hotter, therefore the internal chamber temperature is higher after use. Higher temperatures = more detonation. Higher octane = less detonation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for a 75 shot? Yeah, if you did absolutely nothing else to the engine, higher octane is a pretty solid idea for a ~55% performance increase. A DIS2 unit certainly isn't a requirement though, nor would Singh's grooves. But hey, if these grooves are such a wonderful antidetonant and actually work, then they could certainly help.</div>
I put as much faith into these grooves as I do a e-bay power chip. They may work in some circumstances. They probly won't hurt. But they're not going to do much spectacular.

If you're going to take apart your engine, may as well put these grooves into them. Apparently, they can't hurt. Without airflow calculations I can't see them doing much of anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 20 2009, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>thank you. I didn't know that better atomization was called mechanical octane.</div>
More uniform fuel atomization does two things: more cooling effect to the cylinder temperatures, as more surface area of the fuel droplets are exposed to the air, and a more uniform mixture (less "lean" and "rich" layers, aka less mixture "stratification".) The former is an obvious example of how it results in less detonation, the latter also means less "lean layers" that can predetonate due to hotspots or spontaneous combustion. The result of better fuel atomization will always be less tendency to detonate, which is where the term 'mechanical octane' came into being.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 20 2009, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Because nitrous was brought up. Wet shots of nitrous deals with changing the amount of oxygen in the cylinder. You should be able to see why it was brought up, or you're nit picking. I pretty much laid it out in order.</div>
You really didn't mention it in your thread; I suppose I see where you're going now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 20 2009, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nitrous burns hotter, therefore the internal chamber temperature is higher after use. Higher temperatures = more detonation. Higher octane = less detonation.</div>
Not exactly. Nitrous doesn't burn at all, you can open a nitrous bottle straight into a fire pit, and if it's a full bottle, you'd have a solid chance of putting the fire completely out. However, under high compression and heat, the N2O molecule will crack and separate the oxygen from the nitrogen. As for thermal differences, they're only related to compression changes at best -- otherwise, your combustion temps (and EGT's) should be no different than the car would otherwise register at full throttle. If your combustion temperatures spike during nitrous use, it's not a good sign...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 20 2009, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you're going to take apart your engine, may as well put these grooves into them. Apparently, they can't hurt. Without airflow calculations I can't see them doing much of anything.</div>
I disagree. First, they will not affect airflow in any measurable way; this is solely a combustion chamber adjustment. The engine's total volumetric flow will not be altered by adjusting combustion chamber volume. Second, you could very certainly do some harm to your motor by doing these grooves in the wrong way. In fact, we'd have to know what the right way is before we could even denote what the wrong way might be.

In my educated opinion, there will be far more wrong ways to put these grooves into your cylinder head than right ways. Sharp edges, cutting the grooves too near the cylinder walls, the uniformity, depth and shape of the groves -- all of these things can adversely affect your combustion efficiency, and all of them could do it in a very negative way. Unless I had a way to empirically test the changes I was making, I'd be very leery of making these changes to my motor.

But that shouldn't stop anyone else from giving it a shot smile.gif I simply don't have the willingness to try something new this "late" in the game for my setup. My only suggestion for those trying it is this: be cautious.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Red @ Apr 20 2009, 10:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not exactly. Nitrous doesn't burn at all, you can open a nitrous bottle straight into a fire pit, and if it's a full bottle, you'd have a solid chance of putting the fire completely out. However, under high compression and heat, the N2O molecule will crack and separate the oxygen from the nitrogen. As for thermal differences, they're only related to compression changes at best -- otherwise, your combustion temps (and EGT's) should be no different than the car would otherwise register at full throttle. If your combustion temperatures spike during nitrous use, it's not a good sign...</div> Nitrous oxide works, like you said, by separating the nitrogen from the oxygen. More oxygen and more fuel in the space = hotter burn. More energy in the same area. The exhaust will be a bit of a higher temp, but the head gets much hotter. There's also more pressure in the cylinder causing higher temperatures.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree. First, they will not affect airflow in any measurable way; this is solely a combustion chamber adjustment. The engine's total volumetric flow will not be altered by adjusting combustion chamber volume. Second, you could very certainly do some harm to your motor by doing these grooves in the wrong way. In fact, we'd have to know what the right way is before we could even denote what the wrong way might be.</div> The idea of the signh grooves is to cause turbulence by moving certain areas of the air quicker then others. This swirls the air around similiar to a small quench area causing more turbulence during the compression stroke. Also, on the site, they demonstrate signh grooves around the valves on a few of their pictures.


Also, this is the first time I've heard anyone whom I know, knows something about engines say anything about being leery of signh grooves. I kinda figured that they had been tested to the point of being safe, but the gains were unknown.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 20 2009, 11:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nitrous oxide works, like you said, by separating the nitrogen from the oxygen. More oxygen and more fuel in the space = hotter burn.</div>
Combustion temperatures will not change; the only way it will get hotter is if it's running too lean. Otherwise, going by your logic, the stock ~1600*F EGT's from a 140hp car would turn into multiple thousands of degrees if we doubled or tripled the horsepower. This is simply false; gasoline engines at stoichiometric fuel mixtures will top out something just shy of 2000* fahrenheit. It doesn't matter if you're normally aspirated, boosted, or feeding it nitrous. It also doesn't matter if you're making 100HP or 1,000HP. If you get hotter than that, you're not making the most efficient use of the fuel.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I kinda figured that they had been tested to the point of being safe, but the gains were unknown.</div>
Nope. They're still quite the extravagant hype box, and if it were as easy as simply taking a dremmel to your cylinder head with no other care for measurement or uniformity, then I think we'd see at least ONE OEM use it in a production vehicle of some sort -- don't you?

No, it's not proven, and dremmeling (or die-grinding, or angle-grinding, or filing) notches into your cylinder head is not safe either. If you don't know what you're doing, you could do far more harm than good.

I don't think I told you anything about how to operate your own life, car, or thread.

Howabout this: I'm here to share with you the logical reasons why this may not be a good idea. I haven't bashed you in any single portion of my reply; it is your car to do with what you want, and I will not stop you. Nevertheless, I also feel obligated to state the obvious for those people who are reading your thread who otherwise wouldn't know the difference.

It's entirely possible that Singh was on to something (or on something! Ha! laugh.gif ) There is at least the distinct possibility that he discovered a way to use a "groove" of some sort to do what he is describing. But let's think about it more: he's patented is approach, and is selling it. By this logic, it isn't something that you can simply recreate with a dremmel and a bit of crunching on a head. It's like how porting the intake side of a head is quite a bit more than simply "making it bigger inside."

There is some level of science that you are quite obviously ignoring. Use common sense if nothing else - a trench with uniform depth means that air and fuel at the "outside" will not be equally forced into the "inside"; it will simply stagnate at the corner. A trench of uniform width simply exacerbates the same problem. A trench with non-uniform texture could result in inequal fuel distribution during compression. Think about these things, and you'll start to understand why your chosen methods may completely invalidate the science that Singh has developed.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm warning you that your implementation is akin to taking that same dremmel to the intake ports on your head. Drilling for sake of doing something does not automatically get you a positive result, just like "bigger" intake ports are quite often NOT better.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Red @ Apr 20 2009, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Combustion temperatures will not change; the only way it will get hotter is if it's running too lean. Otherwise, going by your logic, the stock ~1600*F EGT's from a 140hp car would turn into multiple thousands of degrees if we doubled or tripled the horsepower. This is simply false; gasoline engines at stoichiometric fuel mixtures will top out something just shy of 2000* fahrenheit. It doesn't matter if you're normally aspirated, boosted, or feeding it nitrous. It also doesn't matter if you're making 100HP or 1,000HP. If you get hotter than that, you're not making the most efficient use of the fuel.</div>
Which one of these flames is hotter? a match stick, or a bonfire?

Ok, now across the same area at the same pressure with the same oxygen concentration, both flames will burn at the same temperature. So, they're the same temperature right?

Ok, so you take that same bonfire and compress it down to the size of the matchstick (physically possible?) and then set them both on fire.. Which one is hotter?

When you increase the amount of fuel which is combusted in the engine at the proper air/fuel ratio, you have more energy released in the same area. This is the reason nitrous oxide works. Same with super/turbo. When you release more energy, more heat is generated. Once it decompresses into the exhaust system and takes up relatively massive amounts of space, it will not retain that high temperature. The temperature lowers in the exhaust because it is no longer under pressure and can expand out distributing the same energy across a larger area.

I'm not saying it's a 1,000F difference in temperature, but there is a reason that nitrous "fries" piston rings if you use it for too long, in improper mixture, or in too high of a concentration. The exhaust does not see as dramatic of a temperature increase as the cylindar does because it's not under pressure.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Which one of these flames is hotter? a match stick, or a bonfire?</div>
Assuming equal fuels, neither is "hotter".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ok, so you take that same bonfire and compress it down to the size of the matchstick (physically possible?)</div>
No, it isn't physically possible in the realm of current human capability; you don't "compress heat" just like you don't "compress light". While technically we have some amount of technology that is possible of doing tiny bits of what you describe, you're talking about particle accelerators -- not something you'll have underhood.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When you increase the amount of fuel which is combusted in the engine at the proper air/fuel ratio, you have more energy released in the same area. This is the reason nitrous oxide works</div>
While you didn't really articulate it well, what you're saying is generally correct. By increasing the mass of both the fuel and oxidizer in equal proportion and ignite them in an otherwise identical space, the gasseous result will be of higher volume. This means more total expansion in the combustion chamber, which translates to more mechanical energy (downward push on the piston crown.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not saying it's a 1,000F difference in temperature, but there is a reason that nitrous "fries" piston rings if you use it for too long, in improper mixture, or in too high of a concentration</div>
You're connecting two concepts that aren't linked. Rings don't fry because of temperatures due to nitrous, they fry because someone didn't get the air fuel ratio correct. They also fracture because of detonation (bad timing, bad gas) and they also can fracture under severe duress of all the extra compression force. Here's a commonly overlooked fact about nitrous: it actually lessens combustion chambers if all else is equal. Why? Because the extreme decompression from the ~1000psi bottle to your ~15psi intake manifold results in a massive temperature drop of the injected nitrous. This massive temperature drop can actually force your combustion chamber temperatures to decrease, which is why you don't always need exactly "75 horsepower" worth of additional fuel with your 75 shot -- keeping it slightly leaner allows the combustion chamber temps to be where you want them. Again, you're still targeting around 1850*F combustion temperatures.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The exhaust does not see as dramatic of a temperature increase as the cylindar does because it's not under pressure.</div>
The exhaust gas temperatures will see a direct and proportional temperature increase to the combustion chamber temperatures. The temperature delta depends on exhaust port design in the head, cam profile, valve shape, manifold / collector design, and how far away you have placed your thermocouple. But your exhaust gas temperatures WILL raise in accordance with your combustion chambers. Nitrous doesn't "magically" cool off more than any other exhaust coming out of those chambers, and no amount of you trying to teach me about thermal expansion and contraction is going to hide the fact that exhaust cooling rate isn't going to change in a motor where the only other alteration was nitrous injection.

Again, 1850*F is where the combustion chamber needs to be. If it's getting hotter than that, then you're having fueling issues, or you're using some other compression alteration device such as a turbocharger or supercharger. Combustion temperatures is actually one case where nitrous does NOT behave the same way as other forced induction methods, and it's actually IN YOUR FAVOR.

You're wrong man. If you take that theoretically impossible scenario I mentioned earlier and relate that to fuel in a chamber, that's the same scenario as Nitrous, turbocharging or supercharging. You're burning and releasing a larger amount of energy and heat in the same area with nitrous then without and that's why you need higher octane.

I'm sure you think so, but there's a few dozen years of experience and at least two laws of thermodynamics that say otherwise. You don't "burn energy", you don't "compress heat", and nitrous (if all else is equal) will reduce combustion chamber temperature. Turbocharging and supercharging increase combustion chamber temperatures because they increase the oxidizer temperatures.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss detonation resistance, and any amount of "grooves" aren't going to reduce combustion temperatures. So why are you so focused on temperatures?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Red @ Apr 21 2009, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm sure you think so, but there's a few dozen years of experience and at least two laws of thermodynamics that say otherwise. You don't "burn energy", you don't "compress heat",</div>
You are the one talking about burning energy and compresssing heat, scroll back up to where you first mentioned it and stop trying to slam me by "restating" your imaginary creations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>and nitrous (if all else is equal) will reduce combustion chamber temperature. Turbocharging and supercharging increase combustion chamber temperatures because they increase the oxidizer temperatures.</div>
They call that an intercooling effect because it flashes from a liquid to a vapor and takes up alot of space when you spray it. This does not decrease combustion temperatures. It increases them because even more nitrous oxide can get into the chamber and upon burning the greater quanity of fuel, more energy is released.

The definitive answer to this debate can be found on the ZEX website on the Frequently Asked Questions
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial Helvetica sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%">Q: Do I have to change my spark plugs after installing the nitrous system?
A: YES, Due to the increase in horsepower the nitrous system creates, the quantity of heat generated in the combustion chamber goes up. It is required that you install spark plugs that have at least two steps colder heat range. This helps to ensure detonation free performance when using the nitrous system. ZEXâ„¢ has nitrous specific spark plugs available for many makes and models of vehicles.</span></span></div>

Come on now stop playing, heat isn't measured in quantities! lmao.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 22 2009, 06:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are the one talking about burning energy and compresssing heat, scroll back up to where you first mentioned it and stop trying to slam me by "restating" your imaginary creations.</div>
Quite the opposite, in fact I just got done quoting you saying compressing heat and burning energy, and I've stated more than once that you CANNOT and it is physically impossible. Remember the part where you said "oh well that impossible part? Yeah you can do that..." No, you cannot.

You're being purposefully deceitful to cover your own tracks; you can go back and quote me where you think I said "compress heat" or "burn energy". Otherwise, I've already quoted you doing it more than once, and explicitly told you you're wrong, so either prove your stance or stop creating strawman arguments.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They call that an intercooling effect because it flaes from a liquid to a vapor and takes up alot of space when you spray it. This does not decrease combustion temperatures.</div>
Yes, I'm quite aware, thank you for restating what I've already said. You're quite good at taking my words and finding another way to say them -- do you actually know anything about what you're talking about though? When your intake temperature goes down 150*, then you're telling me that combustion temperatures go UP? What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It increases them because even more nitrous oxide can get into the chamber and upon burning the greater quanity of fuel, more energy is released.</div>
Ugh, not this tripe again. Yes, more energy is released, YAY you've said the same thing nine times. Guess what? There are SEVERAL kinds of energy, it's not all just heat. Again, by your relatively inept theory, if we sprayed exactly 140HP into our stock motor, our combustion chamber temperatures would double -- do you realize why this is wrong? Can you even grasp this concept?

How big is 1 degree centrigrade? Tell me.
How much does 1 degree centigrade weigh? Again, you tell me.

Much to Stocker's point, there is no "volume" to heat, there is no "mass" to heat. This is a fundamental principle of energy, you can't compress it because it isn't matter. Matter is the antithesis of energy, which is why you can't measure it in material terms.

I believe what you're trying to put together (and what ZEX is trying to describe in laymans terms) is the total mass of the post-combustion material goes up, and along with retaining the same temperature, the potential for heat transfer goes up.

Try this: Roll up a ball of aluminum foil, and put it in your oven at 350*. Take a cast iron pan, and put it in the same oven. After 20 minutes, take them both out -- which one burns your hand?

They're the same temperature, which is exactly what I've been telling you. The difference is mass and thermal conductivity; the more significant mass with the lower thermal conductivity will hold heat longer. Your combustion temperatures change incredibly little, the thing you're attempting to describe is the mass changing. The mass of that combusted material can hold heat longer, which can in turn leave residual heat in the combustion chambers for the next stroke which can lead to predetonation.

Or at least, that's the best I can presume you're intending to say -- as the stuff that you're actually TYPING is either incoherent or wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Red @ Apr 22 2009, 08:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Quite the opposite, in fact I just got done quoting you saying compressing heat and burning energy, and I've stated more than once that you CANNOT and it is physically impossible. Remember the part where you said "oh well that impossible part? Yeah you can do that..." No, you cannot.

You're being purposefully deceitful to cover your own tracks; you can go back and quote me where you think I said "compress heat" or "burn energy". Otherwise, I've already quoted you doing it more than once, and explicitly told you you're wrong, so either prove your stance or stop creating strawman arguments.</div>
No sir, you were the first person in this thread to suggest that you can burn energy or compress heat. I said you can compress particles which contain energy. I said you can release energy. You can compress particles which have a high energy level, bringing the total energy in an area to a greater level. This increases particle collisions, transfers more heat, and increases temperature.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, I'm quite aware, thank you for restating what I've already said. You're quite good at taking my words and finding another way to say them -- do you actually know anything about what you're talking about though? When your intake temperature goes down 150*, then you're telling me that combustion temperatures go UP? What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing?</div>
The temperature goes up because the total fuel burned goes up. Just because it starts 150 lower does not mean the outcome is going to be 150 lower. There is more energy released so therefore there is more heat in the chamber.

I was going to respond to each of your paragraphs, but then I realized that you're using the straw-man knock down technique in an attempt to discredit me. This is a debate technique where you create an easy to defeat advarsary, then defeat it making you look like the victor. It is a deceptive technique. Most of your post has been Nirvana falacy. You also used Ad Hominem, attacking me instead of the topic. You used an appeal to ridicule, You used a fallacy proof by example as well with your 20 minute argument. I will not subject myself to this any further except to say the following.

You can compress particles containing energy. Each particle does not loose it's energy. You will end up with more energy in the same spot, just as you do in an A/C system.

I never said temperature goes up in a 1:1 ratio. Temperature goes up when you add more fuel. It's on a curve. This can be proven by roasting a mini marshmallow with a candle, then taking 2 candles, merging the flames and roasting another marshmallow.

There's a reason every nitrous system manufacturer says that you need higher octane fuel and colder spark plugs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 22 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No sir, you were the first person in this thread to suggest that you can burn energy or compress heat. I said you can compress particles which contain energy.</div>
Now you're utterly lying. Please, in your very next reply, quote me exactly where I said this, because I never did, which is why you will be fully incapable of quoting me say it.

THIS IS YOU:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're wrong man. If you take that theoretically impossible scenario I mentioned earlier and relate that to fuel in a chamber, that's the same scenario as Nitrous, turbocharging or supercharging. You're <span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"> burning and releasing a larger amount of energy</span> and heat in the same area with nitrous then without and that's why you need higher octane.</div>
Oh really, you're burning energy? What?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DTN @ Apr 21 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Which one of these flames is hotter? a match stick, or a bonfire?

Ok, now across the same area at the same pressure with the same oxygen concentration, both flames will burn at the same temperature. So, they're the same temperature right?

Ok, so you take that same bonfire and <span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%">compress it down to the size of the matchstick (physically possible?)</span> and then set them both on fire.. Which one is hotter?</div>
You can't compress flames. Duh.

I'd also like to see you quote me in any of the strawmen attacks I've made against you, because there have been none. The best you can do is backpedal and project your problems on me, because you've done everything you're accusing me of doing. In fact, why did you even write an entire paragraph explaining that? Did you need to feel that much better about your losing technical argument?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I never said temperature goes up in a 1:1 ratio.</div>
Ok.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Temperature goes up when you add more fuel.</div>
Wrong. If I add 10 gallons of fuel to an existing gallon of fuel, combustion temperature doesn't go up. If you can't grasp this simple concept, then why are you responding?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This can be proven by roasting a mini marshmallow with a candle, then taking 2 candles, merging the flames and roasting another marshmallow.</div>
You didn't double fuel, are you even paying attention to what you're typing? The temperature is the same, the total quantity of heated gas increases, but the temperature remains constant. This is the part you continually miss and also continually try to argue -- and you're getting it wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There's a reason every nitrous system manufacturer says that you need higher octane fuel and colder spark plugs.</div>
Yes, and it isn't because of temperature, it's because of the extra mass of the gasses pre- and post-combustion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics


I WIN smile.gif

^ used wikipedia FAIL

^ +1 nana.gif owned.gif haha.gif

joke.gif I use it too when I'm looking for a quick, not necessarily strictly correct overview of something. Slightly more reliable than urbandictionary.com

Well wikipedia sorts out the BS back and forth stuff...a lot more straight foward regarding your topic

fing02.gif

Wikipedia will actually entirely answer the question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion#Temperature

Here's the quick lowdown from that section:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wikipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'>In the case of fossil fuels burnt in air, the combustion temperature depends on all of the following:
* the heating value
* the stoichiometric air to fuel ratio
* the specific heat capacity of fuel and air
* the air and fuel inlet temperatures.</div>

The "heating value" of the fuel (which is gasoline) will not change from normal aspiration to turbo to nitrous to any other forced-induction method. It only changes if you change fuel, say to ethanol.

The stoichiometric air to fuel ratio -- well guess what, if you're running LEAN, it will get hot! Duhhrr. If you're doing the mixture right, the temperature stays the same, regardless of forced induction method.

The specific heat capacity of the fuel and air -- welp, atmospheric oxygen actually has less heat capacity than nitrogen, which is why it expands faster in your tires when your tires get hot. Why do high-performance tires call for a nitrogen fill? Because it can soak up more heat before expanding. In this circumstance, the nitrogen in N2O is yet again helping us in comparison to the other forced induction options.

The air and fuel inlet temperatures -- well, fuel temp won't change, and we already discussed nitrous cooling the air significantly during discharge. Yet again, combustion temperatures going down because of air inlet temp changes.

I have entirely now proven why nitrous does NOT increase combustion chamber temperatures, in line with the same dialog I've been having the entire time. I have also, as a sidebar, shown why nitrous can actually end up with cooler combustion chambers than equivalent mechanical turbocharging or supercharging methods.

Oh, and DTN, you still owe me quote where I said anything about "compressing heat" or "burning energy" -- you know, the stuff that YOU actually did? Talk about ad-hominem...

Arguing with DTN with physics is the most pointless thing you can ever do. Red, you're just wasting your time..

DTN has never taken a university level physics class, that is apparent. The title of this thread is a big joke in itself.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but I have seen DTN argue physics time after time, I have even proved him wrong before, but he refuses to ever admit he is wrong, and seems to always think his way is right. Well, it's not. Sorry. Don't be angry, nothing against you, but it's the truth.