Ultrasonic Fuel Injector for improved atomisation.

[Walnut]

A Question, Is there any appetite for a fuel injector incorporating an ultrasonic device to create improved Atomisation?

Recently I began to work with a company who developed the technology to do this using 45 Khz (approx) device, they patented the technology but then halted development to concentrate on other projects.

After starting with them and seeing the technology I formed the opinion that it may have some significant potential. As an F1 supporter this seemed an appropriate avenue to open the subject for discussion, I would value any input.

Thanks, Andrew.

[trinidefender]

A Question, Is there any appetite for a fuel injector incorporating an ultrasonic device to create improved Atomisation?

Recently I began to work with a company who developed the technology to do this using 45 Khz (approx) device, they patented the technology but then halted development to concentrate on other projects.

After starting with them and seeing the technology I formed the opinion that it may have some significant potential. As an F1 supporter this seemed an appropriate avenue to open the subject for discussion, I would value any input.

Thanks, Andrew.

Can you give any information on the power required to run it and any numbers from tests that may been performed. Sounds interesting.

[Walnut]

I have no specific details on power consumption yet only that it is low parasitic loss. So far it has been tested on Diesel fuel and Bunker Fuel, nothing on Petrol but is seems to me that atomisation must be improved on any viscosity fuel.

[riff_raff]

A good first step would be to quantify by analysis any potential benefits provided by your fuel injector concept for the intended application. For example, do you have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that fuel atomization is a major concern with current F1 fuel injection systems?

[NL_Fer]

There is some big difference between diesel, bunker and gasoline. Where the latter is vapourizing by itself very good, maybe gas doesn't need better atomisation to improve current efficiency and is now it facing other problems.

Remember the injectors are allowed 500 bar, they were dropping it last year during operation, to lat e fuelrail act as a buffer, increasing fuel flow, for short moments.

Diesel injctors are already capable of 2000 bar, so do you really think it can contribute to current struggles?

[Craigy]

Diesel injctors are already capable of 2000 bar, so do you really think it can contribute to current struggles?

Currently mass produced ones are up to 2500bar that I know of (all the major OEMs have a system at that rating already). Examples are available in marine and truck engines, but also things like the BMW M50d engine in the 5-series and X5 and X6 cars (3.0 litres, 381bhp).

In development for mass production are 2800bar and 3000bar systems.

I struggle to get my head around a 3000 bar fuel injector. 3000 bar is 43,500PSI. That pressure is enough to use as a cutting tool in industrial applications; could an injection at the wrong time damage the piston directly?

[NL_Fer]

Not the piston, since it is not producing tight jets of fuel. It spraying wide, to create a mist of fuel.

I rather doubt, if a 3000 bar injector wouldn't wear out it's one needle and holes.

[riff_raff]

The amount of time available for mixing of air/fuel in a DI diesel is far less than even a high rpm F1 SI Otto cycle engine. In a DI diesel the atomization provided by the very high pressure injection is extremely important. But it is not so important with a DI otto cycle engine.

One concern with using very high injection pressures in an otto cycle engine is accurate metering of the fuel mass delivered. This not as much of a concern with DI diesel engines that operate over a wide range of air/fuel ratio.

[PlatinumZealot]

I have no specific details on power consumption yet only that it is low parasitic loss. So far it has been tested on Diesel fuel and Bunker Fuel, nothing on Petrol but is seems to me that atomisation must be improved on any viscosity fuel.

Was the purpose of the ultrasonic frequency to keep the injectors clean? Or reduce viscosity (improve flow) or what was it the advantage?

[gruntguru]

I have no specific details on power consumption yet only that it is low parasitic loss. So far it has been tested on Diesel fuel and Bunker Fuel, nothing on Petrol but is seems to me that atomisation must be improved on any viscosity fuel.

Was the purpose of the ultrasonic frequency to keep the injectors clean? Or reduce viscosity (improve flow) or what was it the advantage?

I would assume the ultrasound breaks the fuel into smaller droplets.

[J.A.W.]

The amount of time available for mixing of air/fuel in a DI diesel is far less than even a high rpm F1 SI Otto cycle engine. In a DI diesel the atomization provided by the very high pressure injection is extremely important. But it is not so important with a DI otto cycle engine.

One concern with using very high injection pressures in an otto cycle engine is accurate metering of the fuel mass delivered. This not as much of a concern with DI diesel engines that operate over a wide range of air/fuel ratio.

2-stroke mills of course, whether CI , or HCCI/SI, require a quick well-timed DFI shot..
.. to ensure efficacy in optimal operational functionality.. inc' emissions-wise..