Nitrous Oxide, is the car still NA, Forced induction or something else:- Debate

[SKiddell]

Pretty much as the title really

This was brought on by watching the front wheel drive eliminator at Santa Pod a couple of weeks ago where the commentator said.

"And in the left hand lane its xxx driving his naturally aspirated xxx" just then the guy purged his nitrous system and ran an 11 second 1/4

(I have my own thoughts, but for the purpose of good spirited debate I will leave them out.)

So what do you think, is a car that uses nitrous, still naturally aspirated?
Should it be classed as forced induction?
Or is it something else entirely.

Finally, rules
1. If you reply it must be a reasoned argument, plain yes/no answers don't cut it.
2. No quotes or referances to "The fast and the furious" are allowed.
3. The first person that inferes that Nitrous oxide is highly flammable at room temperatures and pressures is out on their ear.

 

[Rob Gaskin]

If it's not 'pump fuel' it should be classed as something else - simples.

 

[Dale]

Forgive my limited knowledge, but isn't nitrous a 'chemical' version of a the 'mechanical' turbo?

Getting more air (or oxygen) into the engine than the engine can pull in itself?

If so, I'd say it's something else, but certainly not right to call it n/a.

 

[martinmac]

I am with Rob on this. A car running Nitrous cannot be classed as standard.

 

[SKiddell]

If it's not 'pump fuel' it should be classed as something else - simples.

OK but nitrous oxide (N2O) isnt a fuel, its an oxidiser used to enhance a thermo chemical reaction in the combustion chamber

 

[SKiddell]

I am with Rob on this. A car running Nitrous cannot be classed as standard.

OK but why

 

[SKiddell]

Forgive my limited knowledge, but isn't nitrous a 'chemical' version of a the 'mechanical' turbo?

Getting more air (or oxygen) into the engine than the engine can pull in itself?

If so, I'd say it's something else, but certainly not right to call it n/a.

Devils advocate here, a naturally aspirated engine draws air/fuel in via a natural pumping action, whilst an FI (forced induction system) the air is forced in under greater than atmospheric pressure.
Seeing as the N2O is inducted under atmospheric pressure (once it leaves the bottle its at ambient pressure and more like a "fog") why is this not still under the reasoning of NA.....as the engine is still breathing naturally.
OK so the "air" it is breathing has a greater oxygen content but so has air a sea level versus the top of Kilimanjaro

But I do like your analogy of a "chemical turbo"

 

[Bantambunny]

In my eyes you're replacing the air/fuel combo with something that creates better combustion.

It's an additive in the same way running the car on high octane fuel gives it an advantage so i wouldn't class it as forced induction unless you were willing to consider that running on a higher octane race fuel or any such additive is forced induction.

Nope it's still NA in my eyes just running it on another type of fuel

 

[Rob Gaskin]

If it's not 'pump fuel' it should be classed as something else - simples.

If it's not running 'pump fuel alone' (or Octane booster?) it should be classed as something else - simples. Mmmm Not simples is it?

 

[SKiddell]

In my eyes you're replacing the air/fuel combo with something that creates better combustion.

It's an additive in the same way running the car on high octane fuel gives it an advantage so i wouldn't class it as forced induction unless you were willing to consider that running on a higher octane race fuel or any such additive is forced induction.

Nope it's still NA in my eyes just running it on another type of fuel

I repeat my answer to the honerable gentleman N2O is not a fuel, its an oxidiser and as such is not the same as running race fuel etc.

Too add, you are adding (all be it chemically) an unnatural (doesnt occur naturally) gas, high in oxygen thus increasing the % of oxygen present in the cylinder, thus allowing you to add fuel, all in all effectively increasing the cubic capacity of the engine over and above an engine breathing normal air on its own.

 

[SKiddell]

If it's not running 'pump fuel alone' (or Octane booster?) it should be classed as something else - simples. Mmmm Not simples is it?

Its a bit of an odd one really.

A carburated or throttle bodied car on its own will always lose out to the same spec engine with NO2 added to it therefore it cannot be classed solely as NA

However there is little evidence of the "forced" element increasing manifold pressure so calling it forced induction by conventional logic isnt absolutely true either

On the other hand it falls short of "naturally" as the gas being inducted does not occur in the natural world and is being "introduced" into the induction system by a mechanism (forced if you like) in addition to the normal air entering through the air box or filter.

One way to look at it is to go by how some governing bodies rule
NHRA for instance class it as forced induction
Other refer to it as "NA with a power adder" but arguably so is a turbo or a supercharger

I vote for the "chemical turbo"

 

[Bantambunny]

I repeat my answer to the honerable gentleman NO2 is not a fuel, its an oxidiser and as such is not the same as running race fuel etc.

Too add, you are adding (all be it chemically) an unnatural (doesnt occur naturally) gas, high in oxygen thus increasing the % of oxygen present in the cylinder, thus allowing you to add fuel, all in all effectively increasing the cubic capacity of the engine over and above an engine breathing normal air on its own.

I wasn't implying it was a fuel but talking more about the fuel/air mixture. The fuel of the engine is the stuff that's bunged in that gives power so petrol/methanol and NOS in its entirity is a fuel of sorts

Strictly speaking though the oxygen that NO2 contains is a sort of catalyst to increase the amount of fuel that can be burnt and thereby increase combustion.

So if we're talking about a catalyst vs a turbo/super charger then we're talking about something entirely different - a mechanical add on that compresses the oxygen into a smaller area vs something that feeds the engine without increasing compression or causing dynamic compression if i'm right?

I would say that it's no different to changing the needles in a carb or changing the mixture in an engine map it's just the fuel burning capability of the engine is increased temporarily by the addition of a catalyst and not a permanent change to the engine. The capability of the power output is dependent on fuel and the rate it can be burnt so chemically increasing this ability is no different to running a leaner/richer mix.

i.e. you could run an engine on a lean mix of 14:1 A/F then the same engine on 12.5:1 A/F and get more power out of it. This is an adjustment chemically of the mixture but the engine itself stays the same. The same adding NO2, no change to the engine just a different fuel mixture

Of course one could argue that a turbo is a semi permanent performance increase controlled by an actuator and the actuator is no different to a switch or solenoid for nitrous and we could have a really long thread that went on forever over technicalities and opinions

 

[SKiddell]

I would say that it's no different to changing the needles in a carb or changing the mixture in an engine map it's just the fuel burning capability of the engine is increased temporarily by the addition of a catalyst and not a permanent change to the engine. The capability of the power output is dependent on fuel and the rate it can be burnt so chemically increasing this ability is no different to running a leaner/richer mix.

Sorry but you are a little off base there (sure would save money on Nitrous kits)

A richer or leaner mix is centred around a stoichiometric correct value (or AFR), in our case any less/more and you lose power and potentially damage your engine, its like being pregnant, you either are or your not, how is that remotely like adding huge amounts more oxygen and fuel (in the correct ratios)

I think a quick recap on how N2O works may be needed (or perhaps the internal combustion engine)

N2O has huge amounts more oxygen yield in it than normal air once the heat of combustion breaks down the nitrogen bond (normal air has only 20% oxygen the rest is 79% nitrogen and other trace gases)

Oxygen (technically O1) is a fierce oxidising agent, not a catalyst (in this instance as it is being consumed)
The more you introduce into your engine the more fuel you have to add to maintain stoichiometric ratio...the side effect of this is that more power is produced due to increased cylinder pressure. The other side effect is the charge cooling effect which is way way better than an intercooler.

Dicking about with needles and maps just alters your AFR and as such you are either at or below optimum power delivery for a given volume of air and fuel



Just to reiterate
Oxygen is not a fuel

(remember the fire triangle)

 

[zpuppy]

At any drag event or truck/tractor pull ive been to in Canada and the States Nitrous is considered (and rightly so) as forced induction. You are in effect jamming a huge amount of "oxygen equivilant" into the chambers along with a huge amount of extra fuel to compensate for the really bad lean out you would have otherwise. The one and only reason nitrous is used instead of pure oxy is the fact that it is super chilled when expansion occurs outside the tank ( when it hits the spray bars or injectors) If you where to substitute a bottle of oxygen for the nitrous you would have a molten chunk of slag where your engine used to be , as oxy doesnt "super chill" At any rate, NO/2 is forced induction as it does not depend solely on draw from the piston, in effect it "tricks " the engine into thinking it's got a huge blower shoving yummy burny stuff into it , and as long as the bearings and the rest can take the torture,, FAST !

 

[SeanDezart]

Isn't running an N/A engine with a front mounted air-filter classed as air-induction? Maybe anyone running filters other than in the engine compartment should be in a different class already.

The question of NO2 conformity opens more questions in my view.........

 

[Wyn]

imo if you run 2 identical engines, one with and one without, be it turbo, supercharged or na nos should fall into its own +nos class
So I would say something else entirely, if only for its added unfair power advantage?

 

[tel240z]

Something else entirely

Why, You would not see an athelet in world olympics allowed to have an oxygen mask and bottle strapped to his back or drugs taken either

however you dress it up the word NORMALLY means normal but are we talking normal breathing or normal ingredients ?

 

[Gio]

The answer's in the question "So what do you think, is a car that uses nitrous, still naturally aspirated?"

Is using nitrous in the breathing (aspiration) of a 4-stoke internal combustion engine "natural"? No. By definition, therefore, it is not naturally aspirated.

Further, to steal from Wikipedia "Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a chemical compound used as an oxidizing agent to increase an internal combustion engine's power output by allowing more fuel to be burned than would normally be the case."

It is an added oxidising agent, therefore clearly not natural in this context.

Forced induction adds both more fuel and more oxidising agent so use of nitrous on its own is equally clearly not forced induction.

So whetever it is, N2O is not NA

 

[SeanDezart]

So can race fuel (higher octane) be used ?

 

[Gio]

So what do you think, is a car that uses nitrous, still naturally aspirated?
Should it be classed as forced induction?
Or is it something else entirely.

Finally, rules
1. If you reply it must be a reasoned argument, plain yes/no answers don't cut it.

So can race fuel (higher octane) be used ?

Hallo Roger Reasoned argument for making this post.