Good deal. a basic system used as a saftey ststem. Wise choice. Just remember if you get stumped or have questions, thats what this forum is for.

 

please do explain.....

 

I have every right to correct posts that mis-inform about our product. I answer every post as respectful as I can. That post on the EVO forum that you manipulated was 100% correct. That dyno was accurate and anyone can call the DYNO company to ask them. They have the correct dyno sheets on hand.

Everytime I try to talk about my product that I work my *** off to develop I have to deal with Aquamists customers/loyalists like you. You act like I have no right to talk about coolingmist products, no right to correct things that are wrong. No matter what I do, one of you has to open your big mouth.

Customers have alot of choices and I am more than happy if they choose another brand. All I care about is that they know our systems and how they work.

you can try to paint the picture anyway you want, but I have and always will believe that people know the truth. They know who is loyal to a particular vendor and they are not stupid.

Go ahead and do what ever you want, its not going to stop me and my company. My customers know the truth as do most others.





please read my post. I said in the post its not for beginners and its for someone with a technical background.

thats your opinion and I would not stop you from expressing it or attack you for it.

the customer bought a kit for his diesel and send me the dyno sheets. He did not forge them, as far as I know they were accurate and I called the guy at the dyno shop to talk to him about it. You made a mountain out of a mole hill in an attempt to muddy the water. To question the dyno shops reputation (which is what you are doing) is quite wrong.

 

Wise decision.

No need to have anything fancy if your only purpose is for "added" safety without tune. Pity we don't sell a comprable system at ~$350.00.

 

David,

Does your above system really offers progressiveness at $650? I read your link and did not notice the smart controller can PWM the pump directly.

 

Do you think I would make this up? You are reading the wrong link.

You notice your DDS3 has a board, Gauge, pump, flow sensor, injector and hose? So does ours. The smart controller cannot directly PWM, but the CMGS is included in the kit and integrates with it. This diagram shows it with optional tank.





The customer has several choices. If he prefers on/off like the HFS-1, he can use the CMGS to turn the pump on when he reaches the MIN setting or he can set the Smart Controller to turn on/off. If he prefers progressive he has several choices:

1) user can use the smart controller as only a failsafe and use the CMGS to inject based on either Voltage, boost or a simple map of boost and voltage (simple setup not required to use laptop to program it).

2) user can use the smart controller to create a 0-5V output on a single input (such as RPM). Send that signal to the CMGS and then merge it with the boost (no cell by cell programming is necessary.

3) user can set the CMGS to inject based on 0-5V volts instead o boost. The smart controller can then be setup with a grid with 2 inputs. This can be any two inputs user wants. The smart controller does not have a boost input, however the CMGS has a 0-5V boost pass through that integrates into the smart controller. So the user can read boost directly from the CMGS (or map sensor).

I think you will agree that this kit makes more sense for a direct comparison than our standard trunkmount. Your HFS-1 has some features that ours does not vice versa. Customer has a good decision. Competition is good for the customer.

PS, Im just a customer service rep, so go easy on me.

 

I'm inclined to half-way disagree with the gist of Pimp Hand's discussion of injecting based on a 2d grid vs IDC.

To say that grid-based is more versatile is a bit unfair without further qualification. Obviously a 2x2 grid isn't going to be very versatile at all. I'm not suggesting that anybody offers such a ridiculously low resolution system, rather trying to point out that the resolution of the system is VERY important to be able to make such a claim.

IDC based injection really is, inherently a grid based method of injection. In addition to being based on a RPM vs Load 2d map, that same map (if you're running even a half-way respectable engine management system, including stock ECUs) is trimmed by a host of other inputs (i.e. - AIT, coolant temp, system voltage, etc) making IDC based injection significantly more elegant than it might let on at first glance. Sure it is easy to set up and tuning is a snap for even a novice, but that simplicity should in no way be interpreted as a lack of robustness. Quite to the contrary, those benefits need to be marked in the positive ALONGSIDE the inherent versatility I described above.

In reality, having a constant fuel to auxiliary injectant ratio is ideal. This is only going to be truly achievable with IDC based injection. In my opinion, it is the ONLY way to go, but I am far from the authority. Some people might like to trim down the ratio based on load or anything else for some reason. Generally though, a good tune on fuel only will richen with load, thereby injecting more water and/or alcohol commensurately with IDC based injection. Voila!

Pimp Hand, please spill the beans on this tech you let on about!

 

Wow, I wasn't trying to start a war with my questions! I just want reliable pump gas power for my car

Richard L may not be a salesman but his willingness to answer my stupid questions and educate me has been great PR work for Aquamist.

 

David of Coolingmist...

Thank you for posting the CM system ($650) as a direct comparison to the Aquamsit HFS-1. Do you have a model number or name of this set up you are offering.




Just to be fair for both of us, price posted as $645 (AQ) and $650(CM) does not have the same hardware content. Please confirm the following for me:

Optional, but not supplied:
- Water level sensor
- Inline filter
- two jets

I await your reply.


.

 

Thread such as these are extremely informative, both on product comparison and some history and character of the people who posted.

 

Aquamist

you have a wonderful product. I mean that in all honestly. Im not trashing your product or telling the customer what to buy. My point to this thread was only to tell you that comparing your $645 kit to our standard trunkmount kit was not valid. I am also aware that you did not know about our kit. Our closest kit for you to compare to is the one I have outlined and if you factor everything in it does make a good comparison IMHO.

Our injection nozzles have a 40 micron filter built in. Low level float switch is optional. Kit comes with 1 jet sized to power level. We may look at adding a 2nd nozzle to the kit or adding a low level float switch to it without raising the price, but at this time we have not.

Ours has things yours does not as well. Ours is a boost gauge. There are customers that dont have a boost gauge that would like to have one, this solves that problem. Those that have a boost gauge can use it as a voltage gauge or can show the dutycycle of the pump.

Again Richard you have a very nice product. If you have read into this that I am trashing your product or calling it into question you mis-understand.

Our smart controller as well is an RPM window switch (5 channel), can function as a boost activated switch as well or can switch on an off other devices based on other inputs. These can work independently of the failsafe.

So when I posted in one of my last post I made the comment that it is a good comparison, your kit offers things that ours does not, but in all fairness we have quite a bit of things we offer that yours does not. To some customers, there is value add in these options.


CM.

 

David,

As much as we want to admire each other's product, please answer my question about those optional items listed. (in red)

 

read my last 2 posts carefully. Its very clear.

 

Your last two posts, here is how I interpreted:

1. Nozzle has 40 micron filter so you don't need a filter between the tank and pump.
2. Adding nozzles will raise price
3. adding a water level sesnor will again raise cost.

If I accept #1 as being the same as our kit. Both have filters. But it would be unfair to take away item #2 and #3 so that it compared well with our sysrtem.

Would you object if I state the following as a fair price comparision?

- Coolingmist (still no name) PPS system with float switch and 3 nozzles: $717.85
- Aquamist HFS-1 (non progressive- allegedly): $645.00


.

 

Richard,

You make perfect sense. After reviewing your critique, I have decided to include 3 injector sizes and a low level float switch for our customers for this kit. No need to raise price. Since we already have a filter, I think we should be good to go.

Would you be willing now to include a free boost gauge for those customers of yours that dont have one?

Also, I did not realize your HFS1 was progressive. I dont pay much attention to it so if I mis-spoke I appologize.

I never meant this thread to be a play by play comparision, there are plenty of differences between the kits. My only goal was to provide a better choice to compare than our standard trunkmount (since you dont have a kit that compares to it).

 

David,

The HFS-1 is being improved all the time, design and price is fixed. You have been dancing around it with your "quickly made-up" system - goal post are being moved to support your claim of being better and costing less. You are not an honest person, I regret to having started this conversation with you.



FIY - the HFS-1-v10 has been a progressive PWM valve system since September last year.
Now that you know, that changes things drastically for your comparison system... Let me summarise the performance of the two mentioned systems for you:

Coolingmist system (above): $717.85:
- progressive pump speed system with a dynamic range of "less than" 2x.

Aquamist HFS-1 system: $645.00:
- PWM valve mode with a dynamic range of "greater than" 10x.




Please tell me a how you can imply an Aquamist HFS-1 system is costing people "an arm and a leg". I have found it difficult to accept your apology as you have been using the same sales tactics on other forums. I will however accept you apology if you have put out a public statement as below




"The coolingmist progressive system (above) is no match in performane nor cost to the Aquamist HFS-1 system" David Hill of Coolingmist




I guess I am asking too much from you, David - never mind. I am not expect you to post again.

.

 

Richard,

You and I will never get along and I have no problem with that. No matter what I say or do you will always paint a bad picture.

Fact of the matter is I am fortunate to be in the USA where I can market a fixed rate kit at a low price that will not cost a customer an ARM AND A LEG. I am sorry if you cannot make the same claim.

I have nothing to appologize for. I have never said a HFS1 system will cost an "Arm and a leg". I said to the customer that they can buy a coolingmist kit without spending an arm and a leg. I dont expect you to like it.

I on the other hand have never said your kit was junk, I have never said your kit was walmart, hardware store quality and for example last week when that customer said he thinks our CMGS kits are the best looking on the market you said "you can put lipstick on a PIG and its still a PIG".

So please dont lecture me about being dis-honest. You do not know me, or you never would have said that.

Have a nice day.

 

Cant we all just get along lol..... This became a rather informitive thread. That being said my simple and young mind in the world of AI just got blown away by all this talk. I need a break from this thread, and some reality injected in my life so ill know what the hell just happend.

 

You just got caught up in something thats been an ongoing issue..........you actually are not involved whether you realize it or not. Do not try to get overwhelmed by seeing what Richard and Dave are getting at when they are talking to each other in a direct manner.

If you are new start with the basics in what W/A injection does, meaning why its used. Then get into the delivery methods being employed.

Trying to further explain what I'm driving at, things make better sense when you get a solid back ground of whats attempting to be done. Once you get this then you can understand the ins and outs of the control methods and then as a result you can pick your poison.

If you like to read tech stuff and tech stuff does not scare you, send me an email to jackblalock@gmail.com, I'll send you a very well written document thats like a white paper for water injection. Its called "Turbo Chargers & Knock" and it goes into detail about whats going on in the combustion chamber. Read it and if you get stuck stop and use google to clarify the particular question you have, then go back and re-read.........................I got this document years ago and still think nothing better has been written that an average car person can not handle with some thinking. No one has ever said it was a waste of there time.

Unless you are time constrained, you can take your time to educate yourself first and then buy knowing its from an informed position = you win with what ever you do purchase.

 

"In reality, having a constant fuel to auxiliary injectant ratio is ideal"

In this I would respectfully disagree. There are a number of parameters of operation that an engine goes through that are not reflected in the IDC that have a considerable impact on detonation/preignition.

Specifically: things such as intake/exhaust natural resonance frequency. IE both your intake and exhaust systems have a natural resonance frequency. And at that frequency you can/will see increased “knock” values that are not related to AFR or Timing. Of course you can tune around them. But I prefer to increase AI to suppress the knock values. And with an IDC based system you’re not capable of doing that with out a corresponding adjustment to AFR.

And you are absolutely correct the (grid) system has to have adequate resolution to be more versatile than an IDC based system.



The new tech: gets REAL heady with science real quick. But if you understand how “Capillary wave shearing” works then you would understand. However if no one is working on using this tech in WI systems, Then I might do it my self. Not to be an *** but if it winds up I do start work in this area I don’t want to exactly spill the beans early.

But to provide a basic primer check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_wave

 

Well you know the old saying: "IF the shoe fits"

 

 

While I was familiar with resonance tuning (a la Helmholtz equation) for intake runner length and the sort, I was/am not familiar with the phenomenon you describe associated with an increased propensity for knock. Can you please point me to some literature?

If I understand you correctly, all that would be needed to make IDC based injection "as good as can be" would be a 1D trim on RPM so that you could tell it to "spike" the AI in a certain range. There are relatively cheap off the shelf programmable microprocessors that could accomplish that pretty easily I imagine. . . Hmm. If I don't understand you correctly, sorry for any misrepresentation.

It's been a long time since my fluid dynamics classes, and they never were my focus. I read through the link you provided, but I wasn't clever enough to glean what you were getting at. I'm familiar with capillary action as it pertains to wicking, mostly (as used in heat pipes and the sort).

Please do help me find out more about the phenomenon you were describing as I'd like to try and build a "band-aid" for my system accordingly.

Thank you kindly.

 

Pimp Hand,

I have read your "wave" link, very interesting, not really sure which angle one should approach it.

Your mention of enriching AI delivery during the max torque region or the boost ramp area makes good sense. In this region, it is quite common to enrich AFR anyway. IDC tracking will mirror this, but only at 1:1 ratio.

I am not if you know the HFS-5 has been replaced by HFS-6. On top of IDC mirroring, user and rescale the incoming IDC and alter the meth flow.

Yu will probably be interested to hear this, a second enrichment channel has also been added. This channel was originally designed for compensating meth flow drop against manifold pressure. This is because we run a constant meth line pressure. The onset of this channel is user adjustable. If this 0-5V input is tied to the MAP sensor, this will virtually increase meth flow in the region you mentioned earlier.


.

 

Welp I can’t seem to find a clear, easy to read link to post for ya at this time. I’ll keep looking for some info for ya. However I did find the original study I read. Unfortunately it’s not free.

Here’s a link to the paper. -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...aa6ec7c56f7627

Also in my experience/imperial testing, 13b have 2 point’s where they developed knock values which I’m not able to account for. I am certain that it’s the interplay between the intake track’s resonances and the exhaust tract resonance. And since most/all of them had differing turbo/exhaust manifold designs they all had unique points of resonance.


Yes you read me right. In my opinion a 1d RPM reverence added to an IDC AI injection system would be PERFECT. Not only would you have a simple and easy to use system. You would also be able to account for RPM/Load (that are not reflected in IDC) related issues with out resorting to changes to AFR. In my opinion that would be “as good as it gets”. Assuming you are using a PWM method for metering your AI, as the progressive method is simply not capable of responding to the quick changes in flow required.


Regarding the new tech: I’m going to make another post, maybe even a new thread. I will try to be a forthcoming as I can be. But since Richard stated he read my link but didn’t immediately say “yeah I’ve heard of that, we got something in the works” I am under the assumption they are not working on this. I that event I will peruse this on my own. In that context I have to view every one as competitors. So I don’t wana give up the ghost before I at least have a working proof of concept.