Talk:Nitrous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I rewrote most of the text, as well as some adding some wikification. This page still needs work, but it's at least more readable than before. Caveat: I'm no expert on this subject, so someone who is had better take a look. A picture would be nice, too. Khaydarian 01:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Nitro? 2 On the Physics of Increased Horsepower from Nitrous Oxide 3 Incompatibility 4 Compucar Vandal 5 Single Point Wet 6 law 7 Effect on engines 8 Removal of commercial links 9 What happened to my article? 10 Companies

[edit] Nitro?

Is this what some people commonly refer to as "nitro"? What is the legallity of it? Do professional racing divisions use nitrous, such as Nascar, or is it not permitted in certain racing leagues? How about street-racers -- are they allowed to use nitrous? All of these things need to be addressed in the article.

No, Nitro means Nitromethane, a different type of fuel. -Sprintstar 11:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • We need to be aware of some brand new commercial company poweredbynitrous spamming its links please monitor this***--Edited By a Professor of Life 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Physics of Increased Horsepower from Nitrous Oxide

There are three possible mechanisms to account for the increase in horsepower associated with adding nitrous oxide:

1. Combustion of the nitrous oxide itself.
2. Extra oxidant allowing more fuel to be burnt.
3. Charge cooling.

N₂0 has relatively little energy of its own to contribute to the combustion process, so the first option is not considered to contribute much power. The second option is the most popular. A reasonable assumption given the popularity of nitrous oxide in rocket fuel. However, charge cooling has been shown in testing to provide just as much, if not more, horsepower than the extra oxidant effect. The N₂O expands as it joins the air/fuel mixture, this expansion cools the air, the resulting mixture is more dense, you can fit more in the combustion chamber, more fuel burns per stroke, and you make more horsepower.

Just a little bit I remembered from my internal combustion course. Feel free to add / modify / summarize / ignore.

Hillgiant 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incompatibility

This page states that Nitrous increases power output by like 45%, while the Nitrous Dioxide article says it produces 100-300% more power causing many engiens to break down. Which one, then?

This one is correct. --Mistertbones 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compucar Vandal

69.174.230.64 is continuously deleting the link for Compucar Nitrous. Compucar does make kits, and it isn't a spam link. --Mistertbones 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single Point Wet

I think we should call it a spraybar plate because a wet single-point system is usually a plate system.

That's not really true. Most single-point systems for EFI cars use a nozzle, not a plate. I'm thinking that we're better off discussing plates and nozzles separately so as not to confuse the issue. Also, please sign your comments with four tilde characters so we can keep track of the discussion. Thanks! Spinolio 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] law

This article needs a section on the legal restrictions surrounding its use in street cars. I'm not familiar with this but if anyone is the section would be agreat help to the article.--24.163.161.47 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effect on engines

How about some discussion about the effect on engines of nitrous use? One thing I've wondered about is using nitrous in a non-racing context. Consider that many cars carry around a V-6 or V-8, but in 98% of street driving a small four cylinder would be enough. Could a nitrous system be installed just for when that oomph is needed, to improve overall mileage? Or would it kill the engine so quickly that rebuilds would swamp any possible cost savings, or would it be illegal under anti-pollution laws?

[edit] Removal of commercial links

I have removed all of the external links on this article because they all link to commercial retailers and do not provide any more information that is not already in the article. Per WP:EL, Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services are not permitted. Perhaps there are some non-commercial sites that can be linked to instead. Naconkantari 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Created an FAQ section and added 2 direct links to a FAQ and basic info page that seems to be original content and very informative--Edited By a Professor of Life 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable compromise. Naconkantari 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :) --Edited By a Professor of Life 22:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• This edit The root of the site boasts **Our ALL NEW Store is now online and open! Click to enter**.. the Entire left NAV bar is to product checkout... and why does wikipedia need links to Cunsumer F.A.Q's?! this needs to be reconsidered, and content added to the article instead of links. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products or services. Edited By a Professor of Life knows the policy, it has covered ad nausium here and here. Hu12 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hu12 it's not about the commercial aspect there's tons of commercial links all over wikipedia as long as they have solid information on their site. MOST sites on the net have some commercial tie. This site and those specific pages are Factual , in depth relevant original content specific to the use of nitrous oxide in vehicles. It's information that is relevant, important and worthy of being linked to. There's no realy direct sales offers on those pages other than some basic navigation. Trust me it's info you want people who are looking into nitrous to know. I think this is a fair compromise being the links are to actual factual information pages. If you removed that you'd have to go through every single phrase, page, and topic and remove any single site that offers or links to a site that offers anything comercially. I understand you seem to have some personal beef but let it go man truce. --Edited By a Professor of Life 21:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to my article?

Yes, I am the original poster of the article, now under a different IP. I am not happy with some of the edits, especially with several of the companies that are involved in the business being deleted in top companies. I have never heard of BOSS NOSS.

Sincerely,

Zachary

Please read WP:OWN. Naconkantari 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Companies

Why are you getting rid of some of the best known companies? We should include the companies in the best known companies because people want to know some of the better known companies. I don't want to start a revert war, but this article was fine for several months. I am not happy with what is happening, so please, lets stop with the revert war and include some companies.

Please read WP:OWN as I have said above. The list of companies is not needed and is spam regardless of there is an external link. Naconkantari 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)