Pollution (in CO2) of the pantone engine

Water injection in thermal engines and the famous "pantone engine". General informations. Press clippings and videos. Understanding and scientific explanations on the injection of water into engines: ideas for assemblies, studies, physico-chemical analyzes.
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 02/06/07, 16:08

Andre wrote:for me to eliminate the pollution it starts at the beginning at the source not at the output


Of course it's better, but only shows count in the end! And I think that as long as we use the oil we will have solved nothing, at best a little limited bleeding as with what seems to do Pantone.

To read above the reasoning it looks like that of a director of steelworks where I worked, the law on the environment decreed that the discharges polluted water, to the river must decrease by half Simple and brilliant solution of the businessmen , we reduce water consumption by half and the problem is solved ...


The law is badly fucked up: if it only talks about limiting the volume of water and not the concentration of pollutants ...

Possibly in fact walking a party in a closed circuit (the great work of the laboratories currently on the ERG valve) great solution! we make the shit go around in circles so that it is more concentrated.


What is the ERG valve?
0 x
User avatar
camel1
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 322
Registration: 29/01/05, 00:29
Location: Loire
x 1
Contact :




by camel1 » 02/06/07, 17:24

hi Big Benne!

Well, this shows that you are new here, know that the primary motivation of a large majority of the members of the forumis the reduction of pollution ... in the face of environmental emergencies.
In particular, that which concerns the average concentration of the famous CO2 in the atmosphere, with the 2010 horizon line, that is to say in not a long time : Shock: date when we are likely to exceed a critical threshold, with the runaway of the climatic system! : Evil: - according to the IPCC experts -

We fight with our small means, to contribute to the resolution of an urgent problem ... the stories of reduced consumption are in our eyes only a consequence of the depollution of the system.
And yes, we are delighted with this drop in consumption, because it is mathematically accompanied by a reduction in the same proportions of CO2 emissions.

This is to answer your first question.
Regarding the windfall effect that could accompany the massive development of pantone by car manufacturers, we could actually fear it, but that's without counting on our activism to bring up the alternatives, on the modes of travel, heating, etc ...

This is for example one of the main objectives of the Econology site, and many others ...

Behind all that, the idea is that we have a power (and a duty) to make things change, and in this perspective, the pantone is only one step, we will not spend our lives on it ! 8)

A + + +

Michel
0 x
We were on the brink, but we made a big step forward ...
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 02/06/07, 18:53

camel1 wrote:And yes, we are delighted with this drop in consumption, because it is mathematically accompanied by a reduction in the same proportions of CO2 emissions.


This is precisely what seemed to me questionable.
There is proportionality in the case of complete combustion

If a catalytic converter only emits CO2, that's all good for the pantone. Otherwise there is something to discuss
0 x
ThierrySan
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 406
Registration: 08/01/07, 11:43
Location: South West




by ThierrySan » 03/06/07, 00:39

Christophe wrote:
ThierrySan wrote:
The water in the Pantone assembly is not a catalyst! Water does not accelerate combustion and does not make it more efficient ... Finally, as far as we know!
Water is a supplement to the hydrocarbon.


Uh ... ALL FALSE ... That water promotes combustion is precisely what I explained to the press at length (by admitting that it is not transformed in the reactor)

ThierrySan wrote:
You can read Christophe's PFE report! And the information that is on the site and linked sites ...


Well, most of them go in the direction of optimizing combustion ...


I come back to the definition of a catalyst:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyseur
0 x
ThierrySan
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 406
Registration: 08/01/07, 11:43
Location: South West




by ThierrySan » 03/06/07, 00:46

Indeed, one could call it catalyst, but I always remain skeptical on this simple statement. I explain following the definition of Wikipedia:
In chemistry, a catalyst is a substance that increases the speed of a chemical reaction; it participates in the reaction but it is neither part of the products nor of the reactants and therefore does not appear in the balance equation of this reaction.

The catalyst accelerates, sometimes in considerable proportions, the chemical reaction, but it is not consumed: either it does not participate in the reaction but its presence facilitates the breaking of the bonds, either he participates in it but is regenerated at the end.



I only saw the catalysts in the first case.
0 x
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 03/06/07, 11:38

Your reaction surprised me Christophe (locked subject), then I see that forum is moderate, contrary to what is indicated.

You said I might be playing naive to get info. First of all, know that I am not playing naive. I say what I think, whether it sounds naive or whether it is I don't care. I ask myself questions and I try to get answers that's all. People are often locked into preconceived ideas, I take great pleasure in questioning them in good faith, even if it seems like a moron if I get wrong. It doesn't matter at least I will have understood

Know that I do not seek to denigrate inventions, I seek to understand them, in their advantages and also their disadvantages if there are any. It seems odd that a site that is supposed to inform goes to censorship when someone asks a question ... but hey, it's now unlocked and so much the better.


To return to the subject:
did an old engine (without catalytic converter) emit less CO2 than an engine with catalytic converter?
The catalytic converter eliminates black smoke (hydrocarbons not completely burnt and transformed into CO2), and it is better for our health (CO2 is harmless), but for the greenhouse effect? Is it better to have hydrocarbons that will settle quickly or CO2?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 03/06/07, 11:52

Big Benne wrote:Know that I do not seek to denigrate inventions, I seek to understand them, in their advantages and also their disadvantages if there are any. It seems odd that a site that is supposed to inform goes to censorship when someone asks a question ... but hey, it's now unlocked and so much the better.


When you ask good questions that move things forward no problem but admit that you quibble a little too much. I gave you in my very first answer elements of answer and in particular the link to the combustion equation (even if they are ideal it gives a good idea of ​​reality) that apparently you do not seem to take into account .. . Hence my reaction from last night (you will notice that I came back on it;))

Big Benne wrote:To return to the subject:
did an old engine (without catalytic converter) emit less CO2 than an engine with catalytic converter?
The catalytic converter eliminates black smoke (hydrocarbons not completely burnt and transformed into CO2), and it is better for our health (CO2 is harmless), but for the greenhouse effect? Is it better to have hydrocarbons that will settle quickly or CO2?


Rah but it incites the guy ... so to try to clarify your questions and I hope you will understand this time:

1) A catalyzed engine consumes more, therefore emits more CO2
2) Vis-à-vis purely and simply of the greenhouse effect, it is better actually to have a lot of black smoke than CO2
3) Black smoke and CO are inseparable, CO being very dangerous, from a "local" pollution point of view, it is better to have a lot of CO2

ps: if you want to know more about pollutants, take a look at this study:
https://www.econologie.com/les-transport ... es-27.html
https://www.econologie.com/rapport-sur-l ... -3356.html

There is in particular the curve: Health cost for society / Concentration of pollutant
0 x
User avatar
zac
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 1446
Registration: 06/05/05, 20:31
Location: piton st leu
x 2




by zac » 03/06/07, 12:28

Big Benne wrote:

To return to the subject:
did an old engine (without catalytic converter) emit less CO2 than an engine with catalytic converter?
The catalytic converter eliminates black smoke (hydrocarbons not completely burnt and transformed into CO2), and it is better for our health (CO2 is harmless), but for the greenhouse effect? Is it better to have hydrocarbons that will settle quickly or CO2?


Hi big tipper

A pantone engine emits less CO² (and to burn) than a "normal" engine, catalised or not, on a pantone it is better to remove the catalytic converter because it disturbs the pantone, increases fuel consumption and reduces performance.

It is possible, but not proven, that it emits more O3.

So much the better it plugs the hole in the ozone layer and like the little lungs of city dwellers it is not my priority, they assume their choice and we are 3 billion too many on earth.

I hope I have answered your question.

@+
0 x
Said the zebra, freeman (endangered breed)
This is not because I am con I try not to do smart things.
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 03/06/07, 13:40

Take the case of a mower or tractor engine for example (no catalytic converter):

I take butane as a hydrocarbon just to have a short carbon chain, this is just one example:

Classic engine:
C4H10 + 3 O2 -> C2H6 + 2 CO2 + 2 H2O
Partial combustion (there remains a C2H6, or more generally a hydrocarbon residue which gives this black or blue smoke)


The same Pantone engine:
C4H10 + 6,5 O2 -> 4 CO2 + 5 H2O
The C2H6 hydrocarbon which is a waste above is reused here to be totally burned, also releasing its share of CO2.

We therefore have more energy released (complete combustion), but also more CO2, for the same amount of fuel, and no black smoke.

So in my opinion the drop in consumption comes only from the fact that there is a complete combustion which allows to release the same energy (and the same quantity of CO2) with less fuel. But the problem is that for the same power released, you will produce as much CO2.
This is true for an engine without a catalytic converter.

Compared to an engine fitted with a catalytic converter, the CO2 balance is better with the pantone because it recovers the energy which is usually lost in the catalysis of hydrocarbon waste.

Conclusion:
compared to an engine without catalysis: same amount of CO2 released, but less of other pollutants

compared to a catalyzed engine: less CO2 released and less other pollutants

My remark was intended to show that the greenhouse effect problem is not reduced if the pantone is applied to an uncatalyzed engine. We can even say that in a sense it worsens it because it helps preserve oil reserves while emitting as much CO2.
Last edited by Big Tipper the 03 / 06 / 07, 13: 43, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 03/06/07, 13:42

Big Ben, I don't think we're talking about the same principle, or the misunderstanding ...

1) The 100% pantone has never shown good results in lower consumption.

2) Doping with water does not crack the hydrocarbon molecules since the fuel does not pass through the reactor.
0 x

Go back to "Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 134 guests