Pollution (in CO2) of the pantone engine

[Big Tipper]

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

What do you call the 100% pantone?

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

it seemed to me that the fumes passed into a water tank and were reinjected into the mixture. It's not that ?

[Christophe]

Uh, here we are ... we are not talking about the same thing so necessarily ... I therefore advise you to read, as soon as possible, the "pantone" pages of the site in particular:

https://www.econologie.com/c-est-quoi-le ... -1313.html

https://www.econologie.com/les-principau ... -1314.html

et https://www.econologie.com/faq-partie-1- ... -2925.html

[Big Tipper]

In fact I realize that I had already consulted your pages ... (thanks for the info elsewhere)

There is one thing that bothers me about all of this:

Based on the promising results observed in depollution and its relatively easy adaptation to any system burning hydrocarbons, we hope that a further study will continue to understand the process to improve it with a view to industrialization. This would greatly participate in the depollution of fossil fuels, in this sense it would remove their main drawback: polluting combustion.

You always take the shortcut: less smoke (complete combustion) = less pollution = less greenhouse effect, without going through the CO2 box that you generally ignore. That's what bothers me, knowing that it is the major player in the greenhouse effect.

People believe that if the white cloth placed at the outlet of the exhaust remains white, the problem is solved, whereas it is far from being the case with CO2. And you remain vague on this: you say at one point that it would clean up the city center (while from this point of view it is already greatly improved by the catalytic converters), then as above you say that the main drawback is polluting combustion, while it is combustion whatever it is from fossil energy!

[delnoram]

you say at one point that it would clean up the city center (while from this point of view it is already greatly improved by the catalytic converters).

Did you read it ?
In particular the passage on the time of starting of catalysis and on the dissemination of heavy metals.

The principle which consists in demolishing a solution because it is not perfect is not constructive, it would be necessary before proposing another solution which is not of the kind "there is that ... must one".

Lower consumption = lower Co2, you say better yield = higher Co2 yes, but lower Co and Hc which in the short term would be oxidized to Co2.

[Big Tipper]

Did you read it ?
In particular the passage on the time of starting of catalysis and on the dissemination of heavy metals.

Indeed, one more point for the Pantone. I had heard that these heavy metals in the ice came from Chinese coal factories ... it's not us it's the others!

The principle which consists in demolishing a solution because it is not perfect is not constructive, it would be necessary before proposing another solution which is not of the kind "there is that ... must one".

I'm not trying to demolish, I scratch to understand that's all!

Lower consumption = lower Co2, you say better yield = higher Co2 yes, but lower Co and Hc which in the short term would be oxidized to Co2.

For sure ?

I thought to myself that it was simply redeposited but you must be right. Which means that I no longer see any argument against these methods

Otherwise at bmw they are inspired by these ideas by recovering the heat from the exhaust gases to make steam and supply an additional piston.
If they additionally boosted the mixture with water, there would be a way of further lowering the consumption.

[moimanu]

Hello to all of you, Big Dipper, André, Christophe and the others,
I am new to what makes you new hospitable and maybe you can enlighten me a bit my lantern?

I started experimenting with the pantone system and have already invested a lot ... time and money.
After downloading and studying in depth a huge part of what is present on the web I made a remark:
According to pantone, it is possible to replace the hydrocarbon types with pure vegetable oil. So I left this side: mounting 100% pantone with water + Hv
Here is my question
How is it that almost nobody speaks or is interested in this type of editing ???
Have I missed an important point that makes this editing very difficult or inefficient?
Indeed it seems the perfect fitting in relation to what you exchanged, the one and the others, to parravant.
The transformed carbon no longer comes from fossil energy (hydrocarbon of all kinds) and the panton system (increases its energetic efficiency) allows to consume a lot less than to roll directly to vegetable oil instead of diesel. (Which is impossible!)

Here, if someone would like to do with his thoughts and enlighten me a little I thank him in advance soon

[Woodcutter]

[...] 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) [...]

You seem to forget one thing is that even in a "basic" engine, the unburnt emission rate should be around 1%. Moreover, I am not sure that these unburnt substances (which we call HC in polluting emissions) are carbon chains shorter than at the origin ...

[...] 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. [...]

Yes, we could consider that the production of CO2 is constant for a recovered power, but an engine does not have a constant specific consumption (that which allows to give the fuel consumption per unit of power produced and time).

So anyway, it is more interesting to have a complete combustion to better use the capacities of the engine, and to avoid emitting local pollutants.

Since there, we fall back into the problem of the relationship between pollutant local (HC and CO, toxic at low doses) and polluting overall (CO2 which is not dangerous in itself, but by the modifications it tends to induce at the level of the Earth ecosystem as a whole).

[...] My remark was aimed at showing that one does not reduce the problem of the greenhouse effect if one applies the pantone on a non catalyzed engine. We can even say that in a sense it worsens it because it helps preserve oil reserves while emitting as much CO2.

It's a bit far-fetched!

Anything that can lead to better energy efficiency in the use of hydrocarbons as an energy source is good for our medium-term future!
Even if it must "help preserve oil reserves ..."

[lio74]

What I wanted to say is that everyone focuses on consumption, but in reality we should be interested in emissions, that's what matters!

Hello to everybody !

just to say i agree with that ... a lot (not to say the majority of people ... i hope) are interested in Pantone for their wallets ...

When I started, I asked myself the following question:
Wouldn't Pantone release other pollutants? especially by making it market with drain oil ??

=> hummmm
legitimate question in view of these recycling practices!

after, with all these rumors of the conspiracy of the oil trusts etc ... we say to ourselves:
there is a guy from these big groups (IFP, Renault or PSA ....) who did tests in the lab !!
so if it would pollute more, he would have used it as an argument against the system !!!
NO ...
this is only my modest analysis ... after I am convinced of the usefulness of the system ... especially when we see an old van limited to 2,5 at the CT and which goes to just 0,3 after assembly. ..

you have to see it then do it to believe it ... it's the best technique to get a critical opinion on the thing

@+

[Woodcutter]

[...] When I started, I asked myself the following question:
Wouldn't Pantone release other pollutants? especially by making it market with drain oil ??

=> hummmm
legitimate question in view of these recycling practices! [...]

Who uses drain oil?

The problem posed by BigBenne, which wants to separate fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, is a false problem!


From the moment we improve, if only by a few small% consumption, we are gaining on CO2. And apparently, the tests carried out on diesel engine vehicles also show that we are a winner on soot.

What more is needed?

[lio74]

Who uses drain oil?

The problem posed by BigBenne, which wants to separate fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, is a false problem!

good evening!

well I saw that on quanthomme I believe, on a small group, to illustrate the quality of MULTI fuel processor

For moimanu:

yes we can parel here, but not, not at all !!!
https://www.econologie.com/forums/pourquoi-pas-de-l-huile-vegetale-et-du-pantone-t3781.html?highlight=lhuile
https://www.econologie.com/forums/panton-et-marche-a-l-huile-t3702.html?highlight=lhuile

maybe more on oliomobile !? I haven't digged yet .....

operating with 100% HV decreases the certe suits, but increases the NOx ... with steam doping, I don't know ...
Someone made pollution measurements on their tractor or other
it is true that the pollution test of diesel engines is just opacity .... so you really have to do a specific test!

@+