1st "big" boat equipped with water doping

[Christophe]

Now, I continue to doubt the 80% reduction in CO² or the 30% reduction in consumption due to the effect of water doping. And I say, video is cinema (in the sense of staging).

80% is a mistake I think the authors meant soot, I'm sorry I presented this video with this big mistake

For the 30% this has been observed on a good number of montages ... so we can give them the benefit of the doubt!

Why shouldn't we criticize?

There is a difference between bringing a constructive criticism and remaining in doubt and skepticism even in the face of flagrant facts, I told you by MP: whether doping works or not I bump into it !! I don't sell a kit, training or anything!

But the point is that water injection improves combustion in heat engines and it has been known since the beginning of 1900 ... so I just wonder why it is so underdeveloped and so despised by the "big guys" engine manufacturers ??

[Did67]

Come on, we're not going to "loop" ...

At the start, there was an info: this superb boat, with its "water engine" (according to the video, not according to the instructions and the article) ...

For me, this info is only of interest insofar as it reinforces the idea of ​​the interest of water doping (if not, it would become a simple advertisement for a shipping company - which, I repeat, I do not criticize neither the business nor the efforts made to reduce their ecological footprint).

Unfortunately, this info is marred by error or approximation: error on the reduction of CO² (you admit it); approximation at the level of an attempt to visualize consumption reductions (of which I repeat that the images prove nothing at all - but if they are there, it is good that we want to make believe that they bring a "proof" ; otherwise, someone must explain it to me!) ...

So, I'm not saying it's not true (the 30% reduction), but I'm saying that the images shown are a bit the same technique as that used by advertisers to make us believe that "such laundry lava whiter "...

It bothers me in the case of laundry. I don't see why I would find it convincing here!

You find me expeditious to speak of "greenpainting". I accept your remarks.

In addition, we discussed by MP on water doping. I mentioned my skepticism (which I remind you that concerns the scale of the announced reductions, certain "explanatory theories" of the phenomenon and the potential of this technology in terms of solving the problems of our consumption of fossil fuels; I'm not questioning the doping itself; and I'm pretty benevolent even if I'm skeptical; let's say I haven't managed to mobilize on it but my attitude would be more "go ahead, guys" ). This skepticism probably led me to post here in the terms I used ...

Effectively not having constructive criticism (in the sense of counter-evidence)! Even though I have read tests on tractors (done in an agricultural school I believe? - they are none better for that!), Which give consumption reductions of a few% (I do not have a copy ). It is also about "big Diesel" (less than on the boats however), in load, at constant speed (a little like a boat which sails). But I don't remember how many%. So it's not an info ...

I better stop there? (only to get bored).

[bernardd]

It seems to me that we went up to 25% O2 by volume ... It was (largely) enough to have an effect on combustion ... obviously we could not measure much. It was just a try!

OK, so we should be able to do better :-)

Do you have an url for adsorption generators?

I learned about gas permeation at the time but not about adsorption ...

Apparently we manage to separate O2 from N2 well by this method:
http://www.cfm-mb.fr/techniques/permeation.htm

I did not know before either, all that is air treatment is quite closed in Europe, oligopolistic market of some big companies.

It is still on Chinese sites that I found the info :-)

There are 3 methods:
- distillation of liquid air;
- membrane filtration;
- PSA (Pressure Swing Adsorption).

The 3rd solution gives an imperfect concentration (85-95%) but with high flow rates and a low cost, perfect for making ozone for water treatment.

Hence my idea to divert it for efficient combustion ...

Examples of materials:
http://www.o3-technologies.com/product_ ... pro_id=614
http://www.ooozone.com/Product_Type.asp?ProductID=6

there must be others, I'm waiting for specific specs and prices ...

For Flytox:

On the NOx side, I understood exactly the opposite, when we increase the proportion of O2 we increase NOx Frowning The principle of EGR is also to deplete Oxygen to limit the combustion temperature and therefore NOx.

Normal, we bring as many N as O :-)

With a gas at 90% oxygen, only 10% nitrogen will remain, which will "mechanically" displace the equilibrium of the NOx formation reaction, reducing their appearance. And since the combustion of the carbon will be complete, it should be very clean at the exit: remains to be verified!

In addition, by lowering the gas flow rates at the outlet (exhaust), we will drastically reduce the calorie losses, therefore raising the temperature and the thermal yields.

So watch out for the effects on the engine or the boiler ...

In dragster mode, bringing a supply of pure oxygen would be rather dangerous, but they seem not to fear much :-)

By filtering it right in front, we have to reduce the risks. But given the mass of equipment, it is difficult for a vehicle, remains to be seen what it brings ...

In any case, as we also reject oxygen-depleted air on the other side, we have very good fire protection for free ...

[Flytox]

For Flytox:

On the NOx side, I understood exactly the opposite, when we increase the proportion of O2 we increase NOx Frowning The principle of EGR is also to deplete Oxygen to limit the combustion temperature and therefore NOx.

Normal, we bring as many N as O :-)

With a gas at 90% oxygen, only 10% nitrogen will remain, which will "mechanically" displace the equilibrium of the NOx formation reaction, reducing their appearance. And since the combustion of the carbon will be complete, it should be very clean at the exit: remains to be verified!

http://www.fr.christiani-shop.com/pdf/72859_probe.pdf

Under "normal" conditions, a gasoline or diesel engine makes "very little" NOx in proportion (<0.3 to 2%). Diesel, which has 10% of O2 in its exhaust gases, makes 5 to 8 times more NOx than a petrol engine with less N2 available .... The limiting factor for NOx seems to be greater. 'O2 than N2 and of course the temperature. Even with little N2 and a lot of O2 and a higher temperature, it seems to me that the "yield" of the transformation into NOx will be much greater and the total quantity produced will be much greater. To check


From "Bosch Automotive Technology Memento"

[bernardd]

Under "normal" conditions, a gasoline or diesel engine makes "very little" NOx in proportion (<0.3 to 2%). Diesel, which has around 10% O2 in its exhaust gases, makes 5 to 8 times more NOx than a gasoline engine with less N2 available ....

I do not know this document, but already the comparison starts badly, because the air being the same, with 71% of N2 in the 2 cases, the proportion of N2 in exit should be the same with the portion of NOx ready: it should have the same cheese as input and with a common reference volume to understand.

But if the input mixture has only 10% N2 instead of 71%, with constant quantities of O2 and fuel, the NOx share can only decrease, because it is the N2 which oxidizes to NOx.

But questions of balance of reactions are not obvious, it's true.

[Flytox]

I do not know this document, but already the comparison starts badly, because the air being the same, with 71% of N2 in the 2 cases, the proportion of N2 in exit should be the same with the portion of NOx ready: it should have the same cheese as input and with a common reference volume to understand.

The reason for the different percentage of N2 on a Gasoline and a Diesel at the exhaust comes from the fact that on a Diesel we admit 10 to 20% more air than a stoichiometric combustion would like. The combustion is not homogeneous since the fuel is injected at the "last" moment, and therefore to limit unburnt particles and other soot, more air is admitted than necessary. The N2 + O2 "in excess" from the beginning is found at the end at the exhaust.

But if the input mixture has only 10% N2 instead of 71%, with constant quantities of O2 and fuel, the NOx share can only decrease, because it is the N2 which oxidizes to NOx.

But questions of balance of reactions are not obvious, it's true.

In your last proposal the proportion of all gases changes ... it seems to me to be obscure to find an answer ..... Isn't there a chemist or a combustiologist in the room?

[Christophe]

Well there is also the EGR also (strongly) which changes the situation ... when you want to compare the "gas" of gasoline / diesel intake ...

ps: small reminder article about the EGR https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-vanne-e ... t3958.html

[bernardd]

The N2 + O2 "in excess" from the beginning is found at the end at the exhaust.

And as the O2 has nothing to do, at 750 ° it does not hesitate to go and tease the N2 in very large excess: hence the birth of NOx ...

And this is very consistent with what I was explaining: by turning the N2 or lowering it to 10% of the air instead of 71%, we can leave excess O2 without making NOx ...

In your last proposition, the proportion of all gases changes ... it seems to me to be obscure to find an answer .....

Just the composition of the "air" used as a starter. There is no reason for the absolute quantities to change except to decrease as the system may well be much more energy efficient. And we haven't even added a liquid water mist yet ;-)

Isn't there a chemist or a combustiologist in the room?

But that's not where I hurt, mom :-) (borrowed from Toto going to the oculist ....)

(Note: I try to imitate the laughter of the dog of your image, without much success :-)

[bernardd]

Well there is also the EGR also (strongly) which changes the situation ... when you want to compare the "gas" of gasoline / diesel intake ...

ps: small reminder article about the EGR https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-vanne-e ... t3958.html

Thank you very interesting.

Indeed, when we want to change the equilibrium of a reaction which produces NOx from N2 and 02, we can either
- remove the O2, this is the path chosen with the EGR, applied only in certain engine speeds,
- either remove the N2.

Industrially, removing O2 has proven easier and certainly cheaper.

But I think that in static and stable flow installations, such as electric generation or heating, removing N2 would be much more effective at all levels.

And in this case, we can regulate the arrival of O2 and possibly re-circulate it without consequence on the NOx which hardly exists anymore ...

[Flytox]

(Note: I try to imitate the laughter of the dog of your image, without much success :-)

For pleasure:

https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... BrlR9s.mp3