diesel tractor: how to purify exhaust gases?

Discussion of methods of remediation and control air quality.
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 09/04/07, 19:33

ThierrySan wrote:Obviously, the pH of the water varies depending on the presence of CO2 in the water. It goes down to an acidic pH, <7.


Konitua ThierrySan :D
So if I understand correctly, the more CO2 there is, the more acid is the water?
And in this case if we put baking soda can the dissolution be greater?
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)
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 » 09/04/07, 20:36

Hello

question: what do you do with the porridge obtained after a few hours of operation?

because floats + bicarbonate + co² + nox + particle + etc ...... I do not see who will recycle this for you : Evil: : Evil: : Evil:

In the sewer or on salads?

i thought the purpose of this forum was to try to pollute less, not to walk the pollution.

@+

PS: and say that I've been thinking for months to catch the co² in the air
0 x
Said the zebra, freeman (endangered breed)
This is not because I am con I try not to do smart things.
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6931
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2870




by gegyx » 09/04/07, 21:51

zac wrote:and say that I've been thinking for months to catch the co² in the air
It is true that you must be served, with the active volcano!
Titanic combat ...
In addition, (seen on TV), the sulfur is deposited everywhere on the land.
(How do dogs pee? : Lol: )
-----------
For polluted water bubbling from the exhaust, the discharges would have left in the wild anyway ...
He just stopped breathing them, concentrated at the exit of the exhaust.
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 21/10/12, 18:34

I tried a very simple solution for a small fixed engine: pass the exhaust gases through a pile of limestone gravel sprayed with water

it works well as long as it is cold: it does not consume water, on the contrary it condenses the water vapor contained in the exhaust gases

it is much better than the cacalytic pot which works well only hot: therefore which are completely useless for a machine which is used only intermittently handling type

the gravel serves as a particle filter, cheap to replace

water and CO2 dissolve limestone and are also able to absorb NO and NO2 to make nitrites and nitrate: radical absorption of NOx which is also responsible for the irritating nature of diesel smoke

the dirty limestone of this filter is not polluting: nitrate is fertilizer in the soil ... while NOx is polluting in the air
0 x
roy1361
x 17




by roy1361 » 21/10/12, 18:46

chatelot16 wrote:I tried a very simple solution for a small fixed engine: pass the exhaust gases through a pile of limestone gravel sprayed with water


And what about the exhaust back pressure?
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 21/10/12, 19:00

it goes no worse between the grains of limestone than in an ordinary catalytic converter, which also makes a significant back pressure

better: since limestone costs a ridiculous price it does not cost much to make this filter big enough to avoid back pressure

the water circulation must be cooled: this system must remain cold, so it can be built in plastic so as not to rust
Last edited by chatelot16 the 21 / 10 / 12, 19: 02, 1 edited once.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 21/10/12, 19:00

If I understood correctly the Chatelot16, the gases pass easily through the heap of gravel watered and not submerged.

On the other hand, passing the Kubota exhaust gases into a water tank, I would avoid ... if there is no risk of water suction, this constitutes an unexpected brake in engine operation; on the other hand, I doubt that a single bin can wash anything properly.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 21/10/12, 19:10

of course watered just enough so that the grains of limestone are all wet

bubbling by immersing the pipes in a water tank is bad: it makes a back pressure directly related to the height, and the liquid gas contact is bad, since the gas passes into a large bubble

when the gas passes between the wet grains the surface of contact liquid gas is large and the chemical reaction there is time to be done

if the gravel pile is large enough, the gas passage speed is low and the micro particles of carbon accused of all the evils remain stuck to the wet limestone
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 21/10/12, 19:38

Absolutely! Your explanation is very clear and perfectly argued.
Certain columns of chemical reactions are designed on the same principle: large exchange surface, low speed and counter-flow.
This is why I wrote: "I doubt that a single bin can wash anything properly." Spraying several curtains of water may be suitable, but is unthinkable on a small vehicle ...

Without this solving the problem, the use of GNR would be preferable to that of FOD (heating): GNR is close to road gas oil, in particular its sulfur content is low and, incidentally it is cheaper than gas oil (while being perfectly legal for this use).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 21/10/12, 23:15

chatelot16 wrote:of course watered just enough so that the grains of limestone are all wet

bubbling by immersing the pipes in a water tank is bad: it makes a back pressure directly related to the height, and the liquid gas contact is bad, since the gas passes into a large bubble

when the gas passes between the wet grains the surface of contact liquid gas is large and the chemical reaction there is time to be done

if the gravel pile is large enough, the gas passage speed is low and the micro particles of carbon accused of all the evils remain stuck to the wet limestone


This idea is interesting! 8) In addition, for noise attenuation it should not be bad either. Have you made measurements of pollutants with this system, just to get an idea of ​​the efficiency compared to a "traditional" catalytic / particle converter.
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132

Back to "Air Pollution and solutions against air pollution"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 46 guests