I would like to lend a hand on the dimensioning of the conduits, in particular the one which brings the vapor from the reactor to the collector.
that is here:
Just to clarify, notably to André, that increasing the diameter D of the pipe decreases the pressure drop and therefore increases the flow and speed in the reactor.
It is therefore not logical to choose a too small pipe
that's it that's all
duct sizing
Hello bob
I know that decreasing the diameter of the outlet pipe goes against the flow, but I do not think that a small pipe increases the speed in the reactor on the contrary it decreases the speed in the reactor and it increases in leads him.
I tried all kinds of conduit sizes the largest 19mm the smallest internal 5mm, I even tried a copper conduit bundle of 1,6mm internal I put 6 in parallel
and the water consumption in the bubbler is as important as with the big one of 19mm (if we calculate in square mm the difference is huge) and I can't explain that, I just tested a 12,7 duct mm on diesel (Mercedes 300tD 3 liters) and the results are: trip with a few stops 206 km 1,450 liters of water and 14,2 liters of diesel. or 6,9 liters per 100km (normally without pants I consumed 9 liters per 100km it is an automatic transmission) I have already done better over a greater continuous distance this reduces the margin of error j, had a 14mm duct
When I replaced it with a 19mm I lost the panton effect.
I know you're right in principle, but I have to find an explanation for this illogical thing, maybe I was wrong in thinking that it is absolutely necessary to seek the highest speed in the reactor.
The next test I put a restriction in the conduit there will be well at a time that it will become unfavorable.
Andre
I know that decreasing the diameter of the outlet pipe goes against the flow, but I do not think that a small pipe increases the speed in the reactor on the contrary it decreases the speed in the reactor and it increases in leads him.
I tried all kinds of conduit sizes the largest 19mm the smallest internal 5mm, I even tried a copper conduit bundle of 1,6mm internal I put 6 in parallel
and the water consumption in the bubbler is as important as with the big one of 19mm (if we calculate in square mm the difference is huge) and I can't explain that, I just tested a 12,7 duct mm on diesel (Mercedes 300tD 3 liters) and the results are: trip with a few stops 206 km 1,450 liters of water and 14,2 liters of diesel. or 6,9 liters per 100km (normally without pants I consumed 9 liters per 100km it is an automatic transmission) I have already done better over a greater continuous distance this reduces the margin of error j, had a 14mm duct
When I replaced it with a 19mm I lost the panton effect.
I know you're right in principle, but I have to find an explanation for this illogical thing, maybe I was wrong in thinking that it is absolutely necessary to seek the highest speed in the reactor.
The next test I put a restriction in the conduit there will be well at a time that it will become unfavorable.
Andre
0 x
Andre wrote:
I just tested a 12,7 mm pipe on diesel (Mercedes 300tD 3 liters) and the results are: trip with a few stops 206 km 1,450 liters of water and 14,2l of diesel. or 6,9 liters per 100km (normally without pants I consumed 9 liters per 100km it is an automatic transmission) I have already done better over a greater continuous distance this reduces the margin of error j, had a 14mm duct
When I replaced it with a 19mm I lost the panton effect.
I know you're right in principle, but I have to find an explanation for this illogical thing, maybe I was wrong in thinking that it is absolutely necessary to seek the highest speed in the reactor.
The next test I put a restriction in the conduit there will be well at a time that it will become unfavorable.
Andre
Hi André,
maybe the friction in the metal conduits is as important as that in the reactor:
in a small diameter pipe, there is a high speed, therefore a significant electrification also.
one can perhaps have an effect of electrification in a circular driven beast, for can which is a section (in mm²) close to that of the reactor.
Let me explain: as much the strong heat is important in 100% pantone (water + hydrocarbon + heat = hydrocarbon + simple)
as much it may not be essential in water doping ...
Do you have any idea on the matter?
0 x
- Asgard bone tyr
- My R21 Pantone on TF1 :)
- posts: 160
- Registration: 06/02/05, 18:21
- Location: all over
- x 1
Hello asgard
One conduit per cylinder this has the advantage of bringing more close to the intake valve which leaves the reactor so the product does not have time to spoil or condense or change.
In your case the conduits for each cylinder must be smaller than 14 mm (it looks like the beams I made) except that in my case the engine is turbo I can not
allow entry after the turbo, the pressure increases in the intake manifold, after 2000RPM. although I think getting the product from the reactor into the turbo turbine is not a good thing, it's just more practical.
This principle requires a hole per cylinder in the manifold that comes back a bit like a multipoint injection downstream of the valves, this has the advantage of being freed from the venturi because the suction is important at the level of the valve, provided that the hose
penetrates deep enough into the cylinder head, an 8mm duct
must be sufficient.
In your case you cannot calculate the sum of the conduits as a single conduit. Example in a flat engine each conduits which feeds each cylinder are almost as large as the outlet of the carburetor which it is common to the 4 cylinders.
Andre
One conduit per cylinder this has the advantage of bringing more close to the intake valve which leaves the reactor so the product does not have time to spoil or condense or change.
In your case the conduits for each cylinder must be smaller than 14 mm (it looks like the beams I made) except that in my case the engine is turbo I can not
allow entry after the turbo, the pressure increases in the intake manifold, after 2000RPM. although I think getting the product from the reactor into the turbo turbine is not a good thing, it's just more practical.
This principle requires a hole per cylinder in the manifold that comes back a bit like a multipoint injection downstream of the valves, this has the advantage of being freed from the venturi because the suction is important at the level of the valve, provided that the hose
penetrates deep enough into the cylinder head, an 8mm duct
must be sufficient.
In your case you cannot calculate the sum of the conduits as a single conduit. Example in a flat engine each conduits which feeds each cylinder are almost as large as the outlet of the carburetor which it is common to the 4 cylinders.
Andre
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 4 Replies
- 8640 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
27/05/19, 21:08A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations
-
- 13 Replies
- 14284 views
-
Last message by Janic
View the latest post
23/11/15, 18:07A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations
-
- 33 Replies
- 37678 views
-
Last message by Former Oceano
View the latest post
18/08/09, 13:21A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations
-
- 20 Replies
- 27236 views
-
Last message by gegyx
View the latest post
21/02/08, 23:50A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations
-
- 11 Replies
- 10417 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
06/11/07, 20:56A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations
Go back to "Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 131 guests