Page 1 on 4

published: 17/11/04, 00:19
by Camel
Salutations to all !

I already posted this message on the forum PMC, but it was blocked for a week, and I just discovered this forum Quanthomme ...

I have not yet produced anything concrete on this forum that I have been with interest for a long time.
I am one of the "silent participants" and like them, I usually speak only when I have things to say?

This is the case today, I just put in the file section of the forum PMC a Pdf called Pantone Reactor Assessment Project.pdf.

This is the result of my cogitations, nourished by hours of reading in this forum and elsewhere, from my own experiences in research and development in industrial electronics (even if it has not been my activity lately?).

Reading your messages confirms the validity of these reflections.

Unfortunately, my main and priority activity, for now, is music! And I'm frustrated at not being able to experiment, however, I have ideas and suggestions to bring to the group.

I read passionately the debate that Christophe started, with his pavement in the pond. Especially since at this precise moment, I was at a point of my reflections on the development of a Pantone test bench where it seemed obvious to me that such work required that we seriously reflect on our way of cooperate in fact.

We each have skills, whatever they are. And that's good, since this project is multidisciplinary. Everyone can find their place. And paf, Christophe balances his letter? So I fully agree with the idea that we are organizing. Especially since this project fits perfectly with the idea of ​​joining forces. To be concrete, here is the type of organization that we could set up:

As for the framework, I will favor the association law 1901. It is not expensive, you can have a bank account (mainly supplemented by membership fees and donations). The purpose of this association would be, for example, to reduce waste and pollution, and the consumption of fossil fuels. Its main mission would be to manage a website open to members, providing them with all the facilities for accessing documents, making contributions (skills, material, financial, logistics?), And organizing work.

We must indeed take into account the fact that we are scattered all over France, and even further (not true Quebecers? J)
Groups must therefore be organized by region, if possible not too far apart.
That said, the problem does not arise either for the material or for the money which are transported very well.

Theoretically, an association can ask for subsidies, but I believe that in our case, it is not even worth thinking about it. Everything will be done on our own funds (it is the guarantee of our independence?)

To go a step further in concrete terms, I would even say that a guy like Christophe, a young engineer who has already carried out a test bench, with a priori many of the necessary skills, plus the ouach, could very well be supported financially by a scholarship system, and logistically, with all the necessary equipment to send him to his lab, to allow him to conduct the manipulation, solicit help from PMCists, and move forward for god's sake, move on!

Well, I'm getting carried away, but I think that, given our means, which are not those of the multinationals, it would be good to save us the reinvention of the wheel, and to designate certain people to work on this or that part of the device. .
If we want to make a test bench, we will have to centralize all of this at some point. The parts may well be manufactured by So-and-so who can weld stainless steel, than in Telautre who provides the handling management program, etc. But in the end, all of this will have to be put together with someone, with a minimum of knowledge, surrounded if necessary by other people from the group to start up the manipulations.

I took the example of Christophe, but I think he is not the only eligible candidate, fortunately (this forum is rich, I tell you!).

I would be happy to read your reactions to this message.

My real name is Michel Lathuraz, but in the forum, I use another one so as not to be bombarded with spam?

Good cogitations, friendly,

Michel

published: 17/11/04, 23:38
by krissg29
hi Michel

I'm new to forums and just read your test bench project.

I have a few suggestions, perhaps not wise coming from a new one but ... good! I'll try to put it in order.

I saw in one of the answers that the "supply" fan should be a "suction" fan because the reactor is supposed to be rather in depression. I think the 2 systems should be "testable" quite a bit of extra plumbing. In terms of Pantone with bubbling by the exhaust gases, it is not known to what extent they blow (swell?) In the bubbler. In any case, it would be interesting to know if the reactor works better under pressure or under vacuum and with air or a neutral atmosphere (in addition to water or fuel or both).

Many say that the water in the bubbler should not be heated to more than 80-90 ° to avoid evaporation: why? Why make a misting system (tiny droplets of liquid water) rather than water vapor? a gas would normally be easier to treat in the reactor than a liquid. And if not: why?
(In fact that is more questions than suggestions!)

I will not go too far on the glass tube, I do not know the resistances of the material. But if the reactor must be made of steel, the supply tube (cold) may perhaps be made of transparent material (plastic?). It would show the plasma.

What if the carbon and iron in the reactor steel play a role in the decomposition of water or in the creation and maintenance of plasma? I know that there are stainless steel reactors that work, but if I remember my metallurgy courses, stainless steel is a weakly ferrous steel but always with carbon. Are there people who have noticed the wear of the rod in the long run?

Your temperature measurements by thermocouples manufactured and mounted your way are only possible if the reactor tube is made of glass (electrical insulator). But I don't know what a set of couples mounted on the same electrical reference (the rod) measure, which take different temperatures along its length. Won't the different couples influence each other? I admit that I have no idea to replace thermo-couples apart from infrared.

For the heating part, I don't see anything shocking

It would also be necessary to be able to carry out tests with different sizes for the reactor and its rod as predicted by Christophe Martz on his bench.

I hope this is a constructive analysis, and if everyone gives ideas, we should be able to think of (almost) everything.

In any case your test bench seems to me to be an excellent working base.

Good continuation.

Christophe

published: 18/11/04, 08:46
by Superform
Hello,

I am the author of the answer on PMC-France ...

regarding the temperature in the bubbler, steam must not be generated. Why ? because it risks being quickly reconsensed. ideally, natural evaporation, which condenses less quickly.
The reaction is improved when it is a dry vapor which enters the reactor, and the water vapor (heated water) is wet vapor (Christophe Martz you correct me if I say a stupidity)
Misting, if done right, allows these tiny droplets to evaporate naturally on contact with air (maybe a little warm if the droplets are larger than a few microns), so have dry vapor. ..

Regarding the role of carbon and steel, according to all evidence, there is no wear or alteration of an iron rod. Someone had even suggested that the iron reconstituted immediately after the reaction, but at that time there would be roughness because it is impossible for it to reconstitute in the same exact place ... In addition, it is recommended to have a rod and an interior surface as smooth as possible, it is perhaps not for nothing ... according to some it would be to facilitate the transition to the state of plasma ...

Seb.

published: 21/11/04, 11:44
by Christophe
I put the document in question on econology:

https://www.econologie.com/download.php?lng=fr

ou

https://www.econologie.com/file/restricted/...eur_pantone.pdf

for those who are already members of the site.

I read the doc and give you my comments.

published: 22/11/04, 21:35
by Christophe
I read the first part (up to Figure 1) here are my remarks:

1) We will never burn pure water with the system, so we must provide a fuel injection (any) upstream of the reactor before or after the water injection.

2) For the exhaust circuit (heating) why go through air (and therefore the dimensioning of a complex exchanger) while heating directly by the combustion gases from the burner?

3) Provide pressure taps at the same location as the T ° taps along the reactor

4) For the form: a few small remarks break the seriousness (and therefore the credibility) of the document (style: "it didn't go crazy" .. the smiley faces.) It's a shame because the author has taken pains to the rest....

That's all I see at the moment ...

published: 23/11/04, 23:18
by Camel
Hello everyone, and especially Christophe!

In response to your message:

* 1) We will never burn pure water with the system, we must therefore provide a * fuel injection (any) upstream of the reactor before or after * water injection.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my presentation ... I come back to the basic question, namely to characterize the phenomenon that is happening in the reactor. Starting from the analysis of doped assemblies, especially on tractors. It is indeed only an air / water vapor mixture that passes, bringing the improvement that we know. In my mind, this idea of ​​a test bench is to reproduce the physical environment of the heat engine, by mastering the different parameters, seen from the reactor. It is ultimately a question of knowing if the cracking of the water occurs or not, and if so, under what conditions ... knowing that PlomLaBricole has recently had convincing results (to be confirmed anyway) by "burning water in his boiler!

* 2) For the exhaust circuit (heating) why go through air (and * therefore the dimensioning of a complex exchanger) while heating * directly by the combustion gases of the burner?

The idea may indeed seem a little convoluted, but here again, the objective is to get as close as possible to the actual operating conditions of the reactor, namely that its heating comes from the exhaust gases in the opposite direction, the temperature of which drops to as they get closer to the outlet -> doesn't the temperature seem the same all along the tube.
We should also not forget the gas flow parameter, which will necessarily have an influence on the heat input to the reactor. We must not lose sight of the fact that we want to simulate a car engine, called to operate from a speed of deceleration to the full speed, and that we wish to see the reactor coming into action even at slowdown. In this perspective, the control of the exhaust gas flow is not in my opinion an unnecessary luxury!

* 3) Provide pressure taps in the same place as the T ° taps along * the reactor

It eats no bread, I planned a "minimum program" but we can actually add a measure of the pressures, as you suggest.

* 4) For the form: a few small remarks break the seriousness (and therefore the * credibility) of the document (style: "it didn't go crazy" .. the smiley faces.) It's a shame * because the author gave himself bad for the rest ....

So there, Christophe, my arms are falling! I did make a dash of humor, in the middle of a stiff presentation, just to put my finger on a sensitive question concerning the glass tube. When I say "if it didn't blow out ..." I mean "if the glass tube of the reactor did not break under the effect of expansion, requiring to provide the necessary and sufficient functional clearances between tube in glass, core (and its centering pins), and probably also between the glass tube and the outer tube, at the passages.

I thought it was obvious.

I would have liked to have your opinion rather on the principle, agreeing that everything is perfectible, and that I can not have thought of everything!

That's it, for now, that's all I have to say ...

Regards

Michel

published: 24/11/04, 20:34
by Christophe
Well I ended up finding the time to read the whole doc, the rest of my remarks:

- To characterize the gas "geet" it would be more judicious to go through a weighing (therefore mass analysis of course) ... mmm .. by filling a buffer balloon for example that we would weigh later or live? The pb may be the temperature ... but nobody forces the ball to be rubber, it's just an image ...

- No need to waste time making thermocouples (without counting the analysis tools to go to the pc and calibration ..) you must BUY thermocouples, preferably jacketed (to avoid electrical disturbances that could produced in the reactor), or use a single one mounted on a sliding "strip" (mounted in the rod or in the annular space). Purchasing T ° regulation or a universal thermocouple reader is also much better.

- Yes for InfraRed analysis ... And at the Ultraviolet level? Perhaps it would be best to do a spectral analysis? Via a lamp, of well-known characteristics, which illuminates one side of the reactor while at the other end a prism decomposes this light ... we would then have, after analysis of the spectrum, precise information on the atomic nuclei (idea to refine with physicists!)

- Piezo resonator: pay attention to the flow rate, often low that the system allows ... an injector / fogger mounted upstream of this system could compensate "a little" for this limiting factor ...

- For the burner: impossible to convert a gas-liquid exchanger into gas-gas .... or then with very very low efficiency! I still think that injecting the combustion gases from this boiler directly would increase the temperature without the problem of sizing the exchanger. The problem is that the boilers have a T ° and related air flow ... An alternative would therefore be to run the boiler in full pot and mount an additional air pump AFTER the burner and BEFORE the reactor which could cool + or - hot gases to sweep the desired T ° range.

- Choice of materials: pkoi not to plan a study of the different reactor / core pairs? The author seems to know thermocouple well, we are talking about generation of electricity in the reactor, so it is possible that it behaves like a thermocouple ... the study of materials and couple of materials would be wise! [/ Font ]
Voila ... I think it would be not bad to include / correct the .pdf that I put on the site or to make a second version.

ps: my remark on the credibility was not personal but I placed myself in the place of a skeptical scientist falling on your document ... All good until this remark ... I do not think that a "good scientist "read further after falling over it ...

published: 25/11/04, 12:44
by Camel
Hello !

Test remarks and suggestions seem to me to be judicious. Regarding the PDF changes, I could download (where?) The Word version in .doc, more easily modifiable. Let's say that this pdf is just a preliminary document, which can give rise to more and more complete versions, whose scientific value will grow, depending on the quality of the interventions of those who are willing to participate in its development. .

A system should be found to make it easy to do ... webmasters, ideas please!

See you !

Michel

published: 25/11/04, 22:27
by Christophe
Uh..I don't quite understand your question on the doc / Pdf ... aren't you the author of the document? so logically you can modify it as you want no ???

For the system I believe that the game is not worth the candle I am reactive enough to update the documents right?

published: 25/11/04, 22:35
by krissg29
I have an idea for the realization of the test reactor (it's just an idea, I don't know what it's worth)

The tubes must imperatively be threaded one inside the other. An assembly in 2 half-shells could simplify the installation of the measuring instruments.

What do you think?

Christophe