Did you read that? In particular the change to the start-up time of catalysis and the dissemination of heavy metals. Indeed, one more point for the Pantone. I had heard that these heavy metals in the ice cream came from Chinese coal factories ... it's not us, it's the others! L ...

Here is the youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5EYfg8swhI&NR=1

0,1% of CO2 may be because all the gas dissolves in the water?
It has to go somewhere carbon!

In fact I realize that I had already consulted your pages ... (thanks for the info by the way) There is something that bothers me in all this: According to the promising results observed in pollution control and its adaptation relatively easy on any system burning hydrocarbons, we hope that ...

1) 100% pantone has never shown good results in terms of lower consumption. What do you call 100% pantone? 2) Doping with water does not crack the hydrocarbon molecules since the fuel does not pass into the reactor. it seemed to me that the fumes were passing through a tank ...

Take the case of a mower or tractor engine for example (no catalytic converter): I take butane as a hydrocarbon just to have a short carbon chain, this is just one example: Classic engine: C4H10 + 3 O2 -> C2H6 + 2 CO2 + 2 H2O Partial combustion (there is one C2H6, or pl ...

Your reaction surprised me Christophe (locked subject), then I see that forum is moderate, contrary to what is indicated. You said maybe I was playing naive trying to get some info. First of all, know that I am not playing naive. I say what I think, whether it sounds naive or ...

And yes, we are delighted with this reduction in consumption, because it is mathematically accompanied by a reduction in the same proportions of CO2 emissions. This is precisely what seemed questionable to me. There is proportionality in the case of complete combustion If a catalytic converter only leaves the ...

for me to eliminate the pollution it starts with the beginning at the source not at the exit It is sure that it is better, but only the emissions count in the end! And I think that as long as we use oil we will not have solved anything, at best a little limited the bleeding as with what seems to do the ...

If you had only looked at the link I gave you above, you wouldn't ask this question: I looked at it (diagonally). It is theory in the case of a perfect combustion, what interests me is the practical result. The question therefore still stands! Like CO2 emissions ...

Indeed I forgot these catalysts which transform particles into CO2 ... In my head rejecting particles is less serious for the greenhouse effect than CO2 (although this remains to be proven), but good as the catalyst transforms anyway all in CO2 ... What interests me is the ...