Article econology AUTOBIO on doping in the water!

[pb2488]

Hello,
Oula, it makes a lot of questions at the same time. In addition, if you put two. I have trouble keeping / express myself. Especially with the kind of contradictions:

... Only now new technologies are much better in terms of pollution and are less expensive.

Oh no, the technologies used today are very costly and are less than the injection of water:
Double EGR valves and regulating (...)

Vs

Currently if manufacturers are satisfied by piloting the EGR valve to obtain an injection of water "poor"... then no" external "water injection is necessary for them. It costs them less and they are content with respect to the desired results.

He should know: This is cheaper or more expensive the EGR valve?

The reduction in combustion exhaust particles demonstrates that there is reaction, and better combustion.
If there are better combustion is that the performance is better.

If there is less smoke with water doping, what do you think happens with the carbon that is no longer "lost" in the form of smoke? What do you think about engine oil that stays clean longer?

In my view, the reduction of smoke does not show much side consumption and performance.
As also in the case of aquazole:

The Aquazole allows the reduction of about 15% of NOx emissions and total visual disappearance of black smoke.

However, there is no consumption gain demonstrated in this case. Just a gain on certain pollutants via the lowering of the maximum combustion temperature by water, but there is no question of unburnt "converted" into energy. Only today, new technologies are more efficient, cheaper and less restrictive according to the report of ademe.

You've never experimented with water doping, have you? Yet are you trying to convince that we're all wrong? Get out of your "books" please ...

Do we necessarily have to "experiment" to understand how it works and why it is not democratizing? ex: Do we need to reproduce a nuclear fission reaction to understand how a nuclear power plant works and be convinced of its efficiency?

So think carefully before answering an Nth nonsense that makes me more and more believe in a lobbyistique behavior ...

Funny allusion ...

Cdlt

[gildas]

goodnight bp

Hello,
Oula, it makes a lot of questions at the same time. In addition, if you put two. I have trouble keeping / express myself. Especially with the kind of contradictions:

... Only now new technologies are much better in terms of pollution and are less expensive.

Oh no, the technologies used today are very costly and are less than the injection of water:
Double EGR valves and control (...)

Vs

Currently if the manufacturers are satisfied by controlling the EGR valve to obtain a "poor man" water injection ... then no "external" water injection is necessary for them. It costs them less and they are content with respect to the desired results.

He should know: This is cheaper or more expensive the EGR valve?

you oppose 2 different thoughts!

Maloche refers to a set of environmental remediation technology:

egr valve, yes, but also catalytic converter + lambda probe + FAP

Christophe talks about water injection.

[pb2488]

Hello,
Reread the posts involved in their contexts.
Maloche also compares EGR with water injection.
Comparative reflections are similar.

So on one side:
Maloche told me that the pollution control technologies, whose the EGR valve are very expensive compared to a water injection. https://www.econologie.com/forums/post166780.html?sid=30b27f5cc02379eba1902518c4bd33ae#166780

The other:
Christophe told me that the EGR valve, it's less expensive, it is the poor water injection ... https://www.econologie.com/forums/post166439.html#166439
Cdlt

[Christophe]

Frankly pb2488I think you are not so foolish than that, but we finally confess to you that ROLLED (you know the one who gives you to eat everyday) and why you continually looking the mess when it comes to doping ... at least we will know who has been to !!

a) Carrying out a “simulacre” of water injection via the EGR does not cost much since the solution is already in place ... so yes it does not cost much!

b) The depollution of an engine is not done ONLY via the EGR ... so yes it is expensive! If you don't know the meaning of "whose" ... go back to school ...

+ 1 with Gildas then!

[Remundo]

But where is the ax Lumberjack?

[Other]

Hello

a) Carrying out a “simulacre” of water injection via the EGR does not cost much since the solution is already in place ... so yes it does not cost much!

This is not a sham but a reality on my editing Chevrolet Lumina I simply eliminates the ERG valve, made this entry in the intake pipe, and constantly I get the steam from the reactor into the engine through the hole. This is the low puisances he comes in the most .. (depression is stronger)
Trying to send a lot of exhaust gas by the ERG to slow, the engine will limp ..

Andre

[Capt_Maloche]

So in fact,

nobody and yet launched in a water injection regulator?

we'll have to get started

Eleph! say, can we recover induction (coil) the injector signal to derive a signal?

[Capt_Maloche]

At this propo on this other subject https://www.econologie.com/forums/post172105.html#172105

camel1 we were tracking down this small circuit not all bad

I think it is unnecessary to burn anything while they are things like that that work and cost a really cheap:
http://www.myavr.fr/4-myavr-board-2-usb.html

What do you think?

[I Citro]

camel1 we were tracking down this small circuit not all bad

I think it is unnecessary to burn anything while they are things like that that work and cost a really cheap:
http://www.myavr.fr/4-myavr-board-2-usb.html

What do you think?

It's the Swiss army knife for the developer of off-road interfaces.

You can do anything with it.
Unfortunately, this is not my field (too much to learn about the subject before performance).

[Capt_Maloche]

Petit Up on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=524 ... tif_t=like