Doping water Motor: thermodynamic

[Flytox]

Hello Elephant

There is still something that bothers me: I read somewhere on one of the forums econology that the steam should not be too hot (70°).
Don't ask me who said that, it's been a few months already.
Is it founded?

Talking about the temperature of the "vapor" without saying where it is measured ... it is a soft parameter Between the outlet of the steam generator, the reactor, the conduits, the intake manifold, the inlet against the intake valve or even in the cylinder etc ... this can give readings with huge variations on the same installation.

Besides, what are the "good" "significant" places to take this measurement?
A+

[elephant]

Thanks Flytox, I asked this question in "pure candid".

[Other]

Hello

For the 70 ° C that's what André said, you don't need wet (saturated) steam but hot air containing micro droplets (and Julien Rochereau explained why it didn't work or worse with steam).

Those who started by making full panton montages with transparent bubblers, we quickly understood that it works well when the bubbler is filled with a white cloud of fine droplets in suspension like fountain smoke made with ultra sound. (the bubbler becomes cold)
Although the parameters of the full panton do not fully apply to water doping, which misled me for a long time.

These fine droplets which fly are also made starting from invisible hot steam, or one makes a small depression, all becomes milky with a lowering of temperature.
To avoid saturation we must have a certain volume of air
there is a water / air ratio not to be exceeded at the reactor inlet, better to walk with less water.

Talking about the temperature of the "vapor" without saying where it is measured ... it is a soft parameter

In my case it varies from 130c to 180c
It goes up fairly quickly at the start of the trip to 170c and sometimes more (depending on the driving speed) then it goes down to 130c to remain stable for 100kmh driving

When at the outlet temperature of the reactor I measure it very close to the inlet of the duct which enters just before the turbos and that once past the turbo there is certainly a rise in temperature (no intercooler) this temperature does not is not critical just an indication that tells us that the stem is dry

Two important things are the state of the (vapor) entering the reactor and a dry rod.


Andre
It is necessary to stabilize the speed for a long time there is a certain inertia on the outlet temperature once the engine is warm
On departure reactor outlet 117c


a stop between that


At 100 km / h reactor outlet 158c


At 120kmh reactor outlet 182c

[Capt_Maloche]

There is still something that bothers me: I read somewhere on one of the forums econology that the steam should not be too hot (70°).
Don't ask me who said that, it's been a few months already.
Is it founded?

Absolutely not, on the contrary even, the more energy the fluid contains, the more effective it is
example in the blue flame burner, where the recycled gases are above 200 ° C

[Christophe]

Do not be so sure of you Maloche ... an engine is not a boiler and think of Carnot!

[Christophe]

I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you be more explicit please?

Uh yes CO is a combustible gas even mediocre it remains one ... it is the main component (with 1 little H2) of lean gas or gasifier gas ...

As for being THE solution, I don't know, but it is surely one of the most eco-friendly solutions, and yes for regulation ...

Too bad the engine manufacturers ignore it ...

[Capt_Maloche]

I don't quite understand what you are saying, can you be more explicit please?

I can say that:
H2O + C = H2 + CO: the incandescent soot particles (unburnt) react with water vapor, this requires a temperature above 950 ° C and if possible below 1300 ° C, hence the difficulties encountered by our amateur testers on all these systems

CO + H2O <> CO2 + H2: The CO resulting from the first reaction et imperfect combustion reacts with water vapor to supply hydrogen; also the T ° must be higher than 950 ° C otherwise there will be excess CO

H2 + 2O2 <> 2H2O: the hydrogen produced by the first two reactions contributes to the combustion of unburnt materials, to maintain the explosion longer and therefore to increase the yield.

all that is enough to explain the benefits of steam injection

[Christophe]

all that is enough to explain the benefits of steam injection

How can you be so sure? Can you estimate the gains with the enthalpies of the 3 reactions, please? Just to see if the order of magnitude is there? This is based on a few testimonials from tractors for example to see if it "sticks" with the fuel consumption gains ...

The 1st problem will come to estimate the quantity of "C" which is found in your 1st line: hard to know ...

It comes from soot only (therefore in phases where the combustion reaction is "bad")? Or does each atom of C contained in the fuel have a "chance" of making this reaction when the hydrocarbon chains break? Not easy to decide ...

[Capt_Maloche]

Yeah, as soon as I have 5 minutes, ie in August

you forget the quantity of water vapor injected, all this H2 and O2 which will react with the C during the reaction, the CO and the unburnt

I promise, I'm going there in August

[Christophe]

Copied / pasted from an important synthetic message on this subject: understanding injection water / patent-Renault-injection-of-water-and-motor-gp-t10733.html about explanations of what can happen in a water injection engine.

It would be interesting to understand the real physical mechanism by physics measurements allowing to clarify among the possible mechanisms.

Absolutely but this has been done by N people for years, we have already tried to synthesize everything N times but not obvious ... for example in this subject initiated by Maloche: understanding injection water / doping motor-al-water-thermodynamic-t4883.html

So I force myself to do it again (because it's you and because clowns like picolo I have my slap) I took almost 1 hour to write this answer!

Everything comes from various conversations since: understanding injection water /

Here is a reminder of the most notable effects and information of water doping (with or without an ionization reactor):

1) H2 creation reaction with carbon soot from unburnt with water: C + H20O + heat = CO + H2

Consequence: very good improvement in combustion, on the one hand because we reduce the soot in the cycle, on the other hand thanks to the H2 created which burns extremely well!

Developed in detail here: understanding injection water / doping motor-al-water-thermodynamic-t4883.html

2) increased octane number (in petrol known to all rally drivers or water injection kits exist for turbo petrol)

https://www.econologie.com/injection-ea ... ssentiels/

3) more uniform thrust on the piston = piston which remains more in the axis = better sealing, less knocking, this had been measured by modal analysis (do research on the site, everything is there) !!! The piston and cylinder wear less and so does the oil

Since: less soot (see 1)) + less blowby (piston less inclined) = cleaner oil longer

4) ionization of humid air at reactor outlet (if present) = improvement of combustion reactions (empirically verified by the fact that acid water, which ionizes better, gives better results). See radical reaction

https://www.econologie.com/ionisation-vapeur-eau/

5) longer relaxation work (thanks to excess steam) = increased torque (observed on almost all doping). It is as if we "virtually" increased the piston stroke!

Here is even a diagram which illustrates this (I am persuaded that the diagram of a motor doped with water approaches the 2nd diagram below)

understanding injection-water /-operation-du-doping-al-water diagram t2356.html



6) better fuel volatility / dispersion thanks to water

7) Thermolysis of water (less efficient, in my opinion, than the reaction with carbon from 1))

https://www.econologie.com/hypothese-thermolyse-eau/

Lavoisier "iron carbon water" reaction:
understanding injection water / operation-by-m-Lavoisier-hydrogen-and-iron-t1069.html

And I add a hypothesis that just comes to mind, linked to the point

8) better combustion by better heat exchange in the room (lair is better conductor than dry air!) linked to point 6)

Here is an article that says this but otherwise: https://www.econologie.com/synthese-the ... r-pantone/

Conclusion:

Doping with water is more than probably a "big mix" of all these effects which each have more or less overall effect on the efficiency of the engine!

It should be borne in mind that the more the engine is loaded, the more the doping efficiency is important (difference in consumption up to 40-50% true but you really have to "nag" on the engine, pipes red! There is surely a really interesting effect, maybe in the reactor but few users get there, it would be an effect 9) that I do not know and that I did not mention above because still quite hypothetical: gas cavitation (cold fusion, sonoluminesence ??) in the reactor !! See here etude-of-rod reactor-pantone-heating-or-cavitation-t4944.html

This is why the generator results are low or zero (just as on engine bench that does not load enough engine) because there is always a reserve of engine power compared to the generator mounted on it! Many experimenters have come to terms with doping because of this!

Conversely, below a certain load the effect can be zero (in town without climbs, drop doping, do eco-driving). The increase of the power of the engines and the repression with respect to the speed also makes that one can note less and less effect of a doping!

This has long been attributed to the heat of the reactor, I think we were mistaken: for me, in 2011, it is the heat of the combustion chamber which is more influential than that of the reactor. the 2 are obviously linked ... especially if you have an 9 effect)

Hypnow in his book (see history-of-Doping al-water motor-video-HYPNOW-t10570.html ) has put a diagram which explains this (without distinguishing T ° reactor or chamber). I will put it further!


In the end, giving the respective importance of each of these effects is impossible given our means, only an engine BE could do it ... and again it is not even at all that it is within their reach ...

I don't get the impression that the builders do a lot of this type of fundamental study.

The reactions of Picolo, who seems to work in such a design office, seem to show it, with a priori very contemptuous and with basic errors that block all in-depth physical studies without serious errors, having understood through the Carnot cycle.
If some manufacturers make this picolo error, I remain frightened and everything is wrong.

Engine manufacturers know all this! To say that they do not know that would be to really take them for idiots (some ingés or decision makers in BE are real heads of mules, without any open-mindedness, well formatted as it should be, picolo is perhaps an example (? ), but they are probably not idiots !!).

A car manufacturer could develop ultra-efficient water doping in a few weeks, why is it not done? Ask them, in my opinion, they have (for the moment?) No interest !! But they are groping about doing it with the EGR, which is a kind of "autogenous" water doping ...

+ attempt to explain the non-development:

I believe the builders reject the water for much simpler reasons than the plot but rather for a question of corrosion and freezing

Corrosion no: there are already "tons of water" that pass through an exhaust pipe: 1 L of fuel burnt = 1 L of water formed!

So freezing yes would already be a more credible "excuse".
The fact of having to fill a second tank too ... (ah traditions).

On the other hand if they wanted (and this is what they will do one day if they decide to develop doping ... patents have already been filed), nothing, technologically, prevents the water from condensing exhaust (that which comes from the combustion of petroleum) thus to function "internally" without having recourse to a tank to fill!

There would be a small buffer tank which will be emptied in the event of frost.

After on the car everything is a question (for them) of commercial gains compared to investment and additional cost!

In the current state of what we know, I don't know if water doping (for reasons of engine load for example) has a future in new cars ...

But the manufacturers surely know things which one does not know ... Let us imagine, if it exists, that they can control this famous cavitation?

Doping with water is more than probably a "big mix" of all these effects which each have more or less overall effect on the efficiency of the engine!

Keep in mind that the more the engine is loaded, the greater the doping efficiency (consumption difference up to 40-50% true but must be true