Modification of the basic structure of the pantone

[ecolomiste]

I've known the Pantone reactor for a while and I even made a modified reactor that I just need to mount and connect. But I got another idea from reading a bunch of articles on a bunch of forum on the pantone and sites on the super carburetor (pogue, chambrin ...).


(good delivery !!!!!)

ok i'm going

if the central rod was replaced by a thick stainless steel tube in which the exhaust gases would also pass, the fresh gas duct would thus be surrounded by 2 burnt gas ducts thus increasing the heat exchange surface.

[denis]

it complicates a little more, but it's an idea! to see, who launches ?? maybe André has already tried!

[crispus]

if the central rod was replaced by a thick stainless steel tube in which the exhaust gases would also pass, the fresh gas duct would thus be surrounded by 2 burnt gas ducts thus increasing the heat exchange surface.

It's been a while since I proposed this assembly, I have not yet had the opportunity to try but this is how I imagine the thing:


By swirling the exhaust gases with a VSLA, the boundary layer phenomenon is limited, favoring the heating of the internal tube while the heart of the vortex cools (Ranque effect). So we improve the heat transfer.

The admission goes through a series of small tubes also equipped with a AVEC.

As the vortex slows down the flow and interferes with the "emptying" of the cylinders during the exhaust, part of the flow must be allowed to bypass this internal tube and pass laminarly along the intake tubes. At the same time, better thermal insulation of the intake tubes is ensured.

I had not read the Chambrin patents at the time but I have come to his conclusions - an obscure point: "oxygenation". Does anyone have an opinion on this?

The purpose of the central rod is to direct the flow as close as possible to the heat source. By reducing the diameter of the tube (1 to 2 mm?) We can achieve the same result.

With small tubes it is possible to treat all the gases admitted. The optional shutter is linked to my hypothesis of the "ionic vortex" which requires to favor the contraction of the vortex under the effect of heat, which remains in my opinion the key to optimal functioning.

Regarding materials Chambrin recommended metals with high thermal conductivity (silver, copper, brass ...). Like him I think that stainless steel is not the best option, even if obviously, longevity issue it seems a better choice.

I plan to make a copper proto soon, but for the moment I no longer have a workshop

I was able to see the multitube "proto" (catalyst) at ALex56 recently, which shows no temperature rise at the outlet of the reactor. Magic !

This catalyst consists of a "corrugated sheet" (specially treated of course) wound on itself. This "multitube" structure is in my opinion also "multivortex". And it would benefit from having an internal tube, because it is likely that the heat does not reach the tubes placed in the heart, so part of the steam (half?) Is not "treated" by the reactor. ..

[denis]

I think that the economist system is not multitube but a bigger reactor body, with instead of a full core, a tube where the exhaust also passes, it is simpler. to have more warmth I keep the idea that was made on the toyota, it was a very good track, even if it takes space not always obvious to have!

[Flytox]

Bonjour à tous

Like this:




But with pipe thicknesses more to scale

A+

[ecolomiste]

well seen FLYTOX that's how I see it, even if your CRISPUS idea is more efficient in terms of heat exchange.but it's complicated and therefore not within the reach (technical and financial) of everyone (but well i did wow !!! when i saw it (great owl ))


and I think we must keep the passage of the admission in an annular section to break the boundary layer.

there's also a weird thing that pisses me off

I saw a guy who pantonized his mower with a reactor made ala goes quickly to test (it was a long time ago) there was nothing right the central rod even touched the tube it worked super well. three months later the guy built another one but tip top pile pile.

guess what? the mower worked less well and consumed more.

suddenly it came to me an idea :. put the central rod (or tube) at an angle to avoid a linear path without turbulence. do the same with the first tube to do the same with the exhaust gases. some will say that it looks like DIY (I also like D&CO) but I think that the most important is to promote heat exchange and for that you have to create turbulence so things not right. In addition it is easier to manufacture
by the way DENIS is ecoLomiste my nickname because you can't talk about sustainable economy without thinking about global ecology. (but hey it's okay I don't blame you )

[ecolomiste]

I forgot to say something

and why not use a catalyst ceramic plug embedded in a tube at the reactor outlet to precisely allow the catalysis of the gases produced

[Other]

Hello

If we consider the reactor as an exchanger, this principle promotes more heat exchange than a cold rod tube.
The Chambrin assembly is still superior.
We know that if we increase the amount of water vapor in the engine we do not increase the economy (apart from the 7-pipe tractor)
We know from Alex's experiments that just steam heated below 100c we have a performance equivalent to mounting the reactor rod.
We know that the outlet temperature of the reactor vapor does not have a direct influence on the output (in my case operating the outlet of the reactor at 110c or 140c little difference on the economy, other on the forum we have low temperatures below 100c and get results.
So you have to look elsewhere for improvement points.

It is not known exactly in what state the vapor, when it is diluted in the intake when entering the engine.
I doubt that such a small amount of vapor in contact with a large volume of air drawn in by the diesel can keep its temperature and are in state during the compression cycle.
A 3-liter downstream engine per 100km 1 k of water for 250 kg of air
a kilo of steam even at 200c will not influence the 250kg of air at room temperature.

What is constant in our experiences which all have variations is fairly identical results
same water consumption (10% to 15% of the fuel consumed)
Same yield around 30% for operational systems
I haven't heard anyone approach 40% on an automobile.
Remain to prove the assembly VIX if one reaches the same figures (quantity of water and economy)

If the perfect heat exchanger assembly improves the system, this would mean that a long rod should improve the system (which is not the case) any more than an exaggerated stove at the inlet of the reactor.

On a 100% panton assembly, a long rod which leaves the reactor is less efficient than a rod which ends abruptly in the heated zone.
I never thought of the reactor as a heat exchanger
each time I used very conductive materials like copper or aluminum the yield decreased
A rod in high carbon steel, or stainless steel is preferable.
we see that it is a material that is a poor conductor of heat?

I saw a guy who pantonized his mower with a reactor made ala goes quickly to test (it was a long time ago) there was nothing right the central rod even touched the tube it worked super well. three months later the guy built another one but tip top pile pile.

guess what? the mower worked less well and consumed more.

A rough unpolished rod, simply deposited in the reactor without centering pins, or any fixing, works as well
just a spring at the outlet to prevent it from sucking
When I was testing all kinds of rod material this is how I proceeded, cut a piece of rod or tube and inside

Andre

[Flytox]

Hello Ecolomiste

suddenly it came to me an idea :. put the central rod (or tube) at an angle to avoid a linear path without turbulence. do the same with the first tube to do the same with the exhaust gases. some will say that it looks like DIY (I also like D&CO) but I think that the most important is to promote heat exchange and for that you have to create turbulence so things not right. In addition it is easier to manufacture

To be able to vary the turbulence at will, we could also make mini grooves in the rod (at best on a lathe if not with a saw) to try to find the optimum. Finally if the rod is easily removable ....




A+

[ecolomiste]

Hello friends ,


ANDRE you say that 1 such a small quantity of vapor cannot keep its state in contact with the intake air (no doubt you are talking about condensation or something like that) and I think you are right.

and if the outlet temperature does not matter it may be (probably) due to this. the intake air is too cold. regardless of the assembly the only beneficial fact would be to have water in the combustion.

efficiency would be gained by also heating the intake air.

I made a sketch on paper of a double reactor where all of the admitted gases and exhaust gases pass through.

the circuits are in parallel with the internal tube assembly (instead of the rod) 50% for the steam reactor 50% for the air reactor (exhaust gases). the sections of the tubes being different.
the 2 outgoing exhaust pipes meet and then heat a small bubbler
the rise in temperature of the cold engine would be faster the maximum recovery and the combustion of the diesel would occur at a temperature at the end of compression much higher but not in excess of air thanks to the depression generated in the air reactor. So no nitrogen oxide

moreover with a reduced temperature differential between intake and exhaust, the efficiency is increased

for the sketch as soon as I have time I do it on the computer and I send it to you (but I think you understand)




now I answer FLYTOX

the modified reactor that I built is in the same vein as your sketch except that the striated part is in fact a rod which continues the rod of the reactor and which is heated by the exhaust gases and which heats the rod of reactor by conduction. I do not know if it works I have not mounted it.

hey guys let you my wife call me. there is a risk of spending energy and there we do not care about the waste