Personally, I don't say that:Christophe wrote:Why? Because quite simply you ask private individuals to do with reduced means and their savings and their free time what the builders (do) (do) with thousands of engineers and millions in industrial means?
1 / Nothing explains that the manufacturers would deprive themselves of such a system if the results are real (more than 20 years that we hear about it.)
2 / There is a lack of reliable and reproducible evidence ... apart from simple feedback ...
"In our test, the Pantone" Spad "type system did not bring any gain
consumption or power.
Another test, carried out with the same protocol in Sarthe, on a tractor whose
owner was persuaded to save, came to the same conclusion. "
http://www.synagri.com/synagri/moteur-t ... le-du-spad
To simply cool the intake temperature:Christophe wrote:Except BMW: Water injection-motor-pantone / injection of water-misted-in-bmw-on-a-turbo petrol-t13753.html
"Barely a few milliliters of water per hundred kilometers traveled."
"Cool the mixture to make better use of the turbo"
"The injection of fine droplets of water into the intake manifold would make it possible to lower the temperature of the mixture admitted by 25 ° C, by the simple effect of vaporization."
"Less hot, the air retains a higher density which reinforces the force-boosting effect of the compressor which blows harder by 0,2 bar."
https://www.challenges.fr/automobile/do ... ons_584174"Pantone engine and Bosch water injection: not the same thing
American inventor, Paul Pantone gave his name in 1980 to the principle he patented: exploit the heat of the engine's exhaust system to vaporize a mixture of premium fuel and water (up to 80%). We are far from the few centilitres injected by the Bosch Waterboost system. The debate around the Pantone engine has been going on for decades: some consider it closed, due to the lack of independent scientific study quantifying the touted benefits (increasing power, reduction in pollution and consumption). Others prefer to be seduced by the whimsical conspiracy theory hatched by oil companies and engine manufacturers, to stifle the merits of the process and discourage those who would be tempted to invest the considerable sums that its necessary improvement would require.
The few engineers consulted on this subject by Challenges are sweeping the reverse process. Their argument is limited to this observation: the idea of producing energy from water is attractive but if, ultimately, the process consumes more energy than it produces, then the system is in vain. Engineers talk about energy balance absurd. Not to mention the fact that the engine exhaust gas temperatures are much lower than those required by the chemical reactions invoked by the Pantone system. "