Hi Andrew!
Andre wrote:Hello,
The main problem that we all encounter, whatever the method to produce the (steam) input, it is in use small city and motor heating times, even the car manufacturers have not been able to solve The great difference in consumption between the main road and the city is even more marked in winter conditions.
Even the Lambda probes heat electric (small gain)
I did tests in winter even heating the engine block with electric element on the sector, even filling the bubbler with boiling water. the yield on small runs and remains bad, there is a gain, but not comparable to the long engine run warmed once.
This is where I think that the GVI can provide an element of answer to the delicate problem of the low-loaded engine in winter ...
First, I remind you that it follows the power calls, however weak they are.
Then, it is able to give steam, cold start, in a few seconds, even before the engine is "hot", since the exhaust gases are hot from the outset.
As you have already said, the pantone that works is a good steam, and a good reactor ...
I would say, from the experience of each other, that for the reactor, we still have to optimize it so that it is operational in the worst of conditions, namely a lightly loaded engine, so heat and minimum suction (at least for diesels).
If we consider that the role of the reactor is to produce an aerosol containing "vapor" of electrified water (the microdellets have taken a load), and that on the other hand, we seek to improve the efficiency, it we must reconsider its current geometry by having some points in mind ...
In the first place, the larger the exchange surface will be, and more microdrops will have a chance to rub against the metal wall, and tear off an electron.
Secondly, the electrification can only occur significantly if the aerosol passes against the exchange surface at high speed (more intense friction)
Thirdly, the larger the mass to be heated, the more the stored heat will be out of phase with the power demands.
Indeed, we must not forget that we work in variable load, and it is desirable that the reactor and the steam generation are in phase with the power demands. Otherwise, we will have for example the steam that will arrive at big broth AFTER the rise which makes heat the engine, and which will fill the combustion chambers during the descent, in phase of engine brake, which is rather counterproductive!
Mastering the thermal inertia - at all levels - is simply to make sure everything is operational at the right time, never forgetting that the engine consumes the most in the climbs and flat, but downhill and stop It's a slower diet, so it's peanuts!
These remarks should shed light on the choice of shapes and materials to use.
For the form, and even if Paul Pantone himself said he tried many different forms, I doubt that the configuration we all currently adopt (tube + core) is the best response to the constraints mentioned above.
The annular space between the tube and the nucleus produces two effects:
- a restriction in the path of the aerosol, which forces it to accelerate
a hot exchange surface whose geometry increases the probabilities of collision / electrification with the aerosol.
Why heat the tube? Simply to increase the thermal agitation in the metal, leading to a succeptible surface to release more easily its electrons ...
In fact, we should choose pipes with the finest possible wall, which would ensure the best possible heat transfer ...
In this configuration, the core is simply a piece to achieve this annular space, point bar.
And if we thought about other drawings, where we would do without cores?
I've been thinking about this for a couple of years, and I just came across this:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/ge5MichelDavid.htmAnd yes ! Michel David is experimenting with a flat reactor!
System benefit:
- no core (simpler machining, less raw material ...)
- exchange area multipliable at will
- Possibility to easily control the number of exchangers activated according to the load and the engine speed.
- for the same size, enormous gain in exchange surface -> miniaturization (hihihi !!
)
The experience of the GVI allows me to advance that we should direct our research in this way, which seems to be the only one that can lead us to success including in cities and small routes (which represents for many of us the part the lion of our displacements!)
Another thing, on an atmospheric engine, it is better for the panton, if only to enter the breech hole, to enjoy the tunel effect in this narrow path, something more complicated with a turbo,
The turbo consumes some of the exhaust heat from where available heat is still a load and rpm higher.
All new engines tend to run cooler than older generations, so their performance is even better at making gains on these engines.
That's why I think it might be necessary to choose between turbo and pantone ... or you turn the turbo, or you leave the pantone ... finally there, I do not really know, since I have not yet experienced on TD ...
Michel, when you will have consumption figures on the Mercedes as well as the carecteristics of the engine it would be interesting that one compares with my assembly, I take into account only measurements made on courses of more 200km to 600km,
Another hint the Mercedes have a resevoir of 80 liters when you exceed the 1000 km on full, and that the reserve turns on, there is something.
My goal this year is to reach 6 km 100km
I'm around 6,5 liters at 100km for 300D and it's hard to make gains at this level ..
Andre
Andre
Ben as promised, as soon as possible, numbers, yes, full of numbers !!!!
And to conclude, I come back to that, but I hate to have a test bench available! All these manipulations can be done at an accelerated pace, and here we can begin to really optimize the editing at best, for all cases!
A + + +
Michel
We were on the brink, but we made a big step forward ...
