Performing a test bench

[Sancho]

"it needs an alternating field to work while there the field is unidirectional."

Maybe not, if you take into account that the exhaust, which surrounds the intake, goes the other way. It is probably not with regular alternation between the two directions of gas. But it is unlikely that the two currents are in regular continuity and of the exact same speed (intensity). However in electricity it is enough for a variation (not compulsory regular) of the current to create a magnetic field which will not be regular either, it seems to me. All this is only pure analogical supposition with what happens in electrical circuits because I do not know the properties of fluids under such conditions. I am only writing this to give "a flea to the ear" to those who really advance the shmilblic. Otherwise, you can throw it in the basket.

[Sancho]

"it needs an alternating field to work while there the field is unidirectional."

Maybe not, if you take into account that the exhaust, which surrounds the intake, goes the other way. It is probably not with regular alternation between the two directions of gas. But it is unlikely that the two currents are in regular continuity and of the exact same speed (intensity). However in electricity it is enough a variation (not obliged regular and not obliged in the other direction) of the current to make vary the magnetic field and which would then create an induced current which one would find in the coil which one would put next to it parallel to the reactor to measure the current at the pols. All this is only pure analogical assumption with what happens in electrical circuits because I do not know the properties of gases and fluids under such conditions. I am only writing this to give "a flea to the ear" to those who really advance the shmilblic. Otherwise, you can throw it in the basket.

[jcf]

Precisely the polishing of the interior of the reactor was always a paradox for me. Indeed: according to certain assumptions it is the friction of the gases which will create a static electricity (or which one can consider as such) which will discharge beyond a certain difference in potential ... thus creating a "micro-lightning". ..In this case, on the contrary, the roughness should be increased .... hence the paradox

What do you think ?

Well, that reminds me of some research on boat hulls or windsurfing boards (it's already a bit old this story, but hey) where researchers had noticed that it was better for the coating to be slightly rough => suddenly, a film of water remained on the cabin and made the coefficient of slip even higher (water that slides on water, better coefficient, instead of water that slides on the hull) => see also the scales of the fish .
By analogy, it may be the same thing with gases. In which case having a highly polished reactor would in fact amount to forcing the circulating gases to rub well on the walls and therefore maximizing the phenomena of static electricity, while in the case of rough reactors a film of gas would remain stationary on the walls of the reactor. and would therefore allow the circulating gases to 'slide' faster through the reactor ...
I don't know if it's the right explanation, but it has the merit of explaining the paradox :-P
Jean-Christophe

[Christophe]

Yes JCF, I was on the verge of saying it (but I wanted to make you cogitate a little), this is the technology known as shark skin. Certain planes are equipped and research is not as old as that I think.

As you said, it is a matter of creating a thin film (called boundary layer in mega fluid if I remember correctly) of gas / fluid so as to no longer have friction, for example, windsurfing / water but water / water ....

If there were fluid mechanics in the "room" to calculate that minimum roughness it would take the reactor to achieve this effect that would clear up one more point ...

[Camel]

We could perhaps ask JP Petit, who is, if I remember correctly, a specialist in the physics of fluids and plasma, he could probably provide us with some information, especially since Econology is cited in his file concerning the "Pantone reactor".

Coming back to the smooth walls, the glass tube would provide us with a more than adequate surface as such, my concern for it being its composition; we know that it works with steel tube, but what about glass ...

I think that on this subject, only experimentation can give us the answer.

Michel

[jcf]

Coming back to the smooth walls, the glass tube would provide us with a more than adequate surface as such, my concern for it being its composition; we know that it works with steel tube, but what about glass ...

About alternative materials for the reactor rod, I anticipate, but if it was proven that the material used does not matter, we could consider replacing the rod with a resistance, and by feeding it with a sturdy battery of the type provided for diesel engines, build a PMC that does not require preheating, so that does not pollute cold, right? (sorry for the size of the sentence!: huh:)
Jean-Christophe

[Camel]

About alternative materials for the reactor rod, I anticipate, but if it was proven that the material used does not matter, we could consider replacing the rod with a resistance, and by feeding it with a sturdy battery of the type provided for diesel engines, build a PMC that does not require preheating, so that does not pollute cold, right?

A laaaa !!! Well no, the reactor has the advantage of pumping calories from the exhaust gases. If you replace it with a resistor, you will need a nasty batteri, a big alternator, and this will result in a sur consumption which removes all interest in mounting.

In addition, if the reactor is close enough to the exhaust manifold. we know that it will quickly rise in temperature. As long as there is efficient preheating of the water (exchanger on the exh. Line for example), we can reasonably think that we have solved the problem of transient operation when cold -> start-up / warming up.

Here it is.

[jcf]

A laaaa !!! Well no, the reactor has the advantage of pumping calories from the exhaust gases. If you replace it with a resistor, you will need a nasty batteri, a big alternator, and this will result in a sur consumption which removes all interest in mounting.

Corsican egg that it consumes a lot, but it consumes no more than 4 diesel glow plugs. The goal is just to allow the PMC to be immediately operational, but above all not to heat the reactor permanently to the electric!
I think about that because in the long term I would like to equip a car with full PMC (fuel + water). If I want to run it at the cheapest on the market, we would have to put diesel in fuel. It means 3 tanks: one to start at ss pb, and 2 to turn in pantone. It gets hot ...
Okay, all of that provided that the full pantone works, huh, because I mostly see water doping. I don't know if anyone on the forum has already managed to operate a full pantone on a car?
A+
JC

[Christophe]

Heating the reactor with an electrical resistance for the purpose of experimenting and understanding the phenomenon poses no problem ... this is obviously not the case during a search for process optimization!

[krissg29]

econologie Written on Wednesday December 01st, 2004, 21:35
Heating the reactor with an electrical resistance for the purpose of experimenting and understanding the phenomenon poses no problem ... this is obviously not the case during a search for process optimization!

Unless the optimization of the process also involves a means of having an operational reactor sooner after the engine starts (less cold pollution).

Now when to have an electric heater more efficient than the exhaust gas after starting, there I have a doubt! But in preheating, before starting, why not?