Results study Echo Moteur² project

Edits and changes to engines, experiences, findings and ideas.
User avatar
echo-moteur²
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 23
Registration: 06/11/07, 13:21
Location: Douai, North

Results study Echo Moteur² project




by echo-moteur² » 06/05/08, 00:20

Hello everybody

First of all, for those who do not know us yet, see the following links:

http://www.echo-moteur.com
https://www.econologie.com/forums/nouveau-projet-echo-moteur-2-mines-de-douai-t4255.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/du-nouveau-pour-echo-moteur-t4751.html

Let's move on to serious things (!)
After all these weeks of silence, we are back to tell you that we have finally done the tests.

We have accumulated technical problems, which has significantly reduced our time available for the project, so we have not been able to complete all the planned test phases.

Image

However, we did the most important tests, namely the 1, 2, 3 and 4 phases ( http://www.echo-moteur.com/echo-moteur2/testsenvisages.php )

Here is a summary table of the results, which, as you will see, were not conclusive:

Image

Note that the 5 phase uses the methodology of the 3 phase, but that the inner rod was of smaller diameter (5 mm instead of 13).

In a few words, the conclusions are:
- Clamping caused by the system: variation of 1% of consumption
- Gain generated by our system: decrease in 1 consumption to 4% according to test configurations

Warning: error margin of the bench: +/- 2%

Since the decreases were not significant, we were forced to conclude that our system was not working. We have never approached the announced 30%.

Here is our final report (29 / 05 / 2008 oral defense), for more information:

https://www.econologie.com/ecole-d-ingen ... -3807.html

Hoping that our conclusions will suit you ...

PS: Our site will be updated very soon.
0 x
bpval
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 561
Registration: 06/10/06, 17:27




by bpval » 06/05/08, 09:03

Hello

Congratulations for your essays and your report

But one thing appeals to me and I quote you

"2.4.3. Third phase
The third phase of the tests corresponded to the concrete evaluation of the influence of the injection of water vapor into the engine intake. Several problems then appeared. First, we found that the configurations we had set up did not match the steam generator's operating window. Steam production was nonexistent at 1500 revolutions per minute, and really very low at 2000. It was therefore necessary to increase the motor load, but without trying to use a too high speed, in order to remain in the optimal range of use of the engine. So we decided, for the continuation of the operations, to carry out the tests with 2500 turns per minute, but taking values ​​of torque of 50, 70 and 80 Nm The too big rod in the reactor there made increase the pressure, enough for us to meet our second problem. As the suction effect of the engine is not important enough, thewater vapor had a marked tendency to escape through the air inlet of our systemand therefore did not go to admission. We fixed this problem by placing a cap on this input."

"2.4.5. Fifth phase
The fifth phase of these tests corresponded to the resumption of the conditions of the third phase of the tests, with the main change being the replacement of the reactor rod by another rod of smaller diameter. This time we noticed that the plug on the air inlet was no longer necessary. "

..........

“Finally, if our study did not confirm that the water doping system was effective, we cannot confirm that the Gillier-Pantone system has no influence on the performance of the engine. complementary, with other forms of systems, other engines, and possibly other configurations, would be necessary, to check both fuel consumption and pollutant emissions, which could not be analyzed. "


Maybe Echo-Moteur3 next year will be more successful

Congratulations for your approach
Too bad for the results more than mixed ... and the cap !!!

Hello
0 x
PIF PAF POUM
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 06/05/08, 09:08

Hello Echo² Motorists,

You have worked well with limited means. Hat 8)

A "good big report" as we like them in engineering schools : Wink:
it reminds me of childhood memories :D

For your results, you are cautious, for good reason because you do not have enough measurement situations to reveal a general trend.

I notice however that the consos fall in phase 3 (ie with doping with water big stem) and phase 5 (with doping with small water rod) while the sampled power remains the same (same couple and same regime) .

And this drop is 5%, which is more than your inaccuracy of 2% measurements.

So certainly, we are a bit hungry, but we are not disappointed either.

In addition, I think that the injection of water, to express its full potential, requires more sophisticated engines, including variable valve timing and variable compression ratio, plus a precise control of steam production. The optimization window is probably very small: not enough water: no effect, too much water: flooding the engine, degraded combustion ...

Hoping that your teachers will put the note you propose in the report : Cheesy:

Good luck for the future !
0 x
Image
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 06/05/08, 10:50

Remundo wrote:You have worked well with limited means. Hat 8)

A "good big report" as we like them in engineering schools : Wink:
it reminds me of childhood memories :D


on, nothing like having maths without literary spirit to prove that an invention does not work and discard it, or (de) show that GMOs are good for health! : Lol:


without laughing, given the difficulties faced by the experimenters of this site to achieve performance, it remains to continue!
not to mention that the main thing should not be consumption but pollution, as in the diagram you took on the vitry C15 that was essentially limited to that ;-)

so good cotninaution and good luck for the future!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 06/05/08, 11:27

Congratulations finally you have managed to solve the different technical problems.

In fact your "almost no" results (in terms of consumption at least, what about pollution ??) do not surprise me (constant regime,: this is not the first time that there is not much like result on test bench, see https://www.econologie.com/forums/dopage-pas ... t4099.html )

How long did your tests last (the effect of descaling by water?)?

I will look at your report and react in more detail a little later!

ps: jonule, stop seeing the plot by everything ... I remind you, for the record, that I'm also out of an engineering school ...
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 06/05/08, 16:16

but I know very well christophe!

it's just to tell them not to be discouraged by the results!

on the other hand pollution results?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 06/05/08, 19:20

jonule wrote:on the other hand pollution results?


Well it must be in the report in .pdf ... I did not have time to open it ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 06/05/08, 19:38

And indeed, their opacimeter was defective. No measures so ...

Finally, I think it is quite recognized that the water cleans the exhaust gases well.

But I let the specialists confirm 8)
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 06/05/08, 19:40

Remundo wrote:And indeed, their opacimeter was defective. No measures so ...


: Evil: so sorry but I'm starting to believe that the lab has made it ... an opacimeter is there in all the Technical Control Center ...while a certified lab does not have one in good condition ... frankly: : Evil:

Well, I put the report for download: https://www.econologie.com/ecole-d-ingen ... -3807.html

I attack the reading ... the purely technical part starts on page 52.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 06/05/08, 20:47

Well I flew over the curves (not read in detail your analysis so if I'm wrong say it) and one thing worries me about what I advised you to do when we meet in early April ...

a) perform load tests and high torque compared to maximum power / torque... but we have never exceeded the 65% charge apparently.

The maximum torque of the XUD7 motor is: 110 Nm to 2000 rpm.

However, you did not exceed 80 Nm ... i.e. a load on the torque of 71%. All the "original" tests (phase 1 and phase 2) were carried out at 50 Nm, ie a load on the torque of 44% ...

I think it's not enough because according to all the experimenters (or almost) must force in the engine to see a real grain ...

b) perform dynamic load tests.

In fact your tests are exactly the same as those made on a tractor test bench: no dynamic test (measurement when the torque varies) was carried out. So without a "peak" of power / combustion temperature, the effect is reduced ... or even zero.

Maybe the bench is not capable ... but in this case a tractor bench does as well. Too bad ... I understood that dynamic tests would have been possible ...

Some questions in bulk:

c) Pkoi phase 1 and 2 have not been made to 70 and 80 Nm ???


d) Concerning the load curves: how do you explain the "saw teeth" of certain tests? As well as some changes of "bearings"? These are all the same changes in load not negligible ...

e) I have not (yet?) found the ... hourly water consumption?

Note: for the hypothesis of slagging, I think the engine did not run long enough with water to "get rid of" ...

Finally, only one series of tests is "significant" in my opinion: the test at 2500 tr and 50 Nm because it is the only one which can compare with the origin under the same load conditions although it is not not loaded enough but hey ...

And for this test between the 2 phase and the 5 phase (see table 76 page) you still have 5,7% reduction in consumption (to be corrected with margin of error)... which shows the importance of the amount of water injected and I am convinced that if the original test at 80 Nm had been done, it would have shown an even greater relative gain ...

So finally from this, your tests are very far from negative, only they are not pushed enough but it is known, time was running out.


So to conclude (temporarily) a big bravo for your rigor and perseverance, hoping that a project Echo Engine 3 is emerging despite your conclusions a little negative (but I am confident because in view of the interest of the Director of Mines for the project I think it will be done. ..).

ps: really bad for the analysis of pollution ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Water injection in the engines: the assembly and experimentation"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 148 guests