Scientific and theoretical summary of the Pantone system

[Pascalou]

Hi Dede, Before asking questions and giving approximate calculations, read my document seriously (especially paragraph 2 which will answer many of your questions.)
I too thought of dissociating the water with the energy of the exhaust, unfortunately, the temperature reached in the exhaust is not enough. But it can be preheated so that it dissociates better in the engine during combustion which arrives at sufficient temperature. If you read my doc correctly, all of this is very well developed! Of course you have to be frankly interested, otherwise we go in circles!

[dede2002]

Your text is long, I read it again

You indicate 2000 ° for the dissociation of water (at this temperature there is also a risk of oxidizing nitrogen), but I did not find an energy value.
If it is not that the energy necessary to dissociate the water is necessarily higher than that which the hydrogen can restore.

I don't really agree with the faster flame front theory, the maximum torque comes when the connecting rod is square to the crankshaft, about 1/3 of the stroke, too much pressure at pmh is useless and harmful, see damage due to rattling.
normal flame front speed: 20 m / s
detonation flame front speed (rattling) 1000 m / s
Good agreement between the two there is margin.

I rather think it can improve combustion by allowing each molecule of hydrocarbon to meet a molecule of oxygen.

A+

[Pascalou]

Yes, I know very well that dissociation remains a questionable theory.
A yes, dissociation of water uses more energy than its combustion? Give me sources, because my sources say that the energy of dissociation of water is exactly the same as the energy returned by the combustion of this released hydrogen and oxygen.

My 2000 degrees are not taken at random, there I found many serious sources on the internet.

Your comments are very interesting, if they are true, then I would say that they frankly apuit the theory of a faster combustion speed, as you say between 20 and 1000, there is room! In addition I think that this pressure is more homogeneous, progressive and longer ... The I am soon in discussion with German specialists in thermodynamics.
But you are certainly right on the PMH, it is a mistake on my part, or a bad expression of my text, I must correct it. Thermodinamic is not my specialty ...
Hello!

[Flytox]

There is something I did not understand well: if we send a drop of water in the combustion, it will pass into vapor, its volume will therefore increase the pressure too, but it will absorb heat, therefore decrease the pressure at all. Balance sheet??

That's the whole problem. What proportion of the water drops evaporates during compression / combustion / expansion or compared to TDC?
Depending on where the micro-explosion of the water drops occurs, the balance must change both for temperature pressures and for energy transfer.

[Pascalou]

The micro explosion is interesting, but we are working here at a pressure of 7 to 40 bar (up to 200 bar on diesel!), We must make a difference with a boiler and a heat engine.
Do you think Flytox that the micro explosion is the only explanation of the gillier system? For the depolution, it is possible and a good theory, but for the fuel savings, I do not think so.
Look at an LPG engine already burning a little faster, much cleaner, and hotter. However the result is not better on consumption. (even if the petrol engine would be set for LPG alone!) so there is at least one other thing besides a possible micro-explosion.

an interesting link on combustion in a petrol engine:
http://ilcubopiccolo126.free.fr/cours/E ... nceIO3.htm

[Flytox]

The micro explosion is interesting, but we are working here at a pressure of 7 to 40 bar (up to 200 bar on diesel!), We must make a difference with a boiler and a heat engine.

The pressure does not exclude the phenomenon but delays it compared to the engine cycle. The assumption that the micro-explosion comes into play is entirely plausible.

Do you think Flytox that the micro explosion is the only explanation of the gillier system? For the depolution, it is possible and a good theory, but for the fuel savings, I do not think so.

Certainly not the only interesting element. It remains to be seen what its contributory part is in improving the final yield. The microexplosion improves the fractionation of the fuel drops, therefore their contact with the oxygen / homogeneity of the mixture, decreases the unburnt and increases the speed of combustion.

Look at an LPG engine already burning a little faster, much cleaner, and hotter. However the result is not better on consumption. (even if the petrol engine would be set for LPG alone!) so there is at least one other thing besides a possible micro-explosion.

Chai not to what extent we can compare, in any case, the calorific value of a certain number of gases is lower.

http://www.acqualys.fr/page/tableau-com ... s-energies

[Pascalou]

Yes, we can make an energy comparison using PCI:
Here is the gasoline car that works best on LPG:
http://nivaventure.forumactif.com/t2287 ... le-17l-gpl
we find the conso. average :
11.5 to 13.5 l / 100 of LPG
9 to 11 l / 100 of petrol
we take the pci of the LPG and gasoline:
42,5 Mj / kg for gasoline with 750 kg / m3
46 Mj / kg for lpg with 543 kg / m3
But to put it simply, this sentence found on wiki: (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_carburant )
A liter of LPG has an energy value of 22,5% less than that contained in a liter of gasoline and a liter of gasoline has an energy value of 29% more than that contained in a liter of LPG.
So if you compare the consumption. , you see that we fall about the same thing, no gain in consumption. While the gas burns very well and very cleanly compared to gasoline.
Recent petrol cars have about 8% unburnt in the engine (this 8% is burnt in the catalytic converter) which is good! Even if we manage to burn all these 8% in the engine thanks to a micro-explosion for example, we will gain only 0,2 * 8 = 1,8% of gains!
So you see, the micro explosion is good, but it can at best remove pollution, not save consumption therm. (or very little). This micro-explosion is very interesting for heavy fuel oil that is difficult to burn or any other so-called "heavy" fuel, but for our gasolines and diesel, it is not so interesting.

[dede2002]

Yes, I know very well that dissociation remains a questionable theory.
A yes, dissociation of water uses more energy than its combustion? Give me sources, because my sources say that the energy of dissociation of water is exactly the same as the energy returned by the combustion of this released hydrogen and oxygen.

...
Hello!

Hello,

No sources ... I think of possible losses, in any case we agree it will not be able to return more.

With HHO systems, water is well dissociated, with poor efficiency but without high temperature.
In the reactor there is the mystery of the magnetized rod, of speed and heat combined.

If the dissociation is done in the combustion chamber, it will absorb a lot of energy, less maximum pressure at that time (pmh?).
The combustion of hydrogen will inevitably take place afterwards, perhaps at a better time during the piston stroke?
Maybe also that the oxygen released can combine with gasoline, and the hydrogen with oxygen in the air?

I hope I don't bother you with all these questions, the engines I fell into when I was little, and there I would like to understand ...

A+

[Pascalou]

No no, you do not annoy me at all with your questions, I also seek to understand the above operation of this wonder. And I am very happy to share this interest!

The comparison of our system with the HHO generator is very interesting: I noticed that the effects of G. HHO are in fact the same as the Gillier Pantone, thus which strongly supports a presence of hydrogen / oxygen released also by our system. In addition we have very little energy involved for the electrolysis (this electrical energy is low compared to the very superior beneficial effects, you speak of low efficiency but I find that for the derisory electrical energy invested, we have a very good "yield"). Of course the electrolysis has a negative performance, yet the results are present, that means that this hydrogen, even in small quantities, has a very beneficial effect on the engine / combustion.

The possible dissociation of water in the engine does not require so much energy since the steam is already preheated at the exhaust. (and in this case the hotter it is, the better). In addition, all the energy taken for the dissociation is completely restored during combustion, so no "loss". When it happens and how quickly, that's another story.

If dissociation there is, then a lot of possibilities at the chemical level: instantaneous explosion, reaction with the fuel which will be hydrogenated / oxygenated, there it is necessary a chemist, I wrote to my aunt who is aggregated of chemistry, we will see what what it will say about our system.

[Flytox]

Recent petrol cars have of the unburned in the engine of approximately 8%, (these 8% are burned in the catalytic converter) which is good! Even if we manage to burn all these 8% in the engine thanks to a micro-explosion for example, we will gain only 0,2 * 8 = 1,8% of gains!
So you see, the micro explosion is good, but it can at best remove pollution, not save in thermal consumption. (or very little).

The unburnt on a gasoline engine is clearly <2%:

http://sd-2.archive-host.com/membres/up ... p230_f.pdf

This micro-explosion is very interesting for heavy fuel oil which is difficult to burn or any other so-called "heavy" fuel, but for our gasoline and diesel, it is not so interesting.

Can you back it up?