Scientific and theoretical summary of the Pantone system

[Flytox]

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.

You should read this post (just a little long .... ) after, chances are you will be a little less assertive.

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 warmer it is, the better) ...

It is more complicated than that, no one has demonstrated with its consumption, that the hotter the steam the less it consumes. Rather, there is a temperature range in which it works. Below a minimum (70 ° C?) It drowns the reactor, above (170 ° C?) It brings nothing more.

The possible dissociation of water in the engine does not require so much energy since the steam is already preheated at the exhaust.

Your vapor and water droplet mixture represents a very small volume compared to the intake air with which it mixes and cools. Should assess how much energy is actually provided, it still seems that we are quite far from heating to 2000 ° C in the combustion chamber ....

[Pascalou]

You see Flytox, I see your bad faith again. We can see that you are trying to discredit me, but you discredit yourself again. Because you are not inquiring seriously:

Your table on pollution is AFTER the catalytic converter! Of course we have a strong depollution thanks to him, it is not his role? But these unburnt are "burned" in the catalyst without giving "work", that is to say that we heat the little birds!
I'm talking about what is really consumed in the engine!
And there the combustion efficiency is about 92%, or 8% of unburned engine! Which is already very good for liquid fuel! And here we are talking about a recent engine, older engines have combustion efficiency of 70 to 85% (two-stroke engines for example, are a disaster on this point!)

source: http://eric.cabrol.free.fr/Moteur/pollution.html

So yes, I can support my argument: If we only have 8% of unburnt and the micro-explosion is primarily used to reduce these unburnt, then it is only very useful in terms of depollution, on consumption , it is very little useful. Because if we manage to burn these 8% in the engine (which in practice is impossible in full) We will gain with an engine efficiency of 25% 0.25 * 8 = 2% on consumption. So there is something else!

After your criticism of the steam is completely justifiable, we are trying to understand, I have said nothing on this point, we have the right to speculate.

Regarding the HHO generator, Q'a tu a dire Flytox, I did not understand your criticism there.

My 2000 ° C are not taken at random, I also have many different sources there which confirm it. But I will still re-read my sources and ask a pro, so it will be an indisputable fact. Let's be clear, this temperature is the maximum temperature reached during TDC or just after during combustion.

The superheated steam is comparable to a gas, it cools very difficult since it is very non-conductive of energy. So no, the superheated steam that leaves the reactor does not have time to cool (or very little) compared to the amount of energy it contains, even if the air is very cold, yes that I can l 'to affirm!
But there the interested parties must learn the physical properties of superheated steam which is very different from wet steam.
If you want to know more, do your research!

[sam17]

Just a micro parenthesis in the debate to bring a video which highlights well as the mixtures in gaseous medium are not done so easily that ca:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d49TzVF1 ... JYKIO1FoYw

at one point we see the bubble burst well before the flame and we realize that the gas has mixed very little with the ambient air.

All this to say that it is not so absurd to imagine that the mixture of fresh air / steam is not homogeneous at all.

[Pascalou]

Thank you for your remark Sam!

For 2000 ° C, I wanted to specify that it is the normal temperature of combustion (without the Gillier system!) On gasoline of rather recent engines ("high" compression) at the time of TDC at the explosion, it is a certainty, now I am open to questioning this temperature if you have any links, reliable data that proves me otherwise. The lessons of my mechanic friend are very informative, I sent you my details, but the main ones are in German ...

Note: with the Gillier system, this temperature could be even higher, so the theory of water dissociation is quite possible.

[dede2002]

...
Your painting on pollution is AFTER the catalytic converter! Of course we have a strong depollution thanks to him, it is not his role? But these unburnt are "burned" in the cathalizer without giving "work", that is to say that we heat the little birds! ...

Hello,

The table is before catalyst, after the catalyst we are often close to 0% CO and 0 ppm HC, with more than 15% CO2.
(maximum 0.3 to 0.5% and 50 or 100 ppm)
Of course when the engine is hot and the catalyst at 300 °
The catalyst therefore burns about 2% of the fuel, if we recover these 2% it is 2% more efficiency, it seems to me?

A+

ps: to illustrate, a ticket from a peugeot 205 from 1992.

[Flytox]

You see Flytox, I see your bad faith again. We can see that you are trying to discredit me, but you discredit yourself again. Because you are not inquiring seriously:

Your painting on pollution is AFTER the cathalyser!

The table exposed and the link of which I unfortunately does not mark clearly where the measurement is made. On the other hand the document that you give specifies it well, thank you. :

About 92% of the fuel is oxidized "normally" during combustion. Of the remaining 8%, half is oxidized after absorption / desorption. Half of the remaining 4% is oxidized in the exhaust pipes, and 2% of the fuel between so in the catalytic converter. The efficiency of the latter being of the order of 95%, it can be said that about 0.1% of the hydrocarbons leave the engine unburned.

For the composition of the exhaust gases, it is therefore indeed 2% of unburnt particles which enter the catalyst and not 8%. But like you you are always in good faith, that you are not looking for never to discredit others and the forum, nor to do the Calimero and that you read we can't seriously documents that invalidate what you claim ...

So yes, I can support my argument: If we only have 8% of unburnt and the micro-explosion is primarily used to reduce these unburnt, then it is only very useful in terms of depollution, on consumption , it is very little useful. Because if we manage to burn these 8% in the engine (which in practice is impossible in full) We will gain with an engine efficiency of 25% 0.25 * 8 = 2% on consumption. So there is something else!

So your argument must be taken up.

After your criticism of the steam is completely justifiable, we are trying to understand, I have said nothing on this point, we have the right to speculate.

Absolutely, but there would be some complex calculations / simulation to do from measurement / instrumentation ..... we are not out yet.

Regarding the HHO generator, Q'a tu a dire Flytox, I did not understand your criticism there.

The "conclusion" of this post "Improved electrolysis" is that it seriously lacks reliable consumption measurements, and if there is a gain, it is far from being enormous. (limit of the measurable at least for an individual?)

My 2000 ° C are not taken at random, I also have many different sources there which confirm it. But I will still re-read my sources and ask a pro, so it will be an indisputable fact. Let's be clear, this temperature is the maximum temperature reached during TDC or just after during combustion.

For "2000 ° C", the doc was not found, but the reaction would start around (950 ° C?) With a very low percentage of conversion.

The superheated steam is comparable to a gas, it cools very difficult since it is very non-conductive of energy. So no, the superheated steam that leaves the reactor does not have time to cool (or very little) compared to the amount of energy it contains, even if the air is very cold, yes that I can l 'to affirm!

Hypothesis: most of the energy that would be able to arrive in the TDC area would be transported through micro droplets of water and not steam as a gas.

[dede2002]

Small correction:

The 2% are toxic gases, not (that) unburnt.

It is only the HC who are truly unburned.

The best engines before the catalyst era produced less than 2% toxicants (0.5% CO), not sure a "decatalyzed" catalyst engine would do the same.

Hence the importance of taking measurements with and without catalytic converter, and with and without pantone. And to be able to do "better than the catalyst", or at least be sure not to produce CO at idle speed.

Otherwise you will have to keep the catalyst!

In any case, this is not where the mystery of an announced yield increase of around 20% lies.

.

[Pascalou]

Sorry Flytox, 2% fits well in the catamaran. the rest of the 8% is burned before the catamaran, but not for the useful energy of the engine. It is therefore 8% of unburnt or 92% of combustion efficiency.

Revenon has what we know:

Anyway, as the dedicated says, 20% savings can in no case come from these unburnt, that's for sure and definitive.

We are certain that the well-regulated invention cleans up a lot, this is definitive and proven (it is on old vehicles that it shows the most so without Cata, which is more representative) But this depollution will gain a gain derisory on consumption.
So there is something else!

I think that at the reactor outlet there is a lot more superheated steam than droplets (ie wet steam). This is supported by temperatures above 100 in most cases. (extra steam 100 = superheated steam)

However, the energy recycled with this water is not significant, around 1Kw for 1L / h heated from 20 to 400 ° C. So on the Gillier du moin, no miracle on this point, no gain in terms of consumption. possible by this point.

It is certainly in the engine the reaction that we seek.


I wrote to my aunt chemist associate, she can surely tell us more.
But it is often put forward that the water begins to dissociate around 800 ° C, data asserts that this disociation is total around 2500 ° C. However, I have not found any data regarding the pressure. Because here we have a high temperature + high pressure (from 40 bar on petrol to 120/200 bar on diesel) What is the reaction of water under these conditions? Isn't this pressure an added value to dissociate water? (Even if it is on a very instant court.)
If this water is very superheated (T after reactor) then we will need little energy for this dissociation since we first take the energy from the exhaust (free) I have to do a calculation there!

flyfox you say that after a certain vapor temperature, we have more gain? it contradicts my resonance. If what you say is true, then the reactor has a prior and essential reaction to the functioning of the system, it is not a simple heat exchanger.
Well I’m still digging my head and stop writing too much, see you soon!

[dede2002]

Sorry Flytox, 2% fits well in the catamaran. the rest of the 8% is burned before the catamaran, but not for the useful energy of the engine. It is therefore 8% of unburnt or 92% of combustion efficiency.

Revenon has what we know:

...

Re,

I do not understand what are these 8% that you quote?

Amha is 98% or 99% of the whole that is burned before a disaster, of which about 20% is rendered in mechanical energy and "rest of the 78% is burned before the disaster, but not for the useful energy of the engine. ".

[dede2002]

I looked for energy values ​​on the dissociation of water, not easy to find ...

In this document there is quite a bit of information, in particular concerning the flame and detonation speed of hydrogen, not very resistant to detonation but capable of igniting in a wide range of mixtures.

http://www.afh2.org/uploads/memento/Fic ... 202011.pdf

I made a table to try to clear the bush (in my head).

Unless I'm mistaken, I find an equivalent pci of 5 kWh / kg for water ...

I also note that the volume ratios between the air gasoline mixture and the HHO are reversed, a lot of oxidizing volume against a lot of combustible volume.

And a big difference in density, which makes me think that hydrogen will accelerate much faster than oxygen, the heavier gasoline goes behind with the oxygen ...?
(In analogy with the carburetor where the mixture changes according to the air speed and requires corrections)

These are rough calculations, in which you will have to include temperatures and pressure, neither am I a specialist in thermodynamics ...