Pollution (in CO2) of the pantone engine

Water injection in thermal engines and the famous "pantone engine". General informations. Press clippings and videos. Understanding and scientific explanations on the injection of water into engines: ideas for assemblies, studies, physico-chemical analyzes.
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59

Pollution (in CO2) of the pantone engine




by Big Tipper » 02/06/07, 12:29

Hi folks, I just signed up!

I see that you mainly focus on the consumption of these engines (important for the pecuniary aspect), but what matters for the environment is pollution!

From what I read from the principle of this engine, it is able to work with just about any hydrocarbon and uses water as a catalyst.

It seems established that one can obtain an equivalent power by consuming less. But what about CO2 emissions?
In my opinion they are equivalent to those of a conventional engine, for the same resulting power.
To draw the power from an equivalent quantity of fuel, it is necessary to break an equivalent number of chemical reactions. Energy does not fall from the sky!
I think that in a conventional engine, the combustion of the hydrocarbon is partial, but in a pantone one reinjects the emissions in the combustion chamber to finish the combustion of the carbon chain well.
Result: to make better use of the hydrocarbon molecule by breaking all of its bonds and extracting the most energy from it.
The problem is that by breaking these CC bonds, instead of creating CO2 molecules. So in the end we pollute as much by consuming less. And that's where it becomes worrying: we will be able to pollute more with the same amount of oil ...
It is as if we had just discovered new oil deposits ...

Automobile manufacturers have no interest in developing such a system, because it would not lower their CO2 emissions, and neither would tankers lower world consumption. So the pantone seems to be a kind of chimera of ecology. It is only good for the consumer's wallet.

Tell me if I'm wrong, you have emission data in grams of CO2 / 100 km as for conventional vehicles?
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: CO2 pollution from the pantone engine




by Flytox » 02/06/07, 13:09

Hello Big Benne, Welcome

Your reasoning must have a fault somewhere?

If an engine uses less fuel, for the same use.

It used less carbon (which comes from the fuel).

As much energy as carbon falls from the sky, the engine therefore produces less CO2.

It is more ecological.

A+
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 02/06/07, 13:37

Precisely I believe that in a normal engine, the engine ejects partially burned carbon chains, while the Pantone burns them to the end.
In fact the pantone replaces these carbon chains with CO2, is it an ecological gain? I doubt. It won't get us out of the oil age until later, having extracted even more CO2 from our oil fields.

What I wanted to say is that everyone focuses on consumption, but in reality we should be interested in emissions, that's what matters!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 02/06/07, 13:58

Uh a few updates ...

Big Benne wrote:Precisely I believe that in a normal engine, the engine ejects partially burned carbon chains, while the Pantone burns them to the end.


Normal engine = old engine you mean? A catalyzed engine releases very little carbon other than in the CO2 form (well when the catamaran is operational but it is another ca debate ...)

A non-"cleaned" engine will give carbon in the form of particles or CO which, under the action of solar UV, will either give rise to ozone or will eventually oxidize into CO2 ... the particles themselves, will settle (+ or - far from the source according to their size and the winds).

In the end if we neglect the particles, it CHANGES NOTHING ...

Finally, it should be noted that CO2 is not considered a pollutant by car manufacturers, the more there are, the more the engineers rejoice because, for them, this means a more "perfect" combustion ...

Big Benne wrote:In fact the pantone replaces these carbon chains with CO2, is it an ecological gain? I doubt. It won't get us out of the oil age until later, having extracted even more CO2 from our oil fields.


No, no and no ... there will be no more CO2 than what the fuel contains !! (except on particles ... but their "weight" is negligible compared to CO2).

I quickly advise you to read this page:
https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html

Doping with water makes it possible to consume less by doing the same mechanical work, there is therefore a gain in CO2 relative to the work directly proportional to the reduction in consumption. BAR POINT.

Big Benne wrote:What I wanted to say is that everyone focuses on consumption, but in reality we should be interested in emissions, that's what matters!


As CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption, it is ultimately the same thing ...
0 x
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 02/06/07, 14:22

Indeed I forgot these catalysts which transform particles into CO2 ...

In my head rejecting particles is less serious for the greenhouse effect than CO2 (although that remains to be proven), but good as the catalyst transforms everything into CO2 anyway ...

What interests me is the emission in g of C02 / 100 km from a car with and without a Pantone engine. Nobody has that?
0 x
ThierrySan
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 406
Registration: 08/01/07, 11:43
Location: South West




by ThierrySan » 02/06/07, 14:36

Big Benne wrote:
From what I read from the principle of this engine, it is able to work with just about any hydrocarbon and uses water as a catalyst.


The water in the Pantone assembly is not a catalyst! Water does not accelerate combustion and does not make it more efficient ... Finally, as far as we know!
Water is a supplement to the hydrocarbon.

You can read Christophe's PFE report! And the information that is on the site and linked sites ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 02/06/07, 14:48

ThierrySan wrote:The water in the Pantone assembly is not a catalyst! Water does not accelerate combustion and does not make it more efficient ... Finally, as far as we know!
Water is a supplement to the hydrocarbon.


Uh ... ALL FALSE ...: Cheesy: That water promotes combustion is precisely what I explained in great detail to journalists(admitting that it is not transformed in the reactor)

ThierrySan wrote:You can read Christophe's PFE report! And the information that is on the site and linked sites ...


Well, most of them go in the direction of optimizing combustion ... : Shock:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 02/06/07, 14:51

Big Benne wrote:What interests me is the emission in g of C02 / 100 km from a car with and without a Pantone engine. Nobody has that?


If you had only looked at the link that I gave you above you will not ask this question:

I quickly advise you to read this page:
https://www.econologie.com/equation-de-c ... s-638.html


So I will not answer you ...
0 x
Big Tipper
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 02/06/07, 11:59




by Big Tipper » 02/06/07, 15:29

Christophe wrote:If you had only looked at the link that I gave you above you will not ask this question:


I looked at it (diagonally). This is theory in the case of perfect combustion, what interests me is the practical result. So the question still stands!


As CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption, it is ultimately the same thing ...


This is true in the case of perfect total combustion
Practice often brings its share of surprises!
0 x
Other
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 3787
Registration: 17/03/05, 02:35
x 12




by Other » 02/06/07, 15:46

Hello

It seems established that one can obtain an equivalent power by consuming less. But what about CO2 emissions?
In my opinion they are equivalent to those of a conventional engine, for the same resulting power.


We could hold a similar reasoning with the ERG valve

What the water does in the engine should be asked to the large automotive laboratory which keeps this in their box all these tests have been done, both at GM and at Renault
I don't think we will find that on the forum , although there are good guys, but they don't have a lab in their garage

Currently the automobile is improving, but pollution control is done at the cost of consumption (tries to remove the catalyst) and performs consumption tests, same for the ERG valve in certain vehicles.
Pollution and consumption are two things, but when we manage to join the two it is good.
for me to eliminate the pollution it starts at the beginning at the source not at the output. nobody has spoken on petrol engines that the spark plugs are as white as milk after 15 km than after 000 km, the oil is still clean and that you do not consume it with 10000 km engines

As far as the economy is concerned, this is directly linked to the improvement in yield. The warmer the exhaust outlet on an engine the more its efficiency is rotten. We know that a heat engine has more loss than efficiency.

To read above the reasoning it looks like that of a director of steelworks where I worked, the law on the environment decreed that the discharges polluted water, to the river must decrease by half Simple and brilliant solution of the businessmen , we reduce water consumption by half and the problem is solved ... Possibly in fact walking a party in a closed circuit (the great work of laboratories currently on the ERG valve) great solution! we make the shit go around in circles so that it is more concentrated.

Andre
0 x

Go back to "Water injection in heat engines: information and explanations"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 128 guests