Pollution measurements of a pantone engine

Pollution surveys carried out during the Pantone Engine Graduation Project on a SAGEM OPTIMA 5040 approved device. The full pantone engine study report can be downloaded here

pantone mounting

Preliminary remarks

1) As you can see, these readings were carried out in an Automotive Technical Control center. This reflects the material difficulties encountered during this project: I indeed had to move (with my own means) the test bench to perform these measurements (during a weekend). Despite what one might think, an engineering school is not necessarily well equipped!

2) These measures are not those used in the report. Indeed, a few weeks later, we succeeded in obtaining a 4 gas analyzer at ENSAIS. This explains the differences in numbers that you may have noticed. On these readings, power could not be accurately measured. I simply had a variable electric resistive load from 0 to 1500 W as well as a frequency meter to measure the speed of rotation. The denomination "Full power" therefore corresponds to 1500 W and not 4000 (nominal power of the group).

3) These measures date from June 2001… more than 3 years have passed and strictly no serious R&D proposal has been proposed to me! When I contacted ADEME I received no constructive response! An engineer from Renault's office was simply contemptuous of the system and myself bordering on insults.

4) For each statement, I would make brief comments, yours are welcome in the reactions below. For more details you will need read the ENSAIS report on the Pantone engine

5) The size of each file is large enough (200 KB) to maintain maximum readability. We apologize to the low speed connections ...

6) It is regrettable not to have the depollution figures in the 100% original configuration. This could not be done for material reasons.

Read also:  FAQ engine pantone, presentation

7) These records are therefore more qualitative than quantitative. In general, mass analyzes reduced to the energy produced would be much more interesting .... But this requires much greater industrial resources than I had (and do not have) ...

8) From a purely scientific point of view, it is essential to keep in mind the following 3 points when reading these statements:

a) A large part of the pollution control probably comes from the almost perfect gasification of the mixture. Just before combustion, we are no longer in the presence of a fog but of a gas. However, rodless tests tend to prove that something else is happening: the rod promotes heating of the gases and therefore contributes to better gasification.

b) The “bubbler” solution used at the time is not the most judicious because it is only the most volatile parts of the gasoline which evaporate and therefore burn. Who says more volatile parts necessarily means better combustion and pollution control. In addition, gasoline is thus depleted (until its PCI is reduced by 2).

c) Depending on the internal technology of the analyzer it is possible (but not certain) that the displayed results are falsified by:
- the fact that we no longer burn gasoline but its vapors
- the presence of excess water vapor in the exhaust gases.
I think the latter remark applies particularly to the carbon footprint.

Despite these 3 points, the results are still quite extraordinary, particularly in terms of the effect of water on pollution control (we arrive at 000 ppm) and the exhaust gases are cleaner than the air in the garage on this pollutant.

Pollution readings from a pantone engine

For each measurement, a scan of the reading of the pollution control device was made, they all appear in this form:

I) Pollution operation with the original carburetor only and engine as an exhaust (refer to the complete study for more details)

Idle speed. Statement 1.

Idle speed. Statement 2.

Figures in slow motion: CO = 4,5% CO2 = 1.7%, ppm HC = 7000, O2 = 13%.

Medium Plan.

The figures at mid-speed: CO = 5.04% CO2 = 1.9%, ppm HC = 8200, O2 = 13.7%.

Full power. Statement 1.

Full power. Statement 2.

Figures at full power: CO = 6.4% CO2 = 3.6%, ppm HC = 3850, O2 = 11.4%.

Our analysis: this reflects very poor combustion (even for a small "non-polluted" gasoline engine compared to automobile engines). This is undoubtedly due to the “pot-reactor” which is no longer “tuned” to the engine and slight modifications to the intake. In addition, the fully original muffler is located at the end of the exhaust chain. Exhaust suppression is therefore certain. Modifying the exhaust system therefore does not promote combustion!

Read also:  My discovery of the Pantone motor

II) "Pantone" operation pollution in various configurations (refer to the complete study for more details)

Idle speed. Injection of gasoline vapors via the reactor without adding water.

Figures in slow motion: CO = 0.7% CO2 = 4.6%, ppm HC = 88, O2 = 13.6%.

Full load. Injection of gasoline vapors via the reactor with addition of water.

Figures at full load: CO = 0.03% CO2 = 6.4%, ppm HC = 95, O2 = 11.9%.

Load at 1000W optimum settings. Fuel injection via the reactor without adding water.

The digits to 1000 W: CO = 0.06% CO2 = 6.2%, ppm HC = 000, O2 = 12.2%.

Comparative test with or without water injection: Water valve closed. Constant charge on gasoline bubbler.

Figures for closed water valve: CO = 0.80% CO2 = 6.9%, ppm HC = 033, O2 = 10.5%.

Comparative test with or without water injection: Water valve open

Figures valve open water: CO = 0.01% CO2 = 6.2%, ppm HC = 000, O2 = 12.1%.

III) Other measured configurations

Diesel in bubbler. Idle speed. Configuration: Gasoline replaced by Gasoil in the bubbler. No water injection.

The slowed down Diesel figures: CO = 0.15% CO2 = 3.3%, ppm HC = 2500, O2 = 15.9%.

Diesel in bubbler. Stabilized regime 500W. Gasoline replaced by Diesel in the bubbler. The engine runs on Diesel fumes, no water injection. Maximum “possible” load (i.e. quite low, around 500 W)

The figures Diesel "max" 500W load: CO = 0.45% CO2 = 7.0%, ppm HC = 1600, O2 = 7.2%.

Rodless test. Slow motion. Rod removed from reactor. Idle speed. Minimum attainable pollution.

Figures without stem. Slow motion. : CO = 0.2% CO2 = 3.5%, ppm HC = 3100, O2 = 16.3%.

Rodless test. Gasoline alone. No water injection. Rod removed from the reactor. Max load 1500 W. Minimal pollution achievable without water injection.

Rodless figures charge 1500 W without water injection: CO = 4.2%, CO2 = 7.6%, ppm HC = 350, O2 = 6.2%.

Rodless test. Gasoline and water. Rod removed from the reactor. Max load 1500 W. Minimal pollution achievable with water injection.

Rodless figures charge 1500 W with water injection: CO = 7.4%, CO2 = 6.1%, ppm HC = 260, O2 = 5.6%.

IV) Other measures: engine stopped and air from the garage

Measurement in muffler. Engine stopped after carburetor test

The figures "in pot": CO = 0.01%, CO2 = 0.00%, ppm HC = 1720, O2 = 20.6%.

Ambient air measurement in the technical control garage. Measurement carried out 3 m from the test bench. The air is more polluted in ppm HC than the exhaust gases in the best configuration !!

Ambient air in the garage: CO = 0.00%, CO2 = 0.00%, ppm HC = 39, O2 = 20.9%.

The ambient air of the CT garage is more "polluted" than the exhaust of the pantone engine during the best results… This result in itself is remarkable!

Leave comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *