Re: Fuel Reformers for Home Power or Cars & Tractors

see typical decrease in carbon pollution using car exhaust analyzer about 75% through this video:

This is a test: Where did all the carbon in the hydrocarbon fuel go, if not out the exhaust pipe?

-- Ed Huntress

That is a very good question and I ask myself the same thing and yet I've seen videos of the gas analyzer test in progress and the tests show very low carbon.

A French scientist named Jean Chambrin and some person the in the USA named Paul Pantone both cliam their devices transmute matter which I was taught should not be possible yet I've seen so many people putting these in their cars in France and they say it is really working well for them and some are making videos to prove to others the unexplainably low carbon out.

Good question. Answer: for equal carbon input, what does not exit as gas, is trapped as solid. Sooting out is the classical way it went.

Brian W

Paul Pantone is a psychotic who has spent 16 of the last 19 months in a mental institution.

It's "unexplainably low" because it's impossible, unless the reactor is a new type of nuclear reactor. This is basic physics. Looking at the other newsgroups to which this is addressed, I'm sure that many of the people there could explain it in detail. But perhaps they've done that before, and they've given up trying to explain it.

In any case, one would have to re-invent some of the most fundamental laws of physics for any of this to be possible. As for people claiming that it's working well, very few people would have either the knowledge or the instrumentation to be able to measure the results in a meaningful way..

Carbon just doesn't disappear. It all comes out the tailpipe as one carbon compound or another.

-- Ed Huntress

The U.S. Patent Office may be part of the conspiracy:

Read the citations, too.

I love this kind of thing.

Mike

Brian,

That sounds like the most reasonable explanation.

But there are so many French farmers using these things and I have heard no reports they stop working after soot build up.

I will see if that is happening with mine after I get it going.

Naresh

Here are people doing a test showing low emissions:

But maybe their unit is getting lots of soot build up inside.

To be a good test they should have taken it apart for the camera so we could see inside how much if any soot there was.

Naresh

I think there are only four things that can happen to the carbon (from a hydrocarbon based fuel) in an internal combustion engine.

It comes out the exhaust as CO, CO2 or unburned hydrocarbons. Or it is relatively pure carbon (soot) which can build up or be carried out the exhaust.

a. Obviously in the unburned hydrocarbons, there is some remaining energy that can be recovered. b. Soot is the result of impartial burning, so there is more energy available (coal is almost 100% carbon). c. CO is flammable, more energy there too.

d. CO2 is not flammable, as a matter of fact it's used to put out fires. So this is the result of complete combustion.

I would like to see a comparison, before and after installation, measuring abc, (without a catylitic converter).

If the energy available in abc does not match the gain after installation, somebody's demonstrated "free energy". OR there's a hidden gas tank.

Anybody seen this anywhere?

Thank you for putting up with a first time poster. Dave

One thing I learned after visiting the "Mystery Lodge" at Knotts Berry Farm many years ago is this: If there's a pane of glass between you and reality, you really need to question what you're seeing.

In this case there are several panes of glass....

I seem to recall that exhaust gas analyzers don't necessarily pick up on soot real well

A company in the USA marketed a product called SLICK 50. Basically teflon powder mixed with oil, and claimed all sorts of efficiency gains. It was all BS and eventually the FTC made them recant, and fined them for BS'ing the uneducated and gullible public.

You know, if it seems too good to be true....

Sure. That's a possibility.

I'm not going to make any speculations about what's happening here, except one: Assuming that these people with their fancy analyzers are being honest (a big assumption), why is it they're not showing unburned hydrocarbons? Not only soot, but also all of the complex hydrocarbon crap that our cars spewed out before 1970 or so.

I don't recall the details on water injection, which has been used on aircraft and racecars for 50 years or more to prevent knock, but a little voice in my head tells me that the effect of water injection is to slow down combustion, which results in higher unburned hydrocarbon emissions. If you don't raise compression ratios to the degree that water injection (or methanol injection, or ethanol injection) is required, all you do by injecting water is to make the engine behave as if it's running too rich.

But I haven't read about that stuff for 30 years, so don't quote me.

-- Ed Huntress

I use their products all the time. The Slick 50 oil additive works fine when mixed with pneumatic collet closer lubricator oil. Doubles (or more) the lifespan of the 5210 bearings I used to carry a couple sets in my truck.

Gunner

I recall reading about aircraft in the 1930's that used it...

Water injection is a way to increase the density of the air that's going into a piston engine. Higher density in a fixed volume yields more mass in the combustion chamber, which results in higher BMEP which is more efficient. The water also partially counteracts the heat of compression by vaporizing which lowers the inlet temperature, which is also more efficient. Most important from a practical POV: Because the charge temp is lower, peak combustion temp is lower, so it allows the use of lower octane fuel for a given compression ratio.

IIRC, combustion speed has little to do with formation of unburned HC or NOX (unless you're thinking of knocking, or pre-detonation). Unburned HC and NOX are primarily functions of combustion temperature. Higher temp reduces unburned HC Lower temp reduces NOX

In a fully compensated fuel injection system that's true. The system only sees higher mass flow and does not know it's partly water, so it injects the full amount of fuel required for that mass flow, and there's not enough free oxygen to fully combust all the fuel.

Hmmmm...yes: Spitfires were water injected. And yes, moist air is LESS dense than dry air.

So if you want higher density air, it needs to be air with water droplets. But if you want lower density air, it needs to be high humidity air.....

Brian Whatcott Altus OK