Emission Controls - Technical Thread

[marshmat]

NOTE- this thread is for TECHNICAL discussion. Politics-like commentary on this issue should go to: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/emission-controls-politics-thread-27516.html

It is looking increasingly likely that stricter emission control standards, of the sort now applicable to cars, trucks and factories, may eventually be imposed on boat engines. Already, many classes of engines in many jurisdictions are subject to restrictions on what can come out in the exhaust.

It seems about time that we, the members of boatdesign.net, sit down and share what we know about how emission control systems work and what problems will have to be overcome if car-like controls become mandatory in boat engines.

This thread is for sharing answers and experience on questions like:
- What emission control systems are showing up on new mass-market (car/truck) engines?
- Which of these systems could be adapted to marine use, if required?
- What challenges will we encounter if we try to do so?

Since many of our members seem to thrive on politics, there's a political counterpart to this thread. Political debate- anything relating to "is this really necessary," "my government is doing this..." etc.- should go there: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/emission-controls-politics-thread-27516.html . Let's try to keep the discussion here to the technical issues that would be encountered if stricter emission controls were to become mandatory on boats.

[marshmat]

Among the talking points to get things started:

Exhaust gas recirculation. Reduce NOx by lowering combustion temperature. Already in use on many engines. Any possible improvements to the technology?

3-way catalytic converters. Reduce NOx, CO, unburned hydrocarbons. Downsides: High temperature operation required, near-stoichiometric combustion required for catalyst to function (thus needs computer-controlled fuel injection). Any way to make it work on a boat engine?

Diesel particulate filters. Mandatory on new truck engines in many places. Can they be adapted for boats, or are there better ways to handle particulate matter in a marine duty cycle?

Urea injection. Popular on new light diesel cars and trucks. Is it adaptable to marine diesels? What else would have to change to make it work?

[fasteddy106]

The egr & cat converters are more like janitors than emission control devices. The egr slows down (cooling) the burn in the combustion chamber by introducing enert exhaust gases into the mix, thus reducing NOX which is a function of temp, higher the combustion chamber temp the more NOX. As far as HC & CO are concerned, reductions there can be best achieved by going from carbs & obsolete fuel injection systems, to computer controlled systems as with your later model cars. This will of course raise engine costs and make maintenence so much more fun. Exhaust systems will have to be redesigned or adapted to accept O2 sensors, I don't see the current style O2 sensors working well when exposed to fresh or salt water. Ditto with cat converters. The platinum oxide would probably get a bit pissy when doused with salt water. So I think our best bet to achieve cleaner burning engines is on the intake side rather than the exhaust.

[mydauphin]

The quality of fuel get my vote.
Recently, in US there is a new diesel with almost no sulphur. It is super clean. It is transparent I can even see in sight glasses. Also biodiesel mix like 75/25 Biodiesel works really good and reduces emissions. Make the fuels cleaner... that is my vote. Although I am sure there are limits on it. Also I find boats overpowered for day to day use. Having boats with three motors, a smaller single motor for puttering and generation. It is crazy to have two 1000hp engines for idle speed.

[gonzo]

Emisson controls forced two stroke engine manufacturers to produce engines that don't dump oil on starting and don't smoke. In the US diesel fuel is of lesser qualitiy than Europe. This causes loss of performance. I am not sure id there are changes in the emissions with different fuels

[Ad Hoc]

Matt

well a basic starting point would be a quick review of the current legislation.

Marpol - annex VI
max NOX is 17g/kWh and 4.5% sulphur content of fuel

Marpol - annex VI (SECA), 6.0g/kWh max sulphur emissions, 17g/kWh max NOX and 1.5% sulphur content of fuel.

EC Directive 2005/33/EC (from july 2010) max sulphur content in fuel 0.1%.

[kistinie]

i love simple solutions

Solution 1
Dual fuel
Diesel particle are drastically lowered (close to 80%) when butane or propane or H² is added as a second fuel to the air used for the combustion of the oil. But this impose to manage a second fuel. This solution for LPG is now sold in USA and Australia. Having dual fuel is an average complexity device, but the bonus is that you will also get important torque and power increase. By example : http://www.dieselgas.com.au/emissions.htm
H² production from tap water, on the fly is certainly not as idiot as you could think as cold nuclear fusion and sonoluminescence understanding is doing giant steps. Nucleus strong forces appearer to be an ultra close casimir effect that hold the nucleus from the outside, surrounding fields putting pressure, rather than a "glue" effect like bonding. This was learned thanks to carbon electrode plasma water electrolyse i mentioned in http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/diesel-hydrogen-hybrid-trawler-27028-7.html post 105, running a 5 HP motor
Much more details can be found by example at the Louis de Broglie foundation.http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/ ordering their "Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 29, Hors série 3, 2004" it is in english :-), but this is not the only document, the net is full of very nice information about zero point energy. Potential vortex, scalar waves from Konstantin Meyl is clearly demonstrating that overunity is a realistic option. http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_Home&page=1&sublevel=0
Étienne Klein's books are another easier way to discover this world but i am not sure they are translated. The Louis de Broglie fondation and Etienne Klein from the CEA are not UFO or free energy dreamers :-)
It will be our responsibility to be careful, following these kind of works if you do not want to have a second "Mc Cornnnick water effect" as detailed later
And it will be difficult as if it was easy for the average joe to see his tractor was running better with water, quantum physics effects based new products are much more difficult to detect and understand, especially when hidden to the public.

Solution2
Water in fuel
A much easier solution than previous is water doping of the fuel.

Permanent water emulsion with additive added
Water is mixed to the fuel as an emulsion (aquazol diesel fuel by ELF but they are not the only one)

By example here are figures obtained with Elf aquazol diesel. Test are from adem, a state agency, that experimented several different diesel engines :

- NOx - 15 to - 30 %;
- Fumes and soot - 30 to - 80 %;
- particles - 10 to - 80 %.

Direct water-diesel emulsion without any additive
You can also do direct emulsion of diesel fuel with water only by fast (7500 Rpm) mechanical agitation without any additive.
The device is already an industrial concept for large diesel engines, that will lower pollution but to the cost of power lost. The system can be by passed when full power is needed.
Extract"This technology has been developed to produce an emulsified fuel of diesel + water, without the use of a surfactant. The technology will provide an emulsified diesel fuel to the engine’s injector pump, with a water content ranging from 0 to 40% that can be controlled as required by the operator. The emulsification of the fuel is created mechanically in a fuel-mixing chamber. The diesel fuel (including Marine diesel oil or Heavy fuel oil) is pumped to the fuel-mixing chamber from the fuel tank where water is added to the fuel through a probe controlled by a microprocessor with controlling software. Downstream of where the water is added to the fuel, application of a mechanical agitation technique results in the breakup of the water into small droplets that are dispersed throughout the diesel fuel, representing an emulsion. The fuel emulsion then leaves the fuel-mixing chamber and enters the injection pump where it is directed to the individual combustion chamber fuel injectors. "
More on
http://www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca/organization/mbdo/mbdo_emulsification_f.html

Solution 3
Water injection in inlet
The simple and efficient solution for simple de-pollution but... buried ...Why buried ?
In my opinion, the BIG PROBLEM is WATER.
Water CANNOT BE ASSOCIATED to ENERGY or propulsion for the public.
It is just like opening pandora's box of "free" matter. So any technical device using water is politicly incorrect. So no future whatever the effect and the results...except if you cannot see it is water. Renault is working on water injection and recycling it from the exhaust. In this case the system is blind too the user. Not seen , not caught = Acceptable

A solid proof of this statement ?
Renault patent : N° 05300443.8 - 01/06/2005
https://publications.european-patent-office.org/PublicationServer/getpdf.jsp?cc=EP&pn=1617069&ki=A1

You will note that the purpose of this invention is to limit pollution by water injection in inlet. the word "water" with the word "pollution reduction or nox reduction" is present more than 30 times...strange
You will also notice the family air with Gillier Pantone device. Paul Pantone being now in a psychiatric hospital.
You will also find another cousin link with Apex keeping systematicaly repeating to me " idiot, your mad, non sense" to any of my ideas that could help to change a little the existing order. And i am nothing compare to inventors like this.
It must be good way to steal the others ideas and protect big business. Looking at the results on Pantone's life, very smart and efficient, i must say.

Why am i so upset about this water injection ? Maybe the discovery of the anti pollution effect of water is new, we need to give time to time ...
Really ?
Water injection is 100 years old.
An example from USA ?
Does the McCormick-Deering 15\30 model 1929 tells you something ? Crisis year, yes but not only.
This tractor is water injected, and it was working great. More than this, it was a low compression very efficient diesel starting with light fuel and then once hot running on kerosene.
In 1929 we already knew how to make very high efficiency diesel, very low on pollution with water and dual fuel...in 2009 No, 2010 may be !
In 1942 this tractor (50.000 ex produced) was loved in occupied Europe because it was much more economical than the others said to me a neighbour that is 91 years old
So how can i accept to see this is not compulsory to any ICE 80 years later ?
Sorry i cannot find this acceptable...unless you give proof it doesn't work and Renault is wrong with this patent.
Till this moment, or if you feel like doing the test, here in France a Gillier-Pantone product is already available now here http://fr.ecopra.com/index.php?/Kit-Ecopra
I suggest you have a close look to the simplicity of this ECOPRA kit using no electricity, and to the pollution and fuel gain results...

You will probably hate me for this but i cannot prevent me from asking this question : How such skilled specialists of ICE engines like a lot of you are, can ignore or accept this swindle ?

Now hopping this is the past, we need to go head and forgive the mistake, innocent or more likely fraudulent, so , do you think such a close circuit could be adapted to a boat or isn't it easier to get water from, rain, desalt or air conditioning without recycling ?


Other aspects:

Good bonus side effect of less particles and soot:
Above the ecological aspect would help reliability of new diesel, full of captors that get dirty and fail when the diesel is not loaded correctly. And diesel are often not loaded correctly because high price of fuel tend to make full throttle use very rare, CPP absent and users not skilled.
Now this could be even more simple as with water injection and lpg injection, you do not need that much captors, so the problem of the water cooled exhaust cohabitation with captors and filters is reduced. But this is much too simple to be marketed ?

Possible problem
For old engine this is an easy upgrade, but i suspect that ideal timing could be affected as combustion speed may be modified.
This aspect can be be also a limiting factor underestimating the real potential gain possible.

Other problem
The main problem is the distribution of the LPG often absent of harbour, and long term stability (over 4 month) of aquazol (emulsion).
Aquazol presentation is now 10 years old since then ...only the molecule is available http://www.polychemistry.com/products_aquazol.php, but not the fuel


I know my statements upset a lot :mad: some of you mainly because I'm forcing open door like here about the pollution reduction effect of water , so please as it was said in the beginning, remain technical about your answer ;), or just ignore courageously these water statements, but remain gentlemen

Tag : pollution water Nox CO2 fuel saving Pantone Gillier JL NAUDIN reactor économie carburant eau moteur réacteur émulsion diesel diesel overunity hydrogen surunitaire hyydrogene butane propane GPL saving fuel zero point energy HHO

[Boston]

The quality of fuel get my vote.
Recently, in US there is a new diesel with almost no sulphur. It is super clean. It is transparent I can even see in sight glasses. Also biodiesel mix like 75/25 Biodiesel works really good and reduces emissions. Make the fuels cleaner... that is my vote. Although I am sure there are limits on it. Also I find boats overpowered for day to day use. Having boats with three motors, a smaller single motor for puttering and generation. It is crazy to have two 1000hp engines for idle speed.

the thing I find interesting is that the form of clean diesel your talking about is only going to be used by the small time pleasure boater
bunker #6 I think it is ends up being burned by the ton in massive engines designed to move cargo vessels. Its these huge cargo vessels unique to the present ( sorry to mention it ) world economy that are the huge issue when it comes to marine co2 emissions

thing is that residual fuels are not likely going to getting much cleaner ( its not economical )
maybe Jimbo will chime in with some info on that one
so if your going to have to clean up the emissions its going to end up being in the combustion faze or the exhaust faze and a wet exhaust isnt exactly conducive to that plan as Eddie pointed out.

should be an interesting read what solutions you gear heads might come up with

B


so

[marshmat]

Cleaning up the heavy bunker oils would be a good step, no doubt. The engines they power may be some of the most efficient in the world, but a great engine burning sulphur-laden fuel is still going to emit sulphur oxides and other pollutants. These may be easy to ignore in the open ocean, but in port towns with many ships, the resulting smog can be quite dense.

Of course, cleaning up heavy oil is more of a political issue than a technical one- we have the chemical processes and the equipment to do it, we just don't have anyone saying we have to spend the money to do so. Likewise, we have the technical knowledge to scrub particulates and sulphur compounds on the exhaust side- this is already mandatory for many land-based installations, but the equipment is not commonly fitted to ships. I'm not aware of any technical reason why it couldn't be; it's more a question of cost and regulatory requirements.

On the small-boat front, recent improvements in the quality of fuel in Europe, the US and Canada are expected to lead to a new generation of computer controlled car and truck diesels. (There are, of course, still many countries that sell murky sulphurous mystery liquid as diesel fuel.) Heavy trucks are now fitting regenerative particulate filters to their exhausts- definitely not an option for a water-cooled marine exhaust, but virtually a drop-in installation for a dry stack. These do increase fuel consumption very slightly- an extra litre every few thousand kilometres, I've been told, to power the regeneration cycle- but they are proving effective at controlling particulate release under heavy load. Of course, a boat engine isn't subject to transient overloading like a truck is, and we might be better off to reduce our particulate emissions through better propeller selection and engine maintenance to prevent overloading in the first place.

Some of the lighter, more powerful and higher-revving car diesels are now adding urea injection to the exhaust to decompose nitrogen oxides. This may be a viable technology for the more high-strung marine diesels as well- except that someone has to refill the urea tank. Mercedes gets away with it because they promised the regulators that their own dealers would top off the tank at every scheduled maintenance check. The EU regulators refused to trust the end user to do so.

On the spark-ignition side, probably the most significant automotive emission-control technology that hasn't found its way to the marine side is the 3-way catalytic converter. The main problems here seem to be temperature and combustion control. The 3-way catalyst needs to be hot- really hot- and the gas stream going into it must be within a few percent of perfectly stoichiometric combustion exhaust. Any excess oxygen and the thing can't handle the NOx, but if the engine's burning even a little rich, the catalyst gets overwhelmed and can't handle the CO and unburned hydrocarbons. In cars, this requirement has pretty much necessitated computer-controlled fuel injection, with oxygen sensors to monitor the exhaust composition. There are still a lot of marine engines with carbs, or with very basic EFI systems. And, again, there's the temperature issue- any water injection would have to be downstream of the catalyst.

[mydauphin]

Question for pollution genius out there... What is better from a pollution point of view. Wet exhaust or dry. It seems wet exhaust act like scrubber, just stuff gets sent into ocean, any problem with sulphur in ocean?

[kistinie]

Big and small volcano under ocean spit tons of sulphur...
Now in an harbour or in a non volcanic area :mad: ...

More particle in the atmosphere make climate dryer and poison your lungs
In the sea, poison sea life...

Just like noise, better to cut at the source

[CDK]

Question for pollution genius out there... What is better from a pollution point of view. Wet exhaust or dry. It seems wet exhaust act like scrubber, just stuff gets sent into ocean, any problem with sulphur in ocean?

Difficult to answer that short question.....

The way exhaust gases are treated in cars does not work for common marine engines with a water cooled exhaust because they require a much higher temperature. An "afterburner" like used in cars like the Mazda RX-7 might work, but the exhaust gas probably must be reignited and 2nd stage cooling must be provided.
A dry exhaust could have a catalytic converter, but the immense heat will be a problem in any confined space. There will probably come a new generation of exhaust manifolds with an internal converter and a cooling jacket around the whole, so conventional exhaust hoses can be used, but the size of such a contraption might be prohibitive.

Sulphur in fuel is always bound to organic molecules. After burning, part of it will be converted into SO2 or SO3 and evaporate, or ionized in water to form H2SO3 or H2SO4, making the ocean a tiny little bit more acid. There are bacteria who love sulphur and digest it.

Most probably the amount of sulphur in the total oil reserve on this planet is very small compared to what is freed by volcanic activities.

[mydauphin]

.

Most probably the amount of sulphur in the total oil reserve on this planet is very small compared to what is freed by volcanic activities.

Actually this is answer to it all....

[kistinie]

Are you sure ?
If i spread 10 tons of sulphur around you boat when you swim or in the middle of pacific, do you think it is the same ?

[CDK]

Are you sure ?
If i spread 10 tons of sulphur around you boat when you swim or in the middle of pacific, do you think it is the same ?

What sort of sulphur did you have in mind, rhombic, monocline, organic or anorganic composites?
Please do your homework first and refrain from making senseless remarks.

[kistinie]

What sort of sulphur did you have in mind, rhombic, monocline, organic or anorganic composites?
Please do your homework first and refrain from making senseless remarks.

You undoubtedly have more knowledge than me on sulphur type but i'm not your child so i would appreciate that do not mess with my home work :p .
Quantity is a thing ...concentration is another...if for you this is senseless and you think that after all, in many years, it will be diluted, i agree there is no discussion.
Following this, concentrated pollution in towns or harbour areas, closed bay, closed seas, is not a problem as it finishes to be diluted... on day.
It is also much more senseless when you are not exposed to high concentrations of sulphur. But if one day your flesh gets exposed to a high concentration, your opinion may change. Don't you think ? (this was a long discussion i had with an old friend, oyster N°00, from Oleron island)

My English is not very good, is "senseless" or "nonsense" a synonym of "disturbing" ?

[fasteddy106]

the thing I find interesting is that the form of clean diesel your talking about is only going to be used by the small time pleasure boater
bunker #6 I think it is ends up being burned by the ton in massive engines designed to move cargo vessels. Its these huge cargo vessels unique to the present ( sorry to mention it ) world economy that are the huge issue when it comes to marine co2 emissions

thing is that residual fuels are not likely going to getting much cleaner ( its not economical )
maybe Jimbo will chime in with some info on that one
so if your going to have to clean up the emissions its going to end up being in the combustion faze or the exhaust faze and a wet exhaust isnt exactly conducive to that plan as Eddie pointed out.

should be an interesting read what solutions you gear heads might come up with

B


so

Forget about CO2 - it's meaningless for our thread here as it is not a pollutant, just an AGW bogey man.

[fasteddy106]

The HC, CO, and NOX gases from the gas engines can be reduced by more effiecient fuel injection. NOX from marine engines is fairly low anyhow because they run much cooler to start with. Of course once we lean out the mixtures the NOX will rise dramaticly but the release to the atmosphere will be tempered by the wet mixture. I don't think dry exhaust with O2 sensors and a cat/converter are feasable because of the danger of the heat from such a system. You have to have the heat for a Cat to work so wrapping it is out of the question. One thing we can do is remove ethanol from the mix, this is a nightmare for marine systems anyhow and is a fraud to start with. Because of its water absorbtion capabilities ethanol makes the gas burn less efficient and not as cleanly once it has reached maximum water saturation. The engine has to use more fuel to attain the same performance and it doesn't burn as effieciently. We have already seen the disaster with MBTE, ethanol isn't as poisonous but for our purposes is worthless.

[mydauphin]

Here in Florida the marine mechanics are raking in the bucks because of ethanol. It is now 10% in all gasoline sold, and boats are having all kinds of problems if you let it sit. I have two stroke engines and notice lower power and also problem with oil mix. The oil doesn't mix as well. Other problem is it seems to evaporate faster in tank just sitting there.

In a previous life I work in asphalt plant that burned bunker fuel. It had scrubbers that work great and cleaned exhaust. Waste water was then turned into steam and other residues where fed again into plant. It work great, was expensive and took a lot of room.

[kistinie]

Ethanol evaporates ?
Dammed !
I have left my TR3 alone for a year with tank full of almost pure ethanol ...E85 gasoline in fact...You think i may get bad surprise ?
I is already the case with gasoline, loosing octane, how does ethanol behaves ? It is a little out of subject...Sorry

[apex1]

Ethanol evaporates ?
Dammed !
I have left my TR3 alone for a year with tank full of almost pure ethanol ...E85 gasoline in fact...You think i may get bad surprise ?
I is already the case with gasoline, loosing octane, how does ethanol behaves ? It is a little out of subject...Sorry

You do not stop before you have spoilt the very last thread here right? What about the "drivel thread" that is exactly the one your statements fit in.

[kistinie]

You do not stop before you have spoilt the very last thread here right? What about the "drivel thread" that is exactly the one your statements fit in.
"Drivel thread" ...What does it mean ? i did not find it in my dictionary
Spoilt the thread ...Very interesting statement
Can you explain ? Is it this question about ethanol stability that could be also understood in the subject as it seems to affect all the gasoline fuel, and you know that when a fuel is degrading it may affect pollution...or is it related to the "ICE de-pollution by water" swindle explained in #7 ? Your friends were much smarter and did not re-open the box like you've just done...Thanks :)

Do not cry us a river, I'm breaking your old toy to bring you a new one, much nicer !

[M-Sasha]

Your friends were much smarter and did not re-open the box like you've just done...Thanks :)

Interesting, that was your purpose, to find another battlefield yes? Your "Thanks" made that very clear.
The Alcohol related problems in our fuel are handled on several threads around here, thats not the topic!

Sasha

[M-Sasha]

Drivel..............all just drivel........290 posts just that.

Sasha

[marshmat]

On the sulphur issue: The concern here is the reactions that oxides of sulphur undergo once they're out of the engine and in the atmosphere. Sulphur oxides were one of the big contributors to the acid rain problem back in the '80s. The problem hasn't gone away completely, but thanks to a concerted international effort, it has been greatly reduced. Cleaning up the fuel at the refining stage was a big part of that.

On the ethanol issue: Blends of up to 10% ethanol are standard in Ontario now for lower grade (87 octane R+M/2) gasoline. In most places, you can also get ethanol-free 91-octane for about a 10% cost premium. But there haven't been too many ethanol-related problems reported. Maybe our additive packages are different, maybe it's our cooler weather.

If we do see tightening emission regulations, I suspect it will be for the same pollutants that the car industry is going after:
- Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
- Unburned hydrocarbons (HCs)
- Carbon monoxide (CO)
- Particulate matter (PM) in the case of diesels and gasoline-direct-injection

In a gas-engine car, the 3-way catalytic converter handles whatever amount of the first three is left over after all the engine controls have done the best they can. Frankly, in my experience they are neither as bulky nor as finicky as we often seem to think. The device is admittedly expensive ($250-$500) but, once installed, doesn't take up much space and requires no maintenance unless the engine control system is faulty. Putting one in a boat would require that the water injection be moved downstream of the converter, leaving you with a very hot segment of dry exhaust that would need heat shielding, etc. It would also require an oxygen sensor for the ECU to determine how close to perfectly stoichiometric it is running. Doable, with some engineering ingenuity.

There's been a lot of talk lately about particulate matter filters for heavy diesel trucks. But since most of the particulate emissions from these trucks happen when the engine is heavily loaded (ie, accelerating from a dead stop, or climbing a hill), this technology may not be as applicable to boats. (Does anyone have experience with one of these units yet?)

Fuel consumption (and therefore CO2 production) is also regulated in the car sector. Really, these are just different ways of stating how much fuel is consumed for a given distance travelled- differing only by a conversion factor (1 L/100km = 22.96 g CO2 / km for regular gasoline, use 26.05 for diesel). I don't see any regulations of this type coming in for boats- there is too great a variety of boat types for such regulation to be feasible.

[mudman]

My small boat has a Subaru automotive engine in it. I first had no emmissions controls on it. Case vents to atmosphere, also valve covers. I blocked off EGR and had straight pipes. I have plenty power this way, lots of air flow through the engine, but the engine compartment was covered in crap and needed constant cleaning.

Later on I hooked up the EGR and the PCV systems. No more blowby in the engine compartment, but I do have a loss of power. I also lower combustion temps with the EGR. It will pass emmissions tests on 89 octane. Oh yeah, it is carbed.

Now with that being said, I don't see why EGR and PCV along with a catatlitic converter could not be used on any engine. I'm sure that a catalic converter could be installed on a water jacket type exhaust system. There will be a loss of power using these emmissions controls, but it really is not that much. The only problem that I see is space.

Keeping an engine in tune will also help with the emmissions. Alot of people just don't know how to properly care for an engine.

You can add alcohol to your gas. Some guys do this to pass the emmissions laws in California for their cars. It is not a fix, it is temporary and is usually used to get their brake tag. The test is checking for unburned hydrocarbons, (rich mixture) and with alcohol added to the mix, the engine is still rich, it just does not show up on the test. I would not recommend alcohol. A properly tuned engine would not need it.

Egain, EGR's, PCV valves, cats, and charcol canisters are known tried and true methods of reducing emmissions. We have the technology. If it can be done in cars, why not boats.

[mudman]

My small boat has a Subaru automotive engine in it. I first had no emmissions controls on it. Case vents to atmosphere, also valve covers. I blocked off EGR and had straight pipes. I have plenty power this way, lots of air flow through the engine, but the engine compartment was covered in crap and needed constant cleaning.

Later on I hooked up the EGR and the PCV systems. No more blowby in the engine compartment, but I do have a loss of power. I also lower combustion temps with the EGR. It will pass emmissions tests on 89 octane. Oh yeah, it is carbed.

Now with that being said, I don't see why EGR and PCV along with a catatlitic converter could not be used on any engine. I'm sure that a catalic converter could be installed on a water jacket type exhaust system. There will be a loss of power using these emmissions controls, but it really is not that much. The only problem that I see is space.

Keeping an engine in tune will also help with the emmissions. Alot of people just don't know how to properly care for an engine.

You can add alcohol to your gas. Some guys do this to pass the emmissions laws in California for their cars. It is not a fix, it is temporary and is usually used to get their brake tag. The test is checking for unburned hydrocarbons, (rich mixture) and with alcohol added to the mix, the engine is still rich, it just does not show up on the test. I would not recommend alcohol. A properly tuned engine would not need it.

Egain, EGR's, PCV valves, cats, and charcol canisters are known tried and true methods of reducing emmissions. We have the technology. If it can be done in cars, why not boats.

[mydauphin]

Now with that being said, I don't see why EGR and PCV along with a catatlitic converter could not be used on any engine. I'm sure that a catalic converter could be installed on a water jacket type exhaust system. There will be a loss of power using these emmissions controls, but it really is not that much. The only problem that I see is space.


You can add alcohol to your gas. Some guys do this to pass the emmissions laws in California for their cars. It is not a fix, it is temporary and is usually used to get their brake tag. The test is checking for unburned hydrocarbons, (rich mixture) and with alcohol added to the mix, the engine is still rich, it just does not show up on the test. I would not recommend alcohol. A properly tuned engine would not need it.

.

PCV work using engine vacumm. My diesel don't have vacumum, but the have Walker air sep does basically same function in a different manner.

EGR depends lower engine efficiency and would not work on very high output engines. It also increase fuel consumption.

Catalytic Converter require a very hot exhaust and are not compatible with wet exhaust. You would need a very hot dry exhaust to catalytic and then wet exhaust from there. This would be a problem in most engine compartments. And breakage and corrosion would be a big problem, different temperature, materials, water.... It is going to fail unless built from Titanium.

I think a wet exhaust scrubber with a contaminant removal system that then gets reinjected into engine is a better idea.

Alcohol or methanol injection or mixed with fuel also has problems particularly lower fuel economy. You need more fuel to go from A to B.

Here is the problem with a lot of Emissions stuff.
If it takes 10 gallons to go from A to B without emission control or Methanol
or it takes 14 gallons to go same distant with 20% less emission, which is better..

You see it is not that simple...

[mudman]

I see your point. My set up is different than a conventional boat. I have dry exhaust and am runing a gasoline engine, therefore I have the engine set up just as a car would be. I would think that any boat (gas or diesel) could run the same emmissions control as a car. Of course you will loose effiency, thats the nature of the beast.

[gonzo]

I think that there is misinformation about an aspect of emissions. mydauphin points out correctly that adding alcohol to the fuel, because it lowers the calory content, lower mileage. That is it uses more fuel per mile. The emission laws are written to calculate a percentage of emission per unit of fuel. If you use more fuel at a lower percentage of emissions the total may be the same or more. I don't have the statistics but would like to read them.

[apex1]

Regardless of the statistics, the fuel combusted, the emissions of a given installation, WE can reduce the environmental impact a lot, just by using common sense. And that works in both worlds at sea and on highway. (in three actually, the air is not excluded)
I see a dramatic change in the clients "demands" at present. There are still the " I can pay for it, so I need it" guys ( recently one client had a "demand" for larger engines in a 72´ deep V fast cruiser, where our top installation is "only" 3050 hp for some 32kn light ship. He happily went away with "uprated" 3400 hp out of the same engines, and will never use it)
The other end is: I am reopening a production line of slender, displacement and semi boats to feed a more and more growing market of environmental (and cost) sensible clients.
The question: "very nice boat but 300 ltr. hr? is there something as comfortable and presentable at 50ltr. for almost the same price?" became a more common one in the past 2 years.

And to gonzo´s statement, I like to see it in a similar way, too many of todays "improvements" are just related to one single aspect: legislation! One has to have a closer look before we celebrate a "environmental friendly" system of propulsion.
Regards
Richard

[mydauphin]

APEX, I think most boats are grossly overpowered. Most people use top speed 5-10% of time, they run at hull speed 80% of time and idle at least 10%.

I had a friend with 80foot sportfisher he had built. It had huge engines, it could do like 45knots. He spent of the time going 14knots because anything higher than that he could not reach any destination without running out of fuel. A year later, his engines were in need of rebuilds, he pull then out and put smaller ones and bigger fuel tanks. I am also sure he reduced his carbon footprint also but that had nothing to do with it. Presently he went broke bank took back boat and he bought 30 footer.

[apex1]

APEX, I think most boats are grossly overpowered. Most people use top speed 5-10% of time, they run at hull speed 80% of time and idle at least 10%.

.

Would say lower than hull speed 80% ! Closer to 20% over the year.

[fasteddy106]

Adding alcohol in order to reduce emissions is a no starter. Because of it's lesser volatility the engine would use more fuel to attain the same performance, thus, more emissions. As far as converters go, that is just too much heat to have there. If there is a ignition problem the converter temp can climb to 1200 degrees or more. Very dangerous on cars, could be fatal on a boat trying to limp back to the marina. Just a bad idea all around.

[kistinie]

This is the official position
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

Really ?

Not exactly i would say, look at this...

This is the real life of ordinary people with their cars, boats and industrial ICE:

A late seventy US device
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1979-09-01/Water-Injection-System.aspx

A brand new sum up:
http://www.econologie.com/wiki-moteur-pantone/index.php/Synth%C3%A8se_sur_le_dopage_%C3%A0_l%27eau_pantone
This page is in french but Google or other will translate it for you
This is the full description and test results of the Gillier Pantone (GP)

Many different test gave significant and interesting results :
- Global pollution parameters 0 to -80% less -> average -50%
- Mileage 0 to 50% -> average +20%
- Power gain -20 to +15% -> average +10%

GP on brand new tractors gave positive results to these 3 parameters all together. Other noticeable aspect is the noise reduction. But this is all, it doesn't seem to do the coffee.
Best results are found at full charge, at max torque/Rpm of the engine. Low rpm range gave average results probably because of the reactor not hot enough to do correctly the water ionisation.

The exact technical effect is not well understood as these research that are accessible are made ONLY on private funds without any help of any engine manufacturer. like here : http://reaction.directe1.free.fr/Merco220D/240307.html
But it is very interesting to note that the gain are increasing hours after hours, just like if a field was built slowly by the reactor to create a reaction of ionisation of water. The hypothesis of sonoluminescence and plasma is also very likely.
Ph (soda/acid) of water will have an impact on the result as it will change the electrical charge.
More here : http://www.econologie.com/ionisation-de-la-vapeur-d-eau-articles-3324.html
With more research we will undoubtedly get crazy results running engines mainly on water !
When looking at water on the side of its quantum energy behaviour it is now highly suspected that injecting energized ionized water with a pantone reactor is also creating an energy field vortex feeding the motor with black/free energy.
This fact appeared when it was discovered that the gain effect was going on for some time...After water tank gets empty !
Source : http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/systemGreflexionJS.htm and http://www.conspiration.cc/energie/systeme_gillier_pantone.html


Other examples give fuel reduction for the best from 7.5L/100Km to 4.5L/100Km
Again is said that on heavy loads, the Mpg remains the same than on light loads as the reactor works better with high temperatures.
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/AUT44OpelVectraVincentD.htm
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x3ti6q/video/x3z4rn_moteur-pantone-economique-et-ecolog_politics?hmz=74616272656c61746564

This other example is on an helicopter
autonomy went from 4h30 to 6 hours
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/helico1.htm

2 fishing boats were also modified, http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ti6q_chalutier-dope-a-leau-gillierpanton_tech (at 2.48)
Theses boats saves 1000 litres per week, each, and since then results have improved.

For industrial engines
http://www.hypnow.fr/actions/retrokit-nano-82.php

Last thing Pantone is forbidden in France on engines using taxed fuel by fiscal laws, allowed by emission laws, allowed by European texts :confused: :?: :confused:
As it changes the power of the car or the boat the car/boat modified this way is not legal any more and your insurer can cancel your protection
But more than this burning water is burning us as we are water.

So, just for information, do not do it at home ;-), but it is needless to say that in France we are very enthusiastic about this Giller Pantone effect of matter transmutation with sonoluminéscence or scalar waves...What about other countries ?

For those that already know all about pantone and water injection, you can go to the next step and learn more about water and water energy. Be aware that this other level will be technical as well as "psychophysical ?", so you will need to be open and generous to go there.


this is a sum up obtained on a small Renault gasoline engine, last line is with Gillier Pantone, 2 first without at different setup at idle that is the worst configuration for the Pantone

[mydauphin]

Again with this water injection snake oil.
It works as well on reducing emissions and adding fuel economy as reducing throttle 10 to 20% with appropriate loss in power.

kistinie
Hybrid corsair


It doesn't matter how many threads you open on this. Or wikipedia entry. It doesn't alter laws of physics. It does not do as promised by you or other snake oil salesmans. Stop with the guerrilla marketing.

FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW - kistinie and others in this board are trying to sell you a bill of goods based on technology that is proven not to work.
Actually water injection is very old technology as mentioned. But as many years of test including by yours truly it does not add to the combustion process more than reducing detonation in a over compress/bad Gasoline engine. IT doesn't generate power nor does separating Hydrogen and oxygen and injecting does separately.

[fasteddy106]

In the old days of carburated engines we used to add water to the engines in order to remove excess carbon from the combustion chamber. Cleaned out the carbon but during the process the engine ran like crap. As a fuel supplement, it simply doesn't work any better than the supposed fuel line oxygenators, the injector add ons, etc. What I mean is, it doesn't work at all. But is does have sort of a cult following

[mydauphin]

It is like pouring Coke on battery terminals, it kind of works but a good steel brush is better.

I used to pour it (water not coke) down my 400 hp four barrel carb gas engine at full throttle to clean out carbon in cylinder and heads. Later discovered it ruined my valves thru erosion like a cavitation of steam bubbles. Stop using it since unleaded gas in conjunction with electronic ignition doesn't leave same carbon residue.

Also over year rigged up many a system to do it while car running because in 90+ degree weather, going up a hill, my 10.5+ compression engine used to detonate or ping. Water injection help with that but reduce power in process.
Also metering was issue, to much and engine would stall.

Hey about Coke A Cola injection....that will do wonders for emissions....

[marshmat]

Coca-Cola injection ought to be even worse for your valves than your water spray, mydauphin... ;)

Frankly, I think Apex (Richard) has a very good point up there. The first, and by far the most important step in controlling emissions, is to power the boat properly for how it will actually be used.

No amount of fancy add-on gadgetry can clean up the exhaust from a diesel that's so overloaded as to be constantly spewing black smoke. And if an engine is spending 90% of its life ticking over at barely above idle, it is oversized for the application- it's sucking much more fuel, and wearing out much more quickly, than a smaller, more appropriately sized engine.

I suspect Apex1 (Richard) will agree if I say that the single most effective emission reduction technology for marine use is the ability to adjust the load on the engine to keep it in its optimal (cleanest and most efficient) operating range: a controllable pitch prop (or, in a few specialized cases, variable hydraulic or electric transmission). The fancy exhaust treatment stuff they're slapping on diesel trucks- regenerative particulate filters, etc.- only really comes into play when the engine is heavily loaded, ie. accelerating onto a highway or climbing a hill. In a boat, we can get rid of that issue completely.

As to other techniques for cleaning up the exhaust- computer controlled multi-stage fuel injection is now the norm in diesel cars, and is finding its way into trucks, off-road equipment, etc. I did hear about an Iveco marine diesel recently, though, that meets the current EU emission standards with purely mechanical fuel injection- no computer, no turbo. Anyone know how they do it?

[Stumble]

Coca-Cola injection ought to be even worse for your valves than your water spray, mydauphin... ;)

Frankly, I think Apex (Richard) has a very good point up there. The first, and by far the most important step in controlling emissions, is to power the boat properly for how it will actually be used.

No amount of fancy add-on gadgetry can clean up the exhaust from a diesel that's so overloaded as to be constantly spewing black smoke. And if an engine is spending 90% of its life ticking over at barely above idle, it is oversized for the application- it's sucking much more fuel, and wearing out much more quickly, than a smaller, more appropriately sized engine.

I suspect Apex1 (Richard) will agree if I say that the single most effective emission reduction technology for marine use is the ability to adjust the load on the engine to keep it in its optimal (cleanest and most efficient) operating range: a controllable pitch prop (or, in a few specialized cases, variable hydraulic or electric transmission). The fancy exhaust treatment stuff they're slapping on diesel trucks- regenerative particulate filters, etc.- only really comes into play when the engine is heavily loaded, ie. accelerating onto a highway or climbing a hill. In a boat, we can get rid of that issue completely.

As to other techniques for cleaning up the exhaust- computer controlled multi-stage fuel injection is now the norm in diesel cars, and is finding its way into trucks, off-road equipment, etc. I did hear about an Iveco marine diesel recently, though, that meets the current EU emission standards with purely mechanical fuel injection- no computer, no turbo. Anyone know how they do it?

I think Marshmat is on to something here. Almost noone I know even has a clue what their fuel efficency curve looks like (private boats, not commercial).Instead they just run around at some percentage of their max RPM and don't worry about it. Of course this adds significantly to inefficency and these same people are always complaining about how few miles / gallon they get on their boats.

With no numbers or stats to back me up, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the single best thing a manufacturer could do is to properly inform the buyer on how to operate the boat efficently. Either by indicating what engine rpm will work the best, or at least by providing a fuel efficiency curve for the boat at any given rpm.

[apex1]

Coca-Cola injection ought to be even worse for your valves than your water spray, mydauphin... ;)

Frankly, I think Apex (Richard) has a very good point up there. The first, and by far the most important step in controlling emissions, is to power the boat properly for how it will actually be used.

No amount of fancy add-on gadgetry can clean up the exhaust from a diesel that's so overloaded as to be constantly spewing black smoke. And if an engine is spending 90% of its life ticking over at barely above idle, it is oversized for the application- it's sucking much more fuel, and wearing out much more quickly, than a smaller, more appropriately sized engine.

I suspect Apex1 (Richard) will agree if I say that the single most effective emission reduction technology for marine use is the ability to adjust the load on the engine to keep it in its optimal (cleanest and most efficient) operating range: a controllable pitch prop (or, in a few specialized cases, variable hydraulic or electric transmission). The fancy exhaust treatment stuff they're slapping on diesel trucks- regenerative particulate filters, etc.- only really comes into play when the engine is heavily loaded, ie. accelerating onto a highway or climbing a hill. In a boat, we can get rid of that issue completely.


I fully agree, you know!

To the water injection issue:

There was a development in the 80ies made by Mr. "Egon Stache" in Germany. He wanted to get rid of the "slop" building up in the engine room bilges of merchant vessels. The invention was a "homogenizer" and a chemical catalyst to get a stable emulsion of water and oil. The "homo" was like a mighty coffe grinder that could handle the "Bunker C" as the sand and other particles found in it. This emulsion was and is stable (I have seen a test probe of 1987 in 2004 still not separated), which is very important.
Now this emulsion was used as the regular fuel for the main propulsion engine at a rate of about 5% to 8% water. A very clever invention on the first glimpse. For a investment of about 10.000 DM in those days saving about 10% of fuel was a very attractive offer for shipping companies.
The fuel added water gives a lower combustion temperature therefore a higher density of the combusted air and a higher power output at the end. It also reduces Co² and Nox. A win win situation.................
Yeah if life was easy.
But the water also makes for a earlier ignition point (we dont need that on a Diesel), and causes corrosion in combination with the sulfur and other ingredients of Crude oil. On top of that, the chief engineers on the so equipped vessels found out, that there are cavitation issues on the injection valves, causing fast wear.
In the late 80ies early 90ies MTU ( for sure one of the most knowledgeable Diesel manufacturers in the world, if not THE) followed that path and gave it up after running engines at a 15% water rate very successfully.
There are actually several universities worldwide studying this issue again, wait and see...........
At present we have a extremely reliable, efficient and cheap (the Kistinie layman may argue till the cows come home) way to reduce emissions, as mentioned above CPP.
Running a Diesel at perfect load is running it at the peak efficient consumption point..... nothing else to declare, right?

and

With no numbers or stats to back me up, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the single best thing a manufacturer could do is to properly inform the buyer on how to operate the boat efficently. Either by indicating what engine rpm will work the best, or at least by providing a fuel efficiency curve for the boat at any given rpm.

I would like to agree, but cannot. There is no engine manufacturer in the world who hides the number of best fuel efficiency at a given rpm (under perfect load). And no one who knows your specific installation, so, thats not possible. If you load your engine proper (at any rpm) using a CPP, you come as close as possible to that point. If you are running a gear / shaft / prop installation you have a proper load at one single condition only!
But field testing at different conditions is what the boater has to do himself.

Regards
Richard

[Knut Sand]

Water injection have some effect, I believe an increased feel for higher compression rate, but if it reduces the emission from the engine...I'm not so sure...

(Had a crappy remote "controlled" model airplane once, flying in the summer/ autumn periods over some inland moor, here in Norway the late evening are often getting very humid, vet, foggy, the area above ground. I flew the plane, all day (only minor chrashes, repairable on site :D ) , however the engine was... crap, sloow to accelerate, push wasn't too much either. Then I ducked the plane into the dense fog, thinking; "that may kill the engine". the handeling of the engine/ plane became very different, the engine sounded suddenly to actually have some punch, and I was able to go vertical with the plane, hadn't had that ability earlier... However; flying vertical for a period resulted of course in a "out of the fog experiece" stall speed was suddenly there, and well; got home with a plane in some plastic bags.... :rolleyes: Plane was repaired and the effect was tested later on some occasions, the effect is real, not something I have dreamt. Humid intake air, or vater injection, on a hot engine, can increase the compression)

[Knut Sand]

I suspect Apex1 (Richard) will agree if I say that the single most effective emission reduction technology for marine use is the ability to adjust the load on the engine to keep it in its optimal (cleanest and most efficient) operating range: a controllable pitch prop (or, in a few specialized cases, variable hydraulic or electric transmission).

I agree to this. Had a small boat 21' with a varable pitch propeller, used 15 liters of fuel one weekend and was fed up with driving the boat, approx 5-6 knot speed. Had that boat for close to 25 years.....

However; that kind of motor/ prop configuration requires that the operator connects the link between the brain and ears for getting the "optimum" speed, or what you "feel" is the optimum rev/ load.... Not all "modern" people can do that... :rolleyes:

[apex1]

I agree to this. Had a small boat 21' with a varable pitch propeller, used 15 liters of fuel one weekend and was fed up with driving the boat, approx 5-6 knot speed. Had that boat for close to 25 years.....

However; that kind of motor/ prop configuration requires that the operator connects the link between the brain and ears for getting the "optimum" speed, or what you "feel" is the optimum rev/ load.... Not all "modern" people can do that... :rolleyes:


THAT for sure is the main prob.

[Stumble]

Apex,

I was actually thinking of the boat manufacturers doing the testing to get at least a ballpark rpm number. I know it isn't hard to do the field testing, but a lot of recreational boaters either don't know how or wouldn't know how to extrapolate a curve from point numbers.

[mydauphin]

The problem is general public thinks that bigger is better. A large boat manufacture will never advertise that their motor is smaller or produces less horsepower than the next guy. No, they want to show more horsepower, I have seen a 50 foot boat go from 300hp to 2000 hp. The boat still does 14 knots most of the time.

On water injection again, all motors prefer dry air to moist air. That is why many boats have elaborate air intake schemes to cut out moisture and salt air from air. Water injection reduces horsepower... Period

ON Boat design, I would love to have CPP prop, can't afford it. So on my boat did it old fashion away. How fast you want to go, get HP numbers, RPM, and got prop to match rpm of engines.
It turns out, I only need 250hp per engine, to achieve 14knots. So I got 300hp engines. Why get more? My engines will be properly loaded and should last forever and give best fuel economy.

On Boat Manufactures, all their anchor selections are too small.... Their engines too big.... go figure which is more important

[CDK]

On water injection again, all motors prefer dry air to moist air. That is why many boats have elaborate air intake schemes to cut out moisture and salt air from air. Water injection reduces horsepower... Period



H2O can be considered as the combustion product of Hydrogen. Feeding that to a combustion engine again is the ultimate nonsense, unlike EGR where there is still something left to burn.
Like drinking pee or eating shit, the recipient does not benefit from it at all and it could lead to severe disorders.

The discussion about marine emission control is better served if we explore other paths.

I am not sure that smaller engines always are the answer. I made a short trip on a proud owner's brand new Bavaria, where two high-revving Mercruisers had to give all they could to maintain 25 knots and gobbled up massive amounts of fuel while doing so.

[apex1]

On water injection again, all motors prefer dry air to moist air. That is why many boats have elaborate air intake schemes to cut out moisture and salt air from air. Water injection reduces horsepower... Period



Sorry mate I do´nt like to contradict you, but that statement is wrong. It increases power. The Formula 1 for example used WI during the 80ies and they certainly dont do anything that reduces power. Though I mentioned some of the negative effects in my former post.

Regards
Richard

[mydauphin]

Worst than disagreeing with me, you are agreeing with kristine....
Seriously, WI in and of itself looses power. Tune your engine different and it can have a cooling effect, and you add alcohol, which is a fuel to compensate power loss. But if you want power inject nitrous not water.

Going back to racing, it is amazing what blueprinting and proper tuning will do to a stock engine.

[apex1]

Worst than disagreeing with me, you are agreeing with kristine....


Yeah mate, I did not like that either! But whats true is true, even if K. says the same. And water injection (or a water fuel emulsion to be more exact) increases power, that is a proven fact and common knowledge in the industry. Naturally it is not done the way K. would like it.

Regards
Richard

[FAST FRED]

Water injection allows an engine at 100% power to suffer detonation less.



That's its use in piston supercharged aircraft engines ,54 inches of manifold pressure with water injection ,but only 50 inches could be tolerated without the water, On a 3350ci 9 cylinders and 3 rows of cylinders round motor .

For tiny engines now stuck in cars that have 2 turbos or waste gate turbos the possibility of using water injection for even more very short term power does exist.

On a boat , unless its a dragster , or your using an old insect sprayer to get carbon out during a tune up, water isnt going to do much good.

FF

[mark775]

"...amazing what blueprinting and proper tuning will do to a stock engine." Don't forget "balancing".
Say, a few things I take issue with are no big deal but the CPP is not for every boat. I spend 95% of the time at one RPM, more or less, and a fixed prop wins out in this scenario.
Getting into efficiency but it is connected. Almost everything is common rail or unit injection (except stupid Cat ACERT) allowing what a previous post pointed out. I believe that the real efficiency gains are going to be in heat capture or generation of some type.
Does the exhaust heat capture device technology BMW has been playing with apply to diesels in boats? I don't know what it does as far as forming pollutants but a higher operating temp is better for combustion and the engines are happier. Ceramics? I do know that almost everything has higher temp thermastats these days.
Side note: New FRP exhaust upon repower last spring. D9-500 Volvo with unit injection. 700 hours. The exhaust tubing looks like the day I put it in ( No particulates ).

[mydauphin]

It is amazing that people are still trying to sell water injection as panacea. It was the rage 30 years. Install at least 10 units myself. It work on 70's cars to reduce detonation with their high comp, with lower octane gas, but at lower hp because it still require less timing. I also would modify cabs to give more gas, run rich, this help with detonation more. Obviously fuel economy was not the goal.

[CDK]

Yeah mate, I did not like that either! But whats true is true, even if K. says the same. And water injection (or a water fuel emulsion to be more exact) increases power, that is a proven fact and common knowledge in the industry. Naturally it is not done the way K. would like it.

Regards
Richard



Somehow the water still manages to creep back into this thread.

Could it be that evaporating water just lowers the intake air temp. a little bit, so the air gets denser and there are a few more oxygen atoms to marginally improve the combustion?

I hope we are in agreement that H2O cannot contribute actively in any combustion process, but while wrestling with a starter motor that slowly moves itself away from the flywheel of my port engine, I got this weird idea:

The alternator on a marine engine is doing little or nothing most of the time once the starting energy has been replenished. If a small reactor vessel was added to the air intake, partly filled with water under a fine mesh separator and carbon electrodes would use the available alternator current to split H2O into H2 and O, could that contribute to lower emission?

Of course it would be possible to put a cage around the anode and cathode and just let the oxygen in, but the hydrogen as just as valuable in the combustion process. Although it will not lead to higher engine performance because of alternator load and efficiency, it may reduce CO and NOx in the exhaust gases.

Or do I overlook something?

[fasteddy106]

Somehow the water still manages to creep back into this thread.

Could it be that evaporating water just lowers the intake air temp. a little bit, so the air gets denser and there are a few more oxygen atoms to marginally improve the combustion?

I hope we are in agreement that H2O cannot contribute actively in any combustion process, but while wrestling with a starter motor that slowly moves itself away from the flywheel of my port engine, I got this weird idea:

The alternator on a marine engine is doing little or nothing most of the time once the starting energy has been replenished. If a small reactor vessel was added to the air intake, partly filled with water under a fine mesh separator and carbon electrodes would use the available alternator current to split H2O into H2 and O, could that contribute to lower emission?

Of course it would be possible to put a cage around the anode and cathode and just let the oxygen in, but the hydrogen as just as valuable in the combustion process. Although it will not lead to higher engine performance because of alternator load and efficiency, it may reduce CO and NOx in the exhaust gases.

Or do I overlook something?

If you can develop that method of extracting hydrogen you will solve the energy crisis for all time and provide the world with a cheap,clean, and unlimited amount of fuel. Go for it!

[CDK]

If you can develop that method of extracting hydrogen you will solve the energy crisis for all time and provide the world with a cheap,clean, and unlimited amount of fuel. Go for it!

I need not develop anything because the technology is already there.
Two carbon electrodes in water, made conductive with a little salt. When an electrical current is applied, water reverts to its pre-combustion stage, H and O2. Both gases brought together again and ignited, form water again. A totally clean combustion process.
The amount of electrical energy needed to separate H2 from O is equal to the thermal energy from the explosion, so the gain is zero. In a future world without oil, this principle will be used to power aircraft. For automotive and marine use, electricity will do, but airborne vehicles need something with less weight and must carry enough energy for long distance flights.
The electricity needed for the electrolysis of water can be obtained from a number of sources like sunlight, wind, nuclear or the tide.
If you live long enough, you'll see it all happen....

[apex1]

Could it be that evaporating water just lowers the intake air temp. a little bit, so the air gets denser and there are a few more oxygen atoms to marginally improve the combustion?

I hope we are in agreement that H2O cannot contribute actively in any combustion process, but while wrestling with a starter motor that slowly moves itself away from the flywheel of my port engine, I got this weird idea:


Post #41 CDK that was all I wanted to say about that issue. I am by no means a advocate of water emulsion, injection! You are right, and I said in the post mentioned, that the evaporating water increases air density. For that reason the effect is known as "active aftercooling". And for sure that is the main reason of some (small) gain in power.

And yes we are in consensus "actively" water cannot contribute.

Regards
Richard

[marshmat]

Richard,

Just to make sure we're on the same page here re. fuel grades:

The cetane number measurement used in North America assigns a value of 15 to isocetane (heptamethylnonane), and a value of 100 to cetane (n-hexadecane). The test is done in a particular standard variable-compression engine, which you run on the unknown test fuel while varying the compression ratio to get a 13-degree ignition delay (2.407 milliseconds, IIRC, at the standard test conditions). Then, leaving the compression ratio fixed, you run the engine on varying blends of cetane and isocetane until you find one that gives the same 13-degree delay; the resulting blend defines the cetane number.

Under this system, low-cetane fuels have a long ignition delay (hence "diesel knock" that occurs if ignition is delayed until a large amount of fuel has already been injected), and high-cetane fuels are very quick to ignite. In this system, a fuel's cetane number is inversely correlated with its octane number. (Our pump diesel is about 38-42 cetane; if you run it in the test engine used for gasoline, it gets an octane rating of around 50. Pump gasoline, 87 to 91 octane, has a cetane number of 15-20.)

Some other notes:

Combustion temperature- In general, a higher combustion temperature (note- combustion temperature, not intake temperature) will lead to a higher peak pressure, and a more efficient cycle, whether you use diesel or spark ignition. The main downsides to this approach are:
- Higher stress on hotter engine components (thus more complex/expensive metallurgy and possible reductions in engine life)
- Greatly increased production of nitrogen oxides
The latter point is the reason why EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) systems are fitted to most cars. Take a 4-stroke gas engine with 10:1 compression, for example, intake at SATP: adding only 5% residual gas will drop the combustion temperature from about 2300 K to about 2230 K. The result is a slight drop in cycle efficiency and a very large drop in NOx production. (Anything that reduces combustion temperature will have this same effect- high residual gas fraction, high water content intake air, etc.)

[apex1]

Richard,

Just to make sure we're on the same page here re. fuel grades:

The cetane number measurement used in North America assigns a value of 15 to isocetane (heptamethylnonane), and a value of 100 to cetane (n-hexadecane). The test is done in a particular standard variable-compression engine, which you run on the unknown test fuel while varying the compression ratio to get a 13-degree ignition delay (2.407 milliseconds, IIRC, at the standard test conditions). Then, leaving the compression ratio fixed, you run the engine on varying blends of cetane and isocetane until you find one that gives the same 13-degree delay; the resulting blend defines the cetane number.

Under this system, low-cetane fuels have a long ignition delay (hence "diesel knock" that occurs if ignition is delayed until a large amount of fuel has already been injected), and high-cetane fuels are very quick to ignite. In this system, a fuel's cetane number is inversely correlated with its octane number. (Our pump diesel is about 38-42 cetane; if you run it in the test engine used for gasoline, it gets an octane rating of around 50. Pump gasoline, 87 to 91 octane, has a cetane number of 15-20.)

Some other notes:

Combustion temperature- In general, a higher combustion temperature (note- combustion temperature, not intake temperature) will lead to a higher peak pressure, and a more efficient cycle, whether you use diesel or spark ignition. The main downsides to this approach are:
- Higher stress on hotter engine components (thus more complex/expensive metallurgy and possible reductions in engine life)
- Greatly increased production of nitrogen oxides
The latter point is the reason why EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) systems are fitted to most cars. Take a 4-stroke gas engine with 10:1 compression, for example, intake at SATP: adding only 5% residual gas will drop the combustion temperature from about 2300 K to about 2230 K. The result is a slight drop in cycle efficiency and a very large drop in NOx production. (Anything that reduces combustion temperature will have this same effect- high residual gas fraction, high water content intake air, etc.)

You are dead right Matt! I completely mixed up the Diesel and Gas behaviour!
I will edit my post. Thanks.

Regards
Richard

[Jimbo1490]

The problem is general public thinks that bigger is better. A large boat manufacture will never advertise that their motor is smaller or produces less horsepower than the next guy. No, they want to show more horsepower, I have seen a 50 foot boat go from 300hp to 2000 hp. The boat still does 14 knots most of the time.



More watts = better sound

:D

Jimbo

[mydauphin]

On a totally different but related subject... I added some old diesel I had lying around (it was still good) but was mixed with a little motor oil. About 1/2 gallon motor oil to 15 gallon diesel. My truck seems to run fine on it. I remember there was a system that used take some of your engine oil and mix with diesel and burn it. You would then add more motor oil in engine. That way oil never got old. What effect would this have on injectors and emissions.

[FAST FRED]

"What effect would this have on injectors and emissions."

Go to the DD site , they have very graphic pictures ob engines ruined by using waste oil as fuel.

Even IF you could get it clean enough , remember waste oil os contaminated with metal particles , acids and carbon (why its so black).

None of this wicked stew is useful as fuel or oil till cleared of all the gunk.

FF

[fasteddy106]

I need not develop anything because the technology is already there.
Two carbon electrodes in water, made conductive with a little salt. When an electrical current is applied, water reverts to its pre-combustion stage, H and O2. Both gases brought together again and ignited, form water again. A totally clean combustion process.
The amount of electrical energy needed to separate H2 from O is equal to the thermal energy from the explosion, so the gain is zero. In a future world without oil, this principle will be used to power aircraft. For automotive and marine use, electricity will do, but airborne vehicles need something with less weight and must carry enough energy for long distance flights.
The electricity needed for the electrolysis of water can be obtained from a number of sources like sunlight, wind, nuclear or the tide.
If you live long enough, you'll see it all happen....

I have read that a faulty pressure valve on a water heater can also cause high temperature extraction of hydrogen, with disastrous effects however. I don't understand why we are not using wind and solar to produce hydrogen. That could heat water and homes directly or in fuel cell technology. Oops, sorry for the digression of the thread.

[fasteddy106]

"What effect would this have on injectors and emissions."

Go to the DD site , they have very graphic pictures ob engines ruined by using waste oil as fuel.

Even IF you could get it clean enough , remember waste oil os contaminated with metal particles , acids and carbon (why its so black).

None of this wicked stew is useful as fuel or oil till cleared of all the gunk.

FF


We use a waste oil furnace in the shop. It keeps us warm in the winter but requires a bunch of maintenence each month and uses over 1.75 gallons per hour. The injector will clog if not cleaned about about every 200 gallons. We use a three stage filtering process to remove solids but contaminants don't burn all that well. Brake fluid and antifreeze really screw things up. I can't see a high efficiency diesel injection system lasting long using a waste oil mix.

[marshmat]

I concur with Fred and Eddy's thoughts on blending old oil with fuel.

Look at it this way: You change your oil because the old oil has picked up too many contaminants that can't be filtered out. They'll be just as nasty, if not more so, if you move them from the oil system to the fuel system. If it were possible to fit on-board equipment that would remove these contaminants, it would be much more economical to use the revitalized oil as oil, rather than as fuel (which is always much cheaper). But since the equipment to do that is only economical on a refinery scale, we're stuck with storing our waste oil in jugs or tanks until we find a depot that can send it back to the refinery for re-processing.

[Jimbo1490]

If it were possible to fit on-board equipment that would remove these contaminants, it would be much more economical to use the revitalized oil as oil, rather than as fuel

This would not solve all of the old oil's problems. There would still be 'shear' breakdown and thermal breakdown issues even if you centrifuged all of the contaminants out.

Jimbo

[FAST FRED]

"In a future world without oil, this principle will be used to power aircraft."

Not sure I'mgoing to be worried about diesel or JP5 in 1,000 years.

"If it were possible to fit on-board equipment that would remove these contaminants, it would be much more economical to use the revitalized oil as oil, rather than as fuel"

The problem is the metals in the lube oil are sometimes held in suspension, sometimes bonded to the oil additives detergents..

The waste oil burners in most truck repair shops probably dump more in one day than 5 coal fired power plants , from the metals burned and vented into the air.

FF

[CDK]

This is what I had in mind, see post 54.

The controller is an important part. It must regulate the current in the vessel and has to prevent operation while the engine is not running. Without it, the intake manifold would be filled with only oxygen and hydrogen, so 5 times more energy content than any air/fuel mixture , which is much more than even the sturdiest engine can chew.

The vessel needs a trickle of water, otherwise the salinity would rapidly increase. I think this also works in inland waterways: there are always pollutants the make the water conductive albeit less than seawater, but the controller will take care of that.

[CDK]

"In a future world without oil, this principle will be used to power aircraft."

Not sure I'mgoing to be worried about diesel or JP5 in 1,000 years.

FF

Google for world crude oil reserve Fred!

Confirmed reserve 991,8 billion barrels.
World production 68,4 billion barrels.

My calculator says 14,5 years. Where are you gonna get your oil for the other 985,5 years?

[mudman]

Ammount of oil in reserves/Oil production = years of oil left.

A simple calculation, and makes sense. We would really have to put more into it to get a better number.

The known ammount of oil reserves is based on what we can produce today, with current technology. It is also considered reasonable to produce, economically. In other words, all known oil reserves are based on the easy to get stuff. There is at least 10X's the real known ammount of oil than the numbers given for "known reserves".

Technology is constantly advancing, we are drilling deeper in the oceans, we are starting CO2 injection and waterfloods, gas lifts, controlled burns. Fields that we thought were dry 10 years ago are now producing more than when they were initally drilled.

In the 50's we could drill maybe 5000 feet. Now we can get deeper and into different sands. We can drill directionally now, instead of a straight hole. I wonder what we will be doing 15 years from now.

When we begin to run out of "known reserves" the price of oil will go up. We will simply go for the harder to get stuff, and it will cost more. The price will begin to get so high, that only the elite will be able to afford it. When that happens, we will be forced to an alternative energy. Eventually, oil will fade away (not in 14.5 years, probably not in 145 years). When this happens, there will still be recoverable oil in the ground, just no one will want it, because it will be too expensive.

So in reality, the earth will never run out of oil in the ground, it will just become dumb to drill for something that no one can afford. I certainly do not believe that doomsday is in 14.5 years, not from the data that I review.

Until someone comes up with a better energy source, oil will remain king. I certainly think that we need to start working on alternative energy now, but we do not need to force it on people yet.

[mydauphin]

This is what I had in mind, see post 54.

The controller is an important part. It must regulate the current in the vessel and has to prevent operation while the engine is not running. Without it, the intake manifold would be filled with only oxygen and hydrogen, so 5 times more energy content than any air/fuel mixture , which is much more than even the sturdiest engine can chew.

The vessel needs a trickle of water, otherwise the salinity would rapidly increase. I think this also works in inland waterways: there are always pollutants the make the water conductive albeit less than seawater, but the controller will take care of that.

Not you too...Danger - The aliens are invading headed by kistinie, with their water to hydrogen/oxygen powered by the alternators... It doesn't work....
Try this thread http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/bedini-motor-other-joe-cell-playing-energy-conservation-27202.html

[mydauphin]

If we run out of oil... We are so scrxxed.... No fiberglass, epoxy, aluminum, steel, forget about gas and oil, you better grow your own potatoes..

Seriously, you can make oil out many things like coal, which we have plenty of. Also biodiesel does work. Then we have other fuels like natural gas, methane underwater.. The problem is environmentalist passing up on a lot of non-renewable energy when they don't know what they are talking about.

Example, I was helping my daughter with college science class, they list nuclear fuel as a non-renewable energy. Guess what, it is renewable, it is call a breeder reactor, but they don't explain that in school.

And like that many others...

[apex1]

Ammount of oil in reserves/Oil production = years of oil left.

so in reality, the earth will never run out of oil in the ground, it will just become dumb to drill for something that no one can afford. I certainly do not believe that doomsday is in 14.5 years, not from the data that I review.


and:
that was not really meant to be a statement?
E>>>>xample, I was helping my daughter with college science class, they list nuclear fuel as a non-renewable energy. Guess what, it is renewable, it is call a breeder reactor, <<<<<<<<<<<<<
nuclear fuel to be renewable?

Lets stay on topic.................please..............

[Jimbo1490]

Until someone comes up with a better energy source, oil will remain king. I certainly think that we need to start working on alternative energy now, but we do not need to force it on people yet.

The stone age did not end because we ran out of stone, or worse still, fearing that we were in danger of running out, the rulers of the day forbid to use stone for tools. Instead, the stone age ended when we found something better than stone with which to make tools.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

CDK,

Try to keep in mind that splitting water is a energy net negative process; you always get less back than you put in. Water is burned hydrogen.

Jimbo

[CDK]

First of all, this is supposed to be a technical thread about marine emission control.
I have no friends in the luny bin so please stop comparing my ideas with those of K. or other members of the Enterprise crew.

Of course I should not have responded to FastFred's remark about 1000 years oil reserve. I am sorry, when provoked, sometimes I cannot keep silent. I have a very allergic constitution and react strongly to dust, pollen, bacterial toxins and stupidity.

See, I did it again....

Emission control has nothing to do with saving fuel or making cheap energy from water.

In my garage I have a Porsche 928, built in 1980. It has a large V8 engine with mechanical fuel injection. To comply with the Californian emission regulations back then, the Porsche engineers added a V-belt driven air pump (with air filter !) which fed fresh air to the first muffler. That way the exhaust gases were diluted to such an extent that the CO content was less than 2% at idle rpm.
Not exactly a price-winning concept, but an adequate solution for that era.

The Mazda RX-7 I owned in the 80's did things a bit better. It also needed a rich mixture for a vivid throttle response, so they used the Porsche trick but injected the air in a small reactor, well insulated and protected by heat shields. The excess fuel was burnt there so again it complied with emission laws. Not only at idle rpm but also at 3000 rpm: you could see the afterburner glow in the dark.

Now we are discussing marine emission control and have established that non of the automotive solutions can be used because we do not want scorching hot tin cans in our engine room. And without these, there is no way to treat the gases after they passed the exhaust valves.

So we have to investigate other paths.

Unfortunately marine propulsion has been exempt from emission laws until now, so we could keep using inefficient and polluting engines that would have been banned immediately when installed in a road vehicle. We were allowed to use dirty fuels in primitive engines, but it seems that we have been discovered now.

One way to improve emission figures is to use better fuels. There is no way to remove unwanted elements like sulfur from fuel once it has been produced because they are complicated organic molecules ( thiols among them) that cannot simply be washed out. But the oil companies can do that for us if we only insist on having sulfur-free fuel. And on large ships running on stuff we can hardly recognize as oil, the removal of sulfur and heavy metals can be done like in the refinery with high temperature/high pressure treatment.

So now that we have our clean fuel, let's focus on the engine.
While setting our boat in motion, it converts all long and short CxHx chains into CO2 and H2O as long as we provide it with enough oxygen to do so. More and more people are bothered by the CO2, but it is inevitable: if you have a lot of carbon to burn, CO2 is what you get. Going slow or not at all are the only options.
If there is insufficient oxygen (or too much fuel), like in gasoline engines, the combustion process is incomplete and produces carbon monoxide (CO) and unburt CxHx chains. Whatever leaves the exhaust without being fully oxidized do not contribute to the propulsion of our boat, has been paid for, but can never be collected again.

And that was what got me thinking about electrolysis of water. Adding a bit of extra oxygen and Hydrogen to the intake air may provide just what a gasoline engine needs to burn the fuel more effectively. The combination of H2 and O2 burns much faster than dynamite and has a much higher combustion temperature, that's why they use it to propel rockets. Adding it to the combustion air of a gasoline engine might be the solution to lower emissions.
But the answer cannot be expected from an amateur experiment. It involves exact analysis of the exhaust gases and measurement of the engine performance, facilities that are not at my disposal.

Lastly, there is also the problem of NOx emission, the inevitable by-product because we supply 80% N2 to the engine. That may also decrease if some H2 gas is present in the combustion chamber.

[FAST FRED]

"Where are you gonna get your oil for the other 985,5 years?"

Same place we got oil the past 5000 years , out of the ground.

The KNOWN reserves only cover where we have looked so far , and in many countries are considered "state secrets" , so we know little of the real resources.

Brazil "just" discovered a Saudi Arabia or 3 under deep water.

There is little question that eventually (the wait is over 150years so far) battery tech ( some type of efficient energy storage) will allow most motor vehicles to work from the clean Nuke base load.

Aircraft have over 500 years of fuel from coal , should nothing efficient come up in 500 years.

And of course we have been funding Fusion , clean energy at the Kolleges and research centers for 4 or 5 decades.

Politics shut down the US Super conductor super collider ( because it was in Texas) but the Euros have built a small scale copy , that may eventually get on line.

Although Whale Oil is a fantastic lubricant , and still used in the fine watch industry , its not burned as lamp oil, same with oil , we have hundreds to thousands of years of tar sands and shale oil (and plain old coal) but I expect the billion$ being dumped into research to have some use , eventually.

And we will no longer "need" oil as cheaper energy will be on the shelf.

To think scientific progress is over is the rawest form of STUPIDITY.

FF

[mydauphin]

I used to remove air pumps all the time from engines in the 70's and 80's. Simple reason, they reduce efficiency. The air pump is a parasite and the air inject into exhaust reduce engine ability to exhaust and therefore ability to breath. Much more can be achieve by properly sizing engines, gears and props to boats. Not very exciting but true. Must boats are setup wrong for efficiency. Also put boats on diets, a 100,000 lb that now weights 150,000 is a lumbering overreving fuel hog.

[Jimbo1490]

Why not just have the big ships run two fuels, their usual 'bunker' diesel for out at sea, and clean, low-sulfur diesel for when they get close to port, say 25 mile out? As I've pointed out, anthropogenic pollution is not really a problem for nature as a whole; nature copes with huge amounts of pollutants from natural sources all the time. The problem with anthropogenic pollution sources is that they tend to be concentrated in one area (like a port full of ships or a big city with many cars) and that these are the same areas in which humans live. So we get exposed to the high concentrations of pollutants, and this shorten lives.

A dual fuel system such as this would be simple and cheap to install.


Jimbo

[apex1]

Why not just have the big ships run two fuels, their usual 'bunker' diesel for out at sea, and clean, low-sulfur diesel for when they get close to port, say 25 mile out?

A dual fuel system such as this would be simple and cheap to install.

Jimbo

This already is common practice in the merchant fleet! Many Ports do´nt allow the use of bunker C while maneuvering.

Regards
Richard

[mydauphin]

What is bunker fuel running for in the ports nowadays?

[apex1]

What is bunker fuel running for in the ports nowadays?

MDO, or MDF marine diesel oil, marine diesel fuel, a low quality stuff. Bunker C is nothing else than refinery residue.

Regards
Richard

[mydauphin]

Anyone know price and can it be diluted by diesel and heat?

[CDK]

From the local oil company I downloaded spec sheets for their marine fuels in local language.

There are 4 distillates and 10 what they call remnant fuels.
The first group are DMX, DMA, DMB and DMC. They more or less resemble diesel road diesel fuel, but with a cetane index of 45, 40, 35 and ? for DMC. The viscosity is ascending, for DMB and DMC only a maximum value is given. Three out of four may contain used engine oil.

The second group are RMA-30, RMB-30, RMD-80 and so on, ending with RMK 700 for the heaviest.
Most are solid under 30 C. and may contain 10-22% free carbon, 0,15% dirt, 0,5% water and 3,5-4,5% sulfur. There are also limits given for vanadium, aluminum, silica, zinc, phosphor and calcium, plus 0,1% unspecified sediments.

This raises a few questions:

Why are there 14 different marine fuels?
Which criteria determine the type of fuel a large ship uses? Is that engine size, construction or do they simply use the cheapest type the engine will run on?

[mydauphin]

I know you guys are worried about pollution here, but I worry that prices of diesel will make my travels go by internet instead of by boat.
I am more worried about $10 a gallon fuel than about pollution,

So I am looking long term at either modifying some of my engines/generators for dual fuel, to something like diesel/bunker or my own refinery of waste oil/bunker fuel to a diesel mix. Biodiesel is also in idea mix.

[apex1]

From the local oil company I downloaded spec sheets for their marine fuels in local language.

There are 4 distillates and 10 what they call remnant fuels.
The first group are DMX, DMA, DMB and DMC. They more or less resemble diesel road diesel fuel, but with a cetane index of 45, 40, 35 and ? for DMC. The viscosity is ascending, for DMB and DMC only a maximum value is given. Three out of four may contain used engine oil.

The second group are RMA-30, RMB-30, RMD-80 and so on, ending with RMK 700 for the heaviest.
Most are solid under 30 C. and may contain 10-22% free carbon, 0,15% dirt, 0,5% water and 3,5-4,5% sulfur. There are also limits given for vanadium, aluminum, silica, zinc, phosphor and calcium, plus 0,1% unspecified sediments.

This raises a few questions:

Why are there 14 different marine fuels?
Which criteria determine the type of fuel a large ship uses? Is that engine size, construction or do they simply use the cheapest type the engine will run on?

the latter...

CDK
DMA to DMX does not resemble road diesel! It is a Diesel fuel (better medium destillate) but not the "blend" we use in cars. You would kill a modern car engine using it.
The 4 common Qualities are IFO 180 and 380 at a viskosity of 180 and 380 centistoke respectively. Commonly known as "Bunker C" These fuels are solid below 30°C
And MDO MGO at far below 30 ct. These are single (not blended) medium destillates and residuals diluted, and stay liquid below 30°C. MGO 0.2 has about 4 - 6 ct as I remember.
MGO (Marine Gas Oil) is the highest common quality and usually the one used for mains on smaller vessels and / or for generators on larger vessels. You can burn MGO in almost all marine engines bigger than a truck diesel. (15 ltr. displ.).
Have a look at the prices:

http://www.bunkerworld.com/markets/prices/nl/rtm/

Marine (Residual) Fuel Oils Parameter Unit Limit RMA 30 RMB 30 RMD 80 RME 180 RMF 180 RMG 380 RMH 380 RMK 380 RMH 700 RMK 700
(Int. Bezeichner) IFO 180 IFO 180 IFO 380 IFO 380
Dichte (15°C) kg/L Max 0,960 0,975 0,980 0,991 0,991 0,991 0,991 1,010 0,991 1,010
Viskosität bei 50°C mm²/s Max 30,0 30,0 80,0 180,0 180,0 380,0 380,0 380,0 700,0 700,0
Wasser % V/V Max 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
Schwefel % (m/m) Max 3,5 3,5 4,0 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5
MCR % (m/m) Max 10 10 14 15 20 18 22 22 22 22
Aluminium + Silizium mg/kg Max 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
Flammpunkt °C Min 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
Pourpoint, Sommer °C Max 6 24 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Pourpoint, Winter °C Max 0 24 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Total Sediment Potential (TSP) %wt Max 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1

Mydauphin
Biodiesel is your choice! None of the above mentioned is 1.st available for you, and 2.nd could meet your demand. Except you own a refinery.

Regards
Richard

[CDK]

Thanks for the education Richard.

Do you have any idea about the combustion efficiency of large engines that use RM fuels? If ships must change fuel type when nearing a port I suspect the combustion to be incomplete. Or is the pollution caused by fuel components that do not burn at all?

[apex1]

The combustion efficiency of those large monsters are the highest in our IC engine world. The largest MAN Diesel has a specific consumption of 162 g/kw only. And Bunker C has a high energy density. But it also contains a lot of chemical and solid crap that contributes to pollution. MDO by nature is a cleaner fuel `cos it is a destillate (middle dest.) whereas IFO 700 is the residue which no longer can be destilled to "higher" products. The 380 / 180 range is just a diluted IFO 700.

Regards
Richard

[fasteddy106]

You can take the bulk of the emission control devices from gasoline auto engines and put them on marine engines. It will raise the cost of the engine by several thousand dollars however. Mass air flow sensors, manifold absolute pressure sensor, camshaft and crankshaft position sensors, Evap canister and all of its various and sundry associated can be added. Plus all the temperature related sensors. They will have to redesigned for the marine environment so this will add to the cost in a big way. Think of all the wiring needed to be added, oh boy! You will need much bigger engine compartments and a secure environment for the computers to operate and monitor the engine. Because of the nature of water travel a secondary or limp mode will need to be added to the system in order to allow operation when some of the components inevitably fail and the engine shuts down because the computer gets confused and petulant by the incorrect signals it recieves from the sensors. The real function of all the sensors I just mentioned is to maintain the correct fuel mixture for temp and performance and are in addition to the sophisticated fuel injection systems modern autos have. With the exception of the evap system, the whole focus is on leaning out the fuel mix without causing excess combustion chamber temps that lead to higher nox. Nox on marine engines are beyond control with present technology. The heat is too dangerous to have on board so nox controls are a non-starter and further talk about them is silly and pointless. Besides nox gases from marine engines are a fraction of automobile engines because they run so much cooler so it would be like trying to stop West Nile Virus with a fly swatter, stupid and ineffective. About the same level of viability as painting your roof white to combat the AGW bogeyman, gee, wonder when they are going to start calling it AGC, (anthropogenic global cooling), crummy spring and summer here in the northeast, glad I'm out of the water for a year of redisign and repair.

[kistinie]

To think scientific progress is over is the rawest form of STUPIDITY.
FF

Nicely said.


Those that have noticed that recycled exhaust water was injected heated in the inlet of many modern car engines (Renault megane 2009, Golf TDI 2009....) for emission control purpose, are certainly sorry to see water is not available in sufficient quantity for a 20 to 30 % injection that would be much more adapted for a good emission control and fuel saving in the same proportion.

This may be the past as a smart solution exist to make de-mineralized water in large quantity with wind only....

Eole water (http://eolewater.com/gb/our-products/principe.html)

And you can drink it too :-))

[kistinie]

A few more info about this fantastic invention that is a air wind mill water maker:

- Used on a boat, the quantity of water you will get will be maximum as, as you know, up to 2 meters above sea level, air humidity is close to 100%

- The many horizontal and vertical Savonius type windmill patent for car and boat use are now public domain so the device can be adapted to cars and boat without this additional cost.

Now, please, do not express too loudly all together your joy for this great breakthrough on the road to lower emissions !

[apex1]

Did they leave your kennel door open again?

[kistinie]

Yes, he did, to be your guardianship.

[Submarine Tom]

Germany versus France, nobody will win, does that make you both losers?

Politics aside, what was marshmat's original question?

A noble effort Matt, but, seemingly unattainable...

Pity, as I think both Kistinie and Apex worthy contributors.

Sigh......

Tom

[kistinie]

93 post on the subject of "how to lower emission" and nothing about water posts.

Tom, Countries have nothing to do with this opposition.

It is the opposition of :

Oil against water
Oil against wind
Oil against sea
Oil against life
Past against future
Hate against love
Crass against Knowledge

This opposition is universal.

Water injection, compare to other available devices, is certainly the best solution to lower emission on an ICE

Ignoring water application like it is done here look more like a Lobbying desperate strategy to cut this innovation than real ignorance...even a child reading this topic will understand it very clearly !

Show us I'm wrong and lets do here a critical technical survey of the water injection solutions

[Submarine Tom]

Good for you Kistinie.

I've used water injection on a 1600 cc gas automotive, home made turbo-

chargered engine with great success (carburated).

It had a two stage pressure sensor that triggered the injectors.

Engine tear down found the engine internals cleaner than clean.

Tom

[apex1]

Crass against Knowledgehttp://www.imgbox.de/users/apex1/bug.gif




That was hitting the nail babe!
Are you finished with the dishes?
Washing done?

Ok, then continue dreaming.......


Ah no, first finish your chores, get rid of the bugs!

[Submarine Tom]

Apex, be nice.

-Tom

[kistinie]

Some explanations about water inside an engine

http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/steam.pdf

[missinginaction]

Just curious....how does one get a -23 reputation? :confused:

MIA

[Submarine Tom]

They have to be really, really bad.

Interesting handle for a New Yorker...

Shouldn't you be in Canada or are we not talking about that?

-Tom

[apex1]

Just curious....how does one get a -23 reputation? :confused:

MIA

Thats very easy MIA, someone gave him 7 positive points!:rolleyes:


`cos he was already down at -30...................:D

Do´nt waste your time reading his posts. (if you would, you´ld soon understand that -90 is closer to what he deserves)

[Submarine Tom]

Apex,

Good one, LOL!!!

Too f*@#ing funny.

Thank you.

Flowers

-Tom

[missinginaction]

That's kinda what I thought Submarine Tom. One thing I like about this site is the critiques from guys like Apex1.

To answer your question, no I'm not a draft dodger but I spend a lot of time down at the boat. My wife calls me missinginaction because the boat club is in a "hole" down at the Mohawk river and the cell phone doesn't work there.

So I'm "missing". It's my favorite place! Peaceful, ya know....

MIA

[Submarine Tom]

You're a clever man MIA, in many ways.

Cheers, Tom