Emission Controls - Technical Thread

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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/Synthèse_sur_le_dopage_à_l'eau_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/...e-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 :?:
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

 

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.

 

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

 

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....

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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 ) , 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.... 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)

 

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...

 

THAT for sure is the main prob.

 

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.