Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
This doesn't make any sense to me. First off I don't understand how this is going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It's a cleaner burn, so what, carbon dioxide and water are still the main results of combustion, and I figured catalytic converters were already taking care of most of the results of imperfect combustion.
|
The water and carbon dioxide are the ideal results of a complete combustion and are much less harmful than carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides. The catylytic converters help, but they don't eliminate the problem
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
I would deduce that the presence of hydrogen helps by regulating the amount of oxygen available for combustion with the fuel.
|
I'm not 100% sure on the physics of it, but I've heard of it before.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
Secondly, I'm not sure what kind of efficiency they're talking about, but the overall efficiency of heat engines is restricted by the second law of thermodynamics and is not something that can be substantially improved under the current universe's laws of physics. If they're talking about the proportion of fuel that goes to do useful work, then it may help by ensuring complete combustion, but the numbers still don't make sense: as far as I know the 35 percent figure quoted for current engines is the "heat engine efficiency" and it's impossible to get a heat engine efficiency of 97 percent. 97 percent sounds reasonable for the proportion of fuel properly combusted, but then I don't think current engines are nearly as bad as 35 percent in that department. Does anyone out there know what's the story with this?
|
It's pretty much impossible to get 97% thermal efficiency and even if it were it'd take more than a hopped up radiator.
The figures they're talking about is complete burn and incomplete burn. 35% of the fuel in your combustion chamber goes through the complete combustion process, resulting in nothing other than water and carbon dioxide. The other 65% is still burned, but incompletely, resulting in carbon monoxide, elemental carbon and nitrous oxides. This is the stuff that hurts the environment. This device, be it by increasing temperature, regulating the flame front, or just adding oxygen, promotes a more complete burn. That's what the 97% and 35% figures are referring to. Like I said, I'm not too sure on the physics of how, but the idea presented is entirely possible.