Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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
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.
|
But I'm not currently buying this 35% figure if that is what they're talking about. I don't have any evidence or concrete knowledge, maybe someone does, but I would think the ratio of carbon dioxide and water to miscellaneous other substances in a modern car's exhaust is a lot higher than is implied if only 35% of the fuel is being completely burned. Really what I think happened here is the guy with the device referred to 97% as the proportion of fuel being properly combusted, then some reporter found the 35% thermal efficiency and reported the figures as referring to the same thing even though quite surely they're not. But I could be wrong.
And yes, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, unburnt fuel, etc., are certainly more harmful to the environment and to people than is carbon dioxide (which is of course why cars have catalytic converters), but carbon dioxide is still the main greenhouse gas everyone is worrying about and makes the article entirely wrong in its claim that this device would "solve the world's greenhouse gas emission problems".