Inviromental Impact of catalytic converters vs EV batteries

[freebeard]

This may not be the appropriate thread, but it's the active one.

Oleksii Ivanchuk - ICCF25 - Detection of LENR in Spark Plugs

An interesting subject; but, between the spoken accent and the sketchy subtitles, a little hard to follow.

[Piotrsko]

Sounds like my relatives.

[pgfpro]

First off what a great thread.

What I think can help a lot with the small amount of fuel that is not burned in the area between the piston side above the 1st ring and the cylinder wall is to run a stratified charged with a Miller Cycle type engine in lean burn at a 20:1 plus A/F ratio at medium load to accelerate the car. In my case with this type of engine that I described above its 14psi worth of boost. At light load freeway type driving run an extreme lean burn 30:1 plus A/F ratio.

Now in the graph as an example NOx and CO drop down after an 18:1 A/F ratio and HC increases from an 18:1 A/f ratio upward. My question is what if we were to decrease the amount of fuel by half? My guess would be all the emissions would decrease the amount by half. So, one of my future tests will be to test emissions on a stock 4G63T engine vs my modified 4G63T engine.

[Piotrsko]

Emissions are partially a function of burning a hydrocarbon and getting resultant assorted oxides, nitrates, and some percent of unburned. Reducing fuel always reduces the aforementioned oxides, therefore reducing emissions.

There is also a practical limit on compression increase.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

First off what a great thread.

What I think can help a lot with the small amount of fuel that is not burned in the area between the piston side above the 1st ring and the cylinder wall is to run a stratified charged with a Miller Cycle type engine in lean burn at a 20:1 plus A/F ratio at medium load to accelerate the car. In my case with this type of engine that I described above its 14psi worth of boost. At light load freeway type driving run an extreme lean burn 30:1 plus A/F ratio.

Now in the graph as an example NOx and CO drop down after an 18:1 A/F ratio and HC increases from an 18:1 A/f ratio upward. My question is what if we were to decrease the amount of fuel by half? My guess would be all the emissions would decrease the amount by half. So, one of my future tests will be to test emissions on a stock 4G63T engine vs my modified 4G63T engine.

Thx for the advice and graph pgfpro. Interesting! Where did it come from/link?
Pity it does not show CO2, C and H2O.

It seems your exhaust is full of unburned HC.
Hmmm!

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by Logic

Thx for the advice and graph pgfpro. Interesting! Where did it come from/link?
Pity it does not show CO2, C and H2O.

It seems your exhaust is full of unburned HC.
Hmmm!

After talking to a F1 engineer about this what he told me this graph, and several others graphs alike are referring to a misfire due to being to lean. They are assuming the engine will start misfiring at this lean conditions. He said also they do not take into consideration that today's F1 stratified charge Passive Pre-Chamber cars are not misfiring. They have a complete burn even at above 30:1 A/F ratios.

Good eye catching the HC going up he said that's an indicator of a misfire.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

After talking to a F1 engineer about this what he told me this graph, and several others graphs alike are referring to a misfire due to being to lean. They are assuming the engine will start misfiring at this lean conditions. He said also they do not take into consideration that today's F1 stratified charge Passive Pre-Chamber cars are not misfiring. They have a complete burn even at above 30:1 A/F ratios.

Good eye catching the HC going up he said that's an indicator of a misfire.

Ah! Yes; no misfire...
That means the NOx and CO lines are also incorrect.

I'd really like to get eyes on graphs without misfire.
Looking...

[Isaac Zachary]

A graph like that is very generalized, and each engine design is going to be substantially different. A lot of work goes into mixing fuel into air these days. The homogeneity of the air-fuel mix is going to have a huge effect on those numbers.

At any rate, if you can make an engine that keeps running without misfires at leaner and leaner air-fuel ratios then the CO, HC and NOx will continue to go down. From an engineering standpoint the problem would be that you start losing efficiency with leaner and leaner mixes and leaner than stoichiometric is very difficult to reduce the remaining NOx emissions.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

A graph like that is very generalized, and each engine design is going to be substantially different. A lot of work goes into mixing fuel into air these days. The homogeneity of the air-fuel mix is going to have a huge effect on those numbers.

At any rate, if you can make an engine that keeps running without misfires at leaner and leaner air-fuel ratios then the CO, HC and NOx will continue to go down. From an engineering standpoint the problem would be that you start losing efficiency with leaner and leaner mixes and leaner than stoichiometric is very difficult to reduce the remaining NOx emissions.

High Compression Ratio Active Pre-chamber Single-Cylinder
Gasoline Engine with 50% Gross Indicated Thermal Eciency
Wenfeng Zhan, Hong Chen, Jiakun Du,*Bin Wang, Fangxi Xie, and Yuhuai Li

ABSTRACT:
Active pre-chamber turbulent jet ignition with a high compression ratio has been demonstrated to be an eective method for significantly enhancing engine thermal eciency.
A dual modification of the combustion chamber and the pre-chamber was performed on an AVL 5400 single-cylinder Miller engine to achieve stable ultra-lean burn at a high compression ratio, and a breakthrough of 51.10% gross indicated thermal eciency was achieved at the compression ratio of 16.4 and λ= 2.236.
Spark ignition and pre-chamber turbulent jet ignition exhibit significant performance diversities under lean burn conditions. Pre-chamber turbulent jet ignition is able to significantly expand the lean burn limit of spark ignition to λ= 2.7 (CoVIMEP < 5%) at only the expense of an increased HC emission, while apparently reducing fuel consumption and nitrogen oxide emissions.
With an increase in the compression ratio from 13.6 to16.4, spark ignition and pre-chamber turbulent jet ignition exhibit contradictory performance laws.
The engine performance of a spark ignition engine decreases significantly as the compression ratio increases, whereas a pre-chamber jet ignition engine can still operate reliably at a high compression ratio with ultra-lean combustion.
Within the scope of the test, the performance of the pre-chamber jet ignition engine is enhanced by a greater compression ratio.
This improvement is primarily attributable to the reduction of heat transfer loss and exhaust energy loss under ultra-lean combustion, as determined by an analysis of the structure of power losses.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...mal_Efficiency

It seems HCs increase some even with pre-chambers, but Nitrous likely changes the picture..?


The catalytic surface layer (copper) and a 'frangible' and lubricious solid lubricant filling that U gap are great additions to pre-chamber lean burn and easy to do.

[Isaac Zachary]

There are a lot of things that can change the picture, and to be honest I'm no expert in them.

At stoichiometric you get pockets that are lean and pockets that are rich. As you lean out you get less rich pockets, therefore less HC. But I suppose at some point you don't get enough heat to burn everything up. Maybe compression ignition would solve that, which it does in a diesel engine.