Catalyst pellets
Discussion
I didn't pay anything for them. As to whether they 'work'; what do you think that I think they do? Honestly mate I wouldn't waste my time replying to something I thought was a load of rubbish. These sort of forums are full of people with no life, and no car knowledge. I bet you havent seen a socket set never mind used one?
That was my first idea. The electric pump and sender unit is easy to get to, I'm guessing it either screws in or a type of bayonet fitting. I'm pretty sure I'll have to remove both fuel pipes. I'm not a chemistry expert but the light research I've done suggests that it slightly lowers the pressure required to combust the diesel. They are more widely used in areas of poor fuel quality.
I haven't heard of Broquet. I only know 2 people that have used such catalyst. Guess what? 1 lad swears they gave him increased fuel economy and the other says they are a waste of time. I'd buy into the notion of it acting like a cleaning agent thus logically would make the engine more economical. Whether noticeable or not is another matter
750turbo said:
Excellent!
I needed a laugh after a day log conf call.
Now, will the OP be back?
What, are you some failed school yard bully? 'will the OP be back???' I don't know if I will be back around here, you taught me a right lesson. Some peoples replies have been genuinely funny, you sound like a bit of a dickI needed a laugh after a day log conf call.
Now, will the OP be back?
Max_Torque said:
You might be right.
But "these" forums are also full of people like me!
(I've developed more cars over the last 30 years than you've had hot dinners, have worked for just about every OEM that ever existed, have done literally thousands of engine and vehicle tests, for performance, economy and emissions, can explain, from first principals how an entire car works in minute detail and ohh, i'm pretty hand with the ol' spanners too....)
I'm not sure I believe you. If you were really as above why did you feel the need to advertise your 'expertise' after all you didn't disagree with my initial point. Have I aggrieved you, or are you generally outraged? But "these" forums are also full of people like me!
(I've developed more cars over the last 30 years than you've had hot dinners, have worked for just about every OEM that ever existed, have done literally thousands of engine and vehicle tests, for performance, economy and emissions, can explain, from first principals how an entire car works in minute detail and ohh, i'm pretty hand with the ol' spanners too....)
Rovinghawk said:
It's not true as you stated they're not spherical.
(I am a pedant.)
Really don't want to argue with you because your other post was 'observant'. The formula looks good to me and would take into account spherical divergence. I could be wrong, so don't take me to task, please (I am a pedant.)
Max_Torque said:
I'm not aggrieved in the slightest. I learnt long ago that idiots very rarely change their spots. If you want to stay ignorant i'm totally fine with that ;-)
BTW: "slightly lowering the pressure required to combust the diesel" would actually result in reduced thermal efficiency and a corresponding increase in fuel consumption for any given useful work output. i.e. it will make your diesel engine use MORE fuel, not less........
Of course, genuine advice is appreciated. I'm entering a subject I'm not confident with, so bare with me please. By lowering the pressure needed to compress thus combust the oil would that not ensure more of the diesel is spent? BTW: "slightly lowering the pressure required to combust the diesel" would actually result in reduced thermal efficiency and a corresponding increase in fuel consumption for any given useful work output. i.e. it will make your diesel engine use MORE fuel, not less........
Max_Torque said:
Simple answer: NO
Long Answer:
Diesel isn't "spent" it's burnt. A modern Common rail injects the liquid fuel at very high pressure (>2,000 BAR >29,000 psi, enough to cut through steel!) at a very precise time during the combustion cycle and into the extremely fast moving and dynamic air charge already ingested into the chamber. This precision, which is expressly designed into the combustion system (using massively complex Computational Fluid Dynamics and with extensive real Test Data optimisation using Multi Degrees Of Freedom Design Of Experiment type techniques) ensures the vast majority of fuel is atomised and presents with an enormous surface area to volume ratio. At the point of auto ignition, the flame front moves through this highly turbulent mixture, where combustion occurs (Combustion (burning) is a high-temperature exothermic redox chemical reaction between a fuel (the reductant) and an oxidant. The heat released from that process drives the expansion of the working fluid (78% nitrogen and the gaseous products of combustion) and that expansion is leveraged to do useful work on a piston (that extracts the work by expanding the working fluid. The unburnt fuel mass fraction in a modern common rail diesel engine is extremely small (well below 1%) and the vast majority of thaty (>85%) is due to fuel trapped in quench zones or in crevice volumes (flame front doesn't get there)
During the development of a modern engine, advance combustion optimisation techinques are used to calibrate the engine management system to enable it to operate at peak efficiency across all operating zones. Injection quantity, injection timing, injection events, Valve events, inlet manifold pressure, EGR rates and numerous other factors are all minutely co-optimised to allow your engine to burn the least fuel possible for any given output.
Fundamentally, an ICE is a Heat Engine. It relies on a difference in temperature and the corresponding HEAT flux to provide a source of useful work. intrinsic in it's operation is the relationship of chamber surface area to volume ratio, which is geometrically dependent on chamber geometery, but also on the crank angle at any given instant. Maximum conversion efficiency is realised at the smallest possible chamber volume and the highest possible Pressure and Temperature. Those factors also directly drive the maximum possible expansion ratio. Simplified that means we burn the fuel in air in the most efficient manner (high temp/high press/high turbulence) so we loose the lowest amount of heat while we burn that charge, and then we expand that charge as much as we can (from the smallest volume to the largest volume)
So, if your magical in-tank balls somehow made the fuel burn, as claimed, at a lower temp (which incidentally they can't) then the burn would start earlier, which is at a higher chamber volume (piston further down the bore) meaning that more heat is lost to the chamber walls during the burn (< efficiency) less of the fuel is burnt due to lower total charge dynamic pressure and turbulence (< efficiency again) and finally, the overall expansion ratio is reduced, because you started to burn the fuel earlier (< efficiency yet again)
Still think PH is full of people who don't know what they are talking about??
Simple answer. Yes I do. I guess you probably think the same. Check the thread, how many answers have I had like yours. Long Answer:
Diesel isn't "spent" it's burnt. A modern Common rail injects the liquid fuel at very high pressure (>2,000 BAR >29,000 psi, enough to cut through steel!) at a very precise time during the combustion cycle and into the extremely fast moving and dynamic air charge already ingested into the chamber. This precision, which is expressly designed into the combustion system (using massively complex Computational Fluid Dynamics and with extensive real Test Data optimisation using Multi Degrees Of Freedom Design Of Experiment type techniques) ensures the vast majority of fuel is atomised and presents with an enormous surface area to volume ratio. At the point of auto ignition, the flame front moves through this highly turbulent mixture, where combustion occurs (Combustion (burning) is a high-temperature exothermic redox chemical reaction between a fuel (the reductant) and an oxidant. The heat released from that process drives the expansion of the working fluid (78% nitrogen and the gaseous products of combustion) and that expansion is leveraged to do useful work on a piston (that extracts the work by expanding the working fluid. The unburnt fuel mass fraction in a modern common rail diesel engine is extremely small (well below 1%) and the vast majority of thaty (>85%) is due to fuel trapped in quench zones or in crevice volumes (flame front doesn't get there)
During the development of a modern engine, advance combustion optimisation techinques are used to calibrate the engine management system to enable it to operate at peak efficiency across all operating zones. Injection quantity, injection timing, injection events, Valve events, inlet manifold pressure, EGR rates and numerous other factors are all minutely co-optimised to allow your engine to burn the least fuel possible for any given output.
Fundamentally, an ICE is a Heat Engine. It relies on a difference in temperature and the corresponding HEAT flux to provide a source of useful work. intrinsic in it's operation is the relationship of chamber surface area to volume ratio, which is geometrically dependent on chamber geometery, but also on the crank angle at any given instant. Maximum conversion efficiency is realised at the smallest possible chamber volume and the highest possible Pressure and Temperature. Those factors also directly drive the maximum possible expansion ratio. Simplified that means we burn the fuel in air in the most efficient manner (high temp/high press/high turbulence) so we loose the lowest amount of heat while we burn that charge, and then we expand that charge as much as we can (from the smallest volume to the largest volume)
So, if your magical in-tank balls somehow made the fuel burn, as claimed, at a lower temp (which incidentally they can't) then the burn would start earlier, which is at a higher chamber volume (piston further down the bore) meaning that more heat is lost to the chamber walls during the burn (< efficiency) less of the fuel is burnt due to lower total charge dynamic pressure and turbulence (< efficiency again) and finally, the overall expansion ratio is reduced, because you started to burn the fuel earlier (< efficiency yet again)
Still think PH is full of people who don't know what they are talking about??
Thanks for that detailed explanation. Logicaly what you said follows. Clearly the whole premise of the argument is baseless.
Alot of people can tell you something won't work but can't tell you why. Again appreciated
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff