That graph is at lamda = 1. My common senss tell me the graph title is a typo.MarcJ wrote: ↑29 Dec 2018, 06:47While some of us recognise someone being funny, many won't so please use facts.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑28 Dec 2018, 00:38Yeah the SAE papers showed high levels of NOx.trinidefender wrote: ↑27 Dec 2018, 20:23
I don't think that it was ever explicitly stated that it was NOx that these PU's produce high levels of. It was just stated that the exhaust emissions weren't environmentally friendly or healthy to those around it.
If I had to guess, it would be fuel additives that would be the major cause of any harmful emissions.
If high levels of NOx are also present then I would imagine that they would be formed from the very high temperature flame jets.
Gas turbines suffer from that problem (where a lot of the development money is going to reduce NOx outputs on commercial turbofans). Even though the overall air:fuel ratio is very high, the combustion event itself is limited to a very small area where the mixture is much closer to stoichiometric. Ergo high combustion temperatures and high levels of NOx.
With ultra lean NOx emissions drop by 99.75% down to 2 or 3 parts per million.
That graph is not to be interpeted that way. Look at that graph with the one with the wider range of lambda..
The NOx values are almost the same for the same lambda.
I have the papers here. I will snapshot if i get the time.
It shows that you are reading without interpreting data. Look at both NOx graphs. Note there are lean burn normal spark engines that acheive lambda near lambda 1.5 too, but the NOx data for those are not presented, but I would expect it not to be far off from TJI for similar lambda.


