Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

If combustion efficiency, not boiler efficiency, is the amount of heat released by the product verses the heating value then what is the best commercially available achievable combustion as a percent, of any heavy residual fuel oil and how is it best measured to prove?

I understand that a Chromatographic test is used to analyze all the gases of combustion and determine quality of combustion of the fuel product...is this correct?

What is an industry average expectation as a percent of total product combustion for any of the heavy oils...?  Is it possible to achieve 99% combustion and reduce emissions of unburned hydrocarbons both gaseous and particulate?  If not why?

RE: Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

A simple intro to fuel combustion:

Rather more detail here:

For analysers the FIA 100 is now commercially available:

However, this is a very topical question and there is a great deal to be found on the interent if you search the marine fuel websites.


RE: Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

Thanks for the combustion website information...I gave you a star.
Let me pose another thought...about combustion.
What we (you and I and most here) know is:
(nothing new)
'....Oxygen is paramagnetic, a body or substance that, placed in a magnetic field, possesses magnetization in direct proportion to the field strength in its solid, liquid, and gaseous forms....'

But something new in 2004 popped up in physics classrooms...

"The magnetism of carbon"
Feature: November 2004
"Carbon is about to join the list of ferromagnetic elements, but the origins of its magnetic properties remain a mystery(...)"

So if oxygen and carbon can both be magnetized, does it stand as reasonable that carbons in hydrocarbons of fuel oils and the oxygen in air can be made highly reactive by certain microfield strengths, polarities, microfield angle, flow thru rates, metallic contacts, etc, etc,etc...? Not your kitchen magnets but magnetochemical engineered microfields from laboratory and field  tests geared towards catalysis that targets specific characteristics of FO moisture contents, physical-chemical properties, temperature, etc...?  just a thought. So, what does this mean to combustion engineers?

RE: Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

I think you will find that some companies offer a magnetic gizzmo for your fuel lines that is said to improve performance.
I have no idea if these should be lumped together with the "perpetual motion machines" nor if the various fuel additives that are said to improve efficiency and emissions have any value.
I have no experience of these and could not comment on veracity.

A search under fuel treatment should find the magnetic gizzom and the additives.


RE: Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

Excuse me for crossposting...and I am going to tailor my response to this thread.

Well, that's my dilemna.  I've been in power generation worldwide since 1975 as a field engineer and project manager. I know of absolutely no Refinery Managers or Power Station Managers who buy or would buy magnetic gizzoms.

So, I was surpised when I read... that some Catalysis engineer from the Instituto de Petroleo who's life long job was to improve combustion of residual oils at Pemex hit the jackpot with lowering emissions and fuel consumption in the mid 90's.  The process was tested from 1995 to 1998 and patented and supposedly a 5 year competition agreement held the technology off the commercial export market.  I only found out about it this year after an IPP customer of mine installed the cells and reported significant savings in bunker fuel costs and lower emissions.  

They had the owners of the technology send me the daily operating data and I could find no errors.  The steam plant had already decided to honor their contract and pay however, the equipment vendor also wanted to make sure the calculations were correct and he wasn't being shorted.  

I've been investigating everywhere for any new developments like this to support the claims and cannot find anything. I saw an emissions before & after report from Pemex and I have this plant operations managers' word that it works. He says they are going to expand their use of these cells in other units.  

Since catalysis is a science unto itself, and now there is "magnetochemical" engineering and quantum physics with "spin" -ning molecules, etc... I only trust what I see and what a few reliable friends tell me.  

Refinery areas are where most of this stuff comes from so here I am looking for further info.  But I have to say, I cannot imgagine refineries nor IPP's letting some profits slip away...so from that aspect alone I'm interested and it has my full attention one way or the other, especially for some of the oil fired plants I know in developing countries who need to reduce emissions and fuel operating costs.  I usually concentrate on efficiency improvements to steam paths. The closest to combustion technologies I ever got were gas turbines. I read in this years McGraw-Hill Power gen handbook that "catalytic combustion" is the future...what I want to know is if the future is here already.

RE: Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

I think a seach of the marine industry websites might help.

Engine manufacturers have been addressing this problem because of MAROPL and I did hear about a plasma discharge system using catalysts that was said to offer some benefits.
Many of the systems require some kind of fluids. I can't remeber the details.

However, a good site to visit and to to contact the members is www.SEAaT.com

SEAaT (Sulphur emissions abatement and trading) is a consortia of oil companies, shipping companies and associations investigating flue gas de-sulphurisation as aprt of the overall SOX, NOX and COX reduction measures.
If anyone is current on catalytic reduction i would guess they are or might be.


RE: Combustion Efficiency Is The Problem, Not The Source?

Hey, another good site. I guess the shippers are going to be hit big time from what I got from the site. If anybody should have an interest in the latest and greatest abatement technology I'm guessing it is this group.   Again, Thanks.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close