Do Catalytic Converters Really make a difference?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Do Catalytic Converters Really make a difference?

Do Catalytic Converters Really make a difference?23-01-2018 20:41
Stopngo ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Exhaust temperatures have tripled by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer to maintain Engine cooling. So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines. Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here?
23-01-2018 23:27
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion and therefore reduced greenhouse gases...... Wrong. Catalytic converters for engines and higher combustion temperatures in general have no real effect on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas of concern. Catalytic converters reduce smog emissions. The main function of automotive emissions controls for gasoline engines, as they've been implemented, is to reduce unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from the exhaust stream. These are components of smog. Carbon dioxide is not a component of smog. The amount of carbon dioxide in the exhaust of an engine is almost unchanged by a catalytic converter. Slightly increased even as the incompletely burned carbon monoxide is further oxidized, as is also true of unburned hydrocarbons too. (The slight increase doesn't really matter either as atmospheric photooxidation of the carbon monoxide and the unburned hydrocarbons eventually makes them into carbon dioxide.) The amount of carbon dioxide produced from from any given fuel is the same no matter how it is burned. Really basic chemistry. There some is variation between fuel types such as gasoline or natural gas or diesel, but for any fuel type the amount of CO2 produced per pound or per gallon is fixed. The amount is not trivial either, about nineteen pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline. Yes, 19 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. In principle, at least for stationary applications like electric powerplants, the CO2 could be captured and put underground instead of exhausted into the atmosphere, but it's not done except experimentally.
23-01-2018 23:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion No, it doesn't. Complete combustion is a function of fuel and air ratio. Higher combustion temperatures actually produce NOx gases, which can be a problem with the formation of smog. Stopngo wrote: and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or any other planet). Stopngo wrote: But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? No. There is no problem. You are not on the Titanic. Stopngo wrote: Exhaust temperatures have tripled WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. This is due to an emission control system which is used to reduce the production of NOx gases. Stopngo wrote: by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters Catalytic converters do not reduce smog. They reduce sulfur dioxides due to the use of sour fuels. Normal exhaust temperatures are quite sufficient for the reaction to work. Stopngo wrote: along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. It opens when the water temperature in the engine reaches a high enough temperature for the engine to run at a normal operating temperature. Stopngo wrote: to maintain Engine cooling. You only want a certain amount of engine cooling. That's why cars have thermostats at all. You don't WANT to cool the engine until it reaches it's normal operating temperature. You want it to heat up as quickly as possible. Stopngo wrote: So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Nope. The BTU from a gallon of gasoline has not changed. The engines use less of it now per mile. Cylinder peak burn temperature is reduced by the EGR system in order to reduce the production of NOx gases. [b]Stopngo wrote: Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines.[/b] Bad assumptions followed by bad math. Stopngo wrote: Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not potential energy. It is not 'delayed'. It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Stopngo wrote: resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion Combustion is pretty damn efficient these days, thanks to the use of multipoint fuel injection systems, better trim controls using oxygen sensors, and better ignition controls using computers for timing rather than inaccurate distributors points and cams. You should take a look at your emission test report sometime. Notice how the unburned hydrocarbons reading is much lower than it used to be for older cars. Stopngo wrote: or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures No higher temperatures in an engine than usual. Stopngo wrote: begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? Seems like you are. May I suggest you study up on automotive engine design, including how each emission control system operates and why it's there? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 00:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	still learning wrote: Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion and therefore reduced greenhouse gases...... Wrong. Catalytic converters for engines and higher combustion temperatures in general have no real effect on carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas of concern. Actually they do. They increase the CO2 in the exhaust. still learning wrote: Catalytic converters reduce smog emissions. Not their function. The EGR system does that. still learning wrote: The main function of automotive emissions controls for gasoline engines, as they've been implemented, is to reduce unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from the exhaust stream. This is done primarily by the EGR system, not the catalytic converter. The purpose of the catalytic converter is to convert unburned hydrocarbons, CO, SO2, etc. to CO2. still learning wrote: These are components of smog. Neither CO nor SO2 produce smog. Smog is the result of NOx combining with unburned hydrocarbons and naturally occurring ozone. The EGR system reduces the NOx. The catalytic converter further removes unburned hydrocarbons by oxidizing them. still learning wrote: Carbon dioxide is not a component of smog. True. still learning wrote: The amount of carbon dioxide in the exhaust of an engine is almost unchanged by a catalytic converter. It is increased as a result of the converter. still learning wrote: Slightly increased even as the incompletely burned carbon monoxide is further oxidized, as is also true of unburned hydrocarbons too. True. still learning wrote: (The slight increase doesn't really matter either as atmospheric photooxidation of the carbon monoxide and the unburned hydrocarbons eventually makes them into carbon dioxide.) Actually, it does matter, since sulfur dioxides (from sour fuels) does acidify the rain slightly. CO is colorless, just like CO2. Neither produces smog. The presence of CO in the exhaust, though, suggests a less efficient burn. That's why it's monitored. It's an indication of too rich a mixture, which produces less power and wastes fuel; or an engine that may have mechanical problems, where a cylinder isn't burning fuel properly. still learning wrote: The amount of carbon dioxide produced from from any given fuel is the same no matter how it is burned. Really basic chemistry. Assuming a complete burn, true. No burn is perfect in any engine, however. Other components are produced that contain the carbon atom, preventing it from coming out as CO2. still learning wrote: There some is variation between fuel types such as gasoline or natural gas or diesel, but for any fuel type the amount of CO2 produced per pound or per gallon is fixed. Again, assuming a perfect burn, true. still learning wrote: The amount is not trivial either, about nineteen pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline. Yes, 19 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. Really a drop in the proverbial bucket. The atmosphere is quite heavy, you know. still learning wrote: In principle, at least for stationary applications like electric powerplants, the CO2 could be captured and put underground instead of exhausted into the atmosphere, but it's not done except experimentally. Not needed. CO2 does not harm the planet in any way. It has no capability to warm the Earth. It's actually beneficial for the planet. Life could not exist without it! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 00:06
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	still learning wrote:....about nineteen pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline. Some people find it hard to believe that 19 pounds of carbon dioxide is produced, while burning only a gallon (6 pounds) of fuel. Its just that the burning fuel extracts & adds oxygen to construct the heavier CO2 molecule. Also, not often mentioned about fuel burning, is the fuel burned by transport vehicles, getting the fuel to gas stations..... another 9 pounds or so. Therefore, a total of ~ 28 pounds of CO2 is produced for every gallon burned. That is why it is so important for car purchasers & drivers to work hard to obtain a dependable high MPG vehicle AND drive with careful throttle applications. Leadfoot drivers in low MPG vehicles can easily produce 3 times more CO2, as featherfooters in high MPG vehicles. Of course, compared to hybrids or high MPG diesels, 5 (more?) times as much CO2 can be produced. Per year, a long distance uncaring leadfooter can throw 25(more?) TONS of CO2 into the air.

24-01-2018 00:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	Modern cars today have many emission control systems on them. Most of them are out of circuit once the car warms up to normal operating temperature. A quick rundown on some of the more well known ones: The catalytic converter: Fuel may contain sulfur compounds in it. This is because fuel is from a natural source related to 'volcanic' activity (for lack of a better description). The best natural crude oil is known as 'sweet' oil. It requires no special equipment to fraction into gasoline and other products. There is such a thing as 'sour' oil. This is oil that contain sulfur compounds. By modifying the processing plant, it is possible to use this oil, and process it also into gasoline and other products, but they DO still contain some of the sulfur. When burned, this produces sulfur compounds that can cause 'acid' rain. In addition, no burn in a car is 100% efficient. Inefficient burns tend to show up when rapidly accelerating, climbing steep hills, or any other rapid shift in the throttle position. It takes time for the engine to adjust to the new speed, and during this time, inefficient burns may occur in the cylinders. The function of the catalytic converter is several. It converts the sulfur compounds into carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxides (rotten egg gas). It also helps to oxidize any unburned hydrocarbons that get through, and also oxidizes carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide as a side effect. Testing monitors HC (unburned hydrocarbons), CO (an indication of a mixture that is too rich), and CO2 (to verity the system is reading a sufficient amount of exhaust. A maximum HC and CO reading is allowed, and a MINIMUM CO2 reading is allowed. That way, the guy operating the probe knows it is measuring exhaust, and not a dummy or leaking exhaust pipe. Modern cars use two oxygen sensors. The first one is described later, and the second one is used to test the catalytic converter. The second probe should not be pulsing as the first one does, but should be a smooth output. Failure of the converter produces a pulsing output from the second probe and the computer throws an error (engine check light). EGR system: This system is the primary method of reducing smog. It's purpose is to reduce peak cylinder temperatures. NOx gases form under high temperature conditions. When they combine with unburned hydrocarbons and ozone (both from the engine and naturally occurring), smog is produced. By reducing peak cylinder temperatures, NOx production is reduced. The system works by routine the positive pressure pulse of the exhaust system back into the induction system. This helps to route unburned hydrocarbons back into the induction for a 'second chance', and also reduces the peak cylinder temperatures at the same time. Failure of the EGR system results in high NOx production. The computer detects this failure by noting the change in the pressure pulse in the induction system. The Carbon canister or Evaporative Control System: This benign little device usually sits along a sidewall or near the front of the engine compartment. It's purpose is to store gasoline vapors when the engine is shut off. Since you stop engines by disabling the ignition system, additional fuel will pushed toward the cylinders as the engine spins down. This results in an excess of gasoline vapors in the induction system. The canister stores these vapors so they don't escape to the atmosphere where they can contribute to smog. When the engine is started again, the suction in the fuel system draws these vapors out, returning them to the engine to be burned. The computer tests this system (along with the fuel cap) by placing a vacuum on the entire fuel supply vent system. If the vacuum doesn't form, the computer can sense this using a cheap barometer chip and throws an error. When you see this code, check your gas cap first. It's probably the problem. Some cars will not clear this code if you replace the gas cap properly. This is a bug. You will have to use a scanner to clear the code manually. Multipoint fuel injection: This can actually be considered an emission control system. It allows a more efficient burn by introducing fuel right at the intake valves of each cylinder instead of letting it collect on the interior of the induction system and coming out of vapor form (where it burns badly, if at all). FADEC: This is a system that comes directly out of aviation. It places a computer in charge of ignition and fuel injection instead of the hydraulic and pneumatically operated systems cars used to use. The computer is more precise with timing of both events, which are timed by fixed time intervals rather than the angle of a shaft against the top dead center of the cylinder travel. Previous systems used all sorts of compensating gunk to try to accomplish the same thing, but the computer is cheap and precise. It also provides better monitoring of many engine functions, and better automation of things like cruise controls. Jet aircraft has had FADEC for quite a few decades, but the computers are cheap enough now to put them in cars. One of the best things to happen to cars in a long time. Oxygen sensors: These little devices are actually not essential to running the engine at all. They are mounted on the exhaust system. There are two of them, one before the catalytic converter and one after it. They are labeled as O1 and O2 in automotive parlance (O1 being the sensor BEFORE the converter). The purpose of O1 is to act as a trim system for the engine mixture. It is out of circuit until the engine reaches normal operating temperature since they require higher temperatures to function. Some of them have heaters in them. It measures the free oxygen in an exhaust stream using an ionization technique. Sensor O1 normally produces a pulsed output as the pressures change in the exhaust system with each exhaust valve opening and closing. The computer averages this pulse over time (typically a minute or two), and makes slight trim adjustments on the mixture to produce as efficient a burn as possible (one that uses all the available fuel to the available oxygen at the correct ratio). Sensor O1 is also one part of the test system to see if the catalytic converter is working. Sensor O2 is the other half of that test. After catalysis, the resulting gases have a smooth unchanging level of oxygen in the stream. This is reflected by the O2 sensor output, which should show a smooth waveform, rather than the pulsed waveform of O1. If the converter fails, O2 will show a pulsed output like O1. The computer flags this as an error condition (engine check light). The typical failure mode of an oxygen sensor is loss of output (the computer also detects this and throws an error). This can happen from corroded electrical connectors, a heater element in the sensor itself burned out, or the sensor itself simply has corroded (life an an exhaust pipe is not pleasant!). Replacing them can be a pain in the butt, because clearances are so tight, the sensors are mounted in rusty threaded fittings and can be very tight, and you have to get under the car to get at them. Just unscrew the bad one (easier said than done!) and screw in a new one. Plug it in, clear the code, and you're ready to go. Thermostat: Yup. This is an emission control system. It's purpose is to shut off liquid coolant flow through the engine (heater still cycles coolant), causing the engine to be quickly brought up to a normal operating temperature. A cold engine needs a richer mixture. It is not as efficient as a warm engine. Once the engine is up to temperature, this device opens to allow coolant flow through the radiator (as well as the cabin heater core). It stays open until the engine is shut off and cools down again. If an engine is running so cold to shut this valve while operating, something is wrong. Most people, looking at their engine will see two large hoses running from the engine to the radiator. These 'aortas' are the main coolant hoses. The one leading to the top of the radiator is the hot hose coming from the engine. On the engine itself, the hose connects to a fitting instead of the engine block. That fitting is the thermostat housing. The one on the bottom leads to the water pump, and from there to the coolant jackets around each cylinder (and possibly other places in the engine). Thermostats generally fail open. The engine takes a lot longer to heat up. Sometimes they fail closed and the engine overheats. Replacing them is simple. Unbolt the housing, chuck the old one and install a replacement. Check those 'aorta's from time to time. A bulging hose or soft spot means it's going to burst soon. Like a burst 'aorta', that means your engine will die, and quickly. It will quickly overheat and the mess of coolant is everywhere. The hose should feel firm, rubbery, and uniform. If in doubt, replace it. It's cheap insurance. These are the more common emission control systems found in modern cars today, what they do, and why they're there. Oddly enough, none of this has anything to do with 'global warming' or the CO2 content of the atmosphere as measured at Mauna Loa. These systems are, however, somewhat mysterious in their function. Most people hear about the catalytic converter the most, because it's large, expensive, and probably the most misunderstood. It's actually a pretty minor system compared to the others in it's total effect. Some folks in the automotive business jokingly refer to them as "pollution to pollution converters". It is the little stuff, the EGR, the FADEC systems, the evap system, the multipoint injection, that does most of the work.
24-01-2018 03:34
Stopngo ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Into the Night wrote: Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion No, it doesn't. Complete combustion is a function of fuel and air ratio. Higher combustion temperatures actually produce NOx gases, which can be a problem with the formation of smog. Stopngo wrote: and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or any other planet). Stopngo wrote: But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? No. There is no problem. You are not on the Titanic. Stopngo wrote: Exhaust temperatures have tripled WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. This is due to an emission control system which is used to reduce the production of NOx gases. Stopngo wrote: by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters Catalytic converters do not reduce smog. They reduce sulfur dioxides due to the use of sour fuels. Normal exhaust temperatures are quite sufficient for the reaction to work. Stopngo wrote: along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. It opens when the water temperature in the engine reaches a high enough temperature for the engine to run at a normal operating temperature. Stopngo wrote: to maintain Engine cooling. You only want a certain amount of engine cooling. That's why cars have thermostats at all. You don't WANT to cool the engine until it reaches it's normal operating temperature. You want it to heat up as quickly as possible. Stopngo wrote: So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Nope. The BTU from a gallon of gasoline has not changed. The engines use less of it now per mile. Cylinder peak burn temperature is reduced by the EGR system in order to reduce the production of NOx gases. [b]Stopngo wrote: Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines.[/b] Bad assumptions followed by bad math. Stopngo wrote: Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not potential energy. It is not 'delayed'. It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Stopngo wrote: resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion Combustion is pretty damn efficient these days, thanks to the use of multipoint fuel injection systems, better trim controls using oxygen sensors, and better ignition controls using computers for timing rather than inaccurate distributors points and cams. You should take a look at your emission test report sometime. Notice how the unburned hydrocarbons reading is much lower than it used to be for older cars. Stopngo wrote: or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures No higher temperatures in an engine than usual. Stopngo wrote: begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? Seems like you are. May I suggest you study up on automotive engine design, including how each emission control system operates and why it's there? Wow.......I never expected such a forceful comeback and it looks like I may have disturbed somebodies agenda here. Are you the busy body know it all here? WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. Wrong Wrong Wrong Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. If you are talking about newer cars where the temperature rises and falls based on movement and rises in particular in standstill traffic........yah...that is exactly the problem and another proof of hotter running temperatures. Yup the the thermostat remains open because that is the only way to prevent overheating. And the thermostat has to remain open because auto manufactures have been forced to reduce airflow into the engine compartment by smaller grill openings thus challenging the cooling system. Older vehicles with full time mechanically driven fans provided more than enough cooling enabling the thermostat to open and close constantly regardless of driving distance and maintained the temperature at an exact constant and considerably cooler. Try changing the engine oil on a new vehicle and an older vehicle and then tell me the newer one runs cooler. It doesn't.
24-01-2018 03:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	Stopngo wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion No, it doesn't. Complete combustion is a function of fuel and air ratio. Higher combustion temperatures actually produce NOx gases, which can be a problem with the formation of smog. Stopngo wrote: and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or any other planet). Stopngo wrote: But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? No. There is no problem. You are not on the Titanic. Stopngo wrote: Exhaust temperatures have tripled WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. This is due to an emission control system which is used to reduce the production of NOx gases. Stopngo wrote: by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters Catalytic converters do not reduce smog. They reduce sulfur dioxides due to the use of sour fuels. Normal exhaust temperatures are quite sufficient for the reaction to work. Stopngo wrote: along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. It opens when the water temperature in the engine reaches a high enough temperature for the engine to run at a normal operating temperature. Stopngo wrote: to maintain Engine cooling. You only want a certain amount of engine cooling. That's why cars have thermostats at all. You don't WANT to cool the engine until it reaches it's normal operating temperature. You want it to heat up as quickly as possible. Stopngo wrote: So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Nope. The BTU from a gallon of gasoline has not changed. The engines use less of it now per mile. Cylinder peak burn temperature is reduced by the EGR system in order to reduce the production of NOx gases. [b]Stopngo wrote: Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines.[/b] Bad assumptions followed by bad math. Stopngo wrote: Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not potential energy. It is not 'delayed'. It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Stopngo wrote: resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion Combustion is pretty damn efficient these days, thanks to the use of multipoint fuel injection systems, better trim controls using oxygen sensors, and better ignition controls using computers for timing rather than inaccurate distributors points and cams. You should take a look at your emission test report sometime. Notice how the unburned hydrocarbons reading is much lower than it used to be for older cars. Stopngo wrote: or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures No higher temperatures in an engine than usual. Stopngo wrote: begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? Seems like you are. May I suggest you study up on automotive engine design, including how each emission control system operates and why it's there? Wow.......I never expected such a forceful comeback and it looks like I may have disturbed somebodies agenda here. Nope. No agenda here. Just correcting your wrong ideas about automotive engines. Stopngo wrote: Are you the busy body know it all here? I happen to know how to design and build internal combustion engines and how to maintain them. I also happen to know how to maintain jet engines and even external combustion engines (such as steam engines). Stopngo wrote: WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. Wrong Wrong Wrong Argument of the Stone. Stopngo wrote: Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. If you are talking about newer cars where the temperature rises and falls based on movement and rises in particular in standstill traffic........yah...that is exactly the problem and another proof of hotter running temperatures. Cars produce less heat when idling or sitting in traffic. The reason you hear the fan come on is because the water pump is moving fast enough to convey heat to the radiator efficiently. Stopngo wrote: Yup the the thermostat remains open because that is the only way to prevent overheating. And the thermostat has to remain open because auto manufactures have been forced to reduce airflow into the engine compartment Nope. They've always remained opened once opened. The airflow in an engine compartment is about the same. In some ways, it's improved in many cars. Stopngo wrote: by smaller grill openings thus challenging the cooling system. Size of grill opening is not the primary factor in airflow. Pressure difference is. You should go look at a Cessna 150 sometime. Tiny air openings. That is an air cooled engine too. There is no liquid coolant. The engine is ONLY cooled by the airflow. Stopngo wrote: Older vehicles with full time mechanically driven fans provided more than enough cooling enabling the thermostat to open and close constantly regardless of driving distance and maintained the temperature at an exact constant and considerably cooler. They didn't maintain temperature. That's one of the reasons we don't use such fans much anymore. Stopngo wrote: Try changing the engine oil on a new vehicle and an older vehicle and then tell me the newer one runs cooler. It doesn't. I have changed the oil on both. The newer cars use thinner oil than older cars. This is because of the greater precision of parts inside the engine. That oil lasts longer too. The engine isn't baking the hell out of it like it used to. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 06:12
Stopngo ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Again you are wrong regarding todays engines running cooler. They run much hotter. http://www.dupont.com/industries/automotive/powertrain-engine-system/articles/performance-polymers-solutions.html They generate more heat, and involve more aggressive gases, fluids, and acidic gas/air mixtures, often under high pressure. Many traditional materials of construction can no longer perform in the much hotter, confined and stressed environments created by the modern engine. You leave much doubt as to credibility.
24-01-2018 06:13
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	ITN wrote:Nope. They've always remained opened once opened. ???? Are we talking about the same thing here? Thermostats will open at specified temp via thermal expansion , ~195-205F depending on the engine. They will close when they drop below. If you drive a cold engine, especially in sub zero weather, it may open and close several times as the coolant that come from the very cold radiator is so cold that a small shot of coolant will instantly drop engine temps by 8F. It will close the thermostat and reopen when needed. This cycle will continue until all the coolant has made a pass through the hot engine and is at least warmed and in the radiator waiting to be used. After the entire coolant reaches operating temp, the thermostat is still constantly adjusting the gap in the opening to maintain proper temp. If a thermostat fails and sticks in the open position, it will never reach correct operating temp, especially in frigid weather. Older vehicle were tough to get them to open the thermostat at all in the winter, meaning no heat in the cabin. Don't you remember the days of putting cardboard over the radiator to block airflow? Edited on 24-01-2018 06:34
24-01-2018 06:21
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Stopngo wrote: Again you are wrong regarding todays engines running cooler. They run much hotter. A 1970 Chevy 350 and a newer Chevy Vortec 350 both run at 195F. Are you talking about engine external temps, combustion temps, or tailpipe temps? Can't really tell what you're talking about since your link is a DuPont commercial. Edited on 24-01-2018 06:36
24-01-2018 06:51
Stopngo ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Are you talking about engine external temps, combustion temps, or tailpipe temps? All of em.
24-01-2018 07:54
James_ ★★★★★ (2273)	Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Exhaust temperatures have tripled by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer to maintain Engine cooling. So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines. Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? If you look at how polluted Bejing, China is it's because they have many cars on the road that might have no catalytic converter or any pollution control except for a muffler, maybe.
24-01-2018 19:00
Stopngo ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	If you look at how polluted Bejing, China is it's because they have many cars on the road that might have no catalytic converter or any pollution control except for a muffler, maybe. I agree and see your point. And I understand that the smog component of pollution has been substantially reduced and am not suggesting we back track on that. The point of contention here is that aside from the positives .......the by product or trade off is increased heat output which I will steadfastly maintain in contrast to at least one here that thinks cars run cooler nowadays. Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. My opening post asked the question whether or not the extra heat might also contribute to climate change.
24-01-2018 19:24
James_ ★★★★★ (2273)	Stopngo wrote: If you look at how polluted Bejing, China is it's because they have many cars on the road that might have no catalytic converter or any pollution control except for a muffler, maybe. I agree and see your point. And I understand that the smog component of pollution has been substantially reduced and am not suggesting we back track on that. The point of contention here is that aside from the positives .......the by product or trade off is increased heat output which I will steadfastly maintain in contrast to at least one here that thinks cars run cooler nowadays. Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. My opening post asked the question whether or not the extra heat might also contribute to climate change. This link from the University of Washington http://depts.washington.edu/vehfire/ignition/autoignition/surftemper.html suggests that lowering the speed limit would help. Apparently you're aware that the catalyst in the converter causes an electrical charge which is needed for a chemical reaction to occur. It seems that in a properly operating system that the chemical reaction absorbs some oh the heat as hv.

24-01-2018 19:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. Exhaust systems today are largely made of stainless and can often times last the life of the vehicle. Our driving habits are much different today also. In the 60's 70s the big goal in life was to buy the nicest house possible 2-3 minute from the 9-5 job. Today we don't seem to care how far we drive. Cars are so nice it is quite relaxing to spend some time in the car. I drove 68K miles last year in my 5.7 HEMI and loved every min. I get 9-10 mpg and don't care. Mpg is even worse when I run over a Prius or something similar. It's all fun. The 2 min drive to work is what knocks out a standard China built steel muffler. Water just sits in there constantly. Edited on 24-01-2018 19:48
24-01-2018 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	Stopngo wrote: Again you are wrong regarding todays engines running cooler. They run much hotter. ...deleted Holy Link and Quote... You leave much doubt as to credibility.[/quote] DuPont doesn't build engines. Using a DuPont ad does not describe how engines operate or their operating temperature. Now you are moving into Bulverism...a fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote:Nope. They've always remained opened once opened. ???? Are we talking about the same thing here? Actually, yes. GasGuzzler wrote: Thermostats will open at specified temp via thermal expansion , ~195-205F depending on the engine. They will close when they drop below. Correct. GasGuzzler wrote: If you drive a cold engine, especially in sub zero weather, it may open and close several times as the coolant that come from the very cold radiator is so cold that a small shot of coolant will instantly drop engine temps by 8F. Also correct. We are not talking about such driving conditions. GasGuzzler wrote: Older vehicle were tough to get them to open the thermostat at all in the winter, meaning no heat in the cabin. Don't you remember the days of putting cardboard over the radiator to block airflow? No all vehicles had this problem. The problem in some older cars was a fan turning all the time and too large a radiator in the system to compensate for poor design. This is still a problem even in some of today's cars. Personally, I prefer correctly sized radiators and thermostatically controlled electric fans to augment airflow through them. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: Stopngo wrote: Again you are wrong regarding todays engines running cooler. They run much hotter. A 1970 Chevy 350 and a newer Chevy Vortec 350 both run at 195F. Are you talking about engine external temps, combustion temps, or tailpipe temps? Can't really tell what you're talking about since your link is a DuPont commercial. He is referring to exhaust temperatures, as a function of the temperature at the exhaust port of the engine. His contention is that combustion temperature has tripled over the years. The temperatures you are referring to here is coolant temperature, which is the same between both vehicles. There is a reason there are so few models of replacement thermostats in automotive stores. He's wrong. The same thermostats fit all the different years of cars. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	James_ wrote: Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? Exhaust temperatures have tripled by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer to maintain Engine cooling. So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines. Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? If you look at how polluted Bejing, China is it's because they have many cars on the road that might have no catalytic converter or any pollution control except for a muffler, maybe. No, it's because they burn coal inefficiently and don't use any scrubbers on their stacks. China is now in the process of modernizing their coal plants at long last. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	Stopngo wrote: The point of contention here is that aside from the positives .......the by product or trade off is increased heat output which I will steadfastly maintain in contrast to at least one here that thinks cars run cooler nowadays. The peak cylinder temperature is cooler than it was in past engines. Overall operating temperature of the engine has not changed much at all (very slightly cooler). Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. No, it's because they are built of better materials. Condensation still occurs in exhaust systems. You are introducing water vapor from combustion into a metal pipe that has cold air on the other side. Stopngo wrote: My opening post asked the question whether or not the extra heat might also contribute to climate change. There is no extra heat coming from cars. They run about the same operating temperature they always have since the 60's. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. This meaningless phrase is just a buzzword, UNLESS you can define it without using circular definitions. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:32
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Stopngo wrote: Again you are wrong regarding todays engines running cooler. They run much hotter. A 1970 Chevy 350 and a newer Chevy Vortec 350 both run at 195F. Are you talking about engine external temps, combustion temps, or tailpipe temps? Can't really tell what you're talking about since your link is a DuPont commercial. He is referring to exhaust temperatures, as a function of the temperature at the exhaust port of the engine. His contention is that combustion temperature has tripled over the years. The temperatures you are referring to here is coolant temperature, which is the same between both vehicles. There is a reason there are so few models of replacement thermostats in automotive stores. He's wrong. The same thermostats fit all the different years of cars. He was trying to credit hotter running engines for a rise in global temp, which is ridiculous anyway. My thinking was the coolant/thermostat temp being the same over the years, then the engine block temps have to be quite similar also, even if combustion was hotter. You say combustion temps are slightly cooler? Haven't done any reading , but I would think a more efficient burn would be hotter, given the same cylinder size.
24-01-2018 21:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	James_ wrote: Stopngo wrote: If you look at how polluted Bejing, China is it's because they have many cars on the road that might have no catalytic converter or any pollution control except for a muffler, maybe. I agree and see your point. And I understand that the smog component of pollution has been substantially reduced and am not suggesting we back track on that. The point of contention here is that aside from the positives .......the by product or trade off is increased heat output which I will steadfastly maintain in contrast to at least one here that thinks cars run cooler nowadays. Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. My opening post asked the question whether or not the extra heat might also contribute to climate change. This link from the University of Washington ...deleted Holy Link... suggests that lowering the speed limit would help. Apparently you're aware that the catalyst in the converter causes an electrical charge which is needed for a chemical reaction to occur. It seems that in a properly operating system that the chemical reaction absorbs some oh the heat as hv. This article is wrong on several points. The hottest point in a car is the inside of the cylinder itself, not the converter. The hottest points in an exhaust system is right at the exhaust port of the engine, not at the converter. Converters do restrict exhaust flow, causing the engine to lose power. ANY restriction in the exhaust system (all plumbing introduces resistance to flow) causes the engine to lose power. Reducing speed limits will reduce temperatures, but at the cost of reducing the purpose of the car. Cars are designed to get people and cargo from one place to another. That is their purpose. Speed limits are there for safety reasons. To use them for political reasons such as the Church of Global Warming is to institute a government sponsored religion, which is against the Constitution of the United States (and the constitution of the State of Washington, for you UW worshipers). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. Exhaust systems today are largely made of stainless and can often times last the life of the vehicle. Yup. Stainless is much more available today. There are some made from nickel alloy, also quite corrosion resistant. GasGuzzler wrote: Our driving habits are much different today also. In the 60's 70s the big goal in life was to buy the nicest house possible 2-3 minute from the 9-5 job. Today we don't seem to care how far we drive. Cars are so nice it is quite relaxing to spend some time in the car. I drove 68K miles last year in my 5.7 HEMI and loved every min. I get 9-10 mpg and don't care. Mpg is even worse when I run over a Prius or something similar. It's all fun. Heh. So how often do you have dig a Prius out of your wheel well? Do you consider this a regular maintenance item? GasGuzzler wrote: The 2 min drive to work is what knocks out a standard China built steel muffler. Water just sits in there constantly. This makes both points. Mufflers used to be made out of mild steel. They are stainless now. Some mufflers have little drain holes in them to allow accumulated water to drain. The holes are placed near a null pressure point in the muffler so you don't hear the kablam through the hole. Yup. We have a lot better built exhaust systems than the old days! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:49
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Into the Night wrote: [quote]GasGuzzler wrote: [quote]Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. GasGuzzler wrote: Mpg is even worse when I run over a Prius or something similar. It's all fun. Into the Night wrote: Heh. So how often do you have dig a Prius out of your wheel well? Do you consider this a regular maintenance item? LOL! Figuring my 2017 taxes today. You suppose a Prius crushing is a write off? Edited on 24-01-2018 21:50
24-01-2018 21:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Stopngo wrote: Again you are wrong regarding todays engines running cooler. They run much hotter. A 1970 Chevy 350 and a newer Chevy Vortec 350 both run at 195F. Are you talking about engine external temps, combustion temps, or tailpipe temps? Can't really tell what you're talking about since your link is a DuPont commercial. He is referring to exhaust temperatures, as a function of the temperature at the exhaust port of the engine. His contention is that combustion temperature has tripled over the years. The temperatures you are referring to here is coolant temperature, which is the same between both vehicles. There is a reason there are so few models of replacement thermostats in automotive stores. He's wrong. The same thermostats fit all the different years of cars. He was trying to credit hotter running engines for a rise in global temp, which is ridiculous anyway. Agreed. GasGuzzler wrote: My thinking was the coolant/thermostat temp being the same over the years, then the engine block temps have to be quite similar also, even if combustion was hotter. Your thinking is correct. GasGuzzler wrote: You say combustion temps are slightly cooler? Haven't done any reading , but I would think a more efficient burn would be hotter, given the same cylinder size. Yes, it is more efficient, but the hotter peak cylinder temperature produces NOx gases, which is the major component of smog. The EGR system is designed to reduce peak cylinder temperatures, while keeping nearly the same operating temperatures in the engine. NOx gases only form under high temperature conditions. By reducing peak cylinder temperatures, NOx is highly reduced. This is why that stupid little piece of plumbing between your exhaust system and your induction system is important. The usual failure is the EGR valve itself. The rest is just plumbing. The idea behind EGR is to recirculate exhaust back into the induction system, diluting available oxygen to the engine and introducing stuff that doesn't burn. These non-burnable gases reduce peak cylinder temperature by absorbing some of the heat of the combustion that DOES take place. Yes, it does make the engine less efficient as a power producer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]GasGuzzler wrote: [quote]Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. GasGuzzler wrote: Mpg is even worse when I run over a Prius or something similar. It's all fun. Into the Night wrote: Heh. So how often do you have dig a Prius out of your wheel well? Do you consider this a regular maintenance item? LOL! Figuring my 2017 taxes today. You suppose a Prius crushing is a write off? It is for the Prius! Is your vehicle part of your business? You could write off some regular maintenance you know! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 21:59
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]GasGuzzler wrote: [quote]Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. GasGuzzler wrote: Mpg is even worse when I run over a Prius or something similar. It's all fun. Into the Night wrote: Heh. So how often do you have dig a Prius out of your wheel well? Do you consider this a regular maintenance item? LOL! Figuring my 2017 taxes today. You suppose a Prius crushing is a write off? It is for the Prius! Is your vehicle part of your business? You could write off some regular maintenance you know! Nope, I take the mileage deduction so can't write off the regular maintenance...or the Prius. I typically buy a work truck with 80-100K on it and drive it till it drops. I average 55-65K miles a year, so the mileage deduction is better. Usually 51-55 cents a mile. That's pretty substantial.
24-01-2018 22:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]GasGuzzler wrote: [quote]Stopngo wrote: Exhaust systems last much longer these days as a result of the increased heat lowering condensation in the pipes. GasGuzzler wrote: Mpg is even worse when I run over a Prius or something similar. It's all fun. Into the Night wrote: Heh. So how often do you have dig a Prius out of your wheel well? Do you consider this a regular maintenance item? LOL! Figuring my 2017 taxes today. You suppose a Prius crushing is a write off? It is for the Prius! Is your vehicle part of your business? You could write off some regular maintenance you know! Nope, I take the mileage deduction so can't write off the regular maintenance...or the Prius. I typically buy a work truck with 80-100K on it and drive it till it drops. I average 55-65K miles a year, so the mileage deduction is better. Usually 51-55 cents a mile. That's pretty substantial. Then you CAN effectively deduct the former Prius. It must reduce your mileage to run over one of these things. All you have to do is estimate how much! It would be an entertaining day in court to watch the IRS argue over how much running over a Prius reduces your mileage! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2018 22:12
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Ha! LMAO! As much fun as that would be, I'll leave that argument with the IRS to a much braver soul than myself.

24-01-2018 22:29
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"badnight" wrote: The problem in some older cars was a fan turning all the time and too large a radiator in the system to compensate for poor design. This is still a problem even in some of today's cars. I prefer correctly sized radiators and thermostatically controlled electric fans to augment airflow through them. I put an electric fan on an early 70's car, which operated intermittently to keep the car temperatures low. But I always wondered if it would have been enough in southern states. The MPG did go up a trace. Eventually, I sold the car to a mechanic...... who restored the radiator to original standards.
25-01-2018 00:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	GasGuzzler wrote: Ha! LMAO! As much fun as that would be, I'll leave that argument with the IRS to a much braver soul than myself. Heh. Probably safer! Who knows? The IRS judge might drive a Prius! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2018 02:56
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3028)	Litebeer wrote: GasGuzzler talks so people will bite on its baited hook. Tasty hook? It has stated before that its vehicle is a work vehicle, so isn't a car, Possibly your first true statement EVER!! Congratulations! just to transport its being to work & home. OOhhh, couldn't go 2 for 2. Nice try though. I work on foreclosed homes for evil and greedy banks all over the state. I haul lots of building materials, ladders, GAS generators, tools, and often crew members to get jobs done. I also pull a medium size tandem axle trailer with lawn equipment. Entire trailer with equipment is ~2 tons. In the winter I also push snow with a truck mounted plow. I NEED a truck, not some Tonka Toy. Now, are you going to be like our old friend Spot and tell me that I could switch to battery power and be just as productive and profitable? I just can't do this shit on a mountain bike!...or a Prius! Still & all tho, there's room to reduce its annual production of 95 tons of CO2. I could buy a more efficient truck, but with the miles I drive, it would actually cost me tens of thousands more in the long run to do so right now. Have you priced a new 3/4 ton truck lately? 40-60K. Completely stupid to drive 60K miles a year on a new truck. But it don't care & brags about its emissions. Wrong again. I do care. I do care deeply for the Iowa farmers. You see, every time I drive by a corn or soybean field, I'm blasting that precious CO2 into those crops and giving them some free plant food. May I remind you that green houses actually spend money and purchase CO2 for their plants? I'm doing a free service Edited on 25-01-2018 03:41
25-01-2018 22:08
Stopngo ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	" Exhaust systems today are largely made of stainless and can often times last the life of the vehicle." That may be true. But I have two vehicles from the early 90 s (a 90 and a 92) with ordinary steel pipes and both are as good as new to this day. Anybody in the Muffler and tailpipe business will vouch for that. Hot Hot Hot exhaust
26-01-2018 02:41
James_ ★★★★★ (2273)	Stopngo wrote: " Exhaust systems today are largely made of stainless and can often times last the life of the vehicle." That may be true. But I have two vehicles from the early 90 s (a 90 and a 92) with ordinary steel pipes and both are as good as new to this day. Anybody in the Muffler and tailpipe business will vouch for that. Hot Hot Hot exhaust Not sure if it really matters but there is an oxygen recirculating valve. As far as rust (oxidation) goes it can't happen without oxygen. I guess it's supposed to help your engine to have a more complete combustion cycle.
14-03-2018 01:13
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Stopngo wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion No, it doesn't. Complete combustion is a function of fuel and air ratio. Higher combustion temperatures actually produce NOx gases, which can be a problem with the formation of smog. Stopngo wrote: and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or any other planet). Stopngo wrote: But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? No. There is no problem. You are not on the Titanic. Stopngo wrote: Exhaust temperatures have tripled WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. This is due to an emission control system which is used to reduce the production of NOx gases. Stopngo wrote: by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters Catalytic converters do not reduce smog. They reduce sulfur dioxides due to the use of sour fuels. Normal exhaust temperatures are quite sufficient for the reaction to work. Stopngo wrote: along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. It opens when the water temperature in the engine reaches a high enough temperature for the engine to run at a normal operating temperature. Stopngo wrote: to maintain Engine cooling. You only want a certain amount of engine cooling. That's why cars have thermostats at all. You don't WANT to cool the engine until it reaches it's normal operating temperature. You want it to heat up as quickly as possible. Stopngo wrote: So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Nope. The BTU from a gallon of gasoline has not changed. The engines use less of it now per mile. Cylinder peak burn temperature is reduced by the EGR system in order to reduce the production of NOx gases. [b]Stopngo wrote: Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines.[/b] Bad assumptions followed by bad math. Stopngo wrote: Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not potential energy. It is not 'delayed'. It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Stopngo wrote: resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion Combustion is pretty damn efficient these days, thanks to the use of multipoint fuel injection systems, better trim controls using oxygen sensors, and better ignition controls using computers for timing rather than inaccurate distributors points and cams. You should take a look at your emission test report sometime. Notice how the unburned hydrocarbons reading is much lower than it used to be for older cars. Stopngo wrote: or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures No higher temperatures in an engine than usual. Stopngo wrote: begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? Seems like you are. May I suggest you study up on automotive engine design, including how each emission control system operates and why it's there? Wow.......I never expected such a forceful comeback and it looks like I may have disturbed somebodies agenda here. Are you the busy body know it all here? WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. Wrong Wrong Wrong Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. If you are talking about newer cars where the temperature rises and falls based on movement and rises in particular in standstill traffic........yah...that is exactly the problem and another proof of hotter running temperatures. Yup the the thermostat remains open because that is the only way to prevent overheating. And the thermostat has to remain open because auto manufactures have been forced to reduce airflow into the engine compartment by smaller grill openings thus challenging the cooling system. Older vehicles with full time mechanically driven fans provided more than enough cooling enabling the thermostat to open and close constantly regardless of driving distance and maintained the temperature at an exact constant and considerably cooler. Try changing the engine oil on a new vehicle and an older vehicle and then tell me the newer one runs cooler. It doesn't. Ignore nightmare. He likes to pretend he knows things. That's where that "forceful" (read dumb) came from. Combustion temperature in vehicles with a methanol mix are slightly cooler and the methanol/gasoline mixture delivers less power. It is also less efficient. The smog devices on a car simply catch most of the particulate matter or cool it to the point where when it leaves the exhaust that it falls to the ground instead of rising. The cooling system of a modern car does run a little warmer than on older vehicles. This is because the power developed by the motor is related to the pressure of the detonated fuel/air mixture and the temperature of the gas that leaves the exhaust valve. If you have a higher coolant temperature you also lose less energy to heating the coolant. This means that you have a hotter combustion and the differential is greater. Not that this makes a whole lot of difference but we are arguing miles per gallon over the life of a vehicle. Automobiles for the most part use Otto Cycle engines and the efficiency of these motors is directly attributable to the compression ratios. The higher the compression the higher efficiency. Most motors use around a 9.5:1 but high performance engines use as high as 12:1. This means an efficiency of between 55% and 65%. Supercharged motors use a low uncharged compression because they are fitting more fuel/air mixture into each cycle. At 12:1 and above it is possible to start detonating and a supercharged motor has so much fuel/air mixture that it becomes a bomb. I have seen motors literally blown into shrapnel. Failure analysis is a fun job. Double and Triple supercharged motors should always be tested with slow-motion cameras on them. The modern Otto Cycle engine isn't measurably more powerful or more efficient than older ones were at highway speeds. Around town they become a great deal more efficient because the valve and ignition timing is all electronically controlled now and can be tuned for the speed of the vehicle. So while my Ford Taurus can get 33 mpg on the freeway, in the city it's getting 18 mpg while a Honda civic with nearly the same weight is getting 25 mpg. Because the efficiency of an Otto cycle motor is limited by its compression ratio the only variables become weight and aerodynamics. And aerodynamics have been roughly the same for most cars since the 1990's. If someone is getting higher mileage overall it's because he's got a lighter car.
14-03-2018 03:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (22337)	Wake wrote: Stopngo wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stopngo wrote: There is no argument that higher combustion temperatures result in more complete combustion No, it doesn't. Complete combustion is a function of fuel and air ratio. Higher combustion temperatures actually produce NOx gases, which can be a problem with the formation of smog. Stopngo wrote: and therefore reduced greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or any other planet). Stopngo wrote: But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Or are we re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? No. There is no problem. You are not on the Titanic. Stopngo wrote: Exhaust temperatures have tripled WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. This is due to an emission control system which is used to reduce the production of NOx gases. Stopngo wrote: by way of the high temperatures (600 deg F) required to operate catalytic converters Catalytic converters do not reduce smog. They reduce sulfur dioxides due to the use of sour fuels. Normal exhaust temperatures are quite sufficient for the reaction to work. Stopngo wrote: along with higher heat transfer from the automotive cooling system due to the thermostats having to remain open longer Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. It opens when the water temperature in the engine reaches a high enough temperature for the engine to run at a normal operating temperature. Stopngo wrote: to maintain Engine cooling. You only want a certain amount of engine cooling. That's why cars have thermostats at all. You don't WANT to cool the engine until it reaches it's normal operating temperature. You want it to heat up as quickly as possible. Stopngo wrote: So we have much hotter exhaust output along with higher cooling system heat transfer. Nope. The BTU from a gallon of gasoline has not changed. The engines use less of it now per mile. Cylinder peak burn temperature is reduced by the EGR system in order to reduce the production of NOx gases. [b]Stopngo wrote: Multiply that by the number of internal combustion engines.[/b] Bad assumptions followed by bad math. Stopngo wrote: Heat being heat whether that heat results from delayed action of the production of greenhouse gases Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not potential energy. It is not 'delayed'. It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Stopngo wrote: resulting from lower temperature incomplete combustion Combustion is pretty damn efficient these days, thanks to the use of multipoint fuel injection systems, better trim controls using oxygen sensors, and better ignition controls using computers for timing rather than inaccurate distributors points and cams. You should take a look at your emission test report sometime. Notice how the unburned hydrocarbons reading is much lower than it used to be for older cars. Stopngo wrote: or the immediate heat produced at the source with much higher temperatures No higher temperatures in an engine than usual. Stopngo wrote: begs the question of ........Are we just kidding ourselves here? Seems like you are. May I suggest you study up on automotive engine design, including how each emission control system operates and why it's there? Wow.......I never expected such a forceful comeback and it looks like I may have disturbed somebodies agenda here. Are you the busy body know it all here? WRONG. Exhaust temperatures and combustion temperatures in internal combustion engines today are slightly cooler than older cars. Wrong Wrong Wrong Once a thermostat opens, it remains open until you shut off the car. If you are talking about newer cars where the temperature rises and falls based on movement and rises in particular in standstill traffic........yah...that is exactly the problem and another proof of hotter running temperatures. Yup the the thermostat remains open because that is the only way to prevent overheating. And the thermostat has to remain open because auto manufactures have been forced to reduce airflow into the engine compartment by smaller grill openings thus challenging the cooling system. Older vehicles with full time mechanically driven fans provided more than enough cooling enabling the thermostat to open and close constantly regardless of driving distance and maintained the temperature at an exact constant and considerably cooler. Try changing the engine oil on a new vehicle and an older vehicle and then tell me the newer one runs cooler. It doesn't. Ignore nightmare. He likes to pretend he knows things. That's where that "forceful" (read dumb) came from. Combustion temperature in vehicles with a methanol mix are slightly cooler and the methanol/gasoline mixture delivers less power. It is also less efficient. True. Wake wrote: The smog devices on a car simply catch most of the particulate matter or cool it to the point where when it leaves the exhaust that it falls to the ground instead of rising. WRONG. The smog device on a car (there's only one) recirculates exhaust gases back into the induction system to lower cylinder temperatures, thus reducing the production of NOx compounds. Wake wrote: The cooling system of a modern car does run a little warmer than on older vehicles. Nope. They still run at 180 deg F. Wake wrote: This is because the power developed by the motor is related to the pressure of the detonated fuel/air mixture You don't WANT a detonation of the air/fuel mixture! Wake wrote: and the temperature of the gas that leaves the exhaust valve. The temperature of the exhaust gases have not changed. Wake wrote: If you have a higher coolant temperature you also lose less energy to heating the coolant. You WANT to heat the coolant. This actually improves engine efficiency. Wake wrote: This means that you have a hotter combustion and the differential is greater. You don't WANT a hotter combustion. You produce smog that way. Cars burn cooler now, not hotter. Wake wrote: Not that this makes a whole lot of difference It makes a ton of difference. Wake wrote: but we are arguing miles per gallon over the life of a vehicle. Efficiency is a function of the difference of temperatures between the hot side of the engine and the cold side of the engine. That cold side includes the coolant temperature and the exhaust system. Wake wrote: Automobiles for the most part use Otto Cycle engines Brilliant. Did you figure that out all by yourself? Wake wrote: and the efficiency of these motors is directly attributable to the compression ratios. WRONG. It is attributable directly the difference between the hot side of the engine and the cold side of the engine and only that. Higher compression ratios allow a higher peak cylinder temperature for the same fuel. Wake wrote: The higher the compression the higher efficiency. Indirectly, yes. Wake wrote: Most motors use around a 9.5:1 but high performance engines use as high as 12:1. True. Wake wrote: This means an efficiency of between 55% and 65%. Gasoline engines today run at about 30-38% efficiency. Toyota currently has one of the highest efficiency engines on the market today. Wake wrote: Supercharged motors use a low uncharged compression because they are fitting more fuel/air mixture into each cycle. Supercharging makes no difference to the compression ratio. Neither does turbocharging. Wake wrote: At 12:1 and above it is possible to start detonating and a supercharged motor has so much fuel/air mixture that it becomes a bomb. Nope. It becomes a bomb anyway even if it was pure air. The limiting factors in reciprocating engines is total cylinder pressure, peak cylinder temperature, and exhaust cylinder temperature, and main and wrist bearing strength. Wake wrote: I have seen motors literally blown into shrapnel. So have I. It ain't pretty. Wake wrote: Failure analysis is a fun job. Bet you wish you could do it too, right? Wake wrote: Double and Triple supercharged motors should always be tested with slow-motion cameras on them. Buzzword fallacy. There are no such things as double and triple supercharged motors. Wake wrote: The modern Otto Cycle engine isn't measurably more powerful or more efficient than older ones were at highway speeds. True. Wake wrote: Around town they become a great deal more efficient because the valve and ignition timing is all electronically controlled now and can be tuned for the speed of the vehicle. Also true. Sure beats the old mechanical compensation crap cars used to use! [quote]Wake wrote: So while my Ford Taurus can get 33 mpg on the freeway, in the city it's getting 18 mpg while a Honda civic with nearly the same weight is getting 25 mpg. True. Wake wrote: Because the efficiency of an Otto cycle motor is limited by its compression ratio WRONG. The limiting factors of a reciprocating engine is the pressure obtained in the cylinder, the peak temperature of the cylinder, the exhaust temperature of the cylinder, and the strength of the main and wrist bearings. Wake wrote: the only variables become weight and aerodynamics. WRONG. Better materials allow engines today to withstand greater total pressures. Cylinder temperature is kept low to reduce smog. Engines today also have higher strength main and wrist bearings than before also, allowing smaller engines of the same horsepower than the older larger engines were. Precision is much better too, producing less blow-by (and wasted energy from it) in the cylinders themselves. Wake wrote: And aerodynamics have been roughly the same for most cars since the 1990's. WRONG. Many more models are using aerodynamically cleaner shapes. Wake wrote: If someone is getting higher mileage overall it's because he's got a lighter car. Thanks to that precise engine, better materials overall for the car, more efficient transmissions, and even better tires. Unfortunately, poorly maintained roads (common in California) reduce mileage and tear up cars. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Do Catalytic Converters Really make a difference?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Can refusing to believe make the problem magically disappear?	24	25-05-2024 00:18
Chatbots sometimes make things up. Is AI's hallucination problem fixable?	5	03-08-2023 13:20
Make A Donation If You Want To Have A Hint Of How The Current World Conflicts End	1	13-07-2023 20:47
My New Digital Currency System Will Destroy The USD, Euro & Make World Peace	0	14-08-2022 11:29
It Is Perfect Safe To Begin Make Some Big Changes In The World Financial System	0	11-08-2022 07:31