Exhaust emmisions

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Exhaust emmisions

Exhaust emmisions22-01-2022 11:36
Coby 1 ★☆☆☆☆ (56)	I bought a 'Euro 5' Kawasaki for getting about on, but was very disappointed at the approximately '50 miles per gallon' fuel consumption and also noticed that the exhaust system was overheating. I therefore removed the Euro 5 'air filter'. Luckily Kawasaki had supplied a metallic 'air screen' within the air filter box, so all I had to do was wrap up the metallic air screen in a few layers of 'old ladies knee highs'. Fuel consumption was reduced to '100.5 miles per gallon'! Therefore simply 'stuffing a sock up the air intake' will certainly reduce harmful emissions per gallon of fuel used, but unfortunately for the consumer, will double the amount of fuel used to do the same journey!
22-01-2022 16:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Coby 1 wrote: I bought a 'Euro 5' Kawasaki for getting about on, but was very disappointed at the approximately '50 miles per gallon' fuel consumption and also noticed that the exhaust system was overheating. I therefore removed the Euro 5 'air filter'. Luckily Kawasaki had supplied a metallic 'air screen' within the air filter box, so all I had to do was wrap up the metallic air screen in a few layers of 'old ladies knee highs'. Fuel consumption was reduced to '100.5 miles per gallon'! Therefore simply 'stuffing a sock up the air intake' will certainly reduce harmful emissions per gallon of fuel used, but unfortunately for the consumer, will double the amount of fuel used to do the same journey! Little skeptical of your claim... Fuel doesn't burn, without oxygen. The mixture of fuel and air, determines how well the fuel burns. Reduced air, just exhaust more un-burned fuel. You wouldn't get more work (MPG), or power out. Most likely, you converted a 'hog', into a moped, without the fuel economy. I'm not a mechanic by trade, but do most of my own repairs. Most gas engines I've worked on, have the means to adjust the fuel-air ratio. It's something to tinker with, to get an engine running smoothly at idle. You don't want it sputtering, and dying on you. But, you also don't want it racing at high RPM either. Un-burned fuel also tend to gunk up the works, foul spark plugs, clog shit up. Which means the engine runs poorly, and needs to get worked on, again, and again.
22-01-2022 21:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Coby 1 wrote: I bought a 'Euro 5' Kawasaki for getting about on, but was very disappointed at the approximately '50 miles per gallon' fuel consumption and also noticed that the exhaust system was overheating. I therefore removed the Euro 5 'air filter'. Luckily Kawasaki had supplied a metallic 'air screen' within the air filter box, so all I had to do was wrap up the metallic air screen in a few layers of 'old ladies knee highs'. Fuel consumption was reduced to '100.5 miles per gallon'! Therefore simply 'stuffing a sock up the air intake' will certainly reduce harmful emissions per gallon of fuel used, but unfortunately for the consumer, will double the amount of fuel used to do the same journey! I don't believe you. It does not reduce harmful emissions to have a crappy air filter. Keep your filter clean. 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 Edited on 22-01-2022 21:54
22-01-2022 21:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	HarveyH55 wrote: Coby 1 wrote: I bought a 'Euro 5' Kawasaki for getting about on, but was very disappointed at the approximately '50 miles per gallon' fuel consumption and also noticed that the exhaust system was overheating. I therefore removed the Euro 5 'air filter'. Luckily Kawasaki had supplied a metallic 'air screen' within the air filter box, so all I had to do was wrap up the metallic air screen in a few layers of 'old ladies knee highs'. Fuel consumption was reduced to '100.5 miles per gallon'! Therefore simply 'stuffing a sock up the air intake' will certainly reduce harmful emissions per gallon of fuel used, but unfortunately for the consumer, will double the amount of fuel used to do the same journey! Little skeptical of your claim... Fuel doesn't burn, without oxygen. The mixture of fuel and air, determines how well the fuel burns. Reduced air, just exhaust more un-burned fuel. You wouldn't get more work (MPG), or power out. Most likely, you converted a 'hog', into a moped, without the fuel economy. I'm not a mechanic by trade, but do most of my own repairs. Most gas engines I've worked on, have the means to adjust the fuel-air ratio. It's something to tinker with, to get an engine running smoothly at idle. You don't want it sputtering, and dying on you. But, you also don't want it racing at high RPM either. Un-burned fuel also tend to gunk up the works, foul spark plugs, clog shit up. Which means the engine runs poorly, and needs to get worked on, again, and again. All of this is simply describing inefficient burn. That's why you are tweaking it to avoid such cases. Soot (such as you find on fouled plugs or induction components) is a waste of fuel. Too lean a mixture can damage and destroy exhaust valves and components. Both give you lower power. 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 Edited on 22-01-2022 21:58
23-01-2022 01:55
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	In my late teens I tuned B25 BSA unit singles and I kept leaning the mixture and fitting hotter plugs until one day on full throttle I lost compression.The next day I discovered I had melted a hole in the piston.I put it back to closer to standard specs.

23-01-2022 04:42
Coby 1 ★☆☆☆☆ (56)	There's no need to take my word for it. Assuming that there is a tool shop near you, obviously (and somewhere to buy a pack of 'old ladies knee highs).
23-01-2022 07:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: In my late teens I tuned B25 BSA unit singles and I kept leaning the mixture and fitting hotter plugs until one day on full throttle I lost compression.The next day I discovered I had melted a hole in the piston.I put it back to closer to standard specs. I can almost here that piston crying out in pain... 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
26-01-2022 13:56
Coby 1 ★☆☆☆☆ (56)	European legislation that forces people to use twice as much fuel as required; not only increases the cost in financial terms (inflation), but may well be doing more damage to the atmosphere as a 'net' result of the legislation. It would appear therefore, that the 'corruption' has now reached European Parliament!
26-01-2022 15:13
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Diesel engines in cars are practical where I live and on minesites and for heavy haulage and machinery but no diesel car should be allowed in London.I have been there and it is choking.Modern unleaded computer managed cars are very efficient burn that it just not possible to do on diesel powered equipment.
26-01-2022 15:20
Coby 1 ★☆☆☆☆ (56)	A decently put together EV can replace diesel in exactly the same way as it can replace petrol. They're both ICE.
26-01-2022 16:10
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	An ICE on Auto gas produces very little of anything in the way of emissions and is cheap and easy to do. I have an Auto gas permit. I do not have a permit to install recharging stations and at my brand new shopping Centre there are 10 recharge for EV and 3500 bays for parking. An Engineer stated to me recently the recharge is still using dirty electricity. He had a hydrogen work car as he was employed at FMG head office and there is 30 in the fleet and as they get low they drop them in to BOC and grab another one. Its a start and good things are happening but get some reality on percentages. The market dictates and EV is not going to work for everyone and there is no ROI after 10 years EVs are disposable. I have a 2001 Jeep Cherokee I intend to keep for the rest of my motoring history as I like it and I am doing a rolling restoration. I have done all the suspension and other bits now I am seeking to build a low compression motor and fit a T3T4 turbo
26-01-2022 17:08
Coby 1 ★☆☆☆☆ (56)	Still produces!
26-01-2022 18:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Coby 1 wrote:It would appear therefore, that the 'corruption' has now reached European Parliament! That's why the UK was smart to BREXIT.
26-01-2022 18:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Coby 1 wrote:A[n EV] can [be very fuel inefficient with] diesel in exactly the same way as it can [be with] petrol. They're both [more fuel efficient]. Exactly. The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that the most efficient use of fuel is to minimize the number of energy form changes. In this case, the most efficient process is to burn the fuel right there in the vehicle's engine (i.e. internal combustion) and let the fuel be converted directly into kinetic energy ... as opposed to burning the fuel at some generator somewhere (i.e. external combustion), be converted to electrical energy with great loss incurred, incur further great loss from impedance as that electrical energy is transferred to a "charging source", suffer additional loss as the vehicle's battery is "charged" and then be converted to kinetic energy. Yes, EVs are a horribly inefficient and come with costly infrastructure that grossly amplifies that inefficiency. By the way, what moron wishes to "replace" our current efficient method of transportation with the above-described inefficiency nightmare? It sounds like an evil Marxist who hates humanity.
26-01-2022 21:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Coby 1 wrote: A decently put together EV can replace diesel in exactly the same way as it can replace petrol. They're both ICE. No, it can't. Diesel equipment such as trucks, tractors, etc. have to run all day and perform heavy work doing it. EV doesn't have the range (or stamina). Both diesel and gasoline cars can be refueled within a few minutes. An EV takes hours to recharge or 'refuel'. 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

26-01-2022 22:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Coby 1 wrote: Still produces! Recharging of EVs requires power plants. That means more coal and oil burning to recharge your 'green' car. The conversion from coal or oil to electricity, losses on the transmission line, and conversion back to the electrochemistry, and again to electricity to drive the EV forward all have losses. Why not just burn the fuel locally in the car? CO2 is not a pollutant. 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
27-01-2022 03:01
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	EVs are scary machines. To increase run time, they have to lighten the load on the battery, usually sacrificing everything not critical to operation. Safety, like a strong, impact resistant frame and body, is replaced with lighter materials, and safety is replaced with electronic gadgetry, airbags... You get into an accident, your EV is either very costly to repair, or disposable. EVs can work for many people, if used responsibly. Most people won't though. Mostly, electronic safety features, aren't used as intended, but enable drivers more opportunities to drive distracted. The automated features are intended to assist, not replace. The marketing specifications can be extremely misleading. The 400 miles per charge, is presuming just the driver, no passengers, no cargo, and minimal starts and stops. Basically optimal conditions, that almost never happen. Every pound of payload, increases the current drawn from the battery. As you approach, or exceed the rated weight capacity, the increase current draw, also increase the amount of loss through heat. It's pretty interesting, that they make little mention of cargo capacity, or worst case battery drain. That 400 miles per charge, quickly drops closer to 200. Wouldn't make a week on a single charge, with my routine commute, and current driving habits...
27-01-2022 07:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	HarveyH55 wrote:The marketing specifications can be extremely misleading. The 400 miles per charge, is presuming just the driver, no passengers, no cargo, and minimal starts and stops. Basically optimal conditions, that almost never happen. Every pound of payload, increases the current drawn from the battery. As you approach, or exceed the rated weight capacity, the increase current draw, also increase the amount of loss through heat. It's pretty interesting, that they make little mention of cargo capacity, or worst case battery drain. That 400 miles per charge, quickly drops closer to 200. Wouldn't make a week on a single charge, with my routine commute, and current driving habits... I was explaining to gfm7175 how my brain just works differently and how certain discussions trigger strange tangents in my thought process. Your comments above remind me of previous discussions I have had involving uparmored tactical vehicles and tanks, some of which are measured in gallons to the mile. I try to imagine someone in the government buying into the idea of converting our current military fleet of armored combat vehicles, transports and tanks to be EVs. So I am imagining the Defense Department developing expeditionary teams that go into war zones and establish rapid charging stations every mile-and-a-quarter. Deliberate plans are recalculated to give vehicles six hours of charging between stations. Incursions and assaults are converted from "hours" to "weeks" ... with the disadvantage of enabling the enemy a little over four days to see us coming. Naturally, DoD would have to initially construct an entire electrical grid and other infrastructure throughout the war zone, to include any battle grounds and "front lines" to provide the many charging stations with their electricity to dispense. If aircraft were also required to convert to electric, air refuelers would need air refuelers for their air refuelers ... and might not have any juice remaining for anybody else. Somebody please ask me how I know that the idiots championing everything going electric are total morons. Please, anybody, everybody, feel free to ask me. I'm happy to share my little secrets.
28-01-2022 03:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: So I am imagining the Defense Department developing expeditionary teams that go into war zones and establish rapid charging stations every mile-and-a-quarter. Deliberate plans are recalculated to give vehicles six hours of charging between stations. Incursions and assaults are converted from "hours" to "weeks" ... with the disadvantage of enabling the enemy a little over four days to see us coming. Naturally, DoD would have to initially construct an entire electrical grid and other infrastructure throughout the war zone, to include any battle grounds and "front lines" to provide the many charging stations with their electricity to dispense. You raise some really good points here on obstacles that must be overcome for tanks to go EV. I do think the obvious solution would be to just mount a gas powered generator on the unit so they can "charge on the go". Problem solved. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
28-01-2022 06:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	GasGuzzler wrote:You raise some really good points here on obstacles that must be overcome for tanks to go EV. I do think the obvious solution would be to just mount a gas powered generator on the unit so they can "charge on the go". Problem solved. ... and the following budget submission will ask for funding to convert the gs powered generators to solar cells ... but some tanks will carry the prototype portable wind turbines. The US military will not just be green, it will be the right mix of camouflage greens ... and collared greens (in the MREs). LOL! I should be joining Swan in the asylum any day now. LOL! Yawn.
28-01-2022 10:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	HarveyH55 wrote: EVs are scary machines. Nah. Just inconvenient for certain common uses, and they do present some hazards that are a bit different from an ICE car. HarveyH55 wrote: To increase run time, they have to lighten the load on the battery, usually sacrificing everything not critical to operation. This is true. HarveyH55 wrote: Safety, like a strong, impact resistant frame and body, is replaced with lighter materials, and safety is replaced with electronic gadgetry, airbags... Safety is not a strong impact resistant frame. Safety is all about saving the cabin (and you), sacrificing the frame of the car to do it, if need be. Airbags are still required on EVs. HarveyH55 wrote: You get into an accident, your EV is either very costly to repair, or disposable. True of most any car. For the EV, however, ANY damage to the battery forces a writeoff of the car. You CAN repair or even replace the engine. If the body is not too badly damaged or critically damaged, you can repair the body easily enough. It is not possible to repair a damaged battery. The entire assembly must be replaced. For a typical Tesla, that's about $22,000 just for the part alone. That effectively writes off the car. HarveyH55 wrote: EVs can work for many people, if used responsibly. Most people won't though. Mostly, electronic safety features, aren't used as intended, but enable drivers more opportunities to drive distracted. The automated features are intended to assist, not replace. There is currently no self driving car for sale. Some prototypes are being demonstrated, but none have made it to market, and the prototypes themselves have various problems. The bulk of them stem around handling unusual road conditions, such as construction sites (particularly badly signed ones), or inclement weather, which may cause sensors to become obscured or damaged. HarveyH55 wrote: The marketing specifications can be extremely misleading. So what's new? HarveyH55 wrote: The 400 miles per charge, is presuming just the driver, no passengers, no cargo, and minimal starts and stops. It also presumes slower speeds. HarveyH55 wrote: Basically optimal conditions, that almost never happen. Slower speeds on open freeways can be dangerous. HarveyH55 wrote: Every pound of payload, increases the current drawn from the battery. True. This is basic physics. HarveyH55 wrote: As you approach, or exceed the rated weight capacity, Rated capacity has to do with the springs and suspension system, not the battery. HarveyH55 wrote: the increase current draw, also increase the amount of loss through heat. Also true. This is why battery packs in cars are mounted where lots of cold air can get across them, or have fans cooling them (electric of course) or both. HarveyH55 wrote: It's pretty interesting, that they make little mention of cargo capacity, or worst case battery drain. Of course. The selling point is about range, not load capacity. HarveyH55 wrote: That 400 miles per charge, quickly drops closer to 200. It can, particularly in mountainous terrain. HarveyH55 wrote: Wouldn't make a week on a single charge, with my routine commute, and current driving habits... The idea is to recharge it each night. If you use the vehicle for cross country or continuous duty, you will have to recharge it more often than that. 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
28-01-2022 10:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:The marketing specifications can be extremely misleading. The 400 miles per charge, is presuming just the driver, no passengers, no cargo, and minimal starts and stops. Basically optimal conditions, that almost never happen. Every pound of payload, increases the current drawn from the battery. As you approach, or exceed the rated weight capacity, the increase current draw, also increase the amount of loss through heat. It's pretty interesting, that they make little mention of cargo capacity, or worst case battery drain. That 400 miles per charge, quickly drops closer to 200. Wouldn't make a week on a single charge, with my routine commute, and current driving habits... I was explaining to gfm7175 how my brain just works differently and how certain discussions trigger strange tangents in my thought process. Your comments above remind me of previous discussions I have had involving uparmored tactical vehicles and tanks, some of which are measured in gallons to the mile. I try to imagine someone in the government buying into the idea of converting our current military fleet of armored combat vehicles, transports and tanks to be EVs. So I am imagining the Defense Department developing expeditionary teams that go into war zones and establish rapid charging stations every mile-and-a-quarter. Deliberate plans are recalculated to give vehicles six hours of charging between stations. Incursions and assaults are converted from "hours" to "weeks" ... with the disadvantage of enabling the enemy a little over four days to see us coming. Naturally, DoD would have to initially construct an entire electrical grid and other infrastructure throughout the war zone, to include any battle grounds and "front lines" to provide the many charging stations with their electricity to dispense. If aircraft were also required to convert to electric, air refuelers would need air refuelers for their air refuelers ... and might not have any juice remaining for anybody else. Somebody please ask me how I know that the idiots championing everything going electric are total morons. Please, anybody, everybody, feel free to ask me. I'm happy to share my little secrets. There is no aircraft design that has any practical payload capacity that's electric. 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
28-01-2022 21:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Into the Night wrote:There is no aircraft design that has any practical payload capacity that's electric. I therefore suppose that after the JCIDS package for electric military aircraft conversion has been considered by the Joint Staff and by DoD for eleven years, it will then probably be rejected on that basis.
28-01-2022 23:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:There is no aircraft design that has any practical payload capacity that's electric. I therefore suppose that after the JCIDS package for electric military aircraft conversion has been considered by the Joint Staff and by DoD for eleven years, it will then probably be rejected on that basis. Heh. Probably not. This is a government research program. They're not going to give up their cushy government money that easily! 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
29-01-2022 03:51
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Hybrids are perfect for taxi and uber drivers.Dedicated EV not so much.I used to fly the little cox motor planes on strings .49cc and the top fuel they run makes them howl.Its all size relevant.At Wagerup refinery the company I worked for had an Omega crane that went to 120 feet telescopically very quick.It had a 2 stroke V6 diesel of about 16 litres
29-01-2022 05:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:There is no aircraft design that has any practical payload capacity that's electric. I therefore suppose that after the JCIDS package for electric military aircraft conversion has been considered by the Joint Staff and by DoD for eleven years, it will then probably be rejected on that basis. Heh. Probably not. This is a government research program. They're not going to give up their cushy government money that easily! Fortunately there's no money involved in the validation phase at the Joint Staff. The validation process, owned by the J8, is simply the bureaucratic process that makes Congress look streamlined for efficiency by contrast. They only validate requirements ... which becomes the approval to actually get money for programs and to enter the acquisition phase. Without Joint Staff validation, nobody gets a dime. The problem is that once a package is submitted for review and validation, it gets fanned out to everybody in DoD for review and comments. Packages that are obviously bogus on their face are forced to linger in validation until everybody has a say and then eventually a four-star somewhere says "God, this is totally stupid!" ... and it finally gets purged. The other problem, and what adds the touch of realism to my aforementioned bogus scenario, is that Congress can threaten to "fence" money (i.e. they just won't receive it) from DoD if they don't validate politically correct programs, like electric aircraft fleets, ... or they can promise to "sweeten the pot" financially if DoD will accelerate certain programs so that political incumbents can reap political favor from their constituencies.
29-01-2022 08:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: Hybrids are perfect for taxi and uber drivers. They get a bit less mileage as any car of the same size. They carry around the weight of extra motor, you see. duncan61 wrote: Dedicated EV not so much. Depends on the Uber driver. As for taxis, they are impractical. duncan61 wrote: I used to fly the little cox motor planes on strings .49cc and the top fuel they run makes them howl. I always figured they sounded like an insect. duncan61 wrote: Its all size relevant. What is? duncan61 wrote: At Wagerup refinery the company I worked for had an Omega crane that went to 120 feet telescopically very quick.It had a 2 stroke V6 diesel of about 16 litres Another random statement. 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 Exhaust emmisions: