Criticisms of catalytic converters
Catalytic converters have proven to be reliable devices and have been successful in reducing noxious tailpipe emissions. However, they have two adverse environmental impacts in use (ignoring the pollution caused in their manufacture, which would not exist were they not mandated):
* The requirement for the engine to run at the stoichiometric point means fuel economy is not as good as that of a "lean burn" engine running at a mixture of 20:1 or weaker. This increases the rate at which fossil fuel resources are consumed and the carbon dioxide emissions of the vehicle.
* Catalytic converters are estimated to account for 50% of total nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide, 'laughing gas') emissions to atmosphere. While N2O emissions in these concentrations are not harmful to human health, it is a potent greenhouse gas, accounting for around 7% of the overall greenhouse effect despite its small concentration in the atmosphere.
Therefore one conclusion is that catalysts have reduced toxic emissions and the incidence of smog at the expense of increased global warming.
SO, it appears that the 14.7:1 ratio is a mandate because of catalytic converters, and not because that is the best ratio for an ICE, which makes sense due to the O2 requirement of the cat converter in order to oxize carbon monoxide.
Think about how the implications of that combined with electronic fuel injection completely fixates the ratio in which we combust fuel. What an uphill battle. Thank goodness for laptops and OSD adapters...
Statistics: Posted by waterbard — Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:39 am
]]>
I was thinking about port one of the center smog outlets into a bubbler, and in turn, have a pipe that goes from the bubbler right into the air intake, to introduce water vapor, and heated exhaust. Think it might work?
On another note, what if we used the same system, but had a 2 bubblers with a gas vaporizer in between.
Hot exhaust would enter the first bubbler, exit into the gas vaporizer, and into the 2nd bubbler, and then finally back into the intake manifold.
sorry, just had lots of thoughts today.
Statistics: Posted by waterbard — Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:26 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
I have an alterative design to the wicking carb that I was thinking about.
It goes a little like this:
-3/4" ID gas hose
-Its conductive(antistatic)
-It can be under pressure
-non corrosive
-heat resistant
take 1 yard of the hose, and wrap it around a 1' 3/4" steel pipe. The vortex created does a couple of things I think. It assists in vaporizing the fuel, in a vortex motion, so as it hits the carb/FI port, it is traveling in a vortex already. It also reduces the risk of having a high volume container full of vapor. You can reduce the hose to a 1/2 brass fitting with a flashback arrestor. But as we know about gasses, a restrictive exit port on a hose doesn't help with vaporization at all.
This would eliminate the need for wicking I think, and a waterjar flashback arrestor.
I was thinking about hooking it directly to the fuel line, with the primary arrestor right after the fuel filter, and right before the rubber hose.
I am thinking that perhaps the pressure resistance created by the spun hose, 2 flashback arrestors, and a resistance container to only allow pooling of gas in the inline fuel filter might be enough to allow fumes to to pass through. There will be a suction created from the intake obviously.
Varnish residues. Well, I have been thinking about this, and it is a well known fact that ethanol breaks down varnish deposits, so why not run E-85? Or perhaps a 50/50 blend with gasoline and ethanol?
Just thinking out loud here.
Statistics: Posted by waterbard — Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:01 pm
]]>
your car is a simple RPM based Ground rolling tranportation system. RPM of the engine through the transmission, rear-diff or front final drive in the transaxle, and out to the wheels. my 1 ton truck with 16 inch wheels has a WHEEL ROTATION SPEED (RPM) of ONLY 660 RPM's at 60 MPH. so, why must my engine spin at 2300 RPM's when my wheels are only moving along at 660, and even further, things in otion, stay in motion, and my laod stabilized and constant, I see some real issues here.
Bluntly put, the automobile you and I drive is a pure SCAM. they know all the physics, and dynamics of what you are driving, and they know full well that simple changes in operation or design will effect higher efficiency standards. so, why bother to put this crap out?
simple. peple buy what they put out, no questions, no demands for someting better. we are foolish enough to just purchase what they give us.
OFF SOAPBOX.
AlaskaStar
Statistics: Posted by AlaskaStar — Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:00 am
]]>
1 Gallon LIQUID equals 230 Cubic INCHES displacement for displacement.
1728 Cubic Inches= 1 Cubic Foot.
6144 Cubic feet=10,616,832 Cubic Inches.
now figure out a Chevy V8 350 CID=0.20254 Cubic feet TOTAL DISPLACEMENT. so, WHy put a 600 CUBIC FOOT PER MINUTE CARBURETOR on an engine that is only 1/5 of a cubic foot in size? that means that the carburetor is made to handle three thousand times that engine size. does anyone here see a waste of fuel?
AlaskaStar
Statistics: Posted by AlaskaStar — Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:54 am
]]>
]]>
Read this article that I wrote about combustion theory, fuel homoginization, vaporization, running lean, and compression.
http://mpgresearch.com/viewtopic.php?t=824&highlight=
The Singh Groove allows the normal A/F ratio to run "leaner" because most of the fuel that would normally be a liquid is vaporized and burned.
www.somender-singh.com
Statistics: Posted by Pinhead — Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:43 pm
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by zipster — Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:28 pm
]]>
]]>
hell, any car seems to benefit from water injection!
Statistics: Posted by adam666 — Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:38 pm
]]>