[AT] Continuing "What to do"

[Stephen Offiler]

Good link Chuck.  Noticed that right after I hit "send" on my response to
Charlie.  I probably could have saved myself the trouble ;-)

SO


On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Chuck Saunders <gooberdog at gmail.com> wrote:

> Compliments of the EPA
>
> http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P10006ZO.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1995+Thru+1999&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\zyfiles\Index%20Data\95thru99\Txt\00000020\P10006ZO.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
>
> Chuck Saunders
> KCMO
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:37 PM, charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Steve, I'm a bit rusty one what little bit of organic chemistry I ever
> > knew.
> > Do you happen to know what happens to NOx when it breaks down in
> > the atmosphere?  I would assume it is an unstable molecule and combines
> > with O2 yielding water vapor and Nitrogen.  Is that right?  If so what is
> > the big problem with
> > it since our atmosphere is predominantly Nitrogen to begin with?
> > I think the argument with NOx and CO2 are both over blown.
> > We can't live without CO2, it's what plants live on converting to free O2
> > and trapping the carbon in the plant matter where it belongs.
> > Other than the smog aspect in close proximity to the point source I don't
> > understand what all the problem is.
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Offiler
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:31 AM
> > To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> > Subject: Re: [AT] Continuing "What to do"
> >
> > Cecil:
> >
> > (By the way I loved that rant on concrete and culverts!  I'm a mechanical
> > engineer and I see similar "we've always done it this way" idiocy in my
> > world every day)
> >
> > Different subject, see below...
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Cecil R Bearden <crbearden at copper.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That is what I read also.  However, the result is a less reliable
> engine
> > > that uses more fuel.   How can you pollute less if the engine you are
> > > operating has all this crap on it but uses twice the mount of fuel?
> >
> >
> > Ask Volkswagen ;-)
> >
> > Seriously, the answer lies in the definition of "pollution".  One
> pollutant
> > in particular is NOx.  A diesel engine inherently makes very high NOx
> > emissions.  The chemical reaction to form NOx happens at high temperature
> > and pressure, so, the more thermally efficient your diesel engine (the
> > better the engine at converting heat into motion) then the more NOx it
> will
> > emit.  The trick to emitting less NOx is to detune the engine, so it
> > operates at lower temperatures and pressures.  It uses more fuel because
> > you took away thermal efficiency.
> >
> > And then there's yet another form of pollution called particulate matter,
> > PM.  Microscopic soot and ash, basically.  Modern diesels must be fitted
> > with traps to capture PM.  And the traps tend to fill up.  The way to
> clean
> > them is called a "regen" and it involves heating up the trap to a higher
> > temperature to burn the soot down.   The extra heat comes from extra
> fuel.
> > So there's another reason modern diesels use more fuel.
> >
> >
> > Steve O.
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>