ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I tripped over this on my web ramblings...

Unleaded+Cats=more harmful polution than leaded fuel!

Don't know how true it is, but it's referenced, and I know the sulphur dioxide emissions are a big problem (that why fuel is now "low sulphur".

Anyhoo it justifies my reasoning not to have any cats on my scoob

Now just got to find someone with a cesna that'll sell me some nice Avgas

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Isnt it also true that CAT's dont actually do ANYTHING while the vehicle is in motion? Thought i read once that they only actually work while the vehicle is on tick over

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I thought it was the otherway round I thought you need higher engine speeds to produce enough exhaust gas to "Light" the catalyst

Would explain why they rev your car at 2000odd rpm for several minutes during the mot (not that it'll make much difference without a cat )

mista weava

basiacally they are a load of power strangling toss!

discard.....

Weava

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Another explanation as to why they are worse than not having a CAT at all.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed...s2/catalyt.htm

hades

Catalysts accelerate a chemical reaction. Once they are beyond the activation energy (i.e. up to operating temperature), they will work whether the vehicle is moving forwards or not.

Can't comment on the validity of the comments in that report. That Benzene is a carcinogen is accepted in scientific circles, but how much is put out by catalysts may be another matter (I don't know).

There are certain ironic things about using CATs, certainly. Whilst they reduce the output of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, they increase the output of carbon dioxide. It is also true that they significantly decrease fuel economy, which I would suggest has debateable envrionmental benefit. And the up-pipe CAT in the 01/02 WRX, which only helps emmissions for about a 30 second period after the car has started from cold - as it heats up faster - actually necessitates the engine to run rich to keep EGT temperatures down the rest of the time. This means worse fuel consumption and less power.

hades

A thought, reading that second report - if we're producing nitrous oxide in the CAT, we need to seperate it and feed it back into the engine to boost power. A nitrous kit, where you make your own nitrous just by running the engine. Sounds like there is something to these cats after all.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I was just thinking the same thing

[Edited by ALi-B - 9/20/2003 12:27:53 PM]

scrappydog

Just read the rest of the "Negative Supercharging" website http://www.impulsengine.com - what a load of bllx! All they are doing is selling a 4-2-1 manifold with some cams; I believe the correct term is exhaust scavenging.

Anyway, other gems are:
"Engines Produce Horsepower and Not Kw (light bulbs) of Electricity"

"Horsepower was invented by James Watt (1736 - 1819)".... "measuring or rating the power of internal combustion engines in Kw of electricity has no relevance to mechanical power and it shows no respect for the origin of the internal combustion engine."

err, what does kW stand for? Kilo Watt - doh!

....Great grasp of physics and engineering, I don't think.

Andy

PS. Forgot to say that I'd take what is about unleaded petrol with a pinch of salt. I believe Super Unleaded was originally very high in Benzone, but not too sure if it is any more.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

yeah, I was thinking that site was load of BS, but I was curious.

But the unleaded section is referenced at the bottom, so it's not just made up. (although the papers and reports it refers too could be )

Thing is, who knows what's in petrol these days...they don't put an ingredients label on the pumps do they?

Ok they have addressed the sulphur dioxide problems, but the only mention of benzene in super-unleaded was about 10years ago, and I think that was something to do with flamability issues when compared to normal leaded or unleaded.

The motor industry and govenment think, (well at the moment) that Cats are the answer, and ignore the side effects from the carceogenic gases they can produce.

IMO the bottom line is petrol and diesel, as fuels have had their day. And there is nothing that can be done to make them "clean" but the oil companies and motor industry don't want to invest in creating different, realistically useable fuels.

IMO A new useable fuel should really have been invented by now, and by that I don't mean fuel cells, or electic cars (which move pollution to the power stations instead).

Anyone remember the BMW 5 series that used a normal engine and ran off hydrogen? The only thing that really is stopping it ever becomming a useable fuel is the beurocacy (sp) relating to storage etc. Obviously we can't have cars going boom like the hindenburg or producing water as emissions can we? Not that petrol, lpg, or cfg, goes boom or produces water as emissions does it?

And do I need to mention alcohol based fuels? ok the corrosive issues are valid, but surely with a bit of investment it could be easily viable!

dnb

Don't forget that water vapour is a greenhouse gas too!

You can't win

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

We'd better pressure the government to control the use of kettles hadn't we

Scoobydick

Mostly BS to be honest.

Too much water vapour and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere contribute to the greenhouse effect but atleast these gases sustain life - all the other gases are poisons.

Try walking round a third world city full of traffic smog and see how your lungs feel if you think we are better off without cats.