Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
10-31-2004, 01:40 PM
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
Lon,
wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
Dave
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>
>
> Dave Milne proclaimed:
>
> > that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> > because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> > the older diesels either.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
> >>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
> >>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
> >>day....
> >>
> >>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
> >>problem if he is behind me.....
> >>
> >>Mike
> >
> >
> >
wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
Dave
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>
>
> Dave Milne proclaimed:
>
> > that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
> > because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
> > the older diesels either.
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
> >>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
> >>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
> >>day....
> >>
> >>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
> >>problem if he is behind me.....
> >>
> >>Mike
> >
> >
> >
10-31-2004, 03:41 PM
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
[diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
diesel design age.
Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
of kook sites.
Dave Milne proclaimed:
> Lon,
>
> wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
> can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
> think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
>> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
>> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
>> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
>> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
>> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
>> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
>> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
>> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
>> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
>> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
>> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
>> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
>> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
>> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>>
>>
>>Dave Milne proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
>>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
>>>the older diesels either.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>>>day....
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
[diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
diesel design age.
Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
of kook sites.
Dave Milne proclaimed:
> Lon,
>
> wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
> can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
> think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
>> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
>> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
>> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
>> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
>> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
>> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
>> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
>> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
>> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
>> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
>> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
>> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
>> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
>> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>>
>>
>>Dave Milne proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
>>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
>>>the older diesels either.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>>>day....
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
10-31-2004, 03:41 PM
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
[diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
diesel design age.
Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
of kook sites.
Dave Milne proclaimed:
> Lon,
>
> wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
> can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
> think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
>> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
>> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
>> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
>> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
>> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
>> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
>> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
>> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
>> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
>> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
>> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
>> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
>> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
>> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>>
>>
>>Dave Milne proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
>>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
>>>the older diesels either.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>>>day....
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
[diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
diesel design age.
Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
of kook sites.
Dave Milne proclaimed:
> Lon,
>
> wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
> can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
> think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
>> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
>> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
>> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
>> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
>> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
>> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
>> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
>> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
>> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
>> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
>> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
>> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
>> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
>> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>>
>>
>>Dave Milne proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
>>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
>>>the older diesels either.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>>>day....
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
10-31-2004, 03:41 PM
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
[diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
diesel design age.
Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
of kook sites.
Dave Milne proclaimed:
> Lon,
>
> wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
> can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
> think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
>> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
>> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
>> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
>> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
>> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
>> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
>> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
>> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
>> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
>> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
>> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
>> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
>> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
>> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>>
>>
>>Dave Milne proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
>>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
>>>the older diesels either.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>>>day....
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
[diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
diesel design age.
Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
of kook sites.
Dave Milne proclaimed:
> Lon,
>
> wasn't aware of the aerosol problem. Have you got any links on it so I
> can do some more reading ? The particulate problem can be solved by traps (I
> think this is part of the Euro 2006 legislation or something).
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8hd.28449$HA.1267@attbi_s01...
>
>> The newer euro style diesels have the high efficiency allowed by
>> their higher compression, have moved upwards in horsepower to
>> acceptable levels for sustained power, and have torque curves
>> with enough low end grunt to make a street racer weep. In
>> some vehicles [e.g. the VW SUV] the diesel *is* the hot street
>> setup with mileage better than the gas variants. However, even
>> the euro diesels still have a dirty little secret you tend to see
>> only in places like Scientific American and the more engineering
>> oriented auto magazines--they are still dirtier than a gas engine
>> and worse, their pollution is both harder to remove and more of
>> a contribution to greenhouse effect and human health problems. It
>> isn't an unsolvable problem, just that currently no roadgoing
>> diesel has solved it. The pollution is the aerosol output of
>> the diesels, not the particulate--that could be solved easier.
>>
>>
>>Dave Milne proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>that's pretty well my point. The US and Canada have shitty fuel and,
>>>because diesels are less popular, less advanced diesels. I don't like
>>>the older diesels either.
>>>
>>>Dave Milne, Scotland
>>>'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>>>
>>>"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:41842146.DDDCBED7@sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am in Canada with the highest in the world I believe sulfur content in
>>>>our diesel fuel. The crap stinks! Getting boxed behind a bus on the
>>>>way home or worse into work with the top down can just plain wreck your
>>>>day....
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but no way would I follow a diesel Jeep on the trail. I have no
>>>>problem if he is behind me.....
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
10-31-2004, 04:15 PM
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
It is interesting to me that Mercedes and BMW have been using
filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
clogged.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lon wrote:
>
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
clogged.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lon wrote:
>
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
10-31-2004, 04:15 PM
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
It is interesting to me that Mercedes and BMW have been using
filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
clogged.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lon wrote:
>
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
clogged.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lon wrote:
>
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
10-31-2004, 04:15 PM
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
It is interesting to me that Mercedes and BMW have been using
filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
clogged.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lon wrote:
>
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
clogged.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lon wrote:
>
> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>
> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
> diesel design age.
>
> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
> of kook sites.
10-31-2004, 04:36 PM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
They could probably deal with failure to change the filter with the
engine management system...after so many thousand miles/km of
warnings, you get a limp mode and a service visit.
I've seen other references to thermal reactors somewhat similar to
the old Mazda rotary srubbers for reduction of the aerosols that
also tend to help with the carbon particulates.
Haven't honestly seen any reviews of the engines on a nice
winter day in Rogers Pass Montana and whether they become
just part of the snowbank until spring.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
> It is interesting to me that Mercedes and BMW have been using
> filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
> failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
> clogged.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
>> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
>> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>>
>> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
>> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
>> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
>> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
>> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
>> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
>> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
>> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
>> diesel design age.
>>
>> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
>> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
>> of kook sites.
10-31-2004, 04:36 PM
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
They could probably deal with failure to change the filter with the
engine management system...after so many thousand miles/km of
warnings, you get a limp mode and a service visit.
I've seen other references to thermal reactors somewhat similar to
the old Mazda rotary srubbers for reduction of the aerosols that
also tend to help with the carbon particulates.
Haven't honestly seen any reviews of the engines on a nice
winter day in Rogers Pass Montana and whether they become
just part of the snowbank until spring.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
> It is interesting to me that Mercedes and BMW have been using
> filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
> failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
> clogged.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
>> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
>> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>>
>> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
>> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
>> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
>> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
>> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
>> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
>> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
>> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
>> diesel design age.
>>
>> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
>> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
>> of kook sites.
10-31-2004, 04:36 PM
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Why no fuel effecient Jeep?
They could probably deal with failure to change the filter with the
engine management system...after so many thousand miles/km of
warnings, you get a limp mode and a service visit.
I've seen other references to thermal reactors somewhat similar to
the old Mazda rotary srubbers for reduction of the aerosols that
also tend to help with the carbon particulates.
Haven't honestly seen any reviews of the engines on a nice
winter day in Rogers Pass Montana and whether they become
just part of the snowbank until spring.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
> It is interesting to me that Mercedes and BMW have been using
> filters on their exhaust. I wonder how long they last. And knowing the
> failure of most people to maintain their cars, what happens when it's
> clogged.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Google gives a pretty good set of cited and referenced links with just
>> [diesel aerosol emissions], a goodly number of which also appear here:
>> http://www.dieselnet.com/links/measure_.html
>>
>> You might see some references to nanoparticles which is close enough
>> to aerosol for government work. A couple of the studies, including
>> one from NASA include data that the sulfur and heavy hydrocarbon
>> particles are the most difficult to deal with, unlike particulate
>> carbon. And that the low sulfur diesel fuels do appear to reduce
>> particle size of the sulfur aerosol components, but that the heavy
>> hydrocarbon is more dependent on local conditions and does not
>> currently appear to be affected either by sulfur content or even
>> diesel design age.
>>
>> Unfortunately, attempting to follow up on what particular combinations
>> of these all tend to be most bothersome tends to have a goodly portion
>> of kook sites.
