clean diesel

McIntyre did claim something like that, not all that convincingly. Since ev erybody else, using different and independent proxies, gets much the same r esult, McIntyre seems to have been wrong.

You've got to be really stupid not to realise that a non-confirming paper g enerates a lot more interest, citations and career points. Of course, it's got to be non-confirming paper based on sounds results. There have been a f ew attempts at such papers, but none of them were all that convincing, and one of them had made a mistake in putting his data together, which got reve aled by subsequent attempts at replication.

Lindzen's was more subtle, but it made predictions which could be tested, a nd turned out to be wrong.

That particular study got published in the Proceedings of the (American) Na tional Academy of Science. It didn't identify the ten sceptics, but at leas t three of them were entirely obvious and those three are nuts in various d ifferent ways. It's not my study, and PNAS isn't in the habit of publishing bullshit.

In fact this makes it perfectly clear that you don't know what you are talk ing about, as if we needed any more evidence of that.

There is something like that on recent VW engines. It needs to peroidically burn off the particles when the back pressure of the filter gets excessive. You can tell when it is doing that because it increases the idle RPM, disables stop-start mode and there is a funny smell from the exhaust. I have read that they inject extra fuel before/during the exhaust stroke to help with the burning off, but this gets onto the cylinder walls and into the engine oil and means that using biodiesel is problematic (supposedly because it evaporates less easily than mineral diesel and so it builds up in the engine oil). I have read that during this burn-off some smaller particles are released, I guess when the big particles get burned down enough to pass through the filter. I have no idea whether this is a greater or smaller quantity of small particles than without the filter, on average or during the burn-off.

Chris

Writing a contrary finding risks you getting run out and investigated by Congress critters, as recently happened.

But Bill's not actually concerned with the climate--he doesn't conserve--so much as using the issue to control what other people (not Bill, naturally) must do. That's how we reach /nirvana.

Cheers, James Arthur

Yes,

but does that mean he admits it was done intentionally in bad faith

or

does it mean that he agrees that the behavior of the car falls under the EPA's leagal definition of a "defeat device"

Read what you wrote. The injectors allow the combustion to be more complete. That does not imply finer soot. It implies less soot. The only way to know if newer engines produce more fine soot is to measure it.

Catalytic converters will reduce *all* soot and the finer soot will be removed more readily. Oxidation happens on the surface of particles and smaller particles have a higher surface to volume ratio. So they disappear much more quickly. It would be very difficult to design an apparatus to increase the amount of fine soot by oxidizing a soot mixture. The fine soot would disappear faster than you make it.

Interesting- from 15+ years ago:

United States v. Caterpillar, Inc. United States v. Cummins Engine Company United States v. Detroit Diesel Corporation United States v. Mack Trucks, Incorporated United States v. Navistar International Transportation Corporation United States v. Renault Vehicules Industriels United States. v. Volvo Truck Corporation

Engines ran clean for a short test, but low fuel consumption for longer duration runs.

--s[

Sounds like the entire staff of the EPA has been napping. They even had to borrow the equipment to verify the emissions on the road.

Den tirsdag den 22. september 2015 kl. 21.20.45 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:

You local EMC lab probably doesn't have a living room either ;)

The test has always been done in the lab, afaui the EU is changing to a test that involves "real world" testing driving on the road

-Lasse

This is shocking:

The EPA not only missed this themselves, they heard about it a year and a half ago.

Huh? The article says that (in contrast to the auto press) the EPA took it seriously, and started testing for themselves. The EPA was slow to resolve what was really happening (seems that they went to VW with their discoveries, and it probably took awhile to wring the truth from them), but there's nothing there to suggest that they didn't comprehend the seriousness of the discovery. You could argue that our government regulators should be less wary of stepping on industrial toes, but that's probably not what _you_ mean to suggest.

I meant that the EPA is lazy, slow, incompetent, and poorly equipped. I guess you don't need much test equipment to shuffle paper around.

They "comprehend seriousness" when their inaction becomes a public issue.

Do you really expect more from government bureaucrats?

The interesting thing in that article is that, once emissions controls are applied, there's hardly any reason for a car to go diesel. The fuel costs more, and an earlier article mentioned that the efficiency's only marginally better. Now it might be worse.

Cheers, James Arthur

here diesel is ~15% cheaper than gasoline, and diesel is ~10% higher energy per liter

-Lasse

lly

to

ing

You've got to be really stupid not to realise that a non-confirming paper g enerates a lot more interest, citations and career points. Of course, it's got to be non-confirming paper based on sounds results. There have been a f ew attempts at such papers, but none of them were all that convincing, and one of them had made a mistake in putting his data together, which got reve aled by subsequent attempts at replication.

Lindzen's was more subtle, but it made predictions which could be tested, a nd turned out to be wrong.

Joey Hey is obviously that stupid. James Arthur shouldn't be, but his enthu siasm to embrace right-wing-compatible nonsense means that he's slow to see the obvious.

so

It's true I don't go in for quixotic individual conservation - delaying cli mate armageddon by 5msec doesn't strike me as worth the effort but I'd be h appy to join the rest of the community in paying more for renewably generat ed electricity (and did, in the Netherlands, when it was an option) because this works on a large enough scale to make a real difference.

Ahh, that's tax policy. Here diesel's much more expensive than gasoline. I paid $1.90/gallon for gasoline last week, diesel was about $2.50, IIRC.

Cheers, James

Diesel is about on parity with gasoline, here (it goes either way, day by day). I thought diesel engines were about 25% more efficient.

You've proven your level of incompetence by your admission to having disabled protection circuits at your University and blowing up a large number of expensive power modules. Right-wingnuts appear to be getting ever more goofy in their last-ditch attempts to help the power elite extract the last bits of wealth for themselves at the expense of the majority. If it weren't for the gullibility and ignorance of the masses, and the concerted efforts of the corporate Capitalists to exploit that, we would not have the problems we must deal with and which threaten our future.

Paul

Here is some interesting information. Particularly read some of the comments, including one by a diesel engine expert engineer:

Paul