If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Ted Azito" > wrote in message om... > Yes but I'm not a shop. Then your statement that "we punch them" is pretty rediculous, don't you think? What you mean is "I punch them on my own cars" Why assume everyone else in your neck of the woods is a trailer trasher? > And on later vehicles I'd get new firmware or > go to an aftermarket programmable ECU... or you build an analog sim to > put the postcat sensor input in acceptable parms. It's a voltage or > resistance, use a pot or build a little adjustable power supply (also, > basically, a pot.) Spoken like someone who has never actually tried defeating a post cat sensor. > I stay away from electronic vehicles for the most part. Hmm - well I suppose that there will be enough old eggbeaters out there that people want to dump to keep you in cars for the rest of your driving days. You should be proud of yourself, you are serving a useful function - relieving all those people of having to pay to tow off their old heaps. I just hope you aren't dumping them in the stream in the back 40 when you can't get them to run anymore. Someone has to buy all that duct tape. Ted |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Ted Azito" > wrote in message om... > Yes but I'm not a shop. Then your statement that "we punch them" is pretty rediculous, don't you think? What you mean is "I punch them on my own cars" Why assume everyone else in your neck of the woods is a trailer trasher? > And on later vehicles I'd get new firmware or > go to an aftermarket programmable ECU... or you build an analog sim to > put the postcat sensor input in acceptable parms. It's a voltage or > resistance, use a pot or build a little adjustable power supply (also, > basically, a pot.) Spoken like someone who has never actually tried defeating a post cat sensor. > I stay away from electronic vehicles for the most part. Hmm - well I suppose that there will be enough old eggbeaters out there that people want to dump to keep you in cars for the rest of your driving days. You should be proud of yourself, you are serving a useful function - relieving all those people of having to pay to tow off their old heaps. I just hope you aren't dumping them in the stream in the back 40 when you can't get them to run anymore. Someone has to buy all that duct tape. Ted |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:55 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> f that's the case, how come they've been adopted as the heart of emission > control systems worldwide? It would seem to me, mind you, I don't know my ass from ice cream about this sort of thing, but it seems to me that all it would do is dilute the emissions, by making them hotter. Less particles of [whatever it is that comes out]= lower emission count at the testing station. I'm probably wrong, though. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:55 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> f that's the case, how come they've been adopted as the heart of emission > control systems worldwide? It would seem to me, mind you, I don't know my ass from ice cream about this sort of thing, but it seems to me that all it would do is dilute the emissions, by making them hotter. Less particles of [whatever it is that comes out]= lower emission count at the testing station. I'm probably wrong, though. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Bob Lutz wrote:
> It would seem to me, mind you, I don't know my ass from ice cream about > this sort of thing, but it seems to me that all it would do is dilute > the emissions, by making them hotter. Less particles of [whatever it is > that comes out]= lower emission count at the testing station. I'm > probably wrong, though. Um...yeah. You're wrong. *VERY* wrong. That's not how a catalytic converter works at all. A catcon has two sections: a reducing section and an oxidizing section. Reduction and oxidation are two opposite chemical processes. In oxidation, Oxygen is combined with another element to create a compound called an "oxide". In reduction, oxygen is removed from an oxide. The reducing section of the catalytic converter is upstream of the oxidizing section, and in some systems is housed separately. Its job is to _reduce_ Nitrogen Oxides ("NOx") into Nitrogen and Oxygen. The oxidizing section of the catalytic converter then oxidizes Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide, and unburned hydrocarbons into Dihydrogen Monoxide (water) and Carbon Dioxide. DS |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Bob Lutz wrote:
> It would seem to me, mind you, I don't know my ass from ice cream about > this sort of thing, but it seems to me that all it would do is dilute > the emissions, by making them hotter. Less particles of [whatever it is > that comes out]= lower emission count at the testing station. I'm > probably wrong, though. Um...yeah. You're wrong. *VERY* wrong. That's not how a catalytic converter works at all. A catcon has two sections: a reducing section and an oxidizing section. Reduction and oxidation are two opposite chemical processes. In oxidation, Oxygen is combined with another element to create a compound called an "oxide". In reduction, oxygen is removed from an oxide. The reducing section of the catalytic converter is upstream of the oxidizing section, and in some systems is housed separately. Its job is to _reduce_ Nitrogen Oxides ("NOx") into Nitrogen and Oxygen. The oxidizing section of the catalytic converter then oxidizes Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide, and unburned hydrocarbons into Dihydrogen Monoxide (water) and Carbon Dioxide. DS |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Lutz > writes:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:55 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote: > > > f that's the case, how come they've been adopted as the heart of emission > > control systems worldwide? > > It would seem to me, mind you, I don't know my ass from ice cream about > this sort of thing, but it seems to me that all it would do is dilute the > emissions, by making them hotter. Less particles of [whatever it is that > comes out]= lower emission count at the testing station. > > I'm probably wrong, though. Yes, you are. Completely wrong. It doesn't dilute the particles by making them hotter, it finishes the combustion so the hydrocarbons aren't particles at all (nor hydrocarbons, for that matter) and the carbon monoxide is now carbon dioxide. They also break down NOx into nitrogen and oxygen. -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Lutz > writes:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:47:55 -0400, Daniel J. Stern wrote: > > > f that's the case, how come they've been adopted as the heart of emission > > control systems worldwide? > > It would seem to me, mind you, I don't know my ass from ice cream about > this sort of thing, but it seems to me that all it would do is dilute the > emissions, by making them hotter. Less particles of [whatever it is that > comes out]= lower emission count at the testing station. > > I'm probably wrong, though. Yes, you are. Completely wrong. It doesn't dilute the particles by making them hotter, it finishes the combustion so the hydrocarbons aren't particles at all (nor hydrocarbons, for that matter) and the carbon monoxide is now carbon dioxide. They also break down NOx into nitrogen and oxygen. -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message >...
> "Ted Azito" > wrote in message > om... > > Yes but I'm not a shop. > > Then your statement that "we punch them" is pretty rediculous, don't you > think? What you mean is "I punch them on my own cars" Why assume > everyone else in your neck of the woods is a trailer trasher? Most of them are jerkball yuppies in my "neck of the woods". I usually have a hard time finding the kind of project cars I like-between 1965 and 1985. > > And on later vehicles I'd get new firmware or > > go to an aftermarket programmable ECU... or you build an analog sim to > > put the postcat sensor input in acceptable parms. It's a voltage or > > resistance, use a pot or build a little adjustable power supply (also, > > basically, a pot.) > > Spoken like someone who has never actually tried defeating a post cat > sensor. > > > I stay away from electronic vehicles for the most part. > > Hmm - well I suppose that there will be enough old eggbeaters out there that > people want to dump to keep you in cars for the rest of your driving days. > > You should be proud of yourself, you are serving a useful function - > relieving > all those people of having to pay to tow off their old heaps. I just hope > you > aren't dumping them in the stream in the back 40 when you can't get them to > run anymore. My current fleet includes a real Meyers Manx with a real Porsche 912 engine (three piece case and all), a couple of diesel Benzes, and a '79 Chevy pickup. They are all pretty nice looking. They were all bought not running cheaply and i did fix them up. They get cruncherized usually not when they "can't be made to run anymore" but because they have so badly rusted or have been in collisions that repair is impossible. Of course I pull out all the mechanicals. My next vehicle will be a Jeep built from a new aftermarket frame and body. I hope to be able to license it as a 1973... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message >...
> "Ted Azito" > wrote in message > om... > > Yes but I'm not a shop. > > Then your statement that "we punch them" is pretty rediculous, don't you > think? What you mean is "I punch them on my own cars" Why assume > everyone else in your neck of the woods is a trailer trasher? Most of them are jerkball yuppies in my "neck of the woods". I usually have a hard time finding the kind of project cars I like-between 1965 and 1985. > > And on later vehicles I'd get new firmware or > > go to an aftermarket programmable ECU... or you build an analog sim to > > put the postcat sensor input in acceptable parms. It's a voltage or > > resistance, use a pot or build a little adjustable power supply (also, > > basically, a pot.) > > Spoken like someone who has never actually tried defeating a post cat > sensor. > > > I stay away from electronic vehicles for the most part. > > Hmm - well I suppose that there will be enough old eggbeaters out there that > people want to dump to keep you in cars for the rest of your driving days. > > You should be proud of yourself, you are serving a useful function - > relieving > all those people of having to pay to tow off their old heaps. I just hope > you > aren't dumping them in the stream in the back 40 when you can't get them to > run anymore. My current fleet includes a real Meyers Manx with a real Porsche 912 engine (three piece case and all), a couple of diesel Benzes, and a '79 Chevy pickup. They are all pretty nice looking. They were all bought not running cheaply and i did fix them up. They get cruncherized usually not when they "can't be made to run anymore" but because they have so badly rusted or have been in collisions that repair is impossible. Of course I pull out all the mechanicals. My next vehicle will be a Jeep built from a new aftermarket frame and body. I hope to be able to license it as a 1973... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | David W. Poole, Jr. | Antique cars | 3 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Removing catalytic converter on my 145 | boxer14 | Alfa Romeo | 0 | August 3rd 04 09:36 AM |
Catalytic Convertor Lambda Probe | Ian Gaskell | Audi | 0 | May 21st 04 05:14 PM |