Exhaust emissions

[New POD]

Some rediculous ideas to cut down on emissions.

Offer those who dislike spending so much time in their cars a practical method of shortening their journeys. Some decent paid jobs away from London maybe?

Workable schemes to allow job exchanges with that other person who travels 120miles a day in the opposite direction to you.

Buses without lowlife who make journeys a misery.

Separate human powered vehicles from those with engines.  I don't enjoy cycling on the same carriageway as a six axle 44 tonner, and I don't suppose they're too keen on me wobbling along at 10mph in front of them.

Make people who fly thousands of miles to gawp at Mickey Mouse or visit dubious night clubs pay £1.14p a litre for the fuel it takes to get them there.

Enable kids to safely walk to school- that'll also cut down on the Barry Hatrick ambulances clogging up the road.

Fix up the holes so small cars don't keep falling in them.

Lots more but you're bored now.

 

120 miles you say? That's about the distance I travel to work. Don't think that I haven't tried to get work at the same hourly rate a bit closer to home.

[Bren]

Behind a diesel mondeo yesterday on the rainford bypass that belched out so much shite it made me ashamed to be a diesel owner.

[beko1987]

Behind a diesel mondeo yesterday on the rainford bypass that belched out so much shite it made me ashamed to be a diesel owner.

 

I was behind an 09 focus this morning going up the hill on the m40 who was doing the same! I looked behind me too (was accelerating quite hard) and had not even a quarter of the smoke he had!

[rainagain]

All good ideas, keep them coming.

 

No matter how polluting electricity is, railways are surely the only sensible carrier of freight? Our motorways are so stuffed full of HGVs, to the point there's barely room for cars at times.

 

This, think of how many HGVs plow the motorways each day running parallel to the major railway lines. I think we need a Government lead program of road to rail to road depots near large cities. Somewhere where the tractor unit drops off the trailer and the trailer is then loaded onto a flatbed type truck, and this and all the other trailers heading in the same direction are taken by train to their destination where another local tractor unit takes the trailer to its final destination.

 

Just thinking completely out of the box if we had a route say London to Edinburgh, we could create the train so the we had the loco at the front, then all the trailers going to Edinburgh area, then trailers going to Newcastle area, then Leeds area, then Peterborough area. As the train drove along the track when it got to say Peterborough there could be a system where the rear of the train was automatically detached as the train was moving and came to a stop itself, so the main body of the train didn't have to stop. A local shunter would then take this part of the train to the Peterborough depot where the trailers could be unloaded. I know this sounds a bit mad but engineering wise it is possible, we just need the money!

[OwdChina]

This is one way forward, but the bastards will find a way to tax the shit out of it !

 

http://water-for-gas-reviews.com/

[MarvinsMom]

back in the olden days the great western used a system of slip coaches on some of the heavy holiday trains out of paddington heading west.

 

on leaving paddington the train could be 15 odd coaches long, 7 or so hours later the train would pull into kingswere and be 3 coaches left. they had to slow down to around 30mph before slipping a portion of the train, plus there wasn't any corridors throughout the train, and each slip portion needed its own guard both to split the train and apply the brakes.

 

also in the olden days there was a system developed to carry road trailers on trains, both as containers and by adding railway wheels to a road trailer. in the us and australia i believe they still do this. it didn't catch on here though as the distances aren't that great and handling/splitting and forming the trains up is quiet involved.

[Uncle Jimmy]

This, think of how many HGVs plow the motorways each day running parallel to the major railway lines. I think we need a Government lead program of road to rail to road depots near large cities. Somewhere where the tractor unit drops off the trailer and the trailer is then loaded onto a flatbed type truck, and this and all the other trailers heading in the same direction are taken by train to their destination where another local tractor unit takes the trailer to its final destination.

 

Just thinking completely out of the box if we had a route say London to Edinburgh, we could create the train so the we had the loco at the front, then all the trailers going to Edinburgh area, then trailers going to Newcastle area, then Leeds area, then Peterborough area. As the train drove along the track when it got to say Peterborough there could be a system where the rear of the train was automatically detached as the train was moving and came to a stop itself, so the main body of the train didn't have to stop. A local shunter would then take this part of the train to the Peterborough depot where the trailers could be unloaded. I know this sounds a bit mad but engineering wise it is possible, we just need the money!

Very logical and I for one agree....However the Tory Nimbys will block any development on their manors and the badger shaggers will go mental.

[Uncle Jimmy]

Most large towns and cities used to have rail depots. Gloucester had a big marshalling yard near the docks, and several stations....all long since sold off and replaced by more retail guff.

[MarvinsMom]

the real trick would be to put back the bits of the great central or the missing bits of the old midland mainlines that were closed by dr beeching, and reinstate say the manchester to sheffield line going through the woodhead tunnels.

 

but yes, the tory nimbie wankers would be out in force, somethnig needs to be done though as the west and east coast mainlines are all but full, and HS2 isnt the answer, for a start, i'm of the opinion that its not even the right route!!

[forddeliveryboy]

This is one way forward, but the bastards will find a way to tax the shit out of it !

 

http://water-for-gas-reviews.com/

 

 

Most knock these saying something like, "how can you get more power out than you get in"?, missing the point that with an older engine, adding a dose of HHO improves combustion (of the petrol mixture) no end, acting as a catalyst. You can see this if you check the emissions - a tailpipe high on HC and CO can be cleaned up massively. There's also the steam-cleaning effect (and the effect of always running on a misty summer's evening) which can improve figures. I've known people with old Fords and the like utterly amazed at the fuel savings - often in the order of a quarter.

 

But with computerised modern engines, the effect is usually minimal or even negative as you're burning fuel to make the electricity (v inefficiently) to make the HHO - if there's no improvement in combustion, the volume of HHO is minimal. That's if you can work out how to explain the engine's network of computers just what you're doing.

 

If you have to buy everyting ready-made, chances you may struggle to make the money back too quickly.

[Andrew353w]

Some rediculous ideas to cut down on emissions.

Offer those who dislike spending so much time in their cars a practical method of shortening their journeys. Some decent paid jobs away from London maybe?

Workable schemes to allow job exchanges with that other person who travels 120miles a day in the opposite direction to you.

Buses without lowlife who make journeys a misery.

Separate human powered vehicles from those with engines.  I don't enjoy cycling on the same carriageway as a six axle 44 tonner, and I don't suppose they're too keen on me wobbling along at 10mph in front of them.

Make people who fly thousands of miles to gawp at Mickey Mouse or visit dubious night clubs pay £1.14p a litre for the fuel it takes to get them there.

Enable kids to safely walk to school- that'll also cut down on the Barry Hatrick ambulances clogging up the road.

Fix up the holes so small cars don't keep falling in them.

Lots more but you're bored now.

I'm in total agreement with all of these!!! However, as an airport worker I may have just talked myself out of a job!!

[dieselnutjob]

I pay three lots of road tax, MOTs and insurance to run my families fleet.  I also pay exactly the same income tax as everyone else, with only one tax free allowance despite supporting five people from one income. I don't even get child benefit anymore.

 

Given that I pay to drive my cars I have the right to use them for whatever I wish provided that it's legal.  If choose to take my kids to school by car then that really is tough s#1t.  Mostly they actually go on London underground which people hate because they say it clogs up the trains with kids, and they don't like them on buses either.  I am also paying a small fortune in Oyster cards because underground travel is still quite expensive even for a kid.

 

I also have the right to get my kids into the best school that I can and why wouldn't I. You would too.

 

This is not a communist country, children are people too and do have a right to exist.  They will be paying your pensions unless I leave this miserable country and sod off somewhere better.

 

You are the one that needs to stop whining.

 

 

God how true! Back to catchment areas please, ie: you are in one area you go to this school. you are in an adjacent area, you go to a different school that's local to you. How hard is it? It worked for us, (we were having this very discussion at work the other week), if you mix the kids up, the best will always rise to the top and you will have all schools being good - note, good, not exceptional, average, poor, etc, but all good. If the kids are motivated enough by their own character and by their parents, they will do well wherever they are. All the cherry-picking crap is simply a cop-out to get votes from pushy parents who think their precious little darlings are a cut above the rest. Meanwhile, the roads will be that bit clearer (& less pllouted for your angels noses) without pyscho-bitch wally-trolley aiming competitive mums fouling up the roads delaying those of us that actually have a job to go to (or from).

 

I know some will kick off "But my Nathan and Charlotte are very bright and so much better than the peasants and I need to compete with my so-called friends and beat them" - well tough, move to a house in that catchment area then and stop whining.  

 

(& to anyone who suspects I don't have kids - you're damn right, I don't!)

 

Sorry, about the thread drift but I feel better now - it's been a trying day at work!

[dollywobbler]

And this is the problem. People really do have a sense of entitlement when it comes to cars (wider population DNJ, but you've presented a view a lot of people would agree with). People also expect that fuel should be cheap like it's some sort of human right. Which is why we have roads near schools full of unnecessary vehicles, and endless traffic jams. Unless people start rethinking their use of cars, congestion isn't going to go away.

[forddeliveryboy]

Nothing wrong with having a sense of entitlement to necessities like cars, internet and good schools. We've had an infrastructure created which requires a car for the most basic things - without one you're stranded. Managing without the internet will grow increasingly awkward and of course what are children to do if their Mums are busy working trying to pay for the mortgage. What a shame all schools aren't to a certain, high standard, like in France or Germany.

 

I know a Hungarian businesswoman who came over to live and work in London, the children were sent around the corner to the local school, after a fortnight they had been removed and sent privately. She was quite shocked that in one of the world's very richest economies, we couldn't manage to have a fair system for children. When I explained the links between housing and schools, she was horrified. She had her doubts that the education in the private school was as good as the local state primary back in Hungary, too.

 

There was a Radio4 prog on recently which was discussing social mobility and meritocracies, glass floors for rich kids and so on. One of the more interesting facts to emerge was how some historically wealthy families are becoming actively downwardly mobile, realising that to succeed in the dog-eat-dog society which has been created in the UK is more likely if you're not aspiring to what the masses are lead towards. There have always been those who could think for themselves - today it's probably as important as ever if not more so. For most the link between quality of life and disposable income is fixed.

 

Anyway, back OT, it's good to hear that more modern diesels have more dangerous emissions.

[dieselnutjob]

My experience is that having a clever motivated child in a school with a few bullies and "no snitching" mentality is pretty nasty.  Because the school does FA about anything, you as a parent had better not report anything as nothing will change and just makes it worse for the child.

 

All you can do it get older siblings to get their mates to out bully the bully.

 

When it gets bad the kid needs a lift, as a few weeks ago another kid was thrown off of a bus and badly beaten.  This is not acceptable. I do not want to be in a position where this happens.

 

I don't see why a child commuting to school is in anyway inferior to a worker commuting to work.  It is up to the family how he gets there and no-one else.  The government can make one method easier than another as an incentive but ultimately free will applies.  This is not a communist country. If you have a large number of people going to one place at one time then whether it's an industrial park, office block or a school then you will have issues.

 

Blaming the people who are doing the commute is stupid because they still have to do it whatever your opinion is.

 

If I have to take my kid to school by car sometimes, or as often as I want, I will.  Bleating about it will not make any difference because I really do not care what anyone else thinks. It's not part of my decision making process.

[jonny69]

^ Yes, that is true. Prop planes are much more fuel-efficient too. However, they are also a lot noisier and a lot slower, which is enough to offset their use against jet airliners. Jets are a LOT cleaner than they used to be, but still strike a pretty fine balance between CO2 emissions and NOx.

 

Next time you get a chance, have a look inside a modern jet airliner engine. You've got a small skinny engine running down the centre and a number of bigger fans on the front acting like bypass props to try and make sure none of the thrust and heat is wasted. It's almost a ducted propellor engine and the only reason it's not a lot bigger diameter (which would make it more efficient) and unducted is noise.

[willswitchengage]

Dont know if its true but I read that Jets make lots more pollution per passenger mile than propeller jobs. Perhaps a bloke who carves propellers said it...

 

Yes, the 'passenger miles per gallon' of the most efficient planes, large wide bodies at an average industry load factor, is about the same as a single occupant Polo Bluemotion.

 

A turbine engine is hideously inefficient (mainly as it has to burn at low temperatures/compression ratios to not overheat - reciprocating engines cool themselves more effectively) but they are used on aircraft due to their high power to weight ratio and phenomenal reliability (one moving part - P&W have only just introduced the first 'mainstream' geared turbine).

 

Aircraft fuel is untaxed across the world and this therefore makes their thirstiness less uneconomical.

 

I've opened this on page three and we're already on some socio-political debate 

[Asimo]

willswitchengage, on 23 Feb 2015 - 8:17 PM, said:  A turbine engine is hideously inefficient (mainly as it has to burn at low temperatures/compression ratios to not overheat 

 

Don't think so. The pressure ratio across a big turbofan such as the Rolls Royce Trent are in the 30 to 40 range. At cruise they are very fuel efficient and because most of the thrust comes from the low speed fan their propulsive efficiency is good too

 

[willswitchengage]

willswitchengage, on 23 Feb 2015 - 8:17 PM, said:  A turbine engine is hideously inefficient (mainly as it has to burn at low temperatures/compression ratios to not overheat 

 

Don't think so. The pressure ratio across a big turbofan such as the Rolls Royce Trent are in the 30 to 40 range. At cruise they are very fuel efficient and because most of the thrust comes from the low speed fan their propulsive efficiency is good too

 

Oops, not pressure, sorry, temperature. It's a constraining factor as the engine's can't cool themselves effectively. Higher burn temperatures make your heat cycle graphs more efficient.

 

A reciprocating engine introduces new, cool air over its working surfaces every cycle whereas in a gas turbine they are constantly exposed to the burn temperatures - and the special alloys developed by clever metallurgists still have a limiting maximum working temperature.

 

But yeah it's all a big con when you think about what's tax exempt

 

Newspapers

Childrens clothing

Some food

Aviation fuel?

[Inspector Morose]

 

 

See that little red dot in the corner? That's the engine of the new Eviro 400 double decker. See the huge thing with the protective grille? That's SOME of the exhaust system needed to meet euro 6. Oh yes, unlike cars, if ANY of the treatment system fails and the emissions raise above euro 6 levels it cuts power or shuts down completely. All emission levels and emission critical temperatures around the engine now have to be data logged and recorded to show that the engine meets levels. The requirements are that the bus must meet regs (and are actively monitored) at all times instead whilst in service of in a lab like cars seem to get away with.

Now say that buses are dirtier than cars.

[MarvinsMom]

anyone running a book on just how long any of that shite will last in service, a month?

 

6 weeks?

 

any longer?

[willswitchengage]

The tailpipe on the new Enviro400 is stupid. Reading Buses have already broken half of there's on speedbumps.

[Pillock]

That looks expensive.

Means nothing to the local operators, they'll keep plodding on with their early 80s smokey shitheaps, mostly in front of me on the school run doing 40mph down a long winding NSL road. Not that I'm bitter.

[Inspector Morose]

It's tough shit really. Operators haven't got a choice if they need new stuff. If the ULEZ comes in in London, those are the only things that go into the city. If you're a coach operator, London traffic is important to pay the bills.

[dollywobbler]

I can only assume that in some local authorities, they just don't give a stuff given some of the old wrecks in use. I think we're required to be Euro IV compatible around here.

[Inspector Morose]

Luckily most places use a bit of common sense and calculate emissions per person instead of per vehicle. Doesn't grab headlines though so a knee jerk reaction can be made.

[Pillock]

Roberts who operate round here have a fair amount of new stuff, they at least seem to buy "some" every year which is naturally filtering through the fleet. However, because they also do the school run, and children are stereotypically little twats, they put the thirty year old crap on there - and back in 1985, emissions control was basically not smoking too many fags whilst driving. At this rate, the school run will be Euro 6 by 2045.

[Inspector Morose]

Roberts oldest fleet member meets euro1 stupidly enough...

[forddeliveryboy]

Chaos will ensue as motorways already clogged with coaches and HGVs come to a halt as engines decide it's best to shut down... just thinking out loud.

 

Anyway, I'd say a lot of this exhaust emissions stuff is on dodgy ground, insisted on by our Lords and Masters, the EU Empire. The general public believe cars are getting cleaner whereas all this excessive attention on one tiny part of a car's emissions - from the exhaust - have done little more than make cars unreliable, prohibitively expensive to fix for the second or third owner, crap to drive and bloody bad for the environment.

 

Consider the total energy used from cradle to grave - the embodied energy. It is massive and unnecessarily so due to overweight and overpowerful machines. Pollution caused by tyres is humungous, yet heavy powerful cars go through tyres bloody fast. All the printed circuit boards are total bastards for the environment, too - they're unrecyclable. This green and clean stuff is simply food for the gullible. (I'm not suggesting no electronic engine control or ABS - but how many other PCBs litter a car nowadays?). Look at all the lethal tiny soots from modern diesels, yet most would assume they're better for you.

 

Not only are cars more of a pollutant for the planet through their mass and power, but they're (on average) not achieving many, if any, more to the gallon than 20 years ago. I'd say it's less, because of clogged up roads. The EU isn't really bothered about CO2 emissions (they have a target in mind) since start to reduce that and you reduce consumption in the economy - which means less jobs for them. There's only one real pollutant in exhaust, unless running on renewable fuel which doesn't have a mega carbon-footprint (they almost all do), and that's CO2.

 

Everything else may be nasty when it comes out, but it soon decays or drops to the ground (except those horrid nano-particles from modern diesels!). By removing the NOx, CO and so on it could be argued we're simply trying to hide how much damage we're doing to our planet. CO2 is invisible and non-smelly, but it's the slow killer which doesn't change into anything else once we're putting out so much from burning stuff that plant life hasn't got big-enough lungs.

 

The daftest thing of all is that these hybrid and electric cars are there mainly to keep manufacturers' overall emissions figures looking good (govts conveniently ignore the low-40%s efficiency of highly un-environmental biomass and coal-burning Ferrybridge, or the financial disaster of Nukes). Rather than scientists being paid to numb our acclerator pedals and realise how many cock-ups we've been making on exhaust emissions as well as making new ones, perhaps it might make more sense for them to work out a way of making better cars which last without constant expensive fiddling. Wasn't that the main benefit of the electronically-managed engine, originally?

 

We also need cars which have a far smaller impact on our planet, if the whole globe is going to want three per family. And can't someone start designing a bog-standard car which is fun, once again?

[Inspector Morose]