Author Topic: Epa Revisited.  (Read 5443 times)

ixtow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Epa Revisited.
« on: July 04, 2006, 03:52:13 PM »
I was reading about 2007 Diesel Engines having a doo-dad on the exhaust pipe that isn't a cat, but helps emissions.

Also, that the Diesel 'Fuel' available will have higher standards than our (USA) current "crappiest fossil fuel on the planet" standards.

Wouldn't both of these be possible contributors to EPA passage of these handy dandy Listeroids?

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2006, 03:57:59 PM »
The real (stupid) issue with emissions is NOx emissions, and since 72% of the air drawn into everything that sucks is nitrogen, it's really really hard, having said that, lower combustion temperatures help, lister really shouldn't be that bad, but as far as I know nobody has done a proper EGA on a lister and published the results.

This is really a job for the vendors.
--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2006, 05:03:26 PM »
here's a link to the tier 4 standards...
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html#tier4

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2006, 05:23:22 PM »
Just a few things to add here...
Most NOX is formed when there is an abundace of O2 and the peak combustion temps exceed about 3000F..
http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/BoilerBurner/Workshop/HowNOx.htm
http://www.alentecinc.com/papers/NOx/The%20formation%20of%20NOx_files/The%20formation%20of%20NOx.htm
EGR really helps to lower NOX and cooled EGR does an even better job...  extending the combustion event and retarding the timing also helps to lower the peak temps... ethier one of these can be done by the DYI.. If you are concerned with emissions using VO reduces the particulates by about 70% and also lowers NOX slightly due to the longer burn time... If you want to be friendly to the enviroment and have fun with your listerr..My advise would be to use VO or a mix of VO as fuel...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2006, 05:26:26 PM by fattywagonman »

ixtow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2006, 10:28:28 PM »
I'm concerned witht he emissions only to the degree that the EPA refuses to allow alternative fuel engines to be tested while running on the intended alternative fuel.  If the engine can be made to get by on the 'new' diesel fuel, we may be doing better with importation possibilites.

But, after seeing how many years the Indians have continued to suck at making these engines, I doubt they care enough about the Export Market to make that effort.

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2006, 03:19:22 PM »
Hi ixtow,
I don't know why you think we have crappy fuel... in CA we have what amounts to #1 diesel at our pumps.. sure it is low sulpher and that reduces the lubrication but as far as combustability goes it's top cabin stuff... you keep metioning alternative fuels... I'm guessing you're talking about VO...The EPA says if it is compression ignition is must be tested on diesel... yes I think that's BS since using VO cuts most emissions to the point where older engines can meet current standards.. my 84' benz surpasses all the current tier 3 standards on VO fuel... Right now I'm in the testing process for the petter engines.. I thought about building a VO fued engine and submitting it as a VO fueled engine.. the only problem is the EPA doesn't recognize VO as fuel...     

ixtow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2006, 03:28:09 PM »
the only problem is the EPA doesn't recognize VO as fuel...     

Aye, there is the rub.  For an organization who's name is "Environmental Protection Agency" they seem to do the opposite at every opportunity.

They should be kicked in the groin until they bleed out their ears.  I absolutely loathe our government.

solarguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2006, 10:49:06 PM »

"They should be kicked in the groin until they bleed out their ears.  I absolutely loathe our government."

I was feeling morose the other day because the EPA has the system so FUBAR'd that it may set us back a decade on meaningful improvements in the avg fuel economy of passenger cars due to lack of diesels, etc, etc, etc.

Then some friends at a 4th of July party were telling us about the time they spent a year in Honduras.  The exciting part was where the cops stole their car and the contents.  Reliable neighbors saw the whole thing.

They went down to the department to see what they could do.  Bingo, there's the luggage behind the desk.  Oops!  "Sorry ma'am, that's being held as evidence against the two career criminals who stole your car.  It may take 6-12 months before we can return that."

Yeah sure!

The next day, he SAW one of the cops wearing HIS shirt.

They eventually recovered the car and some of the stuff.

Anyway, it's not so bad here in the US after all.

Finest regards,

troy

ixtow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Epa Revisited.
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2006, 04:55:30 PM »
It seems better at first glance.  Ours just does it wholesale to everyone a little bit at a time.  That way it doesn't seem unusual and we all just get used to it.  History shows how ours is gradually becoming more like theirs, just bigger.

But we digress.