Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 1) 202

Expanding isn't "reacting to heat".

What? What do you call it, then? I didn't say it was reacting with heat. Although it does react with oxygen in the presence of heat, to form NOx, that's explicitly not what I was talking about.

But, back to the original point: Diesel engines take in much more atmospheric air than gasoline engines when running at normal loads (highway cruising).

Yes. But they consume no more when wide open. The size of the exhaust is defined primarily by the maximum flow, not the cruising flow. (That defines other design characteristics more.) Diesels tend to have higher peak boost in spite of their typically higher static compression ratios, but they also tend to have significantly lower RPM limits and tend to run less RPMs while cruising.

Of course, all of this has been muddied by the introduction of the direct-injected gasoline engine, and by developments in diesel engine technology. Not only do GDI motors have higher cylinder pressures and thus higher temperatures, but there are also now diesels with [automated] throttles. As well, the recent crop of automatic transmissions with many gear ratios (8 now being common, 9 not being uncommon, and 10 beginning to roll out) and multiple overdrive ratios has led to gasoline engines being used at much lower RPMs...

Comment Re:How the fuck.... (Score 1) 202

Yeah maybe in America. But that is a fantasy land in terms of fuel. This article however is talking about other places in the world.
In Australia for example most heavy busses have switched to running nat gas because it was cheaper. Most taxis and many passenger cars did too though these are being displaced by electric.

all of which makes sense, but what about long-haul trucking? the hauls are really long in oz.

Comment Re:Think outside the container... (Score 1) 202

I can't help but be a little amused at all the people saying cities could never ban Diesel because there's no acceptable alternative.
There is, of course, just not for long-haul trucking.

You could probably switch to turbine-electric and burn... well, whatever you wanted really, but the only thing which would have the same kind of energy density is jet fuel. That would only cost what, an order of magnitude more or something? But the good news, everyone, is that we're all going to be getting higher-grade fuels whether we like it or not. It's not going to be possible to get much better emissions out of internal combustion vehicles without them. The automakers want to see even higher-grade diesel fuel, and higher-octane gasoline.

Of course, if the Trump takes a Dump on CAFE somehow then we might well not get any of this stuff any time soon...

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 202

Natural Gas for trucks.
Electric, Natrual Gas, or Petrol for cars.

Natural gas? So, you're pro-fracking. Cars are more important than clean water. Nothing is good about petrol, either.

Even if it weren't ecologically retarded, natgas is not a viable replacement for diesel. We use diesel for long-haul OTR trucking for many reasons, but not least because of range. You have to make many more refueling stops for gasoline than for diesel, and you have to make even more for natgas.

Now, to be fair, it is possible to make natural gas from an ecologically friendly source — feedlot manure. Currently this is mostly put into holding ponds to sit and stink for a time before being flushed into a waterway. The smart thing to do with it is put it into tanks (or even into glorified ziploc bags such as the ones often used as water tanks now) and let it cook itself, producing methane in the process; it's going to do this anyway, but we can capture it and put it directly into any vehicle with a propane conversion which involves an O2 sensor. You can buy the conversion parts (the PCM, injectors, and fuel rail) straight outta China for around five hundred bucks.

Methane aside, there is also Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline. BP and DuPont own a company called Butamax which holds the patents for cost-effective commercial production, which were developed partly with our money. GE Energy Ventures owns a company called Gevo which would like to sell it to us, but Butamax sued them to stop production.

As for diesel, the best replacement is "green diesel", which is what you call it when you crack fats (waste or otherwise) in a distillation column such as we currently use for the distillation of crude petroleum. Like biodiesel produced by the transesterification of fats with methanol or ethanol it is a carbon-neutral fuel (assuming you get your conversion heat energy from a carbon-neutral source) but its other properties are more similar to petroleum diesel, like its gel point. It can be blended with 2-10% traditional biodiesel to deliver a fuel which can be used in any diesel engine and, which will actually extend the life of its fuel system with superior lubricity.

The best solution for reducing emissions in locations where it is excessive, assuming we're going to keep driving around like a horde of motorized lemmings, is battery electric. So sad, it only solves the needs of what, is it 80% of the population? Even if were only 50%, that would still be a massive victory.

Comment Re:So much for biodiesel use... (Score 1) 202

Diesel engines used to run without making ANY NOx. However, because of the political need to reduce CO2, they were modified to minimise CO2 regardless of the consequences for NOx.
Totally separately, if you don't have a particulate filter, the particulates are pretty bad.

Well, congratulations, you got that completely and totally wrong. You could not be more wrong if you were trying to be wrong.

First, NOx is produced any time you have combustion in the presence of nitrogen. Diesels produce more NOx than gassers because they have higher combustion temperatures. It's not unusual for someone to turn the fuel up on their diesel just a bit without understanding the consequences and melt a hole right in one of their fancy forged Aluminum pistons. This is why an exhaust gas pyrometer is a mandatory upgrade (if not fitted from the factory) for anyone who wants to increase power in their diesel. You can cook things very easily, mostly pistons and exhaust valves but also turbochargers.

Second, gasoline engines produce just as much soot as diesels. They produce finer soot, which is more dangerous. The class of soot which gasoline engines produce is collectively termed "PM2.5" or particles of 2.5 microns and smaller. This is the smallest common classification of soot particles, and it is by far the most dangerous because these particles are so small that your cilia cannot sweep them out of your lungs. They can only be removed by adhering to sputum which is then expelled by coughing. Diesel catalysts re-burn diesel soot, which is nice big chunky particles of 10 microns or larger, until it too is PM2.5. This makes them look a lot cleaner, but it actually makes them much more hazardous to health.

Diesels with clever injection systems but without catalysts are the most health-friendly internal combustion engines available which run on liquid fuels. The only internal combustion engines which are superior in that regard are propane engines (typically gasoline conversions, and not purpose-built) run on bio-methane, and lubricated with bio-based oil.

Comment Re: Less politics (Score 1) 109

Eich resigned because of external pressure on the Mozilla organization. I hear that one of the lobbying activities against him was when the dating site "OK Cupid" started informing Firefox users who accessed the site of Eich's activities and that they should download a browser made by people who don't nominate someone with gender discrimination issues to be their CEO. At the time, 8% of OK Cupid customers were there to arrange same-gender meetings.

They felt he was the public face of the company.

Russ Nelson published a piece on what he theorized was the economic motivation of Blacks to be lazy, and was booted off of the Open Source Initiative board. He wasn't thinking about how it would be perceived. A modified version of the piece is still online, but not the version that got him in trouble. In general, executives are seen as the public faces of their organizations even in the case of Nelson, who was not the chairman of the board, but was simply a member of the executive board. In Nelson's case, it wasn't that he made publicity appearances and press releases, it was that he was one of the people with the power to direct the company (and thus a more real face of the company than soneone who just does PR), and folks did not trust that someone who wrote what he did would behave as they would like in that position.

Comment Re:Security is an illusion (Score 1) 153

There's just too much volume to track all the content everywhere.

There are 350 million people in the USA, more or less. Including kids not of age to use computers. One computer, just one, operates at billions of instructions per second (when the code is written in anything efficient, like c.) The NSA has a newish huge data center located on the main trunks.

You do the math. If you still think they can't sieve that amount of data effectively, why then, good on you for your optimism. :)

Comment Re:What's the big deal? (Score 2, Insightful) 168

Playboy departed the nude photo market due to the vast and unending supply of photos and video of all manner of naked people doing sexual things which one can access via the Internet.

However, one can make a case that a good deal of the past content of Playboy was about objectifying women and to some extent the publication still is about that.

It was a dumb decision. Several people just weren't thinking. They're embarrassed now. They learned, and won't do it again.

Comment Re: Less politics (Score 1) 109

It was only 1967 when the United States Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case. Preventing blacks and whites from marrying, as the State of Virginia (and many others) did with laws on its books until it was forced to remove them in 1967, is an issue of racism, nothing else. One doesn't have to be thin skinned to be disgusted by racism.

Why should I feel any different about gender discrminiation? Texas had a law on the book making homosexual relations illegal in 1998, and two men were arrested for it and similarly to Loving, helped to strike it down in the courts. Marriage discrimination is yet another legal wall erected by the prejudiced. Doesn't take a thin skin at all to oppose it and its supporters.

Comment Re: Less politics (Score 1) 109

Because you are an end-user and not an investor in these companies, you might actually think the public face of the companies is a logo or a trademark rather than a human being. Perhaps you think the public face of McDonalds is Ronald McDonald! Or that Sprint's used to be that actor who portrayed a technician. But this naiveté is not shared by the people who are the target audience for the public face that the CEO's appearances and quotations produce. AMD has people to handle the guy who once plugged one of their CPUs into a motherboard. The public face nurtured by the CEO is reserved for investors and business relationships, government, and corporate citizenship. These are all areas in which a decision made outside of the company can have great impact on the company. And so, if you go on the company site, you will see the CEO quoted in the press releases related to those items. At trade shows, you will see these CEOs as keynotes. I am heading for CES in January, where many CEOs you've never heard of who run large tech companies will be speaking, and there will be full halls of their eager target audiences.

Don't you think it might be self-centered to assume someone's not the public face of the company because you don't know who they are?

Slashdot Top Deals

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...