Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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) 110

because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load.

Gasoline engines, yes, Diesel, no. As I posted elsewhere, Diesel engines have something closer to a fixed air intake on each revolution, irrespective of load.

Please read before replying.

Remember that Diesel engines use compression ignition and, without sufficient air, there is insufficient compression to ignite the fuel.

Would you like me to tell you about my AT185. or my OM617.951A?

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 1) 110

Typical compression ratio in a Diesel engine is somewhere around 20:1, vs a gasoline engine that's running 10:1 or there about.

So what?

Basically this is displacement/cylinder * compression ratio * RPM * number of intake strokes per revolution.

The compression ratio is a function of the head volume and the cylinder volume. It has nothing to do whatsoever with determining how much air is drawn into the engine, which is defined by speed, bore, stroke, and intake efficiency. It is rather determined by how much air is drawn into the engine, and how much space you have left for air at the end of a compression stroke.

Ever wondered why diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones? This is why, diesels move a lot more air.

Diesel tail pipes are a lot larger than gasoline ones because diesels shit the bed when you have backpressure. It ruins their efficiency and you have to play tricks to get it back. Turbocharging is worth it anyway because it's turbocharging. Now, pay attention to this part, because it's important: exhaust gas volume is proportional to load. Diesels have bigger exhausts because they have more torque. This is also why turbochargers and diesels go together so well. Turbochargers are driven by exhaust gas expansion, which as mentioned, is proportional to load.

If you carve the piston out, you lower the compression ratio, and you increase the amount of air the engine consumes. You in fact have this exactly backwards.

Comment Re:I thought diesel ran cleaner (Score 1) 110

Not when cruising at 65 mph. Not even close.

Well, tell us what it is. Neither of my turbos boost that high, but they're both old. (My F250 peaks out at 11 psi and my Mercedes at 12.) The F250 cruises at only around 2 psi unless you have a trailer, then it's more like 6 or 7. The Mercedes cruises at around 7 or 8 psi. But they have much lower boost pressure than modern diesels.

Comment Re:So much for biodiesel use... (Score 1) 110

And still has a hell of a lot of particulate emissions, negatively impacting air quality in major cities, which you might note are the entities banning the diesels here.

Gasoline has just as much particulate emissions as diesel. It's just a smaller soot particle which we couldn't accurately measure until recently. Of course, DPFs on diesels reburn the soot until it's a small, invisible particle just like gasoline, making it just as dangerous as gasoline.

Banning diesel is not the remedy. Banning combustion is the remedy. Banning diesel is just stupid.

Comment Re:Democrats are the enemy (Score 1) 549

They're all going to agree to never lobby for foreign entities, and go half a decade after they leave office before they can do that work domestically.

Guess what? Those agreements are unconstitutional and won't stand. That's like a Californian signing a non-compete agreement. Okay! Sure!

Comment They won't. (Score 1) 261

Period. It's a waste of time. Any government that tries to force standard of living reduction will be voted out of office. This is essentially what happened with Obama, and he tried to do it in a stealthy way. Imagine someone openly taking an axe to public prosperity in the interest of climate change? They'd shove knives up his ass like Quaddafi.

You have to create a totalitarian state with the full apparatus of secret police, surveillance, detention camps and summary executions to even start to go there, and the focus on climate change would impair your ability to maintain that social control. Beside which, the inherent corruption in such a state would ultimately subvert your efforts to reduce your carbon footprint.

Also, i'd rather have the climate change than the secret police, thanks.

Comment I've never seen so much effort futilely wasted (Score 1, Insightful) 261

The climate change police are getting more and more shrill over time. This decreases rather than increases their power to convince. But it was all futile anyway because you are asking people to reduce their standard of living by choice to accomplish a community goal. Even people who see the danger are loath to do that...thinking Al Gore and his planes and houses. It's the Whole Earth Catalog thing all over. "living guilt-free with our appropriate technology like Indians in the woods...free at last!". Only a tiny percentage of people will ever share in that goal meaningfully.

Nothing is going to change politically even when the oceans start encroaching cities, because the argument then will be that it is too late to fix the problem at that point. So, why bother with the stupid political activity, when we all know it's a nonstarter? Aren't there more constructive uses for their time? Instead of futile political activity, how about carbon sequestration-related work? Fund startups to do that... Plant trees. Do *something* to combat the problem you see rather than all of this wasted political activity...dare I say hot air? Solve the problem and stop trying to force others to change to 'solve' it.

But they won't, because it's not really about climate change. It's about social control and mandating lifestyles. People who apparently really don't like personal success very much because they choose goals that are unachievable.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 75

Yeah, because that is exactly what I said.

Let me ask you a simple question, does any regulation state its goals, and if it doesn't (or no longer) reach those goals, is it repealed?

I don't know of ANY regulation that has a repeal clause in it if it doesn't meet its goals.

I don't know of ANY regulation that has a cost benefit analysis requirement before being employed.

I don't know ANY regulation that self monitors for effectiveness.

I don't know ANY regulation that was revoked when it was found to be ... ineffectual. Just more regulations to fix the broken bits of the previous (and bad) regulation.

So, yeah, "No" regulation is an option. AND not all regulations need to apply everywhere in a "one size fits all" over the top method.

I'll give a really good example of bad regulations that can be completely avoided by changing the term of the problem, CableTV (and Internet) franchise agreements. The whole "Net Neutrality" is a top down draconian implementation of regulations that is completely avoidable if you change where the problem exists; the last mile. Fix the last mile problem (monopolistic franchise agreements) AND you don't need a whole bunch of Government red tape on how Internet traffic is handled.

Freedom is expensive, and tyranny comes with a costly price tag. So, yes, I err on the side of Liberty.

Slashdot Top Deals

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...