California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[oil pan 4]

Planes have lot of anti icing systems.
The ones I know of are heated windshields, heated instrument tips for proper air speed indication, heated rotors for helicopters, maybe fixed wing also, engine cawlings that hest them selves, probably at least a whole lot more.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

DPF trucks are an illusion. They still put out plenty of soot it's just the soot they do make is 1 to 2 nano meter so you can't see it.
.

Yes, the exhaust coming out of a DPF filter isn't completely soot free. However they do significantly reduce the volume of soot. The idea is to take carbon + O2 + heat to make CO2.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by JSH

Yes, the exhaust coming out of a DPF filter isn't completely soot free. However they do significantly reduce the volume of soot. The idea is to take carbon + O2 + heat to make CO2.

And that heat comes from fuel injected directly into the DPF and wasted. The first generation of ford DPF used up to 17 liters to do the regeneration cycle. 4 gallons of fuel, just poof.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

The anti icing systems are rubber boots that inflate to rupture the ice bond so it slides off in the slipstream.

The boots system is for de-icing, and usually found on turboprops, but it won't prevent icing as the heating systems usually fitted to jets do. If the pilot turns the de-icing boots on before the icing starts, it becomes uneffective as the ice would accumulate around the inflated boots and then they won't be effective to remove them.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

And that heat comes from fuel injected directly into the DPF and wasted. The first generation of ford DPF used up to 17 liters to do the regeneration cycle. 4 gallons of fuel, just poof.

A lot has changed since the first generation DPFs that came out more than a decade ago.

You are also talking about an forced regen where the DPF is so clogged that the vehicle forces a regen even though the conditions are not ideal. In normal use the vehicle will regen on the highway when the EGT is high and little additional fuel in needed.

A lot of the issues with early DPFs were due to usage. The worse thing you can do with a DPF diesel is idle. However the old school guys never want to turn off their trucks and idle them all the time. In the Class 8 space a lot of problems were caused by drivers idling the engine for hours in "hotel mode" when driver slept. Today trucks use a small diesel APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) that provides heat and power while the main diesel engine is turned off. It fixes the PM issue and is much more fuel efficient than idling a 13-15 liter diesel engine to run the alternator.


However my post was a response to your claim that DPFs were just an illusion - they aren't. They significantly reduce the amount of PM. They don't just make the particles too small to see as you claimed.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by JSH

A lot has changed since the first generation DPFs that came out more than a decade ago.

You are also talking about an forced regen where the DPF is so clogged that the vehicle forces a regen even though the conditions are not ideal. In normal use the vehicle will regen on the highway when the EGT is high and little additional fuel in needed.

A lot of the issues with early DPFs were due to usage. The worse thing you can do with a DPF diesel is idle. However the old school guys never want to turn off their trucks and idle them all the time. In the Class 8 space a lot of problems were caused by drivers idling the engine for hours in "hotel mode" when driver slept. Today trucks use a small diesel APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) that provides heat and power while the main diesel engine is turned off. It fixes the PM issue and is much more fuel efficient than idling a 13-15 liter diesel engine to run the alternator.


However my post was a response to your claim that DPFs were just an illusion - they aren't. They significantly reduce the amount of PM. They don't just make the particles too small to see as you claimed.

Where I worked about five years ago there were several distribution center buildings within a few miles of each other. They used new model year (rental) Freightliner tractors to move trailers between DCs. The trucks were idled to run the A/C during the significant downtime. They had to regen often, probably due to both usages.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Where I worked about five years ago there were several distribution center buildings within a few miles of each other. They used new model year (rental) Freightliner tractors to move trailers between DCs. The trucks were idled to run the A/C during the significant downtime. They had to regen often, probably due to both usages.

Sounds like a poor match between usage and vehicle - which isn't uncommon for rentals. They were likely renting Cascadias designed for on-highway use instead of something like a M2.

[oil pan 4]

The OEMs may not have to inject as much fuel straight into the DPF
DPF is an illusion because it consumes fuel to make less soot and the soot it does make is smaller and more hazardous.
Plus, I thought the boogy man was CO2 not soot?
Also if "it doesn't use much fuel" then why will activate regen not start if a vehicle has less than 1/4 tank of fuel?
If it "doesn't use that much fuel" why on newer trucks where people are deleting the DPF people are seeing 10% to 20% fuel economy improvements?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The OEMs may not have to inject as much fuel straight into the DPF
DPF is an illusion because it consumes fuel to make less soot and the soot it does make is smaller and more hazardous.
Plus, I thought the boogy man was CO2 not soot?
Also if "it doesn't use much fuel" then why will activate regen not start if a vehicle has less than 1/4 tank of fuel?
If it "doesn't use that much fuel" why on newer trucks where people are deleting the DPF people are seeing 10% to 20% fuel economy improvements?

Pollution doesn't just have one "boogy man". PM is bad for urban areas. CO2 is bad for the planet as a whole. One is a local pollution issue and the other is a global issue. Both need to be addressed and sometimes there are tradeoffs.

People that rip out their emission systems are doing more than just deleting the DPF. They are also doing other illegal tuning. There are plenty of things that you can do to improve fuel economy that also increase emission. OEMs look for a balance between performance, fuel economy, and emissions. People doing illegal tunes don't worry about emissions.

[oil pan 4]

How much of the US is "urban areas"?
Looks like the trade off is, breathing safe exhaust here, screw the rest of the planet.
Every person I know with a diesel truck is like "as soon as the warranty is up, bye bye emissions system".
Not just the DPF, the EGR, the injection timing program that "preheats" the cylinders with a few tiny injection pulses before the main injection events. The "preheating pulse" decreases fuel economy, reduces engine noise, reduces peak combustion temperature and pressure, reduces NOx and increases soot.