Reducing Oxide Emissions... DIY?

[ProDigit]

for the price of a new cat, you might as well buy a new scooter, and drive that!
Most assuredly, your gas and emissions will drop drastically!

And scoots are fun too!

[richierocket]

Sorry to join this thread so late, I am a lurker, love the forum. Moderator, if this reply is inappropriate, please delete it.

Originally Posted by mwebb

there is no high C02 levels , the atmosphere acts like an accumulator , plants and trees always purge C02 from the atmosphere and
restore much of the 02 used in IC engines to the atmosphere
which is
confirmed by
stable
02
levels
in the atmosphere
and
C02 is not contributing to the current declining/decreasing temperature of the planet

mwebb, the facts contradict what you have written. If you look up data from scientific sources, like NASA for example: climate.nasa.gov/evidence

the level of CO2 is ~33% higher than at any time in the past 1/2 million years. Where did it come from? The carbon has been locked up sedimentary rock and fossil fuels for 10's of millions of years. The carbon was trapped after previous hot periods on the earth. We are burning the fuels, releasing it back to the atmosphere.

There may be some confusion caused by the magnitudes of the numbers we are talking about. CO2 has increased from 300 PPM (Parts Per Million) to 385 PPM. That is a significant increase of a very small number.

When you say the O2 level is stable, that is relatively true because the O2 numbers are so big. O2 level is 20.95% or 209,500 PPM

If the increase in CO2, +85 PPM displaces an equal number O2 molecules, the math is simple.

O2 goes down from 209,500 PPM (20.95%) to 209,415 PPM (20.94%)

Point is: a significant change in CO2 can occur with O2 being 'stable'.

The NASA info goes on to contradict some of your other points, if you have supporting info, please post it up. Thanks.

[ProDigit]

Well, the more carbon there is in the air, the more the rain will carry to the ground.
The more carbon is in the ground, the more trees and green will grow (carbon is really good for plant growth).
Good for the yard.

[mwebb]

you need to find a credible source of facts
NASA is not a credible source
NASA claims that there is "global warming " and that it is caused by
man made things such as C02 emissions

sorry but real facts support neither scenario

the global temperatures has been and is stable since 1997 according to the
credible scientific community

so if you can find a credible source for your thoughts

posit it

use science and facts
not politics and politicians

here is one of the many but more important pieces of evidence showing that nasa and employees of nasa are changing the values to support their
HOAX
in this documented case nasa is changing recorded history
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...ng-us-history/ so
the actual un tampered with NASA archives show
global cooling starting in 1920 GLOBAL COOLING
and the tampered with data supports the current HOAX
unfortunately this is only one of many examples

mwebb, the facts contradict what you have written. If you look up data from scientific sources, like NASA for example: climate.nasa.gov/evidence



The NASA info goes on to contradict some of your other points, if you have supporting info, please post it up. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

[richierocket]

mwebb, you didn't reply to the basic question. What source did you get your statement that the CO2 level is stable?

My point was that O2 being stable does not prove anything about CO2 being stable.

co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm
Add "www" in front of the second link.

Originally Posted by mwebb

you need to find a credible source of facts
NASA is not a credible source
NASA claims that there is "global warming " and that it is caused by
man made things such as C02 emissions

sorry but real facts support neither scenario

the global temperatures has been and is stable since 1997 according to the
credible scientific community

so if you can find a credible source for your thoughts

posit it

use science and facts
not politics and politicians

here is one of the many but more important pieces of evidence showing that nasa and employees of nasa are changing the values to support their
HOAX
in this documented case nasa is changing recorded history so
the actual un tampered with NASA archives show
global cooling starting in 1920 GLOBAL COOLING
and the tampered with data supports the current HOAX
unfortunately this is only one of many examples

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by richierocket

the level of CO2 is ~33% higher than at any time in the past 1/2 million years. Where did it come from? The carbon has been locked up sedimentary rock and fossil fuels for 10's of millions of years. The carbon was trapped after previous hot periods on the earth. We are burning the fuels, releasing it back to the atmosphere.

Where did all the carbon come from, before it was trapped as fossil fuel ?
Not from the plants and the animals that make up the fossil fuels, but what provided the carbon to make all those animals and plants in the first place ?

It's all just a matter of your timeframe.
500.000 years sounds like a long time to us.
It's nothing in the geological sense.

What is normal on Earth ?
Many tend to see it as the Earth they see NOW, but is that the case ?
This shortsightedness goes as far as people building on vanishing cliffs - cliffs that have eroded for ages, but may look sturdy when seen in a very restricted timeframe.

One thing is constant, and it is change itself.
Mankind tends to opposes change - any change - and sees it as a problem.
We attribute far too much importance to ourselves.
Earth doesn't need us.
Like it didn't need the other 99,9% of extinct species that went before us.

[richierocket]

Originally Posted by mwebb

[COLOR="Blue"]here is one of the many but more important pieces of evidence showing that nasa and employees of nasa are changing the values to support their
HOAX
in this documented case nasa is changing recorded history
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history
so the actual un tampered with NASA archives show
global cooling starting in 1920 GLOBAL COOLING
and the tampered with data supports the current HOAX
unfortunately this is only one of many exam

mwebb, I finally got the time to review your "smoking gun" evidence on the conspiracy at NASA to change data.

So if you put aside the politics and think this thru logically, yes, data could get adjusted for many reasons. If you have >100 years of raw temperature data, from many different station locations, using different measuring devices, measuring at different times, etc. The USHCN references the reasons in their reports at: ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Regional and local temperatures will still vary, it's the global, long term trends which we need to understand.
One example is the big blizzards in Washington DC in Feb 2010, called "snowmegedon". Some people claimed and fox network reported that "temperatures can't be rising, DC just had huge snowfalls!" Well, what they neglected to say was that about the time that DC got snow, New England snowmobile trails were closed due to lack of snow, the Vancover Olympics were in jeopardy because they were way below their normal snowfalls, and Austailia had extreme hot/dry, the dust storms were blocking out the sun in Sydney.
Point is natural cycles will continue locally...that does nto disprove the overall trend.

I like how Steven Goddard posts things and draws wild conclusions. For example, he has two picutes of a rocky pennisula on the ocean, one from 100~200 years ago and another from modern times. He claims this disproves the 6 inch sea level rise over the last 100 years.
These pics prove nothing conclusive. Was each pic taken at high tide or low tide? They do not tell you anything about if level changed or by how much...without knowing the tide timing. And the pics are too far away to judge a 6" change anyway!

[richierocket]

Originally Posted by ProDigit

Well, the more carbon there is in the air, the more the rain will carry to the ground.
The more carbon is in the ground, the more trees and green will grow (carbon is really good for plant growth).
Good for the yard.

Hi ProDigit, yes, you are right, with more CO2, the plants can grow faster. That is good for food production with 6.5 Billion people on the planet.
I don't think the rain has anything to do with it though. Photosynthesis draws in the CO2 right from the air thru pores in a plants leaves, not from the water in the ground.

There are bad parts too. For pollen allergy suffers like me, faster growing plants put out more pollen. Of course it varies season to season, but we have been breaking pollen count records more often in recent years.

Also, the more CO2 dissolved in the rain, rivers, ocean makes it slightly more acidic, which could have other consequences.

[ProDigit]

Well, I do think it matters. The rain grabs a lot of CO2 and brings it to the ground. Here in FL, it's very visible! With a long time no rain, there's a lot of stuff flying around in the air. Rain cleans the air, and also grabs carbon from CO2 and releases it in the sand. After a rainy day, here in FL, the earth looks blacker for a while (not because it's wet).

It's especially visible, when they are burning some forests in the everglades!
Carbon goes into the air, and gets deposited by the rain, in my garden (I'm living a good 15-20 miles from those burning areas)!

The majority of the Carbon will be absorbed by the sand, and the surface waters will evaporate, and the deeper waters will get filtered by the ground, and go into rivers.
River water will not become much more acidic, as most carbon will be filtered out of the water before it reaches the rivers by the earth.
But even if not, more more carbon, more acid, more plankton, more river life that feeds on plankton, more bigger fish that feed on smaller fish that feed on plankton; the more humans that will fish for fish, the more humans, means the more carbon pollution.

Carbon is also an excellent reflector or absorber of UV rays. Less UV rays will enter the atmosphere. The bad is that the ozon layer may shrink (the hole in the ozon layer), and in areas with a lot of pollution they will not suffer the consequences.
In area's like rain forest, even they will not suffer much, because they're sheltered from it, by the trees. However in farm lands, it'll become a nightmare. crops die, people die of cancers, and less crops mean less humans.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by mwebb

a smaller engine or same engine and lower rpm are the only way you can reduce either C02 or H20 outputs of a IC engine the outputs ratios are fixed by the input ratios no rocket science involved

(Bold Added.)
Incorrect.

It is not about the ratio of out gasses from a quantity of fuel ... it is about how much work one can do with a certain amount ... ie energy ... of input fuel ... or output toxins.

I can reduce all emissions while to accomplishing the same task ( ie energy / capacity to do work ) ... without reducing engine size ... and without lowering engine RPM ... and as you wrote , it isn't rocket science ... you just need to make the conversion to from fuel energy to mechanical energy more efficient.

- - - - - - -

Although it would not be a healthy options ... One can also have an engine that produces more CO ... which would reduce the ratio of CO2 in the exhaust... or more carbon based soot solid particles, would also reduce the CO2 output ... etc... etc.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Back along the lines of the OP:

Originally Posted by Sven7

Are there any relatively simple mods one could do to reduce a car's CO2, NOx, etc. emissions? Maybe replacing an old cat or adding a new one?

Trying to run your ICE a greater % of the time in it's more energy efficiency states would reduce the exhaust to accomplish the same commute , trip, etc.

The limit of course is that speed fluctuations are less aerodynamically energy efficient than a stead speed is ... so there is a bit of a balance between ICE efficiency and aerodynamic efficiency.

This is not as much of a mod to the vehicle as it is a mod to you the driver ... knowing your engine's BSFC and applying it in a balanced approach to your driving style.

- - - - - - - -

Better performing CAT will reduce some targeted emissions like NOx ... but a CAT does this by intentionally not burning some fuel in the ICE ... in order to give that unburned fuel to the CAT to use as a energy source for it's function ... so CATs are not themselves a means of reducing CO2 or improving MPG ... they are about smog emissions like NOx.

As such if it bothers you enough to want to change it before an inspection mechanic says you have to , that is up to you ... but that step to reduce smog emissions like NOx, comes at a cost $$$

Also keep in mind if the ECU for your ICE controls the system to always give that extra unburned / unused fuel to the CAT for it to do it's job , you won't save that fuel , just by not having a CAT ... you would have to prevent the control computer from operating in that method ... which is not usually as simple of a mod on most cars ... so if your car is going to throw away some small amounts of fuel anyway , you might as well have a good CAT there to reduce those targeted emissions like NOx.

- - - - - - - - - -

Warming up a cold ICE can improve it's operating efficiency ... so there is a benefit in that sense to reducing the colder / less efficient operating times ... be it with engine insulation , grill blocks , heater plugs, etc.

Exactly how much benefit will vary greatly ... vehicle to vehicle , project to project, conditions to conditions , etc ... if you are the DIY type who likes a project ... then have at it ... it's a project that gives back ... and you can enjoy doing it at the same time.

And there are simple / low cost types of these projects to start with ... the easiest and least expensive is probably a partial cold weather grill block... plenty of other threads here on thus like that.