Smoke from diesel engines has been proved to cause cancer, hasn't it?
Doesn't sound harmless to me.
I continue to be amazed at the amount of black smoke poured out by nearly new diesel cars - Fords and Renaults seem to be particular offenders.
|
|
Two years with a DPF Audi and no sign of any smoke, even when regeenrating. Borne out by the fact the stainless tailpipes are still shiny. No DPF was a different story.
|
|
|
I blot out the sky on the day before MOT - with the old 1.9D as I take it repeatedly up to max revs on the motorway.
That`s why there are dead crows and stunted trees just before Woolley Edge Services - (Mot passed in 7th year last week)
At least all the soot and filth is out now and I`ve seen one of those Honda humming birds peering up the exhaust - so things are looking up.
|
|
|
Heavy right foot away from the lights, especially when cold.
In the days of carburettors, very hard-driven cars used to put out a puff of what looked like white smoke, but was really a cloud of unburnt petrol mist, during gearchanges.
Met a cat last night or so with a lowly Golf turbodiesel. 100 bhp he said. He seemed to be a keen driver and IAM enthusiast.
He said it was quite difficult to get the best out of that car in town, although it was forgiving on the road. He said you needed a really delicate right foot.
As with clouds of unburnt petrol mist, clouds of soot don't advance you much quicker than a less visible exhaust. And they both cost you out of all proportion in more ways than one.
Edited by Lud on 10/06/2009 at 21:49
|
|
|
Smoke from diesel engines has been proved to cause cancer, hasn't it?
Hence DPFs and why they are needed. They are not yet perfect but they will improve.
I thought it was the tiny particles in the exhaust gases that was the problem. A DPF captures these (some refer to it as soot) and it gets burned to produce less polluting by-products.
|
|
|
Smoke from diesel engines has been proved to cause cancer hasn't it? Doesn't sound harmless to me.
Yes it has... governments dont like people mentioning that though........
|
Peter Potter puts out more smoke
his boosted diesel`s not a joke
It cost four hundred pounds to do
to turn the air - black and blue
He surges past on full boost
Song birds die - upon their roost
It matters not - `t environment
his extra speed is heaven sent
Now at the Pearly Gates he stands
a tuning device, held in his hands
there is a call from down below
to boost the furnace - make it glow
Peter pushes the lever in
a flame leaps out to quench his sin
His boost device goes down a treat
his carbon targets - easier to meet
He wakes up sweating - what a `mare
and cancels fitting - the `devil dare`
he`s gone green with fear and bought a Prius
a convert from smoke - sent out to try us....
Edited by oilrag on 10/06/2009 at 22:27
|
|
|
If you want to get 150+ bhp from a 2 litre diesel it needs to burn lots of fuel to attain that, hense the smoke, or do modern diesels burn fresh air they're so efficient..;)
Not all non DPF's smoke giving full power, it's not the Holy Grail.
|
It burnt it`s fuel like a Saturn 5
Soot and particles going live
people suffered with their breathing
the monster lumbered onwards heaving
blasts of soot and unburnt fuel
settled in the old mans gruel
a destroyer laying a smokescreen?
A motor polluting fields of green.
I`m all right jack - was the cry
outside the cab can crawl and die
It`s nice to have the extra power
It`s only soot - take a shower
|
Latest research shows PM10 problem is much worse than we think.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8092182.stm
|
When I was a youngster (which was a long time ago now) I went to a Post Mortem. The pathologist was most patient and informative and I found it both horrifying and fascinating.
When the chap got to the lungs, I piped up and asked if the person had been a smoker. The response was 'not neccesarily so, living in Central London was the equivalent of smoking 10 cigarettes a day'.
|
|
|
Now up ahead the traffic`s slow
There`s Peters motor all aglow
his extra power - all that boost
has clearly cooked the turbo`s goose
It`s seals are blown it`s passing oil
the engine`s efforts can`t be foiled
It`s at 7,000 revs you see
as Peter Potter starts to flee
Clouds of smoke and sheets of fire
the crankshaft`s really going to tire
a pistons out - with a BANG!
that tuning device can go and hang
In requiem now for the quest
those 10p resistors did their best
Now all that`s left is burnt tarmac
the motors gone - alas alack
We cut now - to the Spanish coast
fantastic profit is the boast
the villa, boat and Rolex too
thanks to Peter(s) - wanting boost
(humour attempt 645657873)
oilrag
|
|
"That's not soot, just good clean dirt" - Michael Banks, in Mary Poppins.
|
|
|
|
You can't deny these poems are pretty good, all the more so if you happen to agree that messing about with features (bike exhausts, ecu remapping etc.) the manufacturers have expended much effort in getting right, is barmy.
|
|
The air is cleaner than it has been for 150 years. We live to about 90 who cares about some smoke. Just enjoy it.
|
The air is cleaner than it has been for 150 years. We live to about 90 who cares about some smoke. Just enjoy it.
Too true, if you think you have pollution now you should have lived in London before it became a smokeless zone and coal fires were banned, try breathing smog! That stuff was worthy of the OPs description of "tremendous black clouds".
Edited by Old Navy on 11/06/2009 at 14:12
|
The air is cleaner than it has been for 150 years. We live to about 90 who cares about some smoke. Just enjoy it.
Quite right, the diesel particulate moaners seem to forget that in the days of open fires, London smogs could become life-threatening on numerous occasions during the winter months.
Why does no-one put particulate filters on open fires or log-burners ??
|
|
|
"PM10 problem is much worse than we think"
I'm sure you're right, Brum. I noticed when that report was broadcast (and in the written version) that they have avoided mentioning diesels, despite the fact that the Dept for Transport, in a report on light good vehicles, says that the "contribution made by diesel LGVs to overall emissions of PM [particulate matter] from road transport in the UK" is greater " than [for] any other pollutant".
I assume this is because diesels have largely been sold on their green credentials, but as I've written here before, I don't buy it. Anyone who rides a bike (push or motor) in traffic will know what diesel exhaust smells like, and although I may be sensitive, I find it makes me nauseous, which I suspect is a direct physiological response to the stuff.
I appreciate that petrol exhaust isn't exactly wholefood, either, but PM-10 levels in petrol exhaust are an order of magnitude below diesel output, as indeed are NOx levels, so how they ever qualified as 'green' is yet another awkward question for our political masters...
|
"PM10 problem is much worse than we think" I'm sure you're right Brum.
Are they? Proof please!
I assume this is because diesels have largely been sold on their green credentials but as I've written here before I don't buy it.
Neither do I, but I also don't buy petrolhead's ascertions that they are worse than petrol engines either, especially new diesels with particulate filters...
I appreciate that petrol exhaust isn't exactly wholefood either but PM-10 levels in petrol exhaust are an order of magnitude below diesel output
Quote:
"Of the total PM10 fraction those particles with aerodynamic diameters below 2.5 micron, or PM2.5, are now considered to be the major contributor to human health effects, as these particles can penetrate and block the very small passages of the lungs.
PM2.5 comes from the same sources as PM10, mainly fuel combustion processes. As the particles are so small and fine they can remain suspended in the atmosphere for very long periods. "
Petrol produces more PM2.5, diesels more PM10s, PM2.5s are in the air for longer and are more easily "ingested" into the lungs, petrol engines don't have filters to remove them...
If you stuck to Goods Vehicles and PSVs you may just have a case (but then you'd also have to take into account how many cars a bus removes from the roads into the equation), but comparing Petrol Cars against Diesel Cars your comments just come across as sour grapes and not based on any facts.
|
"sour grapes"
Hardly - I've never, ever wanted a diesel!
As for particle sizes, my understanding was that PM10's are simply those that are smaller than 10 microns (and therefore include PM2.5's and below) and that diesels produce between 5 and 50 times as much as a petrol engine.
I accept that DPF's may improve matters, but I doubt that burning soot produces less pollution than burning petrol, especially as you've already burned the diesel to produce the soot in the first place!
In any case, my beef is not really with diesel owners (at least, as long as I'm not behind them on my bike) but with those who promoted them as environmentally friendly.
FWIW, I think petrol engines work better without catalysers, too - another unintended consequence of George Monbiot's chums...
|
I accept that DPF's may improve matters, but I doubt that burning soot produces less pollution than burning petrol, especially as you've already burned the diesel to produce the soot in the first place!
:-)
My next car probably will be a turbo petrol. When choosing in 2007 and in 2003 the diesels made it cheaper and both times I went for Euro IV diesels (in 2003 it didn't need a DPF either and produces higher CO 2 ).
I might have a choice on turbo petrol in 2011 :-)
Edit: The "I might have a choice on turbo petrol in 2011" was meant to say I might not... but it also means there will be a choice. Ford, GM Europe, FIAT, PSA etc. all have turbo petrols out or on the way.
Edited by rtj70 on 15/06/2009 at 18:09
|
"sour grapes" Hardly - I've never ever wanted a diesel!
Rather proves my point, then...
I accept that DPF's may improve matters
They do!
but I doubt that burning soot produces less
Look up how DPFs work, then come back to me on that...
with those who promoted them as environmentally friendly.
They haven't as such, its just that the method of measurement of emmissions in the EU favours diesel emmissions... it could quite easily go the other way, in fact in certain, non-european countries it does...
Your original post, JBW, came across as someone who just wanted to have a go at diesels just because they don't like them, that post does nothing to dispell that conclusion... I used to commute daily, all year round, on a motorbike, but I don't have a chip on my shoulder about them... Diesel can be dangerous to bikers, but the only time I actually came off mine on a greasy road was due to engine oil all over the road just before a set of lights, and that was just as likely to be a petrol engine as a diesel.
They are both dangerous to us because of their emmisssions, but it is noticable that whilst the diesel engine manufacturers have done a lot to clean up their image, petrol engine manufacturers have not, perhaps like Clarkson, they believe that petrol is this ultra clean fuel that will not harm any living thing...
|
"came across as someone who just wanted to have a go at diesels just because they don't like them"
Guilty as charged. I understand your more rational arguments, but the things just offend me in every possible way: smelly, noisy, heavy, vibratory, and with a powerband best suited to a constant-speed generator. And the fumes make me feel sick.
BTW, I understood 'sour grapes' to be the response of someone who wanted something that was beyond their reach. Not me.
|
to have a go at diesels just because they don't like them" Guilty as charged.
I only wish others were as honest, JBW... I salute you for that... if not for the anti diesel rant! ;-)
|
Thank you b308 - I wasn't expecting that!
I have read a little more about DPF's, but they do look rather high maintenance in the long term. Fine on a new or newish vehicle, but I can see all kinds of problems looming for older cars, especially if they have made lots of short journeys. I did try suggesting to the Dyson company that they adapt their vortex method to particulates, but I got the 'not invented here' letter!
As suggested in my earlier post, light commercial vehicles are the worst offenders, not least because their engines are working a lot harder (bigger loads, poor aerodynamics) and they don't seem to use any filtration, which is ironic, as their mode of operation is probably better suited to it...
|
I did try suggesting to the Dyson company that they adapt their vortexmethod to particulates but I got the 'not invented here' letter!
I read years ago that Mr James was trying to turn his 'Cyclone technology' to the diesel engine. Was it your idea?
|
Thank you b308 - I wasn't expecting that!
:)
As suggested in my earlier post light commercial vehicles are the worst offenders
I'm with you on that, and I suspect it applies to both diesel and petrol powered versions!
|
|
|
|
>> Smoke from diesel engines has been proved to cause cancer hasn't it? Yes it has...
Come on, ST, petrol cars also emit particulates, and its also thought that the particulates emitted, mainly smaller than diesel ones, are also a cause of cancer, could be even more dangerous... and tests have also shown that diesel cars with DPFs are cleaner than petrol cars...
|
|
|
|
|
|
