CH4 Dispatches - The Great Car Con.

[ckember]

Thinking back to when I was a kid , more than 30 years ago, everyone was on about how diesel particulates where bad, from buses and trucks. Now that we have cleaned up all the other rubbish from diesels, are these particulates still at the same level as they where or are they really allot higher, for the same size engine and not with standing the larger number of diesel vehicles on the roads. Does putting a turbo on the Diesel engine make this worse or better. I'm thinking back to low powered diesel cars from the 80's here

 

[D-18]

Here's the Nomad exhibit at the Smithsonian (Udvar-Hazy Center) next to Dulles airport:

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

The Nomad is at the rear of the photo behind a Lycoming T53-L-1 turboshaft from a Bell Huey.

 

[Bellow]

It's tucked away at East Fortune in the entrance to one of the smaller buildings (Fantastic Flight ISTR) - by itself and rather anonymous - looking very shiny though. Very little written explanation (interpretation?) when I was there.

Everything you need to know about the Nomad is here >> 1954 | 1215 | Flight Archive
around 10 or so pages. The cutaway drawing is breathtaking!

The "baby deltic" t9 engine is quite a fruity sounding beast too, sadly I wasn't around to hear them working for a living.

55022 Royal Scots Grey has been based at what remains of the St Rollox works Springburn for something like 18 months - and actually does some real work despite being in preservation.

It comes out every so often (usually weekends) to go to the depot at Yoker and then down to the workshops at Kilmarnock transferring EMUs that are being overhauled. It also does the odd passenger charter and has done turns at recent diesel Bo'Ness events.

What replaced the Deltic on non-electrified lines?

I remember seeing the original Deltic at Kings Cross when we came back from a school camping trip to North Wales. Quite exciting at the time, sad though that it heralded the end of steam.

Deltic killed steam, jets/gas turbines killed the Nomad (and piston engines generally in aviation). What will supplant the engines we currently use in road vehicles, cars in particular? Electrification?

 

[Dryce]

What replaced the Deltic on non-electrified lines?

HST

And then on the East Coast line the 225s took over when it was electrified.

Deltic killed steam, jets/gas turbines killed the Nomad (and piston engines generally in aviation). What will supplant the engines we currently use in road vehicles, cars in particular? Electrification?

Not that many Deltics built - the likes of the DMUs, EMUs, and general purpose locomotives like the class 37s did most of the steam replacement.

The Deltics did replace the A4s on the East Coast.

As regards cars. Electric cars like the Zoe are getting good enough to act as a second car for many families IMO - dealing with urban and suburban runs close to home. I don't think that we can escape having an internal combustion engine for longer range for some time yet.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Thinking back to when I was a kid , more than 30 years ago, everyone was on about how diesel particulates where bad, from buses and trucks. Now that we have cleaned up all the other rubbish from diesels, are these particulates still at the same level as they where or are they really allot higher, for the same size engine and not with standing the larger number of diesel vehicles on the roads. Does putting a turbo on the Diesel engine make this worse or better. I'm thinking back to low powered diesel cars from the 80's here

A good question, to which you're unlikely to get an answer now that the thread has been vandalised as usual. Now that the boys are playing trouser-billiards whilst dribbling over their massive power plants we'll get no sense out of them.

I'm afraid I just don't have the knowledge to answer your question. I just know that I'm smiling even more now over my decision to buy a new car with a large petrol-engine, even if it is a GDI.

 

[Bellow]

A good question, to which you're unlikely to get an answer now that the thread has been vandalised as usual. Now that the boys are playing trouser-billiards whilst dribbling over their massive power plants we'll get no sense out of them.

How very intolerant.

I'm afraid I just don't have the knowledge to answer your question.

No sense from you either then.

I just know that I'm smiling even more now over my decision to buy a new car with a large petrol-engine, even if it is a GDI.

And try to accept that your GDI technology would not exist without what was learned from common rail diesel experience.

Thinking back to when I was a kid , more than 30 years ago, everyone was on about how diesel particulates where bad, from buses and trucks. Now that we have cleaned up all the other rubbish from diesels, are these particulates still at the same level as they where or are they really allot higher, for the same size engine and not with standing the larger number of diesel vehicles on the roads. Does putting a turbo on the Diesel engine make this worse or better. I'm thinking back to low powered diesel cars from the 80's here

And I can at least provide some answer to the questions.
I think, the harmful nature of the small particulates has only recently been discovered. That after the larger particles which were so obvious in earlier engines had been eradicated. The smaller particles were in all probability there but their significance not recognised. Hence it appears that they are in greater concentrations today but higher concentrations are as much due to the increased uptake of the Diesel engine in passenger cars and the sheer numbers owned and driven in cities.
Turbocharging a Diesel improves everything as it provides excess air for combustion (and as a working fluid) making it easier for the fuel to find air in which to burn completely. Where it falls apart is accelerating from low speed before the turbocharger has time to 'spool up' and fuel predominates over air and combustion can be incomplete and 'smoky'. Obviously a concern in city driving.

 

[E270 Owner]

‘Our view is that particulate matter represented by PM2.5 is a complex and
possibly interacting mixture of many components, including sulphate, and
though these components may differ from one another in terms of their
toxicity, such data as we have do not allow confident separation of their effects
on health. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary we consider that
the recommended coefficient should apply equally to all components of PM2.5,
including particulate matter measured as sulphate and nitrate. This is not to say
that all components of PM2.5 do have the same toxicity – but, rather, that there
is not, at present, evidence to quantify different components differently, in a
way that would gain wide consensus.’

PM2.5 isn't just from evil diesel

Episodes of elevated PM2.5 concentrations are clearly associated with emissions
from bonfires and/or fireworks, as is evident in the peaks lasting for several
hours that frequently occur around Bonfire night (see the example shown in
Figure 3.16). The concentrations at these four London sites rose sharply on the
Saturday evening, 7 November 2010, before declining more slowly. Although
Bonfire night was the day before, there was only a small peak on the Friday
evening. The wind speed was very low on the Saturday night but stronger
on the Friday, showing the importance of local meteorological conditions in
determining whether an episode will occur. Separate analysis (not shown)
revealed that the peaks were almost entirely PM2.5, with very little PM2.5-10.
Also, concentrations of NOx rose at the same time as the PM2.5, but there
was no impact on NO2 concentrations, which is evidence of fresh NOx
emissions. Such episodes can contribute around 0.1 µg m-3 to the annual
mean concentration. PM2.5 episodes due to bonfires and fireworks are
of short duration and will only have a small effect on annual mean
concentrations.

@2012

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/d...50_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf















.