• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA Set to reveal new Sulfer regulations

DVSentinel said:
The biggest problem is going to be tuning it. I need to write some custom software and build a load generator before I do it. Otherwise, doing the tune manually on the load generator will take up to 2 months to get the fuel and spark tables set to optimum. Lot of work without the right software and I don't think anyone has ever approached tunning in the manor I plan to.

I'm going to use a digital flow meter from marine use to measure actual fuel flow/usage instead of using injector timing. So, setting the tables manually would take a very longtime. At each rpm (100 rpm increments), optimize the fuel/air and timing for minimal fuel consumption for each increment at each load range. So, lets see, about 5000 rpm operating range, which gives me 50 different increments spread out over say 20+ load ranges plus partial and wide-open-throttle curves. Yep, better get back to my C++ books tomorrow.

And then do it all over again after I add supplemental hydrogen to it.
Click to expand...
I am an amateur, I want to do a few hobby cars so I'm not as meticulous. Sounds like you could go big with rebuilding and that setup.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Torque is the most important aspect, I mainly focus on HP because if the drivetrain is done right the torque numbers tend to be close, and even then the HP is a reflection of the kind of build of the engine, it's going to put better numbers out with proper compression and fire. I like big displacement because it can facilitate lower compressions for torque and power which saves on wear during it's life, I always get a laugh at the kids who go with double digit ratios and put a ton of pressure and strain on their smaller four and six banger engines, the durability is gone at that point.
Click to expand...

It's funny hearing them brag also. Had a guy back in the 90s that told me his Mitsubishi would out run my Camaro. He was right, but I told him to give me half the money he put into his, I would beat him and still pocket some change. Some of them simply never think that the same things they do to those rice burners can be done with a V-8. But 250+ hp/L on a 7.4, or even a 5.7, would be underivable except at a drag strip on special tires.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I am an amateur, I want to do a few hobby cars so I'm not as meticulous. Sounds like you could go big with rebuilding and that setup.
Click to expand...

Only on pre-OBD cars and those with supplemental hydrogen. Although, I might need to check it now that the EPA has gone to grams/mile. It might be doable then. Assuming of course they use actual fuel mileage instead of their imaginary numbers. Posting the .bin and other format files for engines I've already done wouldn't be that difficult.
 
DVSentinel said:
It's funny hearing them brag also. Had a guy back in the 90s that told me his Mitsubishi would out run my Camaro. He was right, but I told him to give me half the money he put into his, I would beat him and still pocket some change. Some of them simply never think that the same things they do to those rice burners can be done with a V-8. But 250+ hp/L on a 7.4, or even a 5.7, would be underivable except at a drag strip on special tires.
Click to expand...
I think that's the thing a lot of those kids miss, they aren't driving sports cars or muscle cars but rather economy grocery getters. It takes twice the money or more to make them outrun stock and for what they have to put in to match they could easily upgrade to a genuine performance car.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I am an amateur, I want to do a few hobby cars so I'm not as meticulous. Sounds like you could go big with rebuilding and that setup.
Click to expand...

This is a special build really. I'm taking and putting as much modern tech into it as I can, but doing it with a early emissions/no catalytic converter car (in other words, removing EPA from the equation) and I want to see what comes out of it. Probably could do with a newer car, but then the whole legality thing comes into it. Only a few tech gadgets I won't be putting into it. Distributor-less Ignition (costly and I don't think it will make a big difference) and Direct Injection (no after-market source for heads and parts). Variable Valve Timing and Displacement on Demand would just be to frigging much trouble to learn and implement.

But I'm adding some things that even the manufacturers don't do yet. Low friction and Heat blocking ceramic micro-coating. Just need to find a 400 degree oven that will hold an engine block to back it on. There is also a coating for radiators and engine blocks that increases heat transfer and limits the transfer to one way (don't ask me how, but thats the claim. I'll just be happy with more efficient heat transfer).
 
LaMidRighter said:
I am an amateur, I want to do a few hobby cars so I'm not as meticulous. Sounds like you could go big with rebuilding and that setup.
Click to expand...

This is only one of the projects I have in mind. Contrary to what the liberals and others have posted here, I'm not anti-environment. I'm anti-environmentalist and anti-EPA because I think they are going about things backwards and stupidly. Not to mention wrecking the hell of the economy doing it.

I all for closing coal power plants, but until we have the generation capacity to replace them, it is stupid to put such a strain on the public by all these regulations. Bio-fuels, hey, all for them, if they don't wreck havoc on the food supply. Natural Gas vehicles, great, make it doable and practical. Solar power, not particularly against it in some cases, but face it, it will be a longtime, if ever before it can meet all our power needs. Same with windmills. Damn shame both are hell on good cropland in agricultural areas. Don't like fertilizer run off, give us an alternative that works and is doable. Don't like pesticides, great, find us another way to stop bugs from eating our food so that we get that food. Don't like animal waste run off, ok, then we could use the waste for fertilizer, but then some of it runs off anyways. So many of them like their hamburgers, ribs and chicken sandwiches, well, we have to grow the animals to make those. Think the air is bad in LA now, imagine what it would be like with all those families having horses instead of cars.

If the environmentalist and their supporters would invest 1/10th of what they spend on lobbying and hire some good engineers, they could of already built working viable alternatives to what we use today. There would be no need for all these laws and regulation. Hell, if they did that, in a decade, they would be the 1% that everyone complains about. Trying to force technology through regulation is just plain stupid.
 
DVSentinel said:
This is only one of the projects I have in mind. Contrary to what the liberals and others have posted here, I'm not anti-environment. I'm anti-environmentalist and anti-EPA because I think they are going about things backwards and stupidly. Not to mention wrecking the hell of the economy doing it.

I all for closing coal power plants, but until we have the generation capacity to replace them, it is stupid to put such a strain on the public by all these regulations. Bio-fuels, hey, all for them, if they don't wreck havoc on the food supply. Natural Gas vehicles, great, make it doable and practical. Solar power, not particularly against it in some cases, but face it, it will be a longtime, if ever before it can meet all our power needs. Same with windmills. Damn shame both are hell on good cropland in agricultural areas. Don't like fertilizer run off, give us an alternative that works and is doable. Don't like pesticides, great, find us another way to stop bugs from eating our food so that we get that food. Don't like animal waste run off, ok, then we could use the waste for fertilizer, but then some of it runs off anyways. So many of them like their hamburgers, ribs and chicken sandwiches, well, we have to grow the animals to make those. Think the air is bad in LA now, imagine what it would be like with all those families having horses instead of cars.

If the environmentalist and their supporters would invest 1/10th of what they spend on lobbying and hire some good engineers, they could of already built working viable alternatives to what we use today. There would be no need for all these laws and regulation. Hell, if they did that, in a decade, they would be the 1% that everyone complains about. Trying to force technology through regulation is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Agree with 100% of this. There was a ridiculous regulation passed that all fuels had to contain a cellulose biochem, but the only problem with that is there is only like a gram or so of it in existence, so the law cannot be enforced. Then there are the issues with ethanol, and the compact fluorescent bulbs, but the politicians and environmental lobby keep asking people to live down, instead of building an acceptable alternative.
 
Deuce said:
How much does respiratory disease cost? I need to know so that I can make an informed decision as a consumer as to whether I want cheaper gasoline or healthier lungs.
Click to expand...

Ride a bike, godammit! :lol: just kidding

You know this will drive the cost of everything up, not just the fuel. Everything transported by truck. I'm not necessarily against such a rule, but it is an economic concern.
 
DVSentinel said:
Drag is the greater force, not wind resistance. Two vehicles with the same front end design (wind resistance) but different rear end designs (drag), the lower drag coefficient will always be the better.
Click to expand...

I think we stated the same thing, you just did a better job of it. When I stated wind resistance, I did not mean wind against the car, but rather air resistance created by the car moving through the air which is better stated as drag (as you wrote).

Like I said earlier, its no different on a road bike. Drag is by far the biggest factor in terms of resistance when cruising on level ground at higher speeds.

Plegs (watts) = (1-(Lossdt/100))-1 · ( ( 9.8067 (m/s2) · W (kg) · ( sin(arctan(G/100)) + Crr · cos(arctan(G/100)) ) ) + ( 0.5 · Cd · A (m2) · Rho (kg/m3) · (V (m/s))2 ) ) · V (m/s)

Here is a calculator. http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm Of course there it's measuring watts and calories, but the concept would be the same with a vehicle. The difference of course is that a vehicle is more aerodynamic than the human body.
 
DVSentinel said:
This is only one of the projects I have in mind. Contrary to what the liberals and others have posted here, I'm not anti-environment. I'm anti-environmentalist and anti-EPA because I think they are going about things backwards and stupidly. Not to mention wrecking the hell of the economy doing it.

I all for closing coal power plants, but until we have the generation capacity to replace them, it is stupid to put such a strain on the public by all these regulations. Bio-fuels, hey, all for them, if they don't wreck havoc on the food supply. Natural Gas vehicles, great, make it doable and practical. Solar power, not particularly against it in some cases, but face it, it will be a longtime, if ever before it can meet all our power needs. Same with windmills. Damn shame both are hell on good cropland in agricultural areas. Don't like fertilizer run off, give us an alternative that works and is doable. Don't like pesticides, great, find us another way to stop bugs from eating our food so that we get that food. Don't like animal waste run off, ok, then we could use the waste for fertilizer, but then some of it runs off anyways. So many of them like their hamburgers, ribs and chicken sandwiches, well, we have to grow the animals to make those. Think the air is bad in LA now, imagine what it would be like with all those families having horses instead of cars.

If the environmentalist and their supporters would invest 1/10th of what they spend on lobbying and hire some good engineers, they could of already built working viable alternatives to what we use today. There would be no need for all these laws and regulation. Hell, if they did that, in a decade, they would be the 1% that everyone complains about. Trying to force technology through regulation is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

1000% agree with this. They would rather spend billions in lobbyists than in RND doing the things they want to do. i guess they figure if they force the market in a direction it will go.
what they don't realize they take everyone else down with it.

I agree i am not anti-enviroment either. i think we should be working on different energy sources, but i also know we can't kill the current energy systems until the next one is in place.

nuclear power is the next evolution in energy. while so called renewable energy is there it just doesn't compare in power generation. solar takes up huge amounts of land space that could be used for better purposes. wind creates it's own environmental hazards, hydro is only good in certain area's along with geothermal. all of these are location specific.
 
ludin said:
1000% agree with this. They would rather spend billions in lobbyists than in RND doing the things they want to do. i guess they figure if they force the market in a direction it will go.
what they don't realize they take everyone else down with it.

I agree i am not anti-enviroment either. i think we should be working on different energy sources, but i also know we can't kill the current energy systems until the next one is in place.

nuclear power is the next evolution in energy. while so called renewable energy is there it just doesn't compare in power generation. solar takes up huge amounts of land space that could be used for better purposes. wind creates it's own environmental hazards, hydro is only good in certain area's along with geothermal. all of these are location specific.
Click to expand...

Kind of makes you wonder how they are going to charge all those electric cars without a robust power grid.
 
DVSentinel said:
Kind of makes you wonder how they are going to charge all those electric cars without a robust power grid.
Click to expand...

I agree it also means that electric cars are not a green as people think. unless you are charging it from a non-fossell fuel plant then you are probably using more energy than you would have. same goes for plug in hybrids.

i think hydrogen is the next step. pretty much everywhere and fully renewable. just getting the delivery system down.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, oh the horrors of an energy policy that does not require that we blow up entire mountains and destroy thousands of miles of rivers and streams. :roll:

This is how we get coal. We turn places like this:

wv1.jpg


Into this:

View attachment 67163037

Is that what you want?
Click to expand...

Propaganda.
 
j-mac said:
Propaganda.
Click to expand...

How is that propaganda? It is a picture of mountains before mining and during mining. One of the main ways we get coal is through mountain top removal mining. That involves blowing the top third to top half off a mountain to get to the coal. Even if we could burn coal perfectly cleanly, the mining of it alone would still make it the most environmentally destructive fuel man has ever used. That's why I don't get the rabid opposition to natural gas fracking. Natural gas displaces coal as an energy source. Even if you took every horror story about fracking from the environmentalists at face value, its still exponentially cleaner than coal.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How is that propaganda? It is a picture of mountains before mining and during mining. One of the main ways we get coal is through mountain top removal mining. That involves blowing the top third to top half off a mountain to get to the coal. Even if we could burn coal perfectly cleanly, the mining of it alone would still make it the most environmentally destructive fuel man has ever used. That's why I don't get the rabid opposition to natural gas fracking. Natural gas displaces coal as an energy source. Even if you took every horror story about fracking from the environmentalists at face value, its still exponentially cleaner than coal.
Click to expand...

Just for you, Paradise by John Prine - YouTube
 
Goshin said:
...and the price of everything that is delivered by truck goes up...
Click to expand...

This rule goes to gasoline, diesel is already done did.
 
DVSentinel said:
Wow, now there is a very informative statement with incredible amount of data backing it up.
Click to expand...

You used more words but didn't provide any more data.

Your logic means that any and all medical research ever done is invalid.
 
Deuce said:
You used more words but didn't provide any more data.

Your logic means that any and all medical research ever done is invalid.
Click to expand...

Not "invalid". And also, no, not all. Many times it is at the level of a Theorem, not a law. Nor do they in many cases even form a useful or very accurate theorem. What percentage of the population, of non-smokers, get lung cancer? Of those, how many actually get it from emissions? Why does such a very small part of the population experience lung cancer from emissions? Medical research should not be looking at restricting pollutants, they should be looking at why that percentage of the population is susceptible to cancer while the majority is not. If the majority get a disease, then the cause is external, if a minority, then the actual cause is internal and the external factor is at best a trigger, not the actual cause.
 
Deuce said:
You used more words but didn't provide any more data.

Your logic means that any and all medical research ever done is invalid.
Click to expand...

Are humans a virus on the planet?
 
DVSentinel said:
This is only one of the projects I have in mind. Contrary to what the liberals and others have posted here, I'm not anti-environment. I'm anti-environmentalist and anti-EPA because I think they are going about things backwards and stupidly. Not to mention wrecking the hell of the economy doing it.

I all for closing coal power plants, but until we have the generation capacity to replace them, it is stupid to put such a strain on the public by all these regulations. Bio-fuels, hey, all for them, if they don't wreck havoc on the food supply. Natural Gas vehicles, great, make it doable and practical. Solar power, not particularly against it in some cases, but face it, it will be a longtime, if ever before it can meet all our power needs. Same with windmills. Damn shame both are hell on good cropland in agricultural areas. Don't like fertilizer run off, give us an alternative that works and is doable. Don't like pesticides, great, find us another way to stop bugs from eating our food so that we get that food. Don't like animal waste run off, ok, then we could use the waste for fertilizer, but then some of it runs off anyways. So many of them like their hamburgers, ribs and chicken sandwiches, well, we have to grow the animals to make those. Think the air is bad in LA now, imagine what it would be like with all those families having horses instead of cars.

If the environmentalist and their supporters would invest 1/10th of what they spend on lobbying and hire some good engineers, they could of already built working viable alternatives to what we use today. There would be no need for all these laws and regulation. Hell, if they did that, in a decade, they would be the 1% that everyone complains about. Trying to force technology through regulation is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

The best green technology is one that wins all on it's own without government life support, and the world will beat a path to that door way.

It's not so much which technology, it's that the government is interfering and distorting the market which is the worst. You always seem to end up with a worse solution and more expensive solution to the problem.
 
ludin said:
1000% agree with this. They would rather spend billions in lobbyists than in RND doing the things they want to do. i guess they figure if they force the market in a direction it will go.
what they don't realize they take everyone else down with it.

I agree i am not anti-enviroment either. i think we should be working on different energy sources, but i also know we can't kill the current energy systems until the next one is in place.

nuclear power is the next evolution in energy. while so called renewable energy is there it just doesn't compare in power generation. solar takes up huge amounts of land space that could be used for better purposes. wind creates it's own environmental hazards, hydro is only good in certain area's along with geothermal. all of these are location specific.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, geothermal typically has very corrosive minerals and mineral compounds which cause problems which aren't easily (inexpensively) solved. But hey, let's get one of those eco-engineers on that problem and solve it, right?
 
eohrnberger said:
If I recall correctly, geothermal typically has very corrosive minerals and mineral compounds which cause problems which aren't easily (inexpensively) solved. But hey, let's get one of those eco-engineers on that problem and solve it, right?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard that but the thing about massive grid geothermal is that you need to be sitting on some kind of thermal activity. the hot springs in CA for instance.
very limited.

now for individual housing it is fine. they drill a hole and heat the water using the earths own heat.
 
ludin said:
I haven't heard that but the thing about massive grid geothermal is that you need to be sitting on some kind of thermal activity. the hot springs in CA for instance.
very limited.

now for individual housing it is fine. they drill a hole and heat the water using the earths own heat.
Click to expand...

A core tap? Interesting idea, yet no one has started digging a hole for one even though the idea has been around awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom