trough@ihuxa.UUCP (01/24/84)
Warren Montgomery's recent article referred to the lead additives in gasoline as being there for lubrication. Aren't they really really there to improve the octane rating and reduce knocking? Back to the topic he was talking about: lead accumulation in the cities. Big surprise! Where did everyone figure it was going? "Burned up in the engine"? And just where do you think all the asbestos from tens of millions of worn-out brake pads and shoes has gone? Yep, turned into dust for us all to breathe. Just makes your day, doesn't it? Chris Scussel IW 1B431 x7728 ihuxa!trough
bmt@we53.UUCP (01/24/84)
I am told that they do. Before they were introduced, there was a bad tendency for exhaust valves to seal poorly and burn prematurely. The lead helps to seal and lubricate. The main reason, looking back, for unleaded gas(notwithstanding all the noise that was made about lead pollution) seems to have been the introduction of the catalytic converter. Catalytic converters are quickly destroyed by the lead additives, and at 500 bucks a crack, that's a problem. Cynically, I wonder if the big lead scare was not engineered to ease the introduction of this chemical marvel which added a healthy chunk to the price of the autos. (ihnp4!we13)!we53!bmt(Brian Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis)
roy@eisx.UUCP (Steve Rojak) (01/27/84)
Beyond the cost of a catalytic conv., these little wonders are really energy-intensive to make. Has anyone ever looked at whether the cleaner air from the converter exceeds the (pollution from manufacture + dirt from making the engine run poorly). Really, we could do better with proper carbueration, but let's not get into that. Steve Rojak AT&TIS So. Plainfield NJ
res@ihuxn.UUCP (01/28/84)
> Has anyone ever looked at whether the cleaner > air from the converter exceeds the (pollution from manufacture + dirt > from making the engine run poorly). Are you kidding??? Environmentalists (or other fanatics) worried about whether there are side effects or unnecessary costs to their favorite "solutions" ??? If such people were at all rational we would have LOTS of cheap electrical power (maybe supplying practical electrical autos) from plentiful nuclear power plants ... Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
graham@parsec.UUCP (01/29/84)
#R:ihuxa:-35200:parsec:33000003:000:372
parsec!graham Jan 28 13:39:00 1984
Has anyone looked into the what effect the extra sulphur compounds which
catalytic converters produce have on the increased levels of acid rain
which are being observed? In other words, have catalytic converters "solved"
one problem and produced another??
Marv Graham; ConVex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!graham
O: (214)669-3700 H: (214)931-7924tackett@wivax.UUCP (Raymond Tackett) (01/29/84)
Antiknocking was the main idea behind lead additives, but the lead also lubricated the valve seats. Chrysler and some other manufacturers had to go to specially hardened valve seats to get decent life with no-lead gas. /////\\\\\ \ \ / / From the brightly colored, ever opening 'chute \ / of NOID Ray Tackett
rb@beesvax.UUCP (01/31/84)
I don't claim to be an avid environmentalist, however I question what you would do with all the waste from the plentiful nuclear power plants.
sebb@pyuxss.UUCP (S Badian) (02/01/84)
Yes, catalytic converters have solved one problem and produced another. The sulfur compounds in the exhaust combine with water in the atmosphere to produce sulfuric acid. Not something I want in my water. I think the exhaust may also contain higher concentrations of other compounds that combine with water to produce strong acids. Though the catalytic converter may have added to the problem, burning of coal(cheap coal produces huge amounts of sulfur- not the cleanest energy available) is the big culprit. Sharon Badian