My theory (so the feebs will understand) - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2005, 16:01   #1 (permalink)
Rich
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My theory (so the feebs will understand)

I noticed a couple radicals freaked out when I suggested we leave
the solutions to pollution problems to future generations.
On the surface (without any critical thought) it figures the cretins
would go nuts when they read it. But if you actually THINK about it,
it makes perfect sense.
In 1966 or so, some of the first pollution devices came into being on
cars. CO2 filters. But, it wasn't until 1976 that catalytic
converters came into being. It wasn't until then that time that any
real progress was made on auto emissions. The converter made it
possible to extract about 90% of the "harmful" gasses from car
exhausts. Until that time, all other measures (EGR, CO2 cannisters,
etc) made little difference.
The same is true now of pollution we can't yet control. Whatever
half-assed measure we come up with will only have a modest control
effect. However, implementing strict controls will have a devastating
effect on our economic systems. Because they aren't cures, like the
catalytic converter was, but axe-like cuts, that make little headway
in controlling emissions but do serious damage to the economy.
In turn, this damage reduces drastically the amount of money available
for development of real pollution controls so in the long run, wasting
time, money and effort on modest controls may prevent us from finding
REAL controls. Science is not cheap, and R&D gets cut when people and
businesses suffer financially.
So, lets stop pretending 15% cuts over 10 years will "save" the
environment, (especially since the rapidly industrializiing Third
World is doing F--- all to help) stop implementing WORTHLESS attempts
at pollution control that will only hurt us in the long run but KEEP
spending on the science needed to produce TRUE controls at a future
date.
-Rich
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-08-2005, 17:01   #2 (permalink)
Spike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:55:54 -0500, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>I noticed a couple radicals freaked out when I suggested we leave
>the solutions to pollution problems to future generations.
>On the surface (without any critical thought) it figures the cretins
>would go nuts when they read it. But if you actually THINK about it,
>it makes perfect sense.

Ah, how to win friends and influence people... call them names if they
disagree or have a different point of view. Do you wonder that people
give you a hard time? You constantly spout gloom and doom, but what
does it get you? What does it get anyone? Why not try to look at the
upside of life. There are people trying to make a positive difference.
>In 1966 or so, some of the first pollution devices came into being on
>cars. CO2 filters. But, it wasn't until 1976 that catalytic
>converters came into being. It wasn't until then that time that any
>real progress was made on auto emissions. The converter made it
>possible to extract about 90% of the "harmful" gasses from car
>exhausts. Until that time, all other measures (EGR, CO2 cannisters,
>etc) made little difference.

Could the fact that the technologies which you cite were not
available, therefore the great leap in progress to halt pollution
could not have appeared until after they were developed? Or that it
took until people recognized the damage the pollution was creating to
give impetus to development of said technologies? Seems it's a case of
to all things there is a season.... or era.....
>The same is true now of pollution we can't yet control. Whatever
>half-assed measure we come up with will only have a modest control
>effect. However, implementing strict controls will have a devastating
>effect on our economic systems. Because they aren't cures, like the
>catalytic converter was, but axe-like cuts, that make little headway
>in controlling emissions but do serious damage to the economy.
>In turn, this damage reduces drastically the amount of money available
>for development of real pollution controls so in the long run, wasting
>time, money and effort on modest controls may prevent us from finding
>REAL controls. Science is not cheap, and R&D gets cut when people and
>businesses suffer financially.

The catalytic converter, which has been found to produce pollutants of
it's own, was not a cure. If it had been, there would be no pollutants
emitted.
>So, lets stop pretending 15% cuts over 10 years will "save" the
>environment, (especially since the rapidly industrializiing Third
>World is doing F--- all to help) stop implementing WORTHLESS attempts
>at pollution control that will only hurt us in the long run but KEEP
>spending on the science needed to produce TRUE controls at a future
>date.
>-Rich

There is a point of no return in practically all things.... You
propose that we do nothing and in doing nothing we might attain that
point of no return when , no matter what might be developed, it will
be too late to save the environment? That's like saying you sewer
line is clogging but do nothing until it backs up into your home.

As for the Third World, think of them as children. In their
development, they must also learn the lessons industrialized nations
have already learned. That there is a price to be paid. Like children,
simply telling them not to do something will not educate them. It will
not help them see the cost. Like a child on a playground who throws
down a wrapper, and gets sent to the principal's office for doing so,
Third World countries must, unfortunately, learn some lessons the hard
way.

Others learn more quickly. For example, when Brazil tells the world to
pay up if they want them to stop cutting down the rainforests. How
much sense does that make though? Like putting a gun to your head and
saying give me the money or I'll shoot myself.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 18:01   #3 (permalink)
John C.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)


"Spike" <jma@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
news:rajhp1drh19svl87c90j7dsf8cftnsdnqp@4ax.com...

> Like putting a gun to your head and saying give me the money or I'll shoot

myself.

Thanks, that reminds me...I haven't watched _BLAZING SADDLES_ in a good, long
while.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 19:01   #4 (permalink)
Spike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:18:39 GMT, "John C." <jonc@shore.net> wrote:

>
>"Spike" <jma@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>news:rajhp1drh19svl87c90j7dsf8cftnsdnqp@4ax.com...
>
>> Like putting a gun to your head and saying give me the money or I'll shoot

>myself.
>
>Thanks, that reminds me...I haven't watched _BLAZING SADDLES_ in a good, long
>while.

Come to think of it, neither have I... and I love those Gene Wilder
movies... : 0 )
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 19:01   #5 (permalink)
Jim Warman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

Well, Rich... let's dig a little and see where some of your logic or
information is flawed.

In nearly 40 years in the automotive trades, I have yet to see a CO2 filter
or CO2 cannister... I must assume that you are referring to an evaporative
emissions device that contains activated charcoal. These devices are
designed to absorb gasoline vapours while the car is parked and then return
them to the intake tract to be burned in the combustion chamber when the car
is running.

The earliest emission controls were indeed introduce in the late 60s... the
open PCV system replaced the road draft tube and some areas were treated to
thermactor or A.I.R. systems to reduce CO (carbon monoxide) emissions.

In Canada, catalytic converters were introduced in 1974.... this is when
Ford made the leap from breaker point ignitions to DuraSpark. These
catalytic converters do not "absorb" anything. Instead, they provide a
"catalyst" that, using heat and portions of the exhaust gases, reacts with
various compounds to convert them into something less harmful.... one of the
main thrusts was to neutralize oxides of nitrogen. These compounds react
with sunlight to form the brown haze we sometimes see in heavily populated
areas.

It is no secret that early attempts at emissions controls were, at the very
best, crude. Developement and the knowledge base were both in their infancy.
There were no North American produced cars that had any sort of "feedback"
system and carburettors were the norm. We only need to look at the snake pit
of vacuum hoses draped over the motors in cars of the period to see the
possibilty of malfunction or even misfunction. As time progressed, R&D
developed feedback carbs, feedback fuel injection and finally had a foothold
on various emissions devices that worked more like intended.

Slowly but surely, these systems have evolved into the high-tech systems we
see on modern automobiles. If you had your way, the engineers of the 60s and
70s could have waited for modern technology to deal with the concern....
they needn't bother because the future is gonna save our ass.... If these
same engineers had sat on these collective asses, the engineers of today
would still be waiting for the future to save our asses..... not an EGR
valve in sight (wouldn't be able to see one anyway.... we'd all be looking
through that brown haze).

Sadly, these systems are still mere machines... they can and will suffer
from lack of maintenance, breakdowns and malfunctions.

So, on your premise, we should stop spending money on R&D because somewhere,
someday.... someone will wake up one morning and, without any knowledge -
without any knowledge base - without any concept... miraculously solve our
concerns. Rich.... it is the research and developement of past ages that
provides the controls we have today.... It is todays R&D that will provide
the controls of tomorrow. Without R&D... there wouldn't be ANY R&D.

I picture Rich as being the ultimate glutton.... demanding his basic human
right to do things to excess - future generations be damned. After Rich has
finished shitting wherever and whenever he pleases... then we can try our
"futile" attempts at minimizing our impact on the environment..... but for
Gods sake, let's not make Rich behave responsibly.

Man... if people thought you were a self centered dick before.... I think
you have removed all doubt.

FWIW... if there are any "radicals" to be found in this conversation, I
doubt that any of them would offer assistance in the repair of one of these
terrible machines, I doubt that any of them would even think of saying that
zero pollution is a pipe dream.... I would imagine, though, that a radical
could be someone that refuses to look at th big picture.... someone that
turns a blind eye to known concerns that affect us all.... someone that
thinks a dollar is more important than quality of life...


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 21:01   #6 (permalink)
KJ.Kate
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)


"Jim Warman" <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote


: Man... if people thought you were a self centered dick before.... I think
: you have removed all doubt.


Hey, I'm convinced.



Nice post Jim.

KJK


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 22:01   #7 (permalink)
Spike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:37:58 GMT, "Jim Warman"
<mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>Well, Rich... let's dig a little and see where some of your logic or
>information is flawed.
>
>In nearly 40 years in the automotive trades, I have yet to see a CO2 filter
>or CO2 cannister... I must assume that you are referring to an evaporative
>emissions device that contains activated charcoal. These devices are
>designed to absorb gasoline vapours while the car is parked and then return
>them to the intake tract to be burned in the combustion chamber when the car
>is running.

Shucks.... I thought it was a new device for chilling your beer....
>
>The earliest emission controls were indeed introduce in the late 60s... the
>open PCV system replaced the road draft tube and some areas were treated to
>thermactor or A.I.R. systems to reduce CO (carbon monoxide) emissions.
>
>In Canada, catalytic converters were introduced in 1974.... this is when
>Ford made the leap from breaker point ignitions to DuraSpark. These
>catalytic converters do not "absorb" anything. Instead, they provide a
>"catalyst" that, using heat and portions of the exhaust gases, reacts with
>various compounds to convert them into something less harmful.... one of the
>main thrusts was to neutralize oxides of nitrogen. These compounds react
>with sunlight to form the brown haze we sometimes see in heavily populated
>areas.
>
>It is no secret that early attempts at emissions controls were, at the very
>best, crude. Developement and the knowledge base were both in their infancy.
>There were no North American produced cars that had any sort of "feedback"
>system and carburettors were the norm. We only need to look at the snake pit
>of vacuum hoses draped over the motors in cars of the period to see the
>possibilty of malfunction or even misfunction. As time progressed, R&D
>developed feedback carbs, feedback fuel injection and finally had a foothold
>on various emissions devices that worked more like intended.
>
>Slowly but surely, these systems have evolved into the high-tech systems we
>see on modern automobiles. If you had your way, the engineers of the 60s and
>70s could have waited for modern technology to deal with the concern....
>they needn't bother because the future is gonna save our ass.... If these
>same engineers had sat on these collective asses, the engineers of today
>would still be waiting for the future to save our asses..... not an EGR
>valve in sight (wouldn't be able to see one anyway.... we'd all be looking
>through that brown haze).
>
>Sadly, these systems are still mere machines... they can and will suffer
>from lack of maintenance, breakdowns and malfunctions.
>
>So, on your premise, we should stop spending money on R&D because somewhere,
>someday.... someone will wake up one morning and, without any knowledge -
>without any knowledge base - without any concept... miraculously solve our
>concerns. Rich.... it is the research and developement of past ages that
>provides the controls we have today.... It is todays R&D that will provide
>the controls of tomorrow. Without R&D... there wouldn't be ANY R&D.
>
>I picture Rich as being the ultimate glutton.... demanding his basic human
>right to do things to excess - future generations be damned. After Rich has
>finished shitting wherever and whenever he pleases... then we can try our
>"futile" attempts at minimizing our impact on the environment..... but for
>Gods sake, let's not make Rich behave responsibly.
>
>Man... if people thought you were a self centered dick before.... I think
>you have removed all doubt.
>
>FWIW... if there are any "radicals" to be found in this conversation, I
>doubt that any of them would offer assistance in the repair of one of these
>terrible machines, I doubt that any of them would even think of saying that
>zero pollution is a pipe dream.... I would imagine, though, that a radical
>could be someone that refuses to look at th big picture.... someone that
>turns a blind eye to known concerns that affect us all.... someone that
>thinks a dollar is more important than quality of life...
>

--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 22:01   #8 (permalink)
Michael Johnson, PE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

KJ.Kate wrote:
> "Jim Warman" <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote
>
>
> : Man... if people thought you were a self centered dick before.... I think
> : you have removed all doubt.
>
>
> Hey, I'm convinced.


Just don't get him going about digital cameras or you will REALLY be
sorry. ;)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005, 23:01   #9 (permalink)
Jim Warman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

Why, thank ya very much, young lady..... is this where this feeb get's up in
front of all the other feebs and takes a bow???? If a group hug is involved,
I always like to get a good gander at the group first.....

I wish I could see the world in black and white, like some folks can..... my
world, sadly, consists of varying shades of grey. Many of my choices are
limited to "not so good" and "not so bad" rather than yes and no...

OMG!!!! I'm turning into my Dad....


"KJ.Kate" <KJ.Kate@WhoseHotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Qo7mf.48327$i7.3563@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jim Warman" <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote
>
>
> : Man... if people thought you were a self centered dick before.... I
> think
> : you have removed all doubt.
>
>
> Hey, I'm convinced.
>
>
>
> Nice post Jim.
>
> KJK
>
>



  Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2005, 00:01   #10 (permalink)
Spike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: My theory (so the feebs will understand)

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:37:03 GMT, "Jim Warman"
<mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>Why, thank ya very much, young lady..... is this where this feeb get's up in
>front of all the other feebs and takes a bow???? If a group hug is involved,
>I always like to get a good gander at the group first.....
>
>I wish I could see the world in black and white, like some folks can..... my
>world, sadly, consists of varying shades of grey. Many of my choices are
>limited to "not so good" and "not so bad" rather than yes and no...
>
>OMG!!!! I'm turning into my Dad....
>
>
>"KJ.Kate" <KJ.Kate@WhoseHotMail.com> wrote in message
>news:Qo7mf.48327$i7.3563@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Jim Warman" <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote
>>
>>
>> : Man... if people thought you were a self centered dick before.... I
>> think
>> : you have removed all doubt.
>>
>>
>> Hey, I'm convinced.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice post Jim.
>>
>> KJK
>>
>>

>

Personally, and I don't know your dad : 0 ), the world would probably
be a far better place if more people saw in shades of gray. This
either or crap stalls progress. Just look at the idiots in the US
Congress. They're so busy fighting over who is right and who is wrong
that everything else is stalled. Problem is both sides are right and
both sides are wrong.. and it's the John and Jane Does who are paying
the price for their egos. Same with environmentalists, and religious
extremists, etc.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.