Interesting gadget

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Interesting gadget

Geektastic

14686 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#233545 20-Apr-2018 23:13

This is from The Times (Note for those who do not know, an MOT is the equivalent test to a WOF, although it includes emissions testing)

"A former Royal Navy submariner has used his military knowledge to develop a green engine technology that can halve car emissions as stricter MoT tests come into force next month.

Brian Sheard, who served on nuclear hunter-killer craft, retired from the service after 23 years and took inspiration from the way submarines make their own air during months-long missions.

His technology, contained in a black box attached to the car engine, creates small amounts of hydrogen to inject into the fuel/air mix and create a cleaner and more complete burn of the fuel.

Tests have shown that this can cut visible soot particulates and give fuel consumption savings of between 5 and 7 per cent.

Mr Sheard’s company, CGON, is collaborating with Morgan Motor Company with the aim of fitting the devices to the British sportscar company’s new cars and retro-fitting them to existing ones. Morgan said it had found a significant difference in emissions levels and fuel efficiency in tests.

An estimated 100,000 cars a month fail the MoT on emissions and from May 20 there will be tougher regulations, including stricter limits for emissions from diesel cars. A vehicle will fail if the tester can see smoke of any colour coming from the exhaust."

1 | 2

3363 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2000081 21-Apr-2018 00:22

The Cgon company has already lost one case at the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK, not being able to substantiate claims made in an ad. "We therefore concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and that the ad was misleading."

The £459 miracle box generates additional hydrogen from an electrolyte. You need 250ml every 10,000 km which translates into a very small amount per km.

I could understand it if if was a device triggered to go for it during the MOT to get past the test but VW have probably put an end to the chances for that. One of the founders of the company has already "retired". Probably came to his senses.

Geektastic

14686 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2000225 21-Apr-2018 11:02

OTOH Morgan seem happy enough with the device.

I would certainly hope we will see such emissions testing in the WOF here before much longer. Some of the junk on the roads out there looks like it's burning coal!

elbrownos

72 posts

Master Geek

#2000897 23-Apr-2018 09:17

It's a very well established scam.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml

jonb

1557 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2000900 23-Apr-2018 09:24

Yes there definitely should be emissions testing as part of the WOF here.

wellygary

4744 posts

Uber Geek

#2000912 23-Apr-2018 09:45

Visible smoke has been part of the WOF/COF since 2006

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/vehicle-failed-smoky-exhaust/smoky-exhaust-test.html

Whether it is actually heavily enforced is unclear

GV27

2138 posts

Uber Geek

#2000918 23-Apr-2018 10:00

Depends on what you want to achieve;

If you want all cars to meet the standards that were in place when they were first built, it pays to remember that no machine works as well as it did when it was first built after being used.

If you want all cars to meet modern emissions standards then you are going to force everyone off the road who doesn't have a car built in the last eight or so years since mass-adoption of EURO IV. The average age of our fleet is about 14 years old so that's going to be a lot of people.

If you plan on transitioning such a rule in then you're better to wait for organic uptake of EVs to do the work for you.

Jase2985

9783 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2000936 23-Apr-2018 10:53

wellygary:

Visible smoke has been part of the WOF/COF since 2006

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/vehicle-failed-smoky-exhaust/smoky-exhaust-test.html

Whether it is actually heavily enforced is unclear

problem is most of the time you will never see it unless the vehicle is under load and that rarely happens at a WOF check.

richms

23448 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2000975 23-Apr-2018 11:47

They just need to deal with the few percent of crappy 90's Japanese diesels on the road that belch a cloud at every acceleration. And the busses. Hate being behind those things.

Richard rich.ms

floydbloke

2252 posts

Uber Geek

#2001015 23-Apr-2018 12:18

Out of curiosity, how would you remedy a car that fails an emission test?

Is it as simple as getting the exhaust system fixed (some bits replaced?), or does it mean the whole engine is pretty much stuffed?

The three hardest things to say: 1. I was wrong, 2. I need help, 3. Worcestershire sauce.

Jase2985

9783 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2001019 23-Apr-2018 12:24

engine would usually need an overhaul, worn rings or leaky valve/ valve stem seals

richms

23448 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2001022 23-Apr-2018 12:29

Usually its the rings are gone, so total overhaul, may have stuffed sensors leading to too much fuel going in and other things. Anything on those old things is wasted money since its usually sitting inside a rusted shell that is about to fail a WOF on something that isnt worth repairing anyway.

People usually were very slack with using the correct oils in them and changing them when needed which accelerates the problems happening, but something like that on 250+ thousand Kms is well past its usebuy date.

Richard rich.ms

floydbloke

2252 posts

Uber Geek

#2001121 23-Apr-2018 14:26

Jase2985:

engine would usually need an overhaul, worn rings or leaky valve/ valve stem seals

richms:

Usually its the rings are gone, so total overhaul, may have stuffed sensors leading to too much fuel going in and other things. Anything on those old things is wasted money since its usually sitting inside a rusted shell that is about to fail a WOF on something that isnt worth repairing anyway.

People usually were very slack with using the correct oils in them and changing them when needed which accelerates the problems happening, but something like that on 250+ thousand Kms is well past its usebuy date.

Thanks.

So no quick and certainly no cheap fix.

It'd be interesting what effect such a law would have in this country - fewer dirty cars on the road or an increase in non-compliance? I suspect the latter because there are many out there who couldn't afford to get these sort of repairs done or replace their vehicle.

(apologies @geektastic, didn't mean to hijack your thread)

The three hardest things to say: 1. I was wrong, 2. I need help, 3. Worcestershire sauce.

Geektastic

14686 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2001316 23-Apr-2018 22:03

No problem. Organic thread growth is more interesting IMV than rigid subjects!

NZ should not be the only place that thinks it need not bother testing emissions with proper equipment. You can't start banning oil exploration on the ground of environmental policy then not bother checking emissions (which goes way beyond visible smoke).

If the car fails and the owner can't fix it, crush it.

elbrownos

72 posts

Master Geek

#2001322 23-Apr-2018 22:36

You can't start banning oil exploration on the ground of environmental policy then not bother checking emissions (which goes way beyond visible smoke).

The two are mostly unrelated.

Banning oil exploration is about mitigating climate change.

Emissions testing cars is about improving local air quality. Burning wood and coal cause more air pollution than cars in NZ.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2001351 23-Apr-2018 23:23

elbrownos:

You can't start banning oil exploration on the ground of environmental policy then not bother checking emissions (which goes way beyond visible smoke).

The two are mostly unrelated.

Banning oil exploration is about mitigating climate change.

Emissions testing cars is about improving local air quality. Burning wood and coal cause more air pollution than cars in NZ.

Banning oil exploration doesn't and wont reduce direct emissions. As more oil will simply be pumped out of existing overseas oil fields to offset the oil that would have otherwise come from NZ.

If I burn a litre of diesel, it doesn't matter what oil field, which country etc provided the crude oil that was used to make the diesel that I burned. The carbon emissions from burning that diesel will be the same. And in fact, I would definitely trust the environmental standards of NZ around managing the risks of oil spills from drilling. Far more than say, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Yet less oil output from NZ, means that other countries will make up the difference. And world oil prices might increase slightly. (Extra profits to overseas countries, more cost to low income NZers who can't afford to buy electric cars). If you want to reduce emissions, you need to reduce demand - not supply. Which means.........

We come back to how to reduce demand. Part of which is things like emissions testing, and partly things like getting inefficient vehicles off the road.

1 | 2