It was just a few years ago, I think it was Ford, painted a newly invented polymer on the front of (idling)NYC taxicabs that was intended to suck up exhaust from car idling immediately in front of that vehicle.Is there a record/website description of results and possible follow up to this event?
No such event…Today, car exhaust consists of CO2 and water vapor. There is not much to absorb…
When I see link, I will forward it to you, the polymer was the secret sauce and needed to be replaced after 6 weeks or so. The goal was to suck up larger particles BEFORE they rose above level where radiator was sucking air anyway. I have spent many summers in NYC and one summer drove a cab, so when I heard the NPR story I took a breath thinking, “that makes sense”. I am interested in picking up the thread with regard to a local project underway where it behooves the lead person to get a look at those results/data.
Volvo advertised this feature on some models that they sold for a while. I don’t recall ever seeing any objective data on whether this worked or not. The coating was some sort of catalyst that was supposed to change the exhaust products into something less harmful, kind of like the catalytic converters on car exhausts.
100% pure urban legend nonsense…
A polymer coating suitable for an automotive finish that absorbs a meaningful amount of air pollution?? NOT!!
I can agree that it might be nonsense that it works.
However, I do not agree that it is urban legend. It was tried. It did happen. I never saw any proof that it actually worked.
Not nonsense at all. Volvos have had PremAir coated radiators for years now. 75% of the ground level ozone that comes in contact with the radiator gets converted back into oxygen
There’s no doubt in my mind that someone was selling this stuff. It was probably an Amsoil product.
There’s also no doubt in my mind that some people bought this stuff. Probably the same people that buy Amsoil products. And magnetic gas atomizers. And unusual multitipped spark plugs. And all those other magic devices.
Ozone IS oxygen. Ozone is triatomic oxygen molecules, three oxygen atoms bonded together.
If the claim was that the ozone is broken down into seperate oxygen atoms or diatomic molecules, I’d LOVE to hear an explanation of the chemistry.
Not sure what they mean by " The catalyst reduces ozone in the air that passes over coated surfaces by converting ozone molecules into oxygen molecules instantly upon contact"
BASF is a pretty legit bunch. If they say it does it, it must do it. It must seperate the ozone into diatomic molecules and individual oxygen atoms.
Every so often you see the claim made that driving a car with modern pollution controls in some of the world’s more polluted cities results in the air coming out of the tailpipe being cleaner than what went in.
In this old Saab promo video, they pump the exhaust from an old 2-stroke Saab into a new (for the time) 9000: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7091492525320672012#
A the very end they make the claim that their fancy emissions system can actually help clean up the exhaust from older cars on the road. Makes me feel better about driving one of my old non-smogged cars!
"100% pure urban legend nonsense… "
Maybe, and maybe not. There is a class of ceramic materials called zeolites that will adsorb just about any gas if the pore size is appropriate for the gas molecules. If the pores in th ezeolite particles can be adjusted to collect water and carbon dioxide bu tnot oxygen and nitrogen, then it could work. The polymer comes in as a carrier for the zeolite particles. So, it may not be nonsense.
Thank you for the link to the Saab promotion video. I always wanted a 2 stroke Saab 92 but I worried about the exhaust emission. Now I realize that it isn’t a problem–I just have someone with a Saab 9000 with the trionic emisssion control follow along behind me. I attach the exhaust of my 2 stroke Saab to the Saab 9000 and the emission is taken csre of. It is a little inconvenient and I would really have to coordinate my driving with the driver of the Saab 9000, but this inconvenience is a small price to pay in order to have an emission free 2 stroke Saab. Would the Saab trionic system be adaptable to a 4 stroke Briggs and Stratton engine? I could keep my 2 stroke Lawnboy and have a 4 stroke operating right beside the 2 stroke. The exhaust from the 2 stroke engine would be cleaned up and I could cut twice the swath mowing the yard.
The 2-stroke engine is due for a comeback. With direct injection now available, the emissions problems have been eliminated. No unburned fuel gets out the exhaust port…
This is as close in one day as I have seen to start a thread with a reality product (Amsoil). The interesting part of the actual 3month (?)test period was; how do you know it is time to change the radiator front. The 2nd item was the data itself, which I think I recall as being effective, as per protocols established. I still hope to find a link or possible a video to share.
If it’s a catalyst it doesn’t need changing. By definition a catalyst causes change in something else wihout itself changing.
I liked the video. And I give Saab’s marketing guys an A++.
Logically, any modern emissions system could take exhaust with high unburned hydrocarbons and high carbon monoxide and, by ingesting it, make it cleaner. The oxygen sensor will cause the ECU to compensate for the additional hydrocarbons being added to the air instream and the excess CO molecules. The system will adjust the metering until both are within the predetermined levels. And, of course, the cat converter will also help.
For Saab’s marketing guys to use this as a sales gimmick is sheer genious.
The problem with a 2-stroke engine is that the oil contained in the fuel (in sufficient quantities to lube the cylinder) doesn’t burn well, producing high levels of unburned hydrocarbons (oil is a HC) and carbon monoxide (CO). Direct injection doesn’t reduce this problem.