Like Tree0Likes

Catalytic Coverters by 2008...Bummer

Reply
Old 02-12-2008, 03:48 PM
  #91
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Hi Michael,

That would be salt water spray hitting aircraft. You'll note I said water vapour. If the boat is being stored any water vapours in the exhaust won't contain salt unless liquid salt water is splashed all the way by back up to the cat. So the storage issue sounds unlikely. Reversion by pulsation is severly reduced as a) you don't run big overlaps with catalysts and b) the catalyst acts as a laminar flow device so any pulsation in the remainder of the exhaust is severly reduced.

I'm still not convinced about your costs arguments. This is the same as small volume car manufacture over here (low volume, high performance cars are made for the market over here a lot). Given that most of the ECUs on the market already have a HEGO there's not a lot more to develop. Diagnostics aren't that hard and the auto market has done all the hard work.

Nothing like when cats were first introduced in the 70s and when OBD was introduced in the 90s. All the work, code, knowledge and technologies are out there. You have a very good head start.

If a small car outfit over here knocking out a few hundred cars can manage it then I'm sure the US boat market can.

I know that Ilmor are already looking at this and, as you can see, the technology required to protect the cat (to Merc's satisfaction at least) doesn't look very difficult ie a riser. Which is pretty much what I said it would look like a WAYS a way back.

I think this will be a lot easier than you think.
Ruaraidh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2008, 09:02 PM
  #92
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Posts: 1,425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruaraidh View Post
Hi Michael,

That would be salt water spray hitting aircraft. You'll note I said water vapour. If the boat is being stored any water vapours in the exhaust won't contain salt unless liquid salt water is splashed all the way by back up to the cat.
How do explain the corrosion on aircraft that never enter airspace low enough to contact salt water spray?

"In collaboration with other molecular scientists, Barbara Finlayson-Pitts, a UCI professor of chemistry, and Donald Dabdub, a UCI assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, have been able to show that sea salt particles—a common ingredient of coastal and ocean air"

"Studies of Airborne Salt Deposition in some North Wales Forests...attributed to the impingement of airborne salt, foliar damage which. extended 45 miles inland."

How does "salt spray" go 45 miles? It's airborne salt, not salt spray.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruaraidh View Post
I'm still not convinced about your costs arguments. This is the same as small volume car manufacture over here (low volume, high performance cars are made for the market over here a lot). Given that most of the ECUs on the market already have a HEGO there's not a lot more to develop. Diagnostics aren't that hard and the auto market has done all the hard work.
Yeah, and they just handing over all that information, and programming code to the marine manufacturers. Of course, it all applies to engines under high load, as it does the car engines under low load EPA automotive testing cycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruaraidh View Post
If a small car outfit over here knocking out a few hundred cars can manage it then I'm sure the US boat market can.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I heard you mention the price of those cars, and EXACTLY what the emission equipment is costing per car, including development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruaraidh View Post
I know that Ilmor are already looking at this.
Last I heard, Illmor was looking at trading pollution credits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruaraidh View Post
I think this will be a lot easier than you think.
It is not going to be easy for the small companies, since most if not all don't have an electric dyno to do the development work on.

Michael
Michael1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2008, 02:29 PM
  #93
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Default

OK, I'll accept that argument on airborne salt. That is interesting.

However, irrespective of the transport mechanism, I'll wait for the answer from my cat supply contacts as to the effect of sea salt on catalyst washcoats. We'll see.

No of course they won't hand it all over. What I am saying is that you're not re-inventing the wheel, therefore the development costs are lower. You'd take an existing ECU from an existing OEM supplier eg Delphi or aftermarket eg MBE (there are loads of them that can do basic OBD and closed loop fuelling or whoever) and then perform the required calibration work to create the ECU for emissions release. It's not the work of 5 minutes but you don't have to develop completely new technology either. That's always been my argument here.

The load argument (cars vs boats cycles) is not as hard as you say. The marine regs are pretty lax and are framed around 80% cat conversion (typical cars to pass current emissions are well over 99% and have to measure from cold start which the marine regs do not).

The marine regs are also weighted and the highest power settings (where enrichment to reduce EGTs and det etc might be required) only have a low weighting in the overall 4 mode calculation. Providing you run closed loop at lambda=1 at the lighter loads where EGT limits don't prevent it (and a water cooled manifold helps a lot here) then your conversion efficiency should be more than good enough providing you've specced the cat correctly.

If you really want to know price information I'm sure I could find out for low volume modules. However, low volume cars sell for relatively low costs here in the UK (even high performance ones can be bought for the 20kGBP mark) so not total exotica I suspect you might be thinking of).

Ilmor may well be trading credits but like everyone else they will be developing cleaner exhaust aftertreatment.

I take your point about dynos but if you're serious about engine development, especially performance development, then you'd need a dyno as a given. It doesn't need to be electric but it does need to be able to do steady state loading, so an old water brake would be quite sufficient; all it has to do is hold the load steady. There are also labs where dynos can be hired for emissions development work as emissions benches ARE very costly. That would certainly be an extra cost but they would not be required all the time.

It may well be hard for the small companies at the changeover but are you seriously telling me that CARB certification requirements has stopped all the small tuning companies in the auto area? Have you seen the size of the SEMA show? The auto aftermarket is a significantly more cost sensitive market than boats (people start tuning cars for less than a boat owner would pay for a drive rebuild!) and they don't all seem to have packed up business either!

I guess we're going to have to sit on opposite sides of the optimism/pessimism argument but it's an interesting discussion!
Ruaraidh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 12:03 AM
  #94
Registered
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruaraidh View Post
I read the regs last night and I note that the rules propose 2010, small manfs have til 2011 and >500bhp have until 2013. Plus the actual emissions standards for very large engine still seem to be in the form of discussion type documents with questions being asked of the manufacturers rather than the prescriptive "you will do this" sort of thing.

@Dmoore, If you read the regs and discussion documents, the authorities are already working with the manufacturers on what is possible including testing catalysts in actual boats. The sensors would be upstream of the cats anyway, so the cat would keep them dry. Keeping water reversion low is certainly a challenge but cats significantly reduce the amount of pulsation downstream anyway so that would be less of an issue than with an open exhaust.

It's not simple, nothing in engineering ever is but it is interesting. There is a large section of the preamble which goes through estimated annual US boating emissions and it's tens of thousands of tons of pollutants. Given that a cat would reduce these by 90% (Marinisers own figures in the discussion documents), I don't think it's very helpful to say that emissions would be unaffected. As engines are replaced and newer boats replace old, the whole "national dock" would become cleaner and emissions would be reduced. SInce you'd also save fuel with a more modern EMS, is that a bad thing?
I know this is an older post but can anyone tell me if this is the current regulations? Is 2013 and 2014 boats exzempt if there is a older blue 500 or 525 in it? And is a older carbed 540 ok in a 2013? Thinking of buying a new hull and using my old power. Anyone?
boatnutt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rockstrmkr
Ft Myers Offshore
4
10-09-2008 02:41 PM
BobbyB
General Boating Discussion
9
07-26-2004 10:12 PM
FlyFast
General Q & A
17
07-20-2004 01:38 AM
JUSTONCE
General Boating Discussion
21
06-24-2003 11:56 AM



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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.