OBD-II: testing cat for NOx adsorption

On 11/06/2010 03:06 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article<C56dnevqONaIOEjRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>>> Well, I'm not buying you a membership to SAE, so how about you show me
>>> where in the above link they describe a different catalytic process
>>> between the front brick and the rear brick in that cat-con illustration?
>>> They show different feed gasses versus output gasses, hell, they even
>>> colored them differently. Hmmm... they show an input O2 sensor but no
>>> output O2 sensor, is it possible that drawing is too old to be relevant
>>> anymore?
>>
>> so show me a modern converter that's the single matrix that /you/ think
>> is used.
>
> Cut open any GM light truck converter.
> You've done that already, right? Numerous times?

smashing the fragile and easily destroyed core out of a cat is not going
to show you a thing about its construction buddy.


>
>
>> show which regions of the single matrix are palladium-rich and
>> which are rhodium-rich.
>
> Why would YOU think that I think there are different "regions"
> especially when I've stated that I know that to not be the case?

because you're wrong. and i've shown you why, not just with catalyst
construction, but catalyst chemistry too.


>
> You were the one who trotted out 25-30 year old examples where (as I
> stated earlier) that may have been the case.

wrong again - that example is straight out of the 2007 bosch automotive
handbook, not 1987.

besides, you've apparently never noticed that catalysts are directional
- i.e. they have an input and an output end. you need to have the gas
flowing in the correct direction so the respective conversion reactions
happen in the correct sequence.

[of course, if you have multiple converters, you can have dedicated ones
for each, bit that's not what you're talking about.]


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As that process degrades the
>>>>>>> downstream O2 sensor output begins to mimic the upstream O2 sensor
>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may all change in the future if and when the OEMs begin using
>>>>>>> dedicated NOx sensors in the exhaust stream. Prepare for some
>>>>>>> astronomical sensor prices when that happens...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> let us know when anyone starts using nitrogen sensors...
>>>>>
>>>>> I will.
>>>>
>>>> the point being that they're not in use yet.
>>>
>>> You have no point then. Which part of "This may change in the future"
>>> did you not understand?
>>
>> i understand it perfectly - and they're not in use, so i bleating about
>> them is a red herring.
>
> "Bleating?" I mentioned it in passing in my reply to Tegger, had I
> known it would get your panties bunched up, I probably would have
> reconsidered...

how about reconsidering your bull****ting about stuff you don't know?
injector function, sensor function, catalyst function, etc.


>
>>
>>>
>>> Word in the pipeline is there may well be a NOx sensor. Then again, we
>>> were supposed to have 42 volt electrical systems by now also.
>>
>> red herring.
>
> Red herring in a discussion where someone asked how a NOx failure was
> detected?
> Please, show as much desperation as you see fit. It's rather amusing.

i don't find bull****ters very amusing.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 11/06/2010 02:57 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In >,
> jim > wrote:
>
>>> Nothing there to disprove anything I've said so far.
>>> The picture shows two ceramic bricks, it doesn't however define that
>>> there roles are separate or different.
>>
>> read the text dude:
>>
>> "Rhodium shows some advantages over the other platinum metals in the
>> reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen:[31]
>>
>> 2 NOx ??? x O2 + N2"
>
> 100% consistent with my first reply to Tegger. i.e., "rhodium shows some
> advantages over the other platinum metals."

but you were, [and still apparently are] confused about how it works,
and that there are different zones in the cat that have different functions.


> IOWs, all of the noble
> metals in the cat react with the pollutants, some work better than
> others.

no, they /don't/ "all react with the pollutants". the platinum/rhodium
reacts with the NOx in one end and the platinum/palladium reacts with
the carbon compounds at the other.


> Just as my first reply to Tegger stated.
>
>> and then:
>>
>> "palladium forms a versatile catalyst and speeds up hydrogenation and
>> dehydrogenation reactions, as well as in petroleum cracking. A large
>> number of carbon-carbon bond forming reactions in organic chemistry
>> (such as the Heck and Suzuki coupling) are facilitated by catalysis with
>> palladium compounds"
>>
>> if that doesn't make sense to you, then this conversation can't achieve
>> much.
>
> it won't and not because the above doesn't make sense to me, more
> because even though you're looking right at it, you refuse to understand
> it.

??? i don't make up the chemistry or catalysis info dude. all i can do
is tell you what it is and give you the cites to read. if you can't or
don't want to understand, fine, but don't accuse me of being the one
that doesn't get it.


>
>>
>>>
>>>> catalysis occurs at different temperatures too - that's why people are
>>>> taught too use an i.r. thermometer on a cat to see if it's working
>>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> And that test has long ago been refuted. It is a worthless waste of
>>> time.
>>
>> ??? as i said before, one reaction runs at a higher temp than the
>> other.
>
> So what? That doesn't mean that the temperature will be higher at the
> outlet.
>
>> if there's no increase in temp towards the rear of the cat, it's
>> not working properly.
>
> Anecdotal at best. A test based upon more myth than science.

??? then you've never done it then obviously!


>
>> /neither/ reaction will occur unless each portion
>> of the cat is above its operation temperature.
>
> Oh, so your proof is that the cat won't work unless it's at its
> operating temperature?
> Well DUH!.

no, don't put those false words in my mouth. neither region of the
catalyst will work until they're at their respective operation temperatures.


>
>>
>>>
>>>> i'm not giving you a hard time - it's just that a lot of car tech
>>>> teaching and information on this subject is "black box" - you don't
>>>> /need/ to know what's really going on inside, and most people don't know
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> Precisely my point. (thank you veddy much).
>>> Much of what is thought to be true comes from space limited articles in
>>> Popular Science type magazines. Things like using an IR temperature gun
>>> to diagnose whether a catalytic converter is working for instance...
>>
>> non-understanding of catalyst chemistry can lead to fundamental
>> misunderstandings about fault diagnosis
>
> Indeed!

ok wisenheimer, let me be more specific - it can lead to
misrepresentation of fact regarding temperature observations possible
with an i.r. thermometer.


>
>> - like failing to use an i.r.
>> temperature gun to diagnose whether a catalytic converter is working for
>> instance...
>
> If that really were the case, then the OEs would have mounted a
> temperature sensor at the outlet of the cat instead of an O2 sensor to
> monitor whether it is working.

no, because the thermocouples that would be reliable in this application
are expensive. and they're not necessary, particularly not with a
secondary oxygen sensor. [they are however used extensively in
development and testing, as you'd know if you'd ever been involved in
anything like that.


> Some functioning cats DO have a higher outlet temperature, some
> functioning cats however DO NOT have a higher outlet temperature, but to
> state that all functioning cats must have a higher outlet temperature is
> flat out wrong. It has been tested and proven to not be the case.
>
> If it weren't the case, I'd be happy to state it as such, but
> unfortuneately with thousands of temperature tests against thousands of
> cat efficiency tests under my belt, I can't bring myself to such
> fabrications.

uh huh. tell fluke their i.r. thermometers don't work then.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> first one [engine end] deals with carbon. the
>>>>>> second, [tailpipe end] deals with nitrogen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only is that statement backwards, it makes no sense.
>>>>> If the "tailpipe end" of the cat is the NOx reduction part, it wouldn't
>>>>> be able to contribute oxygen molecules to assist the oxidation of HC and
>>>>> CO.
>>>>
>>>> see above. you need oxyhen to reduce CO to CO???.
>>>
>>> Are you asking??? Where in any of this did I state that CO is reduced?
>>> Do you even understand the difference between reduction and oxidation?
>>
>> typo. oxidation, not reduction. [i'd have thought that obvious.]
>
> No, given the erroneous information you've offered so far, I wouldn't
> have chanced it.

you didn't chance bothering to read the cites i gave you either.


>
>>
>>>
>>> You need oxygen to OXIDIZE HC and CO, if that oxygen can be obtained via
>>> the reduction of NOx to N2 and O2 it would certainly make sense to do
>>> that process upstream of the oxidation rather than downstream as you
>>> assert.
>>>
>>>> NOx you can just split
>>>> - per the wiki link.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is the reduction.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's go back to the 80s when they did use an air tap into the
>>>>> cat-con, that tap was typically placed in the center of the cat-con,
>>>>> does it make sense that a NOx reduction could be accomplished using the
>>>>> addition of Nitrogen as part of the process?
>>>>
>>>> good point, but what i understand is that in modern fuel injection
>>>> systems, there is sufficient oxygen in the exhaust stream to oxidize the
>>>> carbon/hydrocarbon content,
>>>
>>> There is, it is attached to the nitrogen (NOx).
>>>
>>> Rather than state "modern fuel injection systems" substitute 'modern
>>> catalytic converters.'
>>
>> no, modern injection systems do not dump excess gas,
>
> Huh? Who said anything about "dumping excess gas?"

because you were under some misapprehension about having to pump in air.
that's only necessary when there is excess combustion product and
insufficient oxygen in the exhaust flow. which doesn't happen in
injected systems that have [working] oxygen sensors.


>
>> thus there is
>> sufficient oxygen in exhaust to ensure conversion. that's why you have
>> "oxygen" sensors.
>
> "You have" oxygen sensors because that is currently the cheapest easiest
> way of determining if the fuel system is in control. Were it not for
> the necessity of emissions monitoring, the O2 sensors could be
> eliminated and the engine run solely on the engineers programming.

dude, get a clue. every tank of gas you buy is slightly different. and
every car you drive is slightly different. that's why engine computers
adjust injection with a "trim" factor. [as an injection systems expert,
you /do/ know about trim don't you?] there's no way you can eliminate
emissions feedback and have an engine perform so that it doesn't take
the cat outside its operational specs.


>
> Apparently, like most, you believe the role of the O2 sensor to be to
> tell the PCM how much gasoline to introduce to make the engine run
> properly.

er, because that's what is /is/ there for!!! that's why the engine
computer operates in what's called "closed loop". if it were open loop,
you won't bother with the sensor.


>
>>>
>>> If I showed you a O2 sensor signal from a 1982 Chevrolet Caprice side by
>>> side with an O2 sensor signal from a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, you'd be hard
>>> pressed to distinguish one from the other. The feed gasses are
>>> essentially the same, the O2 content is the same, it's the catalytic
>>> converters that have gotten much more efficient. 95% efficiency could
>>> only be dreamed of 20 years ago.
>>
>> yes, catalysts /are/ more efficient.
>
> Yes they are, the reason being is due to what I've described here, not
> because of the obsolete beliefs about design that you've offered.

get a clue dude. see above.


>
>> but that's helped by the quality
>> of the injection and combustion feeding it.
>
> Hogwash. Take any engine where the injectors go into batch fire mode as
> limp in mode, you won't be able to measure a difference in exhaust
> pollutants nor would you feel a difference in driveability.

many injectors operate in batch fire mode anyway! don't bull**** about
stuff you obviously can't be bothered to learn.


>
>> "sensor signal" doesn't
>> determine exhaust content -
>
> It doesn't? Funny, I repair stuff every day where the exhaust
> emissions exceed allowable levels due to a sensor outputing the wrong
> value.

because sensors age and need to be replaced. that's why under-hood
technicians exist - to do replacement work like that.


>
>> its just a signal that the injection system
>> utilizes for feedback - it's the injection system that creates the exhaust.
>
> Really? I fire injectors all the time doing injector balance tests and
> there is no exhaust coming from the tailpipe.

then the engine's not running!!!


>
>>
>>>
>>> That increased efficiency is due to the things I stated earlier, things
>>> you said I was wrong about.
>>
>> i said you were wrong about the cat. and you were.
>
> I'm certain that you believe yourself. Thing is, you're wrong.

then you go re-write a few chemistry books - i'm sure the publishers
will be happy to take your word for knowing more than the phd's and
their combined hundreds of years of research on this stuff.


>
>>
>>>
>>>> so that's done first to raise temperatures
>>>> that allow the nitrogen conversion to happen efficiently. you don't
>>>> want to re-heat N??? and O??? or you'd get NOx again.
>>>
>>> The cat is going to heat to 2500* F and reform NOx?
>>> Ain't happening.
>>
>> then you need to better understand the chemistry! uncontrolled cats
>> overheat, and apart from causing cat problems in their own right, they
>> upset the conversion reaction.
>
> An overheated cat caused by what? Are you going to introduce a
> different premise here?

er, overheating is caused by mixtures too far outside stoichiometry.
for a guy that's claiming to know all about injection systems and
catalysts, you really don't seem to know very much.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the metal mixes on the
>>>>>> ceramic matrix at each end are slightly different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, that's the way GM did it back in 1982.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/u...cconverter.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of erroneous information out there and an awful lot that
>>>>> has been taught wrong, even by the OEMs.
>>>>
>>>> true dat!
>>>
>>> Which is why I choose to believe what is taught by places like the
>>> National Center for Vehicle Emissions Controls and Safety...
>>> The "Jim" I know there, have met in person, hosted in -my- government
>>> entity emissions testing and training facility 14 years ago at this
>>> point is much better credentialed than the one posting here.
>>
>> whatever dude. if your "jim" doesn't know what the catalyst materials
>> are and how they work, and he doesn't if you're repeating what he's said
>> to you, then you're both working with what is to you, a "black box" and
>> shouldn't make presumptions about what is inside.
>
> And your credentials are?
>
> Your last vehicle emissions controls design was when?
>
> It was how long ago that you authored a OE technical service bulletin?

you know, when being bull****ted by a guy that doesn't know what
stoichiometry means, doesn't know how a catalyst works, what oxygen
sensors do or how an injection system works or is controlled,
bull****ting about "credentials" is just the icing on the cake.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

In article > ,
jim beam > wrote:

> On 11/06/2010 03:06 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article<C56dnevqONaIOEjRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> > jim > wrote:
> >
> >>> Well, I'm not buying you a membership to SAE, so how about you show me
> >>> where in the above link they describe a different catalytic process
> >>> between the front brick and the rear brick in that cat-con illustration?
> >>> They show different feed gasses versus output gasses, hell, they even
> >>> colored them differently. Hmmm... they show an input O2 sensor but no
> >>> output O2 sensor, is it possible that drawing is too old to be relevant
> >>> anymore?
> >>
> >> so show me a modern converter that's the single matrix that /you/ think
> >> is used.
> >
> > Cut open any GM light truck converter.
> > You've done that already, right? Numerous times?
>
> smashing the fragile and easily destroyed core out of a cat is not going
> to show you a thing about its construction buddy.

I see the problem now. You can't read. Pity. You have my deepest most
sincere pity.
To you, cutting the shell of a catalytic converter (something that cat
rebuilders do every day) means "smashing the fragile and easily
destroyed core."

I'm curious; does anyone know when the asylums began offering internet
access?

>
> >
> >
> >> show which regions of the single matrix are palladium-rich and
> >> which are rhodium-rich.
> >
> > Why would YOU think that I think there are different "regions"
> > especially when I've stated that I know that to not be the case?
>
> because you're wrong. and i've shown you why, not just with catalyst
> construction, but catalyst chemistry too.

You haven't shown anything.

>
> >
> > You were the one who trotted out 25-30 year old examples where (as I
> > stated earlier) that may have been the case.
>
> wrong again - that example is straight out of the 2007 bosch automotive
> handbook, not 1987.

Copyright infringement?

> besides, you've apparently never noticed that catalysts are directional

Some are, some aren't. The ones that are directional typically fall
into the generic universal aftermarket category. I know better than to
waste my or my customers time on such folly.

> - i.e. they have an input and an output end. you need to have the gas
> flowing in the correct direction so the respective conversion reactions
> happen in the correct sequence.

I vaguely remember those from the 80s, center air tap, no real concern
about emissions efficiency since back then all they had to do was pass a
2 speed infrared test. IIRC, some guy named Noah needed one installed
on his arc.

> [of course, if you have multiple converters, you can have dedicated ones
> for each, bit that's not what you're talking about.]

Well, we now know that is what tegger was talking about;-)

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As that process degrades the
> >>>>>>> downstream O2 sensor output begins to mimic the upstream O2 sensor
> >>>>>>> output.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This may all change in the future if and when the OEMs begin using
> >>>>>>> dedicated NOx sensors in the exhaust stream. Prepare for some
> >>>>>>> astronomical sensor prices when that happens...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> let us know when anyone starts using nitrogen sensors...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will.
> >>>>
> >>>> the point being that they're not in use yet.
> >>>
> >>> You have no point then. Which part of "This may change in the future"
> >>> did you not understand?
> >>
> >> i understand it perfectly - and they're not in use, so i bleating about
> >> them is a red herring.
> >
> > "Bleating?" I mentioned it in passing in my reply to Tegger, had I
> > known it would get your panties bunched up, I probably would have
> > reconsidered...
>
> how about reconsidering your bull****ting about stuff you don't know?
> injector function, sensor function, catalyst function, etc.

I might if I had.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Word in the pipeline is there may well be a NOx sensor. Then again, we
> >>> were supposed to have 42 volt electrical systems by now also.
> >>
> >> red herring.
> >
> > Red herring in a discussion where someone asked how a NOx failure was
> > detected?
> > Please, show as much desperation as you see fit. It's rather amusing.
>
> i don't find bull****ters very amusing.

I do.
I also find 'alpha dog' personalities amusing.

Two-fer

On 11/06/2010 06:15 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article<t7CdnQ6RwJEueUjRnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2010 03:06 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
>>> In article<C56dnevqONaIOEjRnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
>>> jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm not buying you a membership to SAE, so how about you show me
>>>>> where in the above link they describe a different catalytic process
>>>>> between the front brick and the rear brick in that cat-con illustration?
>>>>> They show different feed gasses versus output gasses, hell, they even
>>>>> colored them differently. Hmmm... they show an input O2 sensor but no
>>>>> output O2 sensor, is it possible that drawing is too old to be relevant
>>>>> anymore?
>>>>
>>>> so show me a modern converter that's the single matrix that /you/ think
>>>> is used.
>>>
>>> Cut open any GM light truck converter.
>>> You've done that already, right? Numerous times?
>>
>> smashing the fragile and easily destroyed core out of a cat is not going
>> to show you a thing about its construction buddy.
>
> I see the problem now. You can't read. Pity. You have my deepest most
> sincere pity.
> To you, cutting the shell of a catalytic converter (something that cat
> rebuilders do every day) means "smashing the fragile and easily
> destroyed core."

no, i'm wondering how it's possible for you to "cut one open" and yet
still fail to observe how they're made! the only think i can think of
is you "cutting one open" with a hammer or a crow bar and thus smashing
its contents.


>
> I'm curious; does anyone know when the asylums began offering internet
> access?

doesn't help your cause buddy.


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> show which regions of the single matrix are palladium-rich and
>>>> which are rhodium-rich.
>>>
>>> Why would YOU think that I think there are different "regions"
>>> especially when I've stated that I know that to not be the case?
>>
>> because you're wrong. and i've shown you why, not just with catalyst
>> construction, but catalyst chemistry too.
>
> You haven't shown anything.

then you don't read cites and don't pay attention to posts.


>
>>
>>>
>>> You were the one who trotted out 25-30 year old examples where (as I
>>> stated earlier) that may have been the case.
>>
>> wrong again - that example is straight out of the 2007 bosch automotive
>> handbook, not 1987.
>
> Copyright infringement?

eh????????????????????? opening a book is not copyright infringement.
but you'd not know that since you don't appear to use them.


>
>> besides, you've apparently never noticed that catalysts are directional
>
> Some are, some aren't. The ones that are directional typically fall
> into the generic universal aftermarket category. I know better than to
> waste my or my customers time on such folly.

again, you're utterly clueless. /all/ 3-way cats are directional. they
don't need to be labeled if they're flanged because manufacturers
prevent clueless people from fitting them the wrong way by making sure
the flange on each end is different.


>
>> - i.e. they have an input and an output end. you need to have the gas
>> flowing in the correct direction so the respective conversion reactions
>> happen in the correct sequence.
>
> I vaguely remember those from the 80s, center air tap, no real concern
> about emissions efficiency since back then all they had to do was pass a
> 2 speed infrared test. IIRC, some guy named Noah needed one installed
> on his arc.

i see - i.r. thermometers work when it suits you, but not when they
don't. got it!


>
>> [of course, if you have multiple converters, you can have dedicated ones
>> for each, bit that's not what you're talking about.]
>
> Well, we now know that is what tegger was talking about;-)

"we"??? /i/ know what i'm talking about. /you/ don't.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As that process degrades the
>>>>>>>>> downstream O2 sensor output begins to mimic the upstream O2 sensor
>>>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This may all change in the future if and when the OEMs begin using
>>>>>>>>> dedicated NOx sensors in the exhaust stream. Prepare for some
>>>>>>>>> astronomical sensor prices when that happens...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> let us know when anyone starts using nitrogen sensors...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the point being that they're not in use yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no point then. Which part of "This may change in the future"
>>>>> did you not understand?
>>>>
>>>> i understand it perfectly - and they're not in use, so i bleating about
>>>> them is a red herring.
>>>
>>> "Bleating?" I mentioned it in passing in my reply to Tegger, had I
>>> known it would get your panties bunched up, I probably would have
>>> reconsidered...
>>
>> how about reconsidering your bull****ting about stuff you don't know?
>> injector function, sensor function, catalyst function, etc.
>
> I might if I had.

but you /were/ bull****ting. there's no way someone merely mistaken can
come up with such impressively incorrect assertions about sensor
operation, injector operation, catalyst operation and engine computer
feedback loop operation, then /still/ not admit it when called on it.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Word in the pipeline is there may well be a NOx sensor. Then again, we
>>>>> were supposed to have 42 volt electrical systems by now also.
>>>>
>>>> red herring.
>>>
>>> Red herring in a discussion where someone asked how a NOx failure was
>>> detected?
>>> Please, show as much desperation as you see fit. It's rather amusing.
>>
>> i don't find bull****ters very amusing.
>
> I do.
> I also find 'alpha dog' personalities amusing.
>
> Two-fer

like i said, you're clueless.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

In article > ,
jim beam > wrote:

> On 11/06/2010 02:57 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In >,
> > jim > wrote:
> >
> >>> Nothing there to disprove anything I've said so far.
> >>> The picture shows two ceramic bricks, it doesn't however define that
> >>> there roles are separate or different.
> >>
> >> read the text dude:
> >>
> >> "Rhodium shows some advantages over the other platinum metals in the
> >> reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen:[31]
> >>
> >> 2 NOx ??? x O2 + N2"
> >
> > 100% consistent with my first reply to Tegger. i.e., "rhodium shows some
> > advantages over the other platinum metals."
>
> but you were, [and still apparently are] confused about how it works,
> and that there are different zones in the cat that have different functions.

(according to you) If Rhodium has advantages over other platinum metals
in the reduction of NOx that means the other Platinum metals do have the
capability of reacting with NOx, they just aren't as effective.
I'm not confused about anything, you however seem to be having trouble
with agreeing with the very things that you make citation to.
And the more you do it, the more of a whack job you appear to be.

>
> > IOWs, all of the noble
> > metals in the cat react with the pollutants, some work better than
> > others.
>
> no, they /don't/ "all react with the pollutants". the platinum/rhodium
> reacts with the NOx in one end and the platinum/palladium reacts with
> the carbon compounds at the other.

So, what reacts with the HC? Is there another noble metal besides
platinum, palladium or rhodium that is needed? Or is HC included in
what you call "carbon compounds?

>
> > Just as my first reply to Tegger stated.
> >
> >> and then:
> >>
> >> "palladium forms a versatile catalyst and speeds up hydrogenation and
> >> dehydrogenation reactions, as well as in petroleum cracking. A large
> >> number of carbon-carbon bond forming reactions in organic chemistry
> >> (such as the Heck and Suzuki coupling) are facilitated by catalysis with
> >> palladium compounds"
> >>
> >> if that doesn't make sense to you, then this conversation can't achieve
> >> much.
> >
> > it won't and not because the above doesn't make sense to me, more
> > because even though you're looking right at it, you refuse to understand
> > it.
>
> ??? i don't make up the chemistry or catalysis info dude. all i can do
> is tell you what it is and give you the cites to read. if you can't or
> don't want to understand, fine, but don't accuse me of being the one
> that doesn't get it.

Well, since you still don't get it, what choice do I have?

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> catalysis occurs at different temperatures too - that's why people are
> >>>> taught too use an i.r. thermometer on a cat to see if it's working
> >>>> correctly.
> >>>
> >>> And that test has long ago been refuted. It is a worthless waste of
> >>> time.
> >>
> >> ??? as i said before, one reaction runs at a higher temp than the
> >> other.
> >
> > So what? That doesn't mean that the temperature will be higher at the
> > outlet.
> >
> >> if there's no increase in temp towards the rear of the cat, it's
> >> not working properly.
> >
> > Anecdotal at best. A test based upon more myth than science.
>
> ??? then you've never done it then obviously!

I've done it literally hundreds of times, back to back with and along
side real catalyst efficiency testing. It's a worthless test. it's an
old myth that refuses to die.

>
> >
> >> /neither/ reaction will occur unless each portion
> >> of the cat is above its operation temperature.
> >
> > Oh, so your proof is that the cat won't work unless it's at its
> > operating temperature?
> > Well DUH!.
>
> no, don't put those false words in my mouth. neither region of the
> catalyst will work until they're at their respective operation temperatures.

So, what you're saying is; the cat won't work until it is at its
respective operating temperature?

Well, double DUH!

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> i'm not giving you a hard time - it's just that a lot of car tech
> >>>> teaching and information on this subject is "black box" - you don't
> >>>> /need/ to know what's really going on inside, and most people don't know
> >>>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Precisely my point. (thank you veddy much).
> >>> Much of what is thought to be true comes from space limited articles in
> >>> Popular Science type magazines. Things like using an IR temperature gun
> >>> to diagnose whether a catalytic converter is working for instance...
> >>
> >> non-understanding of catalyst chemistry can lead to fundamental
> >> misunderstandings about fault diagnosis
> >
> > Indeed!
>
> ok wisenheimer, let me be more specific - it can lead to
> misrepresentation of fact regarding temperature observations possible
> with an i.r. thermometer.

Misrepresentation like replacing a perfectly functional catalytic
converter because there was no measured temperature rise at the outlet?
A misrepresentation that will get someone slapped down by any number of
appropriate government agencies?

>
> >
> >> - like failing to use an i.r.
> >> temperature gun to diagnose whether a catalytic converter is working for
> >> instance...
> >
> > If that really were the case, then the OEs would have mounted a
> > temperature sensor at the outlet of the cat instead of an O2 sensor to
> > monitor whether it is working.
>
> no, because the thermocouples that would be reliable in this application
> are expensive.

Why does it have to be a thermocouple?
EGR opening is often detected by a temperature sensor placed in the
presence of hot exhaust gasses. Delphi will gladly sell me an exhaust
temperature sensor for less than $20.00, that seems an awful lot cheaper
than what they charge mo for an oxygen sensor.

> and they're not necessary, particularly not with a
> secondary oxygen sensor.

They could replace the oxygen sensor at much lower cost and probably
increased reliability. Can't say I've ever seen an EGR temp sensor fail
because a little engine coolant washed past it.

> [they are however used extensively in
> development and testing, as you'd know if you'd ever been involved in
> anything like that.

What does development and testing have to do with anything other than
being a red herring?

>
> > Some functioning cats DO have a higher outlet temperature, some
> > functioning cats however DO NOT have a higher outlet temperature, but to
> > state that all functioning cats must have a higher outlet temperature is
> > flat out wrong. It has been tested and proven to not be the case.
> >
> > If it weren't the case, I'd be happy to state it as such, but
> > unfortuneately with thousands of temperature tests against thousands of
> > cat efficiency tests under my belt, I can't bring myself to such
> > fabrications.
>
> uh huh. tell fluke their i.r. thermometers don't work then.

They probably have been told already. If THAT is the sole source of
your argument I would point out that not far from where you found that
on Fluke's website they also describe how to use a DVOM to test engine
coolant for evidence of electrolysis, another worthless myth based test.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> first one [engine end] deals with carbon. the
> >>>>>> second, [tailpipe end] deals with nitrogen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not only is that statement backwards, it makes no sense.
> >>>>> If the "tailpipe end" of the cat is the NOx reduction part, it wouldn't
> >>>>> be able to contribute oxygen molecules to assist the oxidation of HC and
> >>>>> CO.
> >>>>
> >>>> see above. you need oxyhen to reduce CO to CO???.
> >>>
> >>> Are you asking??? Where in any of this did I state that CO is reduced?
> >>> Do you even understand the difference between reduction and oxidation?
> >>
> >> typo. oxidation, not reduction. [i'd have thought that obvious.]
> >
> > No, given the erroneous information you've offered so far, I wouldn't
> > have chanced it.
>
> you didn't chance bothering to read the cites i gave you either.

No Jim, I do not need to scramble around the internet to do a quick
learn. I've actually done enough of this in practical applications that
it simply becomes redundant and unnecessary.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You need oxygen to OXIDIZE HC and CO, if that oxygen can be obtained via
> >>> the reduction of NOx to N2 and O2 it would certainly make sense to do
> >>> that process upstream of the oxidation rather than downstream as you
> >>> assert.
> >>>
> >>>> NOx you can just split
> >>>> - per the wiki link.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that is the reduction.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But let's go back to the 80s when they did use an air tap into the
> >>>>> cat-con, that tap was typically placed in the center of the cat-con,
> >>>>> does it make sense that a NOx reduction could be accomplished using the
> >>>>> addition of Nitrogen as part of the process?
> >>>>
> >>>> good point, but what i understand is that in modern fuel injection
> >>>> systems, there is sufficient oxygen in the exhaust stream to oxidize the
> >>>> carbon/hydrocarbon content,
> >>>
> >>> There is, it is attached to the nitrogen (NOx).
> >>>
> >>> Rather than state "modern fuel injection systems" substitute 'modern
> >>> catalytic converters.'
> >>
> >> no, modern injection systems do not dump excess gas,
> >
> > Huh? Who said anything about "dumping excess gas?"
>
> because you were under some misapprehension about having to pump in air.

Nope, I stated plain as day that the needed O2 could be obtained by the
reduction of NOx into N2 and O2 upstream of the oxidation process
contrary to the ass backwards description given by you.

> that's only necessary when there is excess combustion product and
> insufficient oxygen in the exhaust flow.

Good grief, what is "excess combustion product? is that when a 4.0
liter engine magically becomes a 8.0 liter engine?

> which doesn't happen in
> injected systems that have [working] oxygen sensors.
>

yet there are millions of injected engine systems that come equipped
with secondary air injection pumps (aka, air pumps).
Try again.

> >
> >> thus there is
> >> sufficient oxygen in exhaust to ensure conversion. that's why you have
> >> "oxygen" sensors.
> >
> > "You have" oxygen sensors because that is currently the cheapest easiest
> > way of determining if the fuel system is in control. Were it not for
> > the necessity of emissions monitoring, the O2 sensors could be
> > eliminated and the engine run solely on the engineers programming.
>
> dude, get a clue. every tank of gas you buy is slightly different. and
> every car you drive is slightly different. that's why engine computers
> adjust injection with a "trim" factor.

Indeed they do, and you'd be hard pressed to feel a difference in
performance in an engine that required a 5% fuel trim if the oxygen
sensor were disconnected.

> [as an injection systems expert,
> you /do/ know about trim don't you?]

Only for about 30 years.

> there's no way you can eliminate
> emissions feedback and have an engine perform so that it doesn't take
> the cat outside its operational specs.

It's done millions of times every day each and every time someone
accelerates with a throttle opening above approximately 60 percent.
You do realize being the expert on everything that you are that all
engines currently in use on our highways go into open loop and the
oxygen sensor is ignored when they are accelerated above a certain
throttle opening and above a certain manifold pressure, don't you?

>
> >
> > Apparently, like most, you believe the role of the O2 sensor to be to
> > tell the PCM how much gasoline to introduce to make the engine run
> > properly.
>
> er, because that's what is /is/ there for!!! that's why the engine
> computer operates in what's called "closed loop". if it were open loop,
> you won't bother with the sensor.

Yet all manufacturers manage to build systems that work just fine at or
near wide open throttle in open loop injecting the proper amount of fuel
to sustain proper operation all the while ignoring the oxygen sensor.

Guess what Jim, they can easily do the same thing during idle and part
throttle cruise. They do have to make some assumptions though, like the
injectors are metering properly, the air mass is being measured
properly, the engine and intake air temperatures are measured properly.
The reason they don't do it that way is because the EPA stipulates that
something monitor in the event that any of these devices do not function
properly.
Sorry if this is all new to you, whether or not it should or shouldn't
be is beneath my pay grade.

>
> >
> >>>
> >>> If I showed you a O2 sensor signal from a 1982 Chevrolet Caprice side by
> >>> side with an O2 sensor signal from a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, you'd be hard
> >>> pressed to distinguish one from the other. The feed gasses are
> >>> essentially the same, the O2 content is the same, it's the catalytic
> >>> converters that have gotten much more efficient. 95% efficiency could
> >>> only be dreamed of 20 years ago.
> >>
> >> yes, catalysts /are/ more efficient.
> >
> > Yes they are, the reason being is due to what I've described here, not
> > because of the obsolete beliefs about design that you've offered.
>
> get a clue dude. see above.
>
>
> >
> >> but that's helped by the quality
> >> of the injection and combustion feeding it.
> >
> > Hogwash. Take any engine where the injectors go into batch fire mode as
> > limp in mode, you won't be able to measure a difference in exhaust
> > pollutants nor would you feel a difference in driveability.
>
> many injectors operate in batch fire mode anyway!

Name 10 vehicle models built after 1996 model year that do so.

> don't bull**** about
> stuff you obviously can't be bothered to learn.

Your problem is that you come here expecting that and when faced with
someone who has, you make lame excuses to support things which obviously
you haven't fully contemplated.

>
> >
> >> "sensor signal" doesn't
> >> determine exhaust content -
> >
> > It doesn't? Funny, I repair stuff every day where the exhaust
> > emissions exceed allowable levels due to a sensor outputing the wrong
> > value.
>
> because sensors age and need to be replaced. that's why under-hood
> technicians exist - to do replacement work like that.

Nice side step. Now explain how and why a sensor signal doesn't
determine exhaust content.
Explain how and why a mass airflow sensor reporting 15% less air than
actual wouldn't effect exhaust content. Hell, I bet you can't even
figure out if it would be richer or leaner.

Explain how and why a engine coolant sensor reporting 40 degrees lower
than actual wouldn't effect exhaust content. Hell, I bet you can't even
figure out if it would be richer or leaner.
>
>
> >
> >> its just a signal that the injection system
> >> utilizes for feedback - it's the injection system that creates the exhaust.
> >
> > Really? I fire injectors all the time doing injector balance tests and
> > there is no exhaust coming from the tailpipe.
>
> then the engine's not running!!!

So what. You stated that the injection system creates the exhaust.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> That increased efficiency is due to the things I stated earlier, things
> >>> you said I was wrong about.
> >>
> >> i said you were wrong about the cat. and you were.
> >
> > I'm certain that you believe yourself. Thing is, you're wrong.
>
> then you go re-write a few chemistry books - i'm sure the publishers
> will be happy to take your word for knowing more than the phd's and
> their combined hundreds of years of research on this stuff.

Hundreds of years of research and all they managed was a "few chemistry
books?"
I wouldn't suppose that those phd's have control over whether you were
holding the book upside down would they then?

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> so that's done first to raise temperatures
> >>>> that allow the nitrogen conversion to happen efficiently. you don't
> >>>> want to re-heat N??? and O??? or you'd get NOx again.
> >>>
> >>> The cat is going to heat to 2500* F and reform NOx?
> >>> Ain't happening.
> >>
> >> then you need to better understand the chemistry! uncontrolled cats
> >> overheat, and apart from causing cat problems in their own right, they
> >> upset the conversion reaction.
> >
> > An overheated cat caused by what? Are you going to introduce a
> > different premise here?
>
> er, overheating is caused by mixtures too far outside stoichiometry.

Which way outside stoichiometric? Rich? Lean? Be careful here.

> for a guy that's claiming to know all about injection systems and
> catalysts, you really don't seem to know very much.

To someone totally engulfed in wrong information, I suppose not.

>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the metal mixes on the
> >>>>>> ceramic matrix at each end are slightly different.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yup, that's the way GM did it back in 1982.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/u...cconverter.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a lot of erroneous information out there and an awful lot that
> >>>>> has been taught wrong, even by the OEMs.
> >>>>
> >>>> true dat!
> >>>
> >>> Which is why I choose to believe what is taught by places like the
> >>> National Center for Vehicle Emissions Controls and Safety...
> >>> The "Jim" I know there, have met in person, hosted in -my- government
> >>> entity emissions testing and training facility 14 years ago at this
> >>> point is much better credentialed than the one posting here.
> >>
> >> whatever dude. if your "jim" doesn't know what the catalyst materials
> >> are and how they work, and he doesn't if you're repeating what he's said
> >> to you, then you're both working with what is to you, a "black box" and
> >> shouldn't make presumptions about what is inside.
> >
> > And your credentials are?
> >
> > Your last vehicle emissions controls design was when?
> >
> > It was how long ago that you authored a OE technical service bulletin?
>
> you know, when being bull****ted by a guy that doesn't know what
> stoichiometry means, doesn't know how a catalyst works, what oxygen
> sensors do or how an injection system works or is controlled,
> bull****ting about "credentials" is just the icing on the cake.

I have no idea who it is you are talking about, but to put your little
snipe back on track I will remind you that you engaged in impeaching my
sources and their credentials, either put up or shut up.
Either produce credentials equal to or better than those in Colorado at
the NCVECS or be thought the fool that you've demonstrated yourself to
be.

In article >,
Tegger > wrote:

> aarcuda69062 > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Tegger > wrote:
>
>
> <good info snipped for brevity>
>
> >
> >> I'm particularly interested in how the ECM uses the secondary O2
> >> sensor to tell the difference between HC/CO and NO handling.
> >
> > It wouldn't necessarily see a difference such that it would
> > specifically identify NOx exceeding the FTP threshold, NOx, CO and HC
> > treatment are all part of the same catalytic process. As that process
> > degrades the downstream O2 sensor output begins to mimic the upstream
> > O2 sensor output.
>
>
>
> Well, the reason I asked all this in the first place has to do with Honda's
> OBD-II system. In addition to the usual P0420, Honda also has a
> manfuacturer-specific DTC (P1420) that is identified in Honda literature as
> being:
> "NOx Adsorptive Catalyst System Efficiency Below Threshold."
>
> Cosidering that Honda uses ordinary O2-sensors downstream, it got me to
> wondering how it was possible for the ECM to know to set P1420 as opposed
> to P0420.
>
> Then... I stumbled on a Honda document I've got that explains it. I had
> found the document earlier, but in my haste I didn't read it carefully
> enough.
> It turns out P1420 is set on certain ULEV vehicles that have TWO cats: One
> is a normal TWC, the other is a "NOx adsorptive TWC". P1420 means the NOx
> cat has failed its OBD-II test.
>
> Thank you for your help.

As Paul Harvey used to say; now for the rest of the story...

Thanks for clearing that up.

In article > ,
jim beam > wrote:

> > I vaguely remember those from the 80s, center air tap, no real concern
> > about emissions efficiency since back then all they had to do was pass a
> > 2 speed infrared test. IIRC, some guy named Noah needed one installed
> > on his arc.
>
> i see - i.r. thermometers work when it suits you, but not when they
> don't. got it!

This is the last comment I will make to you, largely because your above
reply PROVES how utterly misinformed you are (not to mention
disingenuous and inattentive).

How in your feeble mind do you make the jump to an IR thermometer from
anything I put in my above statement?
There is no practical relationship between the piece of equipment (IR
thermometer) YOU insist is a valid test and that which was mentioned by
me.

You are totally, utterly and completely laughable.

You should have never convinced yourself that you could bluff you way
through this.

On 11/07/2010 12:33 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article<WMqdnVv3foqhj0vRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>>> I vaguely remember those from the 80s, center air tap, no real concern
>>> about emissions efficiency since back then all they had to do was pass a
>>> 2 speed infrared test. IIRC, some guy named Noah needed one installed
>>> on his arc.
>>
>> i see - i.r. thermometers work when it suits you, but not when they
>> don't. got it!
>
> This is the last comment I will make to you, largely because your above
> reply PROVES how utterly misinformed you are (not to mention
> disingenuous and inattentive).
>
> How in your feeble mind do you make the jump to an IR thermometer from
> anything I put in my above statement?
> There is no practical relationship between the piece of equipment (IR
> thermometer) YOU insist is a valid test and that which was mentioned by
> me.
>
> You are totally, utterly and completely laughable.
>
> You should have never convinced yourself that you could bluff you way
> through this.

you can't have it both ways buddy. either you want to bring in the i.r.
thermometer as corroborative evidence, or you don't. you can't have it
both ways - and certainly not if you want to leave out the important
details that contradict you.

anyway, it's interesting that you use the word "bluff" because that's
precisely what /you/ have been trying to do the whole way through this
thread. your taking six lines in the first paragraph of your first
response to say what could be said in one - well, it was a dead giveaway
on what you were going to try to do next.

moving forward: don't bull**** people that know more than you. if
someone contradicts you, it's for two possible reasons - they got it
wrong, or you got it wrong. in this case, it's you. you may be a
wrench that aspires to be a tech, but you don't know the science and
you're ridiculously trying to defend that ignorance. read the cites,
try to learn, and if you don't understand, ask. your presuming to
lecture on catalyst chemistry is exactly like a crane driver presuming
to lecture on metal fatigue and vibration harmonics. he may be aware of
them as it pertains to his job, but he doesn't know the science and for
him to presume he knows everything is retarded. regarding catalyst
function, injector function, sensor function or engine computer
programming function, neither do you - and to presume to bull**** as if
this makes up for your fundamental knowledge deficit is retarded.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 11/06/2010 07:59 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article<GpOdnfCq2qZfe0jRnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2010 02:57 PM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nothing there to disprove anything I've said so far.
>>>>> The picture shows two ceramic bricks, it doesn't however define that
>>>>> there roles are separate or different.
>>>>
>>>> read the text dude:
>>>>
>>>> "Rhodium shows some advantages over the other platinum metals in the
>>>> reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen:[31]
>>>>
>>>> 2 NOx ??? x O2 + N2"
>>>
>>> 100% consistent with my first reply to Tegger. i.e., "rhodium shows some
>>> advantages over the other platinum metals."
>>
>> but you were, [and still apparently are] confused about how it works,
>> and that there are different zones in the cat that have different functions.
>
> (according to you) If Rhodium has advantages over other platinum metals
> in the reduction of NOx that means the other Platinum metals do have the
> capability of reacting with NOx, they just aren't as effective.

dude, read the cites will you?


> I'm not confused about anything,

but you are. see above.


> you however seem to be having trouble
> with agreeing with the very things that you make citation to.
> And the more you do it, the more of a whack job you appear to be.

do you get offended if some shabby stinking vagrant walks in off the
street and ****es on the sofa? well, when an ignorant bull****ter shows
up on a newsgroup and starts ****ing on the science sofa, i get
offended. and i have a right to call out you when you try to bull****
your way out of your mistakes.


>
>>
>>> IOWs, all of the noble
>>> metals in the cat react with the pollutants, some work better than
>>> others.
>>
>> no, they /don't/ "all react with the pollutants". the platinum/rhodium
>> reacts with the NOx in one end and the platinum/palladium reacts with
>> the carbon compounds at the other.
>
> So, what reacts with the HC? Is there another noble metal besides
> platinum, palladium or rhodium that is needed? Or is HC included in
> what you call "carbon compounds?

this is retarded. i've given you the cites. if you haven't read them,
you need to. if you don't understand them, you're wasting everybody's
time because you missed rudimentary chemistry in high school.

now, i'm going to snip most of your other bull****:

<snip>
>
> Yet all manufacturers manage to build systems that work just fine at or
> near wide open throttle in open loop injecting the proper amount of fuel
> to sustain proper operation all the while ignoring the oxygen sensor.

that's because it's mapped the trim immediately prior to that event!!!
and it uses that trim value [from the oxygen sensor] to calculate
exactly what it needs to inject when in open loop! that's for narrow
band sensors. for broad band sensors, they stay closed loop for this
stuff so they can "see" what's happening real time.

for a guy that presumes to lecture on this stuff, you just keep
evidencing more and more ignorance. just stop it.


>
> Guess what Jim, they can easily do the same thing during idle and part
> throttle cruise. They do have to make some assumptions though, like the
> injectors are metering properly, the air mass is being measured
> properly, the engine and intake air temperatures are measured properly.

no they don't - they've got an oxygen sensor to feed back ant tell them
/precisely/ what is happening. "assumptions" are only used for open
loop, not closed loop. and they're set immediately before usage. you'd
know that if you had bothered to learn this stuff or weren't a
bull****ter.


>
> Hundreds of years of research and all they managed was a "few chemistry
> books?"
> I wouldn't suppose that those phd's have control over whether you were
> holding the book upside down would they then?

dude, that is just retarded.


big picture, part of your problem is that all vehicle techs are taught
"black box" because it keeps things simple. you are a classic example
in all but one respect - you actually seem to believe there's nothing in
the box and that there's nothing more to be known. anyone thinking they
know it all is fundamentally retarded.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

In article > ,
drinks too much jim beam > wrote:

> you can't have it both ways buddy. either you want to bring in the i.r.
> thermometer as corroborative evidence, or you don't.

I thought I was pretty clear about being on the -don't- side.

> you can't have it
> both ways -

Never attempted to.

> and certainly not if you want to leave out the important
> details that contradict you.

Like?

> anyway, it's interesting that you use the word "bluff" because that's
> precisely what /you/ have been trying to do the whole way through this
> thread.

Simply stated Jim, you don't know what you don't know.

Maybe your little Bosch book explains that there is a difference between
an infra-red thermometer and an infra-red gas analyzer (there is).
What I do know is; if it's in there, you haven't managed to read that
part yet.

> your taking six lines in the first paragraph of your first
> response to say what could be said in one - well, it was a dead giveaway
> on what you were going to try to do next.

Oooo, a spell pecker. What a clever way to cover up your multiple faux
pas.

> moving forward: don't bull**** people that know more than you.

I'll keep that in mind should it ever happen.

> if someone contradicts you, it's for two possible reasons - they got it
> wrong, or you got it wrong. in this case, it's you.

Uh, no Jimmy, it is you who has demonstrated numerous times who iis
wrong.

> you may be a
> wrench that aspires to be a tech,

You perceive that slightly backwards. I grew bored and annoyed
constantly having to deal with phony, plastic transparent paper smart
dullards like you.

> but you don't know the science and
> you're ridiculously trying to defend that ignorance. read the cites,
> try to learn, and if you don't understand, ask. your presuming to
> lecture on catalyst chemistry

Why do you feel the need to fabricate?
I never lectured on catalyst chemistry.
You pulled that out of your ass in an attempt to prove yourself.
Actually, you admitted that you pulled it out of the Bosch book which
tells me you have no real everyday practical working knowledge in the
subject.

> is exactly like a crane driver presuming
> to lecture on metal fatigue and vibration harmonics. he may be aware of
> them as it pertains to his job, but he doesn't know the science and for
> him to presume he knows everything is retarded. regarding catalyst
> function, injector function, sensor function or engine computer
> programming function, neither do you - and to presume to bull**** as if
> this makes up for your fundamental knowledge deficit is retarded.

Still waiting for your credentials.