OBD-II: testing cat for NOx adsorption

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

> > 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.

Stop making it that way.

> 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!!!

Ridiculous. Idle trim and part throttle trim are of no value at wide
open throttle.
What happens at WOT on an engine that isn't fully warmed up and has not
yet gone into closed loop, what fuel trims are used then Jimmy?

> 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.

The ignorance is yours Jimmy, delve a little deeper, dig a little
harder, there is more out there than the watered down version.


>
>
> >
> > 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.

So, by your logic, the engineers never bother to consider how much fuel
an injector flows, how much air an engine pumps, they just throw some
parts together and let the oxygen sensor straighten it all out.

Don't think so.

>
> >
> > 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.

That is what retards do, hold the book upside down. It had to be asked.

> big picture, part of your problem is that all vehicle techs are taught
> "black box" because it keeps things simple.

Yet you continue to argue from that very "black box" viewpoint.
Everything you've said in this exchange from the very beginning makes me
cringe, it makes me cringe because it is the same old watered down basic
garbage that was taught 30 years ago, it's infantile and the sad part
is; there are still those out there like you that keep on spouting it.
In a professional setting, a lot of people would get up and walk out on
you and had they paid money, they'd be demanding a refund.
Everything you've blathered here is ancient disproven history.
You really should be posting in alt.the.world.is.flat

> 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.

Yet it is you that refuted what is in the box insisting that it is all
about the oxygen sensor.
Take this to the bank Jim; I know WAY more about what is in the box than
you do.

> anyone thinking they
> know it all is fundamentally retarded.

Yes they are.

"aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
->
> 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.

What about that hotrod turbo diesel Mercedes that has to have urea injection
to comply with
US standards? I would think that this one would have to have an NOx sensor,
although I
suppose they might use parametric processes to arrive at a value.

On 11/08/2010 06:17 AM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article<r6mdnezODtHj_ErRnZ2dnUVZ_jcAAAAA@speakeasy .net>,
> drinks too much jim > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Stop making it that way.

go back to high school chemistry, then we'll talk.


>
>> 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!!!
>
> Ridiculous. Idle trim and part throttle trim are of no value at wide
> open throttle.

yes it is. trim determines stoichiometry. if it's at w.o.t. and
injection at 1.2, it needs the "1" before it can calculate "1.2"!

"1" is constantly changing - 1.2 on an engine with some miles on it can
be 5% off from a new engine. or with some quirky gas in the tank.
you'd know this if the engine computer wasn't a black box to you.


> What happens at WOT on an engine that isn't fully warmed up and has not
> yet gone into closed loop, what fuel trims are used then Jimmy?

the ones that were used last time, black box guy - computers are good at
storing things like that.


>
>> 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.
>
> The ignorance is yours Jimmy, delve a little deeper, dig a little
> harder, there is more out there than the watered down version.

i need to water stuff down for you. but i'm not able to water down
sufficiently to get stuff through though apparently.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> So, by your logic, the engineers never bother to consider how much fuel
> an injector flows, how much air an engine pumps, they just throw some
> parts together and let the oxygen sensor straighten it all out.

there you go again - trying to put false words in my mouth. ironically
though, what you say just continues to illustrate your lack of
understanding of what's inside the black box.


>
> Don't think so.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> That is what retards do, hold the book upside down. It had to be asked.

no, it's the false suggestion of someone with academic problems.


>
>> big picture, part of your problem is that all vehicle techs are taught
>> "black box" because it keeps things simple.
>
> Yet you continue to argue from that very "black box" viewpoint.
> Everything you've said in this exchange from the very beginning makes me
> cringe, it makes me cringe because it is the same old watered down basic
> garbage that was taught 30 years ago, it's infantile and the sad part
> is; there are still those out there like you that keep on spouting it.
> In a professional setting, a lot of people would get up and walk out on
> you and had they paid money, they'd be demanding a refund.
> Everything you've blathered here is ancient disproven history.
> You really should be posting in alt.the.world.is.flat

denial isn't helping you dude. nor is trying to put false words in
someone else's mouth.


>
>> 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.
>
> Yet it is you that refuted what is in the box insisting that it is all
> about the oxygen sensor.
> Take this to the bank Jim; I know WAY more about what is in the box than
> you do.

i couldn't make this stuff up - when i say you're a "black box" guy,
that's simply an observation of what you keep on proving you are. i
know that may not be helping you understand, but your own denial forms a
far more effective barrier to knowledge acquisition than anything i
could ever say.


>
>> anyone thinking they
>> know it all is fundamentally retarded.
>
> Yes they are.

so why are you so anxious to keep on proving it? [rhetorical]


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 11/08/2010 05:42 AM, aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article<r6mdne3ODtHt_ErRnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> drinks too much jim > 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.

eh?

you said:
"I won't dispute that the injector pulse width alternates between
slightly lean and slightly rich, the 5 second interval though does not
jive with conventional wisdom or what can be observed when one views O2
sensor activity on a lab scope and injector on time on a lab scope via a
low amps probe."

you didn't need to mention "probe" and definitely not "low amps". you
also didn't need to mention "conventional wisdom". the latter is an
appeal to authority - something you typically see on usenet when someone
is trying to assert a position, but without being able to back it up.
the former is the language of a low end tech using tools he doesn't
adequately understand. no engineer would use language like that since
it's the values and the waveform that are important - neither of which
you evidence any understanding of.

besides - all that was relevant in your pretense was the 5s interval.
if you knew your stuff, you'd have just said you typically see intervals
of [insert value] seconds, not dress it up in some irrelevant bull****
as a masquerade of being something you're not.


>
>> moving forward: don't bull**** people that know more than you.
>
> I'll keep that in mind should it ever happen.

denial isn't helping 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.
>
> Uh, no Jimmy, it is you who has demonstrated numerous times who iis
> wrong.

actually, the "numerous times" is your denial. i've cited "numerous
times" stuff you need to learn to be able to understand to be able to
speak, but you keep refusing to learn.


>
>> 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.

and here we have it - people with knowledge trying to help a guy that
doesn't have it, and getting a negative reaction to learning resistance.


>
>> 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 said:
"There is no reduction "side." The oxidation and reduction processes
occur at the same place, same time on the noble metals within the
cat-con. Some of these metals are more efficient at NOx reduction, some
are more efficient at HC/CO oxidation but they all participate in the
process. A loss in efficiency treating one pollutant will result in a
loss of efficiency in the other two."

i had the temerity to point out that like your "5 second" diatribe, you
not only didn't understand what you were talking about, but you were
trying to pose as someone that did.


> 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.

i cited the bosch book for two reasons:

1. because it was something /you/ could look at [since you apparently
need to].

2. it's authoritative.

and here we are with you /still/ in denial.


>
>> 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.

this is usenet and that game is for retards.

the beauty of usenet is that anyone can say anything they want. the
ugly side of usenet is is that anyone can say anything they want. they
can even pose as a vehicle tech that doesn't know anything about
catalytic converter operation, sensor operation, or the principles of
control. ["control" is an engineering term.]

all that matters on usenet is whether what you say stands. a "black box
guy" fundamentally has nothing to stand with.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 11/08/2010 06:27 AM, hls wrote:
>
> "aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
> ->
>> 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.
>
> What about that hotrod turbo diesel Mercedes that has to have urea
> injection to comply with
> US standards? I would think that this one would have to have an NOx
> sensor, although I
> suppose they might use parametric processes to arrive at a value.

which is essentially what they do now using the oxygen sensors - the
catalyst's performance with NOx is mapped relative to its performance
with Oâ‚‚, and the Oâ‚‚ is measured live. thus, you effectively know what
NOx is with a simple look-up.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum