Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.
Don't think anyone on here knows the difference between NOx, CO2, methane, particulates etc.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, DECEMBER 18,1989
If you're the kind of driver who sometimes has trouble finding the brakes in your car, you should be driving an Audi. Last month, in 35mph crash tests of an airbage-quipped Audi 100, the mannequin in the driver's seat suffered the lowest crash force ever recorded by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, in this kind of test.
And yet, according to the Center for Auto Safety--a self-styled public interest organization that sells its research to plaintiffs' lawyers--the Audi 100's predecessor, the Audi 5000, was as deadly as the Audi 100 is safe. It exhibited "sudden acceleration," a fatal propensity to take off at full speed even as the terrified driver rammed the brake pedal to the floor.
CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car.
The Audi story is by now, dismally familiar. "Sudden acceleration" accidents occurred when the transmission was shifted out of "park." The driver always insisted he was standing on the brake, but after the crash the brakes always worked perfectly. A disproportionate number of accidents involved drivers new to the vehicle. When an idiotproof shift was installed so that a driver could not shift out of park if his foot was on the accelerator, reports of sudden acceleration plummeted.
"60 Minutes," in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket.
Environmental[edit]Before Concorde’s flight trials, developments in the civil aviation industry were largely accepted by governments and their respective electorates. Opposition to Concorde’s noise, particularly on the east coast of the United States,[239][240] forged a new political agenda on both sides of the Atlantic, with scientists and technology experts across a multitude of industries beginning to take the environmental and social impact more seriously.[241][242] Although Concorde led directly to the introduction of a general noise abatement programme for aircraft flying out of John F. Kennedy Airport, many found that Concorde was quieter than expected,[59] partly due to the pilots temporarily throttling back their engines to reduce noise during overflight of residential areas.[243] Even before revenue flights started it had been claimed that Concorde was quieter than several aircraft then in service.[244] In 1971 BAC's technical director was quoted "It is certain on present evidence and calculations that in the airport context, production Concordes will be no worse than aircraft now in service and will in fact be better than many of them."[245]
Concorde produced nitrogen oxides in its exhaust, which, despite complicated interactions with other ozone-depleting chemicals, are understood to result in degradation to the ozone layer at the stratospheric altitudes it cruised.[246] It has been pointed out that other, lower-flying, airliners produce ozone during their flights in the troposphere, but vertical transit of gases between the layers is restricted. The small fleet meant overall ozone-layer degradation caused by Concorde was negligible.[246] David W. Fahey, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that to produce a drop in stratospheric ozone of 1 to 2% would require a fleet of 500 supersonic aircraft to be operated. Dr. Fahey stated that this would not be a limiting factor for further supersonic transport development.[247]
Concorde’s technical leap forward boosted the public’s understanding of conflicts between technology and the environment as well as awareness of the complex decision analysis processes that surround such conflicts.[248] In France, the use of acoustic fencing alongside TGV tracks might not have been achieved without the 1970s controversy over aircraft noise.[249] In the UK, the CPRE has issued tranquillity maps since 1990.
Carbon Dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth.
.Carbon Monoxide is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, but highly toxic
These "two-way" converters combined oxygen with carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). In 1981, two-way catalytic converters were rendered obsolete by "three-way" converters that also reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx);[1] however, two-way converters are still used for lean-burn engines.
Here some about Aircrafts, let us use the Concorde as an example.
Here some for the greenies and tree huggers; get your Science straight.
By the way, whoever came out with the CO2 bullshit need to stop. Every living creature Exhale CO2, plants needs CO2, Sodas, Beer, Dry Ice, anything that ferments (decomposition, yeast, etc...) produces CO2.
Why they are NOT bitching, pissing and moaning about CO?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT Carbon Monoxide (CO).
.
You are getting taxed/penalized on CO2; right?
Catalythic Converters
Based on the Greenies science/logic.
My advice to the Greenies.... Stop Breathing and Breeding; you are killing the planet !
Some conservative types have been extolling the electric car company Tesla's fight against archaic and anti-consumer laws that prevent direct-to-consumer car sales. But Phil Kerpen, writing in National Review Online, cautions that Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) is hardly a model of free-market capitalism.
In fact, he says, the company wouldn't last long without massive government subsidies.
First, Tesla buyers get a $7,500 federal tax credit, plus a $2,500 rebate from several states. Then there are the environmental credits that California hands out to companies selling "zero emissions" cars.
A Tesla Model S, for example, gets four credits for each one that moves off the lot, which Tesla then sells -- at $5,000 apiece -- to other car companies that can't meet the state's zero-emissions sales mandate. In 2013, these credits netted Tesla $129.8 million
It's not as though Tesla is pretending otherwise. It says right in the company's 2014 annual report that its growth "depends in part on the availability and amounts of government subsidies and economic incentives."
Kerpen has a better way of putting it: "Tesla has effectively socialized its costs through subsidized loans, tax credits, abatements, and regulatory schemes while privatizing its gains."
True but very misleading. Both can be naturally produced but CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. CO is deadly but short lived after emission.