HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland)
Subject: Re: Air Care, emissions testing
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:52:16 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes (and draws a fancy picture):
> vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:
> >(This, incidentally, is why a hole in your muffler cannot help
> > you pass emissions testing.)
> 
> Depending on the shape of the hole, and its position, the exhaust gases
> could easily, and conceivably create a vacuum, and suck in more air into
> the hole, thus diluting the exhaust.

This does not help you however because their testers pick up the extra air
in the exhaust and conclude that you have holes in your exhaust system.
This is what happened to me.  

I was told that they don't care about exhaust system holes though - they
just can't get proper readings if such exist.  The manager told me that if
my holes (half way along the exhaust system) had been big enough, they
would have just shoved the probe into one of them and got the necessary
readings.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Date: 6 Nov 1992 19:15:52 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.civil.ubc.ca

In article <1dc674INNa3c@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>
>I haven't seen these stories, but I wasn't bothered by the tests.  They
>did *nothing* during the test which wouldn't occur in day to day driving.
>I suspect that people just aren't used to *standing* beside a car while
>it "travels" at 80km/h.  The RPMs used for testing are well within the
>spec range of any vehicle. 
>

I think the stories that have been shown in the News (everything from
blown engines to destroying the AWD systems on AWD cars) to be true. As
for the AWD problem, it seems the equipment they have setted up is build
for 2WD vehicles only (whether that be front or rear) and therefore wasn't
build for AWD vehicles. But as for the rest of the stories, I have a
number of friends who have gone through the Air Care tests already at
various sites and they have all reported the people they have hired to
do the tests are first of all not mechanics (had to ask what kind of
engine you have. So I guess you can lie?? Among other parts of the cars
they didn't know a thing about), are young whipper-snippers-gum-chewing-
just-out-of-high-school not trained individuals who just want to get the
tests done as fast as they can and not really worrying about how they
are treating the car. With one fellow, his tester almost drove his car
off the roller at 60 km/hr or so. Fortunately, he pulled back just in
time while the fellow almost had a heart attack watching the whole thing
from the side. And the stories about testers revving up the engine
higher and higher if they can't get a reading is true. Several of my
friends had their cars testing gone up to the redline or past the
redline and were afraid their engine would blow just because the tester
can't get a reading. And of course we've saw/read our share of stories
from all sorts of News source saying how their cars would fail badly in
one station but past with flying colors in another. And stories about
the $200 specials around the local shops so that no matter how little
the job is, they'll charge you $200 to get your license. And stories
about drop by $200 receipts so that all you have to do is pop by a shop,
pay him $200 and he'll hand you a $200 receipt and voila, you get your
license, in no time at all. No work done but no time lost.

So, as the original poster suggested, Air Care was a good idea to begin
with, but very poorly implemented and I don't think it's working now
will it work without changes and closing up some loop holes.

Thomas.

Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: bc
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:37:45 GMT

In article <1dc5gjINNa24@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.090403.6194@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>I heard that CO2 is one component they test for. But CO2 is harmless.
>
>CO2 is NOT harmless.  It is the most abundant "green-house" gas.  I don't
>remember whether they test for it.  They do test for NOx, CO, and hydro-
>carbons.

Just out of curiosity :-)  how do you propose to reduce CO2 emissions from
a "badly-tuned" engine?  I guess one method is to mis-tune it even more
so that one gets a lot more CO instead.  But I don't think that's what one
wants.  :-)

Dave
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:58:00 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

In article <schuck.721519561@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
>area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
>rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
>resources.

 But there will always be _some_ drivers that need access to downtown
 and parking there.  My favorite scheme is to systematically eliminate
 downtown parking spaces, on- and off-street, until the desired
 result is achieved.  Those who had to pass through would be able to
 do so, with less obstruction than now, and those who really had to
 park (not those who would merely like to park) downtown would still
 find space, although at a price.  Our much maligned towing companies,
 plus a bit more enforcing in no-stop zones, would clean away a lot of
 the system-buckers.
From: davison@selkirk.sfu.ca (R. Davison)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:14:31 GMT

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:

>In article <schuck.721519561@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
>>area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
>>rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
>>resources.

> But there will always be _some_ drivers that need access to downtown
> and parking there.  My favorite scheme is to systematically eliminate
> downtown parking spaces, on- and off-street, until the desired
> result is achieved.  Those who had to pass through would be able to
> do so, with less obstruction than now, and those who really had to
> park (not those who would merely like to park) downtown would still
> find space, although at a price.  Our much maligned towing companies,
> plus a bit more enforcing in no-stop zones, would clean away a lot of
> the system-buckers.

This is just pathetic!  Do you really think that people commute because
they like too?  Its expensive and inconvenient.  All I need is to have
parking reduced so that in addition to my 45min drive I can search for
parking for another 15.

There is a reason people don't take the bus.  Its inconvenient and
time consuming.  My current 45 minute drive (each way) is extended
to 2 hour bus ride (yes I have tried it) (yes each way).  If
BC transit were to stop wasting taxpayers money with pathetic
service people WOULD get out of their cars and take transit.  But
the solution is to make transit an attractive alternative, not to
make driving unbearable ... this is happening already without stupid
artifical barriers.


Rod Davison.
From: lyndon@unbc.edu (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: UNBC Faculty Lecture Series (Nov 12-13)
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:13:48 GMT
Distribution: bc
Organization: University of Northern B.C.

Faculty Lectures are presented by faculty members from other universities
on their areas of expertise. The lectures are open to the public and are
free of charge.

For further information contact the UNBC Communications Department
at (604) 565-5620.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Liquid Crystals: Solid or Liquid?

	Thursday, November 12, 10:30 AM
	UNBC Offices (1399 - 6th Ave, Prince George)

	Dr. Ronald Dong is currently a member of the Faculty of Science
	at Brandon University and also the Faculty of Graduate Studies at
	the University of Manitoba.

The Macroscopic Algae of North American Streams

	Thursday, November 12, 3:00 PM
	Heritage Room, 5th Floor, BC Bldg. (1011 4th Ave., Prince George)

	Dr. Robert Sheath from Memorial University's Department of
	Biology will give a lecture exploring life beneath the water.

The Power of Being Professional

	Friday, November 13, 3:00 PM
	Fraser-Fort George Regional Museum, Prince George

	The final faculty lecture of the week will be given by Dr. Gerald
	de Montigny from the School of Social Work at Ottawa's Carleton
	University.
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
	<schuck.720981803@sfu.ca> <1992Nov8.061043.6264@ee.ubc.ca>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 03:35:00 -0700

In <1992Nov8.061043.6264@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
														Morrison) writes:

>Yes, it would be nice to know how much an education really costs. 
>Currently we pay a low, subsidized tuition but after graduation
>the taxes I'll  pay will outstrip the value of our education and health system.

	If the education you're getting is so valueless, how are you going
to get a job that is taxed so high?

>So yes, I'll take higher up-front tuition fees if that means my
>tax rate goes down to about 15 to 25% when I am working.

	 I guess this means you're only in favour of education for the 
rich?


-- 
 John Henders      " Only _my_ words are relevant to the issue " 
  T.K.O.O.C.            <1992May11.073237.14684@rotag.mi.org>
                kevin@rotag.mi.org(Kevin "I'm not a net cop" Darcy)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:20:08 PST
Distribution: bc
Organization: Robert Smits

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:

> In article <schuck.721519561@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
> >A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
> >area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
> >rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
> >resources.
> 
>  But there will always be _some_ drivers that need access to downtown
>  and parking there.  My favorite scheme is to systematically eliminate
>  downtown parking spaces, on- and off-street, until the desired
>  result is achieved.  Those who had to pass through would be able to
>  do so, with less obstruction than now, and those who really had to
>  park (not those who would merely like to park) downtown would still
>  find space, although at a price.  Our much maligned towing companies,
>  plus a bit more enforcing in no-stop zones, would clean away a lot of
>  the system-buckers.


All that will do is limit the parking to those wealthy enough to afford 
it, and create a real hardship for the rest of the population. There 
simply isn't a practical alternative at present for many people that use 
cars downtown.


Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they 
want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken
Newsgroups: bc.general
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:42:12 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?

Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
to get anywhere. In addition the money saved on transit [plus a lot
more] would have to be spent on roads and new bridges to handle this
massive influx of traffic.

>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for 
>my driving, 

I sincerely doubt you can afford it.

>if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
>use. 

Don't forget the pollution differential. The formula above only works
if you pay a pollution tax.

>I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
>taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
>raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.

Only the provincial taxes could go into the highway budget. At least
half of the gas taxes are federal and never get back to BC.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
From: yking@cs.ubc.ca (Yossarian Yggy King)
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Canoe For Sale
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:50:24 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
NNTP-Posting-Host: sapporo.cs.ubc.ca
Keywords: canoe sale

In article <1992Nov5.234827.6413@sfu.ca> mcoyle@fraser.sfu.ca (Michael Francis Coyle) writes:
>14" Paluski canoe, used five times
 ^^^
Gee, now if I can just get one for my other foot, I can go waterskiing!!

>$500 OBO
>
>reply via email to 
>	mcoyle@sfu.ca
-- 
Yggy King       | Thinking the world should entertain you leads to boredom
UBC Comp Sci    | and sloth. Thinking you should entertain the world leads
B.C., Vancouver | to bright clothes, odd graffiti and amazing grace in
Canada          | running for the bus.    -- Ann Herbert
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:43:23 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>In article <1d947tINN4j3@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> leon@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:
>>
>>There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
>>subsidize the BC Transit System.
>>Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
>>is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).


>>Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
>>in some tax?
>>

>Because it's an underhanded way to slip in an indirect charge, and 99% of
>people don't complain?

>things should be fee-for-service, pay for what you get, and get what you pay 
>for. 

I agree 100% and I hope they introduce Toll roads for all the people
driving cars and polluting the air.

I also hope they up the tuition to the full cost of an education at
places like UBC. That means a 500% increase.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
From: kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland)
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:38:29 GMT

twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
> But as for the rest of the stories, I have a
> number of friends who have gone through the Air Care tests already at
> various sites and they have all reported the people they have hired to
> do the tests are first of all not mechanics (had to ask what kind of
> engine you have. So I guess you can lie?? Among other parts of the cars
> they didn't know a thing about), are young whipper-snippers-gum-chewing-
> just-out-of-high-school not trained individuals who just want to get the
> tests done as fast as they can and not really worrying about how they
> are treating the car.

When I went for my test they claimed that, because of holes in my exhaust
system, they could not get the samples they needed to make a proper
analysis.  They said I would have to get my exhaust fixed and come back.
I stated that I did not believe them because both parts of my exhaust had
been replaced in the last year - I did not hear any holes, did they see
any?  The guy responded, "No, but there could be some further under I
can't see - I don't want to look and get my pants dirty".  He was wearing
old jeans.  (It turns out there was a rusty third section I did not know
about.)

I don't know if this has been brought up in this discussion (David
Vanderbyl sort of did), but another issue is the size of the vehicle.
If a CO2 output based pollution tax is employed, my Tercel, even poorly
tuned, will still be taxed less than a brand new Lincoln Leviathan.  That
is how it should be, the use of smaller vehicles should be promoted, and
well tuned smaller vehicles at that.  A CO2 output based pollution tax
facilitates this.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: bc.general
From: manderso@mpr.ca (Mark Anderson)
Subject: Re: Referendum intitiatives in BC
Reply-To: manderso@mprgate.mpr.ca (Mark Anderson)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 05:11:37 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>Does anyone remember more clearly what the questions were?

One asked whether electors should have the right to submit questions
for referendum in provincial elections.  The other asked whether electors
should be able to remove their MLA from office between elections.

>And why haven't we heard anything about this?

We have.  I saw notices in the papers last week soliciting comments from
the public on the questions and referendum results.  Presumably a
commission will make recommendations on how the questions should be
interpreted and the policies implemented.
-- 
mark
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 10:50:20 PST
Distribution: bc
Organization: Robert Smits

leon@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:

> 
> There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
> subsidize the BC Transit System.
> Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
> is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).
> Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
> in some tax?
> 
> Leon

It's NOT on everyone's Hydro bill, only everyone in the lower mainland.
It's done to raise money from residents of the lower mainland, who after 
all, are the prime 'beneficiaries' of the transit system, not residents 
elsewhere in the province who don't even have a transit system. 
Presumably it raises more money, and spreads the cost wider than a 
straight property tax.


Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they 
want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken|
From: koichi@unixg.ubc.ca (Koichi J Kishimoto)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:50:29 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:

>Actually, there is no corelation between engine size and allowable
>emissions in the air care tests.  This is because the measurements
>are ppm and %, the total volume of pollutants is irrelevant.

(Above reply possibly wrt my comment about engine size & emission)

When I called Air Care, I was looking for one set of numbers 
applicable to all cars manufactured in 1992. The "technician" who
answered the phone told me that this wasn't the case, and that the
maximum allowable changed with engine size. He required specific
model information, including engine size, before he could tell me
it's emission requirements. 

Without knowing more about the measurement technique employed
by Air Care, it's impossible to comment further on the validity of
the above statements.

>(This, incidentally, is why a hole in your muffler cannot help
> you pass emissions testing.)

The Vancouver Sun, some weeks ago, described how the owner of
an ancient Volvo passed the Air Care test with absurdly low
emissions. He had a hole in his exhaust between the engine and the 
tail pipe. Needless to say, this man has managed to insure his car for
another year.

>Dave.
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
From: vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl)
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Reply-To: vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Distribution: bc
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 21:59:35 GMT

koichi@unixg.ubc.ca (Koichi J Kishimoto) writes:

>>Actually, there is no corelation between engine size and allowable
>>emissions in the air care tests.  This is because the measurements
>>are ppm and %, the total volume of pollutants is irrelevant.

>When I called Air Care, I was looking for one set of numbers 
>applicable to all cars manufactured in 1992. The "technician" who
>answered the phone told me that this wasn't the case, and that the
>maximum allowable changed with engine size. He required specific
>model information, including engine size, before he could tell me
>it's emission requirements. 

>Without knowing more about the measurement technique employed
>by Air Care, it's impossible to comment further on the validity of
>the above statements.

The allowable emissions DO depend on the engine size.  For example a
'88 Ford Mustang (probably) has different allowable emissions readings
for the 4 and 8 cylinder models.  What I stated previously was that
"there is no correlation between engine size and allowable emissions
 in the air care tests".  What I am saying here (for the English impaired)
is that the 8 cylinder model (the bigger engine) may actually have lower
allowable limits for the air care tests.  This is because the numbers
used for air care are percentages and ppm (part per million).

kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes:
>I was assured by three different muffler technicians (all from reputable
>muffler institutes) that exhaust system holes *do* suck air into the
>exhaust.

I would like to know the name of these "reputable muffler institutes"
so that I may go to their libraries and examine the latest literature
on muffler hole air sucking.

>the air injection anti-pollution systems you describe normally inject
>right near (or at) the exhaust manifold do they not?

Yes, the air is injected into the exhaust manifold.
>At that point the
>pressures are much higher (due to higher temperatures and narrower
>channels) so air pumps are necessary.  The air must be injected at 
>this point because the idea is to promote more complete oxidation
>(ie.: CO -> CO2) - something that is facilitated by higher temperatures.

Two points here:
- The channels are typically not narrower in the exhaust manifold
- The idea is to also to use the higher temperature to burn any unburnt fule

Dave.


Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general