Talk:Exhaust gas/Archive 1

message: *The picture of the truck is ridiculous. 1) diesels rarely blow black smoke at start-up and 2) today's diesels don't smoke at all. Disingenuous depiction of a diesel which seems to indicate an agenda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.209.159 (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: *Quote: "In steam engine terminology the exhaust is steam that is now so low in pressure that it can no longer do useful work". What about coal smoke? Biscuittin (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam engines 

message: I added the 'out of date' template because the article does not give the dates for which the presented data applies.  Looking at the source of the 'Passenger Cars Emissions' table the data dates back to 2000 - it is 10 years out of date.  With current environmental pressures and technology advances the automotive industry has made huge improvements to their emissions over the last 10 years which have not been taken into account. -- de Facto (talk). 22:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for that statement?  Otherwise it is just opinion, without fact.  Feel free to add dates to the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: I added the 'Globalize' tag to this article because most of the data presented is very specific to the United States and that fact isn't made explicitly clear in the text. -- de Facto (talk). 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * The data cited is mostly old U.S. EPA data for the U.S.  U.S. cars mix (diesel/gasoline) is not typical, U.S. climate is not typical, U.S. fuel consumption is not typical, U.S. car use and transport mix is not typical.  I've just added some recent European data for CO2. -- de Facto (talk). 21:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for the new EU references. Possibly you will be able to add sufficient international references until you are content to remove the tag? Personally I think it would be fine to remove the tag now but more references from elsewhere and more recent ones would be a bonus. PeterEastern (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: I have redirected it to Air pollution to solve a lot of problems with this article. As well as the issues mentioned above the name of the article is unsuitable. There is no specific "car pollution" - it is really a "fossil fuel powered vehicle pollution". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed to Car tail pipe emissions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected to [[Air pollution]] 

message: Because an article has car in the title does not preclude close related info from being added.  Especially if that is the way references have listed relevant information for car. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The added information didn't specify what proportion of the pollution and smog was attributable to cars as opposed to the other forms of transport mentioned, and it didn't take account of the proportion attributable to other non-road transport contributors.  For those reasons, its inclusion here likely adds undue weight to the significance of the actual contribution from cars and without reference to the other (bigger) sources it also adds undue weight to the contribution of motor vehicles in general.  Your argument would equally justify the inclusion of coal-fired power generation plants in the lead if you could find a reference mentioning them in the same sentence as cars.  Cars is a subset of motor vehicles not a super-set, and motor vehicles is a sub-set of polluters.  The inclusion of that statement in the lead gives an unbalanced view of the size of the contribution made by cars alone, and so is unacceptable.  You need to find a reference which singles-out the actual significance of the contribution from cars. -- de Facto (talk). 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has been highly publicized here in the U.S. much of the air pollution comes from the millions of cars.  Studies have been done, but you find them unacceptable because they are old. There is a reason that cars are listed first as major produces of smog in the references.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a reference saying cars then coal plants are the largest contributors of ozone, if you want to incorporate it into the article: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/01/new_ozone_standards_put_cars_t.html .  And there are references indicating the major component of smog is ozone. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding related info 

message: It seems that the title of this article is being changed each time POV balancing content is added; to deliberately put that new content outside of the scope of the title.  First it was titled Car pollution.  Then it was changed to Car tail pipe emissions following the inclusion of content referring to forms of pollution other than air pollution.  Now its title  has been changed again, this time to Car tail pipe pollution, following the inclusion of non-pollutant emissions.  Where are we going with this?  What is the agenda for this article? -- de Facto (talk). 07:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Motivation for this article is to discuss car tail pipe pollution.  Original title: Car pollution was too vague.  I thought Car tail pipe emissions was a good title to discuss typically regulated emissions, but unrelated info was added, thus the change to pollution.  There is much debate about electric cars and hybrid cars and this article serves as data for that debate.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Where does it say that in the reference?  I don't see it.
:
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read it all?  It's on the "Emissions Trends" page.  Can you find a PDF link for the whole document - it would be easier to reference? -- de Facto (talk). 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, restored the text and made the reference point to page ten.  I could not find the PDF version.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In a 2006 publication, the [[Federal Highway Administration]] state that in 2002 about 1 per-cent  

message: Was the presence of the Beijing image meant to imply a connection between car tail pipe emissions and the apparent smog?  Beijing may well be known for its smog, but what evidence is there that cars (as opposed to other types of road vehicles or non-motor vehicle sources) are responsible in any way for it?  This WRI article suggests that the evidence shows that cars are unlikely to be responsible for Beijing's smog. -- de Facto (talk). 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that before I'd finished writing the above comments that the image has already been reinstated, with the edit comment "car exhaust is a major contributor to smog".  Then a subsequent edit adds references giving general speculation about smog.  Where is the reference that supports the assertion that cars have a major role in causing Beijing's smog - I don't see it? -- de Facto (talk). 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is about smog, it doesn't matter the location.  The second sentence in the article gives the connection between smog and cars emissions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beijing image 

message: As the data isn't readily available for cars only, and as the article currently covers more than just cars anyway, I've renamed it to Motor vehicle tail pipe pollution. -- de Facto (talk). 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The passenger vehicle data is available from the EPA. I was in the process of collecting that data, but will put it on hold for now. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it there for trucks and buses too?  If it is, then include it, as the comparisons will be valuable; or at least put it here so that we can consider it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The database is provided in mySQL format, so it is not easy to extract.  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to cover content 

message: This article is about Motor vehicle tail pipe pollution, VOC emissions by solvent use is not sufficiently notable for motor vehicle article.  Emissions by motor vehicle equipment such as gas stations is sufficiently interesting.  Also solvent use is shown the chart next to the text. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to widen the scope of the article again to cover types of motor vehicle pollution other than tail pipe emissions?  You carefully removed details of other types before when I added them (when the article title was broader) - do you remember this edit of yours?  You even subsequently renamed the article from Car pollution to Car tail pipe emissions (here) to narrow the scope to exclude other types of car pollution.  Gas station emissions are not currently in scope.  The reason that the largest source of VOCs deserves a mention is beacuse the first thing that a reader is going to ask when they see that motor vehicles are the second largest source is: "what's the largest source is then?". -- de Facto (talk). 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: O.k. how does one keep a limited scope while widening it?  Call it regulated emissions?  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have the scope limited?  Why not cover all emissions resulting from motor vehicle production, use and disposal? -- de Facto (talk). 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good article, but not one I want to tackle.  I'd like to see one that can be used for the debate of a car with emissions versus one that doesn't.  Sounds like the previous title of motor vehicle emissions is the right one.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Solvents in text

message: Here are the reasons for my adjustment of the VOC section details...  From the FHWA report you can see that only about half of the VOCs emitted from motor vehicles come from their tail pipes.  Currently this article scope is limited to tail pipe emissions, so to only about half of the VOCs emitted from motor vehicles.  To imply that any more than about 15% of the total U.S. VOC emissions come from motor vehicle tail pipes is therefore misleading, and to associate VOCs emitted from elsewhere with tail pipe emissions would be disingenuous.  We could widen the article's scope to include them.  Any views on this? -- de Facto (talk). 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See section above for how to expand scope.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOC sources 

message: I created a new article Environmental impacts of roads from content within the road article and with a stub in the Highway article. It was created at the suggestion of a contributor to the Road article following a discussion of how to rationalise the two articles. Please feel free to contribute to the article which I am unlike to do much more with. PeterEastern (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Environmental impacts of roads' article 

message: When is something deemed to be 'true' in Wikipedia. Is CO2 "part of the anthropogenic contribution to the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere which is believed by a majority of scientists to play a significant part in climate change" (as described by DeFacto showing a significant element of doubt on the matter) or "are an important contributor to the growth of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and therefore to global warming" (as per User:John Quiggin's edit which doesn't display any doubt) or "is a non-toxic greenhouse gas; the emissions are attributed to global warming." (as it was before John Quiggin's edit which has a different spin again)? This is not something that should have to be debated on this page and I assume that broader guidance on available - Possibly someone can point out the policy on this topic. PeterEastern (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEIGHT is the main guideline here. In a brief mention like that we have here, we should go with the scientific consensus on global warming. If the section is expanded, it would be appropriate to mention minority views, to the extent they are relevant to the article topic, while making it clear that they are minority views. Similarly, in an expanded section, it might be worth a more detailed exposition of the toxicity issue, making it clear that CO2 is not toxic in the concentrations present in the atmosphere from natural and human sources. My other problem with the text I edited was that it had the causation the wrong way around. No one (I think) attributes emissions to global warming; rather, climate change is attributed to emissions from cars and other sources.JQ (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 and climate change - fact or theory 

message: I am watching with interest the replay of the arguments I had with DeFacto on Overspill parking where we argued (and are still arguing) over the caption for a photo. It is of course good to achieve balance, but not an the expense of loosing the core message. Whether the part of the exhaust one can see if good for one or not is beside then point and I think the article has much more meaning with the single original photo. I find myself imagining an article about someone who was poisoned by an arsenic laden sandwich having the sandwich described as being 'all natural ingredients', 'fresh local organic produce', 'nutritious' and '99.9% healthy'. The relevant fact was of course that the last 0.1% was lethal - the rest of the recipe is not notable. PeterEastern (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Daniel, do most cars smoke like that for most of their journeys where you come from?  Do even 50% of cars smoke like that?  If the answer to that last question is no, then by, not only adding the image back into the article, but by also putting ahead of the more representative image, you are surely giving it undue weight.  I would respectfully suggest that you re-remove it. -- de Facto (talk). 20:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about emissions, and the image illustrates emissions.  An anology is the field lines shown in magnetic articles.  Do field lines exist?  No, but they are there to show what is being talked about.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight... 

message: The first image shows a picture of steam—not smoke—being emitted from a tailpipe. It is very obviously steam, and not only does the creator of the image agree (see :File:Exhaust.jpg) but asking for a citation on that point is akin to disingenuously obdurate behaviour of the type that does not improve articles. One might as well demand a citation for each of the vague, sloppily written, and technically incorrect words in the previous caption; it read Appearance of car exhaust on a poorly maintained or cold-running car.. A car might emit smoke from the tailpipe. It would be black smoke if the engine were running too rich, blue smoke if the engine were burning oil, grey smoke if the engine were burning transmission fluid (as could happen on some past models if the transmission's vacuum modulator were to rupture). White smoke is also possible, if a cylinder head has cracked or a cylinder head gasket has failed and the engine is burning coolant. reliable citations are available for all of this if you insist. Smoke and steam have characteristic appearances that differ from each other substantially enough to be easily differentiable by casual observation. Because smoke is made of particulates, it has a much wider, more gradual dispersion pattern; steam is made of water droplets and so vanishes much closer to its source—this makes the edges of the steam plume much more clearly defined than the edges of a smoke plume. You may demonstrate this to yourself in any of numerous ways; boil a pot of water on one stove burner and burn some cooking oil in another pot on the adjacent burner, or introduce some oil to the intake tract of a running vehicle and observe the smoke plume from the tailpipe and compare that to the steam plume of the same car emitting steam. 
Back to the lead photo: there is no basis for the claim that the depicted car is poorly maintained. Even if the picture showed a smoking (rather than steaming) tailpipe, there's still no basis for saying the car is poorly maintained, for it could be a very well maintained car that is simply worn out. Moreover, water is one of the main constituents of engine exhaust, and a brand-new, perfect automobile will emit steam from the tailpipe for a brief period when the exhaust system is cold, and steadily when the ambient temperature is low enough to cause condensation. We humans also emit steam when we exhale under similar conditions. It is not accurate to say the photo shows a "cold-running" engine; an engine that does not attain normal operating temperature (as for example because of a faulty coolant thermostat) will not emit more steam than an engine at normal operating temperature. The caption I've replaced this mess with is a much more accurate description of the photo, but the photo itself is a poor choice for this article. 
Rather than squabbling about captions for a photo of marginal relevance to the article's subject matter, let's coöperate to find (or produce) a photo of better relevance. It's growing more difficult to find smoking cars to photograph, as emission regulations for vehicles in use have grown stricter. However, it still ought to be possible sooner or later to find and photograph such a vehicle, and then the caption will almost write itself. For now, an accurate caption on a sub-optimal photo is better than a poor caption on a sub-optimal photo. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it obviously steam? The basis for poorly maintained is obviously that poorly maintained cars emit smoke. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be glad to have this discussion with you. I started, and now it's your turn to read what I wrote and engage with the points I raised. Your one-line response amounts to "Is not! Prove it!", which is neither productive nor responsive. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that poorly-maintained cars emit smoke. Many poorly-maintained cars do not. I will refrain from asking you for reliable support to verify your assertion that poorly-maintained cars "obviously" emit smoke, because that would be petty and not constructive. Let's not lose sight of the objective, which is to improve the article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead photo