2 cycle/4 cycle, define dirty
please.
I moved this topic for a different discussion and I am going to refer back to some of the postings from the fundraiser. Thanks everyone for adding to my knowledge base.
After talking to dad, I think we need to define what determines the term dirty and how does it apply here?
Russ mentioned two cycles being eliminated in motorcycles, yet all the Japanese and German bike builders have 2 cycle dirt bikes.
Then, the lawn and garden industry having to change engines. So, having been supported all my 16 years from that industry, and having a dad who has been very involved in the legislative process, ( fighting the EPA) let me say this.
For some reason few know, our government has decided to beat up on the lawn industry. I'm betting it is because the larger polluters give to much money back for election committees and EPA needs to justify it's exisitance.
As the story goes, second hand, in the late 80's, EPA went on an all out attack primarily on the lawn and garden industry by claiming small engines were making 10% of the worlds air pollution and they needed to clean up.
Then, many in that industry disassembled (peeled back the layers of the onion) and found out what was occurring. EPA claimed what they did based on two studies from what dad calls psychobablists, over educated PHd holding people, ( who if it were not for hand outs, would probably be to inept to hold a real job) who make their livings asking for, and getting millions of dollars in government grant (hand out) money. They were determined to prove EPA's claim that small engines did in fact, what was accused.
The first test included engines on lawn mowers (4 and 2 cycle) and string trimmer, lawn blower engines. The measured exhaust gas, and used a formula to multiply the estimated amount of lawn equipment being used. They further trippled the actual time these engines operate, which would effect end result, even though the study leaves this part off the results.
This test failed miserably, and did not even come close to the 10% goal. That result was something like .0321%. So, the two PHd's began to add engine size, until they included all engines with 100 horsepower or less, then relabeled what they called a small engine. At the time, several cars used 90-100 horsepower engines, and lots of small bull dozers use 90 horse diesels.
The claim came true when they left off those small details, and, for some reason it stuck in peoples heads (those folks dad calls mind knumbed sheeple). From there, EPa began using PHd grants and telling those who asked for the study what results they wanted to see. Hardly fair if you ask any intelligent person.
My math teachers (two awesome guys who race in the SCCA) say that Mark Twain once said "Figures lie, and Liars figure", and as I am putting all the stuff together for my extra credit report, I tend to agree. The original study which is still used today has skewed things that were studied. So, how did it get so scrwed up as it seems to be?
What determines a dirty engine from a clean one? If I was in this industry I would fight these people because they are wrong and they are lying.
Oh yeah one more thing....Bunker said and so did Russ, the design of the 4 cycle was cleaner. Then, how come when dad changes oil in his trucks, the new oil is brown and clear, and the old oil is black and filthy? Especially dirty on the diesel engines? Are they 4 cycle too?
This oil goes into the piston and gets burned off. A 2 cycle engine has mixed oil in the gas, and some exhaust stays for the next turn of the engine, but, it does not have all that oil holding carbon. And, most of that gas gets reburned, like an after burner on a jet.
I dont know much about this engine stuff, and it's not making sense to me.
