Thoughts on Induction motor bogging down

Page 2 of 2  


*pulling up a chair and gettin' me some popcorn....*
Penchant for voyeurism on more than level eh? :)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So far nothing but a long list of engine regulations..not peek-worthy. in fact, downright boring... I mean where is the entertainment?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

No problem, especially if they like pushing on a rope.

And where would that be?
Somebody forgot to tell my gardener.

Illustrates the size of back pack mounted leaf blowers, something that seems to cause you some confusion.

If you limit 2-stroke product below 25HP, you have covered at least 95% of the units sold in any given year.

Haven't worn a hat in years.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Evinrude seems to have pushed that rope successfully. So do several other manufacturers by using catalytic converters, stratified charge, and other technologies.

http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/other.htm#calbans has a partial list. http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/04/local/me-10352 has another.

Well, you might want to talk to him about it and ask how the California emissions laws are affecting him. You may get a surprise.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your point. There are no exemptions to emissions laws in California based on "size".

Which has exactly what to do with your assertions concerning "size"?

Maybe you should start.
The bottom line here is that you have some kind of perception of the California emissions regulations which is at variant with the reality.
The exemptions are spelled out in the regs:
2401(a)(37)“Small off-road engine” means any engine that produces a gross horsepower less than 25 horsepower (at or below19 kilowatts for 2005 and later model year), or is designed (e.g., through fuel feed, valve timing, etc.) to produce less than 25 horsepower (at or below19 kilowatts for 2005 and later model year), that is not used to propel a licensed on-road motor vehicle, an off-road motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle, a marine vessel, a snowmobile, a model airplane, a model car, or a model boat. If an engine family has models below 25 horsepower (at or below 19 kilowatts) and models at or above 25 horsepower (above 19 kilowatts), only the models under 25 horsepower (at or below 19 kilowatts) would be considered small off-road engines. Uses for small off-road engines include, but are not limited to, applications such as lawn mowers, weed trimmers, chain saws, golf carts, specialty vehicles, generators and pumps. All engines and equipment that fall within the scope of the preemption of Section 209(e)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and as defined by regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency, are specifically not included within this category. Any compression-ignition engine, as defined in Section 2421, produced during the 2000 and later model years shall not be defined as a small off-road engine."
209(e)(1)(A) exempts "(A) New engines which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower."
2403(b)(5): Engines used exclusively in snowthrowers and ice augers need not certify to or comply with the HC and NOx standards or the crankcase requirements at the option of the manufacturer. (6) Engines used exclusively to power products which are used exclusively in wintertime, such as snowthrowers and ice augers, at the option of the engine manufacturer, need not certify to or comply with standards regulating emissions of HC+NOx or NMHC+NOx, as applicable. If the manufacturer exercises the option to certify to standards regulating such emissions, such engines must meet such standards. If the engine is to be used in any equipment or vehicle other than an exclusively wintertime product such as a snowthrower or ice auger, it must be certified to the applicable standard regulating emissions of HC+NOx or NMHC+NOx as applicable."
The full text of the regulations can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/sore03/2fro.pdf and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/sore03/1fro.pdf .
If you can find anything in either of them that exempts leaf blowers please do let us know.
You might also want to inform the leaf blower manufacturers, as they have been laboring under the misconception that in order to do business in California they had to make special "CARB-compliant" models ("CARB" is "California Air Resources Board", not an abberviation for "carburetor") and I'm sure that they will be happy to know that they no longer need to do so due to your impeccable legal scholarship.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Haven't seen them at West Marine yet.

I'll have to learn Spanish first.
Most of the cities banning leaf blowers are doing it for noise abatement, and they do have a point.
Most of those cities affluent enough that any increased lawn service costs due to not being able to use leaf blowers will get lost in the wash.
When the guy walks by my window operating his blower, I simply have to momentarially halt any phone conversations.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, don't expect 2-cycle engines back in California any time soon.
Now if we could just get focused on a much more difficult problem of developing propulsion systems that reduce the carbon footprint by reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Seen what? Evinrude E-Tec? West is a Mercury dealer, Mercury and Envinrude are competitors.

Regardlss of the reason, they are banning them, which is contrary to your contention that they have a specific exemption.

Which has what bearing on the existence or lack of same of laws?

They're already "back in California".

There's nothing difficult about that. Most types of engine that run on fossil fuels can be made to run fine on hydrogen--some can even be retrofitted without much difficulty, and for many applications fuel-cell electric also works fine.
The problems is the development of propulsion systems, it's the distribution system and handling the transition.
As to where the hydrogen comes from, any technology that can produce electric power can be used to produce hydrogen.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Lets see now, WestMarine(Retail)/PortSupply(Wholesale) based on the left coast and Defender Retail/Wholesale on the east coast represent a major portion on the recreational marine market in the USA and neither represents Evinrude.
Sounds like a successful marketing plan to me.
The Japanese have been major players in the off shore market for several years now.
More 2-cycle development seems like a good place to invest.

Obviously not at my suppliers.

And here I've been lead to believe that fuel cell and battery technologies were the limiting issues.
Guess you learn something everyday.
I'm outta here.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I couldn't agree more. But you're talking different horse-shoes for different courses.
The prop geometry is determined by the power-band of the motor as well as the load it is pushing. There isn't a prop that does it all, hence controllable pitch props (which, as I'm sure you know, are not the same as variable pitch props). That holds true in all mediums, air, water, etc.
I think 2 stroke technology is much maligned because "they smoke". I'll take a clean running 2 stroke over a beadly designed/running 4 stroke any day. Then again, I still listen to vinyl, wear real leather and drink beer from glass only.
....and.... two-stroke diesel is moving a shitload of freight around the planet.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

different courses.
Naw, we're talking stink boats<G>.

Here in CA, they were banned when it was discovered they were a major source of pollution in the water table because of the additives in gasoline.
Most affected were the smaller applications.
Jet Skis, outboard engines, lawn mowers, etc.

the planet.
These days, strictly old technology with a finite life span..
SFWIW, trucks used to move containers in/out of the port of LA/Long Beach harbor have been identified as a major source of particulate pollution.
Most of these trucks are about a half a step away from the junk yard since they are usually retired over the road machines, many approaching a million miles of service.
L/A has simply enacted legislation outlawing vehicles past a certain age to operate.
The trucker's associations are objecting, but they will lose, it's an air pollution issue.
Think the first cut was 1989 vehicles.
Penske would never bought Detroit Diesel if they didn't have a new 4-cycle program ready to go.
All the major diesel players have moved to turbo, 14:1 compression ratio, and electronic fuel rack to comply to the new rags.
It's a whole new ball game.
It becomes a real PITA for a sailboat auxiliary.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
<snip>

Maybe to the tune of "you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd"?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.