Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:23:39 +0100
- Message No. 3991
From: gmitropoulos@pnc.co.uk
Subject: RE: RE: Leaded/IUnleaded
Just forwarding again something Phoebus had contributed a while ago...
>>>>>>
The emmissions of well burned unleaded fuel are exactly the once Jorge
said, but if you could burn the fuel this well our motorcycle would be
faster, it would burn less fuel, and there would be absolutely no reason
to use a cat.
Only problem is that fuel doesn't burn exactly like this in internall
combustion engines.
Also, lead is an "antiexplosive". Gasoline tends to explode violently
under the heavy pressure and high temperature like inside the engine,
and if this happens you get a huge strain to the motor. So we need
something to keep this nasty thing from happening and this is lead.
Leadis also a lubricant for the valves and the piston, but it is a heavy
metal.
As such it is toxic, and it accumulates in the enviroment unchanged for
long time, and this is a problem in citys that have heavy traffic.
On the other hand unleaded fuel doesn't have lead, but it defenately
also needs some other "antiexplosive". This in the case of unleaded fuel
is cyclic hyfrocarbons like benzol, a proven carcinogenic. When an
engine that doesn't have a cat burns unleaded fuel, it still has no PbOx
comming out of its exhaust, but it has benzol and you can even smell the
difference! So without a cat unleaded fuel is less polutant when it
comes to heavy metals (Pb), but is at least as hazardous to your health
as leaded.
www@atic.org