If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example. :-( Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time. So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off occasional examples. And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW. No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and solar are not. And what is your broadly applicable solution, then? Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:17:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: --- snip --- We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted. We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras. False. It is growing hugely here. Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find the profits are in the latter. So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits. THat's an interesting theory. I thought that if really was a national issue it wouldn't need subsidising: the business would go ahead under its own steam. Even fossil fuels are subsidised. Yep. With other peoples (read: our) money. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:15:05 -0400, Paul
wrote: As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-) It's not compatible with older engines. It's been known to affect seals on some engines. (That's what I was told at the dealership.) True, all modern cars have had to be re-engineered to enable them to survive ethanol if and when they encounter it. As for the effects, they're just too complicated to comment on. https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/en...s-11-00221.pdf I was referring to some extent, to an overall system analysis taking all inputs into account, and the conclusion that ethanol was worse for the environment as a result. It's not a net positive, and it's a farm subsidy program. Quite right. With three-way catalyst systems and stoichiometric engine operation, the modern car is already pretty clean. Just CO2 and H20 come out the tail pipe (once the cat is fully heated up). One of the "ways" on the cat, takes care of CO, another takes care of NOx. Wikipedia has details. Ethanol is not needed, to make that happen. Ethanol would affect the fuel octane rating (knock etc). Its good for that but its lower calorific value means the engine will be down on both power and economy. Paul -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
Carlos E.R. wrote:
It does. Remove ethanol, you have to add some other chemical. You use more "blend", as "fractions" are taken off the giant column at the refinery. The chemicals would be things like octanol, benzene, xylene, there might even be acetone. A total of 200 compounds. Toluene is probably a significant one. The blend changes every week, and as the atmospheric average temperature drops, the gas composition is adjusted to make starting easier in cold weather. Gasoline is a blend, just like varsol (stands for "various solvents") is a blend. And as a kind of joke, there's an area at the front of the refinery where 5 gallon pails of varsol are filled (by hand!). While on the other side of the refinery property, is parked a 1000 foot long supertanker. The absurdity of it all. You would think they would be filling rail cars with varsol. The fun part, is turning those tankers around, so they can leave. But that's all gone now, and that refinery no longer exists. No more lighting up the night sky, with the flare stack (that refinery used to flare a fair amount). Sometimes the flame coming out of the flare stack would be 50 to 100 feet high. And you'd be wondering "is it about to blow???". But of course it never did. Flaring was used, so they wouldn't have to bother setting up tanks for temporary storage, when something wasn't working the way it was supposed to. That refinery flared more than I guessed it was supposed to. And when you lived downstream of the refinery, you'd get to smell the effluent in the air. And that smell was absent at ground zero in the refinery. I'm sure today, that smell in the air would be a violation of some VOC law. Paul |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:34:36 +0200, "Carlos E.R." Give it time. One step at a time. I'm happy with that but all those enthusiats who want the world to set short deadlines are not. For old people like us, our strategy is "I hope to be dead by the time it gets really bad". A perfectly understandable side of human nature. I think the young people are getting a little alarmed at this strategy. That's made them "more enthusiastic". And change can occur rapidly. It's the instability that's going to kill you (the breakdown of society), not the environment. Everyone is shaped by the education they got, whether intentional or unintentional. I was sitting in a Grade 10 biology class, with an instructor that insisted we would spend the year memorizing a giant table of "kingdom, phylum, genus, species" for the year. I wanted out of there. So I moved into an "Enriched Biology" course. Strangely, there were still seats available in the course. I could not believe my luck. Part of it was conventional biology. It "sorta" looked like a biology class. And part of it, was distinctly, not. We read Rachel Carsons Silent Spring. We learned about population dynamics, population collapse, and "what societal breakdown looks like", using *real animals*. I think most of the students, the "theme" in this course was rather hard to take. I don't think if any officials in the education department, had any idea what was going on, they would have allowed this. Yet, the course content was the "right thing to do". The instructor was doing his best, to pass the baton to the next generation. He wasn't teaching, in order to get "one year closer to retirement". It wasn't a biology course after all, it was a "life" course. (It included field trips on weekends. This was not a 9-5 M-F course.) It prepared me, for this day. A second course, a couple years later, taught me to "think for myself", using some classical experiments. Again, the experiments were borderline abuse (I've read the background of some of these, and there is not agreement as to whether these experiments should be used on students). But seemingly, nobody in authority cared. Were these good things ? They were, if you could handle them. When you educate students, you want to make them think... without breaking them. I was seeing some pretty concerned looks on the faces of the students in my biology course. And part of that, is not understanding exactly what the purpose of the class is. Most of the time, with mass market education, it's easy to see what the plan is. So Grandpa, if you were asking "will I get my warm gravy at noon today???". The answer is "probably you will", but "you might not" is the other answer. And if your response to this issue was "a responsible one", would it have made a difference ? Might well have. Watching how animals figure this stuff out, is not pretty. Yet, that is exactly the level of response we're making. The animal response. Zero enlightenment. But at least I know how it ends. I have Grade 10 Biology to thank for that. So now I'll give you a hint. If a neighbor bites you on the ass... that's a bad sign (that's from an animal experiment). That means the end times are near. Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote: On 23/09/2019 09.49, Paul wrote: Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: --- snip --- We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted. We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras. False. It is growing hugely here. Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find the profits are in the latter. So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits. Even fossil fuels are subsidised. At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense", except as a market distortion and farm incentive program. It converts arable land that could be used for food crops, into a "gas station" that is not needed. As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-) It's not compatible with older engines. For some *very* large value of "older"! My car is over *sixteen* years old and is suitable for E10 (10% ethanol) fuel. For the same brand - Renault - cars from 1997 on - i.e. nearly *twenty three* years - are E10 compatible. [Dutch site: https://www.e10check.nl] FWIW, I think that - as you and others describe - use of ethanol in petrol fuel is a dumb idea, but mis-/biased information about non-compatibility of "older" engines is not helping. It's been known to affect seals on some engines. (That's what I was told at the dealership.) As for the effects, they're just too complicated to comment on. https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/en...s-11-00221.pdf I was referring to some extent, to an overall system analysis taking all inputs into account, and the conclusion that ethanol was worse for the environment as a result. It's not a net positive, and it's a farm subsidy program. With three-way catalyst systems and stoichiometric engine operation, the modern car is already pretty clean. Just CO2 and H20 come out the tail pipe (once the cat is fully heated up). One of the "ways" on the cat, takes care of CO, another takes care of NOx. Wikipedia has details. Ethanol is not needed, to make that happen. Ethanol would affect the fuel octane rating (knock etc). Paul |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:15:05 -0400, Paul wrote: As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-) It's not compatible with older engines. It's been known to affect seals on some engines. (That's what I was told at the dealership.) True, all modern cars have had to be re-engineered to enable them to survive ethanol if and when they encounter it. See my response to Paul. "modern" as in as much as more than *twenty three* years old! [Agreed stuff deleted.] |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example. :-( Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time. So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off occasional examples. And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW. No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and solar are not. And what is your broadly applicable solution, then? Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again. Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the meantime? I'd say fusion is better long-term hope. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
Frank Slootweg wrote:
For some *very* large value of "older"! My car is over *sixteen* years old and is suitable for E10 (10% ethanol) fuel. For the same brand - Renault - cars from 1997 on - i.e. nearly *twenty three* years - are E10 compatible. [Dutch site: https://www.e10check.nl] FWIW, I think that - as you and others describe - use of ethanol in petrol fuel is a dumb idea, but mis-/biased information about non-compatibility of "older" engines is not helping. I used to get tidbits about cars when visiting the repair shop. For example, the car had a current flow monitor, possibly tied into the charging path. I was told the reason that feature was added to the cars, had to do with the damage caused when the voltage regulator "jammed on" and the battery would be cooked by a railed field winding (the alternator could produce 18V @ 70A or so, boiling the battery). This had, on a number of cars, caused the battery to blow, and coated everything under the hood with battery acid. The car, after this happened, was normally a write-off. The added feature, was there to stop that from happening. So when having these discussions at the shop, the staff could provide historical perspective, of why something existed, or what the history was. For that battery one, some of the staff had opened the hood on a customer car, and found it coated with battery acid. They could attest to the damage it caused. Even if you cleaned up the car, the car would never be reliable again (that acid has a way of getting into everything). Now, if someone could only explain why "daytime running light relays" wear out :-) That's a regulatory difference between Canada and the US. Our cars here, the (running) lights remain on during daytime, for safety. Typically the rear running lights fail to come on, and it's a five dollar relay that does it. Some evenings, when I'm driving around, I'll count a half dozen cars with DTR failures. (They have brake lights working, but the running lights that help people space properly when driving, would be off.) In the electrical panel, the US car has the relay pulled, in Canada the relay is inserted. (The presence of the relay is part of the circuit design, so the car knows the difference.) And the net effect, is one more failure mode in the electrical system. (I've had one fail, and didn't notice until someone pointed it out to me.) Paul |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again. Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the meantime? I'd say fusion is better long-term hope. I think what society wants, is reactors that don't melt down. Fusion has that going for it. Just about all of the methods are "dirty". Even the vaunted Helium III fusion is "slightly dirty". If an article doesn't have pictures of decay chains and an analysis of radioactive pollution, something is wrong. The only time a tech is "pollution free", is when the first article comes out in Popular Science. What you don't want, is a radioactive tech that is so strong, it kills the robots half way through a session. ******* And nuclear isn't dead. You may not see the cement mixer churning in your neighborhood, but somewhere, it's working overtime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium "China intends to build 32 nuclear plants with 40,000 MWe capacity by 2020. India plans on bringing 20,000 MWe nuclear capacity on line by 2020, and aims to supply 25% of electricity from nuclear power by 2050. " So somewhere, there is less unease than here. Paul |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years
Paul wrote:
Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again. Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the meantime? I'd say fusion is better long-term hope. I think what society wants, is reactors that don't melt down. And spent fuel that doesn't need storing for millennia. Fusion has that going for it. Plus the limitless source of fuel, short half-life waste and orders of magnitude more energy. I think fission is still a valuable source of energy, but the TCO is huge and not enough countries are investing in it. The UK had three serious plans on the go until recently, but two bids failed. The remaining one won't come online until 2027 and will have taken nearly 20 years to achieve. It will have 3GW of power generating capacity. Whereas, In the last 10 years we've built 18GW of wind energy capacity to the point where it is contributing almost as much as nuclear to the grid. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
Chris wrote:
Paul wrote: Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again. Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the meantime? I'd say fusion is better long-term hope. I think what society wants, is reactors that don't melt down. And spent fuel that doesn't need storing for millennia. Fusion has that going for it. Plus the limitless source of fuel, short half-life waste and orders of magnitude more energy. I think fission is still a valuable source of energy, but the TCO is huge and not enough countries are investing in it. The UK had three serious plans on the go until recently, but two bids failed. The remaining one won't come online until 2027 and will have taken nearly 20 years to achieve. It will have 3GW of power generating capacity. Whereas, In the last 10 years we've built 18GW of wind energy capacity to the point where it is contributing almost as much as nuclear to the grid. Do you know if they have a solution for the size of the rest of the plant ? One thing that impressed me during a tour of a nuclear plant, was the size of the generating (turbine) hall. https://www.opg.com/powering-ontario...ngton-nuclear/ "Turbine hall 580 metres long by 137 metres wide by 45 metres high. It’s a space approximately six football fields long and twelve storeys high " The one I was in, was a bit smaller than that. The equipment sits at floor level, and isn't that tall overall. This means the "volume" above the turbine, is *huge*. So part of the cost of the plant, is structures like that. When you're standing in the hall, the scale of the building takes your breath away. I presume this is an attempt to hold materials that escape during a failure, but I don't know if this is true or not. The materials on the loose in there, should be in a secondary loop, and relatively clean. The main reactor has six foot thick walls. And it might be a bit taller than that hall. The fusion one won't need to be anything like that. While a fusion reaction chamber could be relatively small, and material control from that part will be different, I wonder if the turbine hall can be made more compact than it is now. It will probably need the same cooling towers or access to fresh water for cooling. From the outside of the plant, it's not going to look that much different. That's if you can actually transfer all the released energy out of a fusion reaction, into steam. I haven't seen any discussion about how that part might work. One reason for keeping the reaction chamber small, is to make it easier to machine and build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor My favorite is this one, because a computer figured out the crazy looking yellow plasma flow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X Paul |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On 23 Sep 2019 15:44:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote: --- snip --- We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted. We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras. False. It is growing hugely here. Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find the profits are in the latter. That's how it usually *starts* and for good reasons. In our country (NL) the current/future projects are no longer subsidized. And tax benefits are used in business, not just wind and solar power. I can't find the article I need but it explained how Warren Buffet (and no doubt others) structures investments in energy companies to obtain a generously acceptable yield. The investments are subsidised but only to the point that they break slightly better than even. But the way WB does it also garners a 25% (?) tax break which then is the principal source of return. Without the tax break the investment would not be worth making. N.B. In the kind of funny department: In our country, Shell is just *starting* to pay tax, because they're no longer allowed to deduct their foreign losses from their local profits. [1] [1] No, I don't 'hate' Shell or companies like it, I worked for them. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
On 24/09/2019 12.45, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote: It does. Remove ethanol, you have to add some other chemical. You use more "blend", as "fractions" are taken off the giant column at the refinery. The chemicals would be things like octanol, benzene, xylene, there might even be acetone. A total of 200 compounds. Toluene is probably a significant one. The blend changes every week, and as the atmospheric average temperature drops, the gas composition is adjusted to make starting easier in cold weather. Gasoline is a blend, just like varsol (stands for "various solvents") is a blend. And as a kind of joke, there's an area at the front of the refinery where 5 gallon pails of varsol are filled (by hand!). While on the other side of the refinery property, is parked a 1000 foot long supertanker. The absurdity of it all. You would think they would be filling rail cars with varsol. The fun part, is turning those tankers around, so they can leave. But that's all gone now, and that refinery no longer exists. No more lighting up the night sky, with the flare stack (that refinery used to flare a fair amount). Sometimes the flame coming out of the flare stack would be 50 to 100 feet high. And you'd be wondering "is it about to blow???". But of course it never did. Flaring was used, so they wouldn't have to bother setting up tanks for temporary storage, when something wasn't working the way it was supposed to. That refinery flared more than I guessed it was supposed to. And when you lived downstream of the refinery, you'd get to smell the effluent in the air. And that smell was absent at ground zero in the refinery. I'm sure today, that smell in the air would be a violation of some VOC law. We have a working refinery near my city. With a mountain in between, so we do not get the smell. The people on the other valley do. My father worked there. Only one flare stack now (not as big as you describe, I think), but there were three in the past. Once one of those fell into a tank, which caught fire, and then some other tank. Took days to put off. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
On 24/09/2019 20.15, Paul wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote: Â* For some *very* large value of "older"! My car is over *sixteen* years old and is suitable for E10 (10% ethanol) fuel. For the same brand - Renault - cars from 1997 on - i.e. nearly *twenty three* years - are E10 compatible. [Dutch site: https://www.e10check.nl] Â* FWIW, I think that - as you and others describe - use of ethanol in petrol fuel is a dumb idea, but mis-/biased information about non-compatibility of "older" engines is not helping. I used to get tidbits about cars when visiting the repair shop. For example, the car had a current flow monitor, possibly tied into the charging path. I was told the reason that feature was added to the cars, had to do with the damage caused when the voltage regulator "jammed on" and the battery would be cooked by a railed field winding (the alternator could produce 18V @ 70A or so, boiling the battery). This had, on a number of cars, caused the battery to blow, and coated everything under the hood with battery acid. The car, after this happened, was normally a write-off. The added feature, was there to stop that from happening. It measured battery current, positive or negative. My father two first cars (a Seat 600 and and Austin 1300) had a lamp instead, which would light when the dynamo or the alternator were not producing enough current and the battery was providing it. And the lamp did light often while idling at a traffic light. Later cars I do not know if they have such a lamp (the other lamp warned of low oil pressure), or it is lost perhaps in the dozens of other warning lamps a car of 1980 had. But if it exists, it does not light - perhaps as a consequence of switching from DC dynamos to AC alternators. So when having these discussions at the shop, the staff could provide historical perspective, of why something existed, or what the history was. For that battery one, some of the staff had opened the hood on a customer car, and found it coated with battery acid. They could attest to the damage it caused. Even if you cleaned up the car, the car would never be reliable again (that acid has a way of getting into everything). Yep... Now, if someone could only explain why "daytime running light relays" wear out :-) That's a regulatory difference between Canada and the US. Our cars here, the (running) lights remain on during daytime, for safety. Typically the rear running lights fail to come on, and it's a five dollar relay that does it. No "rear light on" during daytime here (Spain). I believe we should. All cars have a frontal daylight which is LED on most cars. Older cars are mandated to light manually the "night" main lights instead. Some evenings, when I'm driving around, I'll count a half dozen cars with DTR failures. (They have brake lights working, but the running lights that help people space properly when driving, would be off.) In the electrical panel, the US car has the relay pulled, in Canada the relay is inserted. (The presence of the relay is part of the circuit design, so the car knows the difference.) And the net effect, is one more failure mode in the electrical system. (I've had one fail, and didn't notice until someone pointed it out to me.) Curious! Your wiring is more complicated because you use the same red rear lights for turning indicators. I don't know if it is the same bulb as the "night" light or the "brake" lights. All Europe has a yellow-orange separate light as turning indicator, then a bulb for "night" light, and another for brake. These two (red) can be combined in a single bulb with two filaments. So three functionalities, three filaments or bulbs. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|