OBD-II: testing cat for NOx adsorption

This is the last comment I will make to you, largely because your above reply PROVES how utterly misinformed you are (not to mention disingenuous and inattentive).

How in your feeble mind do you make the jump to an IR thermometer from anything I put in my above statement? There is no practical relationship between the piece of equipment (IR thermometer) YOU insist is a valid test and that which was mentioned by me.

You are totally, utterly and completely laughable.

You should have never convinced yourself that you could bluff you way through this.

you can't have it both ways buddy. either you want to bring in the i.r. thermometer as corroborative evidence, or you don't. you can't have it both ways - and certainly not if you want to leave out the important details that contradict you.

anyway, it's interesting that you use the word "bluff" because that's precisely what /you/ have been trying to do the whole way through this thread. your taking six lines in the first paragraph of your first response to say what could be said in one - well, it was a dead giveaway on what you were going to try to do next.

moving forward: don't bullshit people that know more than you. if someone contradicts you, it's for two possible reasons - they got it wrong, or you got it wrong. in this case, it's you. you may be a wrench that aspires to be a tech, but you don't know the science and you're ridiculously trying to defend that ignorance. read the cites, try to learn, and if you don't understand, ask. your presuming to lecture on catalyst chemistry is exactly like a crane driver presuming to lecture on metal fatigue and vibration harmonics. he may be aware of them as it pertains to his job, but he doesn't know the science and for him to presume he knows everything is retarded. regarding catalyst function, injector function, sensor function or engine computer programming function, neither do you - and to presume to bullshit as if this makes up for your fundamental knowledge deficit is retarded.

I thought I was pretty clear about being on the -don't- side.

Never attempted to.

Like?

Simply stated Jim, you don't know what you don't know.

Maybe your little Bosch book explains that there is a difference between an infra-red thermometer and an infra-red gas analyzer (there is). What I do know is; if it's in there, you haven't managed to read that part yet.

Oooo, a spell pecker. What a clever way to cover up your multiple faux pas.

I'll keep that in mind should it ever happen.

Uh, no Jimmy, it is you who has demonstrated numerous times who iis wrong.

You perceive that slightly backwards. I grew bored and annoyed constantly having to deal with phony, plastic transparent paper smart dullards like you.

Why do you feel the need to fabricate? I never lectured on catalyst chemistry. You pulled that out of your ass in an attempt to prove yourself. Actually, you admitted that you pulled it out of the Bosch book which tells me you have no real everyday practical working knowledge in the subject.

Still waiting for your credentials.

What about that hotrod turbo diesel Mercedes that has to have urea injection to comply with US standards? I would think that this one would have to have an NOx sensor, although I suppose they might use parametric processes to arrive at a value.

eh?

you said: "I won't dispute that the injector pulse width alternates between slightly lean and slightly rich, the 5 second interval though does not jive with conventional wisdom or what can be observed when one views O2 sensor activity on a lab scope and injector on time on a lab scope via a low amps probe."

you didn't need to mention "probe" and definitely not "low amps". you also didn't need to mention "conventional wisdom". the latter is an appeal to authority - something you typically see on usenet when someone is trying to assert a position, but without being able to back it up. the former is the language of a low end tech using tools he doesn't adequately understand. no engineer would use language like that since it's the values and the waveform that are important - neither of which you evidence any understanding of.

besides - all that was relevant in your pretense was the 5s interval. if you knew your stuff, you'd have just said you typically see intervals of [insert value] seconds, not dress it up in some irrelevant bullshit as a masquerade of being something you're not.

denial isn't helping you.

actually, the "numerous times" is your denial. i've cited "numerous times" stuff you need to learn to be able to understand to be able to speak, but you keep refusing to learn.

and here we have it - people with knowledge trying to help a guy that doesn't have it, and getting a negative reaction to learning resistance.

you said: "There is no reduction "side." The oxidation and reduction processes occur at the same place, same time on the noble metals within the cat-con. Some of these metals are more efficient at NOx reduction, some are more efficient at HC/CO oxidation but they all participate in the process. A loss in efficiency treating one pollutant will result in a loss of efficiency in the other two."

i had the temerity to point out that like your "5 second" diatribe, you not only didn't understand what you were talking about, but you were trying to pose as someone that did.

i cited the bosch book for two reasons:

1. because it was something /you/ could look at [since you apparently need to].
2. it's authoritative.

and here we are with you /still/ in denial.

this is usenet and that game is for retards.

the beauty of usenet is that anyone can say anything they want. the ugly side of usenet is is that anyone can say anything they want. they can even pose as a vehicle tech that doesn't know anything about catalytic converter operation, sensor operation, or the principles of control. ["control" is an engineering term.]

all that matters on usenet is whether what you say stands. a "black box guy" fundamentally has nothing to stand with.

which is essentially what they do now using the oxygen sensors - the catalyst's performance with NOx is mapped relative to its performance with O?, and the O? is measured live. thus, you effectively know what NOx is with a simple look-up.