Keep the children safe?
2006-09-18 11:18:27 · 7 answers · asked by Margaret I 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Commuting
Maybe 7 or 8?
2006-09-18 11:23:43 · update #1
No but I'm worried about the air. Would 6 catalytic converters clean the air?
!
2006-09-18 11:31:36 · update #2
No, I have seen 4 on one and it doesnt do any better than 2 on one. Keep the kids safe, get them in Church
2006-09-18 11:54:29 · answer #1 · answered by Josh S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Law of diminishing returns applies here. The catalytic converter does nothing more than convert leftover hydrocarbons to their completed chemical reaction of carbon dioxide and water. Each additional catalytic converter may decrease the emissions by a little, but doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
As an analogy:
Think of it this way, at dinner time, the first pizza you ordered would taste great. Now you've ordered six. Well the first pizza slice typically tastes the best, as you get fuller and fuller you don't want the remaining pizzas and they could very well spoil/go bad/go stale/get infested with insects etc. So the first pizza did the best. Each additional one, though nice to have may not have been necessary and may even have been a waste.
I'm not sure how having more catalytic converters would help keep children safe. Catalytic converters generate excessive heat during the process of converting the left over hydrocarbons. So there is a reduction in smog, but probably adds to the increase in temperature and global warming.
So if you really want to keep children safe, don't use anything that burns any type of fuel or energy that would affect our planet in a negative way.
Oh and just to let you know, many modern cars do have 2 catalytic converters per exhaust line, but I'm sure the engineers have done the research to determine what is optimum in reducing the emissions while minimizing cost.
2006-09-18 11:34:07 · answer #2 · answered by hsueh010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For what possible reason would that be of any benefit to anyone except for people that sell gas since it would burn more. Besides from an engineering stand point it would be counter productive if not impossible. If you want to keep you children safe, keep them out of the street.
2006-09-18 11:22:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you one of those whiners that complain about the dirty air while smoking? I believe so.
Actually, if you lived in So. Calif in the 50s and 60s, you would have seen some REAL air pollution. It was TERRIBLE. Burned your eyes and made your lungs ache. SERIOUSLY! (I was there) It's real clean these days, compared to then.
2006-09-18 12:27:18 · answer #4 · answered by Trump 2020 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you work for a company that makes converters or are you just a typical misinformed, tree kissing, bed-wetting hippie?
Don't answer.... I'd just rather not even know.
2006-09-18 11:26:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If we use corn based fuels, there would be no smog.
2006-09-18 11:20:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. the children are safe enough. geez!
2006-09-18 11:20:12 · answer #7 · answered by Al Bundy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋