I saw this on Yahoo Newspage....

Yep...Yahoo has things like this as their big picture headline with jumbo text accompanying it and then below has other headlines that I guess are just boring or unimportant in mini-text. Some of these include "Mideast war rages with no end in sight" and "Britain likely to hand over Basra in 2007." You know a news source website, such as Yahoo, has turned to s**t when you first hear about Castro ceding his power from Perez Hilton's blog.

 

The idea of filling rubber automobile tires with nitrogen gas has been beat to death on Priuschat and Click and Clack's "Car Talk" on Natl Public Radio. Hypothetically the idea sounds good. But with an atmosphere of 79% nitrogen, makes no sense to pay for nitrogen in tires.

It does make sense NOT to drink bottled water. Pthalates leach out of the plastic into the water.

 

The idea of filling rubber automobile tires with nitrogen gas has been beat to death on Priuschat and Click and Clack's "Car Talk" on Natl Public Radio. Hypothetically the idea sounds good. But with an atmosphere of 79% nitrogen, makes no sense to pay for nitrogen in tires.

It does make sense NOT to drink bottled water. Pthalates leach out of the plastic into the water.

 

How anybody can show a mileage improvement by filling with Nitrogen is beyond me. What is the claimed chemsitry or physics behind it? In fact, if it *does* lower heat build-up, then mileage should suffer as the tires won't get more pressurized (assuming higher pressure yields lower rolling resistance as per normal) as they would with normal heat build-up. ????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Aug 2 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]296674[/snapback]</div>

Didn't you learn this in high-school chemistry? N2 molecules are "bouncier" than O2 molecules. N2 = Bouncy. O2 = Not so bouncy. Your car literally bounces down the road when riding on tires filled with pure N2. :lol:

 

Anyone tried hydrogen, yet?

 

If you take this 'bigger molecule' thing further, every time your tires get low, apparently it wasn't the nitrogen leaking out, so that's all still inside. You air them back up and your % of nitrogen goes a bit above the natural 79% without paying any extra.

My bet would be.. you'll never recoup the money you put into having them filled with nitrogen. If you want to save the planet a gallon of gas, keep your tires aired up the old fashioned way.

If someone did analysis on how much energy it takes to build the nitrogen machine, then operate it, I bet the energy consumption needed to fill your 4 tires exceeds the energy you'll save by running them with nitrogen.

As far as truck tires goes... Sure, great to fill them with nitrogen.... but why hasn't anyone come up with a solution to the whole "Big hunk of truck tire rubber on the tollway" problem in the last 20 years. Can't 3M build a better glue or something? Nitrogen is not the problem with truck tires.

 

The guy in the article should have his engineering degree taken away and burned.. He's forgotten his first year engineering- the ideal gas law PV=nRT which, at normal tire operating temperatures and pressures, both nitrogen and oxygen (as well as every other gas) obey, and the physics says that as long as there is no water vapour, there is not going to be any significant difference between air and nitrogen.. The only thing that can significantly skew pressures up/down is the presence of water, which is a guaranteed component of just about all gas station air pumps (which generally don't even have even a simple a filter/water separator, never mind a drier that the best setups (esp. those meant for painting) have)..

If you attach a $30 water separator from Harbor Freight to your compressor outlet, you've instantly improved the quality of your compressed air; for a bit more, a dessicant drier can be added and now, your compressed air should show no measureable difference in a tire vs. dry nitrogen.. Certainly beats the $3000-12000 pricetag quoted for nitrogen generating equipment..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(c4 @ Aug 3 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]297137[/snapback]</div>

Not for this guy. Didn't you read, his tires maintain a constant pressure throughout the day. In fairness, I don't think anyone in the article claimed any technical credentials. Heck, one of them thinks that nitrogen is an inert gas. It's a shame that people are allowed to write about technical topics without anyone technical involved.
Many years ago (during the first great 'oil crisis') the local paper ran several "alternative energy" related pieces in their Sunday supplement. One of them was an interview with a local jeweler who opined that he wanted to design a tuning fork car. He had been studying the modern tuning fork watches and after all they kept running much longer than spring wound watches on a very small battery. When asked what his background was, his reply was that he had no formal training but he guessed you could call him a "theoretical physicist". They ran it all, consulting not even a first year engineering student. I always thought he was just designing for the wrong parameter. Properly implemented his idea could have yielded a car that ran very accurately at 55 mph.

 

A quote from the article.

"His gas mileage was about 19 mpg when he purchased his five-cylinder 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. Now, with the engine broken in and new tires filled with nitrogen, he gets 20.5 to 22 mpg depending on whether he runs the air conditioner, he said."

So, did the increase in mileage result from the engine break-in or the nitrogen? (You can give only one answer and it better not be nitrogen!)

And the guy being quoted is an engineer? Sheesh!

The only clear, measurable benefit of using nitrogen is to the person selling it!

The AP writer is incompetent and lazy too. The article is trash (don't people have any critical reading skills?).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 04:37 PM) [snapback]297241[/snapback]</div>

Indicating that this random guy is an "engineer" is meant to imply "technical credentials". N2 is pretty inert especally compared to O2 (not as inert as noble gases, which are as inert as they come).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Aug 2 2006, 08:32 PM) [snapback]296660[/snapback]</div>

More nonsense (maybe, probably, you are kidding).

 

As long as Costco is giving it to me for free, I'm not complaining.

Paying 50 cents at a gas station for air of questionable quality is worth complaining about . . . especially if you don't get to all four tires before your time runs out! :angry:

 

don't feel bad, fineagedwine. the criticism is not against you, it's against the article. we happen to have a group of folks here who tend to be a little more educated than the average citizen (call it the prius drawing smart folks ) and when something debatable like this comes up, if it's related to someone's field or general area of knowledge they'll chime in. sometimes very critically, whether deserved (this article does deserve it) or not. in this case, it all boils down to "don't waste your money." don't take it personally, really.

by reading some of the debates around here, you'll learn a lot about a lot of things, not just cars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 3 2006, 07:36 PM) [snapback]297460[/snapback]</div>

Huh? What makes you draw that conclusion?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(njkayaker @ Aug 3 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]297303[/snapback]</div>

You are, of courese correct. I cannot explain why in two readings of the OP that I failed to notice "Bourque, an engineer" , however I did (Must be my complete lack of critical reading skills.)

I guess I have to confess that the concept of relative "inertness" is a new one to me. Inert gases (AKA "noble" gases) are inert gases. Nitrogen isn't one of them. Not that it's relevant to the discussion.

I would guess that this "nonsense" is responsive to the idiotic analogy about filling your tires with air from the atmosphere when you wouldn't think of drinking from the scummy pond behind your house. OTOH, I took the poster to be serious about his belief that bad things leech out of plastic. (Doesn't mean I necessarily agree -- just that I don't think he was kidding.)

So, if I may be allowed to summarize your post:

1. I screwed up and missed something.
2. Your have a different defintion of inert gases that the rest of the scientific community.

WRT critical reading: Did you happen to notice that both I and skruse agree with you about this article, or were you too busy making up your repsonse to the things that annoyed you?

 

I've seen a big mileage boost by filling my tires with flubber.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]297476[/snapback]</div>

Hold on dude! The "critical reading" complaint wasn't directed at you. Note that this comment was made before I quoted you (the order is deliberate and meaningful: If I had meant to direct it at you, I would have put it after your quote).

The "engineer" comment in the original article is an important element of why it was trash. You missed it (not a big deal) and I pointed it out (nothing more). The article is horribly written.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]297476[/snapback]</div>

Of the many serious problems with the article, the "inert" comment isn't really one of them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inert
"Chemistry. Not readily reactive with other elements; forming few or no chemical compounds"

Of course, there's relative inertness: compared to O2, N2 is very unreactive (ie, it's more inert).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]297476[/snapback]</div>

The "pond" comment was deeply stupid. Anyway, the correct analogy is: Filling tires with nitrogen equals people drinking bottled water (silly waste of money) compared to filling with air equals drinking tap water.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]297476[/snapback]</div>

Well, my original thought was that the "leaching" comment was serious but it might not be.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]297476[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I did (obviously). That's why I focused on the quality (or lack thereof) of the article (the big thing that people hadn't thought to mention).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM) [snapback]297476[/snapback]</div>

I pointed out important things that were incorrect. No big deal. That doesn't mean that stuff I did not mention was incorrect also. One thing nice about forums is that it's OK to make (honest) mistakes. It's not like I'm perfect either.