Talk:Diesel Particulate Filter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Don't Sign Articles 2 First usage of a particle filter (as standard) in cars 3 Misc 4 History of merging 5 Ohmigawd 6 How about the title in lower case? 7 Various issues 8 Well it was done 9 Fuel-bourne Sulfur

[edit] Don't Sign Articles

Hi Adam, welcome to wikipedia. Don't sign your articles. Instead, sign up for an account, and then other editors can see the articles you wrote and/or contributed to. Happy editing.TheRingess 23:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First usage of a particle filter (as standard) in cars

1985 Mercedes Benz introduced a particle filter in the 300 SDL (1985-1988)

• http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0,,0-5-7153-1-113957-1-0-0-0-0-0-3882-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-1,00.html
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partikelfilter#Geschichte

[edit] Misc

• I have a huge amount of information that I plan on posting here, but I don't be able to do it properly (formatting, etc.) for at least a week. UrbanTerrorist 22:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Just noticed that I wasn't thinking straight, and that I'm almost head down on the KB. Will try to get something proper here tomorrow. UrbanTerrorist 04:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh - if someone wants my cold they can have it - will try to get back to this later when I'm human. UrbanTerrorist 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of merging

On 18 February 2006 I merged DPF and Dpf and Particle filter (automotive) into Diesel Particulate Filter. Anthony Appleyard 08:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohmigawd

OK, I agree about the merge, but now the article doesn't make any sense. I've been sick most of the last two months (can't wait for winter to die) so I haven't been in recently. It's too late to do anything tonight, will try tomorrow. UrbanTerrorist 02:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about the title in lower case?

Isn't it more logical the article to be named "Diesel particulate filter" instead of "Diesel Particulate Filter"? Is is a normal word, not a trademark. --NaBUru38 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various issues

Well, I'm feeling a lot better now, so I'm doing a complete re-write of the article. It's gotten to be a horrid mess with all of the edits, so I'm going to beaten it into shape - and incidentily correct some of the falacies that have appeared. I suspect this will not please everyone, however as someone who works in the industry, and has done a lot of design work for installing these things on engines and vehicles I think I'm the best choice - and yes, you're right, there's no conceit in my family, I have it all. UrbanTerrorist 15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - it's done - everyone please check the spelling, grammar, etc. UrbanTerrorist 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well it was done

And thanks to NaBUru38 for fixing it up a bit, however I missed a few things - will try and get them in tomorrow. UrbanTerrorist 03:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel-bourne Sulfur

My understanding is that the main detriment of (and primary/initial reason for reduction of) fuel-borne sulfur is that sulfur is known to contribute to particulate formation during the combustion process, rather than interference with any post-combustion catalytic DPF regeneration.

Just read an article suggesting that <15ppm sulfur is required for DPFs, which is not readily available (from a global perspective). Thus the nominal limits of 500ppm and 50ppm used in many places would imply that the purpose of these directives is to firstly reduce diesel particulate formation. The use of DPFs will obviously not become significant until ultra-low sulfur diesel becomes mainstream. Jonathan 00:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)