"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:d641bd2f-d7b4-4d12-
[email protected]:
> On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
> years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
> pressure.
> It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
> out the dust?
> Thanks, Tony
It's well worth taking apart something like that and cleaning out the dust.
I can't tell you (because I haven't counted) how many things I've been able
to fix by taking them apart, cleaning them, and then reassembling applying
proper lube where required.
Puckdropper
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Nov 17, 12:38=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 16, 10:30 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lew, you're talking through your hat.
>
> *pulling up a chair and gettin' me some popcorn....*
>
> Penchant for voyeurism on more than level eh? =A0:)
So far nothing but a long list of engine regulations..not peek-worthy.
in fact, downright boring... I mean where is the entertainment?
On Nov 14, 11:24=A0am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:41:38 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
> >years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
> >pressure.
> >It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
> >out the dust?
> >Thanks, Tony
>
> If, in fact, it's doing it now and not before, I'd check belt tension and
> alignment first..
> Doesn't take much over tightening of the belt to make a 1/2 hp motor comp=
lain..
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
This reminds me of people wondering why they can't ski behind a 9
horse Johnson.
In fact, I will write a song about that tonight.
You Cain't Ski Behind A Nine Horse Johnson.
or.. should I make that an Evinrude? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_-7I0=
0cZUE0
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:41:38 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
>years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
>pressure.
>It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
>out the dust?
>Thanks, Tony
If, in fact, it's doing it now and not before, I'd check belt tension and
alignment first..
Doesn't take much over tightening of the belt to make a 1/2 hp motor complain..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Nov 16, 10:30=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Lew, you're talking through your hat.
>
*pulling up a chair and gettin' me some popcorn....*
On Nov 15, 9:21=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> > I will write a song about that tonight.
> > You Cain't Ski Behind A Nine Horse Johnson.
> > or.. should I make that an Evinrude?
>
> Mismatched props maybe?
>
> Lew
If you are referring to the video comparison between the 225 HP 4
stroke and the 225 HP 2 stroke, I assure you that there is something
magical when it comes to a high HP 2 stroke engine and bottom end
torque.
Even a small 250 cc two-stroke dirt bike has capabilities that most
400 cc+ 4-strokers can only dream about.
That is... fuel consumption and pollution aside... there's always a
trade-off. I have no idea what Evinrude has done to the concept of two-
stroke engines to make them more palatable, but I am about to find
out.
Prop matching is still hampered by limited RPM ranges though.
"Robatoy" wrote:
If you are referring to the video comparison between the 225 HP 4
stroke and the 225 HP 2 stroke, I assure you that there is something
magical when it comes to a high HP 2 stroke engine and bottom end
torque.
My comment was directed at the application.
Sailboats (heavy load) require large props, often 4 blade, relatively
low RPM while ski boats (Light load) require smaller props, 2 or 3
blade and higher RPM.
Different horses for different courses.
> I have no idea what Evinrude has done to the concept of two-
stroke engines to make them more palatable, but I am about to find
out.
Since California outlawed 2-stroke engines except foor leaf blowers,
and California represents in excess of 10% of the available market,
why would anybody pursue a
2-stroke product?
Shades of a Detroit mind set.
Keep building tin cans with bigger tail fins.
Lew
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:27:55 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Check again. California has no laws or regulations that prevent the
>use of two-stroke engines. Their regulations are performance
>standards and any engine that meets them when tested per the
>regulations is allowed. The CARB site contains numerous mentions of
>compliant two-strokes.
>
>Further, there is no exemption for leaf blowers, perhaps you are
>thinking of snow blowers?
>
>If you're going to spout off about California regulations, at least
>LEARN WHAT THEY SAY first.
>
>--
I bought my chain saw in California and it's CARB compliant..
If you look at just about anything 2 cycle on the web it will most likely say
"not available in CA" in the ad..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Nov 15, 11:21=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> If you are referring to the video comparison between the 225 HP 4
> stroke and the 225 HP 2 stroke, I assure you that there is something
> magical when it comes to a high HP 2 stroke engine and bottom end
> torque.
>
> My comment was directed at the application.
>
> Sailboats (heavy load) require large props, often 4 blade, relatively
> low RPM while ski boats (Light load) require smaller props, 2 or 3
> blade and higher RPM.
>
> Different horses for different courses.
>
I couldn't agree more. But you're talking different horse-shoes for
different courses.
The prop geometry is determined by the power-band of the motor as well
as the load it is pushing.
There isn't a prop that does it all, hence controllable pitch props
(which, as I'm sure you know, are not the same as variable pitch
props). That holds true in all mediums, air, water, etc.
I think 2 stroke technology is much maligned because "they smoke".
I'll take a clean running 2 stroke over a beadly designed/running 4
stroke any day.
Then again, I still listen to vinyl, wear real leather and drink beer
from glass only.
....and.... two-stroke diesel is moving a shitload of freight around
the planet.
Do you have brushes ? Perhaps you have a problem with one or both.
Is the cord in good shape - it might have corroded over the time.
Martin
[email protected] wrote:
> On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
> years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
> pressure.
> It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
> out the dust?
> Thanks, Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
> years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
> pressure.
> It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand.
Strictly under peckered for the application.
You need at least 1 HP, better yet 1-1/2HP, 1800 for a belt sander
application.
A 1/2 hp 3450 RPM motor is not good for much more than cooling fan
duty.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Check again. California has no laws or regulations that prevent the
> use of two-stroke engines.
If you would like to add the word "defacto", be my guest.
> Further, there is no exemption for leaf blowers, perhaps you are
> thinking of snow blowers?
In California?
Snow blowers are only needed around the ski resorts along with the
snow making equipment.
Translation:
Snow is restricted to the mountains.
Back pack mounted leaf blowers are a way of life.
Commerical yard service companies couldn't survive without them.
A lot of chain saws have larger engines.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Nope. If the two-stroke manufacturers can make the engines pass
> regs
> they're welcome.
No problem, especially if they like pushing on a rope.
> Well, this is a nice rationalization, however in the real world
> several leaf blower manufacturers have been forced to exchange
> noncompliant leaf blowers for compliant ones, and many localities
> have
> banned gas powered leaf blowers outright.
And where would that be?
Somebody forgot to tell my gardener.
> And what does the size of chain saw engines have to do with
> anything?
Illustrates the size of back pack mounted leaf blowers, something that
seems to cause you some confusion.
> If they're larger than 25 horsepower it might make a difference
> under
> the regulations but beyond that I fail to see your point.
If you limit 2-stroke product below 25HP, you have covered at least
95% of the units sold in any given year.
> Lew, you're talking through your hat.
Haven't worn a hat in years.
Lew
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
On Nov 16, 10:30 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew, you're talking through your hat.
*pulling up a chair and gettin' me some popcorn....*
Penchant for voyeurism on more than level eh? :)
On Nov 13, 7:41=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
> years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
> pressure.
> It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
> out the dust?
> Thanks, Tony
A 1/2 HP induction motor is not really enough for a stationary belt
sander. And if it is actually 'slowing down' when using it, it is
likely that the squirrels have left the cage (so to speak). Besides,
for that job, a 2 pole motor sucks.
The whole point of a belt sander is that you set up an argument
between a motor and a brake. The motor is supposed to win by wearing
away your wood.
I HP minimum, or a quality 3/4 HP at -1800 RPM and pullied up to
whatever speed you want your belt to run at.
[email protected] wrote:
> On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
> years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
> pressure.
> It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
> out the dust?
> Thanks, Tony
Check to make sure the drive belt isn't slipping.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Seen what? Evinrude E-Tec? West is a Mercury dealer, Mercury and
> Envinrude are competitors.
Lets see now, WestMarine(Retail)/PortSupply(Wholesale) based on the
left coast and Defender Retail/Wholesale on the east coast represent a
major portion on the recreational marine market in the USA and neither
represents Evinrude.
Sounds like a successful marketing plan to me.
The Japanese have been major players in the off shore market for
several years now.
More 2-cycle development seems like a good place to invest.
> They're already "back in California".
Obviously not at my suppliers.
> There's nothing difficult about that. Most types of engine that run
> on fossil fuels can be made to run fine on hydrogen--some can even
> be
> retrofitted without much difficulty, and for many applications
> fuel-cell electric also works fine.
>
> The problems is the development of propulsion systems, it's the
> distribution system and handling the transition.
>
> As to where the hydrogen comes from, any technology that can produce
> electric power can be used to produce hydrogen.
And here I've been lead to believe that fuel cell and battery
technologies were the limiting issues.
Guess you learn something everyday.
I'm outta here.
Lew
Yea, good thought, but it's OK, it is the motor it self.
Thanks, Tony
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On my belt sander. Never used to do this that I recall. Sat a few
>> years, now it seems to bog down just sanding pine with moderate
>> pressure.
>> It is a 1/2 hp 3450 RPM. Not sure of the brand. Should I try blowing
>> out the dust?
>> Thanks, Tony
>
> Check to make sure the drive belt isn't slipping.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> [email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
> The whole point of a belt sander is that you set up an argument
> between a motor and a brake.
That's a great way to put it.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> If you are referring to the video comparison between the 225 HP 4
> stroke and the 225 HP 2 stroke, I assure you that there is something
> magical when it comes to a high HP 2 stroke engine and bottom end
> torque.
>
> My comment was directed at the application.
>
> Sailboats (heavy load) require large props, often 4 blade,
> relatively
> low RPM while ski boats (Light load) require smaller props, 2 or 3
> blade and higher RPM.
>
> Different horses for different courses.
>
>> I have no idea what Evinrude has done to the concept of two-
> stroke engines to make them more palatable, but I am about to find
> out.
>
> Since California outlawed 2-stroke engines except foor leaf blowers,
> and California represents in excess of 10% of the available market,
> why would anybody pursue a
> 2-stroke product?
>
> Shades of a Detroit mind set.
>
> Keep building tin cans with bigger tail fins.
Check again. California has no laws or regulations that prevent the
use of two-stroke engines. Their regulations are performance
standards and any engine that meets them when tested per the
regulations is allowed. The CARB site contains numerous mentions of
compliant two-strokes.
Further, there is no exemption for leaf blowers, perhaps you are
thinking of snow blowers?
If you're going to spout off about California regulations, at least
LEARN WHAT THEY SAY first.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
mac davis wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:27:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Check again. California has no laws or regulations that prevent
>> the
>> use of two-stroke engines. Their regulations are performance
>> standards and any engine that meets them when tested per the
>> regulations is allowed. The CARB site contains numerous mentions
>> of
>> compliant two-strokes.
>>
>> Further, there is no exemption for leaf blowers, perhaps you are
>> thinking of snow blowers?
>>
>> If you're going to spout off about California regulations, at least
>> LEARN WHAT THEY SAY first.
>>
>> --
> I bought my chain saw in California and it's CARB compliant..
> If you look at just about anything 2 cycle on the web it will most
> likely say "not available in CA" in the ad..
This is pretty much the case for chain saws and other small engines,
and there may be technical issues that make a clean small 2 cycle
impractical. Or maybe the manufacturers just can't be assed to do
anything about it.
Evinrude (or more precisely Bombardier) is using direct injection
(note--not direct _port_ injection but timed direct injection into the
cylinder like a diesel) to achieve clean enough combustion to meet
emissions standards. Supposedly their new outboards are cleaner than
the competing 4-strokes.
Note that this isn't your little 3 horsepower Lightwin we're talking
about--power output on current-production Evinrude outboards starts at
25 hp and goes up to 300.
Meanwhile in smaller outboards BRP seems to have only one model, a 9.9
HP four-stroke sold under the "Johnson" brand, that isn't a whole lot
more portable than a 25 HP Evinrude, so apparently they've also
decided to abandon the under 25 HP market (note that California regs
have a demarcation point at 25 HP, but I don't know if the
requirements change sufficiently to make under-25-HP engines more
difficult to bring into compliance than over 25).
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>
>> Check again. California has no laws or regulations that prevent
>> the
>> use of two-stroke engines.
>
> If you would like to add the word "defacto", be my guest.
Nope. If the two-stroke manufacturers can make the engines pass regs
they're welcome.
>> Further, there is no exemption for leaf blowers, perhaps you are
>> thinking of snow blowers?
>
> In California?
Yes, in California. If you don't like it take it up with CARB, I
don't make the regulations.
> Snow blowers are only needed around the ski resorts along with the
> snow making equipment.
The low utilization and their use only in winter is the reason they
are allowed.
> Translation:
>
> Snow is restricted to the mountains.
>
> Back pack mounted leaf blowers are a way of life.
>
> Commerical yard service companies couldn't survive without them.
>
> A lot of chain saws have larger engines.
Well, this is a nice rationalization, however in the real world
several leaf blower manufacturers have been forced to exchange
noncompliant leaf blowers for compliant ones, and many localities have
banned gas powered leaf blowers outright. Further, in the real world
the California regulations specifically exempt snow blowers, so it
would appear that you are a bit confused on what kind of blower is
exempted.
And what does the size of chain saw engines have to do with anything?
If they're larger than 25 horsepower it might make a difference under
the regulations but beyond that I fail to see your point.
Lew, you're talking through your hat.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Nope. If the two-stroke manufacturers can make the engines pass
>> regs
>> they're welcome.
>
> No problem, especially if they like pushing on a rope.
Evinrude seems to have pushed that rope successfully. So do several
other manufacturers by using catalytic converters, stratified charge,
and other technologies.
>> Well, this is a nice rationalization, however in the real world
>> several leaf blower manufacturers have been forced to exchange
>> noncompliant leaf blowers for compliant ones, and many localities
>> have
>> banned gas powered leaf blowers outright.
>
> And where would that be?
http://www.nonoise.org/quietnet/cqs/other.htm#calbans has a partial
list.
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/04/local/me-10352 has another.
> Somebody forgot to tell my gardener.
Well, you might want to talk to him about it and ask how the
California emissions laws are affecting him. You may get a surprise.
>> And what does the size of chain saw engines have to do with
>> anything?
>
> Illustrates the size of back pack mounted leaf blowers, something
> that
> seems to cause you some confusion.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your point. There are no
exemptions to emissions laws in California based on "size".
>> If they're larger than 25 horsepower it might make a difference
>> under
>> the regulations but beyond that I fail to see your point.
>
> If you limit 2-stroke product below 25HP, you have covered at least
> 95% of the units sold in any given year.
Which has exactly what to do with your assertions concerning "size"?
>
>> Lew, you're talking through your hat.
>
> Haven't worn a hat in years.
Maybe you should start.
The bottom line here is that you have some kind of perception of the
California emissions regulations which is at variant with the reality.
The exemptions are spelled out in the regs:
2401(a)(37)Small off-road engine means any engine that produces a
gross horsepower less than 25 horsepower (at or below19 kilowatts for
2005 and
later model year), or is designed (e.g., through fuel feed, valve
timing, etc.) to
produce less than 25 horsepower (at or below19 kilowatts for 2005 and
later
model year), that is not used to propel a licensed on-road motor
vehicle, an
off-road motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle, a marine vessel, a
snowmobile, a
model airplane, a model car, or a model boat. If an engine family has
models
below 25 horsepower (at or below 19 kilowatts) and models at or above
25
horsepower (above 19 kilowatts), only the models under 25 horsepower
(at or
below 19 kilowatts) would be considered small off-road engines. Uses
for small
off-road engines include, but are not limited to, applications such as
lawn
mowers, weed trimmers, chain saws, golf carts, specialty vehicles,
generators
and pumps. All engines and equipment that fall within the scope of the
preemption of Section 209(e)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Air Act, as
amended,
and as defined by regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency,
are
specifically not included within this category. Any
compression-ignition engine,
as defined in Section 2421, produced during the 2000 and later model
years shall
not be defined as a small off-road engine."
209(e)(1)(A) exempts "(A) New engines which are used in construction
equipment
or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles
and which are smaller than 175 horsepower."
2403(b)(5): Engines used exclusively in snowthrowers and ice augers
need not certify to or comply
with the HC and NOx standards or the crankcase requirements at the
option of the manufacturer.
(6) Engines used exclusively to power products which are used
exclusively in wintertime,
such as snowthrowers and ice augers, at the option of the engine
manufacturer, need not certify to or
comply with standards regulating emissions of HC+NOx or NMHC+NOx, as
applicable. If the
manufacturer exercises the option to certify to standards regulating
such emissions, such engines
must meet such standards. If the engine is to be used in any equipment
or vehicle other than an
exclusively wintertime product such as a snowthrower or ice auger, it
must be certified to the
applicable standard regulating emissions of HC+NOx or NMHC+NOx as
applicable."
The full text of the regulations can be found at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/sore03/2fro.pdf and
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/sore03/1fro.pdf.
If you can find anything in either of them that exempts leaf blowers
please do let us know.
You might also want to inform the leaf blower manufacturers, as they
have been laboring under the misconception that in order to do
business in California they had to make special "CARB-compliant"
models ("CARB" is "California Air Resources Board", not an
abberviation for "carburetor") and I'm sure that they will be happy to
know that they no longer need to do so due to your impeccable legal
scholarship.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> Evinrude seems to have pushed that rope successfully. So do
>> several
>> other manufacturers by using catalytic converters, stratified
>> charge,
>> and other technologies.
>
> Haven't seen them at West Marine yet.
Seen what? Evinrude E-Tec? West is a Mercury dealer, Mercury and
Envinrude are competitors.
>> Well, you might want to talk to him about it and ask how the
>> California emissions laws are affecting him. You may get a
>> surprise.
>
> I'll have to learn Spanish first.
>
> Most of the cities banning leaf blowers are doing it for noise
> abatement, and they do have a point.
Regardlss of the reason, they are banning them, which is contrary to
your contention that they have a specific exemption.
> Most of those cities affluent enough that any increased lawn service
> costs due to not being able to use leaf blowers will get lost in the
> wash.
Which has what bearing on the existence or lack of same of laws?
> When the guy walks by my window operating his blower, I simply have
> to
> momentarially halt any phone conversations.
>
> As far as the rest of it is concerned, don't expect 2-cycle engines
> back in California any time soon.
They're already "back in California".
> Now if we could just get focused on a much more difficult problem of
> developing propulsion systems that reduce the carbon footprint by
> reducing the use of fossil fuels.
There's nothing difficult about that. Most types of engine that run
on fossil fuels can be made to run fine on hydrogen--some can even be
retrofitted without much difficulty, and for many applications
fuel-cell electric also works fine.
The problems is the development of propulsion systems, it's the
distribution system and handling the transition.
As to where the hydrogen comes from, any technology that can produce
electric power can be used to produce hydrogen.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:51:22 -0800 (PST), Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>This reminds me of people wondering why they can't ski behind a 9
>horse Johnson.
>
>In fact, I will write a song about that tonight.
>
>You Cain't Ski Behind A Nine Horse Johnson.
>
>or.. should I make that an Evinrude? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-7I00cZUE0
Maybe to the tune of "you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd"?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
"Robatoy" wrote:
>I couldn't agree more. But you're talking different horse-shoes for
different courses.
Naw, we're talking stink boats<G>.
>I think 2 stroke technology is much maligned because "they smoke".
Here in CA, they were banned when it was discovered they were a major
source of pollution in the water table because of the additives in
gasoline.
Most affected were the smaller applications.
Jet Skis, outboard engines, lawn mowers, etc.
>....and.... two-stroke diesel is moving a shitload of freight around
the planet.
These days, strictly old technology with a finite life span..
SFWIW, trucks used to move containers in/out of the port of LA/Long
Beach harbor have been identified as a major source of particulate
pollution.
Most of these trucks are about a half a step away from the junk yard
since they are usually retired over the road machines, many
approaching a million miles of service.
L/A has simply enacted legislation outlawing vehicles past a certain
age to operate.
The trucker's associations are objecting, but they will lose, it's an
air pollution issue.
Think the first cut was 1989 vehicles.
Penske would never bought Detroit Diesel if they didn't have a new
4-cycle program ready to go.
All the major diesel players have moved to turbo, 14:1 compression
ratio, and electronic fuel rack to comply to the new rags.
It's a whole new ball game.
It becomes a real PITA for a sailboat auxiliary.
Lew
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Evinrude seems to have pushed that rope successfully. So do several
> other manufacturers by using catalytic converters, stratified
> charge,
> and other technologies.
Haven't seen them at West Marine yet.
> Well, you might want to talk to him about it and ask how the
> California emissions laws are affecting him. You may get a
> surprise.
I'll have to learn Spanish first.
Most of the cities banning leaf blowers are doing it for noise
abatement, and they do have a point.
Most of those cities affluent enough that any increased lawn service
costs due to not being able to use leaf blowers will get lost in the
wash.
When the guy walks by my window operating his blower, I simply have to
momentarially halt any phone conversations.
As far as the rest of it is concerned, don't expect 2-cycle engines
back in California any time soon.
Now if we could just get focused on a much more difficult problem of
developing propulsion systems that reduce the carbon footprint by
reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Lew