Juli 31, 2015
Free Ebook , by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing
And exactly how this book will assist you? Do you believe that you have problem with comparable subject? This is no bother with this. Even you have had the sources to fix your problems; this publication will certainly finish just what you require. , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing is one of the books that that has actually been created by the trusted writer. With the experience, expertise, and facts that are used by this book, it is actually expert.
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing
Free Ebook , by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing
A service to get the problem off, have you located it? Actually? What type of service do you solve the problem? From what sources? Well, there are a lot of questions that we utter on a daily basis. Despite how you will certainly get the solution, it will indicate better. You can take the recommendation from some books. And the , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing is one publication that we truly suggest you to read, to get even more services in addressing this trouble.
Reading , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing is a really helpful interest as well as doing that can be undergone any time. It implies that reading a book will not restrict your activity, will not compel the moment to spend over, and won't invest much money. It is a quite inexpensive and obtainable point to acquire , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing But, keeping that quite inexpensive thing, you can get something new, , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing something that you never do and get in your life.
Why should soft documents? As this , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing, lots of people also will have to buy the book earlier. But, in some cases it's up until now method to get the book , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing, even in other nation or city. So, to alleviate you in locating guides , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing that will sustain you, we assist you by supplying the lists. It's not just the listing. We will certainly give the suggested book , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing link that can be downloaded straight. So, it will certainly not require more times and even days to pose it and also various other publications.
If puzzled on how to obtain guide, you could not need to get perplexed any more. This web site is offered for you in order to help everything to find guide. Due to the fact that we have completed books from world writers from several nations, you necessity to get guide will certainly be so simple right here. When this , By Jack Ewing Jack Ewing tends to be the book that you require so much, you can locate it in the link download. So, it's extremely easy after that exactly how you get this book without spending many times to browse and also locate, experimentation in guide store.
Product details
File Size: 16077 KB
Print Length: 344 pages
Page Numbers Source ISBN: 0393355918
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (May 23, 2017)
Publication Date: May 23, 2017
Language: English
ASIN: B01M5GVHXW
Text-to-Speech:
Enabled
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $ttsPopover = $('#ttsPop');
popover.create($ttsPopover, {
"closeButton": "false",
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "256",
"popoverLabel": "Text-to-Speech Popover",
"closeButtonLabel": "Text-to-Speech Close Popover",
"content": '
});
});
X-Ray:
Enabled
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $xrayPopover = $('#xrayPop_D2ED0CC45A6A11E9A3768DE579348FAD');
popover.create($xrayPopover, {
"closeButton": "false",
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "256",
"popoverLabel": "X-Ray Popover ",
"closeButtonLabel": "X-Ray Close Popover",
"content": '
});
});
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Not Enabled
Screen Reader:
Supported
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $screenReaderPopover = $('#screenReaderPopover');
popover.create($screenReaderPopover, {
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "500",
"content": '
"popoverLabel": "The text of this e-book can be read by popular screen readers. Descriptive text for images (known as “ALT textâ€) can be read using the Kindle for PC app if the publisher has included it. If this e-book contains other types of non-text content (for example, some charts and math equations), that content will not currently be read by screen readers.",
"closeButtonLabel": "Screen Reader Close Popover"
});
});
Enhanced Typesetting:
Enabled
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $typesettingPopover = $('#typesettingPopover');
popover.create($typesettingPopover, {
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "256",
"content": '
"popoverLabel": "Enhanced Typesetting Popover",
"closeButtonLabel": "Enhanced Typesetting Close Popover"
});
});
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#181,640 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
I really enjoyed reading the book, especially about the corporate and business conditions which made fertile grounds for the deployment of an emissions control “defeat device.†But I will restrict this review to a clarification of the part for which I have first-hand expertise and experience, namely the testing and regulatory side of the story as well as the players involved. I am supplementing the book with additional details to help clarify why real-world testing was not always done and about how it came into being. I don’t fault Jack for not sorting out the myriad details of this in finer detail because I understand that “Faster, Higher, Farther†was focused on the corporate and business aspects of the scandal and not so much about how it became possible to find the “defeat device.†I could easily write an entire prequel to Jack’s book just about the development, under the most difficult circumstances, of my ROVER/PEMS real-world emissions and fuel economy testing technology that was used by West Virginia University in finding the problem. Since my work is briefly described in the book, I will take this opportunity to provide additional, clarifying details of the account for the reader.Since the Volkswagen scandal became public, there have been many accounts or suggestions by many other groups that they either developed or improved the Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) technologies which enabled the real-world testing that was used to find the defeat device. These accounts and suggestions are simply not true. Jack was in no position to be able to sort through such conflicting information, maybe some of it off-the-record, because it was not the focus of his book. But as the pioneer of real-world engine and vehicle emissions and fuel economy testing, and as the inventor and commercializer of the real-world PEMS testing technologies, I lived through the entire process from the beginning to the present and may be the only person who knows all of the relevant details with corresponding documentation.THE SHORT VERSION IS THE FOLLOWING:I started working for EPA in 1991 and by 1995 I was unconvinced that laboratory-based vehicle testing results were providing the necessary information for the Agency to make the best decisions regarding the improvement of ambient air quality. Measurements of ambient air quality have always been the basis for the regular reductions in vehicle emissions standards over time. But vehicle emissions in comparison to those numerical standards were being assessed through a rigorous and well-known laboratory testing regime, using standard test cycles, and under very limited ambient temperature, pressure, and driving conditions. The standardized test equipment cost millions of dollars, required huge amounts of space and electrical power, and would not work properly outside of a laboratory environment. The adoption of more stringent emissions standards over time was causing more emissions control hardware to be used on new vehicles but it wasn’t clear to me that there were corresponding reductions of real world emissions. On my own initiative I developed the portable testing technology that I called ROVER and which later became known as PEMS. It was a great technological achievement, much more so because it was developed under the most difficult and adverse internal and external conditions. The PEMS technology development was simply a means to enable the ultimate goal: real-world testing. After proving that ROVER/PEMS worked, I used it successfully in many compliance and enforcement actions for the Agency while simultaneously commercializing the technology and getting it to market so others could benefit from its use. In fact, the Horiba PEMS system used by West Virginia University (WVU) to generate the data that was later used by others to identify the existence of defeat devices is the commercial ROVER system built under license to the ROVER/PEMS patents.THE LONG VERSION IS THE FOLLOWING:It wasn’t until reading Jack’s book in 2017 that I became aware that I had been working in such an unglamorous field while I pioneered real-world vehicle testing and invented the equipment that made it possible. But now that I look back on things, I agree with him, although I’m glad I didn’t know it at the time. My job included overseeing laboratory vehicle testing by an EPA contractor in the early 1990s. Witnessing tests made me wonder whether the test results had anything to do with what vehicles emit in the real world. The testing was performed in a sophisticated laboratory using very expensive, accurate, and precise equipment that was developed for this exact purpose and collectively cost millions of dollars. A large dynamometer was literally built into the floor of the laboratory and provided rollers that a vehicle’s tires sat on. The dynamometer controls were set by a technician for the specific vehicle to be tested so the rollers would resist the rotation of the wheels of the vehicle in the same way they would be resisted in the real world as vehicle speed changed. And the dynamometer had large weights that were chosen to simulate the weight of the vehicle’s inertia. The weights rotated with the rollers.All of the exhaust gas of the vehicle was routed through a gas mixing system that mixed the exhaust gas with a precise amount of ambient, conditioned air to prevent water condensation. A precisely metered sample of this diluted exhaust gas was then siphoned off into a collection bag made of special materials that would not chemically react with the gas sample. There were separate collection bags on a rack, each for a different part of the official test. The sample bags were also connected to plumbing which allowed the samples to be withdrawn and routed through very precise gas analyzers to measure the concentration of each regulated pollutant contained in the samples.A separate room in the laboratory usually housed the rack containing numerous gas analyzers which were used to measure the concentrations of each regulated pollutant contained in the exhaust gas samples. Other aspects of the testing process were also controlled from this location.The vehicle to be tested was placed on the dynamometer rolls and strapped down so it could not come off of the rollers. A well-trained technician drove the vehicle on the dynamometer by using the gas pedal, brake pedal, and gear shifter (in the case of a manual transmission) to match the vehicle speed with the prescribed speed published in the Agency’s test procedures (i.e. the test cycle). Gears were shifted according to a shifting pattern supplied by the vehicle’s manufacturer. There were separate tests and test cycles to simulate rural, urban and highway driving, but each of these cycles always had the same speed and distance driven.While a test cycle was being “driven,†the exhaust sampling equipment, as described above resulted in separate bag samples for each test cycle or phase of the test. Another technician in the control room would draw samples from each bag, one at a time, through the gas analyzers to measure the concentration of each regulated pollutant from each phase of the test. The concentrations were then entered into a computer along with the measured quantity of diluted exhaust gas flowing through the dilution mechanism mentioned above. From these values, the total mass of each regulated pollutant was determined and divided by the test cycle miles to calculate a vehicle’s emissions in grams of pollutant per mile driven. A direct comparison with the emissions standards could then be conducted because the emission standards were specified in grams per mile for each pollutant.It is of utmost importance to note that the emissions standards are mass-based standards. They are not concentration-based. This is because it is the mass of emissions that affect the health of people and the environment once the exhaust gases mix with ambient air. Concentration measurements require only exhaust gas analyzers while mass measurements required all of the dilution equipment and sample bags described above.Once I decided that I wanted to see what emissions looked like in the real world, the technical challenge was how to avoid needing most of the laboratory equipment described above. There would be insufficient space, electrical power, and carrying capacity on any passenger car and most trucks to be able to test with conventional equipment, not to mention that test throughput would be very low. Pulling a trailer was not an option in my mind. A system had to be very user-friendly, cost-effective, and applicable to any and all vehicles. As Jack mentioned, I had no budget and the Agency had no money for “science projects.†Many, many hours were spent figuring how to make a compact, energy-efficient system that would easily fit into a vehicle and would not need a portable generator to power it.When I first suggested the idea to my management in the Agency, there were 2 camps of thought relayed back. The first was that current regulations didn’t prescribe or contemplate real-world testing so its value would be limited because we could only act on laboratory-based emissions levels. The second was that even if mass emissions measured in the laboratory did not accurately reflect real-world emissions levels, the planned reductions in standards over time should be reflected in the real world. For example, if standards were expected to be reduced by 50%, then real-world emissions should be expected to go down by 50% as well. Neither of these management objections made any sense to me, the first because I felt the Agency was responsible for knowing what happens in the real world whether or not it had regulatory authority or a framework in place to do something about high emitting vehicles in the real world that passed the standard tests in the lab. I rejected the second objection because there was no information or data to support such thinking and I didn’t expect it to be true. Vehicles were becoming computer controlled which meant they could act very non-linearly and for anyone to think they could predict how changes over a test cycle would affect changes in the real world made no sense whatsoever.The technical challenge was to figure out how to replace or eliminate the need for all of the expensive and expansive equipment which was standard in any testing laboratory. I quickly realized that the key to the whole idea was accurately measuring the exhaust gas mass flow rate of a moving vehicle in a safe manner which would not degrade or affect the operation of the vehicle being tested. If I could accurately measure the mass flow of exhaust gas from the tailpipe of a moving vehicle, the remainder of the system would be straightforward in comparison. Of course, this all had to be done with no budget as Jack pointed out and while I continued to do my normal job duties.Years before I worked at EPA I had seen a device being used for liquid flow rate in an industrial setting. Without going into technical detail, it came to mind because it had positive attributes for my intended use and avoided problems that I expected to encounter in a dirty and wet exhaust gas environment. If I could somehow make it work for a highly transient, dirty exhaust gas that ranges from very little flow when an engine is idling to a very large flow when a vehicle is accelerating, I would have the heart of the system figured out. While this low-dollar part was being custom-manufactured to my specifications, I assembled the remainder of the system and wrote all of the software to control the first ROVER/PEMS system. I borrowed a gas analyzer, scrounged other parts, and worked many nights and weekends as Jack pointed out.Many hours were spent collecting and analyzing data and modifying the exhaust flow measurement device before it could be incorporated into the overall system and provide accurate measurements. By August of 1995, the complete system had been assembled and prototyped. It was a fully-functional, user-friendly system.I thought of other, simpler ways of estimating exhaust gas flow but rejected them for use in a technically rigorous testing program because the values would be error-prone and could be manipulated. More specifically, electronic signals from vehicle computers could be used but what I was seeking to develop was a system that would always give a correct measurement for any vehicle, whether it had electronic engine controls or engine data available or not. I referred to this type of testing as “blind testing.†I needed to develop a system that could be placed (blindly) on any vehicle or engine that would not require any information from the vehicle manufacturer whatsoever, to conduct a valid and accurate test of the mass emissions of the vehicle. To accomplish this aspect, I needed to develop the exhaust flowmeter as described above.Once I had a working prototype, I thought it would be an opportune time to use it as well as demonstrate it to others. I used the first fully-functional prototype in a compliance action in 1995 as Jack describes. This use brought the technology development to the attention of enforcement officials in the Department of Justice who embraced it. During the various enforcement actions in which the technology played a key technical role, also described to some degree in Jack’s book, the automotive and heavy-duty engine industry resisted its use and development. So, not only did my management not want me to develop the technology, but the automotive industry and engine companies, through their trade association, fought the development as well. (I hold no grudges against any of the automotive organizations because they probably had a justifiable approach from the point of view that it was extremely unlikely that some young, runny-nosed, government employee who had no real lab of his own, no budget, worked out of a cubicle in Washington, DC and had never even published a technical paper, would develop a system that is accurate, robust, and works reliably on-the-road. And, of course, it was desirable that real-world emissions remain unknown because there were enough issues to deal with, not to mention the undesirability of non-governmental organizations being able to conduct emissions or fuel economy tests on their own. But that’s all history now…).So there I was with a beautiful, fully-functional prototype that nobody wanted and that my office said had no use, once the investigations were done. So I conducted demonstrations for many organizations, both within and outside government, including state environmental organizations, universities, and other EPA offices. This is what created a demand for the initial funding that I eventually received years later – not for the development of the technology, but for the duplication of my system so those other organizations clamoring for it could use it. The funding allowed me to make 6 copies of the original system, which I loaned out to help those organizations and continue creating demand for the use of the technology, all the while single-handedly defending its technical integrity and validity of use with industry and within EPA.One of the organizations that I loaned a copy of the equipment to was West Virginia University. After my use of ROVER/PEMS related to the Department of Justice settlement with heavy-duty engine manufacturers in 1998, the settlement required the companies to conduct their own on-road testing similar to what I had done. But there was no off-the-shelf commercial equipment available yet, and because industry had fought against the use and development of my system during the settlement negotiations, they were allowed to have their own system built by a contractor, using best available technology. Well, there was only one technology available, and that was ROVER/PEMS. Like all good researchers, the WVU engineers evaluated my system in their laboratory. Initially they were very skeptical, in particular they made a laundry list of potential problems with my flow measurement technique. But after using my system and rigorously analyzing the data, they concluded that it worked indeed, that it was accurate, and they did not have to develop other methods of measuring flow. For all practical purposes, and certainly in terms of patent law, the WVU system that was developed was a ROVER/PEMS even though it used similar basic parts from other sources.Once the 6 systems were out there and others were using them, I quickly decided I didn’t want to be the 1-800 number help desk but I even though I wanted others to have access to the use of the technology. I was already patenting the technology and decided to find an appropriate licensee. Horiba Instruments was seen as the “gold standard†company in the automotive emissions area at that time. I felt it was necessary for me to license the invention to Horiba if I wanted it to survive beyond me. In other words, until the system became a commercial, off-the-shelf system available for purchase from an irrefutably reputable company, all of my years of work and accomplishments would disappear if I left (or was fired) by EPA. I expected automotive companies to generate data from any commercial system and try to poke holes in its accuracy and usability. But if I could get Horiba to manufacture the system and help defend the data quality, I could finally be done with the development effort and move on. I wanted to get the technology out of the laboratory and onto the market so I could do other things as I was viewed by my office management as a loose-cannon for conducting and continuing this work even though all of the usual controls to get me to stop had been applied by my office director (the usual poor performance reviews, lack of promotions, reversing the results of a desk audit promotion, and other means of professional isolation which won’t be discussed here).I made a phone call to Horiba Instruments, not really knowing if they had heard about my work. It turns out they had and things progressed quickly for a while. I met with a very high level of company management from Japan that wanted to determine whether or not I was someone they wanted to work with. Things progressed very quickly until additional organizational roadblocks were encountered. Those additional roadblocks, not described here, delayed the appearance of the technology on the market by another 2-3 years. But it eventually happened (other companies have also commercialized the ROVER/PEMS technology) and was available for West Virginia University to use in their testing program for the ICCT that generated the data later used by others in identifying the existence of the defeat device. While others have since used and experimented with real-world measurement technologies, the technology on the market today and used in the VW testing program is the same ROVER/PEMS technology that I invented in 1995. There is a straight and unbroken lineage from the original prototype in 1995 to the six copies of the system, to the commercial systems from Horiba, Sensors Inc, and now AVL and NGK.Once the licensed, commercial systems became available by Horiba and Sensors, EPA continued to use my hand-built systems for many years because they had more capabilities than the commercial systems. Commercial systems had the features that satisfied most of the small market at that time, but didn’t have all of the features that our test programs had come to rely on.I was able to leave EPA in 2008 on my own terms. I knew the benefits of my years of exhaustive work pioneering real-world testing and inventing the technologies to make it possible against all odds was finally irreversible. Inventing and commercializing the technologies made under the most difficult circumstances was accomplished. The technologies worked, made it to market, and would be available to others outside EPA. But most importantly, the research field of real-world testing had been established.I had been involved in many investigations in the past that used ROVER/PEMS, but I couldn’t have imagined my work and invention would become known outside of the automotive industry or used to uncover one of the largest corporate scandals of all time. After all, as Jack said, it was “an unglamorous field.â€
This book is superb. It's astonishing how fast it came to market. Of course it was begun before the most recent developments in the scandal, but it includes events that happened in mid-March this year and was published two months later, in May. There is no hint of the book's being rushed. I came across the book in the Atlantic Magazine, which had an interview with the author. Why read the interview, when I could read the book? Of course, I'd heard about the scandal in the press, but, you know, day to day journalism leaves you with a jumble in your head. A book could sort it all out. And this one did. The book is based on journalism by the The New York Times, no doubt much of it done by Ewing.The book is 274 pages long, and after enticing the reader in chapter one, Ewing doesn't get to the scandal until just before halfway in. The first half of the book is the story of Volkswagen, the legendary creation of the Beetle by the Nazis, the car's role as a counterculture icon during the sixties, the ties between Volkswagen, Porsche, and Audi, and the various vicissitudes of the company. Then 1992, and a rebirth of the company with goals of dominance, which eventually became focused in the 2000s on a diesel engine, supposedly more economical and less polluting than gasoline. I'm not going to tell the story. We have here a saga of an authoritarian, provincial company whose deceit has half destroyed it by 2017, and the investigation is only now getting criminally serious.The Vokswagen has played a very strong role in my own American family. My mother owned a Beetle back in the day, later replaced by Hondas. I still remember us all being crammed into the bug, and there were legendary family incidents that involved it. I have been in love with Porsches, especially that beautiful 356, and I've mulled buying an Audi, a Jetta, a Passat, though never did. Volkswagen seemed strong but perhaps a cut too austere for my taste. (What did I drive: an MGB, a BMW 2002, a Saab 96 then a 99, an Accord, a Ford truck, and now, living in the world's biggest megacity, Guangzhou in the Pearl River delta, I walk. Incidentally, Volkswagens and other German cars are everywhere on the streets here.)The book tells the story in measured prose, never purple. It is hard to say it's journalism. The prose is better than that. I even enjoyed the book as literature. I kept thinking, this is really good prose. It reminded me of Orwell. The book is unlikely to be a classic, because the story is yet ongoing. Later books will tell more. The book is an education——a case study in corporate culture, a reminder if one were needed of the need to regulate markets, a look at the impact of environmental regulation in the EU and America, it's even a detective story, I marked the big clues——e.g., that the nitrogen oxide levels in the cities of Europe hadn't gone down as much as the new diesel engines should have made it do, and of course there's the David v. Goliath story how a small group of American researchers (I am trying to avoid the words scruffy and ragtag) from West Virginia U. and California and German regulatory bodies working on a shoestring rigged a Rube Goldberg machine and tested the diesel engines on the road, learning that nitrogen oxide emissions on one Volkswagen were 15-35 times (not percent, times) higher than the legal limit. At the time the researchers had no idea what they were initiating. They thought their equipment might be faulty. I learned, too, about nitrogen oxide and what it does to humans and how it helps generate smog. Nitrogen oxide is devastatingly bad. It kills people and helps warm the planet by creating low-lying ozone. This deceit around diesel engines is a serious offense against humanity and the earth.The end of the story, not yet written, may be the loss of Volkswagen, or Volkswagen in another form. Germany can hardly afford to lose this great manufacturing company, but may do. It's unlikely any company in the world can now use the excuse, they didn't know they couldn't use defeat devices.I would buy this book and use it in your business class. Ciao.
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing PDF
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing EPub
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing Doc
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing iBooks
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing rtf
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing Mobipocket
, by Jack Ewing Jack Ewing Kindle
