Recent Topics
Pur 1 - 4,000 miles - hole in bottom
by thomasew
07/24/14 07:36 AM
insert image into post
by thomasew
07/24/14 06:53 AM
Happy Birthday Pablo
by Shannow
07/24/14 06:38 AM
My Father's new toy! (Alfa Romeo Spyder)
by Patman
07/24/14 06:37 AM
Algerian airliner goes missing...
by Shannow
07/24/14 06:36 AM
Mt. Washington
by Pablo
07/24/14 06:35 AM
Cooking alcohol.
by Silk
07/24/14 05:44 AM
G-Oil back at Walmart?
by zanzabar
07/24/14 02:29 AM
Marvel Mystery Oil on Suzuki GSX1250FA
by Franklim
07/24/14 01:03 AM
Biology and Chemistry
by MolaKule
07/24/14 12:05 AM
One Plus One Phone Invites Anyone?
by gr8gatzby
07/23/14 11:44 PM
Acceptance Criteria
by MolaKule
07/23/14 11:00 PM
Newest Members
Patrick0525, offroad1, cnowak1, Dave13, HuskyPilot
50737 Registered Users
Who's Online
85 registered (123Saab, abycat, 05LGTLtd, badtlc, Andy636, 6 invisible), 1432 Guests and 254 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
50737 Members
64 Forums
216710 Topics
3410914 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 13 of 14 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 >
Topic Options
#3311387 - 03/14/14 06:17 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 795
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Make it cheaper per mile and I'll gladly use it.

Oh look, common sense.

If politics and special interest wouldn't have gotten involved ethanol would have probably been a good deal for everyone. People in the corn belt would be enjoying cheap local E85 and the rest of us would get a price break on gas because of the lower demand. E10 for all was the worst possible solution.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3311392 - 03/14/14 06:23 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island
That's what's so stupid down here...

Grain lobby lunch with politicians, to force a mandate, and the cost per mile of ethanol "enhanced" fuel increases 3% before you take into account the easily recognisable BTU difference (4c/L reduction at $1/L fuel cost, payable under stoichiometric conditions, is now 2c reduction at $1.60)...it won't pay for itself to the user.

Top
#3311561 - 03/14/14 09:42 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Online   content


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14217
Loc: Sunny Florida
How many here have seen the Inspector General's report on the EPA?

Since many here defend them as a wonderful example of Governmental supervision.

And this is just for Tooter the Turtle with apologies in advance to the credible engineers here. TV, you may wish to note that while you were polishing up your dubious engineering studies both Clevy and I were out building businesses. We both earn far more money than almost any engineer and were doing it LONG before you got out of school.

Our style of smarts creates jobs for others and builds the economy while paying HUGE amounts of taxes into this Gov that you love so much. We are arguably greater contributors to your country than you yourself.

Chew on that, as I and many others here are very tired of the personal attacks and the complete baloney that you bring here.

And take a minute to read the IG report on the EPA, I'd love to hear a rational and intelligent comment on that one...


Edited by SteveSRT8 (03/14/14 09:54 AM)
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3311788 - 03/14/14 12:55 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
That's what's so stupid down here...

Grain lobby lunch with politicians, to force a mandate, and the cost per mile of ethanol "enhanced" fuel increases 3% before you take into account the easily recognisable BTU difference (4c/L reduction at $1/L fuel cost, payable under stoichiometric conditions, is now 2c reduction at $1.60)...it won't pay for itself to the user.


Are you in Australia? You have a corn lobby?

You keep trying to say that you can burn any dirty fuel and as long as you are at stoichiometric burn, it's clean and there's nothing to worry about. I think you're fairly sharp so I get disappointed when you put stuff out there that I know you know is wrong.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3312045 - 03/14/14 05:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island
read what I said...grain...there's more than one of them.

It's worse than a typical lobby, it's a company that controls most of the grain, and nearly all of the ethanol.

You keep referring to petroleum fuels as "dirty"...where do you get that from ?

You claim that ethanol doesn't need catalysts, yet have repeatedly refused to explain how NOx and high temperature equilibrium fails to occur with ethanol...laminar burning under rich conditions at atmospheric pressure under a glass bell is nothing like the conditions in a combustion chamber...and you keep presenting that as why ethanol is "clean".

Please explain (without bell jars and matches) how ethanol can be birned without needing catalysts like "dirty" petroleum does....I'm sure the nation of Brazil would like to know what they are doing wrong.

http://www.jbcs.sbq.org.br/imagebank/pdf/v1n3-07.pdf

Top
#3312059 - 03/14/14 05:50 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And this is just for Tooter the Turtle with apologies in advance to the credible engineers here. TV, you may wish to note that while you were polishing up your dubious engineering studies both Clevy and I were out building businesses. We both earn far more money than almost any engineer and were doing it LONG before you got out of school.

Our style of smarts creates jobs for others and builds the economy while paying HUGE amounts of taxes into this Gov that you love so much. We are arguably greater contributors to your country than you yourself.


OT ... my favourite humans that ever existed were Sir Harry Ricardo, Smokey Yunick, and Bruce Dickinson (Should be a "sir" IMO)

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3312058#Post3312058

Top
#3312060 - 03/14/14 05:53 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You keep referring to petroleum fuels as "dirty"...where do you get that from ?

You claim that ethanol doesn't need catalysts, yet have repeatedly refused to explain how NOx and high temperature equilibrium fails to occur with ethanol...laminar burning under rich conditions at atmospheric pressure under a glass bell is nothing like the conditions in a combustion chamber...and you keep presenting that as why ethanol is "clean".

Please explain (without bell jars and matches) how ethanol can be birned without needing catalysts like "dirty" petroleum does....I'm sure the nation of Brazil would like to know what they are doing wrong.



The U.S. government. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/emissions_pollutants.html#air

We've been using the stuff for 30 years. You're right and the U.S. government is wrong?

Brazil is burning their rain forest. It's not from ethanol pollution.

Man you've really got it bad.

Top
#3312069 - 03/14/14 06:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island
LOL LOL LOL

your link goes straight to acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, 1,3-Butadiene and benzene.

The first two are notably increased by the combustion of ethanol...

As to Brazil's pollution...you are delusional...I ask again, if ethanol is so pure and clean, why they need catalysts (I provided a link, but you ignored it).

Top
#3312074 - 03/14/14 06:12 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
...you are delusional...I ask again, if ethanol is so pure and clean, why they need catalysts (I provided a link, but you ignored it).


I'm delusional, the U.S. government is delusional, all the major environmental scientists are delusional. The Aussie government is delusional. Brazil is delusional.

Oh well, I'm in good company.

You probably don't believe in global warming either.

Go check these guys out. You'll fit right in there.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/politics-religion-and-controversy-88/




Top
#3312079 - 03/14/14 06:16 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island


As to global warming, nice introduction to a strawman argument, and if you pay attention, you can actually find my views, here on BITOG.

Back to the topic...

IF ethanol is so clean and pure, why does Brazil still use catalysts ?

Top
#3312132 - 03/14/14 07:11 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
IF ethanol is so clean and pure, why does Brazil still use catalysts ?

Because all cars come with them anyway. Did you take a look at those wackjobs in the link?

Top
#3312136 - 03/14/14 07:19 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island
I can't believe that they call you a troll over there...what are they thinking ?

It's pretty easy to build a car without a cat converter...you just don't put one on, and save a few hundred bucks...there's a reason that they use them, and it's not just "all cars come with them".

http://www.jbcs.sbq.org.br/imagebank/pdf/v1n3-07.pdf (again)

Top
#3312508 - 03/15/14 07:55 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 10967
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Like I've said many times,ethanol per say doesn't bother me. Getting less miles per tank on the same dollar does.

More importantly, it's not even the same dollar. Husky/Mohawk's 94 is more than the other stations' 91. That makes it a little harder to swallow.

Shannow: Here's a question about catalytic converts as original equipment. Up here, when factory LPG vehicles were around, they tended not to have cats (and cats were relatively new anyhow). I don't know if the regulation ever changed with respect to that, as the factory LPG vehicle died out a lot of years ago. What's been your experience down there in that respect?
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3312958 - 03/15/14 05:33 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26042
Loc: a prison island
Gas only still has cats, as the temperatures of combustion still produce NOx, CO, and HC...

Top
#3314445 - 03/17/14 02:15 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 10967
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Of course, I never had the chance to actually look at any of the last Ford factory LPG vehicles. Mine certainly didn't, but was nowhere near the end of their run with such vehicles.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
Page 13 of 14 < 1 2 ... 11 12 13 14 >