Recent Topics
40K miles, no oil change, engine seized, Yikes!
by sasilverbullet
11/26/14 08:31 AM
2004 Honda Odyssey Transmission Leak
by raffy
11/26/14 08:25 AM
Trip in the Cube.
by refaller
11/26/14 07:36 AM
3M 39089 Fuel System Tune-Up Kit
by Newreet
11/26/14 07:04 AM
How to tell if an oil is sludging up from UOA?
by nobb
11/26/14 06:52 AM
CSF radiators?
by Falcon_LS
11/26/14 05:20 AM
What are we all running in our differentials ?
by Shannow
11/26/14 05:10 AM
Choosing a stabilizer bar
by Falcon_LS
11/26/14 02:18 AM
Many UOA show vis loss. New norm?
by wemay
11/26/14 01:33 AM
The tie seller
by Kuato
11/26/14 12:14 AM
Eroded Spark plug?
by DoubleWasp
11/25/14 11:49 PM
Best Stuff to Clean IAC and VSV
by BrandonVA
11/25/14 11:37 PM
Newest Members
royston59, TriboOilGuy, rotor9, moto367, ron17571
52002 Registered Users
Who's Online
106 registered (bepperb, 4wheeldog, Bamaro, 1999nick, barkingspider, 12 invisible), 1463 Guests and 153 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52002 Members
66 Forums
222627 Topics
3524158 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 9 of 14 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 >
Topic Options
#3298049 - 03/01/14 09:22 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Offline


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 1099
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Well, this is not a full blown government sponsored study, but this video shows some interesting emission outputs of gas, gas/oil 2 stroke mix, E85, and kerosene.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAyoCo3xXA&list=PL3AB1D360AE7F5324
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3298113 - 03/01/14 10:11 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11756
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: hatt
If only "someone" could post actual information/data showing ethanol's environmental virtues.

I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but as Ed hinted at a little bit above, the biggest virtue for ethanol from an emissions standpoint was back when carbed vehicles were the norm and things are a wee bit different now.
_________________________
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
#3298150 - 03/01/14 11:07 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but as Ed hinted at a little bit above, the biggest virtue for ethanol from an emissions standpoint was back when carbed vehicles were the norm and things are a wee bit different now.


I can understand that. When cars were much dirtier the gains were greater. At least we have a few of you recognizing ethanol does burn cleaner.

Maybe what Clevy is saying is that we'll get a lower quality octane gas mixed with the extra 5% ethanol to get the same overall octane rating. I wouldn't doubt that. I'll concede that could be what will happen considering the sleaze factor of big oil

For me it's about having an alternative fuel more than environmental gains. I would point to the EPA for studies on environmental gains from ethanol, but you guys believe that is an evil, useless and corrupt arm of the government. I refuse to believe that and when considering the relative evils of big oil, Archer Daniels Midland, and middle eastern terrorism and hate, I think we need to continue the path that we're on and raise the ethanol content.

I do respect your expertise but have different political leanings. I think we have a good president in office.


Top
#3298246 - 03/01/14 12:46 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11756
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I can understand that. When cars were much dirtier the gains were greater. At least we have a few of you recognizing ethanol does burn cleaner.

Maybe what Clevy is saying is that we'll get a lower quality octane gas mixed with the extra 5% ethanol to get the same overall octane rating. I wouldn't doubt that. I'll concede that could be what will happen considering the sleaze factor of big oil

For me, at the outset, I don't "mind" ethanol laced/enhanced fuels. I sought them years ago, long before mandates appeared in either of our countries.

But here is why. And we can't just blame big oil - government has their share of blame. We have a station here called Husky (and Mohawk, more were Mohawks years ago). In any event, before we had any mandates, they offered pure gas 87 octane at one price. They also offered an 89 or 90 octane mid grade E10 at the same prices prices. Then they had a premium with a point or two higher octane than other premiums available at the time. So, plenty of people sought E10 mid grade, since it was the same money as regular.

The province got involved and twisted everything beyond recognition. Now, Husky/Mohawk's 87 is E10 (perhaps that lesser octane gas mixed with ethanol to enhance octane rating). Mid grade costs more than regular, and so forth.

Additionally, up here, corn isn't an issue. Wheat silage is used to produce ethanol. And, as I've stated many time here, that is not food-grade (with respect to human consumption) grain; it is feed-grade (with respect to animal consumption) grain. Wheat is graded at delivery. No one intentionally grows feed-grade wheat. It doesn't work that way.

I know there are also people who don't like the idea of grain fed cattle. Fine. If all barley grown in this country were malt grade and all wheat were Number 1 grade, cattle wouldn't get to touch a single grain unless those responsible for feeding them liked paying a premium. But, the weather doesn't cooperate, and feed grade grains happen each and every year and they have to be used for something.

When soy sauce is made, silage is produced. Should that be forbidden as cattle feed, too? wink

In the grand scheme of things, I don't know if we should be going to more or less ethanol use in fuel. Time will tell when it comes to economies of scale and improved production. What I do know is that OPE and recreational equipment manufacturers need to quit crying about ethanol and accept that it's here. Complaining loudly about ethanol content is a very good diversion for the eighty cent fuel systems they put in such equipment these days. The components have a shorter shelf life than the fuel itself, for crying out loud.
_________________________
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
#3298303 - 03/01/14 01:52 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
edhackett Offline


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1548
Loc: Sequim, WA
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

I do respect your expertise but have different political leanings.


This isn't about politics, it's about science. If you wish to actually do that independent thinking you claim to be doing, you need to set aside the politics too.

I'll get you started. You seem willing to accept the EPA as a credible source of information. Here is a peer reviewed paper published by their Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park predicting higher overall ozone and air toxics in the U.S. due to increasing use of ethanol.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010007375

Ed

P.S. What political leanings would you ascribe to someone who has dedicated their career to the betterment of the environment?
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

Top
#3298408 - 03/01/14 03:48 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7651
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but as Ed hinted at a little bit above, the biggest virtue for ethanol from an emissions standpoint was back when carbed vehicles were the norm and things are a wee bit different now.


I can understand that. When cars were much dirtier the gains were greater. At least we have a few of you recognizing ethanol does burn cleaner.

Maybe what Clevy is saying is that we'll get a lower quality octane gas mixed with the extra 5% ethanol to get the same overall octane rating. I wouldn't doubt that. I'll concede that could be what will happen considering the sleaze factor of big oil

For me it's about having an alternative fuel more than environmental gains. I would point to the EPA for studies on environmental gains from ethanol, but you guys believe that is an evil, useless and corrupt arm of the government. I refuse to believe that and when considering the relative evils of big oil, Archer Daniels Midland, and middle eastern terrorism and hate, I think we need to continue the path that we're on and raise the ethanol content.

I do respect your expertise but have different political leanings. I think we have a good president in office.



Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. With the ethanol mandate increasing that means the refinery can use a lesser octane gasoline and improve it with more ethanol improving the octane to the point it meets our minimum standards.

Garak hit the nail on the head. We used to get 90 octane from Mohawk/husky for the same price as 87 octane. And 94 octane for the same price as pure gas 91 octane.
I used their 90 octane almost exclusively until it changed. That's when I started searching for pure gasoline.
If I'm going to pay a premium for it anyways I better get the real stuff right.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3298415 - 03/01/14 04:19 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: edhackett]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: edhackett

This isn't about politics, it's about science. If you wish to actually do that independent thinking you claim to be doing, you need to set aside the politics too.

I'll get you started. You seem willing to accept the EPA as a credible source of information. Here is a peer reviewed paper published by their Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park predicting higher overall ozone and air toxics in the U.S. due to increasing use of ethanol.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010007375

Ed

P.S. What political leanings would you ascribe to someone who has dedicated their career to the betterment of the environment?


EISA is projected to improve ozone air quality in a few highly-populated areas that currently have poor air quality. Most of the ozone improvements are due to our assumption of increases in nitrogen oxides (NOx) in volatile organic compound (VOC)-limited areas. While there are some localized impacts, the EISA renewable fuel standards have relatively little impact on national average ambient concentrations of most air toxics, although ethanol concentrations increase substantially. Significant uncertainties are associated with all results, due to limitations in available data.

This is saying it improves air quality in large cities and has no impact everywhere else. Good enough for me. That doesn't say anything about a negative impact.

I would expect someone who had dedicated their career to the betterment of the environment to have at least some respect for the EPA.





Top
#3298427 - 03/01/14 04:34 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27089
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, this is not a full blown government sponsored study, but this video shows some interesting emission outputs of gas, gas/oil 2 stroke mix, E85, and kerosene.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAyoCo3xXA&list=PL3AB1D360AE7F5324


Bwahahaha...that's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Next time I start my car by lighting fuel on a stick, I'll refer back to that...based on that science, tell me how biodiesel is good ???

Top
#3298571 - 03/01/14 07:23 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bwahahaha...that's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Next time I start my car by lighting fuel on a stick, I'll refer back to that...based on that science, tell me how biodiesel is good ???


That's the funniest thing....

Really?

You don't think that proves anything? Have you ever done experiments? Ever spend any time in a lab?

Top
#3298649 - 03/01/14 08:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27089
Loc: a prison island
Yeah, a little bit.

Top
#3298715 - 03/01/14 09:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yeah, a little bit.


Then that experiment should mean something to you.

Top
#3298748 - 03/01/14 09:51 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27089
Loc: a prison island
It means that richer than stoichiometric laminar flames associated with a burning wick (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fuels in an internal combustion engine) create soot.

Whereas combustion inside an engine is turbulent, mixed, and has closely controlled stoichiometry.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

Why, what does it mean to you ?

Top
#3298759 - 03/01/14 10:05 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
No it's not exactly the combustion process under pressure you'd have in an engine cylinder but it proves under the same conditions gas produces much more soot than alcohol. A hemi chamber is going to give a different burn than a flat chamber that has quench. So what. Under equal conditions alcohol will always burn cleaner.

We've seen the teardown pictures of engines run on E85 and they have a minimum of carbon on the pistons. Why do you think that is?

I'm not saying you don't know your stuff; however, you have a huge chip on your shoulder for whatever reason and you're not being intellectually honest regarding ethanol issues. We get the blah, blah, blah and you hope people will be intimidated and back off. I don't know it all, but I do know when I'm being [censored]'ed.

Did a farmer run over your dog?

Top
#3298831 - 03/02/14 02:24 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27089
Loc: a prison island
LOL, I run this stuff in my Caprice with an L67 and higher boost pulley...
http://www.unitedpetroleum.com.au/united/fuel/premium-100

not because of the incorrect advertising fluff on th website.

25 years ago, I was a strong advocate of ethanol in Australia, as it was being produced efficiently from sugar cane. My own car at the time, I was mixing my own 10% blend with a mix of leaded/unleaded, a bit of acetone/MEK (co-solvent).

At the time, most of the cars on the road were carburetted, and nearly none had cat cons, so the benefits of ethanol as an additive were quite outstanding and clear.

With injection, and cats, there's no benefit, just an alternate fuel that should stand on it's own against perpetually rising petrol prices...and those of us with overboosted L67s are just as likely to buy it.

However, Manildra, one of the big grain companies has been paying politicians to make ethanol (theirs) mandatory, and my state premier moved to remove R.U.G. completely in favour of E10. A move that he had to reverese when the media found out about three secret meetings that he denied took place until evidence was brought out that the did.

State Premier was prepared to suckle from lobby groups when his own ministers rejected the cost implications to motorists.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/premier...9-1226251716686

25 years ago, ethanol was about an alternate fuel source, and science. Now it's about lobby groups, and political donations...before the mandate and requirements, ethanol cut the fuel price in Oz by 4%, which made it cost neutral with the reduction in MPG that you get from a 10% blend thermodynamically. Now that it has to be used, it's 2.5% saving, and won't pay for itself.

25 years ago, the world's strategic grain reserve (what you and I will eat post failed harvest) was around a year, now it's literally only a month or so.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Did a farmer run over your dog?


I see that your college left your reasoning skills at those of a kindergarden playground...

Top
#3298918 - 03/02/14 08:14 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Offline


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 1099
Loc: Kellogg, IA
But ethanol had little if any impact on the strategic grain reserves. In the U.S. corn production has significantly out grown the increase in ethanol production. To the point where the U.S. is exporting corn at a level as high or higher than ever. Global demand has put more demand on any reserves than ethanol production. The also in all of this, the value of various currencies have had as much of an effect on things. Societies like China are changing their diets substantially to reflect the higher incomes of their people. China has increased considerably the level of animal protein in their diets. China now has to import a huge amount of grain to feed livestock to meet that demand. And it isn't about feeding this to cattle. Swine, poultry, etc consume far more grain products than cattle do. Again, those that spout this grain not good for cattle thing really have a huge myopia gland.

Ethanol prices are just like any other commodity on market exchanges... you have spot market buy prices and futures investment pricings. And it is very disingenuous to equate the thermodynamic level of a fuel to the actual mpg out of a vehicle. They do not extrapolate out equally on the same basis. If you lose 10% thermal efficiency, does not mean you lose 10% mpg. Engine design and the combustion process many times does not ride the same curve. With EBDI engines (Extreme Boosted Direct Injected) that are being tested now, it has been shown that with E85, they can get the same HP, Torque, and economy as can be had with diesel engines today, even though the BTU energy of these fuels are vastly different. EBDI will the one of the major events that will get autos to meet the new mandated U.S. CAFE standards by 2025 of 54.5 mpg.

See the first heavy hitter after the intro speaker in this conference video, Dr. Matti Vint, and the presentation of EBDI engine design and ethanol efficiencies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzM3RQp2STg and this article http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/1001...-ethanol-blends


Ethanol has lobby groups? No kidding. Name something that doesn't! Whether it is ethanol, farmers, gun owners, save the whales, save the snails, commercial trucking, etc, etc, etc, every thing in existence nowadays has a lobby group. And there have been lobby groups, payoffs, and such going on since mankind has been around. To all of a sudden have a disdain for lobby groups over ethanol doesn't really move me. It has always been about someone trying to persuade some government to do something. Be it democracies, theocracies, dictatorships, Socialist, Communist, Facist. The "its all about lobbying groups" argument seems to suggest a high degree of naiveté on one's part. There were people lobbying government leaders, agencies, etc clear back in the earliest parts of the Bible itself.

Yeah, and all of the outrage over ethanol and some misguided idea of how it is causing farmers to destroy the planet (mostly promoted by folks who barely have ever planted a garden), and that government officials are doing something new that they have never done before by listening to lobbyists and taking bribes, ad nauseam, just seems to suggest that a lot of folks do have a chip on their shoulder, as was suggested. I think that is why there has not been the progress in renewables to make them more effective an alternative, because there is so much energy wasted in bickering. Folks just plain don't like something so they are going to place a roadblock anywhere they can to stop it... oh... that is called lobbying! OMG! We have to put a stop to that don't we?
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
Page 9 of 14 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 >