On 11/17/2010 09:35 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> translating to an efficiency of 25%. "
>>
>> but that doesn't change a single damned thing i said - all it does is
>> say why lower numbers can be observed at partial throttle, and it's
>> precisely what you would expect!!!
>
> It doesn't change what you said, but it does mean what you said was wrong.

well, what it apparently /does/ mean is that you don't understand what
you're talking about!


> The
> average car driving down the road is utilizing only 25% of the energy in gasoline.
> If you can make a fuel that has 10% less energy but utilizes 40% of the energy
> content to propel the car, even an idiot should be able to see that will be an
> improvement.

but, apparently some idiots can't see that some "new" engine performing
at 40% efficiency under ideal lab conditions isn't going to be in that
state "driving down the road" and is going to experience exactly the
same kinds of losses.


>
> If the EPA started using ethanol blends for their fuel economy test every engine
> made for the US market would be getting better mileage with ethanol blends than they
> do with straight gasoline.

????????????? explain how lower energy content gives higher energy
yield please. if you have time to stop from racing on down to the
patent office and making billions of dollars that is...


> That doesn't defy the laws of nature it is just simple
> economics.

???


> The engine manufacturers have an economic incentive to design around
> whatever fuel is specified for the fuel economy tests. When the EPA starts using the
> ethanol blended fuel for mileage tests it won't be just a few engines that get
> better mileage with ethanol blends - they all will.

you're confused.


>
>
>>
>>
>> ? That claim is nothing more
>> ? than a brain-dead belief in thermodynamics.
>>
>> what about a brain-dead belief in ohm's law? newton's laws?
>
> Yes, I expect you do mis-apply those also.

yeah. i can get people to /pay/ me for their misapplication too.


>
>
>>
>> For 60 years the oil companies managed to delude the average Joe into
>> believing that lead added to gasoline was good for his engine.
>>
>> tetra-ethyl lead had a higher energy yield than ethanol, so back in the
>> day of engines with low specific outputs, and what was otherwise poor
>> quality gasoline, it was the additive of choice for performance. oh,
>> and it allowed for cheaper [lower quality] materials to be used for
>> engine components like exhaust valved and valve seats. of course, you
>> already knew that but were just bull****ting for entertainment.
>
> Lead didn't add any energy to gasoline.

incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra-ethyl_lead#Reactions


> The only real benefit from lead was to
> petroleum refiners. It allowed them to produce high grade gasoline much cheaper.

high octane, [low knock] you mean. not the same as "high grade". but
that does indeed have a lot of truth to it.


> That is pretty much the same thing ethanol does - it allows oil refiners to save
> money producing gasoline while meeting the minimum grade requirements..

but at the taxpayer's expense. taxpayers subsidize the corn production,
subsidize the conversion, and subsidize the oilcos for its addition.
and the result is lower mpg's, so you're paying more yet again and
getting less.


>
>
>
>>
>>
>> It is a proven
>> fact is that lead in gasoline shortened the life of engines considerably (that
>> ? was something the auto makers also loved).
>>
>> where do you get this stuff dude?????? and why don't you cite? [rhetorical]
>
> There is plenty of research.

so cite it!


> Where is your evidence that lead did anything good for
> engines?

why don't you read the cites i give you?


>
>
>>
>> ?
>> ? So for 60 years the oil co's and auto co's robbed and poisoned the public. And
>> ? then when that scam was exposed, for 30 years after that they robbed and
>> ? poisoned the public with MTBE added to gasoline.
>>
>> no, mtbe was added because it's a cheap by-product that would otherwise
>> be discarded from the refining process.
>
> Not really. MTBE is an octane booster that refiners were able to produce cheaply.

true. but it had the advantage of reducing calorie content. the
politicals were sold on this hocus-pocus concept of "oxygenation", and
thus opened the door to lower energy yield, lower mpg's and thus higher
sales for no extra work.


> If a refinery doesn't need MTBE it doesn't make it. For many refiners MTBE was an
> ideal replacement for lead since it was made from the lightest petroleum fractions
> that would otherwise be more expensive to process. The problem with MTBE is it was
> very toxic to ground water.

it's not particularly toxic,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE
but it has a very strong taste, thus minuscule leakage caused widespread
detectable contamination that other pollutants do not. [getting away
with pollution that has no taste vs. one that has a strong taste is a
whole different matter.]


>
>
>>
>> ? So now after the public no longer is being poisoned and robbed by the octane
>> ? booster the oil co's and auto makers would prefer they use, you want the
>> ? public to now wake up and start being alarmed? I don't think so.
>>
>> there is no need for ethanol in modern engines or gasolines - modern
>> [catalyzed] refining and electronic engine management make it completely
>> irrelevant.
>
> That is baloney.

it's not, but continue...


> It still today costs money (and energy) to process crude oil into
> higher octane components.

which contradicts what you just said, but continue...


> If all the ethanol were suddenly removed from the US
> market the cost to refiners would be staggering to meet the grade requirements for
> octane. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but the higher refining costs would
> show up at the pump.

the only people that might be impacted are those running straight
distillation plants, and i doubt any of those still exist. anyone
running modern catalysis, has substantial flexibility, and can adjust
production easily.

>
> Did you know the US (and Brazil) are now exporting ethanol to the Mideast. There is
> no mandate for ethanol in that part of the world. There is no subsidy. It is just
> cheaper to ship in a boatload of ethanol than for them to do the extra processing to
> meet octane requirements.

you know that we export our political/military clout don't you? since
we saved the kuwaities [and thus the saudis] in the first gulf war, how
much persuasion do you think it takes to tell those guys to re-invest a
weeny fraction of what we pay them back into supporting our agrilobby?


>
> The technology of oil refining may have improved but the nature of the petroleum
> feedstock going into refineries is going the other way. The cost of meeting octane
> requirements is much higher if you start with heavy sour crude than if your starting
> with a conventional light sweet crude oil.

if you're running distillation only, but not with catalysis.


> And the world is running out of light
> sweet crude and thus the refineries need an octane booster today as much as they
> ever did.

we don't need it. not only do we routinely catalyze heavy to light, we
can catalyze light to heavy. the base stocks for "synthetic" motor oil
are typically made from a "g.t.l." process, that's gas to liquid. it's
made to sound like it's expensive and commanding of a higher price, but
reality is, that stuff is so cheap, it's sold as diesel fuel.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum