The New Hot Rod Lincoln!

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in

<cited back up deleted>

> You can take all your theory and your citations and put them where the
> sun don't shine. Here's the part where _you_ put up or shut up:

Which means of course you have nothing to disprove anything I claimed,
no cites to show me wrong, in other words, you have nothing. There was no
theory in those cites by the way. All were about existing vehicles and
results of testing that has been done. All are fact, not theory.

> Assuming these two _existing_ vehicles are similar in most aspects,
> drive whatever powered-by-ethanol vehicle you want over a specific path
> for a specific time under specific conditions, then drive whatever
> powered-by-gasoline vehicle you want over the same specific path for the
> same specific time under the same specific conditions. Can't wait to
> see the results. Welcome to reality.

The old raise the requirement.... now I have to go out and buy two
indentical cars and run costly enginering experiments for you. Laugh. I
don't have to. I can take the word of the engineers at Ford, Nissan,
Saab, Delphi, Bosch, and the federal government instead, as cited or that
you can find on your own time.

You all are real pieces of work. Just keep raising the bar of proof for
me, but never offering anything yourselves but what you pull from your
asses and fling.

When you have some facts, let me know.

Wow, you just keep them coming. Will you be here all week?

Brent P wrote:
> In article <On%mh.8720$tc5.1285@trnddc01>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
>> I second that! Brent, when you escape from your Bizarro World alternate
>> reality let us know, maybe we can continue this conversation then.
>> Sheesh...
>
> Let me know when you want to discuss facts instead of what you pulled out
> of your ass. It's clear that you ran out of knowledge some time ago.

Well, do I see a couple of insults here? I believe I do!

In article <3j0nh.2015$SQ1.851@trnddc03>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:

> Uh, BRENT, we were talking about:
> BRENT: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:36 PM
> "engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made
> for pump gasoline."

Exploit, as in use the qualities of E85.

> But since you were so kind as to supply my cite for me, I'll post the
> relevant part of your cite that directly refutes your position, yet again.

> 11/14. By Van
> By Guest - Saturday, August 05 2006
> Website
> "Lets run the numbers one more time. Let's mix 80\% gasoline with 20\%
> ethanol, which results in the blend having an energy content of 116,600 BTU
> per gallon, or about a 9\% drop in energy content. Now if we raise the
> compression we get a 2\% improvement in thermal efficiency. And if Direct
> injection can push the thermal efficiency up another 5\%, we have a blended
> fuel engine getting higher mileage than a low compression gasoline engine.
> However if we are talking about a E100 engine, 45\% of 84,100 (37845) is
> still less than 38\% of 124,800 (47424). Or so it seems to me."
> http://www.hybridcars.com/component/...ntentid,12019/

That's some comment posted by some guy... not an article. It's like
citing a usenet post that has no backup. All I see are numbers pulled out
of his ass. Let me know when you actually have something, you know, a
real cite, not some half assed comment.

Oh, and btw, why don't you read the part where he's stating that
exploiting ethanol's characteristics result in a higher thermal
efficiency? Which is *gasp* what I wrote.

Thanks for playing. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way
out.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>
> <cited back up deleted>
>
>> You can take all your theory and your citations and put them where
>> the sun don't shine. Here's the part where _you_ put up or shut up:
>
> Which means of course you have nothing to disprove anything I claimed,
> no cites to show me wrong, in other words, you have nothing. There was
> no theory in those cites by the way. All were about existing vehicles
> and results of testing that has been done. All are fact, not theory.
>
>> Assuming these two _existing_ vehicles are similar in most aspects,
>> drive whatever powered-by-ethanol vehicle you want over a specific
>> path for a specific time under specific conditions, then drive
>> whatever powered-by-gasoline vehicle you want over the same specific
>> path for the same specific time under the same specific conditions.
>> Can't wait to see the results. Welcome to reality.
>
> The old raise the requirement.... now I have to go out and buy two
> indentical cars and run costly enginering experiments for you. Laugh.
> I don't have to. I can take the word of the engineers at Ford, Nissan,
> Saab, Delphi, Bosch, and the federal government instead, as cited or
> that you can find on your own time.
>
> You all are real pieces of work. Just keep raising the bar of proof
> for me, but never offering anything yourselves but what you pull from
> your asses and fling.
>
> When you have some facts, let me know.

I don't need to cite or prove anything. The facts are already out there
just waiting for you to see them as others have already pointed out in
full detail.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>
>> <cited back up deleted>
>>
>>> You can take all your theory and your citations and put them where
>>> the sun don't shine. Here's the part where _you_ put up or shut up:
>>
>> Which means of course you have nothing to disprove anything I claimed,
>> no cites to show me wrong, in other words, you have nothing. There was
>> no theory in those cites by the way. All were about existing vehicles
>> and results of testing that has been done. All are fact, not theory.
>>
>>> Assuming these two _existing_ vehicles are similar in most aspects,
>>> drive whatever powered-by-ethanol vehicle you want over a specific
>>> path for a specific time under specific conditions, then drive
>>> whatever powered-by-gasoline vehicle you want over the same specific
>>> path for the same specific time under the same specific conditions.
>>> Can't wait to see the results. Welcome to reality.
>>
>> The old raise the requirement.... now I have to go out and buy two
>> indentical cars and run costly enginering experiments for you. Laugh.
>> I don't have to. I can take the word of the engineers at Ford, Nissan,
>> Saab, Delphi, Bosch, and the federal government instead, as cited or
>> that you can find on your own time.
>>
>> You all are real pieces of work. Just keep raising the bar of proof
>> for me, but never offering anything yourselves but what you pull from
>> your asses and fling.
>>
>> When you have some facts, let me know.
>
> I don't need to cite or prove anything. The facts are already out there
> just waiting for you to see them as others have already pointed out in
> full detail.

Those others say the same thing, they don't have to cite or prove
anything. Trouble for the lot of you is that I have cited and proven what
I say to be true. When you have some facts, let me know.