Why you should convert your vehicle to flex fuel

On 11/15/2010 04:43 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> if they did, then there would be hard facts right in front of voters to
>> say by how much they're getting ripped off with this ethanol rort.
>> voters punish politicians when they realize they've been ripped, so
>> that's why it hasn't happened.
>
> Or maybe - as usual - you don't have a clue.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> When that happens all new cars will be designed to get better mileage on
>>> ethanol blends. This is because it is not hard to design engines to get
>>> better fuel economy with ethanol blended fuel.
>>
>> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????
>>
>>> The only reason car
>>> manufacturers do not design their engines to perform better with ethanol
>>> is because there is no financial incentive to do so.
>>
>> for some people, smoking enough weed does indeed apparently change their
>> laws of nature.
>
> There is no violation of the laws of nature. You are just clueless.
>
>

no buddy, clueless is making statements like:

"Math doesn't have anything to do with it. Nor does brain-dead belief in
thermodynamics."


and

"Some engines do get better mileage with ethanol blends even though
there is less heat energy contained in ethanol blends than there is in
straight gasoline."


but perhaps this might help you understand your position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Delusional_beliefs


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:

>
> >>
> >>> The only reason car
> >>> manufacturers do not design their engines to perform better with ethanol
> >>> is because there is no financial incentive to do so.
> >>
> >> for some people, smoking enough weed does indeed apparently change their
> >> laws of nature.
> >
> > There is no violation of the laws of nature. You are just clueless.
> >
> >
>
> no buddy, clueless is making statements like:
>
> "Math doesn't have anything to do with it. Nor does brain-dead belief in
> thermodynamics."

> and
>
> "Some engines do get better mileage with ethanol blends even though
> there is less heat energy contained in ethanol blends than there is in
> straight gasoline."

Both statements are true.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/n...057/index.html

The Sloan Automotive Center at MIT thinks there is even greater potential for increased fuel efficiency with ethanol boosted gasoline:

http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/small_engine.html

On 11/15/2010 06:23 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The only reason car
>>>>> manufacturers do not design their engines to perform better with ethanol
>>>>> is because there is no financial incentive to do so.
>>>>
>>>> for some people, smoking enough weed does indeed apparently change their
>>>> laws of nature.
>>>
>>> There is no violation of the laws of nature. You are just clueless.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> no buddy, clueless is making statements like:
>>
>> "Math doesn't have anything to do with it. Nor does brain-dead belief in
>> thermodynamics."
>
>> and
>>
>> "Some engines do get better mileage with ethanol blends even though
>> there is less heat energy contained in ethanol blends than there is in
>> straight gasoline."
>
> Both statements are true.
>
> http://www.motortrend.com/features/n...057/index.html

what part of "sponsored by ... American Coalition for Ethanol" did you
miss? [you can be excused for missing any science content since there
wasn't any.]


>
> The Sloan Automotive Center at MIT thinks there is even greater potential for increased fuel efficiency with ethanol boosted gasoline:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/small_engine.html

another "science absent" press release. "30%" increase in efficiency?
something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier? that kind
of thing has been sold to people like you for hundreds of years. just
like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fueled_car and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_pill.



--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:

> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?

Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.

The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25% of the
energy in gasoline. If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than 30%
increase in fuel efficiency.

On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>
> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>
> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25% of the
> energy in gasoline.

that's it buddy - start with a false premise...


> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than 30%
> increase in fuel efficiency.

and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
lobby wants to sell you.

alternatively you could read some worthless propaganda from the diesel
lobby...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam > wrote in
t:

> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>
>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>
>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25% of
the
>> energy in gasoline.
>
> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...

in fact it proves that there are no 100% efficiency eng. So it is
entirely possible to improve upon the **** poor efficiencys of the modern
gas eng. so to say that ethanol can not help increase the efficiency just
because it has a bit less heat energy is just ignorant and stupid of
different chemical reactions. If you can get closer to using over, say
75% efficiency then you can worry about absoult heat units. KB


>
>
>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than
30%
>> increase in fuel efficiency.
>
> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
> lobby wants to sell you.


apparently you are the deluded one that won`t consider the other poss.
because your heat unit brain is just a one thought track
pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!


>
> alternatively you could read some worthless propaganda from the diesel
> lobby...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
>
>

On 11/15/2010 08:29 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> jim > wrote in
> t:
>
>> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>>
>>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>>
>>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25% of
> the
>>> energy in gasoline.
>>
>> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...
>
> in fact it proves that there are no 100% efficiency eng. So it is
> entirely possible to improve upon the **** poor efficiencys of the modern
> gas eng. so to say that ethanol can not help increase the efficiency just
> because it has a bit less heat energy is just ignorant and stupid of
> different chemical reactions. If you can get closer to using over, say
> 75% efficiency

oh, for f***'s sake - if y'all so damned interested in this stuff, why
don't y'all ever bother to read the damned science???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%...rmodynamics%29

thermodynamic efficiency is a function of two variables:

1. temperature of combustion

2. temperature after work has been done.

you cannot even begin to approach an "after work done" temperature of
anything near ambient, so all this drivel about "75%" is just the
bleating of the painfully underinformed.


> then you can worry about absoult heat units. KB

/failure/ to use absolute units, or even any understanding of what
"absolute units" are, is what i'm worried about.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than
> 30%
>>> increase in fuel efficiency.
>>
>> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
>> lobby wants to sell you.
>
>
> apparently you are the deluded one that won`t consider the other poss.
> because your heat unit brain is just a one thought track
> pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah, my one track is hard science. shock and horror that anyone should
/dare/ to talk thusly on a "tech" newsgroup.


>
>
>>
>> alternatively you could read some worthless propaganda from the diesel
>> lobby...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
>>
>>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:

> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
> >
> > Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
> >
> > The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25% of the
> > energy in gasoline.
>
> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...

According to the wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
that you cited it says :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Any engine will have different BSFC values at different speeds and loads. For
example, a reciprocating engine achieves maximum efficiency when the intake
air is unthrottled and the engine is running near its torque peak. However,
the numbers often reported for a particular engine are a fuel economy cycle
average statistic. For example, the cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline
engine is 322 g/(kW·h), translating to an efficiency of 25%. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nevertheless, whether you look at the maximum possible efficiency when
operating an ideal engine at the ideal load and RPM under laboratory
conditions, or look at the average efficiency of the family jalopy that is
running down the road, the efficiency of a gasoline engine compared to a
diesel is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%-40% less efficient. That
directly contradicts your claim that energy content of the fuel is the sole
predictor of how much work an engine performs. That claim is nothing more
than a brain-dead belief in thermodynamics.

OTOH, the MIT researchers claim that with ethanol direct injection as a
booster they can make the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of gasoline engine
just as energy efficient as a diesel. And as far as I know MIT doesn't grow
corn or make ethanol.

>
>
> > If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
> > used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than 30%
> > increase in fuel efficiency.
>
> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
> lobby wants to sell you.

Yeah, like nobody has ever been deluded by the propaganda from oil companies.
For 60 years the oil companies managed to delude the average Joe into
believing that lead added to gasoline was good for his engine. It is a proven
fact is that lead in gasoline shortened the life of engines considerably (that
was something the auto makers also loved).

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.

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.

jim beam > wrote in
:

> On 11/15/2010 08:29 PM, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>> jim > wrote in
>> t:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>>>
>>>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>>>
>>>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25%
>>>> of
>> the
>>>> energy in gasoline.
>>>
>>> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...
>>
>> in fact it proves that there are no 100% efficiency eng. So it is
>> entirely possible to improve upon the **** poor efficiencys of the
>> modern gas eng. so to say that ethanol can not help increase the
>> efficiency just because it has a bit less heat energy is just
>> ignorant and stupid of different chemical reactions. If you can get
>> closer to using over, say 75% efficiency
>
> oh, for f***'s sake - if y'all so damned interested in this stuff, why
> don't y'all ever bother to read the damned science???
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot%...rmodynamics%29
>
> thermodynamic efficiency is a function of two variables:
>
> 1. temperature of combustion
>
> 2. temperature after work has been done.
>
> you cannot even begin to approach an "after work done" temperature of
> anything near ambient, so all this drivel about "75%" is just the
> bleating of the painfully underinformed.
>
>
>> then you can worry about absoult heat units. KB
>
> /failure/ to use absolute units, or even any understanding of what
> "absolute units" are, is what i'm worried about.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>>>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than
>> 30%
>>>> increase in fuel efficiency.
>>>
>>> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
>>> lobby wants to sell you.
>>
>>
>> apparently you are the deluded one that won`t consider the other
>> poss.
>> because your heat unit brain is just a one thought track
>> pony!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> yeah, my one track is hard science. shock and horror that anyone
> should /dare/ to talk thusly on a "tech" newsgroup.
>

The problem with your strickly hard science as YOU call it is there are
a huge number of variables that are at play here and no one (heat units)
trait can explain the total of what goes on, to try to do so in such a
simple manor is just pompus selfrichusness on your part. Sure a eng is
just a heat pump, but so many variables affect it your just fooling
yourself if you think heat calories is the only explaniation. If that
were true, then explain why in controled tests, why have some vehicles
got BETTER milage at a 30% ethanol blend then?????? explanin that with
heat units eh? KB
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> alternatively you could read some worthless propaganda from the
>>> diesel lobby...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

On 11/16/2010 05:46 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2010 07:13 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> something that somehow removes a hard thermodynamic barrier?
>>>
>>> Your Brain-dead belief in thermodynamics and Wikipedia is amusing.
>>>
>>> The typical SI engine in passenger vehicles only uses around 25% of the
>>> energy in gasoline.
>>
>> that's it buddy - start with a false premise...
>
> According to the wikipedia page
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
> that you cited it says :
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> "Any engine will have different BSFC values at different speeds and loads. For
> example, a reciprocating engine achieves maximum efficiency when the intake
> air is unthrottled and the engine is running near its torque peak. However,
> the numbers often reported for a particular engine are a fuel economy cycle
> average statistic. For example, the cycle average value of BSFC for a gasoline
> engine is 322 g/(kW·h), 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!!!


>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Nevertheless, whether you look at the maximum possible efficiency when
> operating an ideal engine at the ideal load and RPM under laboratory
> conditions, or look at the average efficiency of the family jalopy that is
> running down the road, the efficiency of a gasoline engine compared to a
> diesel is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%-40% less efficient. That
> directly contradicts your claim that energy content of the fuel is the sole
> predictor of how much work an engine performs.

er,
1. don't put false words in my mouth, and
2. if you understood what you were talking about, you'd understand why
it doesn't.


> 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? it's not
like you're an einstein proposing a paradigm-shifting thermodynamic
theory of relativity.


>
> OTOH, the MIT researchers claim that with ethanol direct injection as a
> booster they can make the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of gasoline engine
> just as energy efficient as a diesel. And as far as I know MIT doesn't grow
> corn or make ethanol.

but they /do/ constantly solicit research money. one way to do it is to
dangle carrots in front of dumb money, like taxpayer-funded
dumb-government sponsored ethanol boondoggles. "nanotech" is another
thing money-hunting m.i.t. [and others] is all over. back in my day,
"self-assembling nanoparticles" were simply called "chemistry", but
chemistry doesn't attract research grants.


>
>>
>>
>>> If that were to change so that 35% of the energy was
>>> used to propel the car down the road that would result in more than 30%
>>> increase in fuel efficiency.
>>
>> and hey presto - you can delude yourself about anything the ethanol
>> lobby wants to sell you.
>
> Yeah, like nobody has ever been deluded by the propaganda from oil companies.
> 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.


> 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]


>
> 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. and because it reduced energy
content - something recently figured out by the oilcos as being one way
to keep sales up in these days of efficient high specific output engines
that were threatening to reduce overall consumption.


>
> 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. but forcing people to burn ethanol serves two key political
objectives:

1. it keeps the massively powerful political lobby of the oilcos happy
because its lower energy content reduces mpg's and thus ensures more sales.

2. it keeps the other massively powerful political lobby of the
agricultural commodity business happy for exactly the same reason.

hence we'll continue to get rorted until either lobbying money is
curtailed, or the public wakes up and figures out that they're being
ripped off.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum