Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 62300 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33197 Dec 22, 2012
Trolll R wrote:
<quoted text>
Ethanol? Terrible crappy fuel.
#1Corrosive.
#2Hygroscopic - stores poorly, goes bad quickly as it takes up water.
#3Did I mention corrosive?
#4Destroys FRP fuel tanks, e.g. in watercraft.
#5Lousy energy content - only 2/3 the energy content of gasoline
#6Lousy mpg to match
#7Safety hazard - when spilled and ignited, invisible flame
As for one to six so is water so stop dirnking both. For #7 could be depending on what other chem it would be mixed with. Did you stay up all night with litesout to respond with your babble? Do tell all commander troll

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33198 Dec 22, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
From my post above:
Ethanol needs high compression engines, close to that of diesel engines, to gain its efficiency. That is why the high performance, high compression Indy cars work well with ethanol. But the 10% ethanol in 'designed for gasoline' gasoline engines misses its efficiency region.
http://umpir.ump.edu.my/1411/1/2009_P_ICADME0...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33199 Dec 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Beautiful paper. Beautiful science.

Thanks.

P.S. Mr. Ford would agree.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33200 Dec 22, 2012
However, Henry Ford would have been amazed at this;

http://www.gizmag.com/ge-durathon-fuel-cell-v...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33201 Dec 22, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
However, Henry Ford would have been amazed at this;
http://www.gizmag.com/ge-durathon-fuel-cell-v...
interesting. Did you follow this link from the site?
http://www.gizmag.com/cellulose-nanocrystals-...
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#33202 Dec 22, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry you’re another one that attended the one child left behind program. So that would again make you the commander TROLL!!
Are you going for the ignorant award? Your near that position
Troll. Ignored.
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#33203 Dec 22, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>As for one to six so is water so stop dirnking both. For #7 could be depending on what other chem it would be mixed with. Did you stay up all night with litesout to respond with your babble? Do tell all commander troll
Troll. Ignored.
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#33204 Dec 22, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Beautiful paper. Beautiful science.
Thanks.
P.S. Mr. Ford would agree.
Yes, interesting paper.

Unfortunately, its real-world significance is somewhat compromised by this limitation on the fuel mixtures studied:

"The fuel blends were prepared just before starting the experiment to ensure that the fuel mixture is homogenous and to prevent the reaction of ethanol with water vapor."

In other words, the results with ethanol fuel are idealized - obtainable only in the lab; the fuels tested are not the same as the ethanol fuel mixtures being foisted on the public at the retail pump, or being burned in their engines.

Real-world ethanol-blend fuels have the ethanol fraction largely saturated with water (and other 'gunk').

This study would have been of greater practical interest had they tested various ethanol blends that were NOT "fresh" - e.g., drawn from a partially-filled standard automotive tank vented to the atmosphere containing water vapor, tested after sitting for a few weeks without mixing/homogenization.

This is the real world ethanol blend fuel consumers actually burn.

Results, I expect, would be substantially different from the idealized "laboratory" fuel.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33205 Dec 22, 2012
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, interesting paper.
Unfortunately, its real-world significance is somewhat compromised by this limitation on the fuel mixtures studied:
"The fuel blends were prepared just before starting the experiment to ensure that the fuel mixture is homogenous and to prevent the reaction of ethanol with water vapor."
In other words, the results with ethanol fuel are idealized - obtainable only in the lab; the fuels tested are not the same as the ethanol fuel mixtures being foisted on the public at the retail pump, or being burned in their engines.
Real-world ethanol-blend fuels have the ethanol fraction largely saturated with water (and other 'gunk').
This study would have been of greater practical interest had they tested various ethanol blends that were NOT "fresh" - e.g., drawn from a partially-filled standard automotive tank vented to the atmosphere containing water vapor, tested after sitting for a few weeks without mixing/homogenization.
This is the real world ethanol blend fuel consumers actually burn.
Results, I expect, would be substantially different from the idealized "laboratory" fuel.
In other words, your post did not address my three points, beauty, science, and Mr. Ford re:

http://umpir.ump.edu.my/1411/1/2009_P_ICADME0...

Your post is a good example for product evaluation, not science per se.

As to your alleged conclusion of an imaginary testing for substanially-dfferent results, it's wise to say 'doubtful.'
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33206 Dec 22, 2012
substantially-different

[of course]
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33207 Dec 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
interesting. Did you follow this link from the site?
http://www.gizmag.com/cellulose-nanocrystals-...
Yes, I agree.

There's no time to make war when we could unravel such facts... for humanity sake.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33208 Dec 22, 2012
A clueless spammer is lurking here.

LOL.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33209 Dec 22, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
A clueless spammer is lurking here.
LOL.
I understand that some folks are just lonesome and will do whatever it takes to gain interaction with others. Unfortunately, they only seem to gain a negative interaction and must continually attempt to gain positive recognition that they never seem to find. While I try to be patient with them it is difficult to maintain a civil discourse.
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#33210 Dec 22, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, your post did not address my three points, beauty, science, and Mr. Ford re:
http://umpir.ump.edu.my/1411/1/2009_P_ICADME0...
Your post is a good example for product evaluation, not science per se.
As to your alleged conclusion of an imaginary testing for substanially-dfferent results, it's wise to say 'doubtful.'
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, your post did not address my three points, beauty, science, and Mr. Ford re:
http://umpir.ump.edu.my/1411/1/2009_P_ICADME0...
Your post is a good example for product evaluation, not science per se.
As to your alleged conclusion of an imaginary testing for substanially-dfferent results, it's wise to say 'doubtful.'
You're right - my post did not address your 3 points. It seems we take different things from that paper. I did not perceive any noteworthy "beauty," nor anything remarkable about the "science," and I have no comment to make on Mr. Ford's mis-judgement of ethanol's commercial potential as a motor fuel a century ago.

Yes, I am doubtful that testing of real-world (i.e., water-bearing) ethanol blend motor fuels would show they provide performance results as favorable as the dry fuels tested in this paper.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33211 Dec 22, 2012
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll. Ignored.
Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry you’re another one that attended the one child left behind program. So that would again make you the commander TROLL!!
Are you going for the ignorant award? You finally made the commander troll position.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33212 Dec 22, 2012
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You're right - my post did not address your 3 points. It seems we take different things from that paper. I did not perceive any noteworthy "beauty," nor anything remarkable about the "science," and I have no comment to make on Mr. Ford's mis-judgement of ethanol's commercial potential as a motor fuel a century ago.
Yes, I am doubtful that testing of real-world (i.e., water-bearing) ethanol blend motor fuels would show they provide performance results as favorable as the dry fuels tested in this paper.
Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry you’re another one that attended the one child left behind program. So that would again make you the commander TROLL!!
Are you going for the ignorant award? You finally made the commander troll position.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33213 Dec 22, 2012
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, interesting paper.
Unfortunately, its real-world significance is somewhat compromised by this limitation on the fuel mixtures studied:
"The fuel blends were prepared just before starting the experiment to ensure that the fuel mixture is homogenous and to prevent the reaction of ethanol with water vapor."
In other words, the results with ethanol fuel are idealized - obtainable only in the lab; the fuels tested are not the same as the ethanol fuel mixtures being foisted on the public at the retail pump, or being burned in their engines.
Real-world ethanol-blend fuels have the ethanol fraction largely saturated with water (and other 'gunk').
This study would have been of greater practical interest had they tested various ethanol blends that were NOT "fresh" - e.g., drawn from a partially-filled standard automotive tank vented to the atmosphere containing water vapor, tested after sitting for a few weeks without mixing/homogenization.
This is the real world ethanol blend fuel consumers actually burn.
Results, I expect, would be substantially different from the idealized "laboratory" fuel.
Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry you’re another one that attended the one child left behind program. So that would again make you the commander TROLL!!
Are you going for the ignorant award? You finally made the commander troll position.
TrollBot

Reston, VA

#33214 Dec 22, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry you’re another one that attended the one child left behind program. So that would again make you the commander TROLL!!
Are you going for the ignorant award? You finally made the commander troll position.
Troll. Ignored.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33215 Dec 22, 2012
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You're right - my post did not address your 3 points. It seems we take different things from that paper. I did not perceive any noteworthy "beauty," nor anything remarkable about the "science," and I have no comment to make on Mr. Ford's mis-judgement of ethanol's commercial potential as a motor fuel a century ago.
Yes, I am doubtful that testing of real-world (i.e., water-bearing) ethanol blend motor fuels would show they provide performance results as favorable as the dry fuels tested in this paper.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.[I don't get to use this much.]

The science should be straightforward and it is .. to me. So is the correctness of Mr. Ford's judgement. It took a lot of subsidies to Rockefeller et al to develop the other world, that of oil's. We would not be meeting at the global warming forum if the subsidies did not materialize.

Ah I'm getting carried away in the "if only" fiction .. no wars, no bombs, etc.
litesong

Camano Island, WA

#33216 Dec 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
From your article:
'tested 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% ethanol of blended fuels in a variable-compression-ratio engine'.
//////////
As I reported in an earlier report:
Ethanol needs high compression engines, close to that of diesel engines, to gain its efficiency. That is why the high performance, high compression Indy cars work well with ethanol. But the 10% ethanol in 'designed for gasoline' gasoline engines misses its efficiency region.
//////////
litesong continues:
Research modified engines by ethanol industry scientists can not apply to real-world conditions. Real-world 'for gasoline' engines do not have variable compression ratio engines. Real-world gasoline engines are not real-world ethanol engines as developed for Indy cars.

I am disappointed in the article "Patriot AKA Bozo" presents, since it is nothing more than a warmed-over ethanol industry propaganda piece, truly lying about ethanol efficiency in a real-world 'designed for gasoline' gasoline engine.

10% Ethanol blends lose 3% real-world mpg due to lack of btu in ethanol.
Also, 10% ethanol blends lose more mpg due to ethanol lack of efficiency when used in a 'for gasoline' designed gasoline engine.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Grey Ghost 1,457,907
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min jock itch lol 230,972
last post wins! (Dec '10) 7 hr They cannot kill ... 2,751
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 9 hr honeymylove 2,273
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 10 hr Doug77 9,840
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr Go Blue Forever 104,505
Word (Dec '08) 18 hr PEllen 6,836

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages