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

Full story: Newsday 51,386
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
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

Wichita, KS

#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

Mclean, VA

#33202 Dec 22, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry youíre 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

Mclean, 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

Mclean, 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

Wichita, KS

#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

Mclean, 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

Overton, TX

#33211 Dec 22, 2012
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll. Ignored.
Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry youíre 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

Overton, 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 youíre 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

Overton, 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 youíre 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

Mclean, VA

#33214 Dec 22, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Hay when you respond your not ignoring. Sorry youíre 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

Coupeville, 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.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33217 Dec 22, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sorry, but as an octane chemist, I disagree that compression ratio is a problem with the efficiencies of 10% alcohol blends. I do agree that the energy content of ethanol is less than that of gasoline but in gasoline blends that is largely lost. The torque and horsepower ratings are positive. The advantages out weigh the negatives. Ethanol is an oxygenator as well as an octane booster.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33218 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.
Remember your earlier comments re the Chinese.

See this now, stunning stuff:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/...

Enjoy.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#33219 Dec 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
..... I disagree that compression ratio is a problem with the efficiencies of 10% alcohol blends.
You must explain why Indy car engines run at high compression ratios, instead of the lower compression ratios of gasoline engines.

The ethanol industry in step with the U.S. gov't, do not test 10% ethanol blends against 100% gasoline, to show that 'their 3% difference' between 10% ethanol blends & 100% gasoline is a lie.

But to make sure that auto manufacturers get the highest EPA city & highway mpg ratings, the EPA tests with the equivalent of 100% gasoline without ethanol. A pox on EPA that they say they are simplifying the parameters of mpg ratings.

Not one gov't or ethanol study does comprehensive tests for extensive numbers of real-world 'designed for gasoline' automobiles, comparing 10% ethanol blends & 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline.

100% gasoline as compared to 10% ethanol blends, not only gives better mpg, but makes engines designed for gasoline, run smoother, quieter, & gives a bit extra low end torque, such that less down shifting is necessary when ascending hills.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min shinningelectr0n 1,189,784
want 27 min piyush91 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 36 min wojar 184,799
Dear Abby 2-26-15 45 min Kuuipo 8
wishes 3 hr iyya 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Not Yet Equal 51,332
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr David Morrison 99,159
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:18 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:18AM
Best Options to Replace Briggs This Offseason
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Buzz: Colts Eyeing Trades for Veteran WRs Including Marshall
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Could Bears Ever Get Fair Trade Value for Forte?
Bleacher Report 1:40 PM
Wayne Undergoes Surgery on Triceps
NFL 2:44 PM
Reggie Wayne had surgery, mulling Colts future