Jump to content

fleebut

Full Member
  • Content Count

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by fleebut

  1. Ya, this Pollan guy a Jew yuppie with little agriculture experience, but tells a great tale upon the corn industry. He routinely explained all of nature per some nutty evolution results. My example, man developed opposing thumbs, hands, arms to eat. His example, corn has learned to exploit farmers....suckers...they do my bidding and Mr. corn gives them some kernels. He presents a Frankenstein imagery and health to corn food. Also, the mechanization and chemicals just a easy out for farmers to take a vacation. Now at this point I realized Pollan has no steady job. In another time we would have called him a bum. But, upon modern time he appears to gain much fame and all to happy to ponder what the agri business is doing wrong.
  2. Don’t use food for fuel…..how often we hear this. Guess that would imply hydrocarbon fuel is virtuous? Current inflation, speculation, and low value of the dollar are putting the food fight to forefront of energy dollar expenditure. Ethanol opponents claim utilizing corn for fuel will raise the cost of food. Well, corn is technically food and ethanol demand will pull more corn consumption and in turn should spur market price. Agree with than logic. But to claim the price of corn directly magnifies price of all food stocks, is a bit of a stretch? But again we know corn products are omnipresent component within the commercial food industry. That evolved as result of low cost. So, now it’s unfair to find other uses of corn and raise the cost to those established in exploiting low cost stocks for low cost production costs? Remember oil was cheap once. Is it, likewise, unfair to find more use and other products for petrol? Should we limit the plastic production, fertilizer, asphalt, wax, and heating oil use? Don’t use fuel for heat and plastic as this will raise the cost.
  3. Just read “Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Pollan. The book makes some good arguments, but based on loose philosophy and with zero input from agri-business. Much of it pure hippie idealism framed within good writing skills to tell a story. Can’t argue with his premise food quality and return on investment upon small farms would call for a drastic change in operation. That this would be another avenue for agriculture to market direct to consumer. Also, more grass less corn better for bovines and quality of meat. Industrial food production not much concerned and may never be able to produce top quality healthy food. Home yard farming and small local farms may continue to increase in popularity for quality reasons. Very hard to mass produce eggs and meat with chickens walking, flapping pecking, and scratching about. Feedlots not ideal either. Shipping food thousands of miles not a good use of resources as food is so perishable. Guess, the citizens need to improve cooking and food preservation skills as well as gardening and animal rearing. We can modernize this and optimize as this appears to be the most ideal production of food.
  4. Michael Pollan’s book is quite popular and an easy read. He is not concerned with cost of corn…he is concerned with corn in food. He probably would be delighted to see 100% of corn to ethanol. DDG utilized as high protein feed a good healthy development. Same with what Green Field accomplishing with algae and left over distillery waste water This process more like farming and outputs 1/3 more feed upon the process. Very high quality plant based feed and 10% bio-oil. Would guess most ethanol plants would adapt the Poet cellulose process with dual anaerobic digesters and the Green field algae process for waste water.
  5. Would think the typical Industrial Park may be constructed around a nuclear generator whereupon the close proximity will benefit efficient use of power and heat. While the post didn't mention physical plant capacity or size, I do know Mitsubishi has invested heavy in small scale nuclear. These gen IV plants may be small. Ethanol may be able to utilize this heat energy, at least the bottoming cycle lower tempt leftovers. Distillation still the major energy hog. The ethanol gasification technologies should benefit, especially those garbage to ethanol processes. Coal incineration processes probably lose favor per environmental constraints/costs being replaced by clean coal gasification and conversion to butanol fuel, plastics, chemicals, etc. Nuclear plant close to coal mine supplying metro areas electricity and coal industry low cost heat. Fuel supply may revert to tri-mix where alcohol portion free to increase. Interesting to think bio-fuel, coal fuel, and petrol fuel mix.
  6. This technology will have big impact on energy production and consumption. A new generation nuclear power NGNP soon to hit the international streets, 8-10 years out. Generation IV nuclear power plant will run hotter up from 300C to 1,000C and the heat output to utilized for industrial processes. Besides electricity production these power plants will produce tremendous supplies of thermal energy. Industrial applications interested in tapping this low cost heat supply: 1. Hydrogen production, currently a NG process requiring 7% of total – One half the hydrogen used for nitrogen fertilizer – One half used to sweeten crude oil 2. U.S. has tremendous crude oil locked in rock strata, nuclear heat will set it free 3. Unattractive coal can be processed cleanly to transportation fuel The old hot water reactors had achieved a fuel burn of 3-4%. NGNP achieves 13% or three times the energy. Also, the nuclear activity is lower than input fuel. Meaning the nuclear reactor a nuclear waste processor. This technology will not displace other energy producers. Basically, it will supplement energy supplies for lower cost processing. Meaning ethanol producers will enjoy lower cost electricity than normal and may utilize low cost process heat. http://www.energy.gov/discovery/meet_the_next_generation.html
  7. Article does read the benefits of ethanol blend fuel for this fully flexed vehicle from 20% ethanol on up. So, engine design capable of exploiting ethanol at 20% concentration and no more? Meaning the physical constraints of engine and their design limited. I'm guessing this is true as ethanol fueled engine efficiency really needs diesel strength. Ford ECCO boost that started upon evolution of ethanol fuel was beefed up, sized down, and received max boost with DI. This I believe a truly ethanol optimized engine would look like. Also, having a flex engine will incur a compromise cost such as not being able to be truly optimized for each fuel. This may not be a problem as the fuel supply is currently mixed with gasoline. But, hard to believe a 100% ethanol engine would look anything similar to 100% gasoline. Lugging engine with manual gears a effective way to boost pressure. This the reason cold engines will run better under some load and not stall. Remember the shift indicator for economy? Ethanol with high torque ability should greatly improve mpg with tall gears. CVT trans may be just the ticket. Still would think an optimized ethanol engine would be low rpm, high pressure, high boost, low CI. They need a flex engine that would run h100 in summer and E85 in winter.
  8. But using ethanol as a fuel is not drawbacks free. 1. Cold Start (how did they improve this?) 2. Autonomy (making a flexible engine to run two different fuel efficiently) Using a MPI scavenging (some sort of tuned exhaust?) Turbo charging Appropriate compression ratio (per variable camshaft?) Thanks to the adaptation of the inlet manifold (is this cold start improvement?) Intake camshaft as (converting to variable?) Piston and con-rod coupling. (why? Strength?) Such performances made it possible to change the gearbox ratios in order to reduce the fuel Consumption (torque went up 21% so gearing up 21% with ethanol? Also, must be variable when running gasoline) Compared to the standard engine, the BSFC's improvement reaches 7% (probably a measure of improvement of ethanol as the engine optimized for gasoline, already. Meaning with an flexible engine more capable of exploiting ethanol advantage, 7% reduction. So the 25% mileage hit would decrease to 18%. By increasing drive ratio 21% they would be close to even.
  9. You have to evaluate each program separately on merit. No news agency has a lock on credibility. You can get a better perspective often times from foreign press that have no political agenda investment, i.e. Al jarzeera. Christian news outlets, talk radio, PBS, NPR, and all the Right Wing talk shows. National news probably the most inferior, but again go program by program. You can quickly tell if they all agree and just reflect talking points of same viewpoint. When the show has no contrary viewpoint it is useless information. Same when news people burdened themselves to inform audience the truth of speech and forbid audience to come to their own conclusions. For instance if you didn't personally listen to State of Union Speech, you will not understand. Talk shows that interview themselves (the press) are particularly worthless, unless they come from different sides. Every news outlet has their targeted audience. The vast majority left wing sensitive, probably as the business is run by unions and accreditation from the most political school on campus “School of Journalism”. Most attend Ivy League schools that have become bastions of Liberalism, total opposite of the original intent of founding principles such as Private Religious school to maximize countries leadership moral code. Also, most national broadcasts located in large metro areas famous zones of Liberalism. I once went to NYC with family and stayed in condo right down town, business trip. Was talking to locals on night life as noticed large gatherings at a particular bar. I got the impression that upward mobile, spend free time smoozing. This field full of alcoholics and divorcees. They use sex for career path. NY and DC have black tie events for the intelligentsia to smooze with the beautiful and powerful in attempt to increase popularity. Restaurants specialize in political clientele, Carvilles for example. Stopped at Today show outside news cast. Some famous musical artists performing. We actually got to converse with Anne Curry. Her and Matt seemed to be regular folk, but “oh my”, when Queen Katie blessed us with her presence. They all zoned in on meeting concerns and flipped to attendants. Queen Katie would never indulge upon commoner talk and she paraded like royalty. Something very wrong with making rock stars out of news people. This is a vestige of Walter Cronkite days where politics really energized per news anchor popularity. They yearn for those years and attempt with Katie. Back in my early years was at a club close to Madison political district. Befriended two beautiful 20 yr olds who had no interest in me. They were hookers whom made the big bucks upon Wisconsin politics of don’t ask, don’t tell. So, career politicians usually a very disgusting group. Also, we should be very concerned of the political candidate’s moral fiber as no good can come from corrupt leadership.
  10. That article Thumpin linked to- It made me think of how Egyptian politics attempted to manage the country. They appeared for a long time to appease the masses with artificial supports to supply vs demand, but in the end reality hits and really PO's the citizens whom do not like reality. This the same juice that partially destroyed our economy. You know the politics of deciding whats best for us per some artificial adjustment of supply vs demand. For decades every CIC would give speeches on the need for private housing the hallmark of good society. Everyone should have a house and it was up to the feds to make it happen. So, regs were all swayed to make it easier to accomplish. Realtors and tax avoidance professions hyped the benefits. Investment firms created new financial instruments to leverage the value. In other words, we as a nation distorted the true worth of housing. We hyped the value to unsustainable. Reality will eventually rear its ugly head. Economic true worth will eventually reign. It's very dangerous to play with market conditions. No one person has ability to know more or have more wisdom than the entire lot of us. Yes people can stampede and be capable of group think. But, that is usually because of lack of good consumer info and hype of infomercial marketing. Nations should not subsidize needs or wants. Especially food as that commodity needs the real world supply demand constraints and development. Now, keeping fledgling markets, technology alive and well to develop, a different matter. Markets can be swayed the small business solution way or propped up to induce maximum competition. That's a good benefit of regulations.
  11. Interesting that as we know uncontrolled pre-ignition per some hot carbon ember is bad for power and engine components. Detonation is catastrophic, but this is different ignition event. Meaning the fuel doesn’t simply burn upon a wave form, but homogenously erupts in flame, all together. This is the Holy Grail for maximum chamber pressure as the fuel is burning in one time period working together for chamber pressure. No flame event being quashed by lowering piston pressure. This is better ignition event than the highly prized diesel ignition. Denotation is very powerful per the destroyed engine parts. GM is attempting to harvest the projected 30% gain in efficiency per the HCCI engine. To do so, they needed to greatly beef up engine strength to sustain combustion strain and only attempt the feat in lean burn low fuel energy conditions. Reading up on the race engine technology, I believe they desire the sweet zone of coming as close as possible to detonation event under max power, so the ignition will be the controlling event to erupt sledge hammer detonation and in doing so make it controllable yet powerful. This would produce more CO as result. Even with more power HCCI type ignition will still produce more hydrocarbon and CO emissions. Meaning the exhaust would appear rich. Just my guess, as the technology advancements are held close to vest. I do hear F1 type engines explode fuel whereas other engines burn fuel.
  12. Another way to think of max power conditions, but one must remember commercial produced engines not designed strictly for max power. Meaning the variable cam, ignition, and engine control could only induce a small fraction of below events. Also, EPA regulated emission standards quell the practice. Auto enthusiasts usually talk of concerns of max power production. It would make more sense to me, if racing started pulling in mpg concerns as part of the winning strategy as we often contribute the benefits of race engineering to improvements in auto industry. Very high rpm events of engine combustion occur so quickly, they overlap or appear with engine control to be happening at same time. A strange environment where nice neat efficient explanations of combustion theory gone. It’s a world whereupon engine hp only maximized with trial and error on test stand. So many variables that need to be evaluated, even identical engines benefit from tweaking. I read this zone events occur so fast, that efficient combustion impossible. Harvesting max power from the btu of fuel impossible. Fuel ratios per the exhaust emissions very rich for maximum power as the engine has no time to allow complete mixing, expulsion, or intake of fuel. So, since the race engine designed to harvest max power per minute from the fuel no matter, the exhaust runs rich as inside the chamber some portion will burn correctly. They push out the hot gas before piston overheats. Exhaust burdened with the complete burn of carbon fuel.
  13. My understanding of basics, First an engine converts chemical energy to mechanical, per the combustion of carbon fuel. A fuel which requires temperature and oxygen to combust. Since the combustion chamber restricted to cubic inch volume, a limited quantity of air or oxygen can be pulled in to combust fuel. Hp in general a product of fuel consumption. Therefore the engine will produce more hp with higher rpm per the higher consumption rate of fuel. Race engine take that a step farther. Extremely high rpms, as their only concern is max hp and to do that with the same cubic inch engine. So, the race engine harvests the fastest energy available and moves on to another stroke doing the same. Carbon fuel molecules upon combustion event will seek out oxygen or vice versa. When they meet up upon combustion conditions, energy released. Carbon can quickly meet up with one oxygen molecule and release energy when forming CO. It is a longer event to meet up with two oxygen molecules or to acquire an additional molecule of oxygen to form CO2, but when doing so, another burst of heat energy released. However, this takes additional time and additional oxygen both of scarce commodity upon race engines. So, they design engines to harvest CO energy and quickly dump the heat to atmosphere for yet another quick stroke. This energy extremely vicious, more like a sledge hammer to piston and requires ultra strong mechanical components. High rpm mitigates the damage as well. Now, that the combustion only requires one oxygen molecule, twice as much fuel can be dumped in or even more too cool things down. This trick may not be available to most engines, but may be per degree? Especially with variable valve timing and computer control of process. Am sure the EPA will limit the practice on production vehicles.
  14. Very good job Dan! Sensible, credible, information with that bright yellow avatar for readers to quickly I.D.. It's a good read just to follow the icon down the list. Very strong points made. The comments mostly anti Newt more so than ethanol. Posts just about all read the same. Newt's candidacy is over for support of ethanol fuel. Just a bunch of hooey. He is and will be highly respected as an independent thinker. He brings lots of wisdom to the discussion, not merely partisan talking points. However, it would have behooved ethanol image if politicians tweaked the support. Adjusted, recalculated....anything other than just maintain status as the status is to easy demagogued.
  15. I never bought into the Keynesian economic theory, unless government had actually saved up a war chest fund....maybe social insurance type fund to quickly pump money supply up. That would only be if a wide array of back logged projects readily available for the cause. Projects that truly improve the economic competitiveness of country. Not the typical union route, but new competitive challenges to reinvent the way we do things. Education comes to mind or government services.
  16. Easy to sponsor a bill that improves politician image with constituency, knowing full well it will go no where. Blame the political opponents while improving your personal image. This in it self is an exercise in non productive pandering. A poisoning of water well exercise. Knowing full well the nation is upon critical mass of expenditures and debt load, a better approach would be to justify expenditure as a short term catalysis for pumping up the job creating private sector. Probably better to reinvent/change the de-incentives of crushing burdens regulatory industry. For instance: . blender pump to receive blender credit of ethanol sales up to $10k per pump or reduced road tax for blender pump ethanol sales. . blender pump eligible for zero sales tax for first 100,000 g ethanol sales. . Base regulatory requirement on performance. Business entity earns the right to be burdened with federal regulations. Competent and ethical firms with good track record not burdened with regs. Performance not rated per reg compliance as this exercise academic and not always a predictor of future results as we know regs are soon obsolete, out of date, and inefficient as industry will continually progress to better quality, efficiency, and better methods. Make performance regs instead of conformance regs i.e. general good design principles for fuel pump infrastructure with a minimum performance standards. If your blender pump design doesn't meet real life performance criteria your product will be recalled on your dime. . regs based on maximum damage or maximum benefit for economy dollars spent. U.S. federal operation has a habit of ignoring reality. Example; requiring petrol industry to spend $100k per oil spill pelican life saved. Ask yourself what is the benefit per dollar spent? Would the money be better deposited in green fund for future expenditures with maximum economic benefit? Another example; high auto density metro areas require extreme auto emission control. Would the other 95% low density land mass be better served with ultra low regs. Metro environment should be higher than present. The other not to worry about as environmental return is near zero. Why do we have to pass grand overburdening fed law? The Lawyer process is very inefficient. Environmentalist will get more results working with private sector efficiencies. It's referred to, on the street, as common sense solutions.
  17. It's common knowledge, we need all energy sources especially for benefit of growing economy and to make our economy more competitive. Oil is critical for our current needs. We allowed our energy supply to be so susceptible, that international supply could derail our economy. Nuclear long term most respected solution. Coal our ace in hole energy supply and the lowest cost energy source. Natural gas would occupy the next most valuable energy source. Wind and solar beneficial to augment much needed increase supply demands as biofuel. They do need to work on it all. Coal for instance will be utilized globally for a long time. Better for environmentalist to push clean coal technology for wide distribution. The U.S. is in a good position to develop this technology for benefit of environment. Same for bio-fuel development. Were in a better position to supply this technology for international export, more so that batteries that rely on rare metal supply. But, again, all of it is to economically valuable to simply rely on foreign supplies. Our petro exploration support companies the best in world. This sector very attractive upon U.S. wealth generation. Much to valuable to allow to waste away. Good to keep the golden goose busy and growing. Unless we experience financial disruption whereupon all energy needs stall, we all will have our hands full producing as much energy as possible. Their is room upon the table for all and the best reason of all the vehicle fleet should be flex fueled period.
  18. Clear as mud. Not much visibility to see pull ahead winner as competitors keeping cards close to vest. Information per the grape vine. Lots of challenges and strategies to survive short term. It appears starch ethanol will migrate or give way to cellulose rain fed crops and wood waste and forest waste definitely in the mix. Appears alternative fuel supply technology will be as diverse as feedstock availability. Custom application based on local criteria of feedstock. Financial success, will depend on meeting the challenge of solving hundreds of small problems, cost effectively. No grand wholesale mega investments, just lean companies forging business deals with co-parters or buying up bankrupted corn ethanol plants for cost effective transition. Ethanol processes will become specific to sector i.e. sugar cane, farm, wood, coal. May the process technology be sold to engineering plant contractors that develop expertise in a particular conversion? Makes me think corn starch processors will be forging deals and consolidating resources to establish transition technology and pool talent/resources. Better put all those heads together and pull farm ethanol continually to the forefront. Probably, hybrid process, and ethanol itself may give way to competitor. It's still the alternative fuel wild west.
  19. OEM recommended- My brother a retired Engineer. He has little expertise within auto technology other than thermal dynamics theory within the educational system. Per his book THE only person reputable upon autos, the one who designed the car. So, he reads the Owners Manual with utmost respect, never varying. This is probably good advice for those who trust no one and afraid of making a blunder. However, most would understand that even the designer of that car can’t know everything. For instance the manner in which you typically drive, the conditions, your budget concerns, up to date technology and better understanding of the particular auto faults upon history. The car company will not bother to update specifications to achieve better performance or life span for auto owner, nor will they inform public of new after market products to make the car last longer and be more efficient. So, the recommended oil change interval, oil, spark plugs, tires, tire pressure, etc. all tied up within legal liability of when the auto was built. No reputable business will venture outside this critical zone of minimal liability. Oil change intervals- specifications that increase mileage between oil change will accommodate advertisements offering low maintenance vehicle as compared to older models. Would the consumer be truly better off? Listen to consumer reporting apparently? Yet, they to will never disobey OEM recommendations. So, who is watching out for your wallet concern….no one. Spark plugs- ask yourself why do new model cars spec out the latest technological advances upon spark plugs, yet no new OEM re-specification for your old car? Answer, they don’t want to spend the money. Your car will operate the way they intended if you stick with OEM specs. No better, no worse. Tires- since tires are spec’d for acceptable safety upon a wide diverse operation range and upon a minimal cost to accomplish this. This, usually the prime zone to improve, as we desire to achieve better performance for our particular needs. Traction, high speed, rain, snow, low cost, or low rolling resistance. The manual doesn’t exactly cover all this. What to do? Consumer advice urges public to read and follow car manual. Why is our culture so afraid to educate the public? They seem to exclaim….don’t think, follow directions! You’re not smart and should not attempt anything on your own. In fact this attitude is hammered into youth. Much like my brother, they will laugh at anyone attempting to be independent thinkers. The bottom line…..you can’t possibly be credible. This may be the primary obstacle to E85 fuel. It takes some self confidence in a person’s ability to seek the truth. Most fear they will be snookered per the non expert advice. If the car was not designed specifically for ethanol blended fuel, bottom lines don’t risk using it. Specifically, the vehicle engineered for gasoline for maximum performance and lifespan. Historically this the case and average consumer believes buying better gasoline will be good for the car i.e. Shell fuel or premium. Some cars have ability to burn up to 85% ethanol maximum. Meaning you need at least 15% minimum gasoline for proper engine function. Beginning to read like the ethanol portion a compromise fuel. Sure it’s better (laugh) who are you to tell me? My brother is exactly this mindset. He will always hunker down within OEM specs. Not even if later E15 is accepted per automotive manufacturer as this a compromise to original design. Did look up a old '95 GMC manual with big bold warning on 5% methanol maximum as they describe methanol as wood alcohol. Maximum 5% as the fuel corrodes metal parts in your fuel system and also damage plastic and rubber parts. A specification of 10% ethanol is acceptable as they describe the additive grain alcohol. So, owner of the vehicle would conclude this version of alcohol better as the additive only destroys 1/2 the metal, rubber, and plastic parts as compared to methanol. Great. Read a couple days ago of a bio fuel organization spokesperson promoting the idea of doing away with self service gas stations as a good idea to keep customers tied to OEM spec fuel. To keep customers from making mistakes…..this is a pleasant cover to accomplish preventing customers from having choice.
  20. That's interesting. The gap increased by .015" after 135k miles, not bad. The ground strap didn't erode. Well, I did read the center electrode incurs most of the heat and erosion. Makes me think those multi-prong plugs not a benefit? Also, read the plug manufacturers utilize alloys of iridium and some plugs barely have enough to be called iridium. Denso, has been very active in plug technology. The company very heavy in engineering, electronics, and auto systems. Seems to be a class "A" technological company. The latest platinum TT spark plug or double tip. It's an alloy of platinum and titanium. I see the OEMs spec out Denso plugs often including Lexus, GM, and flex vehicles. Could be another indicator the company manufactures some quality parts? The smaller tip spark plug appears to be the holy grail for hot efficient spark ignition. Manufactures are busy alloying platinum, iridium, and titanium for long electrode life with minimal diameter of center electrode. Denso, had the smallest at 4mm with iridium alloy up to the twin tip spark plug design. Amazing, they now have electrode down to 1.1mm center and the grounding strap has another electrode of 1.5 diameter. PR press seems to indicate this plug will do good for Denso sales. Their web site has quantifiable mpg gains, roughly 1 mpg. It's advertised as long life plug. This certainly the plug to compare with for cold start improvements with fex or non-flex E85 fuel. IMHO.
  21. Per my conservative best advice thoughts the advice given, so far, to stay out of trouble….best in class. But, many are looking to improvements. If you’re burning E85 fuel in a non-flex your out of range of OEM recommendations, already. Going to Fords flex fuel vehicle specification won’t help either as you again have different circumstances. That vehicle designed with more powerful ignition, among other differences. Also, some vehicles and modifications very sensitive to spark plug selections as these engine produce max hp. The advice for this group is quite different from common technology vehicles. Staying with manufacturers whom have credible and successful track record always a good bet. Having said that the pulstar plug may provide better cold start. Especially, after reading and experiencing the benefits of “Easy Start” plugs for small engines. As you probably know small engines have a reputation for hard starting and poor spark. Cheap magnetos or cheap magnet probably the cause as sloppy assembly. Bought one of those more expensive “Easy Start” plugs and made a big difference. Come to find out they have technology that reads like what Pulstar has. So, go figure? I do believe Pulsestar had and may still have reliability problems. They are a very small manufacturer with a new relatively untested product. On E85 Vehicles this post “Bosch also claims these plugs will ”The tests found that the four ground electrode spark plugs (the Platinum 4) had up to 33% better cold restart reliability than conventional plugs." Building on the growing evidence of platinum plug technology….irradium. Just having a higher temperature metal within spark gap will increase life per minimizing electric erosion of metal. The center electrode made of higher temp metal will increase spark plug life as most erosion occurs here. Now, the steel grounding strap the first to give out. Not so with 2 or 4 prongs as the spark erosion per spark gap ground is shared. Spark only grounds to one strap per occurrence. All of this if fine for spark plug life, but does nothing for E85 fuel except for high quality spark gap conditions for a longer operational time. Enter in the smaller diameter center electrode. This will promote hotter spark even under poor conditions of wet plug or lower voltage. Of course your spark plug lifespan may take a hit.
  22. Hydrous ethanol- Much info on water benefiting the combustion process, improving efficiencies. Never understood why this was possible other than reduced temperatures, steam, and increased density of exhaust helpful in turbo power. This engineering tip website had a good explanation: http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=811 Basically, hydrocarbon fuel molecules of hydrogen and carbon in the presence of temperature and oxygen break down to form- OH radicals and CO – this chemical reaction occurs fast and may cause engine knock -water molecules obstructs (in the way) this process and slows down reaction (no engine knock). After this phase of combustion, a slower process that develops 2/3 of the total power. CO oxidizes to C02 late in combustion - this process produces 2/3 the power - OH radicals slows down this process Free water will promote quicker chemical reaction of CO to CO2 and present an improved power stroke with less CO pollutants. Lean burn fuel ratios are o.k. per reduced combustion peak heat. Drag strip engines apparently utilize water injection as max power generated while keeping temperature down. In fact most antidotal evidence appears the benefit mainly at high horsepower that normally would result in damaging high temperatures. Lean burn damaging temperatures decreased, also. Turbo engines often run rich fuel mixtures to prevent engine damage, yet it’s a bad chemical process as more fuel will produce OH radicals that obstructs the more powerful oxidation of CO. Meaning your losing the efficiency of turbo for better mpg. Water injection would be a big improvement to mileage, or running hydrous ethanol mix. So, hydrous ethanol may be an excellent fuel for those future engines powering hybrid technology. Much like the Chevy Volt that operate at an efficient constant rpm powering either a hydraulic pump or electric generator. A high compression turbo’d engine running upon lean hydrous ethanol fuel air mix a perfect match. Thanks, Husker, interesting comments following that article that tended to imply hydraulic hybrids would be the fastest near term solution as the technology is available now, more reliable, and cheaper.
  23. As I understand market manipulation...it's illegal but hard to prove. SEC looks at data for large unwarranted sells or purchases to disclose, but what if manipulators utilized some bad or good news to push markets to over react? Trades are extremely quick for those that rent computer space on exchange. Trades also, extremely complicated as traders have custom software to sift out data to disclose attractive trades and do so automatically thousands per second. Experts that follow this technology and evolving marketplace are concerned as most of the time everything works fine, but the system is untested per panic and exploitation gains. Soros, achieved billionaire status back in old days upon better knowledge of monetary trading. The market was exploited for unintended use. He caused economic hardship upon United Kingdom and not popular guy there. But, the facts....it was legal at that time and it took a long time for the public servants to wise up or should I say wake up. Only after a catastrophe do regulators wake up and bemoan not enough money and regulations. That's why I think so little of the power to improve via fed regulation. It's at best after the fact, to costly, and to slow. Within financial sector, better to standardize and simplify financial products. The simplicity should allow foul play to be self evident. If an 8th grader can't understand the process or product, then the process or product should be held an violation of the government mandate per founding principles whereas the government setup for furthering the enjoyment of its citizens. The KISS principle. Complication is tax on poor, IMHO.
  24. I find the poll interesting. More of this should be accomplished within Brazil as consumers react consistently. We need to better understand the market place to be successful and to place money at weakest link. First Brazil has a different fuel mix as compared. E25 the standard or chose the E100 hydrous. Per our standards the entire country on ethanol, as of ’08 ethanol 50% of the gasoline fuel total. Flex fuel vehicles dominate the new auto sales and flex vehicles, 39% of the national fleet. So, this poll limited to flex fuel vehicle owners whom can chose between the two blends. This class of customers, I would guess, more affluent and the choice limited. The 20% segment that preferred petrol, characterized as older with larger vehicles and commute longer distances. Well, this classification probably more affluent as they appear not to be concerned with mpg or savings as much as the refueling hassle . They are putting up with more stress hence the longer commute to maximize or continue wealth. The 20% segment that preferred ethanol, characterized the opposite as above (my guess) except they to must have wealth, hence the flex vehicle. Their refueling not a hassle because of low rate of consumption. They may be motivated in part, also, per local politics of popularity and chose to support a locally produced product to gain a reputation? This often the popularity contest from farm market purchases….to prove to public their personal credentials to invest in the public interests. Others just want less hassle and utilize the one stop super market. The article presented no discussion on impact of developing technology as the sugar beet ethanol producer concerned with the here and now market. But consider this: .Would the all consumers chose ethanol, all things being equal, but the mpg was exactly the same as gasoline. Just about. It’s only when we have a large drop in mpg that we look to cost to justify the purchase. When no justification upon cost can be made we look deeper into the intrinsic value and person image concerns. My take on ethanol Achilles’ heal of stopping popularity…..pull the rug out of environmental benefit. Attack gen one ethanol (the place keeper for future success) as an environmental and humankind disaster. Second, minimize the fuel’s economic attractiveness per EPA regs, auto technology, and control within petrol industry blending and distribution. Then go after the excessive government expenditures after sitting back and allowing the feast per bad PR achievements. It’s a one, two, three punch and you’re out. Of the three, the most dangerous outbreak to popularize the fuel imagine as within public mindset……a high tech optimized ethanol engine. Racing has done their part, great PR. Government could have accomplish most with ethanol promotion, if they classified a Green vehicles per inclusion of E85 non flex.
  25. It's easy to sell blend additive to a captive consumer. No choice at the pump and infrastructure already exists. Depots already have invested in ethanol for blending; no extra investment required. Every gas station across country a potential customer. Also, more ethanol could be consumed closer in, geographically to production plants in the short haul per the 50% increase allowance. Without the increase, the group said the U.S. won't be able to meet a congressional mandate requiring some 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022. So, per their projections, the infrastructure for higher blend ethanol will not be built out in time to accommodate the ethanol production schedule. This makes sense.....it will take time to build up, one gas pump at time. Lots of expense and regulation to deal with. Also, owners drag feet, waiting to see customer demand. Customers demand lags until they see a benefit to purchasing the fuel. Meaning better mileage and promotional advertisements. Since, ethanol is in the cross hairs of concern within government costs and open market influence not to leave out those whom prefer less competition for feed corn...the public is not totally committed to the success of this alternative. This will also take some time to shake out, as customers (over time) learn the reality of ethanol. Automotive and petrol will adapt to the new fuel for EPA requirements. A small tweak to stabilize and standardize blends. They would need a stable mix of ethanol concentration, hence their concern. Some parts of country with 50% more ethanol in the mix. That is a big problem for them. Will RBOB fuel mutate to RRBOB? Petrol blend stock with ultra low btu and octane created to keep E15 within the same zone of octane and fuel vapor pressure? Would automotive require tweaking updates to engine control programing? Did read this would be required to, but easily accomplished.
×
×
  • Create New...