Gasohol - Page 3

Posted by Don Ocean on November 19, 2008, 12:14 am

Noon-Air wrote:

>> Steve wrote:

>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?
>>>>>>> As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was
>>>>>>> from the dyno with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The
>>>>>>> emissions were negligible... they barely registered on the machine.
>>>>>>> The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe)
>>>>>>> on the interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.
>>>>>> What are you smoking? From 105 HP to 275 HP.. The only way that
>>>>>> corn can do that is if the driver drinks that alcohol product
>>>>>> derived from it.
>>>>> Pay attention Don, I never said the engine was stock. It had a lot
>>>>> of work done on the heads, cam and valvetrain, and was running
>>>>> direct port induction with 2bbl Weber carbs among other things.
>>>> You implied that all happened from the use of Gasohol. I just wanted
>>>> to know if you used it for fuel or drank it. ;-p I once had a
>>>> Pontiac that had a 429 cu that dyno'ed at the Lions in Long Beach at
>>>> 395 HP without all that stuff. Got 14 mpg on High test. It could
>>>> pass everything except a gas station.
>>> Its all about efficiency... the more efficient the engine is, the
>>> more horsepower its going to make, and the less fuel its going to
>>> take to do the job, and the less emissions it will have.

>> Actually the efficiency ratio is predicated to changing 100% of the
>> fuels BTUH to 100% work. Horsepower actually can be a waste if it is
>> more then you need to economically transport mass at the most
>> efficient speed. A high horsepower engine running at high speed is
>> absolutely not efficient. One of the most efficient Engines was the
>> Sterling Engine.
>> Chrysler tried to produce a Gas turbine in 1962-63 that supposedly was
>> fuel efficient. it was actually worse then a standard internal
>> combustion engine, Was an expensive maintenance nightmare and was
>> expensive to produce. Chrysler pulled them off the streets In 1965? and
>> shredded every one of them. They didn't even save one for the Museum.
>> As for emmissions..They cannot be avoided as much of that is created
>> by additives that don't totally burn. Its the old adage of energy
>> cannot be destroyed only changed in form.

>
>
> Not too many places to run the engine wide open, let alone run wide open
> all the time.

Agreed.

Posted by Stormin Mormon on November 17, 2008, 12:34 am

Center posted, like the last added text, to this post.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

>I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?

As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was from the dyno
with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The emissions were
negligable... they barely registered on the machine.

Glad you had a good experience with your test. I've heard from others who
don't like gasohol. I'm in the "don't like gasohol" camp. Seeing as how it's
more expensive for me to run. It's a good idea. Locally grown fuel and all.
But, subsidized means that the government takes taxes from us by force, and
uses the tax money to pay for the scheme. So, gasohol not only costs me more
at the pump, also more in taxes. I'd prefer local drilling for oil in the
USA, such as Alaska.

The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe) on the
interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.

> I was
> astounded when I calculated it out, and found the drop in mileage. And
> that's just with 10% ethanol.
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
> Don, I have to disagree on the gasohol... as far as being a lousy fuel...
> My
> own experiences have proven to me that ita a lot better than just straight
> gasoline. Not only in better performance, and better fuel economy, but its
> that much less dependence on fossil fuels and its more environmentally
> friendly.

Posted by on November 16, 2008, 6:37 pm

wrote:

>> Stormy:
>> It is a lousy fuel. It takes more energy to produce then it will expend.
>> It costs the taxpayer 55 cents a mixed gallon and it still can't
>> compete. The farmers love it. They pay $10,000 per share for the company
>> and usually buy several shares. This ownership gives them a guarantee of
>> a locked in high price for their corn and other alcohol producing crops.
>> This in turn has caused the companies to declare bankruptcies in a down
>> market that we are now in. The largest 2 producers along with about 9
>> smaller producers are here in South Dakota. The farmers are having another
>> Bumper crop year, but require higher prices as the fuel costs and
>> petroleum based fertilizers, insect sprays, etc have taken a helluva a
>> toll. A friend of mine borrowed over $800,000 in a production loan this
>> year. That is getting real common. many have borrowed several $million to
>> install windfarms. One super windmill costs about $1.8 million and is
>> projected to recover its investment plus profit in 7 years. I believe Hell
>> will freeze over first.

>Don, I have to disagree on the gasohol... as far as being a lousy fuel... My
>own experiences have proven to me that ita a lot better than just straight
>gasoline. Not only in better performance, and better fuel economy, but its
>that much less dependence on fossil fuels and its more environmentally
>friendly.

        But it's a net-negative to produce, at least with current
technology. It takes more energy to produce than you get using it.
Big problem.

        If you take 10,000 BTU of nat gas to distill 9,000 BTU of
ethanol, you'd have been better off just using that nat gas directly.

        Today, ethanol is a pipe-dream, the Wixard of Oz making magic
behind the curtain.

        Also - combustion will NEVER be an efficient way of creating /
capturing energy, no matter WHAT you're burning. 90 + % of your input
goes up the flue, either as gases or particulates or heat.

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm

Posted by Bipolar Bear on November 21, 2008, 12:58 am

> wrote:

> >> Stormy:
> >> It is a lousy fuel. It takes more energy to produce then it will

expend.

> >> It costs the taxpayer 55 cents a mixed gallon and it still can't
> >> compete. The farmers love it. They pay $10,000 per share for the

company

> >> and usually buy several shares. This ownership gives them a guarantee

> >> a locked in high price for their corn and other alcohol producing

crops.

> >> This in turn has caused the companies to declare bankruptcies in a down
> >> market that we are now in. The largest 2 producers along with about 9
> >> smaller producers are here in South Dakota. The farmers are having

another

> >> Bumper crop year, but require higher prices as the fuel costs and
> >> petroleum based fertilizers, insect sprays, etc have taken a helluva a
> >> toll. A friend of mine borrowed over $800,000 in a production loan this
> >> year. That is getting real common. many have borrowed several $million

> >> install windfarms. One super windmill costs about $1.8 million and is
> >> projected to recover its investment plus profit in 7 years. I believe

Hell

> >> will freeze over first.

> >Don, I have to disagree on the gasohol... as far as being a lousy fuel...

> >own experiences have proven to me that ita a lot better than just

straight

> >gasoline. Not only in better performance, and better fuel economy, but

its

> >that much less dependence on fossil fuels and its more environmentally
> >friendly.

> But it's a net-negative to produce, at least with current
> technology. It takes more energy to produce than you get using it.
> Big problem.

Wanna bet me a Brazillion dollars ?.......

I will concede that given corn grown and when processed in the US the
figures seem to be appx 1.3 ROI.

--

--

Posted by Don Ocean on November 21, 2008, 1:11 am

Bipolar Bear wrote:

>> wrote:

>>>> Stormy:
>>>> It is a lousy fuel. It takes more energy to produce then it will

> expend.

>>>> It costs the taxpayer 55 cents a mixed gallon and it still can't
>>>> compete. The farmers love it. They pay $10,000 per share for the

> company

>>>> and usually buy several shares. This ownership gives them a guarantee

> of

>>>> a locked in high price for their corn and other alcohol producing

> crops.

>>>> This in turn has caused the companies to declare bankruptcies in a down
>>>> market that we are now in. The largest 2 producers along with about 9
>>>> smaller producers are here in South Dakota. The farmers are having

> another

>>>> Bumper crop year, but require higher prices as the fuel costs and
>>>> petroleum based fertilizers, insect sprays, etc have taken a helluva a
>>>> toll. A friend of mine borrowed over $800,000 in a production loan this
>>>> year. That is getting real common. many have borrowed several $million

> to

>>>> install windfarms. One super windmill costs about $1.8 million and is
>>>> projected to recover its investment plus profit in 7 years. I believe

> Hell

>>>> will freeze over first.
>>> Don, I have to disagree on the gasohol... as far as being a lousy fuel...

> My

>>> own experiences have proven to me that ita a lot better than just

> straight

>>> gasoline. Not only in better performance, and better fuel economy, but

> its

>>> that much less dependence on fossil fuels and its more environmentally
>>> friendly.

>> But it's a net-negative to produce, at least with current
>> technology. It takes more energy to produce than you get using it.
>> Big problem.

>
> Wanna bet me a Brazillion dollars ?.......

Even the Feds concede that it is not economically viable. The only up
side is the illusion that we use less petroleum products. If you still
doubt this, i will gladly sell you my 5 shares at what I paid for them.

>
> I will concede that given corn grown and when processed in the US the
> figures seem to be appx 1.3 ROI.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>

Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 > last >>