wrote:

I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric
Around here it's the same grade of gas that gets ethanol or not. The
same gas, out of the same tanks, into the same tanker trucks - some
gets ethanol added, some does not. Depends what brand station is
getting it.
Or so I've been told by local fuel distributors.


In the US there are two grades of rack gas at the
terminal. They are 84 octane and 91 octane.
If the tanker truck is filled with E10 then ethanol
is blended with 84 octane as the truck is filled.
If the truck is filled with regular gas without ethanol
a blend of about 50-50 84 octane and 91 octane are
put in the truck. Premium gas without ethanol
is 100% of 91 octane blend stock. Premium with
ethanol is a blend of 84, 91 and ethanol. They are
blended so that regular is 87 octane and premium is 91.
The oil distributors try not to ever give away octane
for free.

Most gas stations have blender pumps so the motorist
has a choice of 87, 89 or 91 octane. The 89 octane is
half regular and half premium.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:52:40 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 08:54:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:47:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

=============================================== ===========================
Hi George,

I just stopped in to see if my cross-posted reply to rangersucks ever got
through, and here I run into one of my favorite subjects... Sorry for the
messy posting but I don't have a newsreader anymore and I have no reason to
get one. This is a one-shot.

I can't stick around to get into this, but you seem to be genuinely
interested, so here are some facts that may help or confuse you, depending
on which way you tilt:

Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and that
gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing the carb
jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol* will
do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in the
carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally drain the
carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage myth probably
is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating back to the 1930s.

Ethanol *will* eat some kinds of gaskets. I got little bits of damaged
O-rings in my lawnmower carb soon after they started with the ethanol in
pump gas. I had to change gaskets and blast the carb with carb cleaner every
season for a couple of years, until I learned what was happening and sought
come ethanol-resistant gaskets. Newer ones seem to have solved this.
Obviously, the material in automobile gaskets is immune now.

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the posts
here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20% or so
ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to increase
efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above 60 mph and
peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo engine with a much
larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is not used in EPA
city/highway cycle comparisons. In normal driving, the MIT report says,
there is almost no difference -- and required boost can be achieved with
spark retardation that is so low it has almost no effect on performance. At
some point, the lines of volume efficiency cross, where the lower caloric
content of ethanol is compensated by the very high turbo boost that ethanol
allows. The report is worth reading.

FWIW, I read SAE engine-research reports at least once or twice a month.
That's where most of my info comes from.

Happy motoring...

Ed Huntress

I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric
Around here it's the same grade of gas that gets ethanol or not. The
same gas, out of the same tanks, into the same tanker trucks - some
gets ethanol added, some does not. Depends what brand station is
getting it.
Or so I've been told by local fuel distributors.
I live in the Pacific Northwest. I have been told by more than one
person who works with small engines that we get crappy gas here. The
evidence they use is the damage done to the fuel systems of small
engines. The folks who have told me about this problem are from the
greater Seattle area and the greater Portland, OR, area. And the same
people have told me that using or ethanol free gas prevents the fuel
system problems. But this is just anecdotal evidence. My own personal
experience is that since changing to ethanol free gas a little over a
year ago I have not had any problems with the fuel systems on my small
engine powered machines. Using the regular gas with ethanol I was
forced to take apart and clean the carbs 4 or more times in the span
of 6 months or so. So whether it is because of bad gas fortified with
aclohol, or extra water in the gas because it absorbs more when
alcohol is added, or something else that clogs the fuel passages in
the carbs when I use gas with ethanol added I don't care because when
I use ethanol free gas I don't have to take apart and clean the carbs
on my small engines. The extra 25 cents per gallon I pay is well worth
it in time and aggravation saved. And one of my small engines, I think
it is the Stihl chainsaw, requires gas with lower octane rating. I
guess premium fuel burns too slow.
Eric

On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:32:02 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

What's a "pole motor"?
Maybe a "Long Tail" motor?

We just called 'em "pole motors" in 'Nam. All the fishermen used them.
Just a small motor on the end of a LONG pipe with a prop at the other end.

LLoyd

Yup, In Thailand that is a "long tail motor" and normally used by
fishermen who use open boats. The most commonly used in the larger
boats - maybe 10 M., fishing boats is a single cylinder diesel engine
- hand crank starter :-)

They even make kits to convert common small motors and on the river,
in Bangkok, a mate clamed he saw a small-block Chevy engine on one
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

"Ed Huntress" writes:



If you do that, your gasoline will already be water-saturated
(gasoline will hold around 0.15 teaspoon of water per gallon
at 70 deg F; E10 will hold about 3 - 4 teaspoons, but you will
lose the alcohol with your trick).

So what you will have is gasoline that is ready to drop its
water with the slightest drop in temperature. Other compounds
will precipitate out with the water, and those are highly
corrosive.


When gasoline is shipped, it's stored in tanks that hold 2-4
million gallons. (But the industry uses barrels [42 gal].)

The gasoline is left to sit for days, and then the operator goes
to the valve on the lowest part of the tank floor, and drains
off the water. Sometimes there is an inch, sometimes far more.
(On a 120 ft dia tank, every inch is about 7,000 gallons.) At
later stages of delivery/storage, again water is drained off.

The methonal must be injected at the tank loading point, because
otherwise it would absorbing water as fast as it could. I've
not been in the pipeline business for decades, but when I was,
that was the SOP.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:55:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 13:14:50 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

================================================== ===================

I don't know which came first, but my (unresearched) understanding is
that they can use a lower-grade gasoline to mix with ethanol because the
ethanol boosts the effective octane rating. It also is conventional
wisdom (again, unresearched on my part) that low-octane gasoline may be
low on detergents and other additives.


It costs money (and energy) to increase octane.
In the refinery business, selling a fuel that has higher
octane than the minimum required is called an "octane giveaway"

It is difficult to determine the actual value of ethanol in
motor fuel. The large quantity used means higher octane
components of gasoline are less valuable than they would be
if there was no ethanol used. That means the gasoline without
ethanol (usually premium grade) is cheaper than it would be
if there were no ethanol used. And if there were no ethanol
the price difference between regular and premium would be
higher because refiners would be required to reform a lot more
of the hydrocarbons into higher octane components.

I've seen estimates on what it would cost to produce
all the octane necessary without ethanol that
range from 5 to 50 cents a gallon.


And what does the ethanol cost?? Amd how much more would it cost
without the multiple subsidies???

Triple.


I think reforming would be just as "cheap"

Cheaper, considering the overall production costs. After considering
1) the 1.05:1 cost of production and 2) the immediate 15% loss in
efficiency of the E10 vs standard fuel, I can't see how anyone in
their right mind thinks it's an eco fuel. Someone suckered our gov't
into subsidizing it and that should be stopped immediately, even
retroactively. Feh! My Scout preferred it over the bottom-octane
fuel in the '90s, but that's the only time I've felt a difference.

Now the poor illegals here in the USA are paying more for their
tortillas, too. Wah!

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

"jim" wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

================================================== =====
[Ed]

This is why I said you have to read the study carefully. You've drawn two
incorrect conclusions here. First, you're assuming that maximum fuel
economy, in terms of gallons used per mile, occurs when thermal efficiency
is maximum. That could be true if you were using a single type of fuel, but,
as the study says, it's not true for a gasoline/ethanol blend:

"Different degrees of spark retard were applied to reduce the amount of
ethanol required. Spark retard up to 5 CAD increases miles per gallon of
the vehicle. This is because efficiency loss is insignificant with 5 CAD
retard, but ethanol fraction decreases significantly therefore increasing
the energy content of the fuel per volume. This suggests that the spark
retard and ethanol injection can be incorporated together to optimize the
efficiency of the engine." [p. 59]

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact, running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

There are several problems with this, among them that there's no attempt to
show that a 9.2:1 compression ratio is the correct one for optimum
efficiency (fuel economy, on a miles-per-gallon basis) of any possible
combination of gasoline and ethanol. Another is that maximum efficiency
isn't going to occur at full-throttle conditions. If you read the study
carefully, you'll see this:

"Engine in vehicle simulation was used to estimate the amount of ethanol
required to operate the engine without knock in various driving cycles. 2.0
L engine within 1 bar maximum boost required about 7.4% of ethanol fraction
in volume for US06 driving cycle. Less than 1% of ethanol was required for
city and highway driving cycles. US06 represents more aggressive driving
style with high acceleration, so the engine operates and knock limited
region more often, which results in a high ethanol fraction.

"As the engine size was reduced from 2.0 L to 1.2 L, the fraction of ethanol
required increased about twice for US06 cycle." [p. 59]

In other words, the actual fraction of ethanol required by the 1.2 L engine
for knock-free performance is around 1% for city driving, and (if you check
the charts) around 3% for highway driving. The "US06" cycle, a
"supplemental" cycle, is about hard acceleration and high speeds. It's not
about efficiency, and it doesn't represent typical lifetime driving cycles.

As I said earlier, it's close to a wash, unless you spend most of your time
going like hell with a tiny engine.

BTW, one bar (14.5 psi boost, or two atmospheres absolute) of turbo boost is
pretty rough on the engine, if you drive that way most of the time. The
Cosworth 2.4 L, 700+ hp engines I used to inspect at CART races ran at 9.3
psi of boost. A street engine can take two or three bar for short cycles,
but that isn't where fuel efficiency lies. The 2.0 L GM engine used as a
baseline turbo engine in the MIT study is limited absolutely to two bar of
boost.

================================================== ============

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.

================================================== ============
[Ed]

I don't know who made that claim, but you're right, it certainly isn't true.

================================================== ============



In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.


What you call "Normal driving" is the EPA fuel economy test
driving cycles which do not push the engine very hard.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

They aren't trying to push the engine hard. They're trying to achieve
something like a real-world, typical driving cycle. And they're pretty good
at achieving that.

If your full-throttle percentage of operation is typical and realistic, you
get a better AVERAGE miles-per-gallon efficiency by retarding spark timing
for those short periods of the overall cycle -- which requires less
methanol, which, in turn, improves your (average) mileage.

================================================== ==========


The report also showed that the break even point
for fuel economy showed that for all driving cycles
a small engine (1.2L) would require 16% ethanol and
a large engine (2.0L) needed only 6%.

================================================== ==========
[Ed]

Where are you reading that? The 16% ethanol only shows up for the most
extreme cycle. See my quotes from the report, above.

================================================== =========


retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The
result is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!


That isn't surprising. To get maximum miles per
gallon you need just a little less timing and a
little less ethanol than the point where maximum
thermal efficiency occurs.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Yes! And the amounts of ethanol required actually are quite low, for normal
driving cycles.

================================================== ===========

BTW the compression ratio and boost used in this study
are not particularly high. I've seen studies using
higher compression and boost where ethanol performed
even better.

================================================== ===========
{Ed}

Yeah? For how long, before it coughs up a rod? g

Of course ethanol will allow higher compression and/or higher boost, but
again, the more ethanol you have in the mix, the lower its per-volume
caloric content. "On the one hand...on the other hand..."

================================================== ===========


Also, look at table 9 on page 56. Five degrees of retard results in only
1.55% loss of efficiency in the highly-turbocharged engine. And 5 deg.
buys you a lot of allowed boost with gasoline. As I said, the curves
cross in normal driving, but the upshot is that you actually can get
HIGHER efficiency (in terms of fuel volume/mi.) with the
higher-caloric-content gasoline in normal driving conditions.

Overall, it's a very close call -- unless you go for a pipsqueek engine
running at near hand-grenade-level peak effective pressures at nearly
full throttle. Hmmm...

================================================== ===========


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

None of this has much real world significance.

In the real world ethanol doesn't increase octane
and therefore doesn't raise the knock limit.
In the real world ethanol allows the oil refiners to
cut costs and put a much lower grade fuel in the
pipeline.

If you find regular grade gas without ethanol it
has the same octane as regular with ethanol. It
will cost more because it costs more to produce.
If the entire fuel supply had to be bumped up
by the 3-4 octane points that ethanol provides,
the cost increase would be even greater.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:32:02 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

What's a "pole motor"?
Maybe a "Long Tail" motor?

We just called 'em "pole motors" in 'Nam. All the fishermen used them.
Just a small motor on the end of a LONG pipe with a prop at the other end.

LLoyd

Ayup

Most commonly seen in movies involving Thailand..but they are common
througout SEA


"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

On Fri, 30 May 2014 18:01:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 03:01:51 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:19:05 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.


Was this during WWII?

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Lloyd

Ayup. They even make a 1.5hp


"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

What's with your quote, mon?

Huh? They're spectral opposites. No Libertarian I know has ever, or
would ever, stand for totalitarianism, nor for the tenets which
support Fascism. (OK, mebbe a bit of nationalism, as patriotism, but
that's it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Tala, ya gotcher HUYA.

Got this gal coming into several discussion groups on LinkedIn and
going off into buffoonery. So I called her on it.

Her profile says she is a CNC programmer, helps machine shops reach
maximum output and does tattoos.

An utter nutzoid from San Fran. Shrug.

After repeatedly attacking everyone who asked her questions on the
topic in discussion, I went into full Make the Lib Boil Mode and
treated her exactly like I do Lefty trolls here. I dont think she had
ever been treated that way before...(Grin) and each time she would
spit something out..Id provide a link or a comment that would proove
she was an idiot par exellence.

Then after the various other members started freaking out at her..I
put her in the kill file with advance notice. There is NO killfile
on LinkedIn...but I would totally ignore everything she wrote and so
would several others she had targeted. I suspect it was driving her
crazy that she would spew out some very ..very..very hard left drivel
and no one would respond to it.

Ive not checked in this evening to see if she is still around or not.

She is at the least..a socialist..more likely a Marxist. Seriously.
And those folks are utterly bonkers.

But hey..she lives in Frisco and does tattoos and CNC lathe
programming, evidently simultainiously.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/talatattoo

See who did the photos...

http://www.black-rose.com/cuiru/archive/2-2/cgal.html

https://www.workhands.us/tala-brandeis

http://www.talabrandeis.com/

Oddly..no photos show up...
http://www.talabrandeis.com/images.html

Read this ...

http://www.talabiz.com/index.php?opt...onent&type=raw




"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

http://www.talabiz.com/index.php?opt...article&id=47%
253..&tmpl=component&type=raw

Phhttt! Ugly dyke! That is exactly the same sort of spew vomited forth
by that other 'Cuir' here, who claims to be a true CNC guru, and never
has a constructive thing to say about anything or anyone else but
'itself'.

I'll bet this local it _also_ claims to have learned TQM directly from
Dr. Edwards Deming (PhD, CharLaTan, Cuir, FaG).

What a crock THAT turned out to be!

Lloyd

On Sat, 31 May 2014 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" writes:



If you do that, your gasoline will already be water-saturated
(gasoline will hold around 0.15 teaspoon of water per gallon
at 70 deg F; E10 will hold about 3 - 4 teaspoons, but you will
lose the alcohol with your trick).

So what you will have is gasoline that is ready to drop its
water with the slightest drop in temperature. Other compounds
will precipitate out with the water, and those are highly
corrosive.


When gasoline is shipped, it's stored in tanks that hold 2-4
million gallons. (But the industry uses barrels [42 gal].)

The gasoline is left to sit for days, and then the operator goes
to the valve on the lowest part of the tank floor, and drains
off the water. Sometimes there is an inch, sometimes far more.
(On a 120 ft dia tank, every inch is about 7,000 gallons.) At
later stages of delivery/storage, again water is drained off.

The methonal must be injected at the tank loading point, because
otherwise it would absorbing water as fast as it could. I've
not been in the pipeline business for decades, but when I was,
that was the SOP.

You are still correct.

"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

On Fri, 30 May 2014 23:56:19 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Tala, ya gotcher HUYA.

Got this gal coming into several discussion groups on LinkedIn and
going off into buffoonery. So I called her on it.

Her profile says she is a CNC programmer, helps machine shops reach
maximum output and does tattoos.

An utter nutzoid from San Fran. Shrug.

After repeatedly attacking everyone who asked her questions on the
topic in discussion, I went into full Make the Lib Boil Mode and
treated her exactly like I do Lefty trolls here. I dont think she had
ever been treated that way before...(Grin) and each time she would
spit something out..Id provide a link or a comment that would proove
she was an idiot par exellence.

Then after the various other members started freaking out at her..I
put her in the kill file with advance notice. There is NO killfile
on LinkedIn...but I would totally ignore everything she wrote and so
would several others she had targeted. I suspect it was driving her
crazy that she would spew out some very ..very..very hard left drivel
and no one would respond to it.

Ive not checked in this evening to see if she is still around or not.

She is at the least..a socialist..more likely a Marxist. Seriously.
And those folks are utterly bonkers.

But hey..she lives in Frisco and does tattoos and CNC lathe
programming, evidently simultainiously.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/talatattoo

See who did the photos...

http://www.black-rose.com/cuiru/archive/2-2/cgal.html

https://www.workhands.us/tala-brandeis

http://www.talabrandeis.com/

Oddly..no photos show up...
http://www.talabrandeis.com/images.html

Read this ...

http://www.talabiz.com/index.php?opt...onent&type=raw




I found this while browsing around. Fascinating....

http://www.talabiz.com/index.php?opt...onent&type=raw

and of course
http://www.talatattoo.com/

And this

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112532/?ref_=nm_flmg_slf_1

BloodSisters (1995)
1. min - Documentary

From pushy bottoms to macho femmes, Bloodsisters is an A-Z documentary
guide that takes an in-depth look at the San Francisco Leatherdyke
scene during the mid-nineties.
Director:
Michelle Handelman
Stars:
Tala Brandeis, Pat Califia, J.C. Collins | See full cast and crew »

http://www.black-rose.com/cuiru/archive/3-5/seccom.html
"Several pieces explore just how great that diversity is. The section
entitled "Who Is My Sister: Challenging the Boundaries of the
Leatherdyke Community" includes essays on transgenderism ("Dyke With A
Dick" by Tala Brandeis, "Boundaries: Gender and Transgenderism" by
Michael M. Hernandez), bisexuality ("Bisexual Perverts Among the
Leather Lesbians" by Carol Queen) and professional SM ("My Life as a
Dom" by Liz Highleyman). "

https://twitter.com/DexHardlove/stat...57799804669953
.....

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...Y/pc87RQc9xOMJ
......

Looks like she/he/it has been making a fool of herself/himself/itself
on the net...for a very long time based on the above link.

Frisco indeed.
Shrug


"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

On Sat, 31 May 2014 05:50:21 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

http://www.talabiz.com/index.php?opt...article&id=47%
253..&tmpl=component&type=raw

Phhttt! Ugly dyke! That is exactly the same sort of spew vomited forth
by that other 'Cuir' here, who claims to be a true CNC guru, and never
has a constructive thing to say about anything or anyone else but
'itself'.

I'll bet this local it _also_ claims to have learned TQM directly from
Dr. Edwards Deming (PhD, CharLaTan, Cuir, FaG).

What a crock THAT turned out to be!

Lloyd

Actually she does.



"Manufacturing Cover
Tuesday, 06 July 2010 01:14 Last Updated on Sunday, 11 July 2010 22:44
Written by Tala

Tala Brandeis
2261 Market St, #247A
San Francisco, Ca 94114
CALL: 415-902-4794

Please bear with me, take your time; this intro, as well as the
resume, is rigorous… If you expect quality and a great associate, the
reading should be well worth the effort.

I've a long history of Design, CNC programming, machining and
supervision. A history underscored with extensive experience in 3D and
5 Axis programming.

My responsibilities include individual projects, entire programs, and
complete businesses. I've owned my own business and worked as a
consultant for other business owners. My background is comprehensive.

Designing and programming 3D molds for aircraft composite flight
hardware, aluminium spars - bulkheads, landing gear, missile defense
systems, satellite components, and turbine impellers in full five axis
has been a rewarding and educating experience for everyone involved
including the software companies who have all revised and improved
their product based on our collaboration, my feedback and
recommendations.

My designs are elegant, well planned, explicitly documented,
tolerance-stacked gems expressed in clear, concise solids models and
precision drawings.

My CNC programs have a first time run expectancy of over ninety-nine
percent with zero edits. I'd like to be able to claim one hundred
percent, but absolutely no one is that good. My documentation is
extensive and elegant. Machinists have few if any questions and the
programs are, with few exceptions, plug and play.

I do this as a result of strict attention to detail and a level of
planning taking all potential problems into account. This is the
result of years of practical experience and careful thinking about
what could go wrong in the process. I'm outcome driven and I expect to
make good parts every time, so I plan for that eventuality. This is
not to say it is inevitable, but it is a very worthy goal which, given
due diligence, becomes an increasing actuality. This is process
control at a personal level.

I learned of Dr Edward Deming after I'd compiled my own numerical
understanding of tolerance variation utilizing Hardinge lathes to
produce medium runs of close tolerance parts. It's amazing what
practical, hands-on, experience generates when specific targets are...
required, mandated, expected. Understanding the variance in any
process taught me the limits of the machine in a specific environment
such that I determined to hold any tolerance given to a maximum of
half the full tolerance over any period of time. The attitude,
practice and discipline of that rigor allowed us to consistently ship
parts in print and on time... (Actually we were always one to three
weeks ahead of shipping dates.) The greater benefit was zero
rejections. ZERO...

Part of the reason we could maintain our schedule was the second bit
of doggerel I developed as a result of running that chucker
department. (Let me float a bit of sarcasm here...) "For some reason I
concluded it might be a good idea to run similar sized/shaped parts
sequentially; and... cut down on setup time..." Family of Parts...
So, upon reading about "Family of Parts" in Blue Book several years
later the theory was obvious and derivative... The maxim driven from
the work is this: Practice drives theory and explication. One must
have the need, not merely the desire, the need... to produce parts to
print on time. The same may be paraphrased for design; One must have
the need to design sufficiently toleranced/spec'd parts, capable of
reasonable manufacture, in budget and on schedule...

Standardized tooling, maintenance of holders, screws, clamps, jaws,
and machines also contributed to increased productivity and precision.
But you know all this... I'm just working to get you to understand my
process and my ability to develop this independently of someone
telling me these methods were a better way to accomplish a specific
goal. In my own fashion I'm trying to let you know how bloody smart I
think I can be at my best.

Let's talk about money. Your money. I've made changes in
organizations such that owners have made millions of dollars from
those changes... MILLIONS. I've driven the manufacturing and
business attitude toward greater profits in each and every environment
I've worked in. If you have a product, a contractor, a line of
parts to produce, a system of delivering service... I can and will
improve your systems, your efficiency, your output and your bottom
line.

Team work. It has such a lovely sound... Makes you warm and fuzzy all
over... everyone working together to get a job done. If you're
looking for a team player; look elsewhere... find someone who
subscribes to passing the buck. Do you find that harsh? It is. I'm
a team leader. You obtain greatest benefit from my efforts by placing
me in a position of leadership, responsibility and authority. Getting
the job done is easy. Getting the job done with the best possible
result takes courage, stamina, wisdom and equal measures of conceit
and conciliation... Knowing when to exercise either of those two
qualities is ART... Knowing one MUST exercise those qualities is
leadership.

Now, if you've been entertained in any small measure by this missive,
perhaps it's time to contact me and set up a meeting. Call Tala: 415
902-4794"
"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 May 2014 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:
"Ed Huntress" writes:



The gasoline is left to sit for days, and then the operator goes
to the valve on the lowest part of the tank floor, and drains
off the water. Sometimes there is an inch, sometimes far more.
(On a 120 ft dia tank, every inch is about 7,000 gallons.) At
later stages of delivery/storage, again water is drained off.

The methonal must be injected at the tank loading point, because
otherwise it would absorbing water as fast as it could. I've
not been in the pipeline business for decades, but when I was,
that was the SOP.

You are still correct.

The startup checklist for the multifuel truck I drove in the Army
included draining the water separators. When I learned to preflight a
Cessna the instructor carried a fuel sampler tube like this to check
for water in gas drained from the wing tank.
http://www.lakeandair.com/Fuel-Sampler-p/1920.htm

jsw

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Actually she does.


I know she does, I was talking about our _resident_ faggot.

Lloyd

Ed Huntress wrote:


"jim" wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

================================================== =====
[Ed]

This is why I said you have to read the study carefully. You've drawn
two incorrect conclusions here. First, you're assuming that maximum fuel
economy, in terms of gallons used per mile, occurs when thermal
efficiency is maximum. That could be true if you were using a single
type of fuel, but, as the study says, it's not true for a
gasoline/ethanol blend:

I didn't draw incorrect conclusions. Those are
not my conclusions.

The point of citing the study was to show that
increased thermal efficiency that are possible with
ethanol blends can offset losses due to
lower heat content.



"Different degrees of spark retard were applied to reduce the amount of
ethanol required. Spark retard up to 5 CAD increases miles per gallon
of the vehicle. This is because efficiency loss is insignificant with 5
CAD retard, but ethanol fraction decreases significantly therefore
increasing the energy content of the fuel per volume. This suggests
that the spark retard and ethanol injection can be incorporated together
to optimize the efficiency of the engine." [p. 59]

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are
conditions at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In
fact, running at 14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or
you're going like hell.

The 20%-35% blend is required to achieve
maximum thermal efficiency at all load conditions
(including WOT for passing at 80 mph)



There are several problems with this, among them that there's no attempt
to show that a 9.2:1 compression ratio is the correct one for optimum
efficiency (fuel economy, on a miles-per-gallon basis) of any possible
combination of gasoline and ethanol. Another is that maximum efficiency
isn't going to occur at full-throttle conditions. If you read the study
carefully, you'll see this:

Engineers have known for many decades that higher
compression will increase efficiency. The SI engine
can be just as efficient as a diesel if the compression
and effective pressure are as high. The problem has
always been the fuel will not tolerate it. As a result
the real world gasoline engine is about 40% less efficient
than the diesel.



"Engine in vehicle simulation was used to estimate the amount of ethanol
required to operate the engine without knock in various driving cycles.
2.0 L engine within 1 bar maximum boost required about 7.4% of ethanol
fraction in volume for US06 driving cycle. Less than 1% of ethanol was
required for city and highway driving cycles. US06 represents more
aggressive driving style with high acceleration, so the engine operates
and knock limited region more often, which results in a high ethanol
fraction.

"As the engine size was reduced from 2.0 L to 1.2 L, the fraction of
ethanol required increased about twice for US06 cycle." [p. 59]


The4 US06 cycle is the one that most closely matches
the actual mileage motorists get.



In other words, the actual fraction of ethanol required by the 1.2 L
engine for knock-free performance is around 1% for city driving, and (if
you check the charts) around 3% for highway driving. The "US06" cycle, a
"supplemental" cycle, is about hard acceleration and high speeds. It's
not about efficiency, and it doesn't represent typical lifetime driving
cycles.

The fuel economy tests are the ones that don't match
the mileage real drivers get.


As I said earlier, it's close to a wash, unless you spend most of your
time going like hell with a tiny engine.

BTW, one bar (14.5 psi boost, or two atmospheres absolute) of turbo
boost is pretty rough on the engine, if you drive that way most of the
time. The Cosworth 2.4 L, 700+ hp engines I used to inspect at CART
races ran at 9.3 psi of boost. A street engine can take two or three bar
for short cycles, but that isn't where fuel efficiency lies. The 2.0 L
GM engine used as a baseline turbo engine in the MIT study is limited
absolutely to two bar of boost.

================================================== ============

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.

================================================== ============
[Ed]

I don't know who made that claim, but you're right, it certainly isn't
true.

================================================== ============


In other words, you didn't read what I wrote but instead
you are going to tell me what I wrote.




In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.


What you call "Normal driving" is the EPA fuel economy test
driving cycles which do not push the engine very hard.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

They aren't trying to push the engine hard. They're trying to achieve
something like a real-world, typical driving cycle. And they're pretty
good at achieving that.

EPA FET generally are much better mileage than the
match average driver gets.

But more important, if that type of driving was all the driver
ever needed engines would be designed a lot smaller.

The fact is the current strategy is to build a much larger
engine that gets poor mileage all the time so that the driver
has some power to spare when needed. . What the study
implies is that a different strategy of building a smaller
engine that gets good mileage when "normal driving" but
also can deliver high power for things high speed
passing on a mountain road.



If your full-throttle percentage of operation is typical and realistic,
you get a better AVERAGE miles-per-gallon efficiency by retarding spark
timing for those short periods of the overall cycle -- which requires
less methanol, which, in turn, improves your (average) mileage.

================================================== ==========


The report also showed that the break even point
for fuel economy showed that for all driving cycles
a small engine (1.2L) would require 16% ethanol and
a large engine (2.0L) needed only 6%.

================================================== ==========
[Ed]

Where are you reading that? The 16% ethanol only shows up for the most
extreme cycle. See my quotes from the report, above.

================================================== =========

The supplemtal test procedures were developed because
of complaints that the standard procedures overstated
the real world mileage people get.



retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The
result is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!


That isn't surprising. To get maximum miles per
gallon you need just a little less timing and a
little less ethanol than the point where maximum
thermal efficiency occurs.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Yes! And the amounts of ethanol required actually are quite low, for
normal driving cycles.

================================================== ===========

BTW the compression ratio and boost used in this study
are not particularly high. I've seen studies using
higher compression and boost where ethanol performed
even better.

================================================== ===========
{Ed}

Yeah? For how long, before it coughs up a rod? g


The cops will stop you before that happens unless maybe
you are pulling a big boat.


Of course ethanol will allow higher compression and/or higher boost, but
again, the more ethanol you have in the mix, the lower its per-volume
caloric content. "On the one hand...on the other hand..."

================================================== ===========

Ethanol in higher concentrations would allow the
freedom to design a smaller engine that can
accelerate like a big engine but not get bad
mileage in what you euphemistically call
"normal driving". Look at the gains in mileage
between a 1.2L and 2.0L. With say 25% ethanol
it is possible to have a 1.2L that has the
same power as a 2.0L running on straight gasoline
but gets significantly better mileage in all driving
cycles. Sure the 1.2L could get a little better
mileage under low loads with say 5% ethanol but
then you wouldn't be able to make full use
of the compression and boost which would mean
the motorist would think the engine is a dog when
passing on the highway.

In Brazil they design cars that do mush better on E25
than on straight gasoline. They also allow the motorist
to choose how much ethanol goes into the tank along with
the gasoline.

In the US the EPA doesn't allow and doesn't allow
mileage testing with ethanol. The EPA doesn't
allow it because they are working for the auto
makers and the oil cos. They know that allowing higher
blends and testing fuel economy with those blends would
lead to smaller engines that get the same power and
consume a lot less fuel.

But it will happen someday just as Henry Ford predicted.
The industry efforts to thwart market realities will
eventually fail.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 May 2014 21:37:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:30:50 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.


If you can cram in enough air, or supply enough oxygen by other means
(NOX or NitroMethane comes to mind) you can cram enough low callory
fuel into the engine to make insane horsepower, if the engine only
needs to run for 6 seconds or so.. On a fuel dragster you could cut
the ignition at half track and see very little power loss as the
engine is running almost totally on detonation.. The limit to how much
power they can produce is almost totally the amount of fuel and liquid
oxidizer they can cram into the cyl without hydrolocking the cyls.. An
average top fuel dragster engine turns only 712 revs over the quarter
mile!!!! (and burns over 20 gallons of 90% nitro/10% methanol in 3
seconds. That's 4620 cu inches of fuel.
On an 8 cyl engine that is 2848 power strokes - over 1.6 cu inches of
liquid fuel per cyl per power stroke. On a 640 cu inch engine, or 80
cu inches per cyl, with a compression ratio of 6:1 the compression
volume of the cyl is 11 cubic inches. With 45.5 psi of boost and the
space taken by the liquid fuel, the compression ratio equivalent is
roughly 28:1.

Wow! I'd never seen the exact stats on that. Impressively insane!


--snip--
None of this has much real world significance.

In the real world ethanol doesn't increase octane
and therefore doesn't raise the knock limit.
In the real world ethanol allows the oil refiners to
cut costs and put a much lower grade fuel in the
pipeline.

Grrr!

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On Fri, 30 May 2014 21:37:51 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:32:02 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
m:

What's a "pole motor"?
Maybe a "Long Tail" motor?

We just called 'em "pole motors" in 'Nam. All the fishermen used them.
Just a small motor on the end of a LONG pipe with a prop at the other end.

LLoyd
And some "not so small" too!!!

I saw something like this in a 007 film once. What a hoot!
https://www.google.com/search?q=vietnam+boat+engine

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On Fri, 30 May 2014 23:56:19 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 18:01:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 03:01:51 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:19:05 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
m:

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.


Was this during WWII?

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Lloyd

Ayup. They even make a 1.5hp


"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

What's with your quote, mon?

Huh? They're spectral opposites. No Libertarian I know has ever, or
would ever, stand for totalitarianism, nor for the tenets which
support Fascism. (OK, mebbe a bit of nationalism, as patriotism, but
that's it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Tala, ya gotcher HUYA.

Got this gal coming into several discussion groups on LinkedIn and
going off into buffoonery. So I called her on it.

Her profile says she is a CNC programmer, helps machine shops reach
maximum output and does tattoos.

Oh, then she'd know, huh?


An utter nutzoid from San Fran. Shrug.

I suggest adding "Liberal SF nutzoid tattooist" to the quote, then.
Just so people don't get the wrong idea about you.


After repeatedly attacking everyone who asked her questions on the
topic in discussion, I went into full Make the Lib Boil Mode and
treated her exactly like I do Lefty trolls here. I dont think she had
ever been treated that way before...(Grin) and each time she would
spit something out..Id provide a link or a comment that would proove
she was an idiot par exellence.

ROTFLMAO!


Then after the various other members started freaking out at her..I
put her in the kill file with advance notice. There is NO killfile
on LinkedIn...but I would totally ignore everything she wrote and so
would several others she had targeted. I suspect it was driving her
crazy that she would spew out some very ..very..very hard left drivel
and no one would respond to it.

Trolls hate that. And that's one of the reasons I still try to get
you guys not to answer his/her trolls. Stryped is a perfect example.
As is FrontalLobotomy Machinist.


Read this ...

http://www.talabiz.com/index.php?opt...onent&type=raw

OMFG! Did she miss a single buzzword? I dislike her already, just
from attempting to digest that. Ick!

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

jim wrote:
In the US the EPA doesn't allow and doesn't allow
mileage testing with ethanol.


In the US the EPA doesn't allow higher concentrations
of ethanol and doesn't allow fuel economy testing
with ethanol.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/31/2014 12:21 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 20:55:14 -0400, wrote:
....

And what does the ethanol cost?? Amd how much more would it cost
without the multiple subsidies???

Triple.

Supporting data???

The primary one "blenders' credit" ended at year end 2012 so it's going
on two years now. And, despite the common misconception, it didn't go
to the ethanol producers nor the corn/milo producer but to (ready now?)
the oil companies...

Do comparative incentives/tax breaks and the like between big oil and
other segments of the US economy and oil is way up there on the rankings...

....

--

On Sat, 31 May 2014 02:12:22 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



"jim" wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

================================================= ======
[Ed]

This is why I said you have to read the study carefully. You've drawn two
incorrect conclusions here. First, you're assuming that maximum fuel
economy, in terms of gallons used per mile, occurs when thermal efficiency
is maximum. That could be true if you were using a single type of fuel, but,
as the study says, it's not true for a gasoline/ethanol blend:

"Different degrees of spark retard were applied to reduce the amount of
ethanol required. Spark retard up to 5 CAD increases miles per gallon of
the vehicle. This is because efficiency loss is insignificant with 5 CAD
retard, but ethanol fraction decreases significantly therefore increasing
the energy content of the fuel per volume. This suggests that the spark
retard and ethanol injection can be incorporated together to optimize the
efficiency of the engine." [p. 59]

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact, running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

But that IS where the maximum power is extracted from the fuel. The
highest HP per lb of fuel burned - which translates to the highest
efficiency. On a spark ignition engine that is at the point where
maximum torque is produced, and with the engine totally unthrottled -
ie- wide open throttle loaded to maintain maximum torque RPM.

works even better with direct injection.
There are several problems with this, among them that there's no attempt to
show that a 9.2:1 compression ratio is the correct one for optimum
efficiency (fuel economy, on a miles-per-gallon basis) of any possible
combination of gasoline and ethanol. Another is that maximum efficiency
isn't going to occur at full-throttle conditions. If you read the study
carefully, you'll see this:

Actually in many situations it IS.

"Engine in vehicle simulation was used to estimate the amount of ethanol
required to operate the engine without knock in various driving cycles. 2.0
L engine within 1 bar maximum boost required about 7.4% of ethanol fraction
in volume for US06 driving cycle. Less than 1% of ethanol was required for
city and highway driving cycles. US06 represents more aggressive driving
style with high acceleration, so the engine operates and knock limited
region more often, which results in a high ethanol fraction.

"As the engine size was reduced from 2.0 L to 1.2 L, the fraction of ethanol
required increased about twice for US06 cycle." [p. 59]

In other words, the actual fraction of ethanol required by the 1.2 L engine
for knock-free performance is around 1% for city driving, and (if you check
the charts) around 3% for highway driving. The "US06" cycle, a
"supplemental" cycle, is about hard acceleration and high speeds. It's not
about efficiency, and it doesn't represent typical lifetime driving cycles.

As I said earlier, it's close to a wash, unless you spend most of your time
going like hell with a tiny engine.

BTW, one bar (14.5 psi boost, or two atmospheres absolute) of turbo boost is
pretty rough on the engine, if you drive that way most of the time. The
Cosworth 2.4 L, 700+ hp engines I used to inspect at CART races ran at 9.3
psi of boost. A street engine can take two or three bar for short cycles,
but that isn't where fuel efficiency lies. The 2.0 L GM engine used as a
baseline turbo engine in the MIT study is limited absolutely to two bar of
boost.

================================================= =============

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.

================================================= =============
[Ed]

I don't know who made that claim, but you're right, it certainly isn't true.

================================================= =============



In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.


What you call "Normal driving" is the EPA fuel economy test
driving cycles which do not push the engine very hard.

================================================= ============
[Ed]

They aren't trying to push the engine hard. They're trying to achieve
something like a real-world, typical driving cycle. And they're pretty good
at achieving that.

If your full-throttle percentage of operation is typical and realistic, you
get a better AVERAGE miles-per-gallon efficiency by retarding spark timing
for those short periods of the overall cycle -- which requires less
methanol, which, in turn, improves your (average) mileage.

================================================= ===========


The report also showed that the break even point
for fuel economy showed that for all driving cycles
a small engine (1.2L) would require 16% ethanol and
a large engine (2.0L) needed only 6%.

================================================= ===========
[Ed]

Where are you reading that? The 16% ethanol only shows up for the most
extreme cycle. See my quotes from the report, above.

================================================= ==========


retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The
result is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!


That isn't surprising. To get maximum miles per
gallon you need just a little less timing and a
little less ethanol than the point where maximum
thermal efficiency occurs.

================================================= ============
[Ed]

Yes! And the amounts of ethanol required actually are quite low, for normal
driving cycles.

================================================= ============

BTW the compression ratio and boost used in this study
are not particularly high. I've seen studies using
higher compression and boost where ethanol performed
even better.

================================================= ============
{Ed}

Yeah? For how long, before it coughs up a rod? g

Of course ethanol will allow higher compression and/or higher boost, but
again, the more ethanol you have in the mix, the lower its per-volume
caloric content. "On the one hand...on the other hand..."

================================================= ============


Also, look at table 9 on page 56. Five degrees of retard results in only
1.55% loss of efficiency in the highly-turbocharged engine. And 5 deg.
buys you a lot of allowed boost with gasoline. As I said, the curves
cross in normal driving, but the upshot is that you actually can get
HIGHER efficiency (in terms of fuel volume/mi.) with the
higher-caloric-content gasoline in normal driving conditions.

Overall, it's a very close call -- unless you go for a pipsqueek engine
running at near hand-grenade-level peak effective pressures at nearly
full throttle. Hmmm...


Sounds like EcoBoost.
================================================== ===========


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

None of this has much real world significance.

In the real world ethanol doesn't increase octane
and therefore doesn't raise the knock limit.
In the real world ethanol allows the oil refiners to
cut costs and put a much lower grade fuel in the
pipeline.

If you find regular grade gas without ethanol it
has the same octane as regular with ethanol. It
will cost more because it costs more to produce.
If the entire fuel supply had to be bumped up
by the 3-4 octane points that ethanol provides,
the cost increase would be even greater.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 31 May 2014 08:12:59 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


"jim" wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

================================================== =====
[Ed]

This is why I said you have to read the study carefully. You've drawn
two incorrect conclusions here. First, you're assuming that maximum fuel
economy, in terms of gallons used per mile, occurs when thermal
efficiency is maximum. That could be true if you were using a single
type of fuel, but, as the study says, it's not true for a
gasoline/ethanol blend:

I didn't draw incorrect conclusions. Those are
not my conclusions.

The point of citing the study was to show that
increased thermal efficiency that are possible with
ethanol blends can offset losses due to
lower heat content.



"Different degrees of spark retard were applied to reduce the amount of
ethanol required. Spark retard up to 5 CAD increases miles per gallon
of the vehicle. This is because efficiency loss is insignificant with 5
CAD retard, but ethanol fraction decreases significantly therefore
increasing the energy content of the fuel per volume. This suggests
that the spark retard and ethanol injection can be incorporated together
to optimize the efficiency of the engine." [p. 59]

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are
conditions at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In
fact, running at 14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or
you're going like hell.

The 20%-35% blend is required to achieve
maximum thermal efficiency at all load conditions
(including WOT for passing at 80 mph)



There are several problems with this, among them that there's no attempt
to show that a 9.2:1 compression ratio is the correct one for optimum
efficiency (fuel economy, on a miles-per-gallon basis) of any possible
combination of gasoline and ethanol. Another is that maximum efficiency
isn't going to occur at full-throttle conditions. If you read the study
carefully, you'll see this:

Engineers have known for many decades that higher
compression will increase efficiency. The SI engine
can be just as efficient as a diesel if the compression
and effective pressure are as high. The problem has
always been the fuel will not tolerate it. As a result
the real world gasoline engine is about 40% less efficient
than the diesel.



"Engine in vehicle simulation was used to estimate the amount of ethanol
required to operate the engine without knock in various driving cycles.
2.0 L engine within 1 bar maximum boost required about 7.4% of ethanol
fraction in volume for US06 driving cycle. Less than 1% of ethanol was
required for city and highway driving cycles. US06 represents more
aggressive driving style with high acceleration, so the engine operates
and knock limited region more often, which results in a high ethanol
fraction.

"As the engine size was reduced from 2.0 L to 1.2 L, the fraction of
ethanol required increased about twice for US06 cycle." [p. 59]


The4 US06 cycle is the one that most closely matches
the actual mileage motorists get.



In other words, the actual fraction of ethanol required by the 1.2 L
engine for knock-free performance is around 1% for city driving, and (if
you check the charts) around 3% for highway driving. The "US06" cycle, a
"supplemental" cycle, is about hard acceleration and high speeds. It's
not about efficiency, and it doesn't represent typical lifetime driving
cycles.

The fuel economy tests are the ones that don't match
the mileage real drivers get.


As I said earlier, it's close to a wash, unless you spend most of your
time going like hell with a tiny engine.

BTW, one bar (14.5 psi boost, or two atmospheres absolute) of turbo
boost is pretty rough on the engine, if you drive that way most of the
time. The Cosworth 2.4 L, 700+ hp engines I used to inspect at CART
races ran at 9.3 psi of boost. A street engine can take two or three bar
for short cycles, but that isn't where fuel efficiency lies. The 2.0 L
GM engine used as a baseline turbo engine in the MIT study is limited
absolutely to two bar of boost.

================================================== ============

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.

================================================== ============
[Ed]

I don't know who made that claim, but you're right, it certainly isn't
true.

================================================== ============


In other words, you didn't read what I wrote but instead
you are going to tell me what I wrote.




In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.


What you call "Normal driving" is the EPA fuel economy test
driving cycles which do not push the engine very hard.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

They aren't trying to push the engine hard. They're trying to achieve
something like a real-world, typical driving cycle. And they're pretty
good at achieving that.

EPA FET generally are much better mileage than the
match average driver gets.

But more important, if that type of driving was all the driver
ever needed engines would be designed a lot smaller.

The fact is the current strategy is to build a much larger
engine that gets poor mileage all the time so that the driver
has some power to spare when needed. . What the study
implies is that a different strategy of building a smaller
engine that gets good mileage when "normal driving" but
also can deliver high power for things high speed
passing on a mountain road.



If your full-throttle percentage of operation is typical and realistic,
you get a better AVERAGE miles-per-gallon efficiency by retarding spark
timing for those short periods of the overall cycle -- which requires
less methanol, which, in turn, improves your (average) mileage.

================================================== ==========


The report also showed that the break even point
for fuel economy showed that for all driving cycles
a small engine (1.2L) would require 16% ethanol and
a large engine (2.0L) needed only 6%.

================================================== ==========
[Ed]

Where are you reading that? The 16% ethanol only shows up for the most
extreme cycle. See my quotes from the report, above.

================================================== =========

The supplemtal test procedures were developed because
of complaints that the standard procedures overstated
the real world mileage people get.



retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The
result is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!


That isn't surprising. To get maximum miles per
gallon you need just a little less timing and a
little less ethanol than the point where maximum
thermal efficiency occurs.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Yes! And the amounts of ethanol required actually are quite low, for
normal driving cycles.

================================================== ===========

BTW the compression ratio and boost used in this study
are not particularly high. I've seen studies using
higher compression and boost where ethanol performed
even better.

================================================== ===========
{Ed}

Yeah? For how long, before it coughs up a rod? g


The cops will stop you before that happens unless maybe
you are pulling a big boat.


Of course ethanol will allow higher compression and/or higher boost, but
again, the more ethanol you have in the mix, the lower its per-volume
caloric content. "On the one hand...on the other hand..."

================================================== ===========

Ethanol in higher concentrations would allow the
freedom to design a smaller engine that can
accelerate like a big engine but not get bad
mileage in what you euphemistically call
"normal driving". Look at the gains in mileage
between a 1.2L and 2.0L. With say 25% ethanol
it is possible to have a 1.2L that has the
same power as a 2.0L running on straight gasoline
but gets significantly better mileage in all driving
cycles. Sure the 1.2L could get a little better
mileage under low loads with say 5% ethanol but
then you wouldn't be able to make full use
of the compression and boost which would mean
the motorist would think the engine is a dog when
passing on the highway.

In Brazil they design cars that do mush better on E25
than on straight gasoline. They also allow the motorist
to choose how much ethanol goes into the tank along with
the gasoline.

In the US the EPA doesn't allow and doesn't allow
mileage testing with ethanol. The EPA doesn't
allow it because they are working for the auto
makers and the oil cos. They know that allowing higher
blends and testing fuel economy with those blends would
lead to smaller engines that get the same power and
consume a lot less fuel.

But it will happen someday just as Henry Ford predicted.
The industry efforts to thwart market realities will
eventually fail.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
A large part of the knock reduction potential of ethanol results
from the evaporative cooling of the intake charge due to rthanol
evaporation. The same cooling helps horsepower by increasing the
density of the air charge, raising the volumetric efficiency, and
therefore the effective compression ratio. Depending on the design,
the two can cancel each other out, so there is NO improvement in knock
resistance - but a little more power from a lot more fuel.

Gunner Asch on Fri, 30 May 2014 23:56:19 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


But hey..she lives in Frisco and does tattoos and CNC lathe
programming, evidently simultainiously.

Hmm, sounds interesting - a CNC controlled tattooing bot.

Oh dear - one more skilled trade being outsourced to machines.

R2D2?

--
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another.
-- George Bancroft

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch on Fri, 30 May 2014
23:56:19 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


But hey..she lives in Frisco and does tattoos and CNC lathe
programming, evidently simultainiously.

Hmm, sounds interesting - a CNC controlled tattooing bot.

Oh dear - one more skilled trade being outsourced to machines.

R2D2?
pyotr filipivich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Penal_Colony
"...elaborate torture and execution device that carves the sentence of
the condemned prisoner on his skin..."

-Kafka

wrote:

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact, running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

But that IS where the maximum power is extracted from the fuel. The
highest HP per lb of fuel burned - which translates to the highest
efficiency. On a spark ignition engine that is at the point where
maximum torque is produced, and with the engine totally unthrottled -
ie- wide open throttle loaded to maintain maximum torque

That is true but its not very relevant to fuel economy
for the cars on the road.

Hardly any WOT operation occurs and WOT on
a street car is not very wide open.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 31 May 2014 21:10:55 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Fri, 30 May 2014 23:56:19 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


But hey..she lives in Frisco and does tattoos and CNC lathe
programming, evidently simultainiously.

Hmm, sounds interesting - a CNC controlled tattooing bot.

Oh dear - one more skilled trade being outsourced to machines.

R2D2?

C3PO. The bot has to regale you with liberal banter during the
screwing, bluing, and tattooing, right?

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 08:53:14 -0500, jim "
wrote:

wrote:

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact, running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

But that IS where the maximum power is extracted from the fuel. The
highest HP per lb of fuel burned - which translates to the highest
efficiency. On a spark ignition engine that is at the point where
maximum torque is produced, and with the engine totally unthrottled -
ie- wide open throttle loaded to maintain maximum torque

That is true but its not very relevant to fuel economy
for the cars on the road.

Hardly any WOT operation occurs and WOT on
a street car is not very wide open.


WOT is WOT, streat car or race. WOT means non throttled intake. If I
floor the accellerator on my 3.8 Taurus or my 4.0 Ranger, the throttle
is "wide open" If I am loaded and geared such that the speed does not
change at that throttle position, and the engine is "on the cam" I am
getting as much horsepower out of every lb of gas going though the
engine as I can possible get with that fuel, timing setting, and
compression ratio (and exhaust system, mixture, valve timing, and a
host of other settings)

Now, if you can adjust an engine so you have only the displacement,
compression ratio, timing, and mixture required to produce the amount
of power required to move the car at the speed you want to go at all
times, you will get the best fuel economy with that engine running
"wide open throttle" at all times. That's what a deisel does, other
than being able to control the displacement - and a turbo diesel gets
real close to that as well because it can control the amount of air
consumed by the engine without throttling losses. That is where a
large part of a diesel's economy comes from.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 08:53:14 -0500, jim "
wrote:

wrote:

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact, running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

But that IS where the maximum power is extracted from the fuel. The
highest HP per lb of fuel burned - which translates to the highest
efficiency. On a spark ignition engine that is at the point where
maximum torque is produced, and with the engine totally unthrottled -
ie- wide open throttle loaded to maintain maximum torque

That is true but its not very relevant to fuel economy
for the cars on the road.

Hardly any WOT operation occurs and WOT on
a street car is not very wide open.


WOT is WOT, streat car or race. WOT means non throttled intake. If I
floor the accellerator on my 3.8 Taurus or my 4.0 Ranger, the throttle
is "wide open" If I am loaded and geared such that the speed does not
change at that throttle position, and the engine is "on the cam" I am
getting as much horsepower out of every lb of gas going though the
engine as I can possible get with that fuel, timing setting, and
compression ratio (and exhaust system, mixture, valve timing, and a
host of other settings)

On a typical street car running WOT at
a constant speed, it will get you down the
road at 100mph (or faster). Due to extra
friction and wind resistence at that high speed
you will get a lot poorer fuel economy than
you would running at partial throttle at 40 mph.



Now, if you can adjust an engine so you have only the displacement,
compression ratio, timing, and mixture required to produce the amount
of power required to move the car at the speed you want to go at all
times,

Then you won't have enough power to accelerate
in order to reach that speed or when the road
starts to go up hill you won't make it.





you will get the best fuel economy with that engine running
"wide open throttle" at all times.

Maybe if the engine is small and is charging a battery
that drives the vehicle. But then you have huge
efficiency losses in carrying around many pounds of
battery wherever you go.


That's what a deisel does,

Less energy consumed in pumping losses is not the
only reason diesel is more efficient. Even if you
are comparing a gasoline engine at WOT and a diesel
putting out the same power, the diesel still converts
more energy to work because of the higher compression
and because it develops more internal pressure when
it is most effective (i.e. near the top of the power
stroke)






---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:18:25 -0500, jim "
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 08:53:14 -0500, jim "
wrote:

wrote:

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact, running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

But that IS where the maximum power is extracted from the fuel. The
highest HP per lb of fuel burned - which translates to the highest
efficiency. On a spark ignition engine that is at the point where
maximum torque is produced, and with the engine totally unthrottled -
ie- wide open throttle loaded to maintain maximum torque

That is true but its not very relevant to fuel economy
for the cars on the road.

Hardly any WOT operation occurs and WOT on
a street car is not very wide open.


WOT is WOT, streat car or race. WOT means non throttled intake. If I
floor the accellerator on my 3.8 Taurus or my 4.0 Ranger, the throttle
is "wide open" If I am loaded and geared such that the speed does not
change at that throttle position, and the engine is "on the cam" I am
getting as much horsepower out of every lb of gas going though the
engine as I can possible get with that fuel, timing setting, and
compression ratio (and exhaust system, mixture, valve timing, and a
host of other settings)

On a typical street car running WOT at
a constant speed, it will get you down the
road at 100mph (or faster). Due to extra
friction and wind resistence at that high speed
you will get a lot poorer fuel economy than
you would running at partial throttle at 40 mph.

If the engine is sized for maximum output running the car at 60mph,
it won't.
But I know what you mean. I DID state if the engine was "loaded and
geared such that the speed does not change at that throttle position"
- which might mean you are headed up a 30% grade with a 19 foot boat
behind your fire breathing 6.2 liter monster!!



Now, if you can adjust an engine so you have only the displacement,
compression ratio, timing, and mixture required to produce the amount
of power required to move the car at the speed you want to go at all
times,

Then you won't have enough power to accelerate
in order to reach that speed or when the road
starts to go up hill you won't make it.

Untill the displacement, compression ratio, valve timing, or fuel
delivery is adjusted to provide the extra power - which. to some
extent, is what supercharging/turbocharging, displacement on demand,
and variable valve timing, are all about - and what GDI and stratified
combustion technology help with (and again, where diesels come into
play)




you will get the best fuel economy with that engine running
"wide open throttle" at all times.

Now I woulsd not necessarily sat "best fuel economy" - but "best
efficiency."

Maybe if the engine is small and is charging a battery
that drives the vehicle. But then you have huge
efficiency losses in carrying around many pounds of
battery wherever you go.


That's what a deisel does,

Less energy consumed in pumping losses is not the
only reason diesel is more efficient. Even if you
are comparing a gasoline engine at WOT and a diesel
putting out the same power, the diesel still converts
more energy to work because of the higher compression
and because it develops more internal pressure when
it is most effective (i.e. near the top of the power
stroke)

Correct. But note - I included a lot of other conditions in the
equation - including CR and VE - and stated (IIRC) it is LARGELY the
reason it is more efficient - or something to that effect. Definitely
diesel has other advantages (as well as drawbacks) to it's design.

Today's computer controlled turbocharged direct injection, variable
valve timing and displacement on demand engines are getting a lot
closer to diesel efficiency territory.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/30/2014 10:57 AM, jim wrote:
But there is no incentive for automakers to
design cars that perform better on ethanol blends
as long as the EPA requires fuel economy testing
to done with straight gasoline without ethanol.


Who knew you were spreading that conspiracy k00kery in here as well!

On 5/30/2014 4:30 PM, jim wrote:
If the entire fuel supply had to be bumped up
by the 3-4 octane points that ethanol provides,
the cost increase would be even greater.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

On 5/30/2014 8:19 PM, jim wrote:
Ethanol is about 50 cents less than the CBOB blend stock
last time I looked.


http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

On 5/30/2014 8:21 PM, jim wrote:
If the tanker truck is filled with E10 then ethanol
is blended with 84 octane as the truck is filled.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

On 5/31/2014 7:12 AM, jim wrote:
The point of citing the study was to show that
increased thermal efficiency that are possible with
ethanol blends can offset losses due to
lower heat content.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

On 5/31/2014 7:35 AM, jim wrote:
jim wrote:
In the US the EPA doesn't allow and doesn't allow
mileage testing with ethanol.


In the US the EPA doesn't allow higher concentrations
of ethanol and doesn't allow fuel economy testing
with ethanol.

Because there is no single national standard for blending, duh.

On 6/1/2014 7:53 AM, jim wrote:
wrote:

The other assumption implied by your statement is that the conditions
described -- 9.2 CR, and one bar (14.5 psi) maximum boost -- are
conditions
at which maximum efficiency is achieved. Far from it. In fact,
running at
14.5 psi of boost, you're either accelerating hard or you're going like
hell.

But that IS where the maximum power is extracted from the fuel. The
highest HP per lb of fuel burned - which translates to the highest
efficiency. On a spark ignition engine that is at the point where
maximum torque is produced, and with the engine totally unthrottled -
ie- wide open throttle loaded to maintain maximum torque

That is true but its not very relevant to fuel economy
for the cars on the road.



http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

"jim" " wrote in message
...
wrote:

On a typical street car running WOT at
a constant speed, it will get you down the
road at 100mph (or faster). Due to extra
friction and wind resistence at that high speed
you will get a lot poorer fuel economy than
you would running at partial throttle at 40 mph.


You are -slowly- learning what we have known for decades. You don't
need to parrot it back at us, just stop ranting and listen.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:36:43 -0600, Rolling Block wrote:

On 5/30/2014 8:21 PM, jim wrote:
If the tanker truck is filled with E10 then ethanol
is blended with 84 octane as the truck is filled.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

I beg to differ, as I lost fifteen percent of my mileage when Oregon
moved to E10 "oxygenated fuel". Feh!

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Larry Jaques fired this volley in
:

I beg to differ, as I lost fifteen percent of my mileage when Oregon
moved to E10 "oxygenated fuel". Feh!

The ethanol itself is 33% less efficient, but it has other mitigating
effects on the combustion process and temperature, moisture absorption,
etc. that can alter the overall efficiency of the 'fuel', et. al., far
beyond the proportional efficiency difference between the two before
they're mixed.

Lloyd

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 16:37:01 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:36:43 -0600, Rolling Block wrote:

On 5/30/2014 8:21 PM, jim wrote:
If the tanker truck is filled with E10 then ethanol
is blended with 84 octane as the truck is filled.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles
with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles
can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline,
although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added
to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3%
when using E10.

I beg to differ, as I lost fifteen percent of my mileage when Oregon
moved to E10 "oxygenated fuel". Feh!
Well, the actual energy deficiency is about 50%, so if the engine is
set up to run on it efficiently, E10 will cost 5% in fuel economy
(which is what I've found to be pretty close) Some engines that are
already set to run lean will suffer a LOT more when ethanol is added
to the equation.