|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:31:09 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. I'd have figured the reverse was true. Everybody complains about California so much, all the undesirables would flock there because they'd feel right at home. :) |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Doug Winterburn writes:
On 05/30/2012 05:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: "Dave" wrote: That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. Lew Good thing too - many of those that are leaving are those undesirable rich taxpayers. Good luck! cite? |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, Larry wrote: Larry Jaques wrote in m: On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) Got cites to current info on the difference? I know that the newer injected engines don't suffer from the stated malady. I haven't really found what I would call reliable information. I see many claims, but all my experience is to the contrary. I'm sure they can't be as bad as the old LP conversions were or the manufacturers would have long since been out of business. I would be interested to hear first hand information from someone that actually owns one of the new CNG vehicles. Driveability, mileage equivalent, cold/hot start, engine reliability, etc. Larry |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
.com: "Dave" wrote: That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. Lew No need to "help" keep people out. They're fleeing the state like cockroaches when the lights are turned on. http://tinyurl.com/cxfck9z Larry |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Larry wrote: I would be interested to hear first hand information from someone that actually owns one of the new CNG vehicles. Driveability, mileage equivalent, cold/hot start, engine reliability, etc. ------------------------------------ In addition to improved ownership and operating economies, improved air quality exhaust issues, such as reduced SOX & NOX also were a major factor. Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:13:49 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: But unlike all those other things, there is no DEMAND for a NG vehicle fuel delivery system. If the demand existed, someone would already be supplying it. You have said absolutely nothing to challenge my statement that NG is not a REALISTIC alternative to gasoline-powered private vehicles. Today? Not so much. Five years? Very possible. Like anything new or not popular, it can take a while to catch on. Right now, petrol based fuel is still readily available and really on the cheap side. Television was invented in 1926, but it was 1941 before it was set up with any infrastructure, but by 1949, there were a million of those expensive sets. You just seem to want to push it aside and never use it, but with some work, the demand can come and it is a viable alternative. I'd go NG before hybrid. Make a note to revisit this in five years. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:43:10 -0400, wrote:
They already have diesel fueling stations. Adding natural gas is no biggie. Lew Except for long-haul they'll need a pup just for their fuel - and the'll need to exchange them rather than wait for refilling. Today. Do you think they will stop improving the technology? |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:28:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:23:22 -0400, wrote: These "natural gas engines" are factory converted diesels. Exactly what RoW had. These were NOT field conversions. They were built by Cummins. Maybe they bought the design from the GM diesel of the 1970's. No, cummins builds diesels. GM converted a marginal gasoline engine (the 1970's Olds Rocket) into a diesel. Unlike VW who based their gasoline rabbit/golf engine on a diesel design. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:25:58 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:43:10 -0400, wrote: They already have diesel fueling stations. Adding natural gas is no biggie. Lew Except for long-haul they'll need a pup just for their fuel - and the'll need to exchange them rather than wait for refilling. Today. Do you think they will stop improving the technology? There are only so many BTUs, or Kw of power in a pound of natural gas. Or a gallon.. 30% less than diesel fuel. So you need 400 gallons of liquified natural gas to take the place of 300 gallons of diesel - but you cannot liquify natural gas for vehicle fuel. You can only compress it - so you need HUGE tankage. 21.8 liters of CNG at 2400psi equals ONE US GALLON of diesel. That's 5.76 gallons of CNG to 1 gallon of diesel. - so 300 gallons of diesel becomes 6540 gallons of CNG storage. Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 8:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Doug writes: On 05/30/2012 05:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: "Dave" wrote: That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. Lew Good thing too - many of those that are leaving are those undesirable rich taxpayers. Good luck! cite? Snore.... Why must every one look up common knowledge subjects for you? |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 3:32 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/30/2012 5:55 AM, Leon wrote: On 5/30/2012 2:35 AM, Just Wondering wrote: On 5/30/2012 12:45 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote: wrote: Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project. The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! --------------------------------- Can't imagine how a natural gas conversion from diesel could be cost effective. L/A chose a different approach. When it came time to rebuild and/or retire a diesel, it was replaced with a natural gas engine. Just one of the reasons it took over 10 years to accomplish. You can't simply extrapolate that experience to the entire nationwide fleet of private vehicles. For one thing, the infrastructure to distribute fuel on such a massive scale simply doesn't exist. Well perhaps it is more readily available that you might think. Add a pump to many homes and you have your source. Granted the pump would be an initial costly expense but I suspect that improved fuel economy would eventually pay for that expense. That would work only if the demand was miniscule. If you created a massive increase in demand, the cost of NG would inevitably rise, eliminating any "improved fuel economy". Yeah I have mentioned this before but in the mean time... |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 7:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, wrote: Larry wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) I cannot say that any of that makes sense... Are you kidding? Liquid gasoline washing oil off of the cylinders??? What do you suppose that explosion in side the cylinder every other revolution does? I suspect it burns off any trace of oil during the power stroke. Thank goodness for those oil rings to relube the cylinder with each stroke. A gas/vapor fuel should be superior to any liquid fuel since it is already in the perfect state to be burned and does not carry any nasty contaminates with it as gasoline does. Pistons, valves, heads should all stay cleaner with a gas vapor fuel. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 10:34 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:28:20 -0400, Ed wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:23:22 -0400, wrote: These "natural gas engines" are factory converted diesels. Exactly what RoW had. These were NOT field conversions. They were built by Cummins. Maybe they bought the design from the GM diesel of the 1970's. No, cummins builds diesels. GM converted a marginal gasoline engine (the 1970's Olds Rocket) into a diesel. Unlike VW who based their gasoline rabbit/golf engine on a diesel design. No, they did not convert a gasoline engine to be a diesel. It looked like they did but that was an appearance thing. I can assure you that all internal parts and block and heads were unique. I had an inventory of those parts that I sold for 10 years. The problem was that they took a gasoline engine design and built it into a diesel. They should have designed the whole thing from the ground up. Their biggest problem was the fuel delivery system. Inadequate fuel filtration was the source of 90% of its problems. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 7:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Dave" wrote: That's entirely different. EVERYBODY complains about California. ------------------------------- Except those of us who live here. Must admit, the propaganda machine helps to keep out the undesirables. Lew Yeah, who wold want to pay $1 more per gallon of gas than most anywhere else? |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Leon" wrote: Yeah, who wold want to pay $1 more per gallon of gas than most anywhere else? ------------------------------ Been to Hawaii lately? Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/30/2012 8:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:13:49 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: But unlike all those other things, there is no DEMAND for a NG vehicle fuel delivery system. If the demand existed, someone would already be supplying it. You have said absolutely nothing to challenge my statement that NG is not a REALISTIC alternative to gasoline-powered private vehicles. Today? Not so much. Five years? Very possible. The question is what IS a reasonable alternative to gasoline, not what the future might hold in store. Eventually, science and technology will make hydrogen-powered engines realistic. Eventually, science and technology will make economical and efficient solar cells that will power vehicles electrically (with efficient battery backup for when the sun isn't shining). Those will be better alternatives than any fossil fuel. But in the here and now, hydrogen and solar panels are not realistic alternatives to gasoline. In the here and now, neither is natural gas. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
|
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/31/2012 5:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. There could also be the possibility of using prefilled exchange tanks. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message ... On 5/31/2012 5:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. There could also be the possibility of using prefilled exchange tanks. ....and strap 'em on the trunk lid like a fork lift? ;~) The local state DOT facility put in a fancy ng filling station with some fan fare about 5-7 years ago. Outside of a couple cars used by management they don't use ng. Pretty much everything they run is diesel. The ng thing was a political feel good move that made no economic sense. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:43:55 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/30/2012 7:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, wrote: Larry wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) I cannot say that any of that makes sense... Are you kidding? Liquid gasoline washing oil off of the cylinders??? Think "moist air/fuel mixture" from a carb. FI doesn't have that problem, nor do LPG/CNG. Like I said, it was 30 years ago. Now that I think of it, it was LPG, not CNG, in that Chebby. -- Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
In article ,
says... On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. Why would it become the fuel of choice for commuters? It's only cheap because it doesn't have road-use tax applied. If it becomes a commonplace motor fuel it will be taxed to the same level as other motor fuels. It's just not that attractive. More likely is that somebody will come up with an economically competitive method of making gasoline and diesel from natural gas or coal. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/31/2012 8:11 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:43:55 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/30/2012 7:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, wrote: Larry wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) I cannot say that any of that makes sense... Are you kidding? Liquid gasoline washing oil off of the cylinders??? Think "moist air/fuel mixture" from a carb. FI doesn't have that problem, nor do LPG/CNG. Like I said, it was 30 years ago. I understand, just commenting that if it were not the gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders, it would be the oil burning off with each power stroke. The gasoline washing the oil film off is probably a moot point after the spark. FI still introduces a mist, although not as bad as a carbureted fuel mixture, a gas/vapor fuel is ready to burn completely. Now that I think of it, it was LPG, not CNG, in that Chebby. -- Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/31/2012 7:53 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message ... On 5/31/2012 5:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. There could also be the possibility of using prefilled exchange tanks. ...and strap 'em on the trunk lid like a fork lift? ;~) Well they could be smaller and designed to hold more pressure. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:34:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/30/2012 4:30 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 06:52:03 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 11:38 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? The converted diesel engines were failing at a very high rate. Don't know if it ws due to lubrication issues, valve issues, or what - but the engines were apparently good for about 1/4 the normal life of a diesel. The cyl heads are heavily modified and they need spark ignition - all of which could have been involved in the failures. And the intitial conversion price is gawdawfull too!!! DOH, I was not thinking diesel. Yeah, I would imagine converting diesel to natural gas would have its issues. I suspect way too much compression was being developed unless the heads allowed for a larger combustion chamber. I suspect Waterloo regional transit is a government transportation system? It is "city transit" - Region of Waterloo encompasses Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge, Woolwich Township, and Wilmot Township. and the engines were built BY CUMMINS as natural gas engines - using mostly off-the-shelf diesel engine parts - but with a modified cyl head and other parts. NOT Field Modified. Natural gas engines built with off the shelf diesel engine parts... Remember the Oldsmobile diesel? It was a common belief that the old V8 diesel was a converted gasoline engine..... Just a thought I remembered when you mentioned the off the shelf parts. Actually there were very few parts on that diesel V8 that would fit the gaoline V8. Those similar parts were bolts and nuts and a few hanger brackets. Part of the problem may have been that the engines were not designed from the ground up for their intended fuels. The olds WAS based on the gasoline engine - very poorly converted - and diesel engines need to be much more robust. The Cummins Diesel is very stout - and a good basis for a heavy duty natural gas engine. It appears it was the conversion parts more than the base engine that were problematic, but I cannot say for sure. Been a long time since I've talked to a guy who used to be a friend many years ago who worked on, and hated, them. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:43:55 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/30/2012 7:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, wrote: Larry wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) I cannot say that any of that makes sense... Are you kidding? Liquid gasoline washing oil off of the cylinders??? What do you suppose that explosion in side the cylinder every other revolution does? I suspect it burns off any trace of oil during the power stroke. Thank goodness for those oil rings to relube the cylinder with each stroke. A gas/vapor fuel should be superior to any liquid fuel since it is already in the perfect state to be burned and does not carry any nasty contaminates with it as gasoline does. Pistons, valves, heads should all stay cleaner with a gas vapor fuel. A "dry gas" does provide some measurable advantage with regards to oil dilution and cold cyl wash - and THEORETICALLY should allow longer engine life. In some cases it does (like irrigation engines running on natural gas) with very extended oil change intervals, and YEARS of running without repairs - generally at constant load - half throttle or less. Didn't work with the bus engines. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:50:55 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/30/2012 10:34 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:28:20 -0400, Ed wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:23:22 -0400, wrote: These "natural gas engines" are factory converted diesels. Exactly what RoW had. These were NOT field conversions. They were built by Cummins. Maybe they bought the design from the GM diesel of the 1970's. No, cummins builds diesels. GM converted a marginal gasoline engine (the 1970's Olds Rocket) into a diesel. Unlike VW who based their gasoline rabbit/golf engine on a diesel design. No, they did not convert a gasoline engine to be a diesel. It looked like they did but that was an appearance thing. I can assure you that all internal parts and block and heads were unique. I had an inventory of those parts that I sold for 10 years. The problem was that they took a gasoline engine design and built it into a diesel. They should have designed the whole thing from the ground up. Their biggest problem was the fuel delivery system. Inadequate fuel filtration was the source of 90% of its problems. Which should have been addressed in the first year of production with the fitment of a "proper" filter. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:48:04 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote: On 5/30/2012 8:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:13:49 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: But unlike all those other things, there is no DEMAND for a NG vehicle fuel delivery system. If the demand existed, someone would already be supplying it. You have said absolutely nothing to challenge my statement that NG is not a REALISTIC alternative to gasoline-powered private vehicles. Today? Not so much. Five years? Very possible. The question is what IS a reasonable alternative to gasoline, not what the future might hold in store. Eventually, science and technology will make hydrogen-powered engines realistic. Possibly - but personally I doubt it. IF hydrogen ever becomes a viable fuel it will be in fuel cells, not infernal combustion engines. Eventually, science and technology will make economical and efficient solar cells that will power vehicles electrically (with efficient battery backup for when the sun isn't shining). Perhaps hybrid battery/ultracap combinations. Those will be better alternatives than any fossil fuel. But in the here and now, hydrogen and solar panels are not realistic alternatives to gasoline. In the here and now, neither is natural gas. Correct |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:03:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. To an extent they are already "practical". Every business that used CNG on their delivery fleet locally had their own "home refiller". Not enough storage capacity for out-of-town use. The pressure vessel development is a bigger drawback than the pump. Not to mention the safety issues with 2400psi+ flammable gasses. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:53:32 -0400, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote: "Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message m... On 5/31/2012 5:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. There could also be the possibility of using prefilled exchange tanks. ...and strap 'em on the trunk lid like a fork lift? ;~) WITH a forklift, more likely. The local state DOT facility put in a fancy ng filling station with some fan fare about 5-7 years ago. Outside of a couple cars used by management they don't use ng. Pretty much everything they run is diesel. The ng thing was a political feel good move that made no economic sense. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:11:07 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:43:55 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/30/2012 7:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, wrote: Larry wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) I cannot say that any of that makes sense... Are you kidding? Liquid gasoline washing oil off of the cylinders??? Think "moist air/fuel mixture" from a carb. FI doesn't have that problem, nor do LPG/CNG. Like I said, it was 30 years ago. Now that I think of it, it was LPG, not CNG, in that Chebby. I kinda figured it was - cng 30 years ago was VERY rare. Properly converted LPG vehicles were very reliable and long-lived. Poorly converted, not so. I used to have my propane vehicle fuel license. |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:30:14 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/31/2012 8:11 AM, Larry Jaques wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:43:55 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/30/2012 7:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote: On 30 May 2012 23:07:12 GMT, wrote: Larry wrote in : On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:38:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/29/2012 7:02 PM, wrote: On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:48:20 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: "Just Wondering" wrote: There is no other realistic alternate energy source for private motor vehicles. ------------------------------- Truck and bus fleets work quite well and at lower cost using natural gas as opposed to #2 diesel. That's some low hanging fruit to get started. Lew Waterloo regional transit had a fleet of natural gas busses, and the maintenance costs totally killed the project - they went back to deisel, and now have quite a few hybrid deisels. The extra engine maintenance on the CNG busses outstripped any possible fuel savings. I am seriously curious as to why maintenance costs were higher. Do you know? Since CNG engines outlast gasoline engines, I'm willing to bet that it was the switch from diesel to CNG IC engines which caused the maintenance shift. Show me something that would indicate that the general CNG engine will last longer. My experience, albeit 20 years ago, is completely opposite of that. I've taken apart converted engines that were nothing but scrap metal. Rebuilders refused to take them as a core when purchasing a short/long block. CNG has no lubricating properties that most internal combustion engines depend on, even the small amount that gasoline delivers. My info was circa 1984. The body shop's Chevy wrecker was a CNG conversion. The paperwork which came with it stated that the conversions lasted longer because they didn't have liquid gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders every other stroke on the carbureted models. I wasn't interested enough to research it. (That was before the Internet.) I cannot say that any of that makes sense... Are you kidding? Liquid gasoline washing oil off of the cylinders??? Think "moist air/fuel mixture" from a carb. FI doesn't have that problem, nor do LPG/CNG. Like I said, it was 30 years ago. I understand, just commenting that if it were not the gasoline washing the oil off the cylinders, it would be the oil burning off with each power stroke. The gasoline washing the oil film off is probably a moot point after the spark. FI still introduces a mist, although not as bad as a carbureted fuel mixture, a gas/vapor fuel is ready to burn completely. On a carbureted engine with a choke, fuel wash was a VERY REAL problem. EFI pretty well solved that - and the boundary layer effect prevents the oil from being scoured off the cyl walls on the power stroke. It is generally NOT a problem. Detonation can change that in an instant. Now that I think of it, it was LPG, not CNG, in that Chebby. -- Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:31:52 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 5/31/2012 7:53 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote: "Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message ... On 5/31/2012 5:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:39:03 -0400, wrote: Any guesses how long it would take to fill that tank to 2400 psi with natural gas? Any guess how heavy that tank would need to be to contain 2400psi of natural gas safely? A "battery" of smaller tanks is the only effective way of doing it. Physics cannot be changed. You can't change physics, but you can change the method used to compress NG. It may never be the fuel of choice for long distance, but for millions of commuters in and about cities, it may become a real alternative. Especially if a DIY home refiller becomes practical. The technological world we have today was built upon people that took risks, accepted challenges, and dreamed of a better future. The guys that pooh poohed everything did not fare as well. There could also be the possibility of using prefilled exchange tanks. ...and strap 'em on the trunk lid like a fork lift? ;~) Well they could be smaller and designed to hold more pressure. Which just makes them heavier - - - |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/31/2012 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Don't belive everything you read. Talk to some people who actually live there. LOL! Yeah, right ... like you're going to get an unbiased opinion by "talking to some people who actually live there"?? The people who "actually live there" elected the politicians who created California's fiscal problems in the first place. Unarguably, they are as (ir)responsible as the politicians. AAMOF, it will be exactly the contrary ... denial in it's most egregious form ... as we see here. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Swingman writes:
The people who "actually live there" elected the politicians who created California's fiscal problems in the first place. Unarguably, they are as (ir)responsible as the politicians. Actually a large part of the current financial difficulties in the state are due to the proposition process, which is so-called "direct democracy", starting with proposition 13 and continuing through hundreds of bond propositions that disengeniously claim that the bond won't raise taxes (even tho they are mostly paided from the general fund). The rest is due to political inaction due to political parties on both sides forgetting that compromise is the heart of politics. One wonders if the state would have a better budgetary condition if Pete Wilson hadn't reduced the vehicle license fee, which when it was restored cause the Davis recall leading to the Schwartzenegger administration, during which the budget just got worse. AAMOF, it will be exactly the contrary ... denial in it's most egregious form ... as we see here. I disputed that "droves" of people were leaving california. And in fact, droves of people aren't leaving california, the only cite that was provided indicates that there were 200,000 people per year imbalance between migrations from california and migrations to california within the US. In state of 35 million people, that's not a drove. The there was no evidence provided as to _why_ that imbalance exists. Nobody in california denies that there are currently budgetary problems. Nobody in california particularly cares what you think. California's state, California's problems. Butt out, or someome might start spouting nonsense about the armpit of texas, houston. scott |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/31/2012 1:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
California's state, California's problems. Butt out, or someome might start spouting nonsense about the armpit of texas, houston. Thanks, that accurately illustrates the intellectual depth of your discourse. -- www.eWoodShop.com Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious) http://gplus.to/eWoodShop |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
Scott Lurndal wrote:
California's state, California's problems. Butt out, or someome might start spouting nonsense about the armpit of texas, houston. ------------------------------- That's being a tad generous don't you think? Lew |
And The Creek Keeps Ris'n
On 5/31/2012 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:50:55 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 5/30/2012 10:34 PM, wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:28:20 -0400, Ed wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:23:22 -0400, wrote: These "natural gas engines" are factory converted diesels. Exactly what RoW had. These were NOT field conversions. They were built by Cummins. Maybe they bought the design from the GM diesel of the 1970's. No, cummins builds diesels. GM converted a marginal gasoline engine (the 1970's Olds Rocket) into a diesel. Unlike VW who based their gasoline rabbit/golf engine on a diesel design. No, they did not convert a gasoline engine to be a diesel. It looked like they did but that was an appearance thing. I can assure you that all internal parts and block and heads were unique. I had an inventory of those parts that I sold for 10 years. The problem was that they took a gasoline engine design and built it into a diesel. They should have designed the whole thing from the ground up. Their biggest problem was the fuel delivery system. Inadequate fuel filtration was the source of 90% of its problems. Which should have been addressed in the first year of production with the fitment of a "proper" filter. Woulda shoulda, Olds waited until the last year of production of the V8 diesel, 1985 to change over to the Racor filter system, |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter