Never Bring A Rapier To A Gun Fight

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Nice work Jan!

You are most gracious.  I thank you.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

It's a high, high horse, and I'm waiting for someone to try and take me off the horse. There's a lot of lips flapping, but that's all.

May I suggest a hobby?

The lips flapping are yours in your pretentious War and Peace like yawnathon posts.

Leave me alone, I am making lots of money at the moment trading oil. 

When you're Amish get back to me. 

Actually I'll just block you. 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Guest

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

May I suggest a hobby, or getting laid?

The lips flapping are yours in your pretentious War and Peace like yawnathon posts.

Leave me alone, I am making lots of money at the moment trading oil. 

When you're Amish get back to me. 

Actually I'll just block you. You are utterly boring. 

 

Such intelligence and wit. My niece is funnier than this and she is 8.

So then block me. I'm not responding to you in the hope that I'll change your mind, I respond for others who read these posts. You're just another person without the intellect to debate the issue with me.

[Selva + 252]

If we may continue this discussion without insults that would be great. If not, I will have to lock this thread. 

[Meredith Poor + 884]

8 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

The reason I suggested that you didn't have to read Anne Korin's entire book is because the title and the abstract pretty much tells you all you need to understand her point. Standford University has a number of academics associated with the school who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to energy and fuels. Mark Jacobson is one, Henry Miller is another. The school also harbors political science professors who are equally devoid of real knowledge.

Did the lab experiment work, yes or no? The scientific record has a record running back to the 19th century of copper being used as a catalyst for carbon - this didn't just show up from nowhere.

[Meredith Poor + 884]

8 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Standford University has a number of academics associated with the school who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to energy and fuels.

The world is full of idiots. Some of them are academics. Some are in the military, and some are in Congress or the executive branch.

Even idiots do useful things, sometimes by accident, sometimes by persistence. Whether the Stanford people know what they're talking about is a detail - what matters is that they keep trying new things to gain knowledge.

Perhaps you can categorize all 'liberal academics' as 'not knowing anything' about energy. Perhaps it's because you, or they, have slapped the 'liberal' label on group of practitioners, perhaps with the intent to discredit them in advance.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

4 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Did the lab experiment work, yes or no? The scientific record has a record running back to the 19th century of copper being used as a catalyst for carbon - this didn't just show up from nowhere.

At some time in ancient Iraq a person created a battery using a terracotta pot and a rolled copper sheet. According to those who have tried it in modern times, it works. Yet, no one today, other than science fair students, employs this working battery. Therefore, other than as a curiosity, it is irrelevant.

If you go back and read my first reply to you, you will see that I don't imply it didn't work, I made it clear that it is irrelevant.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The world is full of idiots. Some of them are academics. Some are in the military, and some are in Congress or the executive branch.

Even idiots do useful things, sometimes by accident, sometimes by persistence. Whether the Stanford people know what they're talking about is a detail - what matters is that they keep trying new things to gain knowledge.

Perhaps you can categorize all 'liberal academics' as 'not knowing anything' about energy. Perhaps it's because you, or they, have slapped the 'liberal' label on group of practitioners, perhaps with the intent to discredit them in advance.

I've always found that the issue of fuels and energy is not Republican vs Democrat, or liberal vs conservative, or left vs right, or socialist vs capitalist. There are people from all these political persuasions that are on both sides. The issue is one of money. A communist is as likely to accept money from the oil industry as a capitalist (Lenin is one good example).

Consequently, there are liberal academics who I agree with on the issue of energy and fuels, and there are conservatives I disagree with over these same issues. I base my position on facts...historical facts, practical knowledge, and actual hands-on experience.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Marc J. Rauch

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Selvedina said:

If we may continue this discussion

Apologies, I just think it would be way more productive to try to convert the general public first. It's a pro oil forum so by definition we are the last people he is going to convert. Just feels a bit like flogging a dead horse. The 'high, high horse' perhaps ... 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Guest

[James Regan + 1,776]

17 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Will that tank of fuel be cheaper with alcohol?  that depends on the pricing, but generally, alcohol ends up priced lower than gasoline, liter for liter.

In Brasil:

At present a litre of gasoline is equivalent to 70% the price of a litre of Petrol, a Litre of Petrol currently costs R$4.57 where ethanol costs R$2.74 +/- 59% cheaper

Petrol - R$4.57=$1.11USD/Litre - $4.19GL

Alcool - R$2.74=$0.67USD/Litre - $2.53GL

However:

• A gallon of gasoline provides one-third more energy than a gallon of ethanol.
• Blending ethanol and gasoline at a ratio of 85 percent to 15 percent (E85), the blended fuel is nearly thirty percent less powerful than pure gasoline. Ethanol is similar in acceleration, power, and cruising ability, but ethanol miles per gallon are less than pure gasoline.
• Ethanol causes damage to fuel systems and engines that pure gasoline does not. The most critical problems are water contamination and fuel separation. Ethanol attracts and absorbs water, including water from the air. When the gasohol absorbs enough water, fuel water contamination occurs in the car’s gas tank and that affects engine performance. If the car sits for a while, fuel separation occurs; this is where the gas and water form layers in the gas tank and if the motor sucks up the water layer into the engine, serious costly, damage happens.
• Ethanol is alcohol, and alcohol causes corrosion in the fuel system. Metal parts rust and plastic parts become deformed or cracked.
• Ethanol is not an ideal fuel additive, and older cars especially have problems with ethanol fuel.

Ethanol prices have doubled over the past few years and the additional costs to adapt your car for alcohol are costly, on average you get 30% less miles from a litre of alcool as you would from petrol.

Alcool looks to be environmentally friendly until you see the huge tracts of land used to keep the production of soya and corn etc which are being used to grow the feedstocks, ground which was once fallow ground, current deforestation in the Amazon has been driven by the desire and profit to grow the feedstocks.

All is not what is seems once big business is involved, don't kid yourselves.

Edit- Also worth remembering the USA is in love with the combustion engine and being a first world country with a very cheap supply of petrol will not be so easy to convince as was done in Brasil, a third world country where every centavo counts.

Edited September 16, 2019 by James Regan

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

2 hours ago, James Regan said:

In Brasil:

At present a litre of gasoline is equivalent to 70% the price of a litre of Petrol, a Litre of Petrol currently costs R$4.57 where ethanol costs R$2.74 +/- 59% cheaper

Petrol - R$4.57=$1.11USD/Litre - $4.19GL

Alcool - R$2.74=$0.67USD/Litre - $2.53GL

However:

• A gallon of gasoline provides one-third more energy than a gallon of ethanol.
• Blending ethanol and gasoline at a ratio of 85 percent to 15 percent (E85), the blended fuel is nearly thirty percent less powerful than pure gasoline. Ethanol is similar in acceleration, power, and cruising ability, but ethanol miles per gallon are less than pure gasoline.
• Ethanol causes damage to fuel systems and engines that pure gasoline does not. The most critical problems are water contamination and fuel separation. Ethanol attracts and absorbs water, including water from the air. When the gasohol absorbs enough water, fuel water contamination occurs in the car’s gas tank and that affects engine performance. If the car sits for a while, fuel separation occurs; this is where the gas and water form layers in the gas tank and if the motor sucks up the water layer into the engine, serious costly, damage happens.
• Ethanol is alcohol, and alcohol causes corrosion in the fuel system. Metal parts rust and plastic parts become deformed or cracked.
• Ethanol is not an ideal fuel additive, and older cars especially have problems with ethanol fuel.

Ethanol prices have doubled over the past few years and the additional costs to adapt your car for alcohol are costly, on average you get 30% less miles from a litre of alcool as you would from petrol.

Alcool looks to be environmentally friendly until you see the huge tracts of land used to keep the production of soya and corn etc which are being used to grow the feedstocks, ground which was once fallow ground, current deforestation in the Amazon has been driven by the desire and profit to grow the feedstocks.

All is not what is seems once big business is involved, don't kid yourselves.

Edit- Also worth remembering the USA is in love with the combustion engine and being a first world country with a very cheap supply of petrol will not be so easy to convince as was done in Brasil, a third world country where every centavo counts.

I think it's very nice that you spell Brazil with an "S" instead of a "Z" and that you know the word "alcool." Unfortunately for you, you are completely wrong on all other points.

The difference in energy content between gasoline and ethanol is irrelevant. Internal combustion engines do not run on steam from boiling water. This has been known and proven for well over 100 years. Engine optimization is the key, not BTUs. Using an ethanol-gasoline blend may result in lower MPG because of engine optimization, not energy content. 

In any event, the inefficiency of burning gasoline makes the gasoline energy content in an internal combustion engine not 116,000 BTUs, but about 87,000 BTU. E85 has a BTU rating of about 84,000; and E10 has a BTU rating of 85,000 So not only are you incorrect because you don't know that energy content is irrelevant, but your comparison figures are a joke.

Moreover, it has been proven for over 100 years that some ethanol-gasoline blends (E30 to E50) used in a gasoline-optimized engine will deliver better mpg than E0.

Ethanol is compatible with more types of rubbers, plastics, and metals than gasoline and aromatics. Any corrosion and damage is due to gasoline and aromatics.

Phase separation occurs because gasoline can't absorb as much water as ethanol. The absorption ability of ethanol is a positive benefit, not a negative occurrence. The reason why aftermarket engine treatment products are usually used is to do what ethanol does for free.

All of Brazil's older cars and light trucks run on E27. Brazil has mandated E15 and above since 1978. If ethanol was the problem you claim, there would be hundreds if not thousands of stories in the Brazilian media about. Please post links to 10 such stories.

Ethanol-gasoline blends were used in Britain and the rest of Europe for many decades. In Britain from the 1920's to the 1970's. The "power alcohol" blends were sold by Standard Oil and Cities Service affiliates. Perhaps you've heard of these companies in whatever world you live in...they are big companies (Standard is the biggest).

Proof of the above information is contained in my 641-page book "THE ETHANOL PAPERS." It is available to read online for free at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html . At any time that you think you have information that is contrary to the information I present in my book, please do so. I love learning. I've become as knowledgeable about biofuels because I've studied the issue to such a great extent. If you have better info, let's see it.

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I think it's very nice that you spell Brazil with an "S" instead of a "Z" and that you know the word "alcool." Unfortunately for you, you are completely wrong on all other points.

The difference in energy content between gasoline and ethanol is irrelevant. Internal combustion engines do not run on steam from boiling water. This has been known and proven for well over 100 years. Engine optimization is the key, not BTUs. Using an ethanol-gasoline blend may result in lower MPG because of engine optimization, not energy content. 

In any event, the inefficiency of burning gasoline makes the gasoline energy content in an internal combustion engine not 116,000 BTUs, but about 87,000 BTU. E85 has a BTU rating of about 84,000; and E10 has a BTU rating of 85,000 So not only are you incorrect because you don't know that energy content is irrelevant, but your comparison figures are a joke.

Moreover, it has been proven for over 100 years that some ethanol-gasoline blends (E30 to E50) used in a gasoline-optimized engine will deliver better mpg than E0.

Ethanol is compatible with more types of rubbers, plastics, and metals than gasoline and aromatics. Any corrosion and damage is due to gasoline and aromatics.

Phase separation occurs because gasoline can't absorb as much water as ethanol. The absorption ability of ethanol is a positive benefit, not a negative occurrence. The reason why aftermarket engine treatment products are usually used is to do what ethanol does for free.

All of Brazil's older cars and light trucks run on E27. Brazil has mandated E15 and above since 1978. If ethanol was the problem you claim, there would be hundreds if not thousands of stories in the Brazilian media about. Please post links to 10 such stories.

Ethanol-gasoline blends were used in Britain and the rest of Europe for many decades. In Britain from the 1920's to the 1970's. The "power alcohol" blends were sold by Standard Oil and Cities Service affiliates. Perhaps you've heard of these companies in whatever world you live in...they are big companies (Standard is the biggest).

Proof of the above information is contained in my 641-page book "THE ETHANOL PAPERS." It is available to read online for free at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html . At any time that you think you have information that is contrary to the information I present in my book, please do so. I love learning. I've become as knowledgeable about biofuels because I've studied the issue to such a great extent. If you have better info, let's see it.

Shame you start your post with a supercilious remark, I would have read the rest of it.

Its a shame you need to bring your contemptuous self-important rhetoric to a forum that you actually loathe with bad blood and antagonism.

Thanks for the lesson in how to be ignored moving on.

Edited September 16, 2019 by James Regan

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

59 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Shame you start your post with a supercilious remark, I would have read the rest of it.

Its a shame you need to bring your contemptuous self-important rhetoric to a forum that you actually loathe with bad blood and antagonism.

Thanks for the lesson in how to be ignored moving on.

If you didn't need to pompously spell Brazil with an "S" I wouldn't have mentioned it. As for reading the rest of what I wrote, I didn't write it for you, I wrote it for others who might happen by.

[James Regan + 1,776]

15 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

If you didn't need to pompously spell Brazil with an "S" I wouldn't have mentioned it. As for reading the rest of what I wrote, I didn't write it for you, I wrote it for others who might happen by.

Ok I will bite, Brasil is spelt with an S only dumb gringos use a Z, pompous haha thats a new one for me. Por favor para de falar comigo eu tenho suficiente malucos em mina vida aqui em Brasil, aqui so tem Coritianos mano........

[Meredith Poor + 884]

11 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

At some time in ancient Iraq a person created a battery using a terracotta pot and a rolled copper sheet. According to those who have tried it in modern times, it works. Yet, no one today, other than science fair students, employs this working battery. Therefore, other than as a curiosity, it is irrelevant.

If you go back and read my first reply to you, you will see that I don't imply it didn't work, I made it clear that it is irrelevant.

 [Ken] Olsen [of Digital Electronics Corp, DEC computers] is quoted [in 1977] as saying "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." (Wikipedia). Business schools have rafts of stories about businesses that ignore 'irrelevant' startups or disruptors until they are so big that the incumbent businesses had no time to react.

It's entirely possible this individual development is irrelevant. The fact that thousands of people are conducting R&D like this with the objective of replacing non-renewable energy sources is highly relevant, and those 'people' include armies of researchers in Federal Government laboratories. Very deep pockets are in hot pursuit of the holy grail.

[Meredith Poor + 884]

11 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Consequently, there are liberal academics who I agree with on the issue of energy and fuels, and there are conservatives I disagree with over these same issues. I base my position on facts...historical facts, practical knowledge, and actual hands-on experience.

Speaking of dictionaries, do you have a CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry handy? If so, look up the energy required to reduce a gram-molar of silicon dioxide (SiO2) to pure silicon. In this context, a 6" x 6" solar cell weighs about 1 gram, and produces 4.5 watts. This is about 22.5 watt-hours per day.

[James Regan + 1,776]

18 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Speaking of dictionaries, do you have a CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry handy? If so, look up the energy required to reduce a gram-molar of silicon dioxide (SiO2) to pure silicon. In this context, a 6" x 6" solar cell weighs about 1 gram, and produces 4.5 watts. This is about 22.5 watt-hours per day.

 

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

Ok I will bite, Brasil is spelt with an S only dumb gringos use a Z, pompous haha thats a new one for me. Por favor para de falar comigo eu tenho suficiente malucos em mina vida aqui em Brasil, aqui so tem Coritianos mano........

Some housekeeping first: The past tense of spell is not spelt, it is spelled. It's okay to make a typo, I do it all the time, and I have a good command of the English language. But if I'm instructing someone on how to spell a word correctly, I try to make sure that I haven't inadvertently misspelled a word so that I don't look like a pompous fool. So while it is true that English speaking "gringos" spell Brazil with a "z" we also spell and pronounce Espana as Spain and Deutschland as Germany.

This is not dumb, unless you consider calling The United States Los Estados Unidos dumb. 

It looks like you've struck out on each point you have tried to make. If you were a baseball player (jogador de beisebol), your batting average would be 0.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

 

Exactly, but you have to make sure that you're right, otherwise the T-shirt is stupid.