Marc J. Rauch

Ethanol, the Perfect Home Remedy for A Saudi Oil Fever

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The Eagle has Landed

Ah, gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/21/2019 at 9:30 AM, Marc J. Rauch said:

This brochure does nothing to support any of the lies you posted.

Marc please stop calling people on here liars. @Ward Smith has no reason to lie. 

On 9/21/2019 at 9:30 AM, Marc J. Rauch said:

which are listed in my book and on my website.

And less of this would be welcome. 

Cheers.

Edited by DayTrader
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 10:18 AM, Marc J. Rauch said:

Don't you know what numbers look like? Are you not able to discern letters from numbers?

There is no need to take this kind of tone Marc. Come on now. Very inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2019 at 6:23 AM, Marc J. Rauch said:

It appears that you didn't check out the information in my book

Marc, these constant adverts are rather tiresome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/20/2019 at 5:21 AM, Marc J. Rauch said:

Oh, yeah, and if you'd like a lot more info about ethanol you can read my 641-page book for free online

Never ending Marc. It must be popular.

Oh it's given away for free. Guess not. 

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 4:30 PM, Marc J. Rauch said:

This brochure does nothing to support any of the lies you posted.

 

12 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Marc please stop calling people on here liars. @Ward Smith has no reason to lie. 

 

Agreed.  Enough with calling people who disagree with you as "liars".

That is not debating, that is mudslinging.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

Agreed.  Enough with calling people who disagree with you as "liars".

That is not debating, that is mudslinging.

Ward Smith claimed that he provided me with a link and challenged me to respond to it. He provided a link, but never asked me to respond. After he made a fuss about it, I did reply. My reply was the following:

You write that you gave me a week... You must have done that in your mind, because all you did was post a link to a government brochure that I'm already aware of. This brochure does nothing to support any of the lies you posted. This brochure doesn't compare ethanol to gasoline, it is simply dealing with ethanol. It makes statements such as:

"As with all motor fuels, it is important to maintain proper fuel handling and housekeeping practices to minimize contamination. Certain materials commonly used with gasoline may be incompatible with mid- and high-level alcohol blends.7,8 Some materials may degrade over time, potentially leading to equipment problems. They may also contaminate the fuel, which may adversely affect vehicle fuel system operation or cause component malfunction and lead to degraded driveability and performance."

So what? Are you suggesting that this says that ethanol and only ethanol "may be incompatible" with "certain materials"? Do you think this means that gasoline and aromatics are not incompatible with "certain materials"?

Is there any place in my book or any where that I stated that ethanol is not corrosive? I've always written just the opposite. What I have always written is that all liquids are corrosive. And then I always write that ethanol is compatible with more types of rubbers, plastics, and metals than gasoline and aromatics. And to back this up, in my book and on my website I provide links to multiple databases and charts from chemical companies that displays this. Where in the DOE booklet is there information that is contrary to this?

Under the sub-heading "Materials Recommendations" the booklet states:

"Certain materials commonly used with gasoline may be incompatible with mid- and high-level alcohol blends.7,8 Some materials may degrade over time, potentially leading to equipment problems. They may also contaminate the fuel, which may adversely affect vehicle fuel system operation or cause component malfunction and lead to degraded driveability and performance."

I agree with this statement. But where in the booklet does it say that these same materials do not suffer from similar or greater degradation over time from gasoline and aromatics? This paragraph gives two resources for the information. Did you research those citations and see what materials they're referring to? Did they compare the results against gasoline or aromatics? Did they say that ethanol should not be used?

In fact, in the very next paragraph, the booklet states:

"To address these issues, manufacturers have upgraded materials and developed products that are compatible with blends up to E25 or with blends up to E85." 

What this says is that the parts (therefore the engines) are compatible with E25. So why is there any fuss about using E10 or E15 or E20 or E25?

The next paragraph has the sentence:

"Blends below E25 do not cause corrosion of metals..."

So then what's all the commotion about E15 or E20?

The next paragraph states:

"Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride, nylon 6/6, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermoplastic and thermoset polymers. Blends below E25 may impact elastomers, and contact with E85 causes some elastomers to swell. Nonmetallic materials successfully used for trans-ferring and storing ethanol include thermoset-reinforced fiberglass, thermoplastic piping, and thermoset-reinforced fiberglass tanks (as listed for this application by UL)."

Is there anything that states that gasoline and aromatics don't cause similar or worse degradation? No, it doesn't because gasoline and aromatics are more corrosive. And how do I know this? Because of the multiple chemical comparison databases and charts I mentioned earlier - which are listed in my book and on my website.

You didn't actually read any of the DOE booklet did you, Ward Smith?

So where is it that you think I didn't debate the issue? Where is it that you believe that he didn't provide untrue information? Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to criticize Ward Smith for providing "false witness." I think so, but then I'm a guy who actually has a commend of the facts.

Edited by Marc J. Rauch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

So where is it that you think I didn't debate the issue? Where is it that you believe that he didn't provide untrue information? Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to criticize Ward Smith for providing "false witness." I think so, but then I'm a guy who actually has a commend of the facts.

See, here's your problem, Marc:  you are running up against the common experience of guys who run small tools powered by 2-cycle gasoline engines.  Just for example, I have this neat little roto-tiller / edger machine with a tiny little 2-cycle gasoline motor.  I ran it on 10% ethanol gasoline and a year later the entire carburetor was wrecked and it cost me over a hundred bucks to have it replaced.  Now I run it on pure gasoline that costs me $32 a gallon, and is sold in quart bottles for that purpose.  And yes, if I drive some miles there is a filling station for autos that sells a premium gasoline with zero alcohol, because the refinery blender pays for credits to obtain a waiver.  But that is inconvenient, so I make do with the expensive stuff.  

Now, I can already hear you saying, Hey, that is not causative, it just happens to be occurring in parallel.  The problem is that my, and also our (general users), perception is different.  We don't have problems with these small engines on premium gasoline, but we do have lots of problems running on an alcohol-gasoline mix.  And it is a common enough experience.  Thus, by perception, there is this connection with alcohol acting as an agent causing these deterioration problems. 

You can argue that these small engines can and should be built to operate on pure alcohol, and I would agree with you.  But they re not, the materials are marginal at best and likely incompatible with alcohols, and so the general public looks askance at alcohol as a fuel.  It is what it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

See, here's your problem, Marc:  you are running up against the common experience of guys who run small tools powered by 2-cycle gasoline engines.  Just for example, I have this neat little roto-tiller / edger machine with a tiny little 2-cycle gasoline motor.  I ran it on 10% ethanol gasoline and a year later the entire carburetor was wrecked and it cost me over a hundred bucks to have it replaced.  Now I run it on pure gasoline that costs me $32 a gallon, and is sold in quart bottles for that purpose.  And yes, if I drive some miles there is a filling station for autos that sells a premium gasoline with zero alcohol, because the refinery blender pays for credits to obtain a waiver.  But that is inconvenient, so I make do with the expensive stuff.  

Now, I can already hear you saying, Hey, that is not causative, it just happens to be occurring in parallel.  The problem is that my, and also our (general users), perception is different.  We don't have problems with these small engines on premium gasoline, but we do have lots of problems running on an alcohol-gasoline mix.  And it is a common enough experience.  Thus, by perception, there is this connection with alcohol acting as an agent causing these deterioration problems. 

You can argue that these small engines can and should be built to operate on pure alcohol, and I would agree with you.  But they re not, the materials are marginal at best and likely incompatible with alcohols, and so the general public looks askance at alcohol as a fuel.  It is what it is.

See, here's your problem, Jan. You write about a problem that a device had and you blame it on ethanol, but you don't say what went wrong. You make an empty generalized statement.

You try to second guess how I might respond and you write: "We don't have problems with these small engines on premium gasoline, but we do have lots of problems running on an alcohol-gasoline mix.  And it is a common enough experience.  Thus, by perception, there is this connection with alcohol acting as an agent causing these deterioration problems." But this is nonsense, of course there are problems with ethanol-free gasoline and premium gasoline. Engine repair shops didn't first come about in 2005 when the RFS was enacted; engine treatment products didn't get invented in 2005, many came on the market 40, 50, 60 years ago. The use of detergents in gasoline is half a century old.

Ethanol does not cause carbon build up, ethanol burns clean. If you think ethanol caused corrosion of the carburetors or certain parts, why don't you say what those parts are and what they're made of? In my book I provide several sources of compatibility charts and databases that all show ethanol is compatible with more types of rubbers, plastics, and metals than gasoline and aromatics. If you can find a substance that is not compatible with ethanol, and it is recommended that you keep it away from ethanol you will find that gasoline or aromatics (benzene, toluene, and xylene) are also not recommended. And since all gasoline contains aromatics how can you determine that it might have been ethanol that caused the corrosion, and not the aromatics? You can't.

What's more, take a look at all the aftermarket engine treatment products that are available. Their active ingredients to clean engines, carburetors, and spark plugs are either types of alcohols or "petroleum distillates." The alcohols (if not ethanol) are methanol and isopropanol. The petroleum distillates are things like kerosene, naphtha, and mineral spirits. These other alcohols and petroleum distillates are all more corrosive than ethanol. The manufacturers guarantee that their products won't hurt engines and engine parts. Well if those ingredients don't harm engines then it is impossible for ethanol to be the cause. Some of these manufacturers claim that their products can be used in any size engine, fuel injector or carburetor, and any age of manufacture without harm...well, if you can add Gold Eagle's Iso-Heet that contains isopropanol into gasoline to protect and clean any engine, then you can sure as shooting use ethanol blended with gasoline without harm and for the same purpose.

This is very simple stuff, and anyone with any practical experience in owning and driving internal combustion engine vehicles, or operating any type of ICE device should know this. You shouldn't have to read anything I've written, common sense should have already kicked in.

The public looks askance at ethanol because of lies created by the oil industry to denigrate ethanol, and it is helped along by people who wittingly or unwittingly lie about the results. You close with the sentence "...the materials are marginal at best and likely incompatible with alcohols..." What are those materials that you think are less compatible with ethanol then they are with gasoline and aromatics?

You write: "Marc:  you are running up against the common experience of guys..." Yes, it is unfortunate that I commonly run up against men and women with insufficient knowledge experience but they think they know what they are talking about. My answer to this is to write and publish articles that explain it all.

Edited by Marc J. Rauch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

download.jpeg.07dbea138b0e3d10c77c06c847c6a972.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

download.jpeg.07dbea138b0e3d10c77c06c847c6a972.jpeg

And here we see the problem played out. You could have simply relied: "Oh." Or, since in your last post to me you tried to beat me to the punch by telling me how I'll respond, you could have been prepared and said something like: "The rubber parts were Venusian gelastomic and the damaged metal was Zerofinian copper alloys that are typically used in 2-cycle weed whackers."

There is a fair amount of information that has to be understood. It is not as simple as "ethanol damages engines."

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

See, here's your problem, Marc:  you are running up against the common experience of guys who run small tools powered by 2-cycle gasoline engines.  Just for example, I have this neat little roto-tiller / edger machine with a tiny little 2-cycle gasoline motor.  I ran it on 10% ethanol gasoline and a year later the entire carburetor was wrecked and it cost me over a hundred bucks to have it replaced.  Now I run it on pure gasoline that costs me $32 a gallon, and is sold in quart bottles for that purpose.  And yes, if I drive some miles there is a filling station for autos that sells a premium gasoline with zero alcohol, because the refinery blender pays for credits to obtain a waiver.  But that is inconvenient, so I make do with the expensive stuff.  

Now, I can already hear you saying, Hey, that is not causative, it just happens to be occurring in parallel.  The problem is that my, and also our (general users), perception is different.  We don't have problems with these small engines on premium gasoline, but we do have lots of problems running on an alcohol-gasoline mix.  And it is a common enough experience.  Thus, by perception, there is this connection with alcohol acting as an agent causing these deterioration problems. 

You can argue that these small engines can and should be built to operate on pure alcohol, and I would agree with you.  But they re not, the materials are marginal at best and likely incompatible with alcohols, and so the general public looks askance at alcohol as a fuel.  It is what it is.

$32/gallon???  Are you INSANE?  Buy camp stove fuel @ $15/gal  White gas(light gasoline) it is cheaper if you can't just buy 100% gasoline where you are.  Go to your local grange, they probably have 100% gasoline.  Wherever all the motorcycle guys buy fuel, get it there it most likely will be 100% gasoline.

PS: Alcohol loves water; gas/alcohol mix injests water; water loves oxygen; oxygen in contact with gasoline creates varnish; varnish plugs up the low speed jets in small engines ruining the carb.  If you run the engine all the time it is not a problem.  If you let the engine sit, varnish builds up destroying the engine. 

PPS: Small engines running 100% alcohol + oil is what the RC guys have been doing since the dawn of time.  Run just fine.  For easier starting a little nitromethane is added. 

PPPS: I have no problem with a 100% alcohol fuel, but producing it in sufficient quantity is the problem and where Marc flies into lunacy land unless the USA gets stripped of all of its forests and gigantic irrigation projects are initiated so can grow crops in the plains and mountain valley's in the interior. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

43 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

$32/gallon???  Are you INSANE?  Buy camp stove fuel @ $15/gal  White gas(light gasoline) it is cheaper if you can't just buy 100% gasoline where you are.  Go to your local grange, they probably have 100% gasoline.  Wherever all the motorcycle guys buy fuel, get it there it most likely will be 100% gasoline.

PS: Alcohol loves water; gas/alcohol mix injests water; water loves oxygen; oxygen in contact with gasoline creates varnish; varnish plugs up the low speed jets in small engines ruining the carb.  If you run the engine all the time it is not a problem.  If you let the engine sit, varnish builds up destroying the engine. 

PPS: Small engines running 100% alcohol + oil is what the RC guys have been doing since the dawn of time.  Run just fine.  For easier starting a little nitromethane is added. 

PPPS: I have no problem with a 100% alcohol fuel, but producing it in sufficient quantity is the problem and where Marc flies into lunacy land unless the USA gets stripped of all of its forests and gigantic irrigation projects are initiated so can grow crops in the plains and mountain valley's in the interior. 

And you're the perfect example of the person who has no idea of what he/she is talking about. Your entire comment about alcohol loving water, etc., etc. is incorrect. See: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2016/03/18/209988-ethanol-does-not-suck-water-out-air.html.

Producing ethanol in sufficient quantity is no more difficult than producing ethanol in small quantities: it is exactly the same process. As the process pertains to the crops that can be used to make ethanol, there are a very wide variety of crops. Some don't require fertile land, and some don't even require water. But for you to know this you would have to do some research. Incidentally, which forest in America had to be cut down to grow corn for ethanol?

I do give you credit, however, for knowing that alcohol is used in scale model planes/boats/cars. And the alcohol typically used is methanol, which is more corrosive than ethanol.

 

Edited by Marc J. Rauch
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

See, here's your problem, Jan. You write about a problem that a device had and you blame it on ethanol, but you don't say what went wrong. You make an empty generalized statement.

 

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

And you're the perfect example of the person who has no idea of what he/she is talking about

2 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

it is unfortunate that I commonly run up against men and women with insufficient knowledge experience but they think they know what they are talking about.

2 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

You shouldn't have to read anything I've written, common sense should have already kicked in.

2 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

The public looks askance at ethanol because of lies created by the oil industry to denigrate ethanol, and it is helped along by people who wittingly or unwittingly lie about the results.

Very inappropriate language Marc. No need for it.

Everyone is a liar. It's all a big conspiracy.

I thought you were a 'stickler' for the truth? This seems to be until the truth goes against your claims?  Then everyone is just a liar.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

And you're the perfect example of the person who has no idea of what he/she is talking about. Your entire comment about alcohol loving water, etc., etc. is incorrect. See: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2016/03/18/209988-ethanol-does-not-suck-water-out-air.html.

Producing ethanol in sufficient

Just because a bush grows does not mean you get to ignore the tree shading the bush. Yes, ethanol is hydrophillic.  Get this, beer and wine exist... who knew.... Yes, it does absorb water out of the air in non sealed tanks(all small engines).  Yes, there are OTHER ways to get water into your tank(condensation), but here again, ethanol is brutal, as ethanol evaporates creating cold tank walls creating condensation filling tank with water. And water means free oxygen running around.  Cars,you might noticed have sealed tanks and why they do NOT have this problem compared to all of our SMALL engines. 

Still waiting for you to show some VERY BASIC math on how to produce 14Mbb equivalent oil with conversion efficiencies without displacing any other crops(we like to eat)..... So far you have not been courageous enough to tackle the problem. 

EDIT: PS: Way back in my youth, I did a calc on this very issue for one of my professors.  Without gargantuan irrigation projects, it is a non starter of epic proportions OR, a Gigantic multi million acre greenhouse project of EPIC proportions. 

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet once again, Marc Rauch has chosen not to read what I wrote, and instead claims something else.  

I wrote:   "you are running up against the common experience of guys who run small tools powered by 2-cycle gasoline engines."  And I wrote:  "Thus, by perception, there is this connection with alcohol acting as an agent causing these deterioration problems."

Now, what do I have to do:   put "perception" into bold type and underline it, like this:    perception    so that you, Marc Rauch, can focus on the concept that the perception is out there? 

I never said anything about the chemistry of various fuels, or absorption of water, or anything else; I said it was a perception.  

Here you are reading along at a hundred fifty miles an hour and you think you know what I wrote, but you don't really, because you are not slowing down enough to read and digest what I actually wrote, and you go off the deep end ranting about what you think I wrote instead of taking the time to read what I actually wrote.  And that makes you come across as a blowhard, sorry to say.  I think in the future I will allow you to go post what you want to post as thread-starter, and then I am, on a personal level, not going to responsively comment,  because you elect not to read what I write anyway.  It seems to be a congenital condition.  And that is unfortunate;  you are a bright enough guy, but this goes nowhere. 

Society is not going to start changing over to alcohol, mostly because its promoters - well, what can I say,.....

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

It seems to be a congenital condition.  And that is unfortunate; 

He suffers from Ideology syndrome -  

"The imagined existence (or idea) of things as it relates to the real conditions of existence" - Louis Althusser

or from the Maestro 

"He knows the end is near ... Imagination only exists only in the imagination of the imaginer and Ultimately who gives a #$%^ anyway!" - Frank Zappa - Water Mellons in Easter hay

A quick listen to this and it will all be okay- Chill

https://youtu.be/_3cu8sDa90Y

Edited by James Regan
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 8:58 AM, Marc J. Rauch said:

The Irrelevance Of BTU Rating - Big Oil's Gimmick To Hoodwink The Public - http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2015/10/19/144405-irrelevance-btu-rating.html

The Irrelevance Of BTU Rating - Revisited - https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/07/14/603714-irrelevance-btu-rating-revisited.html

Ive been busy, so I'm sorry I didnt respond sooner........but are you really peddling this? You do claim to be a well educated, I presume from a credible institution. If so, somewhere along the line, someone should have explained to you that citing studies done OVER 100 YEARS AGO is not just misleading, but basically a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself. This speaks so blatantly to confirmation bias as to be unsettling.

From the link you posted to refute btu usage in the context of efficiency:

 

"In 1936, William J. Hale, Ph.D, published a book titled "PROSPERITY BECKONS - Dawn of the Alcohol Era." Hale was a leading chemical engineer of his day."

"59th Congress, 1st Session
Feb-Mar 1906
https://archive.org/details/cu31924094115254"

"Department Of The Interior - United States Geological Survey
1909
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0392/report.pdf"

These weren't just some links at the end of a long list of others that I picked out simply to point out the problem. These are sources you directly quoted in your article refuting btu as a meaningful unit. 

I don't even want to start on all the other nonsense in that article, especially the guilt tripping people and making oil out to be evil because some wars have been fought that involved energy security amongst other things. If you think ethanol could ever make oil strategically irrelevant, you're seriously delusional.

You so thoroughly conflate the issues as to mislead people and distract them from the holes in your arguments. It may work for you sometimes, but surely you have run into problems when you start talking to people who have enough sense to be objective and research things.

In the spirit of being objective, I read your articles AND I looked through some of your sources. The most recent one I saw was from 2007 and was basically a fluff piece. In science we include our data sets with our publications along with our methods and procedure. This is because a cornerstone of science is that results are repeatable. If none of that information is provided, how can someone independently verify the results? How can you even look at the method of comparison to ascertain whether or not it is sound and unbiased? You cant. 

The ONLY potential truth in any of this is that, potentially, ethanol could be run more efficiently on an engine designed specifically for it than one designed for gasoline. Interestingly, you provide no examples of this being done. In a brief search, I didn't readily find an example of a purpose built, ethanol powered engine. I'm sure it's been done somewhere at some time though. If what you say is true, there should be better evidence of it somewhere. Ultimately though, the btu content will be more meaningful here as modern engines are built to completely burn the fuel in the cylinder to take advantage of every bit of power possible. So where a purpose built ethanol engine may do better than it would running ethanol in an engine built for gasoline, it still couldn't match the energy density and efficiency of gasoline in an equally well built engine designed for gasoline.

Besides that, as a positive, ethanol burns cleaner, it serves as an oxygenate, it has a higher heat of vaporization....which translates to it pulls more heat from the cylinder and there by reduces charge temperatures...it also has a higher effective octane rating around 113. None of this makes the btu argument false. It makes the timing and most effective compression ratios different from gasoline. In modern engines, a lot of this can be changed by the computer on the fly to accommodate the fuel being used. 

You compare diesel to gasoline in your article because diesel has a higher btu content but won't work in a gasoline engine? Do I even need to address how ridiculous this is? You should be ashamed of yourself for publishing what amounts to lies and misdirection. I pray to God you've never had a hand in educating any of America's youth. 

I simply don't have time right now to dig deeper, but I'm sure I would find more. I would point out the blatant issues with quoting research done on engines made 100+ years ago, using measurement equipment and standards from 100+ years ago, but, besides you, I think the average reader on this forum is smart enough to connect those dots on their own

 

@Jan van Eck and the other mods, I'm really sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but the blatant lies under the guise of being an expert are offensive to me. Guys like this misrepresenting the facts are damaging to the intellectual well being of others. I don't believe @Marc J. Rauch is at all stupid either. I think he willfully and knowingly trying to lie or distort the truth. 

To be 100% clear, I like ethanol for some uses and I absolutely agree there is merit to it as a fuel. I just like approaching problems from a position based in reality and facts. Don't let emotional drivel conflate the truth. Don't let your own bias distort facts.

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Seriously, we need some kinda triple-trophy option

@Tom Kirkman , sort it out man

11 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

OVER 100 YEARS AGO is not just misleading, but basically a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself. This speaks so blatantly to confirmation bias as to be unsettling.

So it's not a perfect remedy? That what you're sayin' ?

Edited by DayTrader
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

@Jan van Eck and the other mods, I'm really sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but the blatant lies under the guise of being an expert are offensive to me.

I am leaving your post untouched as taken in the overall it is a rational, intelligent argument.  That said, I would prefer if posters would refrain from using the word "lie," which seems to be tossed around quite a bit.  Perhaps a more diplomatic term would be to say "inaccurate," or possibly "an incomplete construct."    Words matter. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/16/2019 at 11:35 PM, Marc J. Rauch said:

And I don't see anything nice about someone posting lies, even if they dress it in sugary words. I respond the way that people act to me. Ward Smith posted lie after lie, and he did it in a challenging way. If he would have simply written questions about the points he had heard I would have responded in the same way. And if he's such an accomplished adult then he should stick to what he is accomplished in.

By the way, I was asked by the administrators of this site to post stories. I didn't happen along. At any time that they wish they can restrict my access or delete my replies. But doing so doesn't make me incorrect, and it doesn't make stupid lies into insightful facts.

So inappropriate Marc. Time to stop this.

'Inaccurate' phrasing indeed.

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

So inappropriate Marc. Time to stop this.

imagine if we flipped the topics in question to religion- this would have started a war.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There actually is an engine specifically engineered to run on pure alcohol.  Not quite what you had in mind, but yes, it is out there...

Here is is in operation  (36 second video of engine operation):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnMvZVEGsaI

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.