Ethanol, the Perfect Home Remedy for A Saudi Oil Fever

[Guest]

Is it a whopping 36 seconds because it then cut out due to inefficiency?   

Edited September 23, 2019 by Guest

[James Regan + 1,776]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

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

I want one on my bike, where can I buy one?

[Guest]

On 9/20/2019 at 11:48 PM, Marc J. Rauch said:

plus people like you who are spreading lies about ethanol have to stop and get out of the way.

Never ending Marc.

Shame.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

On 9/21/2019 at 1:03 PM, PE Scott said:

This is utter horse shit.

So annoying when people sit on the fence

[James Regan + 1,776]

Just the fact we don't use Petrol from petrol stations to race motorcycles, should answer all your questions. It doesn't have the performance plus its detrimental to performance bikes. Performance being SuperBikes not MotoGP bikes don't get confused. Superbike racing have tight rules that the engines must be from homologated street bikes available for the public to buy, so stock bikes with some mods.

Why do we use ethanol free petrol because it basically doesn't do the job and will end up costing you a fortune in maintenance, basically the life of a Superbike is the same as a stock road bike, just accelerated due to high revolutions and high speeds over a short time, this is where the petrol and oils are taken to the max lab test possible.

Put a litre in a bottle and let it sit for a while, you will see the impurities separate.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

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.

They clearly don't as no one seems to agree? Maybe write them with some facts, that always helps. 

As always, you are free to disagree. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

This thread should be taken down it’s 8 pages of insults and is ruing my mojo. Please consider taking this SPAM Off, it’s no longer interesting or funny and we are playing into the hands of an Ethanol Mullah.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

7 hours ago, James Regan said:

Protect your Engine from that Nasty Ethanol

https://vpracingfuels.com/product/fuel-stabilizer-w-ethanol-shield/

Gentlemen Start Your Engines.....

https://vpracingfuels.com/vp-street-legal-fuel/

Good post, James, thanks for doing it. Now see:

Famous Manufacturer of Anti-Ethanol Additives Proves Ethanol's Safety and Benefits - https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2019/08/10/677743-is-it-is-or-is-it-ain-t-famous-manufacturer.html

Automotive Aftermarket Saturated with Snake Oil Engine Additives - https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2019/08/16/680489-automotive-aftermarket-saturated-with-snake-oil-engine-additives.html

[PE Scott + 563]

I'm with James on this one, I need one of those alcohol powered rockets......for science......and s'mores!

In all seriousness, I apologize for labeling Marc a liar. I admittedly get frustrated when I see arguments that seem disingenuous and misleading simply to fit the narrative. When confronted with contrary evidence, even if its anecdotal, there is a responsibility to maintain an objective stance and review facts as what they are, facts. To then reference ones own publication for each argument is, at a minimum, pretty self aggrandizing. I took the bait though, read some of his articles, and was floored that it cited such out of date research. I fully expected the sources to be heavily biased in the favor of his argument, I just expected them to be from this century. OP

If you go back to the beginning, I really tried to be objective, ask questions, and learn more about the subject. I was transparent about not being an expert on the subject, but I'm more than capable of doing research. To Marc's credit, he was civil with me and responded in kind. It was all the other nonsense on this thread that triggered me like Tom's favorite meme.

Full disclosure, I am an engineer....a petroleum engineer to be specific. I'm fully aware that probably comes with some subconscious bias of my own. That being said, I plug in my Ipace at home just like any other electric car and i'Il drive my raptor to the field when I'm working. I more than offset my electric usage with the 10kw solar system installed on my roof. I guess I offset my gasoline usage with all the wells I frac.  I also have a big propane tank that feeds my furnace and stove. What I'm getting at is, I don't take sides. If I think something is a better or more convenient technology, I'll adopt it. If I could, I'd build a molten salt thorium reactor out back and power the whole town with that.  

@Jan van Eck I very much respect your opinion on these things as I have been reading your post and others here for a long long time now. In the future, I'll do my best to avoid labeling someone a liar. To be fair though, I was struggling to find a better word to accurately describe what I was reading. 

Sigh, after all of that, I can think of one good use for some alcohol.....

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Sigh, after all of that, I can think of one good use for some alcohol.....

You and me both!   Getting to the point where I am going to swear off being an abstainer.....

Hey, falling off the wagon is reported to be good for the soul.....

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

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. 

Ethanol and gasoline are both hygroscopic. Ethanol has the ability to absorb more water than gasoline. Methanol and isopropanol also absorb more water than gasoline, which is why they are used by engine treatment products to absorb the water caused by condensation. However, both methanol and isopropanol are not as compatible with different materials as ethanol.

Ethanol does not suck water out of the air. If you had read the link I provided you would know this. You would have also read Mercury Marine's position on this.

And by the way to you, until you identify yourself and actually offer any substantiation that is contrary to what I have said, your replies are garbage.

[Guest]

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

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,.....

 

5 hours ago, PE Scott said:

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.

Both sources clearly state that ethanol can provide equal or better MPG than gasoline DESPITE its lower energy content.

I have never disputed that the energy content in ethanol is less than gasoline, I said it is IRRELEVANT, and that's exactly what the two sources say.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

6 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Ethanol and gasoline are both hygroscopic. Ethanol has the ability to absorb more water than gasoline.

You are sooooo right.  Ethanol is not miscible...

So, in your universe beer and wine do not exist and neither does fermentation.  Yea... Good one dude

Keep sending me my humour reading for the day

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

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,.....

Once again, Jan, you didn't read what I wrote. I very clearly wrote: "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."

And most unfortunate of all is that you think you have something of value to insert into the discussion. You know as little or less than each of the poseurs who don't even have the courage to identify themselves.

[Guest]

oh f**k

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

And most unfortunate of all is that you think you have something of value to insert into the discussion.

OK, Marc,that's it for you, now I am kicking you off the Forum.  You have finally gone too far. 

THIS THREAD IS GETTING LOCKED. 

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You are sooooo right.  Ethanol is not miscible...

So, in your universe beer and wine do not exist and neither does fermentation.  Yea... Good one dude

Keep sending me my humour reading for the day

Alcohol's ability to absorb more water is a benefit. It is why it is used to get rid of water.

[PE Scott + 563]

7 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

 

Both sources clearly state that ethanol can provide equal or better MPG than gasoline DESPITE its lower energy content.

I have never disputed that the energy content in ethanol is less than gasoline, I said it is IRRELEVANT, and that's exactly what the two sources say.

Let me be crystal clear. Your sources are garbage. 

 

[Guest]

@Marc J. Rauch

something of value is sold, money can be made from it

something of no value is given away for free, it is by definition worthless

your 'book' falls into the 2nd category

maybe it's the fascinating topic and title

Edited September 23, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

I report to Readers that the following has been sent to me by the Original Poster:

Jan - Who the fuck needs you. I posted stories on this forum because I was asked to do so.

My response to that is as follows:

Jan - Who the fuck needs you. I posted stories on this forum because I was asked to do so.

 

I am the Moderator and what I says, goes.   You are totally out of control.  I shall not allow you to post or comment further.  That's it.  Nobody says "who the fuck needs you" to me.  Get that through your skull.  Nobody. 

--------------------------------------------

I regret that I have to take the strong action of banning Mr. Rauch from the Forum.  At some point I have to assert discipline. That point is now.