I agree. Eric, I'm sorry, but that was just out of line.

 

E-torque, dude, really, I'm feeling NO LOVE from you right about now...... where did all of the hostility and character assasination com from ? But its okay, I'm thinking you have been taught things that aren't true, and just don't understaand what really is. I was once told it isn't what you don't know that gets you, its what you KNOW, that ain't so. Do a little bit of searching on the net or in the papers and you'll find ethanols most persistant critics are Patzek and Pimental. Both of them have been thoroughly discredited, and other anti-ethanolers are simply quoting their stuff. There are plenty of positive studies out there, do you want a list of names ? For basic science, what part of photosynthesis or fermentation or distillation do you think I don't have quoted correctly ? Are you suggesting the laws of physics must be repealed to get the same results with ethanol on a miles per gallon basis as gasoline does ? It has already been done, sevearl times and by more than just one guy or group of people. Check out the teams that won the ethanol vehicle challenge. Why do you suppose they don't hold that competetion any more ? because the technology is already all figured out maybe ? Just maybe ? On thermodynamics, is there a problem with my numbers ? Net work, 30K gasoline, 32K ethanol, looks like ethanol wins to me ? Is there something you feel I have overlooked ? On conspiracy theories, doe some history reading on GM, Standard Oil, DuPont chemical and others, you'll find plenty of collusion and just plain EVIL. Do you want me to quote court cases where they have been found guilty ? There are lots of them.....But the paranoia thing is right on the money. I DO sleep with my trusty pump gun close by, and take it with me most places I go. But my being an 'out there' kinda guy doesn't change the fact that ethanol is an all around good deal. I, and others really would liketo continue the discussion. I want to know what engine parts you think ethanol has damaged and why you think the ethanol is to blame, and what do you think the saftey risks are ? The killed or maimed thing. I really want to know. We're still cool, right ? DinosaurFan, @ work on lunch

 

It's probably because he knows hes been beat on the subject, so he has to resort to attacking the people that proved him wrong.

 

Again- People all you have to do is read and be able to understand. I was called a liar here first and a few other more colorful things here. This happens almost every time I come in and try to straighten out situations like this and frankly I am tired of it. Engineers are always trying to educate. But when we get hit with "boiling water BS" sometimes it is just time to realize that people will believe what they want and if they want to believe in magic, perpetual motion, and conspiracy theories there is nothing we can do. I will just ignore the meaningless comments of the newbie here.

Quoting conspiracy theory nonsense and bogus apples to oranges figures cuts no ice with me. We are talking flex fuel vehicles here or running E85 in non flex fuel vehicles. In a flex fuel vehicle you are limited to ~9:1 compression. To get the thermodynamic efficiencies up to 40% you have to run 12:1 or higher compression and it only gets that efficiency over a narrow RPM range and at high power levels. Higher compression ratios will get higher thermal efficiency with almost any fuel. Now if they ever come out with a flex fuel vehicle with a variable supercharger it will be nice! Let's compare apples to apples here. All you have to do is do a little reading out on the web to find this in university and other research work. Or just look on FTE. I just love how people compare meaningless numbers and compare apples to oranges all the time then call me a liar or worse when they are called on it.

As far as safety concerns if you are running E85 in a non flex fuel vehicle the fuel system and engine management controls are not designed for the lower energy content of the E85. Fuel delivery is usually not adequate for full power. People do occasionally find themselves in situations where they need power, -say in passing. Now what happens when running very lean at WOT punches a hole in a piston or the engine management system just says "I give up" and returns to limp-home mode? Now if you were passing your engine may have just locked up or suddenly lost power. People have been known to loose control at that point, or maybe not. All of a sudden you have a nice possibility of collision, maybe even a multi-car pileup on the road. People do get killed and maimed when that happens. It might even happen when shooting for that gap in traffic. It is not worth a few pennies at the pump to take that chance. This may not happen often but when it does it is a tragedy.

It is true you can get more power from E85 but to do it the fuel system must be able to deliver the increased volume of fuel which non flex fuel systems designed for gasoline will not do. The engine controls must also be able to handle the changes required. Some systems will do better than others tho which is why some vehicles seem to do better on E85 than others.

As far as parts destroyed I have personally observed many and I, unlike many others, am qualified by a materials engineering background to evaluate that situation. I have had parts, some very expensive, on my own vehicles destroyed by alcohol in fuel, even the supposedly 10% stuff. I have also personally observed these problems in other peoples vehicles that I have repaired. At the time I had access to a nice well equipped lab also. Now if you gentlemen will just get out and read the requirements for materials in the fuel systems in flex fuel vehicles and also some of the requirements for running alcohol both Ethanol and Methanol in fuel systems you will find out just WHY special fuel system components are REQUIRED for running alcohol and gasoline mixtures or even the pure substances. A Google search will return many references. Maybe then you will understand another reason that it is not a good idea to run E85 in a non flex fuel equipped vehicle. Again tho there are many different fuel system designs constructed of many materials so that sometime you just may get lucky. Unfortunately that is a lot of if's and does not happen often.

Remember collusion happens at many levels, we see it today as I mentioned above. It is all politics and the winners usually describe the losers as evil and both sides of any question almost always describe the opposition as evil in some way or another or try to bring religion into the picture etc. That is all I am going to say on politics or religion.

For some simple diagrams and comparisons with only a few minor problems check the May issue that is just out of "Popular Mechanics" magazine. It has a fuels comparison on page 74. Otherwise check out some of these to begin with:

Now please try to avoid some of the obvious "paid for or by some non-neutral group" research sources that just might be biased...

http://www.swri.edu/4org/d03/engres/...n/pbeffimp.htm
http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/...ticles/556.pdf
http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/...g/gauging.html
http://www.memagazine.org/mepower03/in_out/in_out.html

Keep reading!

 

[QUOTE=Torque1st] I was called a liar here first and a few other more colorful things here.

Well, let's see, you said I was telling fairy tales,essentially calling me a liar first, and if you reread my statement, I said pushing lies, not doing the lying. Perhaps not worded the best, but what I meant was that you had been lied to, and have accepted them, but cannot accept a different answer. It is just as dangerous to cling to the petroleum beliefs, as they would have us all believe there is no replacement for oil. That includes, Nuclear, which has it's issues, by far, Hydrogen, which has many shortcomings, as well as any alternative fuel. They also stated that trying to wean ourselves off foreign oil is a dangerous idea... that is a statement based off a big oil CEO's statement. What kind of attitude does that imply? To sit back and say that oil is all there is, is just as dangerous as trying to move on. You can say I am telling fairy tales as much as you want, I know what I have observed, but don't go trying to say that we started it, as that attitude was thrown out by yourself first. It still does not justify your remarks that way, as you are a moderator, and know better. Had one of us posted such comments, we would have to take a vaction from the site, so it should be no different for moderators. I get tired of the arguing as well, but have never resorted to such charachter assassination as that.

 

Um, no... The flex fuel 5.4L in the 2006 F150 has 9.8:1 compression. But you're right on one thing, flex fuel vehicles are limited on compression because they need to still run gasoline!

 

Remember I said ~9:1... And if they are increasing the compression ratio all is good!!!

Pushing lies or lying, all the same... I have observed the "attitude" in this forum and many others for a long time. This is not the first time I have been called a liar by others or been accused of buying Big Oil's line of BS or some other group's line either. Fortunately I do have a fair education and I do have the ability to identify BS when I see it from ALL SIDES, -at least most of the time.

Contradicting physics is what fairy tales are all about. Getting more out than is put in is a fairy tale.

I like alternative power sources, just not the misuse or misapplication of them, especially when safety is involved or damage to other people's property or equipment is involved. I don't see anyone volunteering to pay for equipment damaged in experiments here, not that they would own up to the cause of the failure either. I intend to put a wind turbine on top of, or next to, my house soon but the neighbors and the city probably won't like it. At least it will not be big enough to damage someone else's property if it breaks loose etc.

Many alternative energy technologies have their place. But none of them are the end-all to energy problems that many advocates seem to think. As far as the future we have greater problems than energy independence. Unfortunately politics is pushing many of the energy technologies including ethanol production and many lies are being fabricated ON BOTH SIDES. Remember "figures never lie but liars figure" and pushing misleading "apples to oranges" numbers, or bogus physics, is the way that is done. As far as character assassination is concerned it seems that I was the first one struck by that here. I was accused of being anti-American and lacking understanding first for disagreement. Also like I said this is not the first time. I also sincerely wish that anyone that believes multiple conspiracy theories should get help and mean it in the best of human kindness.

 

BTW- As far as future fuels and transportation goes... Personally I believe it will be diesel electric hybrids with regenerative braking burning most anything stuffed in the tank. Gasoline and ethanol per se will be gone in 20-30 years. Food will be too important to burn as fuel. Of course WWIII could provide a huge decline in population and we won't need the food, -but then that is poly-ticks*

*Poly meaning many and ticks are bloodsucking insects...

 

in all reality, I would definitely agree that diesel has more potential, as biodiesel can be made from many sources, many are forms of waste. Also have to agree with the last definition....

 

If the internship works out for me this summer, this is something I would be working on (although it's looking like it'll be a GM Ecotec four cylinder :-x).

I think each "side" of this argument are arguing about things differently. Eric is mainly about the flex fuel vehicles, while Dino and fellro are talking about vehicles made solely for E85. I can see valid points on both sides of the table, but that's just me.

Ethanol can be made from various sources as is biodiesel and isn't limited to food products.

 

there is a plant just came online that makes bio from the corn oil, ethanol from the starch, and feed for cattle all from the same feedstock. Yes, there are non-food sources for ethanol as well, like switchgrass, which will grow many places that regular cropping wwon't work. I believe ethanol will help in relieving some of the pressure off oil, may or may not be the replacement, but it can help out, and is a cleaner fuel than gasoline. As an answer for all fuel replacement, it won't work, but it can help. Biodiesel will help, as I can't see ethanol making it in heavy duty applications, to replace diesel. Bio along with ethanol can make a difference. Diversification is the key to success, not all your eggs in one basket.

 

ALL the alternatives will help. I just don't like to see them abused. Personally I would like these alternatives to keep a positive image for consumers.

One of those articles I linked is talking about turning natural gas into various fuels. We apparently have an abundance of that but you would not know that from the prices this last winter. The speculators are making a killing at the expense of all of us. I have an answer for that problem but it involves Poly-ticks...

When looking at articles I have also found that many of the "government" studies are highly biased due to Poly-ticks so they can not be relied upon for decent info.

There are however some articles from some highly biased sources that have some excellent info on fuel system changes in order to run E85 for anyone that wants to try it. In this case bias can be acceptable. It can get expensive in some instances but it may be worth it to some people. Just double check everything with other sources to make sure they are listing the straight poop. Being biased they try to cut some corners to minimize the perceived expenses.

We are in the middle of WWIII and our oil supplies will be disrupted many times for many years before that mess is over. We NEED diversification and independence!

Personally I would like them to bring a new pipeline down thru Canada into the Midwest. We have links to many other pipeline systems here. Then they can more easily transport north slope and Canadian products southward. They also need to jump on nuclear big time now that we have a waste disposal facility. Nuclear does not add to the greenhouse gas problem like fossil fuel does. Bio-mass fuels also do not contribute to the greenhouse problem either. We also need to cut consumption and get more efficient with energy use. Even the residual heat from energy use will be significant.

 

I completely agree with you here, if we can reduce consumption through many different methods, the final picture will be much better..

 

The world particularly China and India etc is exploding with development and energy use will skyrocket. There will not be enuf fossil fuel energy to go around. And if you think greenhouse gas emissions are bad now just wait ~10 years...

 

I always kind of thought of nuclear "waste dumps" as long term storage...
Convenient to push our mess that we can't figure out what to do with, onto the next few hundred generations.

The good point of Ethanol is that is renewable, I don't care how many millions of barrels of oil the ESTIMATE is left under the surface of this big 'ole rock we call Earth, eventually, the refrigerator is going to run empty if you keep eating out of it, without putting anything back.
Of course, with this supposed "WW3" that seems to be popping up, we're all doomed anyway, the way the economy is headed...

Anyway, I think sooner or later, by public opinion, ethanol use will seriously viewed as a viable (if not cost effective) option to Big Oil...
At the risk of sounding too "poly tickal" I think it's better help the economy to put dollars back into America, than the "many bloodsuckers", both in office, and abroad.
Just my views on the situation, and hope I didn't offend anyone.
Just frustrated gettin shafted at the pump.