Shell's 100-RON fuel - what actually is it?

"Bernd Felsche" > wrote in message
...
> "Rainbow Warrior" > writes:
>
>>"Bernd Felsche" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Rainbow Warrior" > writes:
>>>>"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>>>>> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
>>>>>> The only way to progress is to move.
>
>>>>> I agree.
>
>>>>> For some strange reason the US in particular seems wedded to
>>>>> the idea of sticking with 'steam powered' technology and wants
>>>>> to criticise any attempt at technological progress.
>
>>>>> Does anyone really think that 5 litre V8s will make sense say
>>>>> 20 yrs from now ( as if they made sense now ! ) ?
>
>>>>Does anyone think 2 litre turbos will be good for towing 1.5tonne
>>>>loads in 20 years, why aren't they now?
>
>>> You say that they aren't; but they are. Too bad.
>
>>Only diesels
>
> So why did you have to ask the question?? :-)

Because the coversation was about petrol engines


> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | German words of the year 2005:
> X against HTML mail | Bundeskanzlerin Tsunami Gammelfleisch
> / \ and postings | Sadly, in that order.

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
>
>>The only way to progress is to move.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> For some strange reason the US in particular seems wedded to the idea of
> sticking with 'steam powered' technology and wants to criticise any attempt
> at technological progress.
>
> Does anyone really think that 5 litre V8s will make sense say 20 yrs from
> now ( as if they made sense now ! ) ?
>
> Graham
>

Dude,

You ought to just start your own "The US sucks at everything. I hate
the US. I've never lived there but I know everything about the US and
it sucks." Blog and see who shows up.

When the web counter doesn't increment, erm..., that will be me.

--
-Fred W

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:48:23 -0500, Malt_Hound wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only way to progress is to move.
>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> For some strange reason the US in particular seems wedded to the idea of
>> sticking with 'steam powered' technology and wants to criticise any attempt
>> at technological progress.
>>
>> Does anyone really think that 5 litre V8s will make sense say 20 yrs from
>> now ( as if they made sense now ! ) ?
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
> Dude,
>
> You ought to just start your own "The US sucks at everything. I hate
> the US. I've never lived there but I know everything about the US and
> it sucks." Blog and see who shows up.
>
> When the web counter doesn't increment, erm..., that will be me.

Double Dude.
You need to get a grip - you don't need to live in a place nor even to
visit it to know it Suks.
I know you can 't help it, but let it be know that due to excess
supply at home, your scurvy lot actually export Suk.

--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> clifto wrote:
>> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> > However, alcohols can increase engine power and act as a powerful
>> > cleaning agent in engines set up for it. It also burns cooler.
>>
>> So less heat in winter, and only 10 to 20 cents difference from gasoline
>> (around here, anyway). And less mileage per gallon. Wow, what a huge
>> incentive to use this stuff!
>
> Engine temperature is set by thermostat and/or ECM factors and the
> engine will warm up a little slower perhaps, but its operating temp
> under load will be the same.

Around here, on a ten degree day with 20 MPH winds, it's hard enough
to get my nice hot 5.0L Ford warm with its 197 degree thermostat, on
gasohol. I'd imagine the reduced heat from E85 would leave passenger
compartments pretty chilly.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> The anti-global warming people

I found it amusing that (was it last year?) Al Gore gave his global
warming talk on the coldest day of the year, unseasonably cold for
the location.

I figure we can compensate for auto exhaust CO2 if all the environazis
stop exhaling.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:
>>>>> With all due respect I would like to know where the fertilizer comes
>>>>> from that grows the corn? Isn't it a petrochemical based product?
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that *fertiliser* is what the plant actually
>>>> consumes to grow ? I suggest you learn something about how plants
>>>> grow. They existed before fertiliser you know !
>>>
>>> Evasive non-answer. Farming *as practised today* is a very
>>> oil-intensive process.
>>
>> It doesn't *have* to be.
>
> Perhaps not, but the fact remains that right now, today, it IS.

My reading has suggested that farming today is more efficient than it
ever was. I find it hard to believe that efficiency will be increased
by eliminating the machinery that makes large-scale farming possible.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Steve" > wrote...
>> Getting crop yields anywhere NEAR high enough to feed the world
>> population with existing cropland (let alone have leftovers for
>> biofuels!) ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES artificial fertilization, whether by
>> petroleum-derived fertilizers or mined deposits of nitrates (eg bat
>> guano). Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
>
> This is only true if your talking the kinds of foods that people are used
> to eating (ie: wheat for example) And if your including all the food that
> needs to be grown to feed cattle to produce beef.
>
> There are other foods that are much higher nutritionally, and require
> much less fertilization. However they are not common on the American
> table. And of course, beef is terrible as far as that goes. Even buffalo
> meat costs less per-pound to grow than beef does.
>
> If tomorrow all white bread sales were halted and replaced with wheat bread
> sales, it would probably drop the amount of wheat needed to produce
> the same amount of nutrition obtained from bread by a 3rd.
>
> This is one of these problems that seems to be a technical one but is
> really a political one. I'm not going to give up my burgers and fries
> and Frosted Flakes and go on a veegan diet, unless you get the rest
> of the country to do it. And everyone else in the country has the
> same attitude. Even though if we all did, we would probably all
> not be such lard-asses, would probably be a lot healthier, and it
> would not require nearly as much farmland to feed us.

I have a better idea. Instead of stifling life in America for all this,
let's take the corn which we export to feed the world and use it instead
to produce fuel for our cars. That way we'll put less money into the
sheikdoms and make them pay more for what they need from us. Gives 'em
a taste of their own tactics *and* improves our balance of trade.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Craig's Saab C900 Site wrote:
> So while the northern hemisphere is having all sorts of wet-climate events
> happening, we're getting the opposite.

Say what you like, this past year we got so little rain that most of my
lawn died.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto wrote:

> Craig's Saab C900 Site wrote:
> > So while the northern hemisphere is having all sorts of wet-climate events
> > happening, we're getting the opposite.
>
> Say what you like, this past year we got so little rain that most of my
> lawn died.

Climate change results in all kinds of varied effects depending where you live.
Some places have had their worst ever floods too. Generally, low rainfall seems
to be more widespread though.

It's not one single simple overall effect.

Graham

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>
>>>EatMe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>With all due respect I would like to know where the fertilizer comes
>>>
>>>>from that grows the corn? Isn't it a petrochemical based product?
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that *fertiliser* is what the plant actually consumes
>>>to grow ?
>>>I suggest you learn something about how plants grow. They existed before
>>>fertiliser you know !
>>
>>Getting crop yields anywhere NEAR high enough to feed the world
>>population with existing cropland (let alone have leftovers for
>>biofuels!) ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES artificial fertilization, whether by
>>petroleum-derived fertilizers or mined deposits of nitrates (eg bat
>>guano). Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
>
>
> This is only true if your talking the kinds of foods that people are used
> to eating (ie: wheat for example) And if your including all the food that
> needs to be grown to feed cattle to produce beef.

No, I'm just talking about basic mass for proper nutrition. Nevermind
the form.