E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

Joe Fischer wrote:


>>> Electronic ignition works great, when it works.
>>
>>The whole point of which is that it is orders of magnitude more
>>reliable than breaker point ignition.
>
>
> I would say so, at least until I would get stuck
> 100 miles from the nearest place to buy one if it fails.


And the whole point is that this never happens. Or so infrequently as to
be practically equivalent to "never." Plus you can carry a complete
spare Chrysler electronic ignition system (distributor pickup, amplifier
box, and ballast resistor) or GM HEI (pickup and amplifier) for a
whopping $40, and replace any one of the 3 by the roadside with no more
than a screwdriver. And you prefer setting point gaps to THAT? Sheesh.

>
> Not really, the only rumored problem is the
> aluminum block, and I did not have a problem with that.
>

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

The 4100 was one BIG problem, from the bottom of the oil pan to the top
of the air cleaner. No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> "daestrom" > wrote:
>
>
>>In many cars, the oil-pressure sensor is used to enable the electric fuel pump, if
>>it fails you get nowhere.
>>
>>daestrom
>
>
> Which?
> Not GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan.

I've seen lots of oil-pressure ignition cut-outs, but only on stationary
industrial engines (welders, air-compressors, generators, etc.) because
those are left running unattended. Never one on any car. There's no
REASON because the driver is always there to see the gauge and shut the
engine down if a problem occurs.

>>
>>I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a
>>knock detector........
>
>
> Will ethanol knock?
>
> Joe Fischer
>

You seem to think it won't. But it certainly will, under the right
conditions (such as an engine designed with high enough compression to
really take advantage of it as a fuel).

In sci.environment, Steve
>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:19:46 -0500
>:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>Just the heat
>>>generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But not O2 at 1 atm. Otherwise nobody could breathe it without combustion.
>>
>
> Nobody DOES breathe PURE 02 at 1 atmosphere. Even wearing an O2 mask,
> there is dilution with nitrogen (primarily) and all the other gasses
> that make up the soup we call "air."

Pedant point: there was or is the concept of an oxygen
tent for seriously ill folks. (Such are presumably rather
dangerous because of the problem of increased flammability
of burnable materials therein. Apollo 1 was a very
sad demonstration thereof.)

Wiki gives Earth's oxygen percentage as 20.94%. I don't
know if that's by weight or by molecular count, but that
gives an approximate partial pressure of about 21220
Pascal.

>
> I agree that technically you are correct- there is an activation energy
> required to start combustion when pure o2 and a fuel are mixed, but the
> PRACTICAL result is that its much easier to light a mixture of 02 and
> fuel than air and fuel. Whoever said that you don't need ANY activator
> was certainly wrong, but the activator can be much more trivial.


--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my
> disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist.

There is a Loyd Parker who is a chemist at Emory,
http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...ction=View&Thi
sUserID=130. His email address is .
However, the person posting in these ethanol threads is
. It is unlikely that these are the same person.
Evidence for this is that the latter poster has made several simple
conceptual mistakes in his arguments, confusing "energy" and "power"
for example, and apparently not knowing what is "carnot cycle"
efficiency in a heat engine. A real scientist learns these things
in high school or early college, and they become second nature. A
real chemist would never make these kinds of mistakes over and over.
Also, the latter poster never seems to make the kind of insightful
technical arguments that enlighten and instruct. A chemistry
professor with over 30 years of teaching experience could not help
himself, he would fill his posts with information and interesting
viewpoints that instruct and enlighten, he would not miss such an
opportunity, it would be in his nature, in every fiber.

I doubt these two email addresses are the same person.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

"Ron Shepard" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>> You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my
>> disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist.

Or at the very least, he play a chemist in a classroom.


> There is a Loyd Parker who is a chemist at Emory,
> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...ction=View&Thi
> sUserID=130. His email address is .
> However, the person posting in these ethanol threads is
> . It is unlikely that these are the same person.
> Evidence for this is that the latter poster has made several simple
> conceptual mistakes in his arguments, confusing "energy" and "power"
> for example, and apparently not knowing what is "carnot cycle"
> efficiency in a heat engine.

I doubt your hypothesis is right, I think our Lloyd probably is the
professor at Emory. I do, however, have to admit a great deal of surprise
at his fundamental lack of understanding of some pretty basic principles of
physics/physical chemistry.


> A real scientist learns these things
> in high school or early college,

Well, keep in mind that the Lloyd Parker at Emory left HS almost 40 years
ago. Not to be age-ist, but a bit of softening of the brain could be
expected, particularly the unused parts. Still, I agree it surprises me.


> and they become second nature.

They only become second nature with use. As an analytical chemist, he
doesn't really have an opportunity to use either concept. With years,
things that don't get used get lost (as I'm learning all too well.)


> A real chemist would never make these kinds of mistakes over and over.

Well, more like a real chemist wouldn't continue to comment at length about
things he doesn't understand, and would simply defer to those who do
(especially when corrected).


> Also, the latter poster never seems to make the kind of insightful
> technical arguments that enlighten and instruct. A chemistry
> professor with over 30 years of teaching experience could not help
> himself, he would fill his posts with information and interesting
> viewpoints that instruct and enlighten, he would not miss such an
> opportunity, it would be in his nature, in every fiber.

Have you ever *been* to college? I had a very good chemistry education (a
top-15 department and a top-2 department), but a couple of my professors
(one in undergrad, one in grad school) were real dogs that, if I didn't have
a good textbook and my own motivation to learn, I never would have passed
the class. Tenure is, on the whole, a good thing for academic freedom, but
in the hands of the wrong person, it is a real abomination to both teaching
and research.

Eric Lucas

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:59:36 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >Discussion of the applicability of ethanol fuel to 'classic cars' is so far
> >away
> >from this group's purpose as to be wholly daft it has to be said !
>
> There are about 10 million classic cars in the US,
> and they are owned by people are more likely than average
> to convert to renewable fuel.

How is it that you manage to get just about everything backwards?
The last thing someone would do is convert a classic car to an
alternate fuel. The fact that the modifications would severely
reduce the value of the car make such a notion ridiculous at the
least.

> About 25,000 were in town for a street rod show
> last month, and they have to be pre-1950 to be eligible.

Street rods are not classic cars.

>
> >The whole idea of setting timing via a disrtibutor is quite retarded.
> >Graham
>
> If it is retarded too much, it won't have any pep.

You keep saying that like it's some new discovery.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In sci.environment, Steve
> >
> wrote
> on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:19:46 -0500
> >:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Just the heat
>>>>generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But not O2 at 1 atm. Otherwise nobody could breathe it without combustion.
>>>
>>
>>Nobody DOES breathe PURE 02 at 1 atmosphere. Even wearing an O2 mask,
>>there is dilution with nitrogen (primarily) and all the other gasses
>>that make up the soup we call "air."
>
>
> Pedant point: there was or is the concept of an oxygen
> tent for seriously ill folks. (Such are presumably rather
> dangerous because of the problem of increased flammability
> of burnable materials therein. Apollo 1 was a very
> sad demonstration thereof.)

I've heard of "hyperbaric oxygen treatment" a number of times, but I'll
confess I never really read up on it. I *presume* (dangerous, I know)
that its done with either air or mildly oxygen-rich air in a pressure
chamber. Before the little over-the-ears and up-the-nose O2 tubes were
developed, patients needing oxygen were put under a plastic "oxygen
tent" but flammability was definitely a concern with that large a volume
of oxygen-rich air. IIRC, getting the O2 concentration too high actually
damages lung tissue. Well, again partial knowledge is dangerous- is it
oxygen concentration or oxygen partial-pressure that really matters?
>

Ron Shepard wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>
>>You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my
>>disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist.
>
>
> There is a Loyd Parker who is a chemist at Emory,
> http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...ction=View&Thi
> sUserID=130. His email address is .

I've crossed keyboards with Lloyd for years. I hadn't seen a post from
him in the last couple of years because he no longer seems to hang out
(and tolerate the continual corrections he received) in rec.autos.tech
or rec.autos.makers.chrysler

> However, the person posting in these ethanol threads is
> . It is unlikely that these are the same person.

Oh, I don't know, I think it may be the same Lloyd Parker. But I do know
that L1oyd Parker is someone else (pick a different font if its not
obvious...) :-)

> Evidence for this is that the latter poster has made several simple
> conceptual mistakes in his arguments, confusing "energy" and "power"
> for example, and apparently not knowing what is "carnot cycle"
> efficiency in a heat engine.


Yeah, that's the same old Parker for sure. I never said he was a
physicist. Or an engineer. :-)

aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article >,
> "daestrom" > wrote:
>
>> In many cars, the oil-pressure sensor is used to enable the electric fuel pump, if
>> it fails you get nowhere.
>>
>> daestrom
>
> Which?
> Not GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan.

GM and Ford both use oil pressure to turn on the pump. The computer only
turns on the pump for 30 seconds or so. The oil pressure switch takes
over if you have pressure. That is why a vehicle with a failed pump
relay takes a bunch of cranking to get it to start, Oil pressure has to
come up to turn on the pump.

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----