panthercity
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 0
Aren't we though. Butt, when it comes to jestal...
Anyways, here's a fairly comprehensive article from Car & Driver magazine on ethanol's pros and cons.
Good article on Gas, octane, and Ethanol
- Thread starter Fred H.
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
Anyways, here's a fairly comprehensive article from Car & Driver magazine on ethanol's pros and cons.
sparky3008
Finally got my collarbone fixed!!!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 1
+1:blink:
So what yer sayin' is; if I go to the gas station and stuff in 4 - 5 gallons of regular without reading the small print on the pump, the world will come to an end as we know it when I fire it back up?
You guys crack me up. What's next, a paper on the molecular structure of the sticky adhesive backing on the wheel weights and how Scotch Brand adhesives contain 1/3 less calories than Tyco Brand, which tastes great, but will increase the rotational mass of the wheel on the second Tuesday before a Blue Moon in Poughkeepsie- or sumpin'?
In postational bliss, I remain,
- Frederico
Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I've got a '91 Toyota truck which has 265,000 miles on it now. Been running whatever's cheap for it's entire life. It still runs strong, no problems with rubber fuel system parts, I put a bottle of techroline in it once. I think it was 1996 or something.
MBTE, MTBE, TMBE, EBTM, alcohol, Jim Beam.....don't make no difference. Can't argue with that logic. The proof is in the pudding.
I mean, you guys are trying to discover how many angels you can get on the head of a pin.
ionbeam
2 FUN
Panthercity sez
>if you are away from the equator the sun technically isn't due east
>only during one 12 hour period when the seasonal tilt of earth's axis....
>what if I was in outer space
>Odot -- sun?
>didn't you mean son?
>actually it isn't a sun, it's a star
>did you actually measure and check it with a compass?
>have you actually seen it yourself or is this just another anecdotal reporting
>what happens if I’m in the exact center of south pole
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :lol:
Edited to add: Note the thread hijack I slipped in too?
Can't argue with anything after that.
Nearly. Note I groused and whined that my car wouldn't run. Boss doesn't find it funny when I don't show up.
If someone were to state that the sun comes up in the east there would be a long list of 'refinements' to follow>actually the sun doesn't rise, the earth turns
>if you are away from the equator the sun technically isn't due east
>only during one 12 hour period when the seasonal tilt of earth's axis....
>what if I was in outer space
>Odot -- sun?
>didn't you mean son?
>actually it isn't a sun, it's a star
>did you actually measure and check it with a compass?
>have you actually seen it yourself or is this just another anecdotal reporting
>what happens if I’m in the exact center of south pole
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :lol:
Edited to add: Note the thread hijack I slipped in too?
Last edited by a moderator:
sparky3008
Finally got my collarbone fixed!!!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 1
Shadow King
Active member
And don't forget to take the speed of light into consideration. I think it takes about 4 minutes for light to travel from the sun and reach earth so ... when you see the "sun rise" it actually rose about 4 minutes earlier.Panthercity sezCan't argue with anything after that.
Nearly. Note I groused and whined that my car wouldn't run. Boss doesn't find it funny when I don't show up.
If someone were to state that the sun comes up in the east there would be a long list of 'refinements' to follow>actually the sun doesn't rise, the earth turns
>if you are away from the equator the sun technically isn't due east
>only during one 12 hour period when the seasonal tilt of earth's axis....
>what if I was in outer space
>Odot -- sun?
>didn't you mean son?
>actually it isn't a sun, it's a star
>did you actually measure and check it with a compass?
>have you actually seen it yourself or is this just another anecdotal reporting
>what happens if I’m in the exact center of south pole
:blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :lol:
Edited to add: Note the thread hijack I slipped in too?
Windjammer
Well-known member
I once had a 1983 F-150 pickup with the 300 CID inline 6 cylinder engine. Damn thing would never start when it got below zero unless it had the 10% ethanol blend fuel in it.
Go figure.
Go figure.
>>Most fuel delivery systems from the distributor (e.g. Mobil, Texaco, et al) to the gas stations are pretty good about being closed system these days so water contamination is less of a problem.<<
But watch out if you are running the stuff in your boat-- if you are a boater, that is-- because boats are typically NOT sealed to the environment. There typically is a fuel tank breather that can contaminate the fuel with moisture from the air.
>>My favorite is "It costs more to produce a gallon than it sells for." really? So the millions in profit that division has seen every month for the last 4 years is what,,,, government kickback?? <<
Ummm... bingo. Goverment subsidies lobbied for by agribusiness interests are the only reason ethanol is being produced from corn. Other sources of ethanol might be economically viable, but no one is going to lobby for that, nor is there seed money available to jump start the political process via campaign contributions. Who represents saw grass, for example? No one.
But watch out if you are running the stuff in your boat-- if you are a boater, that is-- because boats are typically NOT sealed to the environment. There typically is a fuel tank breather that can contaminate the fuel with moisture from the air.
>>My favorite is "It costs more to produce a gallon than it sells for." really? So the millions in profit that division has seen every month for the last 4 years is what,,,, government kickback?? <<
Ummm... bingo. Goverment subsidies lobbied for by agribusiness interests are the only reason ethanol is being produced from corn. Other sources of ethanol might be economically viable, but no one is going to lobby for that, nor is there seed money available to jump start the political process via campaign contributions. Who represents saw grass, for example? No one.
Last edited by a moderator:
sparky3008
Finally got my collarbone fixed!!!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 1
Here is an answer I got from him.
We haul the raw natural gas (NGL) from the ground to a fractionization plant
that separates out the various gases. The plant we load the product at only
does minimal fractionization to remove contaminants (Iron Oxide, glycol,
water, etc.) and occaisionally does not remove them all. By the time we get a
load to our delivery site, the lighter gas has all floated to the top and
separated from the heavier contaminants in the bottom of the tank. The product
is then sent through a flare until any contaminants are burned off before
being unloaded into a tank. This product is then separated (fractionated) into
propane, butane, ethane, and natural gas. The natural gas is sent to another
facility for blending with other additives to make the various grades of
gasoline while the propane and butane are sold outright as fuel. I believe the
ethane is flared off or used as vapor in the plant's lines.
In another reply from him he says that even the pressurized stuff has contaminants and some tell him there is even water in it but he doesn't know that for sure.
Bearly Flying
Well-known member
I'm thinking the young fella might be a bit confused as to what he is actually hauling.
None of these hydrocarbons will stay in a liquid state at atmospheric pressure unless cooled below their respective boiling points. It's been quite a few years since I've operated a Frac Plant, but IIRC butane's boiling point is around 0 deg F, propane is -40 deg F, ethane is -150 and methane is -270.
He MIGHT be hauling a C6+ mixture, which you could conseivably drain water from. Would have the consistancy of Kerosene roughly.
None of these hydrocarbons will stay in a liquid state at atmospheric pressure unless cooled below their respective boiling points. It's been quite a few years since I've operated a Frac Plant, but IIRC butane's boiling point is around 0 deg F, propane is -40 deg F, ethane is -150 and methane is -270.
He MIGHT be hauling a C6+ mixture, which you could conseivably drain water from. Would have the consistancy of Kerosene roughly.
sparky3008
Finally got my collarbone fixed!!!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 1
Last edited by a moderator:
SMC
Well-known member
:blink: WHOA, My head is spinning...or is the room spinning? Does anyone ever have a definitive answer? :wacko: :help: :lazy: :lmaosmiley:
Bearly Flying
Well-known member
Normally they are under some pressure due to the lighter components vapourizing. But if He's DRAINING water out of the product, it can't be under very much pressure or Autorefrigeration starts to kick in. (Ever opened the valve on your propane cylinder for your barbeque. Don't stand in front of it or you'll freeze your nuts off)
ionbeam
2 FUN
If there is more than one person involved in the thread nothing will ever have a definitive answer. Read post #43 in this thread...
radman
R.I.P. Our Motorcycling Friend
Well, as long as we're on a roll here, Hydrazine really blows.
sparky3008
Finally got my collarbone fixed!!!
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 1
He says it is from 50-200psi and is not at boiling point only enough to keep it a liquid.
Even if it was hauled at boiling the tank is sealed and the water would have no where to go.
Last edited by a moderator:
twowheelnut
R.I.P. Our Motorcycling Friend
You know, you guys make my head hurt with all your octane, schmoctane; ethanol, schmethanol writings. Let me hi-jack for a moment:
[SIZE=18pt]Nothing Is Real[/SIZE]
"Perhaps you are fascicled from the particle wave duality or from Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, but this what you will learn here will make the other things less important for you. The experiment begins very simple. You need a light source, a wall with two holes and a screen. On side of the wall there is the light source and on the other side there is the screen. When light passes the wall we can see an interference sample on the screen. The maxima are not behind the holes on the screen, but there is one maximum between the two holes on the screen, otherwise it would not be an interference sample. On the right and on the left of this maximum there are dark areas and then again bright areas, but these bright areas are not as bright as the maximum in the middle. Then we have got two dark areas again and so on. This result should not wonder us, because this are waves and because some waves have got a longer way from the light source to the screen than other waves some waves strengthen each other and other waves extinguish each other. When two wave combs clash then they strengthen each other and when a wave comb and a wave valley clash then they extinguish each other. When one hole is closed the maximum is behind the opened hole. Now we will replace the light source through an electron source and we will make the experiment again. This time we get the same interference sample when both holes are opened. This proofs the wave character of the electrons. But it is important that light or electrons cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. Now it becomes interesting, we do not let many electrons throught the wall, but only one after the other. When one electron passes the wall it cannot handycap himself and because it can only go throught one of the holes it would be logical that the maxima are behind the two holes. But when we wait until many electrons have passed the wall we saw an interference sample again. When we repeat this experiment and we close one hole the maximum is behind the open hole. It seams that electron knows wheather both holes are opened or only one. When we try to measure throught which hole an electron goes we get two maxima behind the two holes. So it is wrong to say that the electron goes throught one of these two holes, because we can say that it goes throught both holes or we can also say that it goes throught not hole, both answers are correct. The consequence is that nothing is real until an observer saw it. We do not know a reciprocal action between the electron, the observer and the instruments, but there must exist a reciprocal action. An electron has got many possibilities and because of our oberservation the electron must choose one of the possible ways. So when it goes throught one of the holes it is logical that the maxima are behind the holes. It is called collapse of the wave function and every particle has got a probability wave. This means that never can be sure where a particle is, we can only say where the most probable place is. A human being has got also a probability wave which we can find in the whole universe, but her strongest point is there where we are. But there is everytime a very little probability that you can find yourself on Mars for example or somewhere else, but this probability is so little that you need not be afraid. When we know throught measurements where this person is then his wave function collapses, because we know his exact position. As long as we observe something it is real and when we do not observe it it is not real any longer. There is another illustration which is called Schrodinger's cat. It is a thought experiment. We give a cat into a box with a radioactive material and a bottle of poison. Because we never know when an atom decays a radioactive material is very good for this experiment. The probability is very improtant for quantum physics. The box must be closed. When an atom of the radioactive material decays the bottle will be broken and the cat will die. But as long as we do not look after the cat if she is alive or dead, then we can say that she is alive and dead or not alive and not dead, both answers are correct. But in this situation we could not never say that she is alive or dead. I hope that these both experiments could tell you something about nature. So when you believe all this, which is not total sure until today, your conception of the world has changed I think." - Lukas Czarnecki
And for those of you who prefer cartoons:
Dr. Q Explains
Mmmmmmk?
:grin:
[SIZE=18pt]Nothing Is Real[/SIZE]
"Perhaps you are fascicled from the particle wave duality or from Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, but this what you will learn here will make the other things less important for you. The experiment begins very simple. You need a light source, a wall with two holes and a screen. On side of the wall there is the light source and on the other side there is the screen. When light passes the wall we can see an interference sample on the screen. The maxima are not behind the holes on the screen, but there is one maximum between the two holes on the screen, otherwise it would not be an interference sample. On the right and on the left of this maximum there are dark areas and then again bright areas, but these bright areas are not as bright as the maximum in the middle. Then we have got two dark areas again and so on. This result should not wonder us, because this are waves and because some waves have got a longer way from the light source to the screen than other waves some waves strengthen each other and other waves extinguish each other. When two wave combs clash then they strengthen each other and when a wave comb and a wave valley clash then they extinguish each other. When one hole is closed the maximum is behind the opened hole. Now we will replace the light source through an electron source and we will make the experiment again. This time we get the same interference sample when both holes are opened. This proofs the wave character of the electrons. But it is important that light or electrons cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. Now it becomes interesting, we do not let many electrons throught the wall, but only one after the other. When one electron passes the wall it cannot handycap himself and because it can only go throught one of the holes it would be logical that the maxima are behind the two holes. But when we wait until many electrons have passed the wall we saw an interference sample again. When we repeat this experiment and we close one hole the maximum is behind the open hole. It seams that electron knows wheather both holes are opened or only one. When we try to measure throught which hole an electron goes we get two maxima behind the two holes. So it is wrong to say that the electron goes throught one of these two holes, because we can say that it goes throught both holes or we can also say that it goes throught not hole, both answers are correct. The consequence is that nothing is real until an observer saw it. We do not know a reciprocal action between the electron, the observer and the instruments, but there must exist a reciprocal action. An electron has got many possibilities and because of our oberservation the electron must choose one of the possible ways. So when it goes throught one of the holes it is logical that the maxima are behind the holes. It is called collapse of the wave function and every particle has got a probability wave. This means that never can be sure where a particle is, we can only say where the most probable place is. A human being has got also a probability wave which we can find in the whole universe, but her strongest point is there where we are. But there is everytime a very little probability that you can find yourself on Mars for example or somewhere else, but this probability is so little that you need not be afraid. When we know throught measurements where this person is then his wave function collapses, because we know his exact position. As long as we observe something it is real and when we do not observe it it is not real any longer. There is another illustration which is called Schrodinger's cat. It is a thought experiment. We give a cat into a box with a radioactive material and a bottle of poison. Because we never know when an atom decays a radioactive material is very good for this experiment. The probability is very improtant for quantum physics. The box must be closed. When an atom of the radioactive material decays the bottle will be broken and the cat will die. But as long as we do not look after the cat if she is alive or dead, then we can say that she is alive and dead or not alive and not dead, both answers are correct. But in this situation we could not never say that she is alive or dead. I hope that these both experiments could tell you something about nature. So when you believe all this, which is not total sure until today, your conception of the world has changed I think." - Lukas Czarnecki
And for those of you who prefer cartoons:
Dr. Q Explains
Mmmmmmk?
:grin:
Similar threads
