Having commuist goverment countries and developing countries are causing pollution, global warming and ch

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Having commuist goverment countries and developing countries are causing pollution, global warming and ch

Having commuist goverment countries and developing countries are causing pollution, global warming and changin06-01-2017 01:07
giabaodiep☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	In many countries which have communist goverment, the people in those countries do not have free speech, they have low life standard, bad health, deforestation, air pollution, polluted rivers because waste water and emissions (CO2, CH4,..etc) have been discharged into environment directly from factories, their goverment don't care about that because they take a bribe from the owners of industries. In addition, people in poor countries have bad education, so they throw trash everywhere cause environmental pollution. I think that poor coutries (developing countries or having communist goverment countries) are causing pollution, a part of global warming and changing climate, we need to help them.
06-01-2017 05:06
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	Yes I agree, we should help them, but we insist on burning corn in our fuel tanks because it's renewable and clean energy. Bet that kid would love some cornbread. Breaks my heart. Something is wrong when over 40% of the US corn crop gets burned in fuel tanks (gov mandated ethanol) while children across the globe starve. What is the net effect of this policy? Can someone please put the calculus or "science" to this? This is the common sense, or lack thereof I'm talking about. This is stupid. Edited on 06-01-2017 05:09
06-01-2017 17:44
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: Yes I agree, we should help them, but we insist on burning corn in our fuel tanks because it's renewable and clean energy. Bet that kid would love some cornbread. Breaks my heart. Something is wrong when over 40% of the US corn crop gets burned in fuel tanks (gov mandated ethanol) while children across the globe starve. What is the net effect of this policy? Can someone please put the calculus or "science" to this? This is the common sense, or lack thereof I'm talking about. This is stupid. [img]Well said.[/img]
06-01-2017 18:15
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Yes I agree, we should help them, but we insist on burning corn in our fuel tanks because it's renewable and clean energy. Bet that kid would love some cornbread. Breaks my heart. Something is wrong when over 40% of the US corn crop gets burned in fuel tanks (gov mandated ethanol) while children across the globe starve. What is the net effect of this policy? Can someone please put the calculus or "science" to this? This is the common sense, or lack thereof I'm talking about. This is stupid. [img]Well said.[/img] Agree. Ethanol is not gasoline & has an octane of 114. Adding only 10% ethanol to 84 octane gasoline molecules DOES make 87 octane E10 (10% ethanol gasoline), but almost none of the molecules are 87 octane. Thus, adding 10% ethanol to gasoline(E0-0% ethanol) REDUCES MPG in my past five 87 octane gasoline engines (9:1 to 11:1 compression ratios), by 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5%, compared to E0. Therefore, ethanol doesn't work efficiently in gasoline engines of low compression ratios. Now, ethanol is a good fuel, but only when used in ethanol engines of high compression ratios (16:1) that are designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. It is wrong to use ethanol in gasoline engines. Edited on 06-01-2017 18:19
06-01-2017 20:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	litesong wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Yes I agree, we should help them, but we insist on burning corn in our fuel tanks because it's renewable and clean energy. Bet that kid would love some cornbread. Breaks my heart. Something is wrong when over 40% of the US corn crop gets burned in fuel tanks (gov mandated ethanol) while children across the globe starve. What is the net effect of this policy? Can someone please put the calculus or "science" to this? This is the common sense, or lack thereof I'm talking about. This is stupid. [img]Well said.[/img] Agree. Ethanol is not gasoline & has an octane of 114. Adding only 10% ethanol to 84 octane gasoline molecules DOES make 87 octane E10 (10% ethanol gasoline), but almost none of the molecules are 87 octane. Thus, adding 10% ethanol to gasoline(E0-0% ethanol) REDUCES MPG in my past five 87 octane gasoline engines (9:1 to 11:1 compression ratios), by 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5%, compared to E0. Therefore, ethanol doesn't work efficiently in gasoline engines of low compression ratios. Now, ethanol is a good fuel, but only when used in ethanol engines of high compression ratios (16:1) that are designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. It is wrong to use ethanol in gasoline engines. Nope. It's all about heat generated by the fuel. Gasoline produces more heat than ethanol. A lot more. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

06-01-2017 22:52
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	litesong wrote:Agree. Ethanol is not gasoline & has an octane of 114. Adding only 10% ethanol to 84 octane gasoline molecules DOES make 87 octane E10 (10% ethanol gasoline), but almost none of the molecules are 87 octane. Thus, adding 10% ethanol to gasoline(E0-0% ethanol) REDUCES MPG in my past five 87 octane gasoline engines (9:1 to 11:1 compression ratios), by 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5%, compared to E0. Therefore, ethanol doesn't work efficiently in gasoline engines of low compression ratios. Now, ethanol is a good fuel, but only when used in ethanol engines of high compression ratios (16:1) that are designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. It is wrong to use ethanol in gasoline engines. "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Nope. Gasoline produces more heat than ethanol.[/quote] ///// litesong wrote: Gasoline produces about 2.5% to 3% more btus than ethanol. But the mpg lost in the use of 10% ethanol blend(E10) in a low compression ratio (9:1 to 11:1) gasoline engine is 8% to 5%. The difference is due to a mis-match of octane 114 octane ethanol used inefficiently in an 87 octane gasoline engine. Octane 114 ethanol burns efficiently in a high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engine designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. Edited on 06-01-2017 22:55
06-01-2017 23:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	litesong wrote: litesong wrote:Agree. Ethanol is not gasoline & has an octane of 114. Adding only 10% ethanol to 84 octane gasoline molecules DOES make 87 octane E10 (10% ethanol gasoline), but almost none of the molecules are 87 octane. Thus, adding 10% ethanol to gasoline(E0-0% ethanol) REDUCES MPG in my past five 87 octane gasoline engines (9:1 to 11:1 compression ratios), by 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5%, compared to E0. Therefore, ethanol doesn't work efficiently in gasoline engines of low compression ratios. Now, ethanol is a good fuel, but only when used in ethanol engines of high compression ratios (16:1) that are designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. It is wrong to use ethanol in gasoline engines. "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Nope. Gasoline produces more heat than ethanol. litesong wrote: Gasoline produces about 2.5% to 3% more btus than ethanol. But the mpg lost in the use of 10% ethanol blend(E10) in a low compression ratio (9:1 to 11:1) gasoline engine is 8% to 5%. The difference is due to a mis-match of octane 114 octane ethanol used inefficiently in an 87 octane gasoline engine. Octane 114 ethanol burns efficiently in a high compression ratio (16:1) ethanol engine designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. Nope. It's all about heat. Not compression ratio. Ethanol has no octane. It burns as an equivalent octane rating of petroleum of about 113. It is used as a fuel moderator in the same way as tetra-ethyl lead. It raises the effective octane of the fuel, making it burn worse. The higher the octane rating, the worse fuel burns. The compression stroke of an engine heats the air in it. That could ignite the fuel-air mixture too soon and too suddenly if you use too low of an octane fuel. Called 'detonation', the fuel burns suddenly and too soon, rather than at the right time (being ignited by the spark plug) and burning smoothly. You hear detonation as a 'pinging' noise. This is destructive to the engine (particularly the exhaust valves). Any engine, including gasoline engines, produce power by using heat flowing to the cold part of the engine (ambient air, in the case of a car, through the exhaust pipe, radiator, and oil bucket). Ethanol doesn't have the same BTU as gasoline. It burns cooler. It cannot produce as much power. The power it does produce is less efficient as a result. The total number of watts at the shaft is not as high. Given the same weight, friction, and other similar factors, the MPG of pure ethanol is lower than that of gasoline. Personally, I'd like to see us go back to the tetra-ethyl lead. We wouldn't be burning our food supply in our cars this way and lead is already in the soil naturally. TEL also tends to lubricate internal parts of the engine. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 06-01-2017 23:42
07-01-2017 02:22
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: That could ignite the fuel-air mixture too soon and too suddenly if you use too low of an octane fuel. Similarly, "that could ignite the fuel-air mixture too late & too slowly if you use too high of an octane fuel" (like using octane 114 ethanol in an 87 octane designed gasoline engine). You missed part of the power stroke & lose efficiency.
07-01-2017 02:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	litesong wrote: "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: That could ignite the fuel-air mixture too soon and too suddenly if you use too low of an octane fuel. Similarly, "that could ignite the fuel-air mixture too late & too slowly if you use too high of an octane fuel" (like using octane 114 ethanol in an 87 octane designed gasoline engine). You missed part of the power stroke & lose efficiency. If it ignites at all, it will ignite on time. You are right about losing efficiency because of the cooler burn. You will lose the efficiency in an engine designed for 114 octane fuel as well and for the same reason. The only thing you gain in high compression engines is the ability to stuff more fuel-air mixture into a given cylinder size. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 07-01-2017 02:31
07-01-2017 03:47
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: The only thing you gain in high compression engines is..... Low compression engines, using 10% high 114 octane ethanol blend(E10) will lose 8% to 5% mpg, which is more than the 2.5% to 3% btu loss of ethanol vs. 87 octane gasoline. Edited on 07-01-2017 03:48
07-01-2017 05:56
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	Person experience with 2 different 5.7 hemi...9.5-1 compression Better efficiency without ethonal when driving hyway. Better efficiency with ethonal working hard pulling trailer in town pushing snow ect. Yes I do use ethonal....No other options at my small town station
07-01-2017 08:52
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	GasGuzzler wrote:I do use ethonal....No other options at my small town station pure-gas.org lists 11,000+ sites with ethanol-free gasoline. The South has dense listings. Florida, N. Carolina, Wisconsin, Minnesota, upper New York often have "above 87 octane E0 supplies". Lots of comments from E0 enthusiasts. My area, up to 3 years ago, had one gas station with very competitive prices to E10, compared to most sites which charge 20% to 40% more than E10. But even that station now charges too much for E0, to make it economical, despite the 8% to 5% better mpg. Edited on 07-01-2017 09:10
07-01-2017 13:29
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	litesong wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Yes I agree, we should help them, but we insist on burning corn in our fuel tanks because it's renewable and clean energy. Bet that kid would love some cornbread. Breaks my heart. Something is wrong when over 40% of the US corn crop gets burned in fuel tanks (gov mandated ethanol) while children across the globe starve. What is the net effect of this policy? Can someone please put the calculus or "science" to this? This is the common sense, or lack thereof I'm talking about. This is stupid. [img]Well said.[/img] Agree. Ethanol is not gasoline & has an octane of 114. Adding only 10% ethanol to 84 octane gasoline molecules DOES make 87 octane E10 (10% ethanol gasoline), but almost none of the molecules are 87 octane. Thus, adding 10% ethanol to gasoline(E0-0% ethanol) REDUCES MPG in my past five 87 octane gasoline engines (9:1 to 11:1 compression ratios), by 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5%, compared to E0. Therefore, ethanol doesn't work efficiently in gasoline engines of low compression ratios. Now, ethanol is a good fuel, but only when used in ethanol engines of high compression ratios (16:1) that are designed to burn 114 octane ethanol. It is wrong to use ethanol in gasoline engines. Well, you do seem to know more about the practicle aspects of combustion engines than I do. I just trun the key and drive.
08-01-2017 08:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	litesong wrote: "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: The only thing you gain in high compression engines is..... Low compression engines, using 10% high 114 octane ethanol blend(E10) will lose 8% to 5% mpg, which is more than the 2.5% to 3% btu loss of ethanol vs. 87 octane gasoline. 1 gallon of pure ethanol has a BTU of approx 76,100 BTU. 1 gallon of gasoline (with no ethanol in it) has a BTU of approx 115,000. It is NOT 3% BTU 'loss'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-01-2017 17:27
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Into the Night wrote: litesong wrote: "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: The only thing you gain in high compression engines is..... Low compression engines, using 10% high 114 octane ethanol blend(E10) will lose 8% to 5% mpg, which is more than the 2.5% to 3% btu loss of ethanol vs. 87 octane gasoline. 1 gallon of pure ethanol has a BTU of approx 76,100 BTU. 1 gallon of gasoline (with no ethanol in it) has a BTU of approx 115,000. It is NOT 3% BTU 'loss'. As I note often, E10 has 10% ethanol diluting 90% gasoline, so the 3% btu loss of E10 (10% ethanol) is correct. AND as I state often, my last 5 low compression ratio 87 octane gasoline engines, lost 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5% mpg, as compared to E0. So the inefficiency of E10 ethanol blend when used(NOT burned efficiently) in low octane designed gasoline engines is obvious. Beyond the 10% dilution of ethanol in gasoline are the many cases taken to court, that ethanol has been illegally over-blended by up to 64% AND sold as 10% ethanol blend(E10). Edited on 08-01-2017 17:28

08-01-2017 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	litesong wrote: Into the Night wrote: litesong wrote: "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: The only thing you gain in high compression engines is..... Low compression engines, using 10% high 114 octane ethanol blend(E10) will lose 8% to 5% mpg, which is more than the 2.5% to 3% btu loss of ethanol vs. 87 octane gasoline. 1 gallon of pure ethanol has a BTU of approx 76,100 BTU. 1 gallon of gasoline (with no ethanol in it) has a BTU of approx 115,000. It is NOT 3% BTU 'loss'. As I note often, E10 has 10% ethanol diluting 90% gasoline, so the 3% btu loss of E10 (10% ethanol) is correct. AND as I state often, my last 5 low compression ratio 87 octane gasoline engines, lost 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7%, & 5% mpg, as compared to E0. So the inefficiency of E10 ethanol blend when used(NOT burned efficiently) in low octane designed gasoline engines is obvious. What year engine did you test this in? How was your test conducted? Was this a road test or a bench test? What brake horsepower load was placed on the engine during the test? litesong wrote: Beyond the 10% dilution of ethanol in gasoline are the many cases taken to court, that ethanol has been illegally over-blended by up to 64% AND sold as 10% ethanol blend(E10). You can take anything to court. That means nothing. You can even win. I tend to not believe in 'overblending' accusations. Ethanol costs money, and the blending system used is quite accurately controlled. They don't blend it until just before shipping from the regional distribution centers around here (a practice that is common). The reason is that some fuels require a different moderator, such as TEL. Ethanol has the unfortunate tendency to phase separate. That means it 'falls' out of the gasoline ethanol mixture over time (especially at low pressures). This means you essentially have a fuel tank that is E0 gasoline, sitting under a pool of pure ethanol. The 'overblending' might very well be improper measuring the ethanol density of such a tank. Unfortunately, lawyers and judges generally do not understand this. An engine running on E0 will detect the pinging and back off on its settings automatically. The computer is programmed to protect the engine from pinging since it damages the engine. The end result is a lower power engine while burning that fuel. This might actually be the increase of MPG you see. Lower power engines tend to improve the MPG of the average driver. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-01-2017 15:27
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	Certainly you have heard of blender pumps? I have not researched any cases taken to court and don't know if they were involved at all. Problem with blender pumps is they mix from 2 separate tanks at the pump and not at the nozzle. If you were to go get 1 gallon of premium for you mower tank or some other small engine and the customer before you purchased E85, you would get whatever is left in the hose after the blending point and ultimately wind up with an extremely high percentage of ethanol, when your intention was to buy E0. I've heard of other issues with programming and not working properly.
09-01-2017 17:50
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: I tend to not believe in 'overblending' accusations..... blending system used is quite accurately controlled. Of course, ya don' believe. Ya got belief block syndrome. Numerous cases were proven to be inadvertent double blending, causing E20 gasoline & sold as E10. Sometimes companies didn't blend enough ethanol at the beginning of the year & made it up by over-blending at the end of the year to meet their quota. Its easy to determine the percent quantity of ethanol in gasoline & companies that over-blend should be learning, but they don't. Another over-blending denier flatly stated no over-blending occurred in his area. In short order, I showed him, his area had court cases of over-blending. Edited on 09-01-2017 18:22
09-01-2017 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	GasGuzzler wrote: Certainly you have heard of blender pumps? Yes. They are usually at the distribution points, not at the individual stations. GasGuzzler wrote: I have not researched any cases taken to court and don't know if they were involved at all. Problem with blender pumps is they mix from 2 separate tanks at the pump and not at the nozzle. Not a problem. Distribution centers are already set up for this. Individual stations have a tank for each grade and do not blend. In most places it's actually illegal for them to do so. GasGuzzler wrote: If you were to go get 1 gallon of premium for you mower tank or some other small engine and the customer before you purchased E85, you would get whatever is left in the hose after the blending point and ultimately wind up with an extremely high percentage of ethanol, when your intention was to buy E0. The amount of whatever is in the hose is pretty trivial. It can be safely ignored. GasGuzzler wrote: I've heard of other issues with programming and not working properly. Any software issues tend to affect indicators, not the actual blending itself. There is some software affecting the blending (I myself provided similar software for solid materials handling), but that software is thoroughly tested before it's even put into service. There are risks to property and life with that software. It is tested in the plant, monitoring everything, but not given control of any valves or outputs, for several months. If it makes no mistakes, the outputs are enabled. It is further monitored in detail during live execution for the remainder of the year. After that, checks are made during each shipment for quality. Breakdowns tend to be hardware oriented. Fuel pumps at gas stations go through a similar process using a representative station to demonstrate for the State that station is in the validity of the software. It must accurately indicate the amount pumped without any errors for any grade of fuel it is certified for. Once it passes this test, it can go into gas stations of that State. Bugs that affect things like the TFT display, the card reader, the network, etc. are things that can still occur, as they do not affect the actual measurement of fuel. Things like automatic shutoffs use a simple suction switch, and don't involve software at all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-01-2017 20:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	litesong wrote: "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: I tend to not believe in 'overblending' accusations..... blending system used is quite accurately controlled. Of course, ya don' believe. Ya got belief block syndrome. Numerous cases were proven to be inadvertent double blending, causing E20 gasoline & sold as E10. Sometimes companies didn't blend enough ethanol at the beginning of the year & made it up by over-blending at the end of the year to meet their quota. Its easy to determine the percent quantity of ethanol in gasoline & companies that over-blend should be learning, but they don't. Another over-blending denier flatly stated no over-blending occurred in his area. In short order, I showed him, his area had court cases of over-blending. Like I said...you can file a court case on anything. You might even win because of the lack of literacy in this stuff. It does not make it true. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-01-2017 21:19
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	Into the night...You seem highly informed in the world of ethanol so my initial question is more to myself of 'What am I missing???" 1. There are hundreds, if not a thousand blender pumps at gas stations mostly centered in the midwest...see website. 2. How do you see them as mostly illegal when there are so many of them? 3.. If I only buy a small amount...1/2 gallon to fill a snow blower or something, the amount in the hose is not trivial...it could ruin my carb or worse yet the engine. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1hIUHXW5Vqlbcs1aInFs6pUU7J-0&hl=en&ll=43.67069298284824%2C-92.82970368617629&z=5 Edited on 09-01-2017 21:22
09-01-2017 21:46
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the night...You seem highly informed in the world of ethanol so my initial question is more to myself of 'What am I missing???" 1. There are hundreds, if not a thousand blender pumps at gas stations mostly centered in the midwest...see website. 2. How do you see them as mostly illegal when there are so many of them? 3.. If I only buy a small amount...1/2 gallon to fill a snow blower or something, the amount in the hose is not trivial...it could ruin my carb or worse yet the engine. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1hIUHXW5Vqlbcs1aInFs6pUU7J-0&hl=en&ll=43.67069298284824%2C-92.82970368617629&z=5 He also claims to be a rocket scientist and inventor who has invented something we all use every day he makes his own fireworks and also regularly successfully defends himself in court with his super knowledge of the law despite no formal training, defends himself against what, who knows? He has also proven all scientific thought of the last 200 years wrong. And thinks the best way to inform the world of his discovery is to post it bracketed with abuse on an unmoderated talkboard. And you sir are an idiot if you think that he can help you with anything. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-01-2017 22:01
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	He also claims to be a rocket scientist and inventor who has invented something we all use every day he makes his own fireworks and also regularly successfully defends himself in court with his super knowledge of the law despite no formal training, defends himself against what, who knows? He has also proven all scientific thought of the last 200 years wrong. And thinks the best way to inform the world of his discovery is to post it bracketed with abuse on an unmoderated talkboard. Come on now tell us how you really feel. Good info, thanks.
09-01-2017 22:03
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	GasGuzzler wrote: He also claims to be a rocket scientist and inventor who has invented something we all use every day he makes his own fireworks and also regularly successfully defends himself in court with his super knowledge of the law despite no formal training, defends himself against what, who knows? He has also proven all scientific thought of the last 200 years wrong. And thinks the best way to inform the world of his discovery is to post it bracketed with abuse on an unmoderated talkboard. Come on now tell us how you really feel. Good info, thanks. Na I'll stay on the fence on this issue. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-01-2017 22:17
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:Like I said...you can file... Like I said, ya got belief block syndrome. Don' neet no steenkin' (part of yer name) kkkourts.
10-01-2017 03:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the night...You seem highly informed in the world of ethanol so my initial question is more to myself of 'What am I missing???" 1. There are hundreds, if not a thousand blender pumps at gas stations mostly centered in the midwest...see website. Okay. GasGuzzler wrote: 2. How do you see them as mostly illegal when there are so many of them? It depends entirely on the State. Each State has its own laws on the subject. GasGuzzler wrote: 3.. If I only buy a small amount...1/2 gallon to fill a snow blower or something, the amount in the hose is not trivial...it could ruin my carb or worse yet the engine. It probably won't hurt the carb unless you are attaching it with cork gaskets. The paper gaskets typically used shouldn't have much of a problem. It won't hurt the engine. Ethanol burns cooler, putting less stress on the engine itself. Even if your machine has cork gaskets, the dilution amount is probably not going to hurt them much. Ethanol is hygroscopic. The bigger danger to your snowblower carb is sitting with ethanol in it and the resulting rust or fungus from the absorbed water. The best way to deal with that is to not fuel your snowblower until just before use, and drain it when you're done. Today's autofuel has no stabilizers in it anyway. It will help keep the varnish out of your carb as well. This is usually what goes wrong with these simple carbs. If you have trouble starting it, dump the bowl out (it just unbolts typically), put fresh gas and a new spark plug in it, and that will fix practically any problem you get with them. Another option is to use TWO gas cans. One you pump the hose contents into, then fill the one you are going to use for your snowblower. You can use the other in your car or something. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-01-2017 03:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	spot wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the night...You seem highly informed in the world of ethanol so my initial question is more to myself of 'What am I missing???" 1. There are hundreds, if not a thousand blender pumps at gas stations mostly centered in the midwest...see website. 2. How do you see them as mostly illegal when there are so many of them? 3.. If I only buy a small amount...1/2 gallon to fill a snow blower or something, the amount in the hose is not trivial...it could ruin my carb or worse yet the engine. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1hIUHXW5Vqlbcs1aInFs6pUU7J-0&hl=en&ll=43.67069298284824%2C-92.82970368617629&z=5 He also claims to be a rocket scientist and inventor who has invented something we all use every day he makes his own fireworks and also regularly successfully defends himself in court with his super knowledge of the law despite no formal training, defends himself against what, who knows? He has also proven all scientific thought of the last 200 years wrong. And thinks the best way to inform the world of his discovery is to post it bracketed with abuse on an unmoderated talkboard. And you sir are an idiot if you think that he can help you with anything. Since all you like to do is insult people, he's certainly not going to any help from YOU. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Having commuist goverment countries and developing countries are causing pollution, global warming and ch:

Threads	Replies	Last post
WHY DO SELF DRIVING CARS KEEP CAUSING TRAFFIC JAMS?	15	11-05-2023 00:20
Septic tanks and water pollution	452	27-01-2023 16:57
Climate Change causing Iguana populations to grow, at an alarming rate!	0	03-07-2019 04:04
I am in China. China is not corrupt like western countries.	20	02-06-2019 03:31
Why don't non western countries have carbon tax like UK and France have?	7	29-04-2019 17:59