|
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:p74uk.19878$Mh5.18116@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: > >> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >> news:ebWtk.19269$Mh5.8797@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >> >> >>> >>>Tegger wrote: >>> >>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >>>>news:D7ntk.185026 $102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Elle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>>>>>>regulations passed, >>>>>>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>>>>>>desired changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, >>>>>>the President, and those who elect them doing so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>After they have been paid off by lobbyists. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be >>>>right in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get >>>>all the spoils they did by sitting on their hands. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Yes, I have often referred to friends that this country has become a >>>giant suckling pig no longer able to feed or otherwise take care of >>>itself. >>> >>>All this in less than fifty years! >>> >>>Begin the blame with that good ol' crook, LBJ in the 1960's. >>> >>>JT >>> >> >> >> no,begin with the Fabians in the early 1900's;they are the ones who >> began working to get socialists in education and gov't. >> the avalanche point came in the late 1960s. >> > > > Sorry, but this country was clearly the top of the heap in 1963 under > JFK. The decline began in 1965 with the passage ot the voting rights > and civlil rights laws during LBJ's, (who was concerned about his > legacy), administration. > > Socialism has always been a factor... > > JT > > 1934 NFA was one of the first major intrusions on the Constitution. It enacted a tax that was clearly NOT for raising revenue,but solely to make ownership of certain items prohibitive. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:oIydnShEjPrneSXVnZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d@bt.com: > > On 29 Aug 2008 12:15:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > >>Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:a- >>WdnchZ_4AVFyrVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com: >> >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, >>>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most >>>>> technologically advanced nation on earth. >>>> >>>>Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the >>>>most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. >>>> >>> >>> Only an American would think that. >>> >>> If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are >>> so >>> deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is >>> it because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are? >>> >> >>actually,the US leads the world in innovation,but we aren't so good in >>practical application of our technology,as evidenced by VCRs,autos and >>some other things. We are also the best in medical care.Foreigners >>prefer to come to the *US* for thier complex surgeries and treatment. > > Sorry, but you are living in the past. The USA is in decline both > technologically see who patents the most tech stuff every year. we also lead in new pharmaceuticals development. > and most unfortunately morally. Even more > unfortunately, most Americans are completely oblivious of what is > going on both inside and outside of their country and fail to > recognize the problems they and their country have. > > With respect to medical care, perhaps some of the most respected > surgeons and doctors practice in the USA but how many have access to > their expertise? Precious few, as a very substantial minority of > citizens simply are unable to afford medical care. > whereas in other countries,people have to wait long for or simply cannot get procedures readily available in the US. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" > <honda.lioness@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, >>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most >>> technologically advanced nation on earth. >> >>Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become >>the >>most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. >> > > Only an American would think that. Are there other countries more technologically advanced? I guess it depends on the gage used, but ISTM, with so much instant this and that in the U.S., it may lead. I do think other countries are certainly far more advanced on other fronts, leaving the U.S. in the dust. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
> And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never > leave it to a politician to preach morality. I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders. What is far more difficult is offering to become a government leader and do better. |
[From OP] Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com... > Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit > selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol > any more. > > As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) > increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used > to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a > month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... > > Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated > fuel that doesn't give you full value?? > So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and economic perspectives. But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- starting with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly reduce by about 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with everything else fine (tire pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on the odometer? |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On Aug 30, 6:30 pm, "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote:
> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message > > news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com... > > > Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit > > selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol > > any more. > > > As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) > > increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used > > to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a > > month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... > > > Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated > > fuel that doesn't give you full value?? > > So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and economic > perspectives. > > But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- starting > with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly reduce by about > 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with everything else fine (tire > pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on > the odometer? According to something I just read: "ethanol contains about two-thirds the energy content of gasoline, gallon for gallon. That means a gallon of pure, corn-based ethanol would reduce mileage by 30 percent and a 10 percent blend -- as Oregon now requires -- by about 3 percent. Gasoline can vary a bit, batch to batch, so a drop of 2 percent to 4 percent is a safe estimate, these experts say. " "Experts" claim 3%, real world consumers claim 10% (according to the same article) so you're right on the money as far as getting hosed. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote: > "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote > >>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never >>leave it to a politician to preach morality. > > > I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders. > What is far more difficult is offering to become a > government leader and do better. > > Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska. Next question... JT |
Re: [From OP] Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Runtime Error wrote: > "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message > news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com... > >>Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >>selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol >>any more. >> >>As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >>increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used >>to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a >>month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... >> >>Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated >>fuel that doesn't give you full value?? >> > > > So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and economic > perspectives. > > But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- starting > with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly reduce by about > 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with everything else fine (tire > pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on > the odometer? > > That's simple... Ethanol yields less energy than does pure gas.. JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:j2Auk.21674$Mh5.6817@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Elle wrote: >> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote >> >>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never >>>leave it to a politician to preach morality. >> >> >> I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders. >> What is far more difficult is offering to become a >> government leader and do better. >> >> > > > Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska. > > Next question... > > JT I think I'd trust Palin more than I would either Biden or BHO. Both of those guys have proven track records;not good. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: [From OP] Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:I3Auk.21677$Mh5.12300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Runtime Error wrote: > >> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message >> news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >>>selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% >>>petrol any more. >>> >>>As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >>>increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it >>>used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate >>>2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high >>>20's.... >>> >>>Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for >>>adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value?? >>> >> >> >> So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and >> economic perspectives. >> >> But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- >> starting with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly >> reduce by about 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with >> everything else fine (tire pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, >> etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on the odometer? >> >> > > > That's simple... Ethanol yields less energy than does pure gas.. > > JT > but still has SOME energy content,so 10% in gas is not going to produce a 10% LOSS of energy,but some lesser amount of drop,I suspect less than 5%. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Jim Yanik wrote: > Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:j2Auk.21674$Mh5.6817@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > >> >>Elle wrote: >> >>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote >>> >>> >>>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never >>>>leave it to a politician to preach morality. >>> >>> >>>I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders. >>>What is far more difficult is offering to become a >>>government leader and do better. >>> >>> >> >> >>Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska. >> >>Next question... >> >>JT > > > I think I'd trust Palin more than I would either Biden or BHO. > Both of those guys have proven track records;not good. > And, she is the only one of the four, (including McCain) that has executive experience. Her entry into the race has me no longer sitting on the fence.. JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:TOIuk.22211$Mh5.11513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: >> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >> news:j2Auk.21674$Mh5.6817@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >> >> >>> >>>Elle wrote: >>> >>>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never >>>>>leave it to a politician to preach morality. >>>> >>>> >>>>I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders. >>>>What is far more difficult is offering to become a >>>>government leader and do better. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska. >>> >>>Next question... >>> >>>JT >> >> >> I think I'd trust Palin more than I would either Biden or BHO. >> Both of those guys have proven track records;not good. >> > > > And, she is the only one of the four, (including McCain) that has > executive experience. > > Her entry into the race has me no longer sitting on the fence.. > > JT > > being a military officer gives a person "executive experience". (leadership and running operations.) Plus McCain has his long Senate experience. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: [From OP] Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:I3Auk.21677$Mh5.12300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> Runtime Error wrote: >> >>> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message >>> news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>>> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >>>> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% >>>> petrol any more. >>>> >>>> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >>>> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it >>>> used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate >>>> 2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high >>>> 20's.... >>>> >>>> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for >>>> adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value?? >>>> >>> >>> So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and >>> economic perspectives. >>> >>> But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- >>> starting with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly >>> reduce by about 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with >>> everything else fine (tire pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, >>> etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on the odometer? >>> >>> >> >> That's simple... Ethanol yields less energy than does pure gas.. >> >> JT >> > > but still has SOME energy content,so 10% in gas is not going to produce a > 10% LOSS of energy,but some lesser amount of drop,I suspect less than 5%. > but ethanol is also less dense, so there will be less energy content by volume as well as chemically. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
C. E. White wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:F9SdnV9VYeOJECrVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Elle wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, >>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most technologically >>>> advanced nation on earth. >>> Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the most >>> technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. >> eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better >> than ours? > > In what way? er, solid rear axles? leaf springs? > Becasue they fall apart after 5 years and force Customers to by > new ones? like ford and chevy and chrysler? dude, we /invented/ lifetime limitation. > Becasue they cost a lot more? only when imported and sold to dumb americans. ever been to germany? mercedes have plastic seats and "TAXI" signs on the roof. > Becasue they are generally smaller? eh? > >> why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? > > Where did you get that idea.....Maybe our old designs (like the 737) are not > fly by wire, but what makes you think new designs like the 777 are not? name a single airbus that's not fly by wire. > The > US has been using fly by wire design in milatary planes since the 70's. concorde, whose technology is used extensively in airbus designs, was fly by wire in 1969. > >> why can they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't? > > Again, where did you get that idea. The heaviest satellite launched by the > Europeans is only around 6.5 tons. that's misleading - that's a single satellite. ariane carries a 9,600kg payload [that's /two/ satellites] to geosynchronous. the delta iv heavy can lift more, but with only two launches, and only one successfully, that's not exactly "operational". > Check > http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/history.htm - Boeing has launched > similar sized satellites. yeah. meanwhile /american/ companies are paying the /french/ and /russians/ to launch their satellites. that's insane. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:nxWtk.19289$Mh5.8420@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Elle wrote: >>> >>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>> >>>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, >>>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most technologically >>>>> advanced nation on earth. >>>> >>>> Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the most >>>> technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. >>> >>> eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better >>> than ours? why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? why can >>> they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't? >> >> Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... >> >> JT >> >> > > so's the F-16. > so are /most/ supersonics - it's a control/stability thing. my point is that airbus is all f.b.w. boeing, the largest producer in the world, is only finally getting into it decades later. and that's not leadership. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands