The only way E20 could possibly get better mileage is if your engine is specifically de-tuned so as to waste fuel when fed straight gas.
The energy simply isn't there.
Ethanol is actually not that bad of a fuel, *IF*... (A) the engine is actually designed to burn ethanol, and (B) you take into account the fact that ethanol simply has a lower energy density than gasoline. So your tank has to be bigger for a given range, and then there are the volatility problems.
The octane only helps to stop the fuel from predetonating, allowing a higher compression ratio which should burn more efficiently, probably helping me as I had shaved the head down after a head gasket failure.
Okay, I can understand that it could help if you had a higher-compression head. But that is not the only thing it does, in a stock engine. It has side-effects.
But I also agree that some studies are probably in order. Because there are claims on both sides of the utility of ethanol in the general case, and I would love to see some hard figures.
Apparently you care so much that CAPITAL LETTERS aren't enough. They have to be BOLDED CAPITAL LETTERS.
Yep. READ THE THREAD.
I did NOT care about his joke. But I **DO** care when somebody calls me stupid because he thinks I didn't get his joke, and I had already explained to him 2-3 times before that the problem was not that I was stupid, but that I actually did get his joke and it WASN'T FUNNY.
Tell me: how else do you get the message across, if the other person isn't getting the clue after that? Huh?
For other readers: what kind of arrogance or narcissism does it take for the following train of thought?
Heh. I made a funny joke.
Hm... somebody didn't think it was funny.
That MUST mean that she didn't get the joke.
I will have to explain to this this person that she was stupid, 3 times, and that it was really satire.
Even though that person has tried to tell me just as many times that she really did get the joke, that isn't possible because she didn't think it was funny, and I told it, so it was funny.
I counter-guarantee that if you knew how awesome and useful it is, you wouldn't care how it is made. It should be called "magic sauce"
Are you talking about the U.S. kind? It's made very differently.
But if you mean the most-sold brand in the world (which probably would be illegal to sell in the U.S.), yes, I do care how it's made. Even if every bite gave me an orgasm I still wouldn't touch it.
It is made by fermenting small whole fish in brine and drawing off the liquid, which is then bottled. I've got no problem with that.
No, it isn't. Unless you mean the Korean variety.
The biggest-selling brand in the world is made this way: Fish entrails (not whole fish... the meat is sold for food) are fermented. If, that is, by "fermented" you mean literally poured into barrels and left to rot, outside in the sun, for 2 years.
THEN, the liquid is poured off, and bottled. (It is cooked before bottling. So it's not going to make you ill in that sense.)
I watched the whole process from beginning to end on the food channel. I'll not intentionally and voluntarily consume it again after that.
Granted, the U.S. variety is made differently. But no doubt it tastes differently, too.
Oh, and apparently, YOU care, or you wouldn't have replied to this thread TWICE.
Just NO.
I do not care about the banal and unfunny joke.
What I replied to were clueless accusations that I didn't get it. I mean, come on, dude. How long is it going to take, and how many repetitions, before you understand that I get the joke but don't think it's funny?
Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced.
Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. It slightly improves the "smoothness of burning" (octane rating) but reduces the energy of combustion. It also, in some cases, reduces the percentage of fuel burned. "Octane rating" is not a measure of fuel efficiency or energy content.
A modern computer-controlled engine using software that adjusts the timing to reduce ping is probably a better and more efficient solution than adding ethanol.
It's an error in the magnitude of a change. The basic physical quantity as you put it is temperature on the Kelvin scale, so it's something of the size of 0.5-1 degree divided by 300K.
Simply wrong. What was being measured was a rate of change, in deg. C per decade.
According to the report referenced, that quantity was off not just by 100%, but actually 140% (0.05 to 0.12).
I'm not trolling here -- honest -- but I have to ask honestly: who cares?
I saw an article about the "modernist" hamburger recipe from this book. Just about every ingredient in the burger is first saturated with beef suet (fat). Even the bun has fat smeared on it before grilling.
No matter how flavorful it is, it's not so much hamburger as greaseburger. Seriously, it must have about 4,000 calories.
I don't know what's "modern" or "modernist" about that. I thought smearing everything with lard before cooking went out of style about 80 years ago.
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
It can be a good fuel... but not when used in engines designed for gasoline (petrol).
As you point out, it has a lower energy density, thereby reducing your mileage and likely leading to the burning of more gasoline, rather than less. But it also reduces ignition efficiency... a bit less of the fuel actually burns when ignited. Further reducing efficiency.
Add that to the fact that corn-derived methanol is just plain energy inefficient, and the only reasonable conclusion is that we have better things to do with our corn.
Especially when you consider that ethanol reduces your gas mileage by a rather significant amount, thereby likely polluting more than if it was not there.
Ugh, we seem to be cross-replying to one another at various points in this thread. So yeah, I wrote GP of this one before you provided a link, and in response to an AC not you directly.
Yes, apparently we have. I'll let it go for a while. I have other things I have to do anyway.
Your reference for this 100% figure seems to be that 23 year old AR1 report.
Certainly not the present story I suppose, which TFS marks as "half". Well, among so many measurements (predictions, I guess we might rather mean) and over such a long period of time and additional research, I am not sure it is actually at all surprising that a few or even many of those are off by quite a margin.
No. If you go back up a couple of comments, see my reply in which I quoted the report. They are saying that it is not the 0.05 degrees C per decade that the AR5 report gives for the last 15 years, but that it is, instead, 0.12 degrees C. Which is actually a difference of not 100% but 140%, for the most recent 15 years.
You can do this. The app I use that exposes this Android feature is named "Permission Manager" in the Google Play Store.
Alas, the only "Permission Manager" with good reviews was for 4.3 only.
I found another than I'm going to try. But really, this should have been built into the OS to start with. There is just about zero possibility that this ability was left out accidentally... it was a planned absence.
Except that Jane Q Public wasn't stating an opinion (at least as I read it) but unsubstantiated facts:
I linked to substantiation in my earlier reply to you. So it's not accurate to say my facts are "unsubstantiated" unless you can refute those sources. I very much doubt you can. To be clear: It's true that I did not attempt to support my comment at first, but I did later.
Their big report reducing warming projections by half -- and now raising total accumulated warming by 100%
Which is not nearly what that report says and not nearly what TFS says.
2 issues with that sentence: I linked to sources that claim it *IS* what that report says, and here is a direct quote from TFA ["deg." substituted for the degree symbol which doesn't show up on Slashdot]:
"For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 deg. C per decade â" which has often been misleadingly called a 'warming pause'...
But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 deg. C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.
So yes... it does say that, in plain English. Not just 100%, either, but actually 140% higher than the IPPC report had claimed earlier for the last 15 years, in the IPCC report.
You are suggesting there has been this unending stream of scandals and duplicity.
At first I wrote that I had suggested nothing of the sort... but then I saw that you were actually replying to someone else. (I think I may have to change my settings in Slashdot... this has been a problem sometimes.) But just so it is clear to everyone, my claim was that this indicates some problems with their science. I didn't myself say it was false or duplicitous.
The concept on Android of listing app permissions is a good one - although it needs to be MUCH more detailed...
Considering that way too many of them seem to want access to damned near everything...
I would go further: not just the listing but the control needs to be more detailed. For EACH app, I should be able to set which system services the app is allowed to access. That would only take a few bytes of storage or memory per app... hardly an onerous requirement.
That software has to run on hardware and if you can't trust the hardware you are screwed anyway, it's like trusting your software (oss) encryption when there's a hardware keylogger installed. Send the right magic numbers and the hardware could start doing anything it wants like mirroring traffic, dumping memory, whatever the attacker needs to completely compromise the box.
Yes, but... if that's the case, Cisco has already screwed itself. It doesn't need government help.
They did it when they "front-doored" their Linksys routers: not only did you have to go to their website to configure them, they claimed the right to monitor any traffic through them!
Slashdot Mirror
The only way E20 could possibly get better mileage is if your engine is specifically de-tuned so as to waste fuel when fed straight gas.
The energy simply isn't there.
Ethanol is actually not that bad of a fuel, *IF*... (A) the engine is actually designed to burn ethanol, and (B) you take into account the fact that ethanol simply has a lower energy density than gasoline. So your tank has to be bigger for a given range, and then there are the volatility problems.
The octane only helps to stop the fuel from predetonating, allowing a higher compression ratio which should burn more efficiently, probably helping me as I had shaved the head down after a head gasket failure.
Okay, I can understand that it could help if you had a higher-compression head. But that is not the only thing it does, in a stock engine. It has side-effects.
But I also agree that some studies are probably in order. Because there are claims on both sides of the utility of ethanol in the general case, and I would love to see some hard figures.
Apparently you care so much that CAPITAL LETTERS aren't enough. They have to be BOLDED CAPITAL LETTERS.
Yep. READ THE THREAD.
I did NOT care about his joke. But I **DO** care when somebody calls me stupid because he thinks I didn't get his joke, and I had already explained to him 2-3 times before that the problem was not that I was stupid, but that I actually did get his joke and it WASN'T FUNNY.
Tell me: how else do you get the message across, if the other person isn't getting the clue after that? Huh?
For other readers: what kind of arrogance or narcissism does it take for the following train of thought?
Heh. I made a funny joke.
Hm... somebody didn't think it was funny.
That MUST mean that she didn't get the joke.
I will have to explain to this this person that she was stupid, 3 times, and that it was really satire.
Even though that person has tried to tell me just as many times that she really did get the joke, that isn't possible because she didn't think it was funny, and I told it, so it was funny.
I counter-guarantee that if you knew how awesome and useful it is, you wouldn't care how it is made. It should be called "magic sauce"
Are you talking about the U.S. kind? It's made very differently.
But if you mean the most-sold brand in the world (which probably would be illegal to sell in the U.S.), yes, I do care how it's made. Even if every bite gave me an orgasm I still wouldn't touch it.
It is made by fermenting small whole fish in brine and drawing off the liquid, which is then bottled. I've got no problem with that.
No, it isn't. Unless you mean the Korean variety.
The biggest-selling brand in the world is made this way: Fish entrails (not whole fish... the meat is sold for food) are fermented. If, that is, by "fermented" you mean literally poured into barrels and left to rot, outside in the sun, for 2 years.
THEN, the liquid is poured off, and bottled. (It is cooked before bottling. So it's not going to make you ill in that sense.)
I watched the whole process from beginning to end on the food channel. I'll not intentionally and voluntarily consume it again after that.
Granted, the U.S. variety is made differently. But no doubt it tastes differently, too.
Oh, and apparently, YOU care, or you wouldn't have replied to this thread TWICE.
Just NO.
I do not care about the banal and unfunny joke.
What I replied to were clueless accusations that I didn't get it. I mean, come on, dude. How long is it going to take, and how many repetitions, before you understand that I get the joke but don't think it's funny?
Repeat: YOU are the one being obtuse!
Repeat: I GOT THE JOKE.
Repeat: WHO CARES?
And some people don't get jokes, apparently.
I guess I'll have to petition W3C to officially put the HUMOR and SARCASM tags into the HTML5 spec.
You are the one not understanding. I got the joke. But WHO CARES?
I guess I'll have to petition W3C to add CLUE and PLAIN ENGLISH to their spec.
The ethanol boosts the octane and improves burning.
From Wikipedia:
Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced.
Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. It slightly improves the "smoothness of burning" (octane rating) but reduces the energy of combustion. It also, in some cases, reduces the percentage of fuel burned. "Octane rating" is not a measure of fuel efficiency or energy content.
A modern computer-controlled engine using software that adjusts the timing to reduce ping is probably a better and more efficient solution than adding ethanol.
Did you even read the comment to which you are replying?
0.05 x 2 is less than 0.12
Therefore the discrepancy is greater than 100%.
"100% error"? And we are supposed to tae you serious? Reply to This Share
YOU do the math.
The rate of temperature change over the last 15 years, according to this report, was not 0.05 as reported by IPCC, but 0.12.
Repeat: you do the math. It's actually quite a bit more than 100%.
It's an error in the magnitude of a change. The basic physical quantity as you put it is temperature on the Kelvin scale, so it's something of the size of 0.5-1 degree divided by 300K.
Simply wrong. What was being measured was a rate of change, in deg. C per decade.
According to the report referenced, that quantity was off not just by 100%, but actually 140% (0.05 to 0.12).
Yes, that's MORE THAN 100%.
Whoosh yourself. My point was: who cares?
Update: here's a picture of Myhrvold's "ultimate modernist burger".
In addition to the loads of suet, it also uses fish sauce.
I can just about guarantee that if you knew how genuine fish sauce was made, you wouldn't put it in your mouth.
If that's "modernist" cuisine, I probably don't want any.
I'm not trolling here -- honest -- but I have to ask honestly: who cares?
I saw an article about the "modernist" hamburger recipe from this book. Just about every ingredient in the burger is first saturated with beef suet (fat). Even the bun has fat smeared on it before grilling.
No matter how flavorful it is, it's not so much hamburger as greaseburger. Seriously, it must have about 4,000 calories.
I don't know what's "modern" or "modernist" about that. I thought smearing everything with lard before cooking went out of style about 80 years ago.
s/methanol/ethanol
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
It can be a good fuel... but not when used in engines designed for gasoline (petrol).
As you point out, it has a lower energy density, thereby reducing your mileage and likely leading to the burning of more gasoline, rather than less. But it also reduces ignition efficiency... a bit less of the fuel actually burns when ignited. Further reducing efficiency.
Add that to the fact that corn-derived methanol is just plain energy inefficient, and the only reasonable conclusion is that we have better things to do with our corn.
Especially when you consider that ethanol reduces your gas mileage by a rather significant amount, thereby likely polluting more than if it was not there.
Ugh, we seem to be cross-replying to one another at various points in this thread. So yeah, I wrote GP of this one before you provided a link, and in response to an AC not you directly.
Yes, apparently we have. I'll let it go for a while. I have other things I have to do anyway.
Your reference for this 100% figure seems to be that 23 year old AR1 report.
Certainly not the present story I suppose, which TFS marks as "half". Well, among so many measurements (predictions, I guess we might rather mean) and over such a long period of time and additional research, I am not sure it is actually at all surprising that a few or even many of those are off by quite a margin.
No. If you go back up a couple of comments, see my reply in which I quoted the report. They are saying that it is not the 0.05 degrees C per decade that the AR5 report gives for the last 15 years, but that it is, instead, 0.12 degrees C. Which is actually a difference of not 100% but 140%, for the most recent 15 years.
You can do this. The app I use that exposes this Android feature is named "Permission Manager" in the Google Play Store.
Alas, the only "Permission Manager" with good reviews was for 4.3 only.
I found another than I'm going to try. But really, this should have been built into the OS to start with. There is just about zero possibility that this ability was left out accidentally... it was a planned absence.
Except that Jane Q Public wasn't stating an opinion (at least as I read it) but unsubstantiated facts:
I linked to substantiation in my earlier reply to you. So it's not accurate to say my facts are "unsubstantiated" unless you can refute those sources. I very much doubt you can. To be clear: It's true that I did not attempt to support my comment at first, but I did later.
Their big report reducing warming projections by half -- and now raising total accumulated warming by 100%
Which is not nearly what that report says and not nearly what TFS says.
2 issues with that sentence: I linked to sources that claim it *IS* what that report says, and here is a direct quote from TFA ["deg." substituted for the degree symbol which doesn't show up on Slashdot]:
"For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 deg. C per decade â" which has often been misleadingly called a 'warming pause'...
But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 deg. C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.
So yes... it does say that, in plain English. Not just 100%, either, but actually 140% higher than the IPPC report had claimed earlier for the last 15 years, in the IPCC report.
You are suggesting there has been this unending stream of scandals and duplicity.
At first I wrote that I had suggested nothing of the sort... but then I saw that you were actually replying to someone else. (I think I may have to change my settings in Slashdot... this has been a problem sometimes.) But just so it is clear to everyone, my claim was that this indicates some problems with their science. I didn't myself say it was false or duplicitous.
Well, the authors have published papers and given speeches at conferences. I don't know if anyone else has written about it.
http://www.oneswarm.org/about.html
The concept on Android of listing app permissions is a good one - although it needs to be MUCH more detailed...
Considering that way too many of them seem to want access to damned near everything...
I would go further: not just the listing but the control needs to be more detailed. For EACH app, I should be able to set which system services the app is allowed to access. That would only take a few bytes of storage or memory per app... hardly an onerous requirement.
That software has to run on hardware and if you can't trust the hardware you are screwed anyway, it's like trusting your software (oss) encryption when there's a hardware keylogger installed. Send the right magic numbers and the hardware could start doing anything it wants like mirroring traffic, dumping memory, whatever the attacker needs to completely compromise the box.
Yes, but... if that's the case, Cisco has already screwed itself. It doesn't need government help.
They did it when they "front-doored" their Linksys routers: not only did you have to go to their website to configure them, they claimed the right to monitor any traffic through them!
Hell, I haven't trusted Cisco since then, either.