They work up until the government decides that the constitution doesn't actually have any limits on government power. The US has entered that phase and depending on what your personal views it probably started somewhere between 10 and 150 years ago
Just think what they would do if I ever decided to get a 1000mm lens for that camera (I do want one of these but that is a lot of money for a very occasional use item) and brought it with me. They probably would think it was a real rocket launcher.
You came so close to the problem with firearms and why they are view as bad. The real problem is too many people do view them as "cool" or "empowering" when in reality they are a tool and need to be treated with the proper respect just like other dangerous tools. I have actually used one of my firearms in personal defense, not against another human but against a wild animal. The loud bang and muzzle flash does wonders for scaring off a wolf at dusk that is coming towards you. I only carry a firearm if I am hunting but I actually have kept up on my Red Cross CPR training and do carry a first aid kit in my car.
Firearms are a tool like anything else. What would you do if there was suddenly a spree of ball-peen hammer attacks. A ball-peen hammer is a very effective tool when used correctly but just like a firearm can inflict grievous bodily harm when used incorrectly or carelessly. The same thing could be said about any number of other tools such as kitchen knives, chainsaws, bows, canoe paddles, plumbing pipe. Also it is more of a culture thing, if you go out to rural areas lots if not most of the population owns firearms. They are frequently used for hunting or dispatching predators and are actually used as tools. There are other countries that have higher gun ownership than the US but don't have the gun crime problem, the Swiss come to mind where everyone has basically been trained in the proper use. The problem is in the US there are too many people who view a firearm as a cock extension instead of as a tool.
But a hammer, hatchet is. I can look around my garage and see tons of tools that are more likely to cause great bodily harm or death than my firearms. I would start with my wire feed welder, oxy-mapp cutting torch, 8lb splitting maul, chain saw, double bit ax, 3lb drilling sledge, 20lb sledge, 24oz framing hammer, hatchet, 5lb cross peen sledge.
Slight more off topic but aren't there any large predatory cats in Alaska? Because of the growing cougar and wolf population in the Minnesota north woods I have started carrying a revolver out in the woods in the predawn and after dusk hours during deer and bear season since I would have a hard time using a rifle if pounced on. During the hunting season here we see similar things people walking down country roads shotgun or rifle in had and the orange cap and vest.
Or any number of incidents that have occurred. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.
Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs.
Minor correction, they are fine at finding those items if the operator had been trained properly but my experience is that the average TSA agent hasn't given the number of prohibited items I have accidentally brought through. Things like ammunition (rifle and shotgun), knives (multiple times), tools, and lets not forget liquids and gels. Yet "suspicious" items like my old Pentax Spotmatic F with lenses, or a box of magic cards gets me pulled off to the side for extra scrutiny every time.
It seems that actions like this do generate a response. The few time I have gotten a response from a representative, other than from my senator to the state senate, was when I made it clear that I would be supporting their challenger in the primary or general election and that they would not be receiving my support in any form because of certain issues. It gets really uncomfortable for them when they are going door to door glad handing and get hit with an informed voter (I did this to my previous representative to the state house who I was not pleased with). This seems to work better for local politicians than for national level ones but with enough people writing and calling it would probably still work.
No disputes there. I haven't played around with that end of those tools so I didn't want to speak to that. I have used the vector and raster input and output features as well as the cartography features as those are what I cared about.
So I am not the only one who has noticed that. When I go on an OSM binge I notice a few days later that Google maps has magically updated with what I entered.
Depends on the area. Besides an individual can do a lot with them. Most of the things shown in Apple Valley, MN that aren't large bodies of water or roads were added by me. This includes buildings, places, parking lots, parking isles, fences, walls, smaller bodies of water, corrections to roads, land use, sports fields, schools, trails in the parks, power lines, water towers, park & rides, sub stations, etc. As others have mentioned there can be a lot more data given what people have tagged it with.
I do appreciate that you think the OSM maps are of better quality. I am involved with it but at times I find them lacking but have been working to improve them in my city as well as in areas where I hunt. It seems that the coverage of Europe is by far better than in the US.
Re:Maybe we can see E10/E15 dead too?
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
By a tad I assume you mean about 10% more just by doing nothing more than getting the fuel air ratio correct (larger jets or injectors) and adjusting the timing. You can get gobs more because you can run much higher boost from a turbo to super charger or by running much higher compression ratio. The myth of ethanol eats your engine is a myth, granted you can't run E85 in an engine not designed for it but E10 is fine. The E10 destroys small engines is also a myth, stupid owners destroy small engines, not E10. Really if you have a limited use engine you really should consider either having it run off of diesel (generator) or top off before putting away for the day. When putting them away for they year you should drain the fuel so it doesn't varnish (even non-oxy gasoline will do this).
Re:It was never worth it to begin with
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. Built a high compression engine and run it at a compression ratio up around 14:1 to 15:1 and you get the same benefit.
It probably wasn't 17.7% from the pump but likely you let the fuel sit for too long and it absorbed some additional water. I have been running E10 in all my small engines (2 stroke and 4 stroke) for years and have never had a problem and I have a lot of small engines. Of course I fill the tank up once I am done so there isn't room for air to get in which prevent condensation and absorption of water. I also drain the fuel once the season is done so it doesn't sit there and go bad and form varnish in the carb. I also fog the engine when putting the equipment away for the year. It sounds to me more like you got the mix wrong for your 2 stroke engine or never bothered to clean out the saw dust after you were done. I haven't ever had an engine seize and I use my chain saw a lot as well as my pressure washer, weed whacker, single stage snow blower, dual stage snow blower, small tiller large tiller, lawn mower, and edger (I think that is all of them). Some of the 2 strokes take 40:1 some 50:1 while the 4 strokes all take regular unleaded. They all have E10 in them as that is all that is available most of this equipment was bought used but I have owned it for the last 7 years and haven't had any problems with fuel.
They reuse energy that would have been wasted in the exhaust to allow more air (and thus more oxygen) into the cylinder
No they don't. I see this incorrect thought from lots of turbo fans as to why turbos are superior to superchargers. They always claim that a turbo recaptures energy from the escaping exhaust where as a supercharger just puts drag on the engine since they are belt or gear driven. The truth is that a turbo puts additional drag on the engine because it adds additional back pressure in the exhaust system that needs to be overcome by the piston during the exhaust stroke. The place where forced induction shines is that it increases the specific output of an engine thus allowing for a smaller engine to put out the required power. This often leads to better MPG because the vehicle is much lighter since you have a much smaller engine (less reciprocating mass and less block to haul around). Ford's EcoBoost is an example of this the turbo didn't make the V6 more efficient, in reality it probably made it less efficient overall but those losses were offset by being able to use a smaller lighter engine so they aren't spinning up as much mass or hauling around a large heavier block.
They also get more power/efficiency out of the same fuel
No. Turbos and superchargers all require additional energy to run which has to come from somewhere, which in the case of a supercharger is from a belt attached to the crank pulley or for a turbo from additional back pressure in the exhaust system. Also both turbos and superchargers will heat up the charge of air which decreases the overall efficiency of the system. This can be abated some by install in intercooler but that also decreases the efficiency of the forced induction system but those losses are offset by the gains in cooling the charge of air. A vehicle with forced induction can however produce the same power and better mileage as naturally aspirated vehicle producing the same amount of power because it is hauling around a smaller lighter engine.
So it's entirely possible that a lower-energy, higher octane fuel can get better mileage with an efficient turbocharged engine
Possible but not likely. If you burned ethanol at the same fuel air ratio as gasoline you would be running very lean and just forcing more air in without also increasing the charge or fuel would only further lean out the mixture. Even with maintaining the same fuel air ratio would result in extra NOx emissions which wouldn't be good. Ideally you would be running at the correct fuel air ratio for ethanol and either running lots of boost or running high compression or both. I would like to see a properly setup E85 only engine producing some amount of power and then a properly setup up gasoline engine producing the same amount of power run in the same vehicle. They would probably both get similar mileage
The days of the old big block (think 427, 455, 454, 500, cubic inch) engines are basically long since past. Virtually of the "large" American V8s today are the 350 (5.7L), 327(5.3L), and 305(5.0L) cubic inch varieties, all of which are small blocks. Granted you will occasionally see special larger displacement engines but those are special order for high performance models or heavy duty pickups.
Octane has nothing to do with energy density of the fuel. It is just that to overcome the loss of energy density by running ethanol you need to run a much higher compression ratio something up in the 14:1 range. Raising the compression ratio increased you carnot cycle efficiency which is what gets you over the initial disadvantage of only having 66% or so the energy of gasoline. To get better MPG and more power you would really be pushing it as it would be marginal at best. What ethanol or methanol really excel at making gobs of power. Go run a proper stoichiometric fuel air ratio, boost it with a turbo or super charger (higher latent heat), crank up the compression ratio, get the tuning right and you will see some impressive gains in power.
And E85 will let you get more power, and comparable MPG, from the same block vs. gasoline precisely because of ethanol's awesome octane rating -- the only catch is, you need to increase the compression ratio to make it happen (which will boost your efficiency enough to compensate the decreased energy content of the fuel) -- but turbocharged engines (which can do that on the fly) are sadly unpopular in America, land of the big-block V8.
True you can get more power or comparable but not at the same time you might be able to get comparable MPG and power and lets not forget the amount of pollution. The problem is that you would need to drastically increase the compression of an engine from the usual 8 or 9 to 1 range to up around 14:1 to get the efficiency gains needed to over come the lack of energy density in ethanol and yes ethanol can do this without worry. At this point you would be near the same power and MPG as you would have been with gasoline but you would now have a very high compression engine that is still burning lean. This leads to all sorts of nasty NOx emissions that the EPA won't allow. Now to get more power just burn it at the correct stoichiometric ratio without increasing compression. If you were just to use a turbocharger or super charger to force more air in the engine without increasing the fuel charge you are just going to further lean out the mixture possibly to the point of making it so it won't burn at all, and if it does it will really produce tons of NOx emissions.
If you want to produce more power run ethanol at the proper mix in a regular engine. If you want to produce lots more power properly setup an engine to run on ethanol. I have probably spent too much time figuring this out since I plan on converting my project car to be a supercharged alcohol burning little monster.
Slashdot Mirror
So your neighbor married your left hand?
They work up until the government decides that the constitution doesn't actually have any limits on government power. The US has entered that phase and depending on what your personal views it probably started somewhere between 10 and 150 years ago
Just think what they would do if I ever decided to get a 1000mm lens for that camera (I do want one of these but that is a lot of money for a very occasional use item) and brought it with me. They probably would think it was a real rocket launcher.
You came so close to the problem with firearms and why they are view as bad. The real problem is too many people do view them as "cool" or "empowering" when in reality they are a tool and need to be treated with the proper respect just like other dangerous tools. I have actually used one of my firearms in personal defense, not against another human but against a wild animal. The loud bang and muzzle flash does wonders for scaring off a wolf at dusk that is coming towards you. I only carry a firearm if I am hunting but I actually have kept up on my Red Cross CPR training and do carry a first aid kit in my car.
Firearms are a tool like anything else. What would you do if there was suddenly a spree of ball-peen hammer attacks. A ball-peen hammer is a very effective tool when used correctly but just like a firearm can inflict grievous bodily harm when used incorrectly or carelessly. The same thing could be said about any number of other tools such as kitchen knives, chainsaws, bows, canoe paddles, plumbing pipe. Also it is more of a culture thing, if you go out to rural areas lots if not most of the population owns firearms. They are frequently used for hunting or dispatching predators and are actually used as tools. There are other countries that have higher gun ownership than the US but don't have the gun crime problem, the Swiss come to mind where everyone has basically been trained in the proper use. The problem is in the US there are too many people who view a firearm as a cock extension instead of as a tool.
But a hammer, hatchet is. I can look around my garage and see tons of tools that are more likely to cause great bodily harm or death than my firearms. I would start with my wire feed welder, oxy-mapp cutting torch, 8lb splitting maul, chain saw, double bit ax, 3lb drilling sledge, 20lb sledge, 24oz framing hammer, hatchet, 5lb cross peen sledge.
Slight more off topic but aren't there any large predatory cats in Alaska? Because of the growing cougar and wolf population in the Minnesota north woods I have started carrying a revolver out in the woods in the predawn and after dusk hours during deer and bear season since I would have a hard time using a rifle if pounced on. During the hunting season here we see similar things people walking down country roads shotgun or rifle in had and the orange cap and vest.
I think the GP meant "It started yesterday"
My understanding is that it was within 100 miles of the border. As far as sources I can offer these after a quick google search:
This one about searches in Tennessee
Or this from the ACLU about the constitution free zone
Or any number of incidents that have occurred. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.
Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs.
Minor correction, they are fine at finding those items if the operator had been trained properly but my experience is that the average TSA agent hasn't given the number of prohibited items I have accidentally brought through. Things like ammunition (rifle and shotgun), knives (multiple times), tools, and lets not forget liquids and gels. Yet "suspicious" items like my old Pentax Spotmatic F with lenses, or a box of magic cards gets me pulled off to the side for extra scrutiny every time.
And that would be a problem because?
Try mailing it from a different post office, in a more conservative wealthy area.
It seems that actions like this do generate a response. The few time I have gotten a response from a representative, other than from my senator to the state senate, was when I made it clear that I would be supporting their challenger in the primary or general election and that they would not be receiving my support in any form because of certain issues. It gets really uncomfortable for them when they are going door to door glad handing and get hit with an informed voter (I did this to my previous representative to the state house who I was not pleased with). This seems to work better for local politicians than for national level ones but with enough people writing and calling it would probably still work.
No disputes there. I haven't played around with that end of those tools so I didn't want to speak to that. I have used the vector and raster input and output features as well as the cartography features as those are what I cared about.
So I am not the only one who has noticed that. When I go on an OSM binge I notice a few days later that Google maps has magically updated with what I entered.
Depends on the area. Besides an individual can do a lot with them. Most of the things shown in Apple Valley, MN that aren't large bodies of water or roads were added by me. This includes buildings, places, parking lots, parking isles, fences, walls, smaller bodies of water, corrections to roads, land use, sports fields, schools, trails in the parks, power lines, water towers, park & rides, sub stations, etc. As others have mentioned there can be a lot more data given what people have tagged it with.
I do appreciate that you think the OSM maps are of better quality. I am involved with it but at times I find them lacking but have been working to improve them in my city as well as in areas where I hunt. It seems that the coverage of Europe is by far better than in the US.
By a tad I assume you mean about 10% more just by doing nothing more than getting the fuel air ratio correct (larger jets or injectors) and adjusting the timing. You can get gobs more because you can run much higher boost from a turbo to super charger or by running much higher compression ratio. The myth of ethanol eats your engine is a myth, granted you can't run E85 in an engine not designed for it but E10 is fine. The E10 destroys small engines is also a myth, stupid owners destroy small engines, not E10. Really if you have a limited use engine you really should consider either having it run off of diesel (generator) or top off before putting away for the day. When putting them away for they year you should drain the fuel so it doesn't varnish (even non-oxy gasoline will do this).
Wrong. Built a high compression engine and run it at a compression ratio up around 14:1 to 15:1 and you get the same benefit.
It probably wasn't 17.7% from the pump but likely you let the fuel sit for too long and it absorbed some additional water. I have been running E10 in all my small engines (2 stroke and 4 stroke) for years and have never had a problem and I have a lot of small engines. Of course I fill the tank up once I am done so there isn't room for air to get in which prevent condensation and absorption of water. I also drain the fuel once the season is done so it doesn't sit there and go bad and form varnish in the carb. I also fog the engine when putting the equipment away for the year. It sounds to me more like you got the mix wrong for your 2 stroke engine or never bothered to clean out the saw dust after you were done. I haven't ever had an engine seize and I use my chain saw a lot as well as my pressure washer, weed whacker, single stage snow blower, dual stage snow blower, small tiller large tiller, lawn mower, and edger (I think that is all of them). Some of the 2 strokes take 40:1 some 50:1 while the 4 strokes all take regular unleaded. They all have E10 in them as that is all that is available most of this equipment was bought used but I have owned it for the last 7 years and haven't had any problems with fuel.
They reuse energy that would have been wasted in the exhaust to allow more air (and thus more oxygen) into the cylinder
No they don't. I see this incorrect thought from lots of turbo fans as to why turbos are superior to superchargers. They always claim that a turbo recaptures energy from the escaping exhaust where as a supercharger just puts drag on the engine since they are belt or gear driven. The truth is that a turbo puts additional drag on the engine because it adds additional back pressure in the exhaust system that needs to be overcome by the piston during the exhaust stroke. The place where forced induction shines is that it increases the specific output of an engine thus allowing for a smaller engine to put out the required power. This often leads to better MPG because the vehicle is much lighter since you have a much smaller engine (less reciprocating mass and less block to haul around). Ford's EcoBoost is an example of this the turbo didn't make the V6 more efficient, in reality it probably made it less efficient overall but those losses were offset by being able to use a smaller lighter engine so they aren't spinning up as much mass or hauling around a large heavier block.
They also get more power/efficiency out of the same fuel
No. Turbos and superchargers all require additional energy to run which has to come from somewhere, which in the case of a supercharger is from a belt attached to the crank pulley or for a turbo from additional back pressure in the exhaust system. Also both turbos and superchargers will heat up the charge of air which decreases the overall efficiency of the system. This can be abated some by install in intercooler but that also decreases the efficiency of the forced induction system but those losses are offset by the gains in cooling the charge of air. A vehicle with forced induction can however produce the same power and better mileage as naturally aspirated vehicle producing the same amount of power because it is hauling around a smaller lighter engine.
So it's entirely possible that a lower-energy, higher octane fuel can get better mileage with an efficient turbocharged engine
Possible but not likely. If you burned ethanol at the same fuel air ratio as gasoline you would be running very lean and just forcing more air in without also increasing the charge or fuel would only further lean out the mixture. Even with maintaining the same fuel air ratio would result in extra NOx emissions which wouldn't be good. Ideally you would be running at the correct fuel air ratio for ethanol and either running lots of boost or running high compression or both. I would like to see a properly setup E85 only engine producing some amount of power and then a properly setup up gasoline engine producing the same amount of power run in the same vehicle. They would probably both get similar mileage
The days of the old big block (think 427, 455, 454, 500, cubic inch) engines are basically long since past. Virtually of the "large" American V8s today are the 350 (5.7L), 327(5.3L), and 305(5.0L) cubic inch varieties, all of which are small blocks. Granted you will occasionally see special larger displacement engines but those are special order for high performance models or heavy duty pickups.
Octane has nothing to do with energy density of the fuel. It is just that to overcome the loss of energy density by running ethanol you need to run a much higher compression ratio something up in the 14:1 range. Raising the compression ratio increased you carnot cycle efficiency which is what gets you over the initial disadvantage of only having 66% or so the energy of gasoline. To get better MPG and more power you would really be pushing it as it would be marginal at best. What ethanol or methanol really excel at making gobs of power. Go run a proper stoichiometric fuel air ratio, boost it with a turbo or super charger (higher latent heat), crank up the compression ratio, get the tuning right and you will see some impressive gains in power.
And E85 will let you get more power, and comparable MPG, from the same block vs. gasoline precisely because of ethanol's awesome octane rating -- the only catch is, you need to increase the compression ratio to make it happen (which will boost your efficiency enough to compensate the decreased energy content of the fuel) -- but turbocharged engines (which can do that on the fly) are sadly unpopular in America, land of the big-block V8.
True you can get more power or comparable but not at the same time you might be able to get comparable MPG and power and lets not forget the amount of pollution. The problem is that you would need to drastically increase the compression of an engine from the usual 8 or 9 to 1 range to up around 14:1 to get the efficiency gains needed to over come the lack of energy density in ethanol and yes ethanol can do this without worry. At this point you would be near the same power and MPG as you would have been with gasoline but you would now have a very high compression engine that is still burning lean. This leads to all sorts of nasty NOx emissions that the EPA won't allow. Now to get more power just burn it at the correct stoichiometric ratio without increasing compression. If you were just to use a turbocharger or super charger to force more air in the engine without increasing the fuel charge you are just going to further lean out the mixture possibly to the point of making it so it won't burn at all, and if it does it will really produce tons of NOx emissions.
If you want to produce more power run ethanol at the proper mix in a regular engine. If you want to produce lots more power properly setup an engine to run on ethanol. I have probably spent too much time figuring this out since I plan on converting my project car to be a supercharged alcohol burning little monster.