Best and worst gasoline in the US?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, Neo jubilantly posted:

During the course of automotive history, there have been LOTS AND LOTS of ideas that failed simply because the metalurgy was so lagging or perhaps computer input was necessary to make the idea work well. So, give me a break. BTW, I am looking at an article from Air Products and Chemicals about a Chevy El Camino powered with hydrogen back in 1967. Fast forwarding to today, there are fleets of busses running hydrogen here in California.

Wankel engines from GM ... no. Wankel engines from MAZDA, yes and *hell yes! Ceramic engines are with us now ... in case you have been living under a bridge. Porche, Mercedes, and others have "ceramic engines" but perhaps the definition of "ceramic" needs to be clarified. I do not recall "Comprex."

You need to get involved with government social programs for *real* wasted money on a HUGE scale.

I read it. The distribution is all gaseous, not liquid.

it clear that the distribution was not liquid. Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Why? They are doing quite well with making it from natural gas or methane.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

You mean the Renesis (sp?) engine in the new Mazda RX-8?

Vuarra

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur. (That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)

Been there done that as well. ;)

mike hunt

Paºul wrote:

It would be interesting to see the comparison between how many BTUs come in as natural gas versus how many BTU's go out after all the reprocessing of it.

What's to weep about? Oh, you must mean the huge federal subsidies that are underwriting this highly inefficient method of vehicle propulsion. Since you are such an expert, why don't you get us the figures on how much energy it takes, per mile of vehicle travel, when you include all the upstream events it requires to get this hydrogen into the fuel tanks of these cars.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, AZGuy jubilantly posted:

> makes it clear that the distribution was not liquid.>>

The article mentions mixing hydrogen with CNG in some instances. ;-)

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, AZGuy jubilantly posted:

How about doing your own research .... o' lazy one. ;-)

In news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, Neo jubilantly posted:

In case *your* memory is weak, only Mazda made Wankels work in production ... which is all that matters. (NSU, Hercules, Suzuki, Norton and others not withstanding.)

Nobody's ceramic coated combustion chambers and pistons ran without water, air, or oil cooling beyond a brief test of the concept.

Scarcely a drop in the bucket compared to social welfare entitlements and education. California is up-side-down $36 Billion all by itself, let alone these few Federal examples:

Details of 2003 budget requests from various Federal agencies:

Commerce Department - $5.3 billion NOAA - $3.3 billion Department of Defense - $379 billion Department of Education - $56.5 billion Department of Energy - $21.9 billion Health & Human Services/FDA - $1.73 billion HUD - $31.5 billion Department of Interior - $10.6 Billion State Department - $25.4 billion Department of Transportation - $59.3 billion Veterans Administration - $58 billion EPA - $7.7 billion

What's a "Wenkel." I've owned a car with a Wankel, but never heard of a "Wenkel."

And if you want pipe dreams that were unstreetable, you'd better aim at the turbines from the '60s and '70s. They even had prototypes of a Corvette turbine as well.

I just checked, and a web site claims that the Miller-cycle engine is a Comprex engine. Another listed turbocharged engines as "Comprex." It seems that there isn't even a standard definition I could find, but the ones that mentioned "Comprex" all had references to engines that did make it into mass production.

I'd never heard of "Comprex" before, but I find it ironic that someone that misspells Wankel twice (even after someone else uses the correct spelling in a post they respond to) insults someone else for their vocabulary.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Can you read prototype?

No, I mean engines with ceramic block and head! Go do your homework and get back later.

A drop of a billion is still a billion wasted. No, thanks.

So, you want to be picky? How about writing it right in your sarcasm, like WÄNKEL?

A pipe-dream is always a pipe dream.

Then read it over. A Miller-cycle engine requires a pressurized charge, whether it's through a turbine propelled by the exhaust gases, a supercharger or a Comprex device.

Again, sharpen your reading skills or lose the ignorant references you've consulted.

It sure did, for a couple of years in a handful of Diesel engines, primarily.

And I find it ironic that someone who's never heard of somthing thinks to be knowledgeable about it after reading a couple of web pages about it...

No _liquid_ hydrogen involved.

Low pressure liquid hydrogen... it is to laugh.

Why bother? If you have natural gas or methane, just use that instead.

*snicker*. I'll believe the problems with seal and rotor tip degradation were overcome AFTER the new engine has been on the road more than a few years. This is just marketing hype.

Anyway, the rotary engine simply doesn't get you a big overall advantage over piston engines. Mazda uses the design as a product differentiator, mainly.

I never claimed to be knowledgeable about it. I just reported what I found. It seems that your reading comprehension is about as good as your knowledge of the Wankel. You've just been spouting that everyone else is wrong, but provided no information. Please define "Comprex" or at least point us to a web site that does explain it in the manner you like..

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Without any critical thinking...

Just point in any of my postings in this thread your evidence is for this statement.

Not everyone else, just you...

Do your homework yourself.

I picked Comprex as an example of a hyped technology that was touted as the next greatest thing with no compelling evidence or even contrary evidence, as fuel-cell nowadays, which is just nowhere to be seen today. If you can't understand this and insists on picking how to spell this or that or how this or that technology really works, start another thread.

IIRC, Chrysler were going to release a turbine, and scrapped it *DAYS* before introduction to the North American market as a condition of the loan the US Gov't gave them. Apparently, the serious problem with a turbine was heat dissipation, and they had that solved as well. No, I'm not one for conspiracies, but I certainly could see the USA telling Chrysler to stop with these technologies lest GM and Ford whine about how the USA were funding new technology rather than supporting an American company.

Too bad. I'd love to see something the size of a Neon (or Metro!!) getting ~250 BHP, burning the greenies favourite ethanol

Vuarra

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur. (That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)