94 octane vs 87 octane?!?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

MOBS

The Mad Scientist
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
122
Location
Central Mississippi
corn is many things....homemade cream corn is just mmmmmmmmm...........fuel grade corn is fuel, food grade corn used as fuel is a waste....there, that's my say in this matter that i randomly pulled outta the air for the most part. :p
 

Tempted

Banned
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
16
Just no point in ethanol in our fuel. Again, less power output and raises our food prices. It has 0 benefits. I don't get it.
 

Blue95

I'm Awesome
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
1,439
Reaction score
33
Location
Union, MO
Considering there are much better and cheaper alternatives being developed, using US corn as fuel and having to import corn from Mexico is very dumb.
 

Chris

OBS Fallen One
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
433
Reaction score
14
Location
SC/KY
Corn is food.

Less than 2% of corn harvested is suitable for human consumption, so I don't see your point. The rest is used in every industry imaginable, transportation fuels being one(but not the largest).
 

Chris

OBS Fallen One
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
433
Reaction score
14
Location
SC/KY
Just no point in ethanol in our fuel. Again, less power output and raises our food prices. It has 0 benefits. I don't get it.

Yes there is, you're confusing ethanol as an additive with corn-derived ethanol that we use because of a strong lobby from special interests. Industry-grade corn is actually a poor source of ethanol, but it's what we use so that's that. Other technologies to derive ethanol will eventually supplant the need for corn but that's still a few years away. Brazil is a fantastic example of just how great it is for a motor fuel though. They've had high blends (and even 100%) of ethanol for decades due to their readily available sources. It's going to be with us for the foreseeable future because for one, we all want clean air. Reformulated gasoline is better for the environment when it leaves the tailpipe. Agents once used in those blends in years past were HIGHLY toxic, to the point where several major rivers in California for example were virtually devoid of fauna as a result of accidents. Ethanol takes energy to produce, but it's well worth it in the long run. If you'd like to see the effects of low quality gasoline and lax emissions standards, just visit any major city away from the coast in China during August. I recommend Wuhan. Great place to visit except on days where you can't see two blocks for the air pollution, much of which comes from vehicle emissions.

Comparing the energy output of one unit of gasoline versus one unit of ethanol is a little apples to oranges to be honest. Sure there is less energy if the concentration is identical, but that's not how combustion works. Lamda is Lamda regardless of the fuel blend, so you have to get out of the mindset that straight gasoline is "better" from an energy outout standpoint. As with everything else, an engine must be tuned for the fuel being used. Modern vehicles are able to do this over a much broader spectrum than older ones, which in turn reveals itself on an engine dyno when you start comparing fuel blends. Tuned properly, an engine running E85 will produce substantially more torque and thus horsepower versus an equally equipped engine operating on an unblended gasoline. If said engine was designed with full time ethanol use in mind, the disparity would be even greater and the difference in fuel consumption under light load would be much smaller. BTU isn't everything, actually I hate using that as a descriptor because it's so easily misunderstood. Factor in cost of the fuel and total power output and you'll see why I vouch for ethanol (not necessarily the corn variety) so much. It really is all that and a bag of chips when it comes to renewable fuel.
 

slowburb

all motor
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
676
Location
Louisiana
Less than 2% of corn harvested is suitable for human consumption, so I don't see your point. The rest is used in every industry imaginable, transportation fuels being one(but not the largest).

Roundabout 10% domestic harvest winds up metabolized by human beings. Sure, 2% directly, and another 8% indirectly in the form of oils, sweeteners, starches, etc. Even engineers in the petrochemical pseudoscience can be wrong. This is only human food...which is only a portion of the near 54% (53.8% ) that is made into turds by some animal, which is then in some cases, eaten by humans. The irony is lethal here, considering that corn "not fit for human consumption" is fed to animals that we in turn eat or even drink from. Bioengineering...another pseudoscientific profiteering venture masquerading as the wave of the future.

Corn is food. This just in...almost 54% of corn is food. (not including what is exported)
 

Chris

OBS Fallen One
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
433
Reaction score
14
Location
SC/KY
Roundabout 10% domestic harvest winds up metabolized by human beings. Sure, 2% directly, and another 8% indirectly in the form of oils, sweeteners, starches, etc. Even engineers in the petrochemical pseudoscience can be wrong. This is only human food...which is only a portion of the near 54% (53.8% ) that is made into turds by some animal, which is then in some cases, eaten by humans. The irony is lethal here, considering that corn "not fit for human consumption" is fed to animals that we in turn eat or even drink from. Bioengineering...another pseudoscientific profiteering venture masquerading as the wave of the future.

Corn is food. This just in...almost 54% of corn is food. (not including what is exported)

Pseudoscience, eh? :lol:

Listen, you guys are smart enough to understand it's not all a liberal conspiracy to turn all of our food into fuel. Everything I've said and much more is all out there, you just have to take the initiative to find it and explore for yourself. Oh, and turn off Fox News. :crazy:
 

slowburb

all motor
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
676
Location
Louisiana
Pseudoscience, eh? :lol:

Listen, you guys are smart enough to understand it's not all a liberal conspiracy to turn all of our food into fuel. Everything I've said and much more is all out there, you just have to take the initiative to find it and explore for yourself. Oh, and turn off Fox News. :crazy:

I mean nothing against you personally Chris. Science is based on observable phenomena. That being said, the politics in science does interfere with good science. Scientists with agendas are part of the problem. Good science requires an open mind, and the ability to accept data and conclusions that don't support your hypothesis. But, egos usually get in the way.

Think about this with regard to science. "Things are true until they're not"

This is a very thought provoking statement. We have universal constants in this universe. The charge on an electron, the speed of light in a vacuum, the force of gravity between two objects, pi, Boltzman's constant, etc. These constants do not change in the observable universe. So, they may be considered "truth".

In another universe, that began with another set of initial conditions, these constants may be very different, but they are not observable to us. Science is no longer science. It is political. If you want your grant money you will do "science" like the people with the money want you to.

Engineering is the same. When there is a industrial catastrophe, who does the investigation and writes the reports on the investigation? Politicians not engineers. Reports about public safety written by people who have no working knowledge of the systems they are investigating. Engineering is simply the application of scientific principles to man made structures. Engineers should not take this as an insult, it is a very necessary discipline.

This leads me to stating that people believe scientists work in the realm of truth. "Truth" is a subject for philosophy. Facts and evidence are supposed to be the bases of the science, to be used to prove theories. Just about every scientific fact has superseded a previous scientific fact. There has always been too much politics/religion/societal pressure on science and it will continue. Through out history society has always hammered the evidence to fit the accepted "scientific truth" of the time (see Galileo).

No fox news here, unless I can't get enough laughs and chuckles elsewhere.
 

MOBS

The Mad Scientist
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
122
Location
Central Mississippi
if we turn all our food into fuel....we will starve, or will we evolve into zombies and omnomnom everyone else?! mmmmmm, i can think of a couple girls i'd like to omnomnom............brb bathroom :p
 

Blue95

I'm Awesome
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
1,439
Reaction score
33
Location
Union, MO
We grow so much corn for industrial use we have to import corn from MExico for consuming. Brazil uses Sugarcane for their fuel, not corn.
We are currently working on using switchgrass and weeds of the like to use as fuel instead of corn.
 
Top