Nothing good about Ethanol

Conflict with aircraft fuel systems and Ethanol are many:

http://www.pmawwacs.org/downloads/go...ce_ethanol.pdf

California formulation is only about 5.7 percent Ethanol, so that
Cherokee 235 may get away with it for awhile, especially if it flies
to other airports and refuels with avgas cutting the percentage even
more.

The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
wastes more energy than it makes according to experts. The EPA has
ruled California no longer has to use it. But will be some time
before stocks no longer contain it. That's what I read anyway.

The heat of combution of ethanol is about one third of gasoline, also.

An ADM Corporation scam?

"180pilot" wrote:

The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.


I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
my bs meter starts to twitch.

What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
peer-reviewed studies did they publish?


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On 31-May-2006, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.


I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
my bs meter starts to twitch.

What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
peer-reviewed studies did they publish?



Excellent questions. I note that "experts" also dispute the danger of
global warning, and other "experts" claim that species evolution is a myth.
Yet other "experts" (hired by the tobacco industry, but of course that's
just a coincidence) were unable to find any linkage between smoking and lung
cancer. At one point many "experts" could prove that powered flight was
impossible.

Truth is, if you want to use the Internet as a source of information, a
finely tuned BS meter is an absolute necessity!


-Elliott Drucker

On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:30:40 GMT,
wrote:


On 31-May-2006, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The bottom line is that at the moment producing Ethanol from corn
wastes more energy than it makes according to experts.


I ain't got a dog in this fight, but any time I read a sentence like that,
my bs meter starts to twitch.

What experts? Employed by whom? What are their qualifications? What
peer-reviewed studies did they publish?



Excellent questions. I note that "experts" also dispute the danger of
global warning, and other "experts" claim that species evolution is a myth.
Yet other "experts" (hired by the tobacco industry, but of course that's
just a coincidence) were unable to find any linkage between smoking and lung
cancer. At one point many "experts" could prove that powered flight was
impossible.

Or breaking the sound barrier.


Truth is, if you want to use the Internet as a source of information, a
finely tuned BS meter is an absolute necessity!

Don't blame the Internet. How could it be any more reliable than main
stream science?

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

If we truly had "experts" then opposing camps on any topic would only
find one view available from the experts for support and that is not
the case.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



-Elliott Drucker

"Roger" wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

Cite for the latter, please?

--
Dan

"Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant."
-Mitchell Coffey

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 08:34:49 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.

Cite for the latter, please?

I'll have to hunt for it, but there is a group of scientists that have
formed a group. There is a web site with a listing of their
outstanding members. Now as to how many of them are "real
scientists"? I don't know.

However when even our current leader aknowledges it and our
contribution, it must be serious. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 2-Jun-2006, Roger wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!

-Elliott Drucker

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!


http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

http://talk.ocregister.com/showthrea...&mode=threaded

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

The debate still rages. Because there is so much money to be made in this
and every endeavor, it's hard to be sure what is correct. It's more a matter
of choose a belief and then find the evidence.

Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice Age
which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists" read the
same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was cooling at
an alarming rate.

Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of feet
of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm* here
now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should we
expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a
right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!"

What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years
than it was before?

The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out there
for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with extra bonus
points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone who argues
that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are responsible.

The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the
science is almost worthless.

wrote in message
news:Y0ugg.2384$9f2.1277@trnddc04...

On 2-Jun-2006, Roger wrote:

Even mainstream science will have pro and con. Although there has
been a shift to accepting first global warming and the accepting
mankind's contribution as being significant there is still a strong
camp that say it aint so.


Hogwash!

-Elliott Drucker