Searching \ for '[OT] Why Ethanol?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+ethanol
Search entire site for: 'Why Ethanol?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Why Ethanol?'
2008\01\03@164701 by James Newton

face picon face
www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?page=2

Very well summarized op-ed, from a very conservative magazine, that explains
why politicians are so hot to require Ethanol fuel production when the
current system actually requires as much or more fossil fuels to produce a
mile of travel from Ethanol than from just traveling that mile by burning
gasoline.

Short answer: Corporate welfare. The big winners are ADM (fertilizer),
Monsanto (GM Roundup Ready corn), Ford (E85 trucks), and BP (another major
contributor to the Bush campaign) among many others.

And how are they getting away with it? You're letting them.

There is no doubt that better systems could be developed which will increase
the yield or provide other source crops, but as far as I can tell, that
research is not being funded; the mandate for more Ethanol is simply that: A
mandate. Hopefully, the parties involved will fund that research, but in the
mean time, the extra goes from my bottom line (in the form of higher gas and
food prices) onto theirs.

--
James


2008\01\03@223732 by John Gardner

picon face
.
> And how are they getting away with it? You're letting them.

That's a little rough on Russell & Jinx, don'cha think?

OTOH, Russell was here recently, and since anyone can register to vote
in Califrisco I suppose he has only himself to
blame... Jinx, well, he's probably got it coming...

Some guy off-list

2008\01\03@225636 by James Newton

face picon face
Yeah....

I'm sorry...

As an old man, I find I get grumpy some times.

My bad.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
John Gardner
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 19:37
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Why Ethanol?

.
> And how are they getting away with it? You're letting them.

That's a little rough on Russell & Jinx, don'cha think?

OTOH, Russell was here recently, and since anyone can register to vote
in Califrisco I suppose he has only himself to
blame... Jinx, well, he's probably got it coming...

Some guy off-list

2008\01\03@233805 by John Gardner

picon face
A take on related matters by a retired ME prof,
mostly written before the current uproar...

Scroll down the right side to "The Corn-Hog ratio"
link.

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/index.htm

Jack

2008\01\04@000216 by Jinx

face picon face
> OTOH, Russell was here recently, and since anyone can register
> to vote in Califrisco I suppose he has only himself to blame... Jinx,
> well, he's probably got it coming...

Tch tch, you take the afternoon off to re-model the frog's house
and look what you miss

The finger of blame can be pointed squarely at ..... whoever cancelled
Scooby Doo. In fact, I'll be so bold as to put it to you that the instances
of 'people getting away with things' have increased as the number of
plucky resourceful crime-solving teenagers (or "meddling kids and their
blasted dog" as the ne'er-do-wells come to know them as) has decreased

Can't see the Famous Five putting up with this energy nonsense. And I'll
bet they'd root out some drug users and homosexuals too. Then it's off
to Mrs Miggins for a slap-up meal and lashings of ginger beer before the
next exciting adventure

Think about it

Meh, you say you will but you won't

2008\01\04@012909 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:00 PM, Jinx wrote:

> The finger of blame can be pointed squarely at ..... whoever cancelled
> Scooby Doo. In fact, I'll be so bold as to put it to you that the  
> instances
> of 'people getting away with things' have increased as the number of
> plucky resourceful crime-solving teenagers (or "meddling kids and  
> their
> blasted dog" as the ne'er-do-wells come to know them as) has decreased


Crime doesn't pay, but crime-stopping gets you Scooby Snacks!  ;-)

--
Nate Duehr
natespamKILLspamnatetech.com



2008\01\04@044221 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> OTOH, Russell was here recently, and since anyone can
>> register
>> to vote in Califrisco I suppose he has only himself to
>> blame... Jinx,
>> well, he's probably got it coming...

> Tch tch, you take the afternoon off to re-model the frog's
> house
> and look what you miss

James lives in the eternal now, as all good engineers do.
"Now" is/was/shall be 2003 for the purposes of the above.

I have been/am in Taiwan and China since and willbe/am in
Hong Kong from tomorrow and China the same again for a
weekish from this Sunday on.
Not that I imply infer suggest or whatever by any of the
above that the aforementioned special administrative
district is not also expl, and impl icitly an intergral part
of China. Nor, while we were/are/shall be on the subject, or
not, an unmentioned largish island off the coast, which
shall be unquestionably, as opposed to questionably as is
the case at present, in some minds only, again part of said
nation again soon after the events of Europe 1988ish repeat
themselves  in that area and/or maybe before then but less
likely so.

Need more sleep :-).


   Russell


> Can't see the Famous Five ...

"Five go mad on mescaline" was interesting.
Who would have thought that lettuce could be so potent.


Timmy.




2008\01\04@052103 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:12 AM, Apptech wrote:
>
> I have been/am in Taiwan and China since and willbe/am in
> Hong Kong from tomorrow and China the same again for a
> weekish from this Sunday on.


Hey!  I take it that means that you figured out your preferred  
solution for remote access to your home machines and/or files while  
you are traveling.

What did you decide on, in the end, out of curiosity, Russell?

> Need more sleep :-).


Sleep is for the dead.  :-)  Carry on.  (GRIN)

--
Nate Duehr
.....nateKILLspamspam.....natetech.com



2008\01\04@052234 by Peter P.

picon face
Hi James,

thanks for forwarding that James.

My take on this:

1. The type of ethanol pushed by the US administration is the type that is mixed with gasoline. This both prevents the use of high compression engines (15:1 and above) possible with watery (!) alcohol and the reuse or reblending of the fuel for other purposes. It may also support the other industries you have indicated. The type of ethanol pushed by others is the kind that is not mixed with any petroleum products. The lie about 'difficult cold starting' can be proven wrong by anyone who has flick-started a model aircraft engine (that runs on methanol) in any cold January. And the traditional additive to ease cold starts in gas and diesel engines is ether, another more or less natural non-oil derived product.

2. The main crop used to produce Ethanol is not corn, it is sugar cane and beet, followed by potatoes. The US uses a lot of corn for that because they already produce a lot of corn and have the technology in place. Also most large scale Ethanol schemes concentrate on algae grown in the sea. (you probably already know this, but here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil)

3. The nations whose climates favor them for the production of crops suitable for Ethanol manufacture do not have the resources to buy into American high tech agricultural products.

4. The bullshit about the amount of gasoline consumed to create a unit of Ethanol applies entirely to the forced type of growth and transportation seen in the US. Elsewhere local resources are used massively for this and the numbers look different. For example most sugar cane and beet based sugar and Ethanol factories use the canes and other vegetal remains as fuel to power part of the factory. Of course they are too far away from the US to be usable as such.

5. Genetically engineered crops are seriously frowned upon everywhere outside the US. In Canada there were several major scandals involving GE crops invading neighboring fields and ending up displacing (!!) other types of crops (soy), including at least one farmer who tried to reuse the 'new' crops that landed on his soil and was sued and lost to Monsanto. Knowledge about this has spread and will likely impact any further GE crop use VERY seriously. While Canada, which owns fantastic natural resources, somehow repeatedly ends up playing flexible (and deep bowing) nice little brother to the US, can probably afford to display such stupidity as shown in the GE soy crops case from time to time, other countries cannot.

6. With few countries as exceptions, E85 and other gasoline 'blended' alcohol fuel is not mandatory and the authorities are not very eager to introduce it. Also should the fuel cell business take off, ethanol and methanol can be used directly in some of them, while E85 cannot. The 'blending' business is a license to steal for any country. At least in Brazil, where Exx is the fuel of choice, the price is changed to reflect the energy content of the fuel as it is blended in accordance with the seasonal yield in Ethanol and grain prices. That is about the only place on this planet where the price accounts dynamically in some way for the varying energy content in some way at the gas pump, as far as I know.

For these reasons and other, I consider E85 and other similar blends to be a modern analog of poor quality moonshine of the type sold to American Indians once upon a time. The 'real' thing is double distilled Ethanol with 5-30% water in it (and the water only makes it work better in high compression engines). And no, it won't easily run in a stock engine. But if you have any doubt about what it can do, try to remember your model aircraft, boat or car, or Indy races. Because all those engines run (or ran - Indy cars now again use gas) on straight methanol.

thanks for writing,
Peter


     
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

2008\01\04@083646 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> While Canada, which owns fantastic natural resources,
> somehow repeatedly ends up playing flexible (and deep
> bowing) nice little brother to the US, can probably afford
> to display such stupidity as shown in the GE soy crops
> case from time to time, other countries cannot.
/>

NZ can't afford it, but we do it anyway. For reasons far
beyond rational understanding (but no doubt tied up with
politics and our PM's long term international political
aspirations (head of the UN) our country is one of a small
cartel of international "hard men" who side with the US and
Canada and muddy the genetic engineering waters by vetoing
actions that a very very large majority of others would
otherwise take. Most NZers (by a large majority) are
blissfully unaware that NZ is seen as a pariah on the
international ge scene.

If we ignore (which one should never do) metaphysical
aspects then GE is *the* biggest threat bar none to the
continuation of the human race. The only threats of similar
magnitude (but not magnitude*occurence_probability product)
are a supra dinosaur killer size impact or a gamma ray
burster in a closish star system. Both are statistically far
less likely to wipe us all out than random small teams of
variably qualified people playing with machinery that we so
far understand a few percent of the workings of, at best.
(Anyone wishing to take exception to that assessment should
find out what Craig Venter thinks.)(If you don't know who he
is and / or care what he thinks then your exception taking
would be of questionable value :-) ).




       Russell




2008\01\04@085905 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Hi Peter,

Don't forget that for model engines you need a plug that you have to heat up
with electricity before flicking the engine. After then it consumes enough
heat energy to keep the motor running, however, during cold winter days it
still needs to be heated by electricity during the entire running. You can
also cheat with added nitro, which generates more heat (and power) or with
added oil which reduce heat (and power) but I do not want to set up
different mixtures for my car for different weather conditions :-)

Also methanol is highly poisonous, even inhaling or touching it is likely to
badly affecting your health. It produces formic acid in your body and kills
nerve cells making you blind or even killing you. I would not work on petrol
station if the fuel contains this material - I choose kill brain cells by
alcohol instead <grin>

Tamas





On Jan 4, 2008 10:07 AM, Peter P. <EraseMEplpeter2006spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\04@112646 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
James,

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:47:04 -0800, James Newton wrote:

{Quote hidden}

These days there's usually an easy way to see why politicians are doing what they do: "Follow the money"!  :-)

Interestingly, Ethanol is completely unheard-of on this side of the pond.  Greenness is being encouraged in areas such as saving electricity (CFL lightbulbs, home
insulation, energy-efficient appliances) and by the ever-rising prices of fuel  (Petrol reached 99.9p/litre at my local supermarkets while I was in the 'States, which is
more than twice the price you're paying, despite the rises you've seen!), and one of the largest energy suppliers, nPower, just announced a 13% rise in the price of
gas, and 17% in the price of electricity, "due to the rising price of oil".  Incidentally, we have virtually no coal-fired power stations nowadays - they were converted
to gas during the heyday of the North Sea Gas era (sadly almost over now).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\01\04@123620 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:10:07 +0000 (GMT), "Howard Winter" wrote:

>James,
>
> snip
>
>  (Petrol reached 99.9p/litre at my local supermarkets while I was in the 'States, which is
>more than twice the price you're paying, despite the rises you've seen!),
>
> snip
>

I understand that the tax levels on fuel are quite high on your side
of the pond but I don't know the rate.

How much of that 99.9p/litre price is the tax?

In the US, we have a federal tax that's the same in all of the states
and a separate state tax that varies from one state to another.


Regards, Bob

2008\01\04@132249 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I think the toxic aspect of methanol is exaggerated. I was concerned about
it when I got seriously interested in glow fueled model airplanes in 1991. I
have been subjected to frequent dousings and misting ever since then with no
observable ill effects.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
      around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2008\01\04@175358 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Hi John,

Same here, I inhaled it many times then I was advised to avoid that as they
said the body is able to compensate the loss of nerve cells for a while,
then when it's no longer possible - when it's observable - it's too late to
help. When I refuelling I always try to turn my head away and also wearing
gloves just in case - I neither want to prove nor denial this on my body if
you know what I mean.

73,
Tamas


On Jan 4, 2008 6:25 PM, John Ferrell <johnferrellspamspam_OUTearthlink.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\01\04@211914 by Peter P.

picon face
Apptech <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
> If we ignore (which one should never do) metaphysical
> aspects then GE is *the* biggest threat bar none to the
> continuation of the human race.

Meanwhile ge enhanced crops have proved that they can jump fields and that the
current safeguards are not funny, but scary, even by Hollywood B movie
standards. GE crops should only be viable when sprayed with magic sauce from
time to time, not the other way around, the way it's done now.

Fluorescent pigs are not a threat to the human race, however a superbug
engineered in some mad lab certainly is, and the fluorescent pigs prove that
it's possible. Not to mention other horrors, such as killer diseases tailored to
attack only certain human genotypes.

Peter P.


2008\01\05@104416 by Dave Lagzdin

picon face
On 04/01/2008, John Ferrell <@spam@johnferrellKILLspamspamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I think the toxic aspect of methanol is exaggerated. I was concerned about
> it when I got seriously interested in glow fueled model airplanes in 1991.
> I
> have been subjected to frequent dousings and misting ever since then with
> no
> observable ill effects.
>
> John Ferrell    W8CCW
> "

Your hair turned white-ish,  didn't it?
:)

2008\01\12@083957 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bob,

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:35:58 -0800, Bob Barr wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Oh yes!

> How much of that 99.9p/litre price is the tax?

I don't know for sure - there are two elements, "Road fuel duty", which is in pence per litre, and VAT with is 17.5% on everything, including the duty.  Liquified
Petroleum Gas (LPG, basically propane, I think) is available from some petrol stations, and is almost exactly half of the price of petrol, because there is either less
or no road fuel duty on it, so that gives an indication.  The government have said that if LPG takes off to the point where there's a significant reduction in the use
of petrol (and so the duty raised) they will raise the duty on LPG.  GIven the cost of a dual-fuel conversion, and the loss of space due to the LPG tank, the takeup
of it isn't great, despite being fairly widely available for a decade or so.

> In the US, we have a federal tax that's the same in all of the states
> and a separate state tax that varies from one state to another.

Well we're just the one State, so it's the same all over the UK (the duty and tax, not the price, which varies by about 10% from the cheapest to dearest places, with
Motorway services being the dearest, supermarkets the cheapest).

My local ASDA supermarket, the cheapest place I know of, is now charging £1.009 per litre, about US$7.65 per US gallon.

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\01\12@084505 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
John,

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:37:11 -0800, John Gardner wrote:

> .
> > And how are they getting away with it? You're letting them.
>
> That's a little rough on Russell & Jinx, don'cha think?
>
> OTOH, Russell was here recently, and since anyone can register to vote
> in Califrisco I suppose he has only himself to
> blame...

I don't believe this is true - I have friends who've lived in California for about 15 years (they're Brits with Green Cards), and they can't vote because they're
foreigners.

They do have to pay taxes though, which seems to contradict a saying which I believe was popular over there a couple of hundred years ago!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\01\12@121923 by John Gardner

picon face
Hi Howard -

Believe it or not, not only is there no citizenship test
for voter registration in California, it is against the law
for Registrars to ask.

The registration form has a box which you check to
assure posterity that you are a citizen. In the here &
now no checking of your statement is required, or in-
deed allowed.

Russell has only to provide a local address & he's in.

regards, Jack

On 1/12/08, Howard Winter <KILLspamHDRWKILLspamspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\12@145624 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face

John Gardner wrote:

> The registration form has a box which you check to assure posterity that
> you are a citizen. In the here & now no checking of your statement is
> required, or in- deed allowed.

Are you sure? The instructions for the voter registration form
<http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/english.pdf> say:

"6. ID Number: When you register to vote, you must provide your California
driver¢s license or California identification card number, if you have one.
If you do not have a driver¢s license or ID card, you must provide the last
four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN). If you do not include
this information, you will be required to provide identification when you
vote."

I don't know, but I think that a NZ passport is not a suitable form of
identification for voting in CA.


> Russell has only to provide a local address & he's in.

This latter statement seems to contradict your former statement. He has to
provide a local address and lie about his citizen status, doesn't he? This,
among other things, can impact future visa requests he may be making.

This is not to say it's impossible, but it requires certain personality
traits and an approach to life organization that not everybody has.

Gerhard

2008\01\12@153158 by John Gardner

picon face
Folks here illegally to begin with (millions) may
not be losing much sleep over future visa status.

And who said anything about telling the truth?

Not wanting to provide a script for evildoers,
I'll admit to obfuscating a step, but there is a
gaping security hole in the process which is
evident to anyone familiar with it, or, more
likely, has a mentor/sponsor so inclined...

Hint: Motor-Voter

best regards, Jack


On 1/12/08, Gerhard Fiedler <RemoveMElistsTakeThisOuTspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\13@062554 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
John Gardner wrote:

> Not wanting to provide a script for evildoers, I'll admit to obfuscating
> a step, but there is a gaping security hole in the process

Of course... there's no federal ID -- which isn't likely to change, as long
as so many people trust the federal government less than the illegals next
door :)

Gerhard

2008\01\14@100011 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

As Howard mentions, our tax is made up from a fixed portion which
depends on the type of fuel, and Value Added Tax at 17.5%.  What really
annoys people is that VAT applies to the fixed fuel duty, i.e. they tax
the tax.

2007 fuel duty (as of 1 October 2007) in the United Kingdom is:

   * 50.35 pence per litre for ultra-low sulphur unleaded petrol/diesel
   * 53.65 pence per litre for conventional unleaded petrol
   * 56.94 pence per litre for conventional diesel
   * 30.35 pence per litre for bio-diesel and bio ethanol
   * 16.49 pence per kg for gas other than natural gas (LPG)
   * 13.70 pence per kg for natural gas used as road fuel.
   * 9.69 pence per litre for rebated gas oil (red diesel)
   * 9.29 pence per litre for rebated fuel oil


Assuming ultra-low sulphur unleaded:

Cost prior to VAT = 99.9/1.175 = 85.02p
Cost prior to fuel duty = 85.02 - 50.35 = 34.67p

This gives an equivalent tax rate of (99.9 - 34.67)/34.67 * 100 ~ 188%

The post-tax cost of diesel is slightly higher than unleaded now, and
the tax rate is quite a bit higher, making them less attractive than
they used to be.  Also note the comparatively low tax rate on LPG, which
is gaining popularity here.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2008\01\15@123236 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Mike,

Thanks for the details...

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:00:15 -0000, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Interesting - the duty on Diesel is more than Petrol - I didn't know that!

Notice that the duties on the liquified gasses are per kg, and assuming they are lighter than water (I believe they are, for example petrol has a Specific Gravity of
about 0.8, I think) then the duty is possibly about 25% higher than it appears.

What's the difference between the last two?  I'd have thought that red diesel would be fuel oil rather than gas oil?  I always thought there was *no* duty on red
diesel - funny how these myths arise!  :-)  Is there such as thing as "red" petrol, I wonder?  It seems a right pain to pay duty for something that isn't going to be
used in a vehicle, such as in garden equipment (mowers, strimmers, chainsaws) or in generators.  Cheap petrol generators are easy to find, but diesel ones seem to
be about three times the price, so to get one to use red diesel would mean a lot of use before it pays for the difference in the running costs.  I calculated the cost
of using a small (2kW) petrol generator as about UK£1 per kWh, and this was some time ago and as we can see, about 2/3rds of this is duty that isn't due!  :-)

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\01\16@043558 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Howard,

Don't forget that diesel engines have a much higher torque than a petrol
one, even at a very low rpm, that's why tracks, ships, trains etc use
diesel. It means less fuel consumption and longer lifetime. My old car for
example has a 2.5 litre, 6 cyl turbo diesel and the torque is around 320nm.
The same with a brand new petrol is somewhere of 200nm.  For generators,
lawnmowers, cars the rule is the same: if you use it much, then you save
fuel (not just the lower price of that) and also the maintenance costs are
lower compared to a petrol one, but if you use it rarely it might not worth
the initial investment.

Tamas




On 1/15/08, Howard Winter <RemoveMEHDRWspamTakeThisOuTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2008\01\16@152219 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Don't forget that diesel engines have a
> much higher torque than a petrol one,
> even at a very low rpm ...

Be careful of phrasing things in that manner - it canm be
misleading.
Torque is essentially "Horsepower per RPM" < convert to
favourite units>.

ie For a given power and torque at a given RPM, if you
produce the same power at half the RPM you double the
torque, and if you produce it at twice the RPM you halvee
the torque.

So, saying that "diesel engines make more power than petrol
engines" (ignoring the fact that it is an ill defined
statement) is the same as saying that diesel engines make
their power at lower speeds than (comparable) petrol
engines. This may (or may not) be true, but it gives a
better indication about what is being claimed than saying
thatv they "have more torque".

Useful rule of thumb.

   Torque x RPM = power

           Torque in kg.m
           Power in Watts.

About 5% wrong.
Based on

   Power (Watt)  = 2 x Pi x Torque (kg x g x m) x RPM/60 x

The 2Pi.g and the 60 ALMOST cancel.



           Russell


> My old car for
example has a 2.5 litre, 6 cyl turbo diesel and the torque
is around 320nm.
The same with a brand new petrol is somewhere of 200nm.
/>

*IF* they produce the same power then this means that the
petrol engine produces it at 320/200 = 60% higher speed than
the diesl.



2008\01\16@164651 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

> Useful rule of thumb.

For some values of "useful" :)

>     Torque x RPM = power
>
>             Torque in kg.m
>             Power in Watts.

FWIW, I don't know any measurement system in current use where torque is
measured in kg m. There has been one in use where torque was measured in kp
m (which would have a numeric value close to what kg m could mean if it
were torque :), but I'm not sure there are many on this list who have heard
of it. In any case, there's probably no place where you find torque
specified or graphed in kg m.

Currently, at least in the realm where one talks about kg and m, torque is
measured in N m. And in that system, the rule is not really useful.  

> Based on
>
>     Power (Watt)  = 2 x Pi x Torque (kg x g x m) x RPM/60 x
>
> The 2Pi.g and the 60 ALMOST cancel.

While this is correct, the thing is that after you cancel out the g (which
is part of the torque), the "torque" that remains is no torque anymore. Not
in units, not in numbers, not in meaning.

So given that one has to do some scaling anyway, it's possibly more useful
to give the (approximate) scaling factor:

 P [W] = speed [rpm] * torque [Nm] / 10

or

 P [hp] = speed [rpm] * torque [Nm] / 7000
 P [hp] = speed [rpm] * torque [lbf ft] / 5200

Gerhard

2008\01\16@180233 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Yes that's true, however, diesel and petrol works different. On diesel the
amount of air is always the same while the amount of fuel is changed
(quality controlled), while on a petrol the quality of the mixture is the
same while the amount of it changed (quantity controlled). Maybe it has been
improved a bit for modern engines using injectors and turbo chargers for
both type, but the principal should be still the same. It means that for a
diesel the higher the rotation speed the higher power coming out from, while
a petrol has nice a curve, where there is a well seen optimum speed when the
torque is the highest - till and from that point the outcome power is less
and less even though the rotation is higher. With a diesel the torque is not
much less at slow rotation and it graduately increasing with the speed till
it falls apart. So when we talk about horse power we have to keep in mind
that for a petrol they give this number for that optimal rotation speed -
you can see that number in the brochure sometimes.

However, because of the same engine size of petrol spins much faster than
diesel, petrol engines are much "powerful". My engine for example spins
around 1500 rpm when driving at 90km/h (55mph), but it has an automatic gear
box which is very comfortable but the ratio is far from the optimal. In the
opposite, my father's car (which is a Ford Mondeo - and Ford has a
reputation of low rpm engines) spins almost the double at that speed with a
manual gear. It can easily reach 180 km/h where the engine spins somewhere
around 6k rpm - that would kill my diesel engine instantly :-)

Tamas



On 1/16/08, Gerhard Fiedler <listsEraseMEspam.....connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\16@184347 by John Gardner

picon face
> On diesel the amount of air is always the same ,,,

In the real world volumetric efficiency of IC engines varies
with rpm - And of course with boost, if fitted.

> there is a well seen optimum speed when the
torque is the highest - till and from that point the outcome power is less...

Not so. In normally-aspirated spark-ignition engines torque will  peak
at the rpm at which volumetric efficiency begins to decline. Power,
however, will continue to increase with RPM until Vol Eff decreases
past the point where increased RPM do not compensate for torque
loss.

The same applies to diesels, although it is much less noticeable because
most diesels are RPM-limited well below the speed at which VEff starts to
fall off.

best regards, Jack


On 1/16/08, Tamas Rudnai <EraseMEtamas.rudnaispamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\01\16@225125 by Justin Richards

face picon face
One of Gmails Sponsored links for this [OT] conversation

Use Water As Fuel easywatercar.com/2books.htm?hop=productcb
Safely Run Your Car On Water Easy Avoid Rising Gas Costs !
Water4Gas.com/2books.htm

I've ordered mine:)

Justin

2008\01\17@040415 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>So, saying that "diesel engines make more power than petrol
>engines" (ignoring the fact that it is an ill defined
>statement) is the same as saying that diesel engines make
>their power at lower speeds than (comparable) petrol
>engines. This may (or may not) be true, but it gives a
>better indication about what is being claimed than saying
>thatv they "have more torque".

I would agree with Russell, but would go further and say that the statement
about diesel engines having more torque at lower speeds 'ain't necessarily
so'.

The 1.9L diesel engine in my Ford Focus has less low speed torque than the
one in the previous 1.9L VW Golf I had. The Golf could putter along suburban
roads in a higher gear than the Focus will, and it is not just the
subsequent gear train ratios, the engine note is different. The motor in the
Focus is designed to be much more performance oriented, so it is more like a
petrol engine.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...