This is litesong's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following litesong's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
litesong
Recent Activity
Qinghua Ding is signed off on "sigh-ants" papers with Willie (oil-can) Soon, well-known AGW denier liar whiner, booster of exxon propaganda PR pablum & recipient of million(s?) of oil, energy, & business. QD follows in Soon steps, exclusively looking for non-AGW warming. Hopefully, Soon is retired & money-full, so oil-can companies can pay QD for services rendered.
Why does GreenCarCongress support lying. The oil quantity used to produce ethanol is in great dispute. Furthermore, for a decade the "ethanol in gasoline industry" (along with the EPA) has been given a "get out of jail card" free, as they support the misery of an idea that E10 only loses 2.5% to 3% mpg compared to 100% ethanol-free gasoline(E0). With accurate records over a decade comparing 100% ethanol-free gasoline(E0) & E10, my last five 87 octane engines, show 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% increases, E0 vs. E10. Thousands of drivers with E0 to E10 records show similar E0 advantages. A few have to same numbers as I have. Supposed "technical" GreenCarCongress won't show the obvious inefficiency of 114 octane ethanol used(not burned efficiently) in low 87 octane gasoline engines, showing an obvious bias.
Love EVs, but back to the article, which is only telling what the Ricardo engine has been trying to do to raise efficiency....but fails. Simultaneously, using differing fuels, ranging in octane from 84 to 114, is guaranteed to destroy efficiency. With accurate records over a decade comparing 100% ethanol-free gasoline(E0) & E10, my last five 87 octane engines, show 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% increases, E0 vs. E10. Only when fancy new engines increase efficiency of mixed fuels by 7%-8%, will they be as efficient as ordinary E0 has given in low octane 87 engines for decades. Tho EPA & the "ethanol in gasoline industry" have worked hard to wipe out E0, grassroots pure- gas. org lists 10,325 E0 sources & increasing 1% per month.
The 1 Liter engine, MMMAAAYYYBBBEEE with a turbo. But the 7DCT, is just too expensive if repairs are needed(same with CVTs, tho I love them). Let me have a 6spd. manual & I'll drive it 200,000 miles(& probably repair the turbo sometime).
Love the leaping efficiency of tall wind turbines, extracting stunning amounts of energy from the wind. With the great Brazilian forests falling, hope Honda is "green", locating away from forests & bird flyways.
In my homely 1979 Plymouth Champ(Dodge Colt), 2 valve per cylinder 1.4 liter 65 HP 4, a small 3rd valve operated at low rpms, to add extra swirl for better fuel economy. Sounded a bit theoretical, but worked well, as I featherfooted Champ to low rpm 42mpg average with a high of 50mpg. Champ operated for 22 years, till I sold it. I even saw it operating, 2 years after that. Of course, I paid $4700 for Champ & the diesel Eco Cruze......$26000.....+. At 5.5 times the cost, auto manufacturers have found out how to make BIG money on econo cars.
The Nissan CVTs are friction based as are all mechanical CVTs and they have a continuous slippage....... Posted by: sd ////////// I had an early Nissan CVT in a 2007 Dodge Caliber. Altho it operated with pressures as high as 900psi, I could get mpg as high as the Caliber 5spd. manual transmissions could get. Present CVTs have mpg greater than 5spd manual transmissions. CVTs are operating well past 100,000 miles. Repeating the unknowledgeable myths of the past, does not show the weaknesses of the CVT. Along with the complexity, expense & uneconomical ability to repair transmissions, CVTs, nine & ten speed transmissions share the same problems.
America has a high capacity for inefficient fuel & inefficiency, period. That is why the ethanol industry gets away with jamming a particularly inefficient fuel into our fuel supplies. I have decades of mpg records for 3 vehicles, showing ethanol mpg losses of 8%, 7% & 5%, compared with 100% gasoline(ethanol-free).
Chevron gets fined the largest amount for a moderate amount of gasoline....... without ethanol. Yeah, got to keep the miserable ethanol in the breech. If EPA correctly calculated the mpg decrease that ethanol caused to vehicles in the U.S., ethanol would be discontinued. As for the hundreds of thousands of drivers who support the 7000+ stations still dispensing 100% gasoline(ethanol-free) in the U.S. & Canada, they see no need to punish Chevron. With a decade+ of mpg records for for 3 cars, comparing 100% gasoline to 10% ethanol blends, the cars show 8%, 7% & 5% increase on real gasoline. All engines are quieter, smoother, & have more torque, such that hills are climbed with less downshifting. One car I almost switched to fuel injection to smooth some of its unevenness. However, switching to 100% gasoline made the car smooth. Using 100% gasoline, a vehicle with a 14gallon tank, will drive like it has a 15gallon tank, without installing the larger tank or carrying the extra gallon, but will travel an extra gallon's worth of distance down the road. For my 2013 Elantra, bad mouthed for poor mpg, I'll travel almost 39 miles further down the road using 100% gasoline.
Altho Hyundai seems to have been caught, one way to increase mpg without changing driving habits is to use 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline..... as the EPA, itself, uses to determine EPA mpg ratings. My personal total mpg averages break the EPA highway figures with 10% ethanol blends. However, my averages using 100% pure gasoline, really bust the EPA ratings, averaging 5% to 8+% better mpg than 10% ethanol blends. Engines run smoother, quieter & with a bit extra low end torque. Tho stations selling 100% gasoline have increased over 10% during the last year or so, most all stations in large cities do NOT dispense 100% pure gasoline.
For some years now, China produced as many electric bicycles as internal combustion engined bicycles in efforts to reduce pollution in cities. Bicycle repair shops popped up in my areas to repair electrics. It was as if the Chinese experimented on bicycles to get things up & running for electric trucks & cars.
Agencies have warned not to eat the blackberries along side the highways, because of all the heavy metal & hydrocarbon pollution in roadside soils that are taken up by the root systems. Yes, regenerative braking is a great idea. Still leaves the industrial pollution from tires, vehicle oils & fuels, the various metals & plastics pollutions from rainstorm water, & various roadside things that inadvertently & purposefully, 'leave in-transit vehicles'. Yes, let's fill-up on a continuous basis from the 'free' roadside food growing next to roads. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6R-49NPWDM-CC&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1102818804&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0106de400d588b43b439bce5fd536102
Ditto, Will S & Jim. But don't be wary & weary. Its just the general give & take of lies & truths. Keeps you sharp & on your toes too. Long distance races are more important than the short ones.