Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) From: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Great American Gas Out Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003081052450.93173-100000@moo.sysabend.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.1000308123604.80277A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, David Scheidt wrote: :On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Jamie Bowden wrote: : :> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, David Scheidt wrote: :> :> :On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, John wrote: :> :> :> >I bet in uncontrolled reactions it's more powerful. :> :> :> No idea, but it would be interesting to know. The MSDS states that it's :> :> non-explosive, yet flammable. That's no big deal though - gasoline is :> :> flammable on it's own :) :> :> :Oxygenated gasoline has a lower calorific content than regular gasoline. :> :> So it's less efficient by design. How is it supposed to help reduce :> consumption or emissions again? : :Internal combutstion engines aren't 100% efficient at extracting chemical :energy from fuel. If you can increase this efficency by steps that reduce :the potential energy to be extracted, it is possible to have a net gain. Son instead of extracting roughly 70% of whatever caloric (or BTUs for those who measure in such a fashion) content say 89 cotane normally provides, I'm now extracting 70% of a lesser sum? Decreasing the efficiency of your fuel does not increase the efficiency of the process. You may be able to convince me otherwise, but you better have real data and hard numbers if you wish to do so. Jamie Bowden -- "Of course, that's sort of like asking how other than Marketing, Microsoft is different from any other software company..." Kenneth G. Cavness To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10003081052450.93173-100000>