New E-15 Ethanol Gas creating BIG problems!

You're right, I did not intend my comment to be an exhaustive rundown of a conversion.

Where you afraid of your engine getting cancer? GM crops are not associated with cancer in animal studies. We don't make a lot of sugar cane in this country, and what we do make we make by tearing out the everglades. We are unlikely to increase our production drastically to meet out terrestrial or marine consumption needs any time soon. While sugar cane was the perfect solution for Brazil it does not appear that that will be our ticket.

It may be an exaggeration, but I do not trust these grains. Plus, a good friend of mine is a medical researcher is part of a group that believes many grains are very bad for humans. Corn, they believe, is one of the worst. As much opposition as they have gotten for any funding makes me wonder what is being hidden. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like to eat corn anyways, so it's an extra excuse.

It will burn exactly the same as low octane fuel in a low compression engine. Using high octane fuel in an engine designed for low octane is just a waste of money unless the get the high octane fuel cheaper.

Octane rating describes the resistance to detonation, knock, or more precisely, the amount of energy required to initiate combustion. High octane fuels take more energy to ignite than low octane fuels.

It is the exact opposite of cetane rating.

High octane fuels don't "require" a high compression engine, high compression engines require high octane fuel. Unless the engine is a diesel of course.

A higher CR does allow an engine to run with higher thermal efficiently which offsets some of the losses associated with a switch from gas to the lower energy density of ethanol. In the context of regaining power and efficiency upping the CR is necessary, just not to burn properly.

Incorrect. They will burn, but combustion will not be complete. Therefore you waste power out the exhaust. You can add timing, but beyond a point that in itself will cost you power and efficiency and it can't completely overcome too much octane. So yes, high octane fuels do require I high compression (or boosted) engine to take full advantage of the fuel, and to burn it efficiently. Like the average flex fuel vehicle, it runs, but not like it should.

I know, I don't trust any of that stuff, although it is impossible to remove it all from your diet. Also being friends with someone who preaches that cancer rates are higher in area's where people consume more corn helps influence my opinion.

I agree that having genetically related crops makes them all susceptible to being wiped out by a single disease or bacteria. Horrible idea. A diversity would keep large quantities of a crop safe, and would provide different qualities, and tastes, options for different "specialty" products (popular today) that could net a better income for everyone along the line.

For ethanol production, there are many sweetgrasses that have a high sugar content and would grow very well in corn country. Several are known to improve soil condition, so if crop rotations were done correctly, there could be better products all around.

Fuel Octane, Choosing The Wrong Octane Will Cost You | What Could Be Greener

It is amazing that people still believe that high octane fuel performs correctly in low compression engines.

There is more cancer in areas where people eat GMOs because people in areas where GMOs are consumed are also people who aren't dying young from famine and disease. The US does have higher rates of cancer than Europe, but that was the case before GMOs were introduced into our diets 20 years ago. If they were going to wipe us out you would think that some health problems would have shown up in the last two decades.

GMOs increase genetic diversity, they don't reduce it. We reduced it significantly before the introduction of genetic engineering and haven't furthered that trend very significantly since about 10 years before GMOs were introduced. Other than the herbicide tolerant GMOs all of the ones on the market are bred to resist the pests and diseases that resulted from that necking down of diversity.

The thing is that what we want is something that will grow where corn will not. One of the ideas being investigated is using Algae farms next to coal plants. Running the coal exhaust through the algae grow beds as a kind of wet exhaust, capturing all the particulates, nitrates, and CO2 and using them to boost the algae growth, then processing the algae to make biofuels. Still a lot of work and a lot of infrastructure, but growtanks can be built anywhere and do not require prime farm land.

Opcn, I the research I am talking of claims grains in general, not just genetically altered stuff, cause an increase in cancer rates, and corn being the worst. I said areas with higher CORN consumption, not grain consumption. Although there are proven downsides to several grains. Many diets now limit or eliminate corn and grain consumption. The diet that seems to have cured my own mom's stomach problems has a strict no corn requirement. It is not a no carb diet, just limits the types of carbs you can eat.

The algae is a great idea. I would love to see it in action. I do not recomend sweetgrass as a fix all, just a viable idea. Most farms practice crop rotation, so it wouldn't be hard to throw sweetgrass in on a rotation and see if it is a feasable.

Read you own article Tex.

Then get some real data and look up the heating value of "high test" vs "regular" and let us know if the high price stuff has a higher heating value.

To save you a little time, here's the Popular Mechanics version from M.I.T. unless you figure they are not as reliable as Smokey or Bubba.

But in the meantime, just for the entertainment value, tell us why the high octane stuff doesn't work as well in low compression engines.

Marmot, I very specifically stated in a post directed to you why high octane fuels don't burn correctly in low compression engines. Capt J even quoted me and agreed. It is a proven fact.

Here you go marmot, post 85.

This is sort of like a CG thing ...

Well, duh. If you don't have a high CR engine then you don't need high octane fuel so how could you possibly "take full advantage" of the knock resistance provided by higher octane? It simply is not needed.

Show us why combustion will not be complete if higher octane fuel is used in a low compression engine. I for one would love to see the data that supports that myth.

BTW, quoting yourself as a source is not really documenting anything other than you own misconceptions.

Well, I guess if J quoted you and it's on the internet then it must be true!

The EPA did an interesting study a few years ago to determine how knock sensors might allow the use of lower octane fuel, or at least reduce the need for higher octane in the days before ethanol entered the picture as an octane booster.

Look up EPA/AA/CTBB/TA/82-1 Knock Sensor Vehicle Test Program by Larry C. landman. It documents that fact that higher emissions were measured when the same 8.0:1 CR engine used high octane fuel vs lower octane.

That means combustion of the low octane fuel was more complete. As a matter of fact, they also documented better mileage with lower octane fuel in the same engine. That kind of knocks (no pun intended) your myths on the head.

I didnt quote myself as a source, I quoted myself to show you that I had already answered the question you asked me. Your lack of reading comprehension leads me to doubt just about anything you post. Either that or you are using an old lawyer tactic to to lead anyone watching this thread thread away from your mistakes/misunderstandings and to jump on the "bandwagon" about a commonly misunderstood situation. It is also a tactic used by "experts" who are out of their field of expertise.