X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4984310 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 May 2011 10:21:31 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.237.203; envelope-from=bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 14:20:54 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.115] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 14:20:54 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1020.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 14:20:54 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 607694.2320.bm@omp1020.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 31642 invoked from network); 15 May 2011 14:20:53 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1305469253; bh=q6AW2u2TaCWxqn1cxqk3F+wX2dkavvYTUGIYspaqbWA=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To; b=x5n1SelbCAwKr8Yow3k0+5fXrKSyLa7Sq4y0jEiOqX9xrNvy2nH7oulxmsJBNND1eApAwWV3KU/BMEisy90alLiG/1snS9Jdk7s/f0PBIefD5cSl4Qp8LGfsTJLP+sia5C51tRlvIlg4PowktBMDAElcLyE7YBMsr4IMOa3ItqI= Received: from acer7fbfa7e2f7 (bryanwinberry@98.88.77.50 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 May 2011 07:20:53 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: OSuEAS2swBAaBd4uKxevNivslbMG7JXpWjAWZVmoYyRm6qcW_W2VUA-- X-YMail-OSG: K1Gj9OQVM1kp7ZpFZlZLpO6YFPbuaU7reZJEAXhCYd5TgAa v50s1_GzUNF7H8ZilbsFyu.gLSw_32hUEyktYzdcj05UDjaGaeW93jgQFSDA sawUSH8lBjecXA62cUhG7hEv7F19OC3JX49cL4XMjRs4QqhMhVC_PTpfqnU3 vIlTYCuQpnT8UceBJpMVwBCKahgcxwv8SfL.kaD7FMMCz60GUA2Un3XiCphf iMqnIDCbUe8RMX2hzJIwybqR0iGqIUlajcY8FNuCvTSfYyon3fAON4c10GYQ jx3Nnm2ZX4JgbItGafvg5X2wg9riqrKuptHif0pqkySgIKpBg3x6WJ3xueSa zHjs_XS.nSXF4f7oDPawjyc06_Kk_5ArMeG.yy.EgyJIvzOF.3j83GHVyHJj rxts- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Bryan Winberry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 10:20:50 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0067_01CC12E9.C3C613C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090 Thread-Index: AcwTCZ3NEWKglu8dST67xqamMr3EyAAAPVkQ In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CC12E9.C3C613C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good points Charlie, You hit the nail on the head with the "corn lobby". It ain't the guy on the tractor. See my previous post; it's ADM and Cargill, etc. Another point is that while we've determined that alcohol is bad for glass tanks, a lot of other people have discovered that excessive high fructose corn syrup is bad for human "tanks" as well. Bryan Grows corn on family farm, powerful corn lobbyist _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie England Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 10:08 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California With a nod to full disclosure, adding an oxygenate isn't the only technical reason for using alcohol. As mentioned earlier, it also has a much higher octane rating than gasoline. Think Indy cars with 14-1 compression (might be even higher by now). That is why, as mentioned earlier, leeching the alcohol out will leave a gas with a much lower octane rating; the alcohol replaces some of the octane enhancers that were previously added to the fuel. Actually, I think that alcohol is a pretty good fuel for piston engines, & it will work fine for rotaries, even though they don't need the extra octane (just kinda tough on the fiberglass fuel tank guys, both a/c & boats). But I also think that we have a hard time separating technical issues from political issues. That's why I made the comment that alcohol wouldn't be in gas without the corn lobby. If it had been put there for technical reasons, we'd be using sugar cane like Brazil, or sugar beets, or switch grass, or even kudzu, but not corn, because while corn does have a slightly positive net energy yield, it's far and away the worst of all the available sources. It's use in gas is driving food costs through the roof for us and the rest of the world, too. I read recently that around 30% of our corn production now goes into fuel instead of food, and corn is in *every* food product that's bought in a package. The 'corn lobby' is obviously the euphemism for giant farm production conglomerates. Now, isn't everyone happy that the 'conservative' Supreme Court has now ruled that corporations can contribute unlimited, undocumented money to political campaigns? Charlie On 5/14/2011 1:08 PM, wrjjrs@aol.com wrote: Mike, The real problem is that using ethanol to begin with is junk science. All a oxygenate in your fuel does is make you get poorer mileage. All modern fi cars richen the mixture automatically until the O2 sensor says nada. If can cost a full 1-2 mpg. Bill Jepson ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CC12E9.C3C613C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good points = Charlie,

 

You hit the nail on the head with = the “corn lobby”.  It ain’t the guy on the tractor.  See my previous post; it’s ADM and Cargill, = etc.

 

Another point is that while = we’ve determined that alcohol is bad for glass tanks, a lot of other people have = discovered that excessive high fructose corn syrup is bad for human “tanks” = as well.

 

Bryan

Grows corn on family farm, powerful = corn lobbyist

 

From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, May 15, = 2011 10:08 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = FW: 100LL in California

 

With a nod to full disclosure, adding an = oxygenate isn't the only technical reason for using alcohol. As mentioned earlier, = it also has a much higher octane rating than gasoline. Think Indy cars with = 14-1 compression (might be even higher by now). That is why, as mentioned = earlier, leeching the alcohol out will leave a gas with a much lower octane = rating; the alcohol replaces some of the octane enhancers that were previously added = to the fuel.

Actually, I think that alcohol is a pretty good fuel for piston engines, = & it will work fine for rotaries, even though they don't need the extra = octane (just kinda tough on the fiberglass fuel tank guys, both a/c & = boats). But I also think that we have a hard time separating technical issues from political issues. That's why I made the comment that alcohol wouldn't be = in gas without the corn lobby. If it had been put there for technical reasons, = we'd be using sugar cane like Brazil, or sugar beets, or switch grass, or even = kudzu, but not corn, because while corn does have a slightly positive net = energy yield, it's far and away the worst of all the available sources. It's = use in gas is driving food costs through the roof for us and the rest of the = world, too. I read recently that around 30% of our corn production now goes = into fuel instead of food, and corn is in *every* food product that's bought in a package.

The 'corn lobby' is obviously the euphemism for giant farm production conglomerates.

Now, isn't everyone happy that the 'conservative' Supreme Court has now = ruled that corporations can contribute unlimited, undocumented money to = political campaigns?

Charlie



On 5/14/2011 1:08 PM, wrjjrs@aol.com wrote:

Mike,
The real problem is that using ethanol to begin with is junk science. = All a oxygenate in your fuel does is make you get poorer mileage. All modern = fi cars richen the mixture automatically until the O2 sensor says nada. If can = cost a full 1-2 mpg.
Bill Jepson

 

------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CC12E9.C3C613C0--