| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Matt Colie wrote in
: Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Shhhh....don't make too much noise! 3 of my 4 vehicles are diesels. One of them, my 6.2L Chevy stepvan, has a Frybrid in it. (http://www.frybrid.com) The 220D and 300TD diesel Mercedes antiques are, currently, running in warm SC on 80% frying oil and 20% regular gas, which won't work if it gets too cold. 3 of us pool resources and have our own veggie oil company. I have the van (collection department), one guy has a huge warehouse (storage and processing) and the other guy built the filtering system (settling and filtration department). We literally have FUEL RUNNING OUT OF OUR EARS! I was at the warehouse, yesterday, delivering another load from our Chinese restaurants. We all filled our vehicles and still had 120 gallons ready-to-go and about 730 gallons settling out in their cans. I don't even shut the truck down to go to breakfast. I leave the heater running...(c; Fuel is easy to get if you get off your asses and go after it.....and have the right engine, not gasoline. Larry -- Rudolf MADE it to run on vegetable oil, ya know. Someone asked, "Are you paying road taxes?", to try to expose me. "Yes, I pay gas tax on every gallon of diesel and gas I buy.", I replied. "What about the frying oil?", they retorted. "There's no road tax on vegetable oil, yet.", I replied, smiling sheepishly...(c; Most restaurants are PAYING a disposal company to collect and dispose of REALLY GOOD FUEL! How stupid.... |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
: I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. Some of the finest fishing on the planet is right under those oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico....a whole new ecosystem that's just thriving.... all the way to the bottom! http://www.thejump.net/fishingarticl...gged-reefs.htm http://www.marshmission.com/coastal_...t/volume12.htm http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regul...viron/rigs-to- reefs/information.html .....to name a few. Larry -- Guess what I want to do with the Little Drummer Boy's drum by Christmas Eve....rrrrump..pa-pum...pum...up his bum.... |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
"Larry" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in : I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. Some of the finest fishing on the planet is right under those oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico....a whole new ecosystem that's just thriving.... all the way to the bottom! http://www.thejump.net/fishingarticl...gged-reefs.htm http://www.marshmission.com/coastal_...t/volume12.htm http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regul...viron/rigs-to- reefs/information.html ....to name a few. Larry -- Guess what I want to do with the Little Drummer Boy's drum by Christmas Eve....rrrrump..pa-pum...pum...up his bum.... Sure, plant the rigs as artificial reefs and don't drill. That's fine with me. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Matt Colie wrote:
snip (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) snip.. Never heard of Canada drilling the Great Lakes for oil. Can you let us know where you found that info. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:47:57 -0600, in message
"KLC Lewis" wrote: "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. Whose Great Lakes? Keep in mind that we share them with the US. Or are you posting from the US and speaking only of Lake Michigan? There's already plenty of wellheads under Lake Erie where the shallow depths make drilling quite easy and Lake Erie is in way better shape than it was 40 years ago. Ryk |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:08:53 GMT, in message
Don White wrote: Matt Colie wrote: snip (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) snip.. Never heard of Canada drilling the Great Lakes for oil. Can you let us know where you found that info. I think most of the wellheads in Lake Erie are gas wells, but a quick look at the chart will show plenty of evidence of past drilling. Ryk |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:08:53 GMT, Don White
wrote: Matt Colie wrote: snip (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) snip.. Never heard of Canada drilling the Great Lakes for oil. Can you let us know where you found that info. There are a few gas wells in lake Erie but I'm not aware of any oil wells either. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
"Ryk" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:47:57 -0600, in message "KLC Lewis" wrote: I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. Whose Great Lakes? Keep in mind that we share them with the US. Or are you posting from the US and speaking only of Lake Michigan? There's already plenty of wellheads under Lake Erie where the shallow depths make drilling quite easy and Lake Erie is in way better shape than it was 40 years ago. Ryk By "our Great Lakes," I was referring to humanity. But, of humanity, naturally Americans come first. Just ask any of our politicians. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
KLC,
I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from American suppliers). Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago. We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real ones instead of the "politically correct" ones. This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies? Matt KLC Lewis wrote: "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Don,
Apart from being personal friends with the people that do this (they sail out of La Salle Marines and Cedar Beach clubs, I can point you to NOAA chart 14830. Down load it and look at the area east of the Pelee Pennisula. The meatball in crosshairs is a mark that indicates a wellhead, the dash with dot lines between them are submarine pipelines. If you go farther east (14820) and look east of Port Stanley there are more - but I don't sail there. Remember, each marked well head could possibly have a dozen actual well pipes - each drilled without incident. For the last three seasons we have all been watching a new rig working at about N04148.500W08233.300 (location is appoximate from my log). I was told by Canadian friends that this is a multi drill natural gas well that will be drilling for another 10 years. Then the wells will be capped below ice level and marked with a tower. Is makes a wonderful refence when racing through Pelee Passage at night. Matt Don White wrote: Matt Colie wrote: snip (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) snip.. Never heard of Canada drilling the Great Lakes for oil. Can you let us know where you found that info. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Referenced in the article at the link below is a group called
Public Interest Research Group in Michigan. In years past, these people performed a nobel and valuable function. In recent years they have been completely over run in their environment faction by the "people are evil" crowd that will oppose any action that might change the world away from primevil forest. They define a major oil spill as more than can cleaned up with a single tissue. wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:56:19 GMT, (Drew Dalgleish) wrote: On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:08:53 GMT, Don White wrote: Matt Colie wrote: snip (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) snip.. Never heard of Canada drilling the Great Lakes for oil. Can you let us know where you found that info. There are a few gas wells in lake Erie but I'm not aware of any oil wells either. http://detnews.com/2005/project/0508/14/Z15-275433.htm |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
There is no oil drilling in the Chesapeake bay and it has plenty of oil pollution, largely from the same source. People flushing used oil down the toilet is another problem. People flush used oil down the toilet? That must make an awful mess of the toilet, I've never heard of such a thing. Around here any autoparts store will take used oil for free. I just collect it in a 5 gallon jug and when it starts to get full I drop it by and pour it in the collection tank. Some people have waste oil heaters to heat their shops or homes, if I had more used oil I'd look into something like that. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
James Sweet wrote in news:YHIah.8454$gJ1.207
@trndny09: Some people have waste oil heaters to heat their shops or homes, if I had more used oil I'd look into something like that. Some people dump it into their diesel fuel tanks, a couple of quarts to each fillup, reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Notice it says DIESEL. Of course, some people are running their cars on Vegetable Oil for free, too!...(c; Larry -- If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other? |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat. And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to bed thinking "I saved the world again today". "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies? Matt |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Garland Gray II wrote:
Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal dreamed up by a beaurocrat. And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to bed thinking "I saved the world again today". Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many are far more powerful too. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:24:08 +0000, James Sweet wrote:
There is no oil drilling in the Chesapeake bay and it has plenty of oil pollution, largely from the same source. People flushing used oil down the toilet is another problem. People flush used oil down the toilet? That must make an awful mess of the toilet, I've never heard of such a thing. Toilet, sink, it's all the same sewer. Plenty more washes in from streets, etc., and groundwater from people pouring it into their yards or wherever. But oil from 2-stroke outboards, especially older ones, is still a major source of pollution. Believe it or not, there's serious science behind this. Armies of PhD's labor for years to identify the most significant sources of pollution, and then to find the most cost-effective ways of addressing the problems. The trouble is, too many people still don't want to hear the answers. Matt O. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Matt:
I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe? Sounds interesting. Thanks -Maxime Camirand Matt Colie wrote: KLC, I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from American suppliers). Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago. We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real ones instead of the "politically correct" ones. This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies? Matt KLC Lewis wrote: "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
max camirand wrote:
Matt: I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe? Sounds interesting. Thanks -Maxime Camirand Remember the seventies?? With tacky polyester clothing, platform shoes, God awful big hunk of s*it cars and disco.... who'd want to remember. Now the 60's...that was a time to remember! |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
On 28 Nov 2006 13:08:05 -0800, in message
om "max camirand" wrote: Matt: I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe? Sounds interesting. In the sixties cars ran at fairly high compression ratios thanks to high octane gasoline spiked with tetra ethyl lead. Lead poisoning was an issue and the higher temperatures produced at high compression ratios lead to more oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust, a major contributor to the photo-chemical smog that plagued Los Angeles and other places. High compression engines are inherently more efficient due to the thermodynamics involved. Besides being dangerous, lead poisons the catalyst in catalytic converters, so there was a triple whammy when it was removed, lower octane because other additives had not been fully developed, thus lower compression, lower compression still to cut NOx, and inefficiently designed catalytic converter systems. Then came the oil embargo that drove the price of gas up high enough that North Americans had to care. The results were much better for smog in Los Angeles, but there was strong sentiment that everybody was paying a price that didn't make much difference in most locations. Given time, automotive engineers and fuel specialists have advanced the state of the art and current vehicles are both more efficient and much cleaner than those of the 60s, but it took time to figure it out, and not much attention was given to the problem until government regulations required it. The result was a few years of absolutely dismal fuel economy in the seventies. Ryk |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:24:02 +0000, Don White wrote:
Remember the seventies?? evilunclean disco.... /evil/unclean shudder.... |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Matt O'Toole wrote in
g: Armies of PhD's labor for years to identify the most significant sources of pollution, and then to find the most cost-effective ways of addressing the problems. Wanna bet "armies of PhD's" driving their Escalades to the university and the armies of bureaucrats administering the programs the PhD's are milking for tax dollars causes FAR more pollution than all the 2-stroke engines that have been dipped in a lake since 1900?..... We just can't help ourselves.....It is inevitable. Larry -- If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other? |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
"James Sweet" wrote in message news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06... Garland Gray II wrote: Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal dreamed up by a beaurocrat. And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to bed thinking "I saved the world again today". Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many are far more powerful too. The more economy is mostly from smaller cars. My 1964 300 hp 327 Impala SS got about 16.5 mpg on average. City and highway. My slightly heavier, way more technology 1999 Expedition got 14.5 mpg average. But MTBE cost about 10% milage, while reducing air pollution about 6%. Not a large combined number. while at the same time, causing mass ground water pollution. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Max,
As much as I would like to do just that, those files got dumped (litterally) two moves ago. In a nut shell, the automotive industry was working very hard to clean up its act starting in the sixties because new EPA regulations and clear data. We were actually making very nice progress both in tailpipe and fuel economy, but then came the election of '72. Senator Muskie decided to make a name for himself, so he ramrodded regulations through that reduced the exiting standards for allowable emissions by 90%. This was a real problem because we were on a track to reduce the fleet emissions by 80% from the unregulated in five years. This cut the time table by three years and made the new target a 98% reduction. This left us with two difficulties: There was no current technology to do this reliably. There were no instruments available that could even confirm that were we meeting these new standards. Catalyst development went into high gear. The original systems were so valuable that when a milage accumulation vehicle was damaged at that the proving ground we did not dare risk moving it back to the garage, we rolled it over in place and the technicians removed the exhaust system. The exhaust system went back to the garage on a flat bed and they rolled the now totaled test vehicle up and hauled it back with a wrecker. Beckman was the first company to come up with instruments the could measure these things and the Horiba was slitghly later, but nobody's was reliable and calibration was a crap-shoot. It was discovered that the catalyst did not like exhaust from an engine running a stoichiometric (ideal) air/fuel (something we had been working toward for years now), but rather favored and engine that ran badly such that the mixture varied from rich to lean so the cat got a shot of HC then a shot of O2 to keep the fire going. It was clean after the catalyst (for about 50k when it went down the tube), but a car that used to run in the high 20's was now lucky to get to 20. The engines that had been historically good, now ran like so much crap. This was essentialy the end of the good running engine until the computer controlled port fuel systems came on line. That was only compounded by the elimination of lead (not a bad thing IMHO). The lead had to be eliminated from the refineries altogether because any lead would contaminate the cat (and later the O2 sensor). This lead reduced the cylinder flame temperature and also lubricated the exhaust valve seats. Without it, exhaust valves became a warranty nightmare (so the big three shortened the warranty). Big cars faired better than the smaller because they could give away more engine performance the meet the tailpipe. The came the oil embargo of '74. . . . I hope you enjoyed my recount. Matt max camirand wrote: Matt: I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe? Sounds interesting. Thanks -Maxime Camirand Matt Colie wrote: KLC, I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from American suppliers). Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago. We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real ones instead of the "politically correct" ones. This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies? Matt KLC Lewis wrote: "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to
meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any sooner. Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology. Anti trust laws, you know. "James Sweet" wrote in message news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06... Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many are far more powerful too. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Oh - Charlie,
This is great view of the mistaken common mythology. There were a huge number of individual vehicle that did just that and as early as 1970. I had two in my own lab. I drove and tested that car and the CVCC Vega too. The Nova was not production feasable at that time (the opinion of a famous think tank), and Honda would license the CVCC design for about ~100$/per vehicle (not including the increased manufacturing cost (remember - this was a 2k$ base vehicle). There were two stoppers. Reliability was a big issue. This was the time when California was also instituting legislation that no vehicle could require maintenance other than lubrication at less than 50k miles. (We had one vehicle - a joke - with the hood BOLTED down and the sticker off the back of a television that said "No User Servicable Parts Inside".) Manufacturability was another serious issue. Variations that the assembly lines produced in those days was a problem. A family of I4 engines was bad enough that, though rated and sold as 90+hp actually were anywhere between 85 and 98 as measured. Everybody tends to forget that Germany and Japan both had all brand new factories that (by enlarge) we paid for in the late fourties, but the US plants all got seriously beat up making the hardware to win that war. The thing that really gave the american market away was shortsighted corporate management. For reasons I will not expand, I grew up with little European cars. Whe the US tried to get into this market they decided that little cars were inexpesive cars and inexpensive cars could be cheap - not just cost, but quality as well. I bought my first new American Car in 1973 and was treated so badly when I complained about the shabby quality (not quite a quote - You bought a cheap car, What did you expect?) I have never purchased another car from that manufacturer. Charlie Morgan wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:43:21 -0500, "Garland Gray II" wrote: That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any sooner. Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology. Anti trust laws, you know. In the early 70's, US automakers whined that the proposed government timetable was too short, and the standards too high. They complained they would need at least 7 years to create the technology to meet the proposed standards. Honda of Japan bought a brand new Chevy Nova off of a dealers lot, shipped it to Japan, and 6 months later delivered it to Washington, DC, modified to EXCEED the proposed standards. CWM "James Sweet" wrote in message news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06... Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many are far more powerful too. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
But fellows ... it's not about air quality, it's about DOMINANCE!
You will do what I tell you because I said so! Roger http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... Larry, I guess that you have not noticed that: A-Logic has little to do with environmental regulations. B-Much of the world is trying anything they can to shut down the best economy in the history of the world. The old 2 strokes were dirty engines. (I did some of the testing.) Their hydrocarbon emissions were outrageous. Anything that gets lubricated like an old 2-stroke won't wear out any time soon, but I have been on a could of mountain lakes that had an oil slick the likes of a tanker spill. For calibration, when I was working in one of those labs, the crew that was doing the evaporative emissions testing put the office Christmas tree into one of the evap sheds - It Didn't Pass - Many of the world's vocal liberals are very down on the good old USofA because we have something like 10% of the population and use 30% of the fossil fuel. They don't happen to notice that this produces 40+% of the worlds productivity and 15% of the worlds pollution*. (*Not including CO2) (The quoted statistics are close but not exact.) China has not been asked to reduce anything and they are still running wood fired steam locomotives and have the fastest declining air quality in the world. It is so bad that some coaches are expecting to have to shut some of the events at the next Olympics down because of the pollution. Why do you think Motorcycles are now required to have catalytic converters? Why do liberals think that a Hybrid vehicle is a better answer than a diesel? Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic Larry wrote: wrote in news:fufim2het1capo2e7k4p6kitgmq7vhtc3b@ 4ax.com: Oh by the way the EPA problem with 2 strokes is not so much the oil in the water but in the air. I wonder how that works?? Oil doesn't evaporate so it's not vapor pollution. I suppose the tiny bit of smoke trailing an outboard motor is pollution, probably .00000001% of what pours out of a single smoke stack at your electric plant, 24/7/365. Dead out on the river, 20 miles from the trailer, I want the simplest 2- stroke outboard with the fewest failing parts that a guy standing in the mud behind it along the banks can figure out what's wrong and patch it up to get home. No valves, no belts, minimal pumps, simple carburetion, hand startable (if necessary)....the motor with the fewest failure modes almost anyone with any sense can get running. A 2-stroke needs: A - Fuel B - Spark C - Cooling D - Prop Everything else is fluff. Every one of them needs a primer bulb, a fantastic troubleshooting tool for the fuel system and emergency fuel pump if the diaphram fails in their pulse pump. It amazes me the number of people who just sit there staring into it and don't THINK about what that little bulb can tell them if they'd just pump it and think about what is happening. I've helped lots of stranded boaters with it. "Pump the bulb for me.", I ask. "It squeezes but doesn't come back out.", he says. "Turn on the fuel shutoff valve.", I say...and away they go. "It pumps real easy.", he says. "Here, let me loan you some gas.", I respond. "It pumps and I see gas in the water behind the motor.", he says. "Your fuel pump diaphram has a hole in it pumping gas into one cylinder, flooding it....or the carb float is stuck. Pull the cover and we'll bypass the pump. You can squeeze the bulb while running it home." So easy....even on a carb'd 4- stroker. Impossible to fix on fuel injection and other high tech nonsense.... Larry |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Were you running vehicle development programs at that time also?
If so please tell us what programs you worked on and what results you had. If you were, then you know all about the MEPS, Pathmore and Challenge vehicles and probably remember when that one became a smoking hole in the Lodge freeway on its way to do a demonstration to congressmen assembled at Cobo during SAE week. Best line ever ..... Smith, the executive head of the program got up to the podium to introduce the vehicle (while the DFD was trying still working) and said “I really wish I didn’t have to apologize for the failure of this breakthrough vehicle to make an appearance, but I have just been informed that there has been some technical difficulty that indicates that more development may be required.” - My own very personal “Houston, We have a problem.” With the total loss of the only program vehicle with all the prototype hardware and then the finding that this type of casualty would be very difficult to prevent, the program was buried. For 100,000$ in small unmarked bills, can you tell me where it went and what it became? The pictures that I took then have been released. The problem is that if I post them somewhere, then I and some associates (they are still in the industry) could be identified and this might not go well for them (me - I do give a **** any more.) I never though I would get to the point where I enjoyed taking the time to recount these stories. Thank You Charlie Morgan wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:24:51 -0500, withheld wrote: Oh - Charlie, This is great view of the mistaken common mythology. There were a huge number of individual vehicle that did just that and as early as 1970. I had two in my own lab. I drove and tested that car and the CVCC Vega too. The Nova was not production feasable at that time (the opinion of a famous think tank), and Honda would license the CVCC design for about ~100$/per vehicle (not including the increased manufacturing cost (remember - this was a 2k$ base vehicle). You are so full of it your eyes are brown. CWM |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
Thanks for the responses, everyone. I appreciate it.
Going to bed less stupid... -Max max camirand wrote: Matt: I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe? Sounds interesting. Thanks -Maxime Camirand Matt Colie wrote: KLC, I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from American suppliers). Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago. We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real ones instead of the "politically correct" ones. This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies? Matt KLC Lewis wrote: "Matt Colie" wrote in message ... Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.) Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous. |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
It wasn't the new factories that enabled Japan, it was an American Quality
Control expert. And a set of managers that would listen to him. Detroit refused to listen to Edward Demming who was telling American automobile manufacturers that the American people wanted cars that would not only look good but run well, too. When the manufacturers failed to listen, Demming took his ideas to Japan and for the next decade the Japanese owned the American car market. Roger http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:24:51 -0500, withheld wrote: Everybody tends to forget that Germany and Japan both had all brand new factories that (by enlarge) we paid for in the late fourties, but the US plants all got seriously beat up making the hardware to win that war. I always said the best thing we could ave done was bomb all our own factories in 1946 so we could all start fresh. I agree 100% it was the Japanese who made us stop making the same basic car we started WWII with. The same is true of outboard motors (to give this thread a "boaty" spin) My mercury is still a Yamaha design and a lot of the parts are interchangable until you get down the US designed "big foot". |
2 stroke / 4 stroke advice
derbyrm wrote:
It wasn't the new factories that enabled Japan, it was an American Quality Control expert. And a set of managers that would listen to him. Detroit refused to listen to Edward Demming who was telling American automobile manufacturers that the American people wanted cars that would not only look good but run well, too. When the manufacturers failed to listen, Demming took his ideas to Japan and for the next decade the Japanese owned the American car market. Plus the rust problem in the '70s. The Big 3 .,especially Ford, deserved to be run out of town on a rail. They smugly sat back and let the imports get a toehold which grew into an avalanche. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com