Seems like I've touched a nerve! Let me just jam an icepick in there and twist it a little.
Two things should be intuitively understood about alcohol for fuel:
First, it's obvious idiocy to burn food for fuel.
Second, if alcohol was worth a crap as a fuel, Big Oil would have a monopoly on it and be making a fortune. Instead, alcohol fuel is subsidized with billions of taxpayer dollars proving that it's just one more rip-off boondoggle.
Alcohol as a fuel is a scam, but only one of the many scams that comprise the most colossal fraud in human history: 'Man-made Global Warming.'
Now, do you really want to continue this because I'm tired of being nice.
Jim
__________________
CAUTION: This post may have been altered and critical safety information deleted without the permission or knowledge of the author.
As an aside, Australia is slowly heading down the ethanol path.........and its stupid.
We have one of the worlds largest natural gas reserves and its been proven that we could use it at around 40 cents a litre [anything petroleum based is $1.40+/litre in Oz]. And we have a huge NG pipe system that webs across the country, so distribution would be relatively straight forward.
But the governments of the day are not listening. And this at a time where Australia has suffered a drought that has been around now for over 10 years - harvests are severely affected and the unit cost of purchasing some sort of cellulose to make ethanol is very high.
Now I know gas would be problematic on a motorcycle, but it is only a small matter for other automobiles, trucks, tractors etc.
Nobody is worried about oil running out, if they were, you'd see mass reaction from many area's. I read somewhere that there is still over 30 years of supply in the arab gulf alone based on present day useage rates.
As an aside, there is a very interesting series of vid's on youtube about the oil industry. I don't know that I believe it all, but it does make you question what we are being lead to think and who is right.
__________________
tridentt150v,
Great Southern Land.
(Where women blow and men chunder).
Last edited by tridentt150v : 05-16-2008 at 08:36 PM.
Now, do you really want to continue this because I'm tired of being nice.
Jim
Well, since all you have stated is a bunch of political BS, if you want to conduct a rant, no. It is off-topic, and in fact, there is really not a place in TriumphRAT.net for it. Politics has nothing to do with the suitability of alcohol as a fuel. I would expect something a little more technically factual than that from you, Jim. Alcohol is a great fuel - always has been. Some of the first vehicles ran on alcohol. Studies have shown that alcohol runs much cleaner than petroleum as a fuel, producing 95% less CO and 90% fewer hydrocarbons. So, which emissions are you referring to?
The cost of production has been the only limting factor against it. Now that the prices of oil have topped $3 per gallon here in the U.S., that has changed. Only problem is that vehicles need to be designed to run on it safely.
Well, since all you have stated is a bunch of political BS, if you want to conduct a rant, no. It is off-topic, and in fact, there is really not a place in TriumphRAT.net for it.
Yet you decided to continue the topic with half-baked propaganda.
Quote:
Politics has nothing to do with the suitability of alcohol as a fuel.
Politics has EVERYTHING to do with alcohol as fuel because it's a political issue and not a rational, logical or science-based issue.
Quote:
I would expect something a little more technically factual than that from you, Jim. Alcohol is a great fuel - always has been.
Well how about:
It takes 120+ BTU of fossil fuel to produce 100 BTU of alcohol. That's essentially burning 120 gallons of oil to produce 100 gallons of alcohol and then burning the alcohol.
Is that stupid or what? It's not bad enough to waste the fossil fuel, but then to burn the result is idiotic.
Quote:
Some of the first vehicles ran on alcohol.
...because gasoline wasn't readily available at the turn of the 19th century. DUH.
Studies have shown that alcohol runs much cleaner than petroleum as a fuel, producing 95% less CO and 90% fewer hydrocarbons. So, which emissions are you referring to?
Again, it takes 120+ BTU of fossil fuel to produce 100 BTU of alcohol. That's essentially burning 120 gallons of oil to produce 100 gallons of alcohol.
So, you're producing all the pollution from burning the fossil fuels in order to burn a fuel that only produces 5% CO2.
That looks a lot to me like your producing 125% of the CO in total for the 'clean environmental fuel' than the 100% you'd get from just burning the fossil fuel. That's also a much higher figure for gasoline/alcohol mixtures.
So explain to me how that's 'environmental' and how it 'reduces global warming CO2 emissions' and how it's a 'better fuel' if there's a 120% loss in overall energy and a 105+% increase in CO2?
I'd also mention that the '5% CO2' figure is per gallon. Since you have to burn more alcohol to produce the same BTU output as gasoline, the quantity of CO2 per BTU is considerably higher than 5%.
You might also consider that most alcohol is produced from corn which is fraudulently referred to as a 'renewable resource.'
Corn is one of the most (if not *the* most) fertilizer-intensive crops there is. I'd point out that, fertilizer isn't a renewable resource: it doesn't grow on trees. It has to be mined or produced chemically (some from fossil fuels) so the concepts of 'renewable' and 'environmentally friendly' are a load of enviro-pol BS.
When you add in the processing and transportation energy consumption to the basic environmental damage of mining and producing fertilizer, corn becomes a much less attractive source of energy.
Also, alcohol can't be piped from a refinery to a distribution point like oil products can. It's acidic and hygroscopic and can't be transported in steel pipe because it tends to rust them out very rapidly. That means transportation by truck or rail -- more consumption of fossil fuels.
And that's discounting the developing *economic* disaster of 'corn-as-fuel'.
The bottom line is that alcohol as fuel is ANTI-environmental.
The only thing alcohol fuel accomplishes is moving the source of polution away from the end user to a factory/powerplant elsewhere and relocation of pollution no solution.
Burning alcohol doesn't reduce the overall production of pollution but it provides huge government-subsidized incomes for the environmental con-game and lets the environmentally stupid feel good about themselves.
Jim
__________________
CAUTION: This post may have been altered and critical safety information deleted without the permission or knowledge of the author.
Last edited by jimmyj900 : 05-17-2008 at 03:00 PM.
Yet you decided to continue the topic with half-baked propaganda.
Politics has EVERYTHING to do with alcohol as fuel because it's a political issue and not a rational, logical or science-based issue.
Well how about:
It takes 120+ BTU of fossil fuel to produce 100 BTU of alcohol. That's essentially burning 120 gallons of oil to produce 100 gallons of alcohol and then burning the alcohol.
Is that stupid or what? It's not bad enough to waste the fossil fuel, but then to burn the result is idiotic.
...because gasoline wasn't readily available at the turn of the 19th century. DUH.
Again, it takes 120+ BTU of fossil fuel to produce 100 BTU of alcohol. That's essentially burning 120 gallons of oil to produce 100 gallons of alcohol.
So, you're producing all the pollution from burning the fossil fuels in order to burn a fuel that only produces 5% CO2.
That looks a lot to me like your producing 125% of the CO in total for the 'clean environmental fuel' than the 100% you'd get from just burning the fossil fuel. That's also a much higher figure for gasoline/alcohol mixtures.
So explain to me how that's 'environmental' and how it 'reduces global warming CO2 emissions' and how it's a 'better fuel' if there's a 120% loss in overall energy and a 105+% increase in CO2?
I'd also mention that the '5% CO2' figure is per gallon. Since you have to burn more alcohol to produce the same BTU output as gasoline, the quantity of CO2 per BTU is considerably higher than 5%.
You might also consider that most alcohol is produced from corn which is fraudulently referred to as a 'renewable resource.'
Corn is one of the most (if not *the* most) fertilizer-intensive crops there is. I'd point out that, fertilizer isn't a renewable resource: it doesn't grow on trees. It has to be mined or produced chemically (some from fossil fuels) so the concepts of 'renewable' and 'environmentally friendly' are a load of enviro-pol BS.
When you add in the processing and transportation energy consumption to the basic environmental damage of mining and producing fertilizer, corn becomes a much less attractive source of energy.
Also, alcohol can't be piped from a refinery to a distribution point like oil products can. It's acidic and hygroscopic and can't be transported in steel pipe because it tends to rust them out very rapidly. That means transportation by truck or rail -- more consumption of fossil fuels.
And that's discounting the developing *economic* disaster of 'corn-as-fuel'.
The bottom line is that alcohol as fuel is ANTI-environmental.
The only thing alcohol fuel accomplishes is moving the source of polution away from the end user to a factory/powerplant elsewhere and relocation of pollution no solution.
Burning alcohol doesn't reduce the overall production of pollution but it provides huge government-subsidized incomes for the environmental con-game and lets the environmentally stupid feel good about themselves.
Let me take this opportunity to hijack this off topic course and say I have recently experienced the exact same problem. Just picked up the (new to me ) 95 T-Bird bike in Reno, and it died on the side of the road leading into Tahoe. Spent 30 minutes playing with obvious stuff (loosening the cap, checking the carbs for obvious leaks, etc. I did NOT switch to reserve. After maybe 40 minutes total stuck on the side of the road (spent some time trying to call the guy I bought it from, and then AAA, but no cell coverage on the road into Tahoe), the bike started up and ran fine. Until I topped up the tank the next day and drove about 20 miles; same running out of gas dying. Fiddled around again, and half an hour later it started up and ran fine. It took about two more times of this until I switched the valve to reserve as it was dying, because I had nothing else to try; and the bike sputtered and came back to life. I finished the 1000 mile trip running on reserve only, and watching mileage real close. I ...suspect... as others have mentioned that something is floating around and obstructing the top part of the inlet filter. Have not yet had time to pull the tank, add a gallon or so of gas, swish it around real good, and then drain it into a cheesecloth covered funnel into a can. It may take a couple times of doing this, as some crud really likes to stick to the tank interior. But it definitely seems fuel tank related.
If something is floating in the tank it will plug the 'RES' inlet just as easily as the 'RUN' inlet.
I suspect that either the 'RUN' portion of the tap has become corroded or has a wax/varnish buildup that's reducing the flow significantly or there's some kind of foreign material embedded in the inlet filter.
A couple of pipe cleaners and a little disassembly would either prove or disprove that theory.
Jim
__________________
CAUTION: This post may have been altered and critical safety information deleted without the permission or knowledge of the author.
Burning alcohol doesn't reduce the overall production of pollution but it provides huge government-subsidized incomes for the environmental con-game and lets the environmentally stupid feel good about themselves.
Jim
There is not point in continuing discussion here, as I said before. This is not a political discussion forum, and you can't seem to discuss it without throwing in a political rant. There are many twists you can put on the issue to side with your political persuasion, so quit wasting breath and bandwidth here.
However, I agree with the issue ON TOPIC that this seems to be with the fuel tap. SO, SCHILTZY - how is that petcock looking?!?
Two weeks after I bought my 04 TBS in Houston, TX it shut off after 20 minutes of riding. I let it set by the side of the road, switched to the reserve and it ran fine for another 20 minutes. I took it home, drained the tank through a microscreen and found red, gray, black and yellow gunk in the screen. I cleaned the tank and it ran fine for two days and started the same stuff again.
I took it back to the dealer, they checked the tank, cleaned the carbs and told me there shouldn't be anymore problems. The same thing happened again. She went back to the dealer. I got her back and the same thing happend again. I had to stop 8 or 10 times on a 100 mile ride. Triumph got the lemon letter and the dealer got the TBS back.
The dealer went through the ignition timer, coils, plugs, plug wires and all of the fuel system. Said everything was fine and She ran fine for two months. I moved back to Atlanta and the whole thing started again. Two more trips to a new before Triumph told the new dealer to disconnect and/or plug everything that had to do with the emission system.
I've never had another problem since they did that.
You may have something stopped up or connected incorrectly in the emission system that's causing the problem.
Linear Mode
