Chubby Cheddar on Today: There is no reason to use High Octane gasoline
Hachiroku ハチロク
something like "Chubby Cheddar") said on the Today show 'there is no
reason to use high octane gasoline."
I dunno, but in my small, 4 cylinder engines I tend to get 4-6 MPG more
than using even mid-grade. I won't put anything lower than mid grade in
any car I own. For some reason, however, my '89 Mazda 626 and the '88
Supra seem to do better on 89 Ocatane, and all the others do better on 91.
I did a spreadsheet once based on fuel economy from a 95 Tercel I had, and
using mid-grade I was getting about 38 MPG, while on Premium I was getting
43-44!
I calculated the price per gallon at the then current rate of $2.58 for
premium and $2.48 for mid-grade, came up with gallons per mile and
extrapolated that I actually SAVED $265 over the two years I owned the car
by using Premium.
With my 1985 Corolla GTS, I was getting ~32 MPG with mid grade and 36 MPG
with Premium.
However, the Mazda does worse on Premium, it goes up about 2 MPG when I
use mid-grade. The Supra seems to like ~91 Octane, so I mix the fuel in
the tank on alternate fill ups.
The Scion is a real experiment. It gets ~27 MPG on mid grade and 32-33 on
Premium.
Hmmm...NO reason to use premium? Add to that that I have NO fuel related
problems...
Pete C.
Plenty of reason for high octane on smaller high compression / high
performance engines. For a big old average tune V8, hell no, they are
happy with most anything resembling gas.
G
In Ontario it varies.
10 percent ethanol in regular to zero percent in some premium.
Using your figures of around a 10 percent increase in miles per
gallon on premium and our gas prices, the math doesn't work me and my
vehicle,
.$0.24318 per mile on premium.
$0.24027 per mile on regular.
Maybe I will try premium and see if there is an increase that
justiifies the higher cost.
ron
390 engine - that damned thing would only run on Chevron Custom Supreme any
other premium it just didn't like.
I'll catch some shit for this, 86, but my guess is the older cars have
probably just enough cylinder head deposits to increase the compression,
MAYBE giving you better mileage on higher octane. FWIW, my Highlander says
to use 87 UNLESS I need higher performance such as towing a trailer in the
hilly country,.,.
--
Merry Christmas
Ron
phaeton
days it'll ping under almost any load unless I put in premium. I've
never done a fuel mileage comparison between the two (I only use
premium to stop the detonation), but a number of years ago on 87 I
figured it out to be averaging just shy of 30mpg, which is apparently
about 5-6mpg more than average for a Ranger of my configuration.
*shrug*
-J
Ray O
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
same or close, go with premium to take advantage of the advanced timing.
Note that if you switch back and forth, it takes the computer a tank or two
to advance the timing again after it has been retarded on regular.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Hachiroku ハチロク
> it takes the computer a
> tank or two to advance the timing again after it has been retarded on
> regular.
What does JSB have to do with the gas I use?
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> Hmmm...NO reason to use premium? Add to that that I have NO fuel related
>> problems...
>>
>>
> Calculate cost per mile to see which is more economical. If the cost is
> the same or close, go with premium to take advantage of the advanced
> timing. Note that if you switch back and forth, it takes the computer a
> tank or two to advance the timing again after it has been retarded on
> regular.
Since the price has gone up, and esp when it was hitting $4 a gallon, I
usually do with all cars what I do with the Supra, and that is one fill
with 93, and one fill with 89. I keep the tanks relatively full, usually
right around 3/4 tank when I refill. I'd rather have gas in case I have
no money, and I know at anytime I can just jump in the car and go.
This usually mean 5-6 gallons of whatever, and every once in a while I run
the tank down low to get rid of 'old' gas and refill with fresh gas. Since
the pumps have credit card readers on them, I don't have to drive the
attendants nuts like I used to do years ago...
This method keeps the octane in the tanks at 91~92.
The Mazda is weird. It got below 3/4 tank, and they had run out of
Regular, so they were selling 93 at the regular price, so I filled ALL the
cars, and the Mazda DROPPED 3 MPG!
Hachiroku ハチロク
But...what about the '05 Scion, with 28,885 miles on it?!?!?!
And my venerable '85 GTS, which I bought 1 year old with 10,020 miles on
it (yes, I remember!). It was really the car that started the experiment,
with a little black book in the glove to record the results. After about
12 years I figured I had enough 'results', but still calculated the MPG
every time I filled up.
And before that there was the '80 Corolla SR5, that did better on 93, and
I bought that one with 12 miles on it, and before that there was a '78
Corolla 1200. That ONLY ran (or, to say, I only filled it) with Premium
for it's short life (A Mustang did it in at ~55,000 miles.)
Are you ready? That car got FORTY-EIGHT miles per gallon!!!
And ALL figures are OVERALL, town and higway driving!!!
So, here's the run down: 78 1200=48MPG
80 SR5 (1.8L) = 33 MPG
85 GTS (1.6 DOHC) = 36 MPG
95 Tercel = 45 MPG
05 Scion tC = 32 MPG
IIRC after putting Michelin radials on my '74 1200 (FIRST car, and bought
NEW!) I think I was getting 38 MPG combined.
Hey, do I get a Nobel Prize for fuel conservation? They seem to be giving
them away for nothing recently...
Ray O
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
It is tough to calculate when the fuel is mixed like that although cost per
mile shouldn't be too bad.
Ray O
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
I'll plead the Fifth...
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> The Mazda is weird. It got below 3/4 tank, and they had run out of
>> Regular, so they were selling 93 at the regular price, so I filled ALL
>> the cars, and the Mazda DROPPED 3 MPG!
>>
>>
> It is tough to calculate when the fuel is mixed like that although cost
> per mile shouldn't be too bad.
It's generally ten cents difference around here, although there is one gas
station between UMASS and Smith College where the difference is only 5
cents. Guess what they get filled with there!
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:56:55 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>
>>> it takes the computer a
>>> tank or two to advance the timing again after it has been retarded on
>>> regular.
>>
>> What does JSB have to do with the gas I use?
>>
>>
> I'll plead the Fifth...
Make it Crown Royal and I'll be right over!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Hmmm...I always thought they added ethanol to RAISE the octane?!?!
Perhaps (once) I'm wrong. Anyone know for sure?
BTW, they do this in Vermont also. In Mass., ALL gasoline is required to
contain ethanol. Funny thing is, when I would fill the car in Vermont
BEFORE they added ethanol was when I got the WORST mileage; 24 MPG with my
LHS (it usually got 28 MPG on Mass gas), 23 with a Grand Voyager (it got
27 in Mass), and 27 in my Scion tC!!! (it now gets 32).
Um, we won't talk about the Supra, OK?
Ray O
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
I know someone who used to mix Crown Royal with 7-Up. To me, it seemed like
putting ketchup on filet mignon
ron
bit more btu's/unit, is this true Ray?
--
Merry Christmas
Ron
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.12.04...@e86.GTS...
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:16:36 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:56:55 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it takes the computer a
>>>>> tank or two to advance the timing again after it has been retarded on
>>>>> regular.
>>>>
>>>> What does JSB have to do with the gas I use?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'll plead the Fifth...
>>
>> Make it Crown Royal and I'll be right over!
>>
>>
> I know someone who used to mix Crown Royal with 7-Up. To me, it seemed
> like putting ketchup on filet mignon
True, but I usually mix mine with Coke. Makes it last longer, and I'm not
that much of an alcoholic! ;)
However, I would like a nice Crown Royal...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/2008_Toyota_Crown-Royal_01.jpg
G
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ethanol waters down the energy content in gasoline.
Gasoline:
1 G1al Gasoline (mid grade) = 125,000 Btu's
Ethanol:
1 Gal Ethanol = 76,000 Btu's
So E10 would have 76,000btu x 10% = 7,600btu
125,000btu x 90% = 112,500btu
Total btu content 120,100btu or 96.08% energy
content of straight gasoline.
E85 = 83,350btu or 66.8% energy content of straight gasoline.
Ray O
"ron" <ran...@teranews.com> wrote in message
news:q9gSm.40074$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
The BTU content of regular and higher octane fuel is the same if the only
difference were octane content. Premium fuels usually have other additives
besides octane, which muddies the comparison somewhat.
Higher octane fuel allows ignition timing to be advanced more and
compression to be higher, both of which allow the engine to burn the fuel
more efficiently and increase performance.
Ray O
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:31:00 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.12.04...@e86.GTS...
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:16:36 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:56:55 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> it takes the computer a
>>>>>> tank or two to advance the timing again after it has been retarded on
>>>>>> regular.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does JSB have to do with the gas I use?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'll plead the Fifth...
>>>
>>> Make it Crown Royal and I'll be right over!
>>>
>>>
>> I know someone who used to mix Crown Royal with 7-Up. To me, it seemed
>> like putting ketchup on filet mignon
>
> True, but I usually mix mine with Coke. Makes it last longer, and I'm not
> that much of an alcoholic! ;)
>
> However, I would like a nice Crown Royal...
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/2008_Toyota_Crown-Royal_01.jpg
>
I wonder if it comes in a nice little blue sack?
dr_jeff
That's true. However, the keyword here is "allows." That means it works
for some engines. And not others. It all depends on the design of the
engine and the software running it.
Some cars will have better performance with higher octane fuel while
others won't.
Jeff
hls
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>
> Hmmm...I always thought they added ethanol to RAISE the octane?!?!
>
> Perhaps (once) I'm wrong. Anyone know for sure?
>
Ethanol will raise the octane somewhat but that is not the reason I have
heard given for the blend. They claim it will, being oxygenated, help
decrease
emissions. (But with all the pollution control designed into our cars, the
catalytic convertors, etc, is that really a big issue?)
And they claim it is good because it is a renewable energy source..and that
it
will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources....etc etc
Politically, I think it is more to subsidize certain agricultural entities,
and to
pay lip service to the environment, renewable fuels, etc.
hls
"Ray O" <roki...@NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message
>
> The BTU content of regular and higher octane fuel is the same if the only
> difference were octane content. Premium fuels usually have other
> additives besides octane, which muddies the comparison somewhat.
>
> Higher octane fuel allows ignition timing to be advanced more and
> compression to be higher, both of which allow the engine to burn the fuel
> more efficiently and increase performance.
> --
That is sort of right, but not totally. Traditionally higher octane
gasolines used
refinery reformates (remember Platformate?) which are aromatic hydrocarbons.
These molecules have a higher octane than most simple hydrocarbons but the
dont have the same energy content....because they are deficient in hydrogen,
which is the highest combustion energy source in most fuels. With the use
of
additives such as tetraethyllead, you could get high octane numbers with
simpler
fuels.
Scott Dorsey
>More years ago than I'd like to remember I had a Ford with a HP 335 horse
>390 engine - that damned thing would only run on Chevron Custom Supreme any
>other premium it just didn't like.
Yup. I bet it didn't have a ping sensor and an automatic gadget that
adjusted the timing to prevent pinging, though.
If the ECU actually gave a message to the driver saying that it was doing
this, people would have a much better idea whether premium gas was helping
or hurting them.
>I'll catch some shit for this, 86, but my guess is the older cars have
>probably just enough cylinder head deposits to increase the compression,
>MAYBE giving you better mileage on higher octane. FWIW, my Highlander says
>to use 87 UNLESS I need higher performance such as towing a trailer in the
>hilly country,.,.
Oh, this is absolutely true. But the fix for this isn't to use higher
octane gas, but to try some of the magic engine cleaning compounds. Or
more likely to pop the heads and knock that crap off with a chisel.
That's another thing that I am pleased to see modern engine control systems
preventing....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> Now, if you want to do the cost per mile calculations, that's up to you.
>> But engine damage? Not on your life. Honda isn't that stupid, and
>> neither is any other manufacturer.
>
> I can tell the difference in performance of my 04 Sienna between winter
> and summer gas, and regular and premium grades. I remember at the
> Phillips 66 station I worked PT, gas was .28/gal. In the small city 30
> miles away they had gas wars and prices went way down, .17/gal. Them were
> the good old days, many moons ago.
Damn! How old ARE you?!?!?
I remember the Gas Wars, but I was under 8 years old, so that's somewhere
from 62-65.
I do remember buying gas for a mini bike at 32 cents a gallon.
My first tank of gas was 41 cents, and the next one was 55.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:31:00 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.12.04...@e86.GTS...
>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:16:36 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:56:55 -0600, Ray O wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it takes the computer a
>>>>>>> tank or two to advance the timing again after it has been retarded
>>>>>>> on regular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does JSB have to do with the gas I use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'll plead the Fifth...
>>>>
>>>> Make it Crown Royal and I'll be right over!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I know someone who used to mix Crown Royal with 7-Up. To me, it seemed
>>> like putting ketchup on filet mignon
>>
>> True, but I usually mix mine with Coke. Makes it last longer, and I'm
>> not that much of an alcoholic! ;)
>>
>> However, I would like a nice Crown Royal...
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/2008_Toyota_Crown-Royal_01.jpg
>>
>>
> I wonder if it comes in a nice little blue sack?
Must be one hell of a sack!
They probably remove it when it gets off the boat.
Looking through some pics, it appears the Toyota Crown is what became the
LS400, with the Royal edition trim. Interesting, since the Crown used to
be sold on it's own here in the late 60's/early 70's. What cars they were,
too.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>I'll catch some shit for this, 86, but my guess is the older cars have
>>probably just enough cylinder head deposits to increase the compression,
>>MAYBE giving you better mileage on higher octane. FWIW, my Highlander
>>says to use 87 UNLESS I need higher performance such as towing a trailer
>>in the hilly country,.,.
>
> Oh, this is absolutely true. But the fix for this isn't to use higher
> octane gas, but to try some of the magic engine cleaning compounds. Or
> more likely to pop the heads and knock that crap off with a chisel. That's
> another thing that I am pleased to see modern engine control systems
> preventing....
I used to do that to my two-stroke Yamahas...
For the cars, I was using Chevorn with Techron, but when Chevron closed
their stations in the Northeast I now just run a bottle of Techron through
the engine every 25,000 miles or so...older engines only.
I am not in favor of using Genies in a Bottle until the engine gets over
120-150,000 miles or so...
Don Stauffer
> "Hachiroku ハチロク" wrote:
>> Hmmm...For those of you who don't know Csaba Csere (somehow pronounced
>> something like "Chubby Cheddar") said on the Today show 'there is no
>> reason to use high octane gasoline."
>>
>> I dunno, but in my small, 4 cylinder engines I tend to get 4-6 MPG more
>> than using even mid-grade. I won't put anything lower than mid grade in
>> any car I own. For some reason, however, my '89 Mazda 626 and the '88
>> Supra seem to do better on 89 Ocatane, and all the others do better on 91.
>>
>> I did a spreadsheet once based on fuel economy from a 95 Tercel I had, and
>> using mid-grade I was getting about 38 MPG, while on Premium I was getting
>> 43-44!
>>
>> I calculated the price per gallon at the then current rate of $2.58 for
>> premium and $2.48 for mid-grade, came up with gallons per mile and
>> extrapolated that I actually SAVED $265 over the two years I owned the car
>> by using Premium.
>>
>> With my 1985 Corolla GTS, I was getting ~32 MPG with mid grade and 36 MPG
>> with Premium.
>>
>> However, the Mazda does worse on Premium, it goes up about 2 MPG when I
>> use mid-grade. The Supra seems to like ~91 Octane, so I mix the fuel in
>> the tank on alternate fill ups.
>>
>> The Scion is a real experiment. It gets ~27 MPG on mid grade and 32-33 on
>> Premium.
>>
>> problems...
>
> performance engines. For a big old average tune V8, hell no, they are
> happy with most anything resembling gas.
I ran a series of tests on my Dodge Neon RT after I bought it. The
dealer said premium recommended but it will do okay on regular.
I ran ten tankfuls of each, compiling statistics to compute probable
error/sigma.
I found a slight increase in milage on regular, but well within the
probable error, so my conclusion had to be that it made no difference in
milage. I didn't have good enough timing equipment to do a good,
accurate performance test, but to the seat of my pants it seemed to make
no difference.
That engine was a DOHC high revving four.
cuh...@webtv.net
Not to be off topic, but we got about three quarter to about inch of
snow last night.I hate snow!
cuhulin
hls
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:4b1a7f52$0$48215$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
> That engine was a DOHC high revving four.
There is significant information on using ethanol as a fuel with highly
developed
engines of this type, particularly with a turbocharger. It functions pretty
well
as a fuel if the engine is designed for it, but of course the energy content
is
lower than nonoxygenated fuels.
Still, there have been other tests that show that fuels with substantial
amounts
of water in them can give better performance than would be predicted by
thermodynamic energy balance alone.
The use of corn to make ethanol is, IMHO, a boondoggle. It makes pretty
fine sipping whiskey, but fuel is not the best use of a crop like corn.
Hachiroku ハチロク
SIPPING WHISKEY?!?!?!
Dude, you got a cast iron stomach? Are you like Bender on Futurama?!?!?!
By the time it gets to fuel use, it's...
http://www.northroyalton.net/images/everclear.jpg
Read the red label at the bottom!
The only time in my entire 35 years of consuming adult beverages I have
said, "NEVER AGAIN!!!" ;p
Hachiroku ハチロク
And today it's our turn...
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>
>
>> Hmmm...I always thought they added ethanol to RAISE the octane?!?!
>>
>> Perhaps (once) I'm wrong. Anyone know for sure?
>>
> Ethanol will raise the octane somewhat but that is not the reason I have
> heard given for the blend. They claim it will, being oxygenated, help
> decrease
> emissions. (But with all the pollution control designed into our cars,
> the catalytic convertors, etc, is that really a big issue?)
They mandate it in Mass primarily because of the Boston area, but we have
to be Politically Correct here, so we ALL get it, even at the other end of
the state.
We also got CA emissions standards shortly after CA did. A lot of people
from where I live were going to Vermont to buy cars.
>
> And they claim it is good because it is a renewable energy source..and
> that it
> will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources....etc etc
They 'claiim', for sure. Problem is, when there is a CORN SHORTAGE like
there was this summer, isn't fuel really the last thing you want to run
your car on? Did you see the price of corn based cereals this year?!?!
>
> Politically, I think it is more to subsidize certain agricultural
> entities, and to
> pay lip service to the environment, renewable fuels, etc.
They have discovered they can make the same (or almost the same) grade
ethanol from...er, what was it? Swamp grass? Buffalo grass? I can't
remember. But it will also yield a fuel-grade ethanol and not reduce the
corn-for-food supplies...
Hachiroku ハチロク
Interesting, but I think even Vermont has now gone Ethanol-enhanced.
hls
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
Oh, you can make ethanol from a lot of things...potatoes, sugar cane juice,
etc.
Anything with fermentable sugars or starches.
Corn requires a lot of nitrogen to grow well...and that, nowadays, mostly
comes from
petroleum.. Yes, you could get it from animal manures, but in practice that
is not
what they do. (BS is plentiful in Washington, but does not work for this
application ;>)
Corn only produce 2-4 ears per stalk. That is a relatively low weight of
fermentable
carbohydrate for the space and fertilizer consumed.
They were talking about switch grass, but talk is cheap.
Ray O
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:Ob-dnRjV8qZ80ofW...@giganews.com...
I should have added the caveat that my explanation only applies to vehicles
built in the last 10 or 15 years, most of which electronically advance
ignition timing until the knock sensors detect knocking or pinging and
retard timing.
tak
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:15:46 -0800, G wrote:
>
>> How much ethanol is in the various grades?
>>
>> In Ontario it varies.
>>
>> 10 percent ethanol in regular to zero percent in some premium.
>>
>> Using your figures of around a 10 percent increase in miles per gallon
>> on
>> premium and our gas prices, the math doesn't work me and my vehicle,
>>
>> .$0.24318 per mile on premium.
>>
>> $0.24027 per mile on regular.
>>
>> Maybe I will try premium and see if there is an increase that justiifies
>> the higher cost.
>
> Hmmm...I always thought they added ethanol to RAISE the octane?!?!
>
> Perhaps (once) I'm wrong. Anyone know for sure?
Once, Hach? I'm sure you've tagged way more than once just on Global Warming
alone!
Ray O
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
I think that the Crown and the original LS were different platforms, with
the LS sold as the Celsior in Japan. I don't know if that is still the case
or not.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Yeah, I believe you are right. I had forgotten about the Clesior, which
was always a large, relatively powerful Japanese car.
Kevin
news:x6WdnX2SkPgGSofW...@giganews.com:
>
> "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.12.05....@e86.GTS...
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:15:56 -0600, hls wrote:
>
>>
>> They have discovered they can make the same (or almost the same)
>> grade ethanol from...er, what was it? Swamp grass? Buffalo grass? I
>> can't remember. But it will also yield a fuel-grade ethanol and not
>> reduce the corn-for-food supplies...
why is this so hard to get accross!!!! there is no food for fuel
problem!!!!!! the corn used for ethanol is not food grade corn, it is
used to feed livestock for the most part, and the bybroduct from ethanol is
a high grade feed addative so not that much is lost to the actuall ethanol
production. any other info is shit fed to the masses by the dam oil
compainies and apparently the masses are Gullible and beleive their crap.
And currently they are ready to go online with the first bio fuel (read
corn stocks\ switch grass\ ect which will be even cheeper ethanol
production. If you don`t like ethanol that is one thing, but the other is
dam smoke and mirrors crap from the oil companies not wanting to give up
any market share. KB
>>
>
> Oh, you can make ethanol from a lot of things...potatoes, sugar cane
> juice, etc.
> Anything with fermentable sugars or starches.
>
> Corn requires a lot of nitrogen to grow well...and that, nowadays,
> mostly comes from
> petroleum.. Yes, you could get it from animal manures, but in practice
> that is not
> what they do. (BS is plentiful in Washington, but does not work for
> this application ;>)
>
> Corn only produce 2-4 ears per stalk. That is a relatively low weight
> of fermentable
> carbohydrate for the space and fertilizer consumed.
>
> They were talking about switch grass, but talk is cheap.
>
>
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Kevin
wrote in news:pan.2009.12.05....@e86.GTS:
ethanol is 200 proof and everclear is just 180. (although some workers
have been caught sampling it. Nasty. KB
Ray O
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-9254EF....@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article <hfesb3$un8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Ray O" <roki...@NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote:
>
>> > Some cars will have better performance with higher octane fuel while
>> > others won't.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>>
>> I should have added the caveat that my explanation only applies to
>> vehicles
>> built in the last 10 or 15 years, most of which electronically advance
>> ignition timing until the knock sensors detect knocking or pinging and
>> retard timing.
>
>
> They absolutely *will* RETARD timing BACK from spec as needed. But
> don't confuse that with "and they'll also go the other way, beyond spec".
>
> So, that is to say that a family hauler Hyundai will not go wild with
> 104 octane in the tank. It'll go to spec, period.
Good point, I misspoke.
jim
Well actually you were somewhat right. The EPA does its Economy Fuel
Tests using a very carefully specified 91 octane fuel. So it is in the
car manufacturers best interest to design the engine management system
to produce the best mileage using that particular fuel as opposed to
what comes out of a regular gas pump. And they also now have the
capability to design engine management around the other test conditions
that are also carefully specified.
And besides it isn't just timing that affects knock. Air/fuel ratio and
intake air temp and valve timing (variable in some engines) also have
some effect on detonation. And that is not all. There is always YMMV
factor which includes the different ways people drive as well as the
subtle differences that can exist inside an engine that is beyond the
control of the computer management system - things like the amount of
carbon in the cylinder and the condition of the rings and valves and
EGR with respect to sealing.
In other words, the only way to really tell what effect higher octane
fuel will have, is to try it.
-jim
Don Stauffer
I have another four-cylinder that is in my vintage 3/4 midget (race
car). It burns methanol (wood alcohol). Have to clean out fuel line
every spring when racing season starts, but other than that it works fine.
Hachiroku ハチロク
> There is always YMMV factor
> which includes the different ways people drive
But I drive like a Bat out of Hell. Always have. I'm not wreckless, but
you're not going to have to worry about me getting out of your way, either.
Maybe Toyota engines like it that way. I also don't use 5th gear unless
I'm over 50MPH. Always have. And yet, my combined mileage usually equals
or bests the EPA "highway" mileage on the sticker...
jim
"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/ (B" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:33:53 -0600, jim wrote:
>
> > There is always YMMV factor
> > which includes the different ways people drive
>
> But I drive like a Bat out of Hell. Always have. I'm not wreckless,
If not wreckless then what? Are you are wreckful?
Hachiroku ハチロク
Mario Andretti panned me as a chauffeur because I scared the pants off him.
I drive about as fast as conoditions will allow, usually 40-70MPH,
occasional gusts to 100+, just for fun, once or twice per car.
Fastest has been 130 in my Corolla GTS, next has been 125 in my Scion.
More to go in the Scion, but I'm not as indestructable as I was 23 years
ago. I'd say 45 is average.
That being said, since I drive just under what conditions allow, people
behind me in snowstorms get really pissed off. I usually see the ones that
pass me in a snowstorm in a ditch a few miles up the road as I drive by.
Nate Nagel
> That being said, since I drive just under what conditions allow, people
> behind me in snowstorms get really pissed off. I usually see the ones that
> pass me in a snowstorm in a ditch a few miles up the road as I drive by.
That ain't no joke. Usually I'm the slowest guy on the road because I
need a clean driving record for work. But last night it had been wet,
sloppy snow all day and then I had to drive home at about 3 AM. You
wouldn't believe all the idiots tailgating each other on the freeway.
One patch of black ice and 15 or more cars would have all been taken out
simultaneously. The thing that really got me was the state trooper who
passed me and *didn't* pull over the knucklehead who'd just pulled a
really squidly combination tailgate/too close lane change/pass on right
just a second before. It's bad enough in good conditions, but when it's
been warm and snowing all day and now is below freezing? madness.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Hachiroku ハチロク
> In article <pan.2009.12.06....@e86.GTS>,
> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> I'm not wreckless,
>
> And who among us is? ;-)
Oh, I see a few here and there.
Fools, at best.
Hachiroku ハチロク
I spend my workday on the road, sometimes going from Amherst Mass to Keene
NH or even to the ski areas in south central Vermont...
I see ALL kinds. I have an AWD Subaru (beater) with studded snow tires and
I STILL piss off the Soccer Moms in the Jeeps who think they're
invincable...
See you in the ditch, witch!
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> By the time it gets to fuel use, it's...
>>
>> http://www.northroyalton.net/images/everclear.jpg
>>
>> Read the red label at the bottom!
>>
>> The only time in my entire 35 years of consuming adult beverages I
> have
>> said, "NEVER AGAIN!!!" ;p
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ethanol is 200 proof and everclear is just 180. (although some workers
> have been caught sampling it. Nasty. KB
I thought it said 190...
I can tell you honestly, it TASTES 200, and it FEELS 500!!!!
Whew! NEVER AGAIN!!!!!
Hachiroku ハチロク
Yeah, that's it. Switch grass. From what I have heard of it it basically
grows wild, and is a bit of a nuisance.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>>> They have discovered they can make the same (or almost the same) grade
>>> ethanol from...er, what was it? Swamp grass? Buffalo grass? I can't
>>> remember. But it will also yield a fuel-grade ethanol and not reduce
>>> the corn-for-food supplies...
>
>
> why is this so hard to get accross!!!! there is no food for fuel
> problem!!!!!! the corn used for ethanol is not food grade corn, it is
> used to feed livestock for the most part, and the bybroduct from ethanol
> is a high grade feed addative so not that much is lost to the actuall
> ethanol production.
Interesting. Thanks!
I have also heard of some guys in Iowa or somewhere that are using bull
shit (yes, really, (actually cow) shot to produce energy. They have a
plant set up where they compile the cow manure and then draw off the
methane, and use the methane to fire boilers, and they are meeting ALL
their own energy needs, and the needs of about 10 other close-by
households. And a by product is a fertilizer they can sell.
I just remembered, it's in Wisconsin, and it's a farm where they make
cheese.
They ought to think of setting up such an operation in Washington, there's
PLENTY of BS there! ;)
Again, thanks.
Scott Dorsey
>>
>> Corn only produce 2-4 ears per stalk. That is a relatively low weight of
>> fermentable
>> carbohydrate for the space and fertilizer consumed.
>>
>> They were talking about switch grass, but talk is cheap.
>
>
>Yeah, that's it. Switch grass. From what I have heard of it it basically
>grows wild, and is a bit of a nuisance.
That's a totally different process.
Making pure alcohol from starch is a process that has been around for a
few centuries now, and it's pretty well-known and all of the bugs are out
of it. College students can do it in their dorm rooms with minimal
equipment.
The switchgrass thing is dependent on having a process to convert cellulose
to ethanol. We can do that in the laboratory, but nobody has actually done
it on an industrial scale yet although there's apparently a pilot plant in
the works. There's a big difference between a laboratory process and an
industrial facility.
If we can actually get a commercially viable cellulose to ethanol process,
we can use all kinds of waste materials. Grass clippings, tree bark,
sugarcane waste. Even the stalks from those corn plants after the corn has
been harvested.
Right now the most economical process for making ethanol is through
hydration of ethylene gas made from petroleum. It's so cheap that in
Mexico you can buy gallon jugs of aguardiente made from petroleum for
a few bucks. It smells like a hangover in a bottle.
In the US it's illegal to sell such alcohol for drinking purposes, and
on top of that the enormous corn subsidies have made ethanol from fermentation
and distillation much cheaper than they otherwise would be. I don't know
if this is a good or a bad thing, it just is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
jim
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >>
> >> Corn only produce 2-4 ears per stalk. That is a relatively low weight of
> >> fermentable
> >> carbohydrate for the space and fertilizer consumed.
> >>
> >> They were talking about switch grass, but talk is cheap.
> >
> >
> >Yeah, that's it. Switch grass. From what I have heard of it it basically
> >grows wild, and is a bit of a nuisance.
>
> That's a totally different process.
>
> Making pure alcohol from starch is a process that has been around for a
> few centuries now, and it's pretty well-known and all of the bugs are out
> of it. College students can do it in their dorm rooms with minimal
> equipment.
>
> The switchgrass thing is dependent on having a process to convert cellulose
> to ethanol. We can do that in the laboratory, but nobody has actually done
> it on an industrial scale yet although there's apparently a pilot plant in
> the works. There's a big difference between a laboratory process and an
> industrial facility.
The problem in a nutshell is it isn't economical. Not for the farmer or
for the ethanol plant.
>
> If we can actually get a commercially viable cellulose to ethanol process,
> we can use all kinds of waste materials. Grass clippings, tree bark,
> sugarcane waste. Even the stalks from those corn plants after the corn has
> been harvested.
There are much more economical ways to turn waste cellulose into
energy. Like for instance burning them directly to produce electricity.
Of course the same can be said for corn. For the last 30 years it has
been cheaper for a farmer to burn his corn to heat his house than it has
been to sell it and spend the money on oil or gas to heat his house. One
economic advantage of making ethanol from corn is you also get 80% of
the original value of the corn as high protein livestock feed. If you
burn the corn all you have left is ashes.
>
> Right now the most economical process for making ethanol is through
> hydration of ethylene gas made from petroleum. It's so cheap that in
> Mexico you can buy gallon jugs of aguardiente made from petroleum for
> a few bucks. It smells like a hangover in a bottle.
I don't think so. I can't find a reference to any body ever making
aguardiente from petroleum.
>
> In the US it's illegal to sell such alcohol for drinking purposes, and
> on top of that the enormous corn subsidies have made ethanol from fermentation
> and distillation much cheaper than they otherwise would be. I don't know
> if this is a good or a bad thing, it just is.
What made corn cheap is not just the subsidies. It was the subsidies
along with the fact that nobody really wanted/needed all that extra corn
the subsidies encouraged. In the last 50 years the taxpayers have spent
something like 1/4 trillion dollars subsidizing corn growers. Those
subsidies tend to be linked to the price of corn. When the price of corn
goes down the cost to the tax payer tends to go up. So why complain now
because the price of corn had its first significant increase in 45
years?
-jim
C. E. White
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:0ridnTxp1Ocy4YPW...@bright.net...
> What made corn cheap is not just the subsidies. It was the subsidies
> along with the fact that nobody really wanted/needed all that extra
> corn
> the subsidies encouraged. In the last 50 years the taxpayers have
> spent
> something like 1/4 trillion dollars subsidizing corn growers. Those
> subsidies tend to be linked to the price of corn. When the price of
> corn
> goes down the cost to the tax payer tends to go up. So why complain
> now
> because the price of corn had its first significant increase in 45
> years?
The payment related to price is called an LDP (load deficiency
payment). There hasn't been an LDP payment for corn in the last four
years. The LDP kicks in when the actual price for corn (or other
commodities that have similar programs like cotton and peanuts) are
below a government set target price. The last farm bill set the target
prices very low (under the cost of production for most farmers) and
therfroe there as not been any LDP payments in the last few years for
corn (or most other commodities, except maybe cotton).
Becasue of the low target prices, the current programs don't encourage
planting corn over other crops. There are "direct" and
"countercyclical" payments related to past corn production, but they
are based on past plantings and aren't affected by what you plant
today (or for the last 8 years or so). Program payments to corn
farmers have steadily decreased for the last 21 years. I lost my a**
on corn in 2009. Corn prices were OK in 2008, but too low this year to
have made planting corn a good decision. Ethanol producers may be
subsidized to produce ethanol, but corn farmers are not being
subsidized in a manner that encourages excess production. I would have
gotten the same Government "corn" payments if I had planted no corn,
or planted everything I farm to corn.
One other thing people should consider when they attack what little
subsidy is still provided to corn farmers - the subsidy counts as
taxable income. So, if you actually make any money, a significant
portion of the subsidy is returned to state governments and the
federal government as income tax. So if you actually make money
farming, you probably send at least 50% of the subsidy right back to
governments (and remember, Farmer have to pay both the employee and
employer parts of medicare and social security - ouch).
And one more little tidbit - corn,wheat, soybeans, and cotton
represent significant sources of export revenue. Encouraging over
production keeps internal and external food prices low. This makes
food cheap for you and exports cheap to generate more export revenue.
My Father farmed his whole life and constantly complained about the
Federal farm programs. He felt that the programs kept marginal
producers in buisness, which kept prices low, which hurt efficient
producers. 2008 was the first year in my memory that corn prices
reached the level of the 1970's (and I mean unadjusted prices, much
less prices adjusted for inflation). The companies that provide farm
suppleis (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, equipment), took the
oppurtunuity to jack up their prices greatly. The net was, that
although my gross revenue for corn in 2008 were the best in years, my
net revenue hardly increased at all. Unless something changes, I plan
to plant much less corn in 2010. However, since corn stocks are very
low, this might change. There is not a "glut" of corn currently no
matter what you may have been led to believe.
Ed
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> ron <ran...@teranews.com> wrote:
>>More years ago than I'd like to remember I had a Ford with a HP 335 horse
>>390 engine - that damned thing would only run on Chevron Custom Supreme
>>any other premium it just didn't like.
>
> Yup. I bet it didn't have a ping sensor and an automatic gadget that
> adjusted the timing to prevent pinging, though.
>
> If the ECU actually gave a message to the driver saying that it was doing
> this, people would have a much better idea whether premium gas was helping
> or hurting them.
Exactly. The hardware is there already (except for the light). And since
pinging is as dependant on driving habits as octane, compression and
anything else, I can't understand why this piece of data has never been
provided to the driver. A "bad gas" light, with instructions to either
switch up to the next grade or back off the accelerator if it lights
frequently.
Want to bet that the oil companies have discouraged car makers from
providing such an indicator just so they can push multiple grades of gas?
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
jim
"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> news:0ridnTxp1Ocy4YPW...@bright.net...
>
> > What made corn cheap is not just the subsidies. It was the subsidies
> > along with the fact that nobody really wanted/needed all that extra
> > corn
> > the subsidies encouraged. In the last 50 years the taxpayers have
> > spent
> > something like 1/4 trillion dollars subsidizing corn growers. Those
> > subsidies tend to be linked to the price of corn. When the price of
> > corn
> > goes down the cost to the tax payer tends to go up. So why complain
> > now
> > because the price of corn had its first significant increase in 45
> > years?
>
> The payment related to price is called an LDP (load deficiency
> payment). There hasn't been an LDP payment for corn in the last four
> years.
Well that isn't the only way corn is subsidized. But yes thank-you for
clarifying my point. No matter how you skin the cat the fact remains
that taxpayers are paying less not more in recent years. And you can't
just ignore that the ethanol market is soaking up a huge amount of farm
production and the effect that has on what washington does.
>The LDP kicks in when the actual price for corn (or other
> commodities that have similar programs like cotton and peanuts) are
> below a government set target price. The last farm bill set the target
> prices very low (under the cost of production for most farmers) and
> therfroe there as not been any LDP payments in the last few years for
> corn (or most other commodities, except maybe cotton).
Ethanol has largely supplanted the need for as much government
incentives (I use the word need from the politician's point of view)
Nevertheless my point remains taxpayers are now not paying as much. I
believe another consequence has been that the government is also in
recent years paying farmer less to store grain on farm.
>
> Becasue of the low target prices, the current programs don't encourage
> planting corn over other crops.
Or any other grain with a low target price.
>There are "direct" and
> "countercyclical" payments related to past corn production, but they
> are based on past plantings and aren't affected by what you plant
> today (or for the last 8 years or so).
> Program payments to corn
> farmers have steadily decreased for the last 21 years. I lost my a**
> on corn in 2009. Corn prices were OK in 2008, but too low this year to
> have made planting corn a good decision.
Then it would have probably also been a bad decision in years before
that.
> Ethanol producers may be
> subsidized to produce ethanol,
Who are ethanol producers and what subsidy do they get? The only
government program for ethanol that exists today is the payments to the
oil refiners for the ethanol they add to gas. None of that money goes to
the farmer or ethanol plant. Congress's stated purpose of giving the
payment (tax rebate actually) to the oil companies was to compensate
them for having to shut down their govt mandated MTBE operations.
> but corn farmers are not being
> subsidized in a manner that encourages excess production. I would have
> gotten the same Government "corn" payments if I had planted no corn,
> or planted everything I farm to corn.
>
> One other thing people should consider when they attack what little
> subsidy is still provided to corn farmers - the subsidy counts as
> taxable income. So, if you actually make any money, a significant
> portion of the subsidy is returned to state governments and the
> federal government as income tax. So if you actually make money
> farming, you probably send at least 50% of the subsidy right back to
> governments (and remember, Farmer have to pay both the employee and
> employer parts of medicare and social security - ouch).
Well I wasn't attacking farmers. I was saying that from a taxpayer point
of view it is a good thing that corn is now being used for something
that really gives it value and holds the price up. Some farmers
understand that the reason corn and soybean and other grain prices have
been so low for so many years is nobody really wanted it (or at least
not so much of it) That is why something like 70% of the investment in
all ethanol plants is from either private farmers directly or indirectly
thru farmer's coops.
>
> And one more little tidbit - corn,wheat, soybeans, and cotton
> represent significant sources of export revenue. Encouraging over
> production keeps internal and external food prices low. This makes
> food cheap for you and exports cheap to generate more export revenue.
Well that isn't really always good thing. Over a million mexican farmers
lost their land after NAFTA went into affect and the mexican market was
flooded with cheap corn in the 90's. Many of those displaced farmers
went North.
>
> My Father farmed his whole life and constantly complained about the
> Federal farm programs. He felt that the programs kept marginal
> producers in buisness, which kept prices low, which hurt efficient
> producers.
Yup, but it will never change. History has taught the politicians that
in America the only sure thing that will bring the American voting
public out of its stupor and get them to toss the bums out of office is
to have the public go to the supermarket and not find food on the
shelves. Maintaining a huge farm surplus is the number one priority in
maintaining political tranquility.
> 2008 was the first year in my memory that corn prices
> reached the level of the 1970's (and I mean unadjusted prices, much
> less prices adjusted for inflation).
IIRC It was only a couple years in the 70's.
> The companies that provide farm
> suppleis (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, equipment), took the
> oppurtunuity to jack up their prices greatly. The net was, that
> although my gross revenue for corn in 2008 were the best in years, my
> net revenue hardly increased at all. Unless something changes, I plan
> to plant much less corn in 2010. However, since corn stocks are very
> low, this might change. There is not a "glut" of corn currently no
> matter what you may have been led to believe.
A glut? Who said there was a glut. 8 months ago there were all sorts of
dire predictions that that there were going to be catastrophic shortages
if the weather happened to be bad this year.
-jim
>
> Ed
bill...@the.farm
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:15:56 -0600, hls wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.12.04....@e86.GTS...
>>
>>
>>> Hmmm...I always thought they added ethanol to RAISE the octane?!?!
>>>
>>> Perhaps (once) I'm wrong. Anyone know for sure?
>>>
>> Ethanol will raise the octane somewhat but that is not the reason I have
>> heard given for the blend. They claim it will, being oxygenated, help
>> decrease
>> emissions. (But with all the pollution control designed into our cars,
>> the catalytic convertors, etc, is that really a big issue?)
>
>They mandate it in Mass primarily because of the Boston area, but we have
>to be Politically Correct here, so we ALL get it, even at the other end of
>the state.
>
>We also got CA emissions standards shortly after CA did. A lot of people
>from where I live were going to Vermont to buy cars.
>
>>
>> And they claim it is good because it is a renewable energy source..and
>> that it
>> will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources....etc etc
>
>They 'claiim', for sure. Problem is, when there is a CORN SHORTAGE like
>there was this summer, isn't fuel really the last thing you want to run
>your car on? Did you see the price of corn based cereals this year?!?!
>
>>
>> Politically, I think it is more to subsidize certain agricultural
>> entities, and to
>> pay lip service to the environment, renewable fuels, etc.
>
>They have discovered they can make the same (or almost the same) grade
>ethanol from...er, what was it? Swamp grass? Buffalo grass? I can't
>remember. But it will also yield a fuel-grade ethanol and not reduce the
>corn-for-food supplies...
>
Its called switchgrass and it is far superior for producing ethanol
than corn. I don't have the numbers in front of me but corn requires
much much more energy to produce a gas of fuel than does switch
grass. Not to mention switchgrass requires less water and in most
places you can harvest 2 times a year.
Kevin
The two fold reason for the subsidies were to guarenty a plentyfull
food suppy and at a cheep price. with out the subsidies that would not
have happened. On the other hand the subsisied to oil were and are
insanely high. If the real cost of oil were passed on it would be in
the 10 dollar plus range. Neither is a great deal but in the socialist
society we live in now, that is how it is. You don`t pay for the true
cost of food OR fuel. KB
> -jim
>
>
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
--
Kevin
@news.eternal-september.org:
augh come on now we know you had record yields this year. (wink wink
nod nod.) so I hear, but mine sure didn`t come close to any records.
down a bunch from even last year, and Wayyyyyyyyy wet so the drying cost
was almost 25 to 30 percent of the price anyway. Great year--- NOT KB
Kevin
We haven`t had a farm storage payment program since the early 80s
unless you are counting the low interest loans to put up new bins as
such. KB
--
jim
You make it sound like Washington is running a charity. This is not a
charity program this is a job security program for politicians.
> On the other hand the subsisied to oil were and are
> insanely high. If the real cost of oil were passed on it would be in
> the 10 dollar plus range. Neither is a great deal but in the socialist
> society we live in now, that is how it is. You don`t pay for the true
> cost of food OR fuel.
Can't really argue with that. The thing is food isn't really in any
danger of running out or developing shortages any time soon. Petroleum
shortages are going to have to be reckoned with a lot sooner.
-jim
hls
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> aguardiente from petroleum.
It is often made from the fermentation and distillation of cane juice.
Bagasse is often used as a fuel for the process.
The used to be a lot of "vodka" made from petrochemical alcohol.
It was purer than the fermented stuff and was less likely to give you
a real hangover. If they change the law and no longer allow this, I
was not aware of it.