Mothballs raise octane?
Verde87
I know this sounds stupid, but I know a guy who races drag bikes that swears
this is true. He told me if you get certain mothballs (with a specific
chemical composition) and put 5 per gallon in the tank, it will raise the
octane from 87 to 93. Any chemical engineers out there able to give the thumbs
up or down to this theory?
Bryan Carter
Ver...@aol.com
Virginia, USA
I plan to live forever. So far, so good.
Nick Markou
On 29 Mar 1998 02:28:35 GMT, ver...@aol.com (Verde87) wrote:
>I know this sounds stupid, but I know a guy who races drag bikes that swears
>this is true. He told me if you get certain mothballs (with a specific
>chemical composition) and put 5 per gallon in the tank, it will raise the
>octane from 87 to 93. Any chemical engineers out there able to give the thumbs
>up or down to this theory?
Its big amongst the big block types...most swear by it, but its got
nothing to do with the octane rating...from what I understand, the
alcohol content of the mothballs gives you a bit more juice...they do
completely disolve in gasoline. BUT, for the limited amount of extra
power it would give you, why bother...besides, you'd look quite funny
dumping mothballs into your gas tank at the pumps.
Nick Markou
Vlad Hachinski
The answer to your question is yes and no. Mothballs are essentially naphthalene,
which will increase the volatility (& some of the energy released from the
gasoline).
However: Mothballs in the right combination with gasoline will form a version of
NAPALM ... and a highly unstable one at that.
Spend the extra few bucks on the premium, and/or buy a good octane booster.
If you're planning to live forever, DON'T use the mothballs
Vlad
Verde87 wrote:
> I know this sounds stupid, but I know a guy who races drag bikes that swears
> this is true. He told me if you get certain mothballs (with a specific
> chemical composition) and put 5 per gallon in the tank, it will raise the
> octane from 87 to 93. Any chemical engineers out there able to give the thumbs
> up or down to this theory?
Kjetil Sømme
Ouch, think of this poor guy with the bike, driving happily at high speeds and then
suddenly, BOOOOOM, napalm bursting towards his face......
Anyone think that he might be injured???
Someone better tell him about the danger in this....
Kjetil '81 Golf, 1.1 L, 50 hp, gasoline....
*What the heck, I'll just convert it to a EV....*
Rennsport Systems
This kinda works but you're better off with racing gasoline for many
reasons.
Mothballs contain Toluene which slows the burn rate down. This is why it
resists detonation. Since you cannot get a proper, even mixture in the
fuel tank, this is a poor substitute for racing fuel.
--
Steve Weiner
Rennsport Systems
Portland, Oregon
E-mail: por...@rennsportsystems.com
For Porsche High-Performance Solutions, Racing Components and
Performance-related Information
Visit Rennsport Systems on the Internet at:
http://www.rennsportsystems.com/~porsche/
Eric Phillips
On 29 Mar 1998, Verde87 wrote:
> I know this sounds stupid, but I know a guy who races drag bikes that swears
> this is true. He told me if you get certain mothballs (with a specific
> chemical composition) and put 5 per gallon in the tank, it will raise the
> octane from 87 to 93. Any chemical engineers out there able to give the thumbs
> up or down to this theory?
Depends on the mothball chemical component content. Some have a lot of
naphthalene content (aromatic hydrocarbon, like benzene, toluene and
xylene, which have fantanstic octane numbers in pure form.) If the things
contain a lot of dichlorobenzene, you also get good octane figures, but
the chlorine by-products of combustion will kill your
platinum/palladium-based catalytic converter. Aromatic hydrocarbons can
cause some rubber and rubber-like material to swell, which could spell
disaster. For road-going cars, adding a bit of toluene to each tank helps
more, and has little danger of damage to and system, unless you get stupid
and decide "more is better" By a bit, I mean 2 fluid cups (500mL) per 10
US (not Imperial) gallons of gasoline (don't do this to a diesel, it could
result in bad things happening!)
This should be done to premium fuel, and has an added benefit - cleans the
injectors. (Toluene is a very good solvent, and is used to remove deposits
left by evaporating hydrocarbons in the gasoline residue test each
manufacturer must do to certify their gasoline for sale.)
Eric
'78 Scirocco
'90 Audi 80q
'91 Alfa Spider
Eric Phillips
On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
> The answer to your question is yes and no. Mothballs are essentially naphthalene,
> which will increase the volatility (& some of the energy released from the
> gasoline).
False. Naphthalene is less volatile than 90% of gasoline components.
Adding it will in no way "increase volatility."
> However: Mothballs in the right combination with gasoline will form a version of
> NAPALM ... and a highly unstable one at that.
False. Napalm is made by adding detergent to gasoline, making a thick
"jellied gasoline."
<snipped for your protection>
Eric (Yes, I am a chemist. I'm also a former employee of an oil
refinery, where I worked in the lab, testing each different kind of fuel
they made.)
Joel Bell
Where would one go about finding toluene to add? Just curious...
--
Joel Bell
jb...@ptd.net
1997 VW Jetta GLX-VR6-Neuspeed-Autotech
Kenwood/MB Quart/Orion/PPI/Stinger/Phoenix Gold
Vlad Hachinski
Eric Phillips wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
> > The answer to your question is yes and no. Mothballs are essentially naphthalene,
> > which will increase the volatility (& some of the energy released from the
> > gasoline).
>
> False. Naphthalene is less volatile than 90% of gasoline components.
> Adding it will in no way "increase volatility."
>
Obviously it's less volatile, it's a solid.
> > However: Mothballs in the right combination with gasoline will form a version of
> > NAPALM ... and a highly unstable one at that.
>
> False. Napalm is made by adding detergent to gasoline, making a thick
> "jellied gasoline."
Perhaps that is what is done in commercial/military preparations of napalm proper -
that's not the objective in this case.
Simply put, (and if you worked at a refinery, you know this) that gasoline is simply a
'cut' of distillates from the oil containing a range of different hydrocarbons & the
various isomers. Hardly ultra-precise. Furthermore, each oil company will add its own
blend of additives, stabilizers & whatever else to the fuel. Ultimately what do we
have? A gallon of gasoline, of uncertain composition.
Now mix that unknown with mothballs of unknown composition. The brands I'm familiar
with (and have analyzed) have been almost pure naphthalene. Who knows what other
formulations are out there. Is it a good idea to mix two unknowns, especially for the
average person who has little or no knowledge of chemistry? No, it is not. And
stranger combinations of petroleum distillates & chemicals available at your local
hardware store have made potent explosives (Diesel & fertilizer come to mind).
Did you know that you can make an explosive from a deck of cards? There are many common
substances that can be made deadly in the right combinations. To raise the octane in
the fuel (especially to 93 which is readily available), one should either buy the
premium, or buy the appropriate additives. Next step would be to acquire jugs of
xylene & toluene (or benzene if you don't care about cancer), they will also boost
octane & I have played around with my own blends in the past with reasonable success.
Ideally, tetraethyl lead is excellent, but tough to come by.
In summary - if you want high-octane fuel, buy high-octane fuel or the appropriate
additives. The risks for the average person from fooling around with chemicals that
they know nothing about far outweigh the benefits. Just because something may work does
not mean that it's the right solution. You can replace R12 with propane, but would
have to be pretty stupid to do so. Though I'm sure that someone will try this to save a
buck.
Vlad
Eric Phillips
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Joel Bell wrote:
> Where would one go about finding toluene to add? Just curious...
Paint store (make sure it's pretty pure, >95%)
Eric
Eric Phillips
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
>
> Eric Phillips wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
> > > The answer to your question is yes and no. Mothballs are essentially naphthalene,
> > > which will increase the volatility (& some of the energy released from the
> > > gasoline).
> >
> > False. Naphthalene is less volatile than 90% of gasoline components.
> > Adding it will in no way "increase volatility."
> >
>
> Obviously it's less volatile, it's a solid.
Ummm, read your part that I'm replying to.....your argument is???? I'm
critical of your misinformation, stating that adding naphthalene will
"increase volatility," which is nonsense.
>
> > > However: Mothballs in the right combination with gasoline will form a version of
> > > NAPALM ... and a highly unstable one at that.
> >
> > False. Napalm is made by adding detergent to gasoline, making a thick
> > "jellied gasoline."
>
> Perhaps that is what is done in commercial/military preparations of napalm proper -
> that's not the objective in this case.
OK, nice misdirection, but really, you are unaware of the facts - adding
naphthalene to gasoline will in no way create any form of "unstable
mixture" slightly, middling or higher. On a per volume basis, the mixture
will be *less* unstable. Let me restate the facts: napalm is made by
adding detergent to gasoline, to make it thick and sticky. Adding
naphthalene to gasoline (unless you add a huge pile of it, which no one
has remotely suggested,) will make some more aromatic, heavier, more dense
hydrocarbon mixture which is in no way napalm or anything close to it.
Adding mothballs to your gasoline will *not* form an unstable mixture.
>
> Simply put, (and if you worked at a refinery, you know this) that gasoline is simply a
> 'cut' of distillates from the oil containing a range of different hydrocarbons & the
> various isomers. Hardly ultra-precise. Furthermore, each oil company will add its own
> blend of additives, stabilizers & whatever else to the fuel. Ultimately what do we
> have? A gallon of gasoline, of uncertain composition.
Actually, the composition is fairly well know, and the type of gasoline,
the source crude oil, and the company of manufacture. The method of
gasoline manufacture (catalyst reformation or isomerization) can also be
determined, all by gas chromatography. In any case, the mix of compounds,
while varying somewhat, must conform to API and ASTM standards - which
have gotten much tighter over the past few years - so gasolines are
remarkably similar nowadays.
> Now mix that unknown with mothballs of unknown composition. The brands I'm familiar
> with (and have analyzed) have been almost pure naphthalene. Who knows what other
> formulations are out there. Is it a good idea to mix two unknowns, especially for the
> average person who has little or no knowledge of chemistry? No, it is not. And
> stranger combinations of petroleum distillates & chemicals available at your local
> hardware store have made potent explosives (Diesel & fertilizer come to mind).
This is the first thing you've written that is even close to the truth.
Don't mix two unknowns. Use chemicals for their designated purpose.
DON'T ADD MOTHBALLS TO YOUR GASOLINE!!!!! (Please excuse the loud voice.
:) )
> Did you know that you can make an explosive from a deck of cards? There are many common
> substances that can be made deadly in the right combinations. To raise the octane in
> the fuel (especially to 93 which is readily available), one should either buy the
> premium, or buy the appropriate additives. Next step would be to acquire jugs of
> xylene & toluene (or benzene if you don't care about cancer), they will also boost
> octane & I have played around with my own blends in the past with reasonable success.
> Ideally, tetraethyl lead is excellent, but tough to come by.
If your other information is any guide, an explosive cannot be made with a
modern deck of cards (vinyl over paper.) Other than that, I have said the
rest in another post. TEL (tetraethyllead) cannot be purchased legally by
a private party for use in a road-going vehicle. While it does raise
octane, it doesn't do as good a job as xylenes. In any case, using lead
will poison the platinum/palladium catalyst, possibly making someone fail
an emissions inspection. I agree, though - buy premium, use octane boost,
and don't take the risk of component damage by doing garage chemistry.
> > <snipped for your protection>
> >
> > Eric (Yes, I am a chemist. I'm also a former employee of an oil
> > refinery, where I worked in the lab, testing each different kind of fuel
> > they made.)
> >
> > '78 Scirocco
> > '90 Audi 80q
> > '91 Alfa Spider
Vlad, stick with what you know (and that ain't chemistry.)
Eric (see above bona fides and vehicular ownership.)
dle...@ticona.com
In article <351F53C7...@rennsportsystems.com>,
por...@rennsportsystems.com wrote:
>
> This kinda works but you're better off with racing gasoline for many
> reasons.
>
> Mothballs contain Toluene which slows the burn rate down. This is why it
> resists detonation. Since you cannot get a proper, even mixture in the
> fuel tank, this is a poor substitute for racing fuel.
>
> --
> Steve Weiner
> Rennsport Systems
> Portland, Oregon
> E-mail: por...@rennsportsystems.com
>
It would seem to me that by the time you collect enough moth balls to make a
significant change in octane, you'd have a bunch of pissed off moths.
Wouldn't you think? DonL
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
drcrypto
I'm 55 and I've heard this for years and along with that I've always been
told that it will burn the engine up and as far as I know, moth balls are
all made out of the same stuff. You need to do research before you do
this.
If you're looking for a hot fuel, try Aviation Gas (Green or Purple) is
the ticket. I use to use it in a beetle and a Van and they ran faster
than any other like vehicle on the autobahn. DR
drcrypto
Check at the Drag Strip. The fuel machines run special mixtures and a
little research up front could mean the difference of keeping your head on
your shoulders and not.
The in Toluene is the T in TNT and they put that stuff in everything. The
glue to glue down sub flooring has it in there. You really should stick
with racing or airplane fuel. DR
Eric Phillips
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, drcrypto wrote:
> The in Toluene is the T in TNT and they put that stuff in everything. The
> glue to glue down sub flooring has it in there. You really should stick
> with racing or airplane fuel. DR
Toluene is indeed a good solvent, and is less dangerous than benzene for
most solvent applications. You may not use airplane or racing fuel on the
street, besides which they are quite expensive on a per gallon basis (and
maybe a little too potent for street use.) If you're using the car in
normal operation, adding a little toluene will not hurt anything. If
you're racing the car, drag or otherwise, use the best fuel allowed under
the rules, regardless of cost.
Here's the point - if you need 94-96 octane, buy premium and add no more
than 0.25 gallons toluene/10 gallons gasoline. If you want 92-93 octane,
just buy premium, and don't mess around with additives. Don't run avgas
or racing fuel on a car used for normal street driving.
Eric
Vlad Hachinski
Eric,
It's not so much what you say, but how you say it. The objective of my original post was to
discourage the use of mothballs or improper additives in fuel. I introduced information which
I believed to be correct - though I have not looked at the original document for well over a
decade.
We both agree that mothballs shouldn't be used in fuel - thus there is no need for the type of
tone you have used to correct some of my information. Furthermore, in the great big world,
outside of the chem lab, information can be taken in different contexts:
Eric Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
> >
> > Eric Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
> > > > The answer to your question is yes and no. Mothballs are essentially naphthalene,
> > > > which will increase the volatility (& some of the energy released from the
> > > > gasoline).
> > >
> > > False. Naphthalene is less volatile than 90% of gasoline components.
> > > Adding it will in no way "increase volatility."
> > >
> >
> > Obviously it's less volatile, it's a solid.
>
> Ummm, read your part that I'm replying to.....your argument is???? I'm
> critical of your misinformation, stating that adding naphthalene will
> "increase volatility," which is nonsense.
>
False & Nonsense ... not called for. Furthermore, volatility has other definitions outside
that of organic chemistry. (I flipped definitions, so my fault on this one)
> >
> > > > However: Mothballs in the right combination with gasoline will form a version of
> > > > NAPALM ... and a highly unstable one at that.
> > >
> > > False. Napalm is made by adding detergent to gasoline, making a thick
> > > "jellied gasoline."
> >
> > Perhaps that is what is done in commercial/military preparations of napalm proper -
> > that's not the objective in this case.
>
Hasn't our whole thread become a misdirection? If I devise my own preparation of a plastic
explosive, it is still a type of plastic explosive even if it is not manufactured in the same
manner or with the same composition of C4. Same idea for the napalm ... at this point it
doesn't even matter that the information I was given may be incorrect ... if one can make a
jellied petroleum based explosive that works ... it can then be considered a type of napalm,
though it may differ from the military/commercial varieties.
> OK, nice misdirection, but really, you are unaware of the facts - adding
> naphthalene to gasoline will in no way create any form of "unstable
> mixture" slightly, middling or higher. On a per volume basis, the mixture
> will be *less* unstable. Let me restate the facts: napalm is made by
> adding detergent to gasoline, to make it thick and sticky. Adding
> naphthalene to gasoline (unless you add a huge pile of it, which no one
> has remotely suggested,) will make some more aromatic, heavier, more dense
> hydrocarbon mixture which is in no way napalm or anything close to it.
> Adding mothballs to your gasoline will *not* form an unstable mixture.
>
If you say so ...
> >
> > Simply put, (and if you worked at a refinery, you know this) that gasoline is simply a
> > 'cut' of distillates from the oil containing a range of different hydrocarbons & the
> > various isomers. Hardly ultra-precise. Furthermore, each oil company will add its own
> > blend of additives, stabilizers & whatever else to the fuel. Ultimately what do we
> > have? A gallon of gasoline, of uncertain composition.
>
> Actually, the composition is fairly well know, and the type of gasoline,
> the source crude oil, and the company of manufacture. The method of
> gasoline manufacture (catalyst reformation or isomerization) can also be
> determined, all by gas chromatography. In any case, the mix of compounds,
> while varying somewhat, must conform to API and ASTM standards - which
> have gotten much tighter over the past few years - so gasolines are
> remarkably similar nowadays.
>
Again, step away from the lab for a moment. The composition of gasoline may be well known to
you (working in the industry) .. but when I buy a gallon of gas from the local Sunoco, I don't
receive an itemized list of the isomers and additives present, let alone their proportions.
Furthermore, once that fuel leaves the refinery, anything can happen. There was an incedent
around here a few years ago where an independent gas station was cutting their fuel with waste
solvent and the like (benzene, etc.) ... anything can happen. While it's comforting to know
that there are some standards in place ... there still exists a degree of variance in the real
world.
> > Now mix that unknown with mothballs of unknown composition. The brands I'm familiar
> > with (and have analyzed) have been almost pure naphthalene. Who knows what other
> > formulations are out there. Is it a good idea to mix two unknowns, especially for the
> > average person who has little or no knowledge of chemistry? No, it is not. And
> > stranger combinations of petroleum distillates & chemicals available at your local
> > hardware store have made potent explosives (Diesel & fertilizer come to mind).
>
> This is the first thing you've written that is even close to the truth.
Again, why the negative language? This is the truth; you know it and I know it.
> Don't mix two unknowns. Use chemicals for their designated purpose.
> DON'T ADD MOTHBALLS TO YOUR GASOLINE!!!!! (Please excuse the loud voice.
> :) )
>
My original point exactly!
> > Did you know that you can make an explosive from a deck of cards? There are many common
> > substances that can be made deadly in the right combinations. To raise the octane in
> > the fuel (especially to 93 which is readily available), one should either buy the
> > premium, or buy the appropriate additives. Next step would be to acquire jugs of
> > xylene & toluene (or benzene if you don't care about cancer), they will also boost
> > octane & I have played around with my own blends in the past with reasonable success.
> > Ideally, tetraethyl lead is excellent, but tough to come by.
>
> If your other information is any guide, an explosive cannot be made with a
> modern deck of cards (vinyl over paper.)
Different sources for this bit of information ... and I have tried it personally, so I speak
from experience. Are you 100% right in everything you do or say? Somehow I doubt that..
> Other than that, I have said the
> rest in another post. TEL (tetraethyllead) cannot be purchased legally by
> a private party for use in a road-going vehicle.
I did say that it was 'tough to come by'. I made no comments wrt it's legality or how to
obtain it. (and it is obtainable)
> While it does raise
> octane, it doesn't do as good a job as xylenes.
Then why the dramatic drop in octane ratings in the early 70's when low-lead/unleaded fuels
were introduced? And if xylenes are the panacea for raising octane, why all the messing
around with MMT & other additives?
> In any case, using lead
> will poison the platinum/palladium catalyst, possibly making someone fail
> an emissions inspection.
True, but I never suggested that you use TEL in a catalyst equipped vehicle. It seems that
enough people on this NG have ditched their catalysts, and I personally have several vehicles
which are not catalyst equipped. Thus for me, this is irrelevant.
> I agree, though - buy premium, use octane boost,
> and don't take the risk of component damage by doing garage chemistry.
Again, this was the whole reason for my original post - so why the lengthy disagreement?
>
>
> > > <snipped for your protection>
> > >
> > > Eric (Yes, I am a chemist. I'm also a former employee of an oil
> > > refinery, where I worked in the lab, testing each different kind of fuel
> > > they made.)
> > >
> > > '78 Scirocco
> > > '90 Audi 80q
> > > '91 Alfa Spider
>
> Vlad, stick with what you know (and that ain't chemistry.)
>
> Eric (see above bona fides and vehicular ownership.)
Eric, I will happily stick to what I know, but am always interested to learn more. And if
I happen to be wrong on something, I don't mind criticism, but it should be constructive. As
far as chemistry goes, it may surprise you that a) I know what a gas chromatograph is and b) I
know how to use one. I don't have the benefit of working in chemistry day in and day out ..
it has been well over a decade since I did any kind of playing on that end. But I'm willing
to wager that my understanding of the subject (and the broader implications) are much better
than average.
Btw ...I'm surprised that you don't mention a degree. I'm also curious as to how vehicle
ownership translates into qualifications for anything other than commenting on the ownership
experience or tips and advice on those makes or models.
However, I would not be taking my own advice if I pushed that last paragraph. I stand
corrected on the mothball/gasoline volatility/explosivity issue, and we agree that people
shouldn't fool around with amateur chemisty or their fuel. Agreed? Good, now let's drop this
thread.
*extending hand to shake yours*
Vlad
NegatvNein
I have heard different opinions on the use of avgas, some people say that it is
ok, other people say that it should be avoided. What i've heard is that
although it is basically the same as other petrol fuels that would be used in
auto's except that it isn't weighted (as normal petrol was weighted with lead
and now with lead substitutes) I have also heard that the octane ratings are
either measured differently or measured less accurately. Does anyone know the
facts? Is it possible to add a specific amount of lead or weighted additive to
make it acceptible for use in a race engine I know that there are different
varietys, what are they? Thanks for any info.
-mike
Eric Phillips
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
>
> It's not so much what you say, but how you say it. The objective of my original post was to
> discourage the use of mothballs or improper additives in fuel. I introduced information which
> I believed to be correct - though I have not looked at the original document for well over a
> decade.
> We both agree that mothballs shouldn't be used in fuel - thus there is no need for the type of
> tone you have used to correct some of my information. Furthermore, in the great big world,
> outside of the chem lab, information can be taken in different contexts:
Vlad - here's the deal: You posted incorrect, meaningless info on the way
to reaching the same conclusion I did. I argue with the crap because it
leads to less, not more understanding of "why not." I don't argue with
you conclusions, because I beleive they are correct. I disagree, very
strongly, with the method by which you discourage use of mothballs for
octane boost. The fact that you don't know what you're talking about
leads me to strong language.
> False & Nonsense ... not called for. Furthermore, volatility has other definitions outside
> that of organic chemistry. (I flipped definitions, so my fault on this one)
More nonsense. Use your Webster's. We're talking organic chemistry
here, so any other discussion is for another NG. Another misdirection
arguement, I see.
> Hasn't our whole thread become a misdirection? If I devise my own preparation of a plastic
> explosive, it is still a type of plastic explosive even if it is not manufactured in the same
> manner or with the same composition of C4. Same idea for the napalm ... at this point it
> doesn't even matter that the information I was given may be incorrect ... if one can make a
> jellied petroleum based explosive that works ... it can then be considered a type of napalm,
> though it may differ from the military/commercial varieties.
It's not "our" thread. You apply misdirection argument tactics to
deflect criticism, and then mince words like a lawyer. Let me state this
again - adding mothballs to gasoline makes nothing like napalm, and adding
5 mothballs to a tank of gasoline would be unnoticable to any except an
analytical chemist looking for it to be there. Your assertions otherwise
are false, misleading, wrong and total crap. Continuing to argue
otherwise is patently stupid. Anyone who doubts my veracity, please feel
free to try and find Vlad's "recipe" anywhere. You won't. Simply stated
- you posted false information, and I called you. No argument tactics
will deflect me from calling you on it.
> Again, step away from the lab for a moment. The composition of gasoline may be well known to
> you (working in the industry) .. but when I buy a gallon of gas from the local Sunoco, I don't
> receive an itemized list of the isomers and additives present, let alone their proportions.
> Furthermore, once that fuel leaves the refinery, anything can happen. There was an incedent
> around here a few years ago where an independent gas station was cutting their fuel with waste
> solvent and the like (benzene, etc.) ... anything can happen. While it's comforting to know
> that there are some standards in place ... there still exists a degree of variance in the real
> world.
The lab is my basis for argument, and the reason I'm on your case. You
presented "knowledgeable" info that was FALSE. You say things that have
no basis in fact. Your misdirection arguments about what happens to gas
after the refinery means nothing, because I wasn't talking about anything
there but the manufacture and composition of manufactured gasoline. 99.99%
of the gasoline purchased is exactly as it left the refinery. Again you
give false info as fact, then try to "tangent" the discussion elsewhere.
I'm disputing your so-called "facts," because I believe misinformation to
be a bad thing.
> Different sources for this bit of information ... and I have tried it personally, so I speak
> from experience. Are you 100% right in everything you do or say? Somehow I doubt that..
Nope. I was wrong about some info I posted about big brake conversions.
I admitted it and apologized, as was proper. You, on the other hand, have
no idea what you're talking about, or are terribly confused. Do some
research, then you see.
> I did say that it was 'tough to come by'. I made no comments wrt it's legality or how to
> obtain it. (and it is obtainable)
Yes, it is. It's expensive, and not the hot ticket. More troubl;e than
it's worth. Yet more misdirection on your part (I see a pattern...)
> Then why the dramatic drop in octane ratings in the early 70's when low-lead/unleaded fuels
> were introduced? And if xylenes are the panacea for raising octane, why all the messing
> around with MMT & other additives?
You seem to be passing yourself as a petroleum/explosives chemist - you
tell me. (I bet this PC you'll come up with another pile of doo-doo,
arranged artfully to look like "fact")
Think lead-phase out, think R&D cycle, think new technology....
This is a subject that is too long to explain fully here, and I won't even
try.
> True, but I never suggested that you use TEL in a catalyst equipped vehicle. It seems that
> enough people on this NG have ditched their catalysts, and I personally have several vehicles
> which are not catalyst equipped. Thus for me, this is irrelevant.
YOU brought up TEL, dumbass! You argue poorly, Vlad. You suggested using
TEL, and said nothing about catalyst poisoning. More misleading crap from
a garage chemist.
> Again, this was the whole reason for my original post - so why the lengthy disagreement?
Because of the reasons listed above. You've sprinkled some facts, jargon
and some poor misdirection into a big vat of unmitigated bullshit, for
what purpose I don't know. After refutation, you come back and try
say,"Oh, poor me. Why are you using such language?? I'm only trying to
help." I do it because those who read this need to know most of what
you've written can be diregarded out-of-hand, with no consequences.
> Eric, I will happily stick to what I know, but am always interested to learn more. And if
> I happen to be wrong on something, I don't mind criticism, but it should be constructive. As
> far as chemistry goes, it may surprise you that a) I know what a gas chromatograph is and b) I
> know how to use one. I don't have the benefit of working in chemistry day in and day out ..
> it has been well over a decade since I did any kind of playing on that end. But I'm willing
> to wager that my understanding of the subject (and the broader implications) are much better
> than average.
More misdirection. I have 15 years of lab experience, mostly instrumental
analysis, and am now doing research. I'm a car nut, and have learned as
much as I could about gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Your understanding
of chemistry is poor, and you should not pass yourself of as
knowledgeable, to anyone. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but
you're putting your clumsy foot right in the middle of my profession,
which I do not take lightly!
> Btw ...I'm surprised that you don't mention a degree. I'm also curious as to how vehicle
> ownership translates into qualifications for anything other than commenting on the ownership
> experience or tips and advice on those makes or models.
Experience with type of auto, 17-year VW owner, general car nut, just
in case anyone was interested, nothing more.
Again, more misdirection. I stated the facts so that others know I speak
from experience, and from first-hand, hands-on knowledge about chemistry -
organic chemistry, and petroleum chemistry.
Any degree, no matter what field, is no substitute for experience. Ask
any recent college graduate trying to find a job.
Point is, I am using factual info, and you are not. THIS is what
qualifies me more than anything else.
> However, I would not be taking my own advice if I pushed that last paragraph. I stand
> corrected on the mothball/gasoline volatility/explosivity issue, and we agree that people
> shouldn't fool around with amateur chemisty or their fuel. Agreed? Good, now let's drop this
> thread.
I, too, tire of this discussion, mostly because I've had to deal with this
type of mis-information before, and it never gets any easier. I use harsh
and biting language because I feel strongly about the wider subject of
opinion vs. fact vs. non-fact. Especially when it comes to chemistry.
Even more so, organic chemistry. People get so worked up over the lies
and misinformation in the great world because of people like you who
knowingly or unknowingly present fiction as fact. As a student of the
sciences, I must speak up forcefully, so that the lies aren't repeated.
If you think I've been nasty, I'm sorry. I have been restrained in my
reaction to your so-called information, and will continue to debunk info I
know is untrue, and will admit freely when I am mistaken. If you do the
same, then we're done with this thread. I apologize to the NG in general
for the bandwidth taken, but I feel very strongly about this (you couldn't
tell??? :) )
Vlad, go read some recent articles on these subjects. You will see that
the info you've presented is, at best, misleading. That is, I'm inviting
you to NOT take my word for it, as any good scientist would do in my
place. (No, I'm not having an ego trip - I just got back. :) )
Seriously, before you post any more on this, do some reading. Please.
Eric
'78 Scirocco
'90 Audi 80q
'91 Alfa Spider
P.S. This is just for general interest, not as a statement of VWAG or
Fiat SPA expertise. In any way shape or form. Period.
drcrypto
I used AV gas for several years in several types of vehicles. The
80/87(RED) is regular and 100/110 and 115/145 are green and purple and I
can't remember which is which but the later two run real well. I was told
that they will burn your valves out but I was young then and didn't care.
Beware of JET Fuel. JP4, JP5 are nothing more than clean kerosene. You
can't run that in your car but back when I was in Korea, we burnt it in
our kerosene stoves. DR
SHOURDS, SHALYN WAYNE
In article <01bd5d9c.55203f60$2969...@drcrypto.mnsinc.com>, "drcrypto" <drcr...@monumental.com> writes...
Mind that the 110ll and other agvasses are leaded as I recall. I
wouldn't stick that in a modern car. Poisons catylitic converters.
-Shalyn
aalb...@home.com
Do any of you realize how funny this thread is??????
BTW.... I heard that adding peanut butter to your oil will raise the
viscosity. Is this true???
ALA
*LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS* Pursuant to US
Code,Title 7,Chapter 5,Subchapter II,227,all
nonsolicited commercial Email sent to this address
is subject to a download & archival fee in the
amount of $500US. E-mailing to this address for
commercial purposes denotes acceptance of these
terms. Violators will be prosecuted to the
maximum extent of the law.
Stuart Portner
and it makes great charcoal lighter fluid...
--
-=Stu=-
To E-mail a reply, please use the E-mail link at my website.
Visit my non-commercial website: "All About Wheelchairs" at:
http://www.seflin.org/wheels
drcrypto <drcr...@monumental.com> wrote in article
<01bd5d9c.55203f60$2969...@drcrypto.mnsinc.com>...
Vlad Hachinski
Eric - Let me be the first to extend my sincerest sympathies to you. Obviously years of breathing
toxic vapours have severely impaired any critical reasoning abilities that you might have had.
Furthermore, it seems that you are completely incapable of reading and acknowledging any new
information. In my last post I admitted my error on the actual reaction of mothballs and gasoline
not once, but twice, and clarified *why* I had posted it.
Eric Phillips wrote:
>
>
> Vlad - here's the deal: You posted incorrect, meaningless info on the way
> to reaching the same conclusion I did.
I posted information that I BELIEVED (past tense) to be correct. In my last post I said that I
stood corrected.
> I argue with the crap because it
> leads to less, not more understanding of "why not."
Eric, if your goal is to increase understanding, then we would all benefit from an explanation of
how and why naphthalene increases the stability of gasoline and why it should not be used as an
octane boost. Perhaps a comment on how the double ring structure of naphthalene interacts with the
HC chains in gasoline or whatever actually takes place. Since you're apparently the expert, you
should enlighten us all instead of simply decrying it as 'False'. That's not providing anything
useful.
> I don't argue with you conclusions, because I beleive they are correct.
Yes they are correct, and that's what is important here.
> I disagree, very
> strongly, with the method by which you discourage use of mothballs for
> octane boost.
That is quite evident.
> The fact that you don't know what you're talking about
> leads me to strong language.
Hmmm... I made one statement based on a paper that I had read over 10 years ago. This can hardly
justify the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about. Besides, how else would I know
that mothballs are naphthalene and that they shouldn't be mixed with gasoline? Furthermore, do you
use strong language with everyone who doesn't know what you're thinking at a given point in time?
Do you yell and curse at people who ask you for directions or the time?
>
>
> > False & Nonsense ... not called for. Furthermore, volatility has other definitions outside
> > that of organic chemistry. (I flipped definitions, so my fault on this one)
>
> More nonsense. Use your Webster's.
Again, uncalled for. Check the Oxford English Dictionary - it is THE reference. Furthermore I
already conceded this point. What more do you want?
> We're talking organic chemistry
> here, so any other discussion is for another NG.
Organic chemistry is only one part of what we are talking about. Other than saying 'add detergent
to gasoline to make napalm' or adding naphtalene will make gasoline 'more aromatic' I haven't seen
much chemistry out of you.
> Another misdirection
> arguement, I see.
So where exactly is the misdirection? I clarified my original point so that there would be no
question about what I meant. Nothing has been 'misdirected'. (though I suppose that you will
consider this a misdirection!)
>
>
>
> > Hasn't our whole thread become a misdirection? If I devise my own preparation of a plastic
> > explosive, it is still a type of plastic explosive even if it is not manufactured in the same
> > manner or with the same composition of C4. Same idea for the napalm ... at this point it
> > doesn't even matter that the information I was given may be incorrect ... if one can make a
> > jellied petroleum based explosive that works ... it can then be considered a type of napalm,
> > though it may differ from the military/commercial varieties.
>
> It's not "our" thread.
The last half-dozen posts have alternated between you and me. If this section of it isn't ours,
then who's is it?
Oh, I'm sorry, another 'misdirection'!
> You apply misdirection argument tactics to
> deflect criticism,
You should really understand the difference between clarification and misdirection before abusing
the words the way that you do. Whenever I have called you on a point, and you know I'm right, you
either delete it from your next post or cry misdirection. Sorry, that doesn't wash.
> and then mince words like a lawyer.
Thank you! I will take that as a compliment. The English language is rich in vocabulary, and when
used properly there should be little to no ambiguity in what is expressed (unless the amibiguity is
intended). Clearly you have not even begun to learn, let alone master the subtleties of the
language, and you have made that quite apparent to anyone reading the thread.
> Let me state this
> again - adding mothballs to gasoline makes nothing like napalm, and adding
> 5 mothballs to a tank of gasoline would be unnoticable to any except an
> analytical chemist looking for it to be there.
5 mothballs in a motorcycle tank (the original example) or 5 mothballs in a car gas tank. They do
come in a variety of capacities! ;)
> Your assertions otherwise
> are false, misleading, wrong and total crap.
Why are you restating this? I retracted my assertions long ago.
> Continuing to argue
> otherwise is patently stupid.
Not nearly as stupid as your continuing to argue after I agreed with you.
> Anyone who doubts my veracity, please feel
> free to try and find Vlad's "recipe" anywhere. You won't.
I actually found the paper ... so odds are someone else can find it ... but that's beside the point.
Let me save you the trouble - "Misdirection" *lol*
> Simply stated
> - you posted false information, and I called you. No argument tactics
> will deflect me from calling you on it.
*YAWN* you should have figured it out by now ...
>
>
>
> > Again, step away from the lab for a moment. The composition of gasoline may be well known to
> > you (working in the industry) .. but when I buy a gallon of gas from the local Sunoco, I don't
> > receive an itemized list of the isomers and additives present, let alone their proportions.
> > Furthermore, once that fuel leaves the refinery, anything can happen. There was an incedent
> > around here a few years ago where an independent gas station was cutting their fuel with waste
> > solvent and the like (benzene, etc.) ... anything can happen. While it's comforting to know
> > that there are some standards in place ... there still exists a degree of variance in the real
> > world.
>
> The lab is my basis for argument, and the reason I'm on your case.
And my basis for argument was the real world, outside the lab. What precisely is it that you don't
understand? Try looking outside the box for once ... you might be surprised at what you see.
> You
> presented "knowledgeable" info that was FALSE. You say things that have
> no basis in fact.
You just don't get it, do you? Let me help you: Go back to my previous post and read it carefully,
particularly the last paragraphs.
> Your misdirection arguments about what happens to gas
> after the refinery means nothing, because I wasn't talking about anything
> there but the manufacture and composition of manufactured gasoline.
Again with the misdirection 'argument'. I clearly stated my assumptions for my position and
provided support. We don't buy gas directly from the refinery, we buy it from the gas station. How
can you claim misdirection when you are clearly incapable of perceiving a world outside of the lab?
I bought gas today - still didn't get my itemized ingredient list.
> 99.99%
> of the gasoline purchased is exactly as it left the refinery.
Where is your proof for this?
> Again you
> give false info as fact, then try to "tangent" the discussion elsewhere.
> I'm disputing your so-called "facts," because I believe misinformation to
> be a bad thing.
There is no false information in the argument you're referring to, and it's presumptious and
arrogant of you to dismiss it. The incidents that I referred to took place in the area around
Detroit, MI and southwestern Ontario and were well documented by the appropriate government agencies
as well as the media. As I recall it was around 1992, but that I am not sure of.
> > Different sources for this bit of information ... and I have tried it personally, so I speak
> > from experience. Are you 100% right in everything you do or say? Somehow I doubt that..
>
> Nope. I was wrong about some info I posted about big brake conversions.
> I admitted it and apologized, as was proper. You, on the other hand, have
> no idea what you're talking about, or are terribly confused. Do some
> research, then you see.
Well, based on this last post of yours, I'm not the one who is confused. Again, I would suggest
that you read my previous post.
>
>
> > I did say that it was 'tough to come by'. I made no comments wrt it's legality or how to
> > obtain it. (and it is obtainable)
>
> Yes, it is. It's expensive, and not the hot ticket. More troubl;e than
> it's worth. Yet more misdirection on your part (I see a pattern...)
Actually, the only pattern that has emerged is your screaming 'misdirection' at anything you don't
understand/agree with.
My original comment on TEL simply stated that it was a good octane booster and difficult to obtain.
Nothing more stated, nothing more implied.
You, on the other hand argued that it was illegal - now *that's* a misdirection.
The last sentence that you quoted me on restates and clarifies my original point - it has not
deviated one bit.
> > Then why the dramatic drop in octane ratings in the early 70's when low-lead/unleaded fuels
> > were introduced? And if xylenes are the panacea for raising octane, why all the messing
> > around with MMT & other additives?
>
> You seem to be passing yourself as a petroleum/explosives chemist - you
> tell me.
I'm not the one passing myself off as a petroleum chemist - you are. I'm merely presenting valid
information and experiences relative to my subject. And for the record, I have learned a lot about
explosives from both a theoretical and practical standpoint.
> (I bet this PC you'll come up with another pile of doo-doo,
> arranged artfully to look like "fact")
There is nothing incorrect in the my last quote. Eric, you're getting lazy - either not reading or
not bothering to acknowledge correct information.
Please donate your PC or the equivalent cash value to your local chapter of the American Cancer
Society. Heck, keep the tax receipt for yourself, I'm a generous guy! You won't need the computer
anymore(you can simply setup an autoreply that cries 'misdirection' - it will make about the same
sense).
> Think lead-phase out, think R&D cycle, think new technology....
>
> This is a subject that is too long to explain fully here, and I won't even
> try.
You completely skirt this issue and then accuse ME of misdirection. If you've been in the industry
for 15 years you would have started in about 1983, well after the lead phase-out. And that is
related to that great big world outside the lab and the desire for reduced lead levels in the air
and reduced vehicle emissions. Had there not been the government intervention, oil companies would
have happily continued using TEL because it is inexpensive and effective. It also excellent for
preventing the recession of exhaust valve seats in engines. Xylene alone does not prevent valve
seat recession, nor do many of the other additives I referred to. Thus the auto industry had to
make changes to accomodate the new fuel blends; these changes included dropping compression ratios
and introducing hardened exhaust seats.
Interestingly, there are some similarities with the shift to low-sulphur Diesel in the last few
years.
> > True, but I never suggested that you use TEL in a catalyst equipped vehicle. It seems that
> > enough people on this NG have ditched their catalysts, and I personally have several vehicles
> > which are not catalyst equipped. Thus for me, this is irrelevant.
>
> YOU brought up TEL, dumbass!
Names will never hurt me Eric, and it is this type of behaviour that is inappropriate and reduces
your own credibility.
> You argue poorly, Vlad.
The record indicates otherwise. With the exception of my initial comment on the mothball/gasoline
interaction I have stated my arguments and assumptions clearly, supported them with irrefutable
FACTS and clarified/interpreted them when you didn't understand. Furthermore, my logic is valid
from the context of a given to point to the scope of the whole discussion.
You, on the other hand delete points where I am the one who is correct. You scream 'misdirection'
whenever you cannot/do not understand what is being stated (though it is you who takes statements
out of context) and your logic is faulty. Or you simply ignore what has been stated, continue to
argue a long since conceded point, and fail to back up your arguments with proofs or explanations -
instead assuming that your crying 'False' is good enough. Your comments on TEL are a perfect
example of this.
> You suggested using
> TEL, and said nothing about catalyst poisoning.
Let me quote from my post:
"Ideally, tetraethyl lead is excellent, but tough to come by."
Why on earth would I mention catalyst poisoning? If you want to get technical, the first post to
the NG specified a drag bike. Not many street motorcycles have catalysts, nor do many racing
vehicles. So the issue of poisoning a non-existent catalyst is moot. Furthermore, not every street
vehicle is equipped with a catalytic converter. As stated earlier, people have either removed
them, or the vehicles may not have come with them. Police cars here did not get catalysts until
'90 or '91. 3/4 ton & up trucks did not get them here until the late '80's. And anyone with a
classic high-performance vehicle (that originally required premium leaded fuel) will benefit from
the additive that their car was designed to use. Ironically it is my Diesel that has the catalytic
converter in my fleet.
And let's look at why someone might want to boost octane? Modern engines are designed to run well
on readily available fuels (up to 94 octane). It could be inferred that anyone having octane
requirements greater than 94 has a high-performance/racing application in mind - which then obviates
the need for a catalytic converter.
Lastly, you launch yourself into an hysterical fit because I didn't state the pros & cons of using
TEL, yet you provide no such information in your counterarguments.
> More misleading crap from garage chemist.
It's clear that you are unwilling/unable to comprehend what is being stated. There is nothing
misleading or incorrect about what I have said, and your quote is nothing more than another crude
and pathetic attempt to discredit me.
>
>
> > Again, this was the whole reason for my original post - so why the lengthy disagreement?
>
> Because of the reasons listed above.
Pretty poor reasoning - you really should take a better look at what you've written.
> You've sprinkled some facts, jargon
> and some poor misdirection into a big vat of unmitigated bullshit, for
> what purpose I don't know.
That statement is beyond ridiculous. I have stated and supported my facts clearly, and my
purposes. It is YOU who has introduced the jargon and acronyms (without explanation I might add)
and propagated a lengthy and poorly thought 'refutation' which has deviated quite far from the topic
of the original post.
> After refutation, you come back and try
> say,"Oh, poor me. Why are you using such language??
Learn to read. Never did I say "Oh, poor me" or imply it. I did, however, state that the crude
and tactless language was inappropriate. You should be able to express yourself effectively
without it.
> I do it because those who read this need to know most of what
> you've written can be diregarded out-of-hand, with no consequences.
Poor logic. I was incorrect on one point of many made, and you were unable/unwilling to refute
anything else properly. Furthermore very little of what we have wound up discussing has
consequences making your point, well, irrelevant.
>
>
> > Eric, I will happily stick to what I know, but am always interested to learn more. And if
> > I happen to be wrong on something, I don't mind criticism, but it should be constructive. As
> > far as chemistry goes, it may surprise you that a) I know what a gas chromatograph is and b) I
> > know how to use one. I don't have the benefit of working in chemistry day in and day out ..
> > it has been well over a decade since I did any kind of playing on that end. But I'm willing
> > to wager that my understanding of the subject (and the broader implications) are much better
> > than average.
>
> More misdirection.
You really have no idea what misdirection is, or how to refute a point, do you? There is nothing to
refute in the above paragraph, since it is my statement about me. I have the all the facts and
proof I need to make and support that statement, you have none.
I have 15 years of lab experience, mostly instrumental
> analysis, and am now doing research. I'm a car nut, and have learned as
> much as I could about gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Your understanding
> of chemistry is poor,
You are basing that on one statement, since retracted, and we never even got into a discussion of
the actual chemistry underlying the post. The rest of our discussion has had little to do with
chemistry proper and as such, you have no significant evidence to support that kind of a statement.
> and you should not pass yourself of as
> knowledgeable, to anyone.
I'm not the one passing myself off as knowledgeable.
> I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but
> you're putting your clumsy foot right in the middle of my profession,
> which I do not take lightly!
My feelings were never hurt, I just felt that your language was inappropriate. Even more so if you
are a 'professional'.
>
>
> > Btw ...I'm surprised that you don't mention a degree. I'm also curious as to how vehicle
> > ownership translates into qualifications for anything other than commenting on the ownership
> > experience or tips and advice on those makes or models.
>
> Experience with type of auto, 17-year VW owner, general car nut, just
> in case anyone was interested, nothing more.
>
> Again, more misdirection
> I stated the facts so that others know I speak
> from experience, and from first-hand, hands-on knowledge about chemistry -
> organic chemistry, and petroleum chemistry.
>
> Any degree, no matter what field, is no substitute for experience. Ask
> any recent college graduate trying to find a job.
>
However there is also no substitute for understanding the underlying theories in a given field, and
you have given no information or elucidation of the chemical processes involved, preferring instead
to scream 'misdirection'. It's getting old. Perhaps your sensitivity to your profession is because
the real chemists (Ph.D's) and chemical engineers have tried to discredit you the way that you try
to discredit me.
> Point is, I am using factual info, and you are not. THIS is what
> qualifies me more than anything else.
You'll have to do better than that. You have not provided suitable evidence to refute any other
points that I have raised, preferring instead to delete them when you know that I'm right. A quick
check of past posts will reveal this.
Once more, your logic is flawed. Any information that I present has no impact on your
qualifications (or lack thereof). If that is the key basis for your qualification over and above
anything else (as you have suggested), then by extension, you are not qualified because I am using
facts. I hope that the logic that you use in your research is better than this.
>
>
> > However, I would not be taking my own advice if I pushed that last paragraph. I stand
> > corrected on the mothball/gasoline volatility/explosivity issue, and we agree that people
> > shouldn't fool around with amateur chemisty or their fuel. Agreed? Good, now let's drop this
> > thread.
>
> I, too, tire of this discussion, mostly because I've had to deal with this
> type of mis-information before, and it never gets any easier. I use harsh
> and biting language because I feel strongly about the wider subject of
> opinion vs. fact vs. non-fact. Especially when it comes to chemistry.
> Even more so, organic chemistry. People get so worked up over the lies
> and misinformation in the great world because of people like you who
> knowingly or unknowingly present fiction as fact.
Another personal attack... tsk, tsk. I have never dealt with someone who agreed with me in such a
disagreeable fashion.
> As a student of the
> sciences, I must speak up forcefully, so that the lies aren't repeated.
As a student of the sciences you should realize that there are few absolutes, and that the path to
discovery is the relentless questioning and challenging of the status quo. Anything is possible.
You should be open to other ideas, and debate them in an intelligent and informing manner rather
than simply naysaying anything that you don't like. Making sweeping conclusions based on an
isolated piece of data is not good science; results should be repeatable, and the sample size
significant. Furthermore, paradigms change. People once thought that the Earth was flat. And
the model of the atom went through quite a few radical changes in its development.
If you are going to speak up against the 'lies' -make sure that they are in fact, lies. And why be
selective? Looking over the other posts there are other bits of misinformation .... why didn't you
respond to those? (mothballs contain alcohol, etc.)
Do you really want to martyr yourself over this?
> If you think I've been nasty, I'm sorry.
I have not taken any personal offense, and I accept the apology.
> I have been restrained in my
> reaction to your so-called information, and will continue to debunk info I
> know is untrue, and will admit freely when I am mistaken. If you do the
> same, then we're done with this thread.
I have already done so in my previous post, that is why I was surprised to see this type of response
from you.
> I apologize to the NG in general
> for the bandwidth taken, but I feel very strongly about this (you couldn't
> tell??? :) )
>
ditto
> Vlad, go read some recent articles on these subjects. You will see that
> the info you've presented is, at best, misleading. That is, I'm inviting
> you to NOT take my word for it, as any good scientist would do in my
> place.
Eric, I already said that I stood corrected on the mothball issue, and I have provided evidence and
support for everything else. Furthermore a literature search will corroborate my other statements,
and the invitation is open
>
> (No, I'm not having an ego trip - I just got back. :) )
> Seriously, before you post any more on this, do some reading. Please.
>
> Eric
>
> '78 Scirocco
> '90 Audi 80q
> '91 Alfa Spider
>
> P.S. This is just for general interest, not as a statement of VWAG or
> Fiat SPA expertise. In any way shape or form. Period.
Eric, I am not here on this NG to chew up bandwidth unneccessarily. A question was posted, my
reply was correct (even though we disagreed on the methodology) and hopefully we've discouraged
people from using mothballs. However, a little diplomacy goes a long way. I retracted the
statement in my last post and extended an olive branch; you just continued to flame and name-call me
wildly in an attempt to discredit me. That, from the expert on this thread was totally
unprofessional and if you think about it you will realize that your actions were extreme. .
While the temptation exists to respond in kind, I will not, since it serves no useful purpose and
I'd rather elevate the level of discussion in the NG than lower it.
So one more time, let's consider this thread finished.
Vlad
Eric Phillips
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
<HUGE load of more argumentative b.s. snipped>
> So one more time, let's consider this thread finished.
>
> Vlad
OK, one last time, to all those confused by Vlad's postings: Adding
mothballs to gasoline WILL NOT make an unstable napalm. To make napalm,
use aluminum soap and gasoline until it gels. Adding mothballs to your
gasoline will *probably* not produce any noticeable power or mileage
gains, even though it may increase the fuel's octane number. Any further
assertations that napalm can be defined otherwise can be regarded as
false, according to an ordinanceman at McChord AFB, in Tacoma, WA.
Discussions of the nature of fuels, their composition, and potential in
modern, unmodified automobiles will gladly be done on request. In at
least one case, someone else would prefer to hear nothing more on the
subject. OK by me.
I have been strident in my tone with Vlad, because of false statements
presented as fact. "Playing cards can be made into explosives," one of my
favorites, is just an example. This is not true. Playing cards in and of
themselves cannot be fashioned into an explosive, unless you're MacGyver.
This is but an example of off-topic b.s. paraded as fact. Of course, I'm
sure that at some point during the manufacture of plastic-coated playing
cards the plastic used was nitrocellulose ("guncotton,") vinyl has been
the choice for at least 20 years. Does the VW NG care? I wouldn't. That
discussion belongs elsewhere, in any case.
All of the other discussion has been a misdirection attempt to move the
discussion away from gasoline amendments that may improve performance,
without being too terribly dangerous. Examples of dangerous fuels would
be: nitromethane (dragster fuel,) methanol (burns with no visible flame,)
and fuel amendments such as benzene (proven carcinogen) and tetraethyllead
(neurotoxin, contact poison.)
I'm not an expert. I'm an analytical chemist with some petroleum and
non-petroleum fuels knowledge. I invite anyone who is interested to look
up, probably thru the American Petroleum Institue, American Society of
Testing and Materials, or Society of Automotive Engineers the facts behind
any of my statements. I also have a research book on explosives called
"Shaped Charges," which gives some explosives history and general
overview, but I don't think J. Wiley and Sons prints it anymore. How does
this all relate to VW's? It doesn't. Doesn't belong here. I should have
known better than to argue with someone who "knows all the answers."
Let me say this final thing (cheers from the audience:) Vlad, stick to
what you know - you DO know a little about chemistry, and a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing. Stick with your chosen profession, and
don't cite material 10-20 years old. Don't pass opinion off as fact, and
don't argue when you're incorrect. Be gracious and admit it. While I'd
love for this to be the end of this thread, I fear that Vlad MUST have the
last word, for more personal (solvent-sniffing, "come out to the real
world") attacks. Because this discussion has very little interest to the
NG at large (I suspect,) I will put it mercifully to death. (Wild ovation
and much cheering from the audience.) Therefore, this is my last word in
this thread (no promises on other similar threads, though. :) )
<groans>
Eric
'78 Scirocco
'90 Audi 80q
'91 Alfa Spider (for when the "real world" is a welcome intrusion!)
Verde87
>Do any of you realize how funny this thread is??????
>BTW.... I heard that adding peanut butter to your oil will raise >the
viscosity. Is this true???<
I figured when I posted the original question that it would be quickly and
easily put to rest, and I was going to print the responses and let my friend
read them. Instead we got guys giving out napalm recipies =) God help us
all.
Yes, peanut butter will increase the viscosity of your oil. If you use the
chunky instead of the creamy though you should use a remote oil filter mount
with two filters. That will strain off the peanuts.
I think we can let this thread die now.
Peter Tong
I'm no chemist but what happens when the mothball company decides their
mothballs might work better with a different compound - one that contains
something not so fuel system friendly. Scary to say the least....but perhaps
I'm giving the mothball companies too much here and assuming they are
improving the things year by year..... :) Around here there are a few 76
stations that sell 100 octane racing gas. I ran my 10.8 CR two litre on that
stuff a few times - it ran a little better (noticeable on hot days) but not
enough to justify the $2.79/gallon price.....
just my $.02 worth....
Peter Tong
Eric Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Vlad Hachinski wrote:
>
> <HUGE load of more argumentative b.s. snipped>
>
> > So one more time, let's consider this thread finished.
> >
> > Vlad
>
DBar6989
> I think we can let this thread die now.
Yeah, but what about all those pissed-off moths??
dbudi...@gmail.com
> > I think we can let this thread die now.
>
> Yeah, but what about all those pissed-off moths??