Answering John from Aspen Research, "Turning answers into questions"

Answering John from Aspen Research, "Turning Answers into Questions" Aspen Research, -

formatting link
"Turning Questions into Answers"

Where exactly is this article? It's all your sales pitch.

I was made ill from drinking polluted water with MTBE. I now have a chemical sensitivity to many pollutants. PIB would give me a second shot at the life I used to have. I found this article posted on Wikipedia. It isn't there anymore. It was replaced with another article that was rejected and I have not been back to see what is there again.

I know from my past research that most of what this article says is on point. I used it rather than writing my own because it is easier. Also, Wikipedia is what you make of it but articles are scrutinized and rejected. This one was posted for a least a few months after I found it. The one that replaced it was only aloud to stay a day or two so I know they scrutinize articles quickly. I agree, Wikipedia is what you make of it.

Almost no emissions from an internal combustion engine?

I look at this and I look at your credentials and I think, he is asking this like is this some kind of joke, what only a fool would believe such a thing? The first impression I get is that scientists these days look at evidence from a popular perspective. I mean put a man on the moon - a lap top computer - wow what am impossible break through - this must be a dream. Emissions are nothing but unburned fuel and carbon dioxide. Why are you scratching your head at the idea that there is a way to make fuel burn?

Adding PIB is most certainly adding an additive. >(Professor) Waters work has nothing to do with refining gasoline differently. >PIB is not refined. Refining is the process of altering crude oil into

usable products. PIB is made from the refined products.

OK, let me explain - when I say the article below, I am saying that the article below is from someone else and that the questions I am raising pertains information in it.

So I am not quoting the article, I am quoting myself. I mean sure as hell Professor Waters wouldn't talk about PIB as if the same results would be possible simply by refining gasoline differently. That would undermine his incentive to produce his additive and make his fortune.

I have to disagree that PIB is not refined. I mean it is like you are parsing out this aspect of my query to disqualify it. Whether you are technically correct or not, you understand what I am asking so what is the answer?

By your argument, one would say that gasoline is not refined either because all of its components are not refined directly from crude oil but have to pass through other phases of the production cycle after it passes through the refining cycle. So what. It all happens at the refinery in a streamline process. There are a lot of components to gasoline that you can say are not refined but added. But they are all byproducts of crude oil and they all are produced in a one stream process - So what does you assertion mean?

- As far as octane goes, Professor Waters is very busy and I have never been able to get his attention for very long. I however have talked to people who work with him and they assert that octane is not needed when using PIB.

Octane does not make fuel more powerful. It thins it so it vaporizes more efficiently in the combustion chamber. Different ignition systems require different levels of liquidity to properly perform. Professor Waters theory bypasses the octane need altogether. In stead of thinning fuel, PIB makes it thicker.

PIB coats the whole fuel system giving it a "Super Ball" type effect so that not only does the metal not adhere or inhibit fuel, it repels it. It also coats each gasoline molecule so that when injected into the piston chamber, it sprays evenly as the PIB repels the fuel away from itself in evenly sized droplets. Upon combustion, whatever had reached the piston walls which normally would inhibit efficient combustion, would bounce and combust. All of this happenens before the exhaust valve has fully opened, thus retaining power to the engine rather that a kinetic exchange of heat to the exhaust.

This causes less emissions from more efficient fuel combustion and results in increased mileage. It also makes for a much cooler and smoother running engine.

- Your assertion that I am scheming to market something has a degree of lunacy to it. I mean what am I marketing, question to a forum of perceived experts in the field of polymers?

I mean you couldn't have thought that I was marketing PIB as an additive. I am suggesting that PIB is simply evidence that a refinery has the capacity to produce gasoline with similar properties to what it becomes when PIB is added to it. What is my angle? What do I get out of it? I mean I get to go out of my house and not get sick but that leans more towards and honest query of experts to gain information that might help me in my quest to survive.

My opinion is that you are more intelligent that your response leads one to believe. There are too many faults in your arguments for you to really be that serious. My sense is that I have struck a nerve.

Also, PIB has been thoroughly researched and approved over a long term by a lot of scientists and scientific agencies. When MTBE was proposed as a gasoline additive, many in the scientific community argued that it would cause all the problems that it has and that PIB should be chosen instead. I believe that if this advice had been followed, we would know by now what the long term consequences of using PIB was and would have made adjustments if there were any.

MTBE was an experiment on a product that there was and still is not any research available to the public to show that it does anything whatsoever positive. A lot of people say a lot of good things about oxygenates but they are either incorrect or misleading the truth.

The EPA itself has finally admitted that ethanol as an oxygenate actually creates more pollution and causes gasoline to lose mileage per gallon. This is also true of MTBE but no one has the heart to say that we spent the last fifteen years not only polluting groundwater but that what it was supposed to do failed because we never tested it to see if it works.

PIB has been thoroughly tested, but I am not saying we should go with PIB. There are too many problems with patents and of logistics paying off all the people who need money from such a switch. What I am saying is that there ought to be a way to adjust the stream process of refining gasoline so that it is produced with properties that lead away from octane that leads towards a polymerization process that gives gasoline similar properties to what PIB produces.

I think that what you are saying is that you can tell from my writing that I am obviously not a scientist. I can tell from your signature that you are, but your writing needs some work. Maybe you figure that since you have a degree, you should have thought of this. If you were made as ill from pollution that I am, you probably would have.

Let me put it another way, if your lab comes out with a new way to refine gasoline that gives these properties I seek, I assure you I could not be more delighted. I have these letters on file so I can get my credit whether you want to give it or not. I am writing a book so I get paid no matter if we get smarter about fuel or continue to ruin the world with it.

Make sure you understand the arena you will be jumping into if you try to find what I am suggesting. A lot of dangerous people have interests in us continuing in the direction we have been going and have absolutely no interest in seeing anything new disturb the way they do business. You actually could produce such a process and get it on the market if you had my support without worrying about any negative fallout but you could not do it by yourself.

I can name names. I know where the bodies are buried and "They" know it. I could walk in and scramble the whole industry and they could not do anything to stop me but you - I don't think you would have a snowballs chance in hell of changing anything on your own. If you can, more power to ya.

I mean that one of you lab coats out there might think seriously about what I am proposing. I am not trying to start an argument. I have done a lot a research on this. I feel confident that I am correct that a new process could be developed that could give gasoline these properties that could not be challenged with a patent infringement except by someone who was keeping it secret, which would be the same people that have been screwing up gasoline thus far so they would likely either stand down or negotiate.

If I were on a team with such an objective, they would never even think of raising their concerns. Give me some honest interest and debate and I will tell you why.

Reply to
Bobby
Loading thread data ...

I think you'd be better served by doing your research more thoroughly. If Wikipedia is the only source of information that you can quote, then people here will not take you seriously.

The reason for that is information on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with a computer and access to the web. Find a better source of info and maybe someone here can discuss it with you.

Bobby wrote:

Reply to
A Espinoza

Bobby wrote: [...]

A very general remark: I've read your posts and I don't really understand what you want. Could you please summarize it in a few lines, so I could at least decide whether it's interesting for me or not?

Regards, Oliver

Reply to
Oliver 'Ojo' Bedford

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.