"Fossil fuel" reality check

Any topic with a chance of polarization - Not for the easily offended.

Moderator: Team

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by David Redszus » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:16 am

paulzig wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:11 am
The term fossil is misused here to refer to something that is old or aged... The fuel itself is decaying organisms under pressure and heat not fossils.
Any idea how it all ended up in one hole?
Oil is not in one place; it is wide spread world wide. In some locations it is closer to the surface and much easier to recover. Oil resevoirs (?) follow cracks and crevices within rock formations.
Any idea why many of the wells thought to be empty have refilled them selves?
Capillary action is the main reason. Oil will seep into any available crevice.

The ocean floors are surfaces that are in the process of forming new oil deposits. All we need to do is be patient. A few dozen million years and we can start pumping.

axegrinder
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: TX

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by axegrinder » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:21 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:42 pm
pdq67 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:11 pm
A real world gas mileage reality check here using my old survivor '67SS/RS Camaro car.

Stock, 295hp/350, M-20 and 3.31 regs and about 25.3"/29.5" dia. or so tires was like 16.5 to 17 mpg running about 70 mph back then.

Same combination, but with a 350hp/327, -151 hy-cam in her! About 15.5 to 16 mpg! The old -151 cam pulled like a, "freight train"!!!

My old, junk301 with an old junkyard, -097 Duntov in it was still like 16 mpg. Sucker would hit 7,000+ rpm any time I put my foot in it!

I didn't keep the old hopped up 300hp/327 that was in my car when I got it back so don't know. It had a 268 hy-cam in it. Those damned little 268/270 hy-cams run fine in the old 250/275/300hp/327 engines! One will wake them right up!!

I never figured the gas mileage for my .060" over, 11.5 to 1 CR, full house/"tripped", 409 "W" engine, but I always thought it would be about 10 mpg??

The big sucker ran like a 283 on steroids!!

Now my Strong-Arm 406, about 15 with 26.5" dia. tires running about 55 mph on the 4-lane commuting daily. Cam was a 292/230, 109/107 or so, .480" lift old-school jobber!

I haven't lit off my 496 yet so don't know how it's gas mileage will be?

pdq67
This is a topic I looked into a few dozen years ago; horsepower vs fuel economy.

Given the same body shape (similar frontal area and Cd) and running at the same mph, fuel economy results were nearly equal.

So how much horsepower does it take to propel a Camaro at a constant 70 mph? How much fuel?

I've heard 7 to 13 horsepower for the average car to cruise at 60mph. I haven't done any math to check those numbers though.

When I was in high school I had a $400 1970s shit box Subaru that got well over 30 mpg. Now we have to pay twenty times the money for a newer, but still used, shiny shit box that doesn't get much better mileage.
Trump might screw us
HILLARY WILL SCREW US

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1936
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by joe 90 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:21 am

35 HP is about spot on.

Only because a lot of old British cars only made about 35 HP and that's their top speed.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by exhaustgases » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:26 pm

GARY C wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:05 pm
paulzig wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:11 am
The term fossil is misused here to refer to something that is old or aged... The fuel itself is decaying organisms under pressure and heat not fossils.
Any idea how it all ended up in one hole?
Any idea why many of the wells thought to be empty have refilled them selves?
Because of heat and pressure H2o and minerals - elements, is what makes oil, not the make believe from the so called scientists. Carbon is an element not an animal.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3347
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by GARY C » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:31 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:26 pm
GARY C wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:05 pm
paulzig wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:11 am
The term fossil is misused here to refer to something that is old or aged... The fuel itself is decaying organisms under pressure and heat not fossils.
Any idea how it all ended up in one hole?
Any idea why many of the wells thought to be empty have refilled them selves?
Because of heat and pressure H2o and minerals - elements, is what makes oil, not the make believe from the so called scientists. Carbon is an element not an animal.
Yeah I would like to see more people on the science side of that start pushing the fact that it's a natural renewable energy and not fossil fuel.
Here is a short interview with the scientist that sued the EPA for literally putting people in a sort of gas chamber to prove particulates or deadly, he was involved in the info that got Trump to shut down the latest climate change movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSqtElQncQM

paulzig
Expert
Expert
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by paulzig » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:11 am

exhaustgases wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:26 pm


Because of heat and pressure H2o and minerals - elements, is what makes oil, not the make believe from the so called scientists. Carbon is an element not an animal.
All life on the face of the earth has carbon in it... Humans, animals, plants... Like I said before forget the name 'fossil' its a misnomer.

Post Reply