[Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid

[Michael Meltzer]

Bill the blow by in a two stoke is 10% for WOT and around 50% at idle, their is a curve but I remind you that most sailboat never
getup to their full RPM due to being overproped.

The formulation for modem basic gas is well know(Rodger you have a example recipe)   I suspect the addictive package are a trade
secrets but the major pieces might be know. The EPA keep a database  of the allowable amount of the crap. take a look for your self
bill, some of the number are very low, why trust the work of others, all you are debating at that point is the amount.

The cooling issue is also a "read hearing" the last air cooled engine I remember is a British seagull, 2 stoke are water cooled and
have the same problems(been their), I a might that I seen more problem with 4 stoke cooling but remember, heat=inefficiency, I think
the four stokes run cooler and the enginers improved the cooling system.

MJM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid


Roger, (and Michael),

Can you find the reports by respected marine biologists you refer to?  The ones I saw were bought and paid for by the marine engine
industry. (OMC I believe.)  They have been thoroughly discredited.

4-cycle engines simply do not get twice the fuel efficiency compared to 2-cycle engines as anyone with a 2-cycle can tell you.  This
statement was based on the notion that since the 4-cycle fired once every 4 strokes, and the 2-cycle fired on every other stroke,
the 2 cycle must use twice as much gas, and dump half of it into the water.

The 2 stroke people came back with a "ton-miles" statistic--since 4 strokes of equivalent power weigh more than twice as much as
2-strokes, pound for pound the 2 stroke engines must be twice as efficient.

In fact, the 4-cycles are slightly more efficient than the 2 strokes for the same amount of power.  Most of the difference is not
"dumped into the water" as Michael would have it, but manifests itself in heat.  2-cycle engines run hotter.

Which brings us to Dave, Jay, Michael and Bruce who have all had problems with their 4-cycle cooling systems.  To bring 4-cycles up
to operating temperatures they must employ complicated intermittent cooling systems with thermostats.  There is an abundant supply
of cool water in a marine environment to cool the hotter running 2-cycles--no thermostats needed.  The 2-cycles exhaust most of the
extra gas in the form of non-polluting hot water.  I have never had a problem with my cooling system.  My engine is 12 years old.
I'm moored a couple of hundred yards from Bruce.  Same salt water.  I try to remember to flush my system at the end of each season.
(Last year I forgot.)

The reports you refer to compared detuned 2-cycle engines with specially tricked up 4-cycles made by the same manufacturer who
didn't want to retool its 2-cycle line.

The Japanese make excellent low polluting 2-cycle engines, and were already making them when these reports were written.  My engine
calls for a 50-1 gas-oil mixture.  I put in more oil at the beginning of the season to make sure everything is lubricated, and when
I first start my engines there is a puff of smoke, but after that there is no visible smoke coming out of my engine, and there is no
oil slick trailing my boat.

That is not true of many 4-stroke gas guzzlers that cross my path leaving rainbows of residue behind them.  The cylinders of 4
stroke engines must be lubricated just as 2 strokes must be lubricated.  Cylinder rings are supposed to remove the excess, but not
all of the oil--that's why you check your oil.  Where do you think the missing oil goes?  No one does a ring job until much more oil
has been dumped into the water than my little 2-stroke will ever put there.

We have been around this bush too many times.  I believe the claims you cite are glurge.  What are the original sources?

Bill






----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roger Pihlaja
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid


Bill,

The marine industry has been fighting the regulation & banning of 2-cycle
engines tooth & nail.  The industry has a tremendous investment in
production capacity for the current generation of 2-cycle engines.  The
reports I am refering to were published by respected marine biologists, not
the marine industry.  I assure you, the issue is good science, not "glurge".

Also, if you reread what I have written, I did not advocate everyone to go
out & immediately trade-in their 2-cycle marine engines.  As I wrote, I
myself switched over to 4-cycle outboards over a 4 year period & only when
it was appropriate to replace an engine.  However, 2006 is approaching.

Nationwide, 2-cycle powered PWC's & small 2-cycle outboard powered boats
outnumber all other pleasure craft by wide margins.

Other than the abuse heaped upon our Honda 9.9 by my son, Gary, our 4-cycle
Honda outboards have been bulletproof reliable for nearly 8 & 4 years
respectively.  They don't leak oil, we don't use any additives in their
fuel, they start on the 1st or 2nd pull with no rituals, & the % extra
engine time involved in running their carbs out of fuel in between uses is
inconsequential.  Besides, I used to do the same thing with the gas in the
carb on the 2-cycle Evinrude.  I believe running the gas out of the carb is
just good practice with an outboard that sits between uses.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 12:09 PM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid


> Glurge is the sending of inspirational (often supposedly "true") tales
that conceal much darker meanings than the uplifting moral lessons they
purport to offer, and that undermine their messages by fabricating and
distorting historical fact in the guise of offering a "true
story."" -snopes.com
>
> Roger--
>
> The marine engine industry has concocted this glurge and you keep
repeating it.  They are trying to sell more motors, they don't give a damn
about marine pollution.  2-cycle engines have not been banned.  More
stringent regulations have been established.  The marine engine industry has
now developed 2-cycle engines that are cleaner than most 4-cycle engines.
>
> People on this list have constantly complained about the reliability of
their 4-cycle engines--we read, year after year, elaborate rituals performed
before and after every use by 4-cycle engine owners--what's more, the
engines exhaust raw fuel into the water every time they fail to start;
owners dump multiple "additives" directly into their fuel; they run their
engines twice as long as they need them to drain all the fuel after every
use; they dump the old oil into the water with every oil change; their
engines leak oil directly into the water...
>
> The population density of wretched excess conspicuous consumption boats is
amazingly high wherever there is money.  Here on Long Island Sound I see 100
multi-engine gas guzzlers in operation for every PWC.
>
> I know you are genuinely concerned about the environment, and your
engineering background concentrated on removing pollutants emitted by
internal combustion engines.  No one questions your competence in the
technical aspects of this conversation.  However, with regard to the larger
point of swapping in a reliable 2-cycle engine (which will be sold to and
used by someone else) for a less reliable, brand new 4-cycle engine (which
exacted additional environmental costs in its manufacture) to be used
occasionally on a sailboat, I think you have allowed your technical
expertise to cloud your common sense judgment.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Pihlaja
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 6:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
>
>
> Steve & Rummy,
>
> Look, I'll be the 1st to agree that double & triple engined muscle boats
are
> one of the most glaring examples of conspicuous consumption & wretched
> excess in the world today.  But, they mostly run with 4-cycle engines &
they
> run mostly in deep water, far from shore, & their population density is
> usually pretty low.  Small 2-cycle outboards & PWC's tend to be much more
> numerous, used near shore, in estuaries, small bays, rivers, etc.  In
other
> words, the small 2-cycle marine engines tend to be emitting their
pollution
> into the waters that are the most productive & most vulnerable in terms of
> fish spawning grounds, insect larvae, crustaceans, plant life, etc.  Make
no
> mistake, there is some BAD SHIT in 2-cycle exhaust smoke & the oily film
> that these machines lay down on the water; materials like dioxins,
> tetrahydrofurans (THF's) & other materials that are biologically active at
> parts per billion concentration & also tend to bioconcentrate up the food
> chain.  Gentlemen, this is a really bad deal!
>
> Hey guys, I'm a sailor, just like you.  I'm also a professional chemical
> engineer, not some tree hugging environmentalist.  I've seen the water
> quality & biological sampling data & the supporting analysis.  These
reports
> have convinced me that marine 2-cycle engines are a problem.  Certainly
the
> small, low use, 2-cycle outboards used on our R-22's are not the biggest
> contributor to the problem; BUT, they are part of the problem & not part
of
> the solution.  It's counterproductive to point your finger at muscleboats
&
> say those folks should be banned until your own house is in order.  The
> environmental threat from 2-cycle marine engine exhaust emissions is real
&
> not going away any time soon.  Which side of this issue do you want to be
> on?
>
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Alm" <salm at mn.rr.com>
> To: "Rhodes" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
>
>
> > Rummy, I'm with you.  The heavy machinery is a much bigger problem.  I
> doubt
> > I burn more than fifteen gallons a season.  It's a goddang blowboat for
> > chirstsake!  If they ban 2 cycles, I would hope that they would put a
cap
> on
> > it--like over 25 or something.
> > Slim
> > P.S. You're partying with the wrong people.
> >
> > On 7/17/03 6:54 PM, "John Tonjes" <johntonjes at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Roger,
> > > If 2 cycle engines are outlawed, there are going to be a lot of
unhappy
> > > loggers, tree trimmers, grass maintenance compamies and homeowners who
> use
> > > them for everything from blowing leaves to mowing the lawn.
Personally,
> I
> > > would prefer to see the 1000 hp cigarette boats with blowers outlawed
> long
> > > before the 2 cycles are done in. I talked with a guy a few weeks ago
at
> a
> > > party with just such a boat. He can go in excess of 100mph on the
water.
> I
> > > didn't bother asking about fuel consumption, but he did mention he
> carried
> > > 110 gallons of high test.
> > >
> > > Rummy
> > >
> > >
> > >> [Original Message]
> > >> From: Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
> > >> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >> Date: 7/17/2003 5:22:54 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
> > >>
> > >> Steve,
> > >>
> > >> Since 2-cycle engines are currently still legal to operate on most
> bodies
> > > of
> > >> water in the United States, everyone must decide for themselves what
> they
> > >> want to do re this issue.  Certainly, PWC's & large 2-cycle outboards
> > >> generate lots more pollution & waste much more fuel than the
relatively
> > >> small & infrequently used outboards on our R-22's.  I realize
replacing
> an
> > >> outboard engine is an expensive proposition.  I myself did not switch
> over
> > >> to 4-cycle engines overnight.  The 2-cycle Evinrude 6 came installed
on
> > >> Dynamic Equilibrium when the boat was purchased in 1987 & we ran with
> that
> > >> engine for 9 years.  I replaced the 2-cycle Evinrude 6 on Dynamic
> > >> Equilibrium with the 4-cycle Honda 8 in 1996.  However, in that same
> > > year, I
> > >> converted the long shaft Evinrude 6 back to a standard length shaft &
> ran
> > >> the 2-cycle engine on our 10 foot inflatable sport dingy until 2000,
> when
> > > I
> > >> purchased the 4-cycle Honda 9.9.  I finally sold the 2-cycle Evinrude
> at a
> > >> yard sale in the summer of 2001.  By that point, the Evinrude was
> getting
> > > a
> > >> little tired & looked pretty scruffy, but it still ran reasonably
well.
> > >>
> > >> The nearly 2X greater fuel consumption & more than 10X greater
exhaust
> > >> emissions issues with 2-cycle marine engines are real & well
> documented.
> > >> Their continued use does not represent good stewardship of the
planet.
> > > The
> > >> real question everyone must ask themselves is, "Do you want to be
part
> of
> > >> the problem or part of the solution?"  Long term, I think 2-cycle
> marine
> > >> engines will either be saddled with so much emissions control
> technology
> > >> that the cost, simplicity, & weight advantages over 4-cycle engines
> will
> > > go
> > >> away or the 2-cycle engine will be banned altogether.  There is
already
> a
> > >> small but steadily growing list of bodies of water wherein it is
> illegal
> > > to
> > >> operate 2-cycle marine engines.  That's something to ponder when it
> comes
> > >> time to replace your current outboard.  If you wait until 2-cycle
> engines
> > >> are outlawed; then, your current outboard won't have much resale
value.
> > >> I've already voted with my checkbook.
> > >>
> > >> Roger Pihlaja
> > >> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> > >> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:37 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Well, Roger, I am sure you saw this coming but I like
> > >>> my little 2 cycle motor.  Pollution & all:-)
> > >>> Steve
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> > >>>> Richard,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I can usually follow your line of reasoning; but,
> > >>>> this time I'm confused.  The discussion was about
> > >>>> the relative merits of 2-cycle vs 4-cycle marine
> > >>>> engines.  What do alcohol burning model airplane
> > >>>> engines have to do with gasoline burning marine
> > >>>> engines?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Roger Pihlaja
> > >>>> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> > >>>> __________________________________________________
> > >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > >>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> __________________________________
> > >>> Do you Yahoo!?
> > >>> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > >>> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> > >>> __________________________________________________
> > >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> __________________________________________________
> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>


__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list