Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Arcon Energy (MIDL Presently) The Ultimate Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TJG who wrote (2644)	6/5/1998 10:58:00 PM
From: Whitetigr	Respond to of 4142

Thanks for sharing the informative posts. On the point of electric transportation being unAmerican I do have to disagree with you. There are many reasons why electric transportation is not a viable alternative at this point in time and probably not for the near future. Electric vehicles that have been developed to this point that are available to be produced cost effectively do not have the effective travel range that gasoline or other alternative fuel vehicles have. There is also this emissions question. There is misinformation there also. First you have batteries that have a limited life expectancy which means that you will have to dispose of them in 1-2 years. Electric vehicles hold many batteries to power them. In addition batteries vent off hydrogen gas. This may not seem like a big deal to some but don't let a spark go off near hydrogen gas because if it gets a chance to build up it will explode. Especially in cold weather hydrogen gas does not dissipate as quickly as it will on a warm windy day and that is when you usually have the most drain on your batteries. For the most part these batteries contain acid so now what happens in the crash test is another major factor. Maybe in time all these problems will be solved but at this point I don't believe electric is the best alternative, nor does the industry. On another note for anyone interested CNG is also being used in vehicles. This for the most part is being used by public service vehicles because of regulations. The filling stations are not equipped to handle this, it is not wide spread enough and who wants to be in a vehicle with a CNG bomb sitting under you in an accident. Ok, so gasoline can burn and in rare cases if you are unlucky enough to have nearly all fumes in your tank explode there is CNG that only goes boom. I see DF-144 as a compromise to big oil to be able to continue on in their business and something needed by the enviroment. The auto manufacturers will also love it if it actually does all the test data says it does. Most people may not realize that many new vehicles made have more than one cadallic converter on them now because of the difficulty in meeting some of the emissions requirements. Also an 02 sensor between them to tell if the first one is burning enough of the unburned HC's that come from the engine. Ethanol has been around for a long time now but is not good in cold weather for start ups in straight form. For vehicles that have carb's Ethanol would leak past gaskets but now most are fuel injected so that is no longer the problem and when mixed the cold start problem is solved. Ok, enough said. Go DF-144 Thanks Ga Bard and everyone else that did the through digging. :) BTW you guys might think I'm crazy but I hope they are building the new plant with the same metal composition that the previous one had that has been making the special mix. Especially since they don't know what the secret ingredient is to get that octane rating. For all we know it can have something to do with a reaction of the mix when it is being mixed in a certain type element that causes some strange chemical bond. I trust that they thought of this and will be working accordingly.