[Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid

Michael Meltzer mjm at michaelmeltzer.com
Mon Jul 21 13:42:05 EDT 2003


The obvious guys says: an exception was make because he is exceptional :-)

MJM



----- Original Message ----- 


From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid


> Roger
> Why did Michael get excluded!!!  Besides, I never said
> you were wrong; you're generally right.  I just figure
> we will all be glowing orange before it an issue:-)
> Got to look at the bright side to these issues:-)
> Steve
> 
> 
> --- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> > Bill, Rummy, Et Al,
> > 
> > Look, this discussion is getting old & boring.  I've
> > tried to state my case
> > logically & I keep getting attacked from all sides
> > (MJM excluded).  You guys
> > are obviously in denial, so go enjoy your 2-cycle
> > outboards.  However, I'll
> > make a fearless prediction.  Within 10 years, you
> > will realise I was
> > essentially correct re this 2-cycle marine engine
> > emissions issue.  On that
> > day, I hope you will have the moral fiber to
> > apologise.  If, on the other
> > hand, it turns out that the issue is marine glurge,
> > you can be certain I
> > will also apologise.
> > 
> > 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 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> 


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list