Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
03-13-2009 | 11:19 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
the same reason.
pj
formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
the same reason.
pj
03-14-2009 | 10:49 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <gpf7nh$6kp$1@news.motzarella.org>, "P J" <pj@pjama.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
>> formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
>> accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
>> the same reason.
>> pj
>
> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>
> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
> run.
>
> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
i started keeping fuel logs a few years ago, and indeed, averages for
shell are better than chevron, the other one i've run extensively.
but i have no idea about this nitrogen thing though. some interesting
blog comments here:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothrea...ostid=55935549
> In article <gpf7nh$6kp$1@news.motzarella.org>, "P J" <pj@pjama.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
>> formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
>> accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
>> the same reason.
>> pj
>
> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>
> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
> run.
>
> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
i started keeping fuel logs a few years ago, and indeed, averages for
shell are better than chevron, the other one i've run extensively.
but i have no idea about this nitrogen thing though. some interesting
blog comments here:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothrea...ostid=55935549
03-14-2009 | 11:07 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
In article <gpf7nh$6kp$1@news.motzarella.org>, "P J" <pj@pjama.invalid>
wrote:
> Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
> formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
> accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
> the same reason.
> pj
I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
run.
go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
wrote:
> Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
> formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
> accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
> the same reason.
> pj
I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
run.
go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
03-14-2009 | 06:22 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>
> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
> run.
Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even
> before
> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
I hope it's not a kind of gimmick like those claims about magnets around
fuel lines. ;-)
I noticed though that Shell also uses up to 10% ethanol in its gas which
is said to reduce fuel efficiency, so it's even more puzzling how they
can achieve better overall milage than other main brands.
pj
> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>
> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
> run.
Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even
> before
> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
I hope it's not a kind of gimmick like those claims about magnets around
fuel lines. ;-)
I noticed though that Shell also uses up to 10% ethanol in its gas which
is said to reduce fuel efficiency, so it's even more puzzling how they
can achieve better overall milage than other main brands.
pj
03-14-2009 | 06:29 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
P J wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
>> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
>> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>>
>> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
>> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
>> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
>> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
>> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
>> run.
>
> Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
>
>> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
>> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
>
> I hope it's not a kind of gimmick like those claims about magnets around
> fuel lines. ;-)
> I noticed though that Shell also uses up to 10% ethanol
the key to understanding is knowing the difference between "up to 10%"
and "is 10%".
> in its gas which
> is said to reduce fuel efficiency, so it's even more puzzling how they
> can achieve better overall milage than other main brands.
> pj
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
>> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
>> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>>
>> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
>> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
>> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
>> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
>> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
>> run.
>
> Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
>
>> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
>> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
>
> I hope it's not a kind of gimmick like those claims about magnets around
> fuel lines. ;-)
> I noticed though that Shell also uses up to 10% ethanol
the key to understanding is knowing the difference between "up to 10%"
and "is 10%".
> in its gas which
> is said to reduce fuel efficiency, so it's even more puzzling how they
> can achieve better overall milage than other main brands.
> pj
03-14-2009 | 07:52 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
In article <gphamr$c5l$1@news.motzarella.org>, "P J" <pj@pjama.invalid>
wrote:
> > I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
> > things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
> > switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
> > better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
> > fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
> > run.
>
> Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
We don't have Chevron around here, so I have no way of knowing.
wrote:
> > I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
> > things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
> > switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
> > better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
> > fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
> > run.
>
> Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
We don't have Chevron around here, so I have no way of knowing.
03-14-2009 | 10:31 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
"P J" <pj@pjama.invalid> wrote in message
news:gphamr$c5l$1@news.motzarella.org...
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>> I can't speak for the nitrogenized gasoline, but I started using Shell
>> several years ago, based on their cleaning claims. I discovered that
>> whatever it was, Shell gas was cheaper to run than other fuels.
>>
>> I started with a few tanks of their Ultra, with extra cleaners, to get
>> things clean (this was a 94 Lexus with 130K miles on it). Then I
>> switched to their 87 octane, and ran nothing but that. I was getting
>> better mileage than I did on other fuels, and even accounting for the
>> fact that the Shell was a bit more expensive to buy, it was cheaper to
>> run.
>
> Hm, interesting. And I thought Chevron was the way to go.
>
>> go figure. I think their claims are legit--but they were so even before
>> claiming this "nitrogenized" fuel.
>
> I hope it's not a kind of gimmick like those claims about magnets around
> fuel lines. ;-)
> I noticed though that Shell also uses up to 10% ethanol in its gas which
> is said to reduce fuel efficiency, so it's even more puzzling how they can
> achieve better overall milage than other main brands.
> pj
Pretty much all gas in the Houston area seems to be 10% ethanol.
03-14-2009 | 10:50 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
"jim beam" <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote:
> the key to understanding is knowing the difference between "up to 10%"
> and "is 10%".
Point taken. I better check the posted label more closely next time at
gas stations. Perhaps Arco's label does say 10%. I'm actually surprised
that government allows such vague labeling as "up to 10%." What might be
next? This gasoline's octane rating may be up to 89?
pj
> the key to understanding is knowing the difference between "up to 10%"
> and "is 10%".
Point taken. I better check the posted label more closely next time at
gas stations. Perhaps Arco's label does say 10%. I'm actually surprised
that government allows such vague labeling as "up to 10%." What might be
next? This gasoline's octane rating may be up to 89?
pj
03-15-2009 | 11:24 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasolin
Waiving the right to remain silent, "P J" <pj@pjama.invalid> said:
> "jim beam" <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> the key to understanding is knowing the difference between "up to 10%"
>> and "is 10%".
>
> Point taken. I better check the posted label more closely next time at
> gas stations. Perhaps Arco's label does say 10%. I'm actually surprised
> that government allows such vague labeling as "up to 10%." What might be
> next? This gasoline's octane rating may be up to 89?
They allow it because the amount of additives changes according to the
season.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."
> "jim beam" <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> the key to understanding is knowing the difference between "up to 10%"
>> and "is 10%".
>
> Point taken. I better check the posted label more closely next time at
> gas stations. Perhaps Arco's label does say 10%. I'm actually surprised
> that government allows such vague labeling as "up to 10%." What might be
> next? This gasoline's octane rating may be up to 89?
They allow it because the amount of additives changes according to the
season.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
"A lack of common sense is now considered a disability,
with all the privileges that this entails."
03-15-2009 | 02:44 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasoline
P J wrote:
> Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
> formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
> accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
> the same reason.
> pj
I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
nothing of consequence.
Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
hardly bleeding edge tech...
I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
-Humbug!
> Shell is promoting its new nitrogenized gasoline as an engine cleaning
> formula. Anybody knows if this is for real and how nitrogen could
> accomplish that? I've been favoring Chevron for its techron content for
> the same reason.
> pj
I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
nothing of consequence.
Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
hardly bleeding edge tech...
I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
-Humbug!
03-15-2009 | 03:38 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasoline
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
wrote:
>I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
>cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>
>Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>nothing of consequence.
>
>Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
>atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
>hardly bleeding edge tech...
>
>I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
>they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>
>-Humbug!
We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
content.
Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
to raise the octane number.
Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
wrote:
>I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
>cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>
>Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>nothing of consequence.
>
>Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
>atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
>hardly bleeding edge tech...
>
>I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
>they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>
>-Humbug!
We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
content.
Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
to raise the octane number.
Elliot Richmond
Itinerant astronomy teacher
03-16-2009 | 02:21 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasoline
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
<xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>wrote:
>>I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
>>cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>
>>Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>nothing of consequence.
>>
>>Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
>>atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
>>hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>
>>I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
>>they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>
>>-Humbug!
>
>We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>content.
>
>Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>to raise the octane number.
>
>
>
>Elliot Richmond
>Itinerant astronomy teacher
Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
facts to share, why not keep quiet?
03-16-2009 | 08:34 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasoline
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
> <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
>>> cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>>
>>> Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>> nothing of consequence.
>>>
>>> Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>> Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
>>> atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
>>> hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>>
>>> I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
>>> they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>>
>>> -Humbug!
>> We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>> much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>> Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>> content.
>>
>> Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>> additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>> nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>> to raise the octane number.
>>
>>
>>
>> Elliot Richmond
>> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>
>
> Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
> facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
> does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
> claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
> facts to share, why not keep quiet?
usenet has no barriers to entry dude. anybody can just show up and
evidence their ignorance, non-analytical thinking and herd-like fear of
their unknown.
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
> <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat for
>>> cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>>
>>> Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>> nothing of consequence.
>>>
>>> Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>> Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a nitrogen
>>> atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines This is
>>> hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>>
>>> I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK, maybe
>>> they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>>
>>> -Humbug!
>> We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>> much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>> Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>> content.
>>
>> Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>> additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>> nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>> to raise the octane number.
>>
>>
>>
>> Elliot Richmond
>> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>
>
> Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
> facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
> does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
> claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
> facts to share, why not keep quiet?
usenet has no barriers to entry dude. anybody can just show up and
evidence their ignorance, non-analytical thinking and herd-like fear of
their unknown.
03-16-2009 | 08:51 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasoline
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:34:57 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
>> <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat
>>>> for cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>>>
>>>> Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>>> nothing of consequence.
>>>>
>>>> Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>>> Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a
>>>> nitrogen atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines
>>>> This is hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>>>
>>>> I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK,
>>>> maybe they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>>>
>>>> -Humbug!
>>> We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>>> much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>>> Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>>> additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>>> nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>>> to raise the octane number.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elliot Richmond
>>> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>>
>>
>> Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
>> facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
>> does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
>> claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
>> facts to share, why not keep quiet?
>
>
> usenet has no barriers to entry dude. anybody can just show up and
> evidence their ignorance, non-analytical thinking and herd-like fear of
> their unknown.
Very true. Just look at nearly any of the posts made by 'jim beam' to
confirm this.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
>> <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat
>>>> for cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>>>
>>>> Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>>> nothing of consequence.
>>>>
>>>> Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>>> Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a
>>>> nitrogen atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines
>>>> This is hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>>>
>>>> I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK,
>>>> maybe they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>>>
>>>> -Humbug!
>>> We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>>> much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>>> Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>>> additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>>> nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>>> to raise the octane number.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elliot Richmond
>>> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>>
>>
>> Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
>> facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
>> does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
>> claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
>> facts to share, why not keep quiet?
>
>
> usenet has no barriers to entry dude. anybody can just show up and
> evidence their ignorance, non-analytical thinking and herd-like fear of
> their unknown.
Very true. Just look at nearly any of the posts made by 'jim beam' to
confirm this.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg
03-16-2009 | 09:08 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Shell's new "nitrogen" gasoline
Dan C wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:34:57 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
>>> <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat
>>>>> for cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>>>>
>>>>> Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>>>> nothing of consequence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>>>> Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a
>>>>> nitrogen atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines
>>>>> This is hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK,
>>>>> maybe they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Humbug!
>>>> We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>>>> much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>>>> Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>>>> additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>>>> nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>>>> to raise the octane number.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elliot Richmond
>>>> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>>>
>>> Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
>>> facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
>>> does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
>>> claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
>>> facts to share, why not keep quiet?
>>
>> usenet has no barriers to entry dude. anybody can just show up and
>> evidence their ignorance, non-analytical thinking and herd-like fear of
>> their unknown.
>
> Very true. Just look at nearly any of the posts made by 'jim beam' to
> confirm this.
>
>
you, hypocrite. you never contribute a goddamned thing except "buy
a new ing car ".
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:34:57 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:38:23 -0500, Elliot Richmond
>>> <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:44:53 -0700, Greg Campbell <nospam@null.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I can't see how any sort of dissolved free nitrogen would do squat
>>>>> for cleaning. I'd think that the air would provide plenty...
>>>>>
>>>>> Shell's site is full of typical idiot-level Dancing Bologna and says
>>>>> nothing of consequence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amines have long been used in the better anti-deposit additives.
>>>>> Although a very complex family of compounds, all amines use a
>>>>> nitrogen atom as a foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amines
>>>>> This is hardly bleeding edge tech...
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect nothing is new, except for the dumb ad campaign. (OK,
>>>>> maybe they increased the amount of 'stuff' in their mix by 2%...)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Humbug!
>>>> We discussed this extensively on an RV newsgroup and came to pretty
>>>> much the same conclusions. Nitrogen gas is going to do nothing and the
>>>> Shell website about there new gasoline is almost completely free of
>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> Several knowledgeable posters suggested it was probably just an
>>>> additive -- probably a nitrogen compound such as nitrotoluene or
>>>> nitrobenzene. These can act as powerful solvents and also would tend
>>>> to raise the octane number.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elliot Richmond
>>>> Itinerant astronomy teacher
>>>
>>> Why do you think 'nitrogen' means nitrogen in a gaseous form? The
>>> facts are you have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, Shell
>>> does not reveal what nitrogen based additive is the basis of their
>>> claim but that does not make their claim invalid. Until you have some
>>> facts to share, why not keep quiet?
>>
>> usenet has no barriers to entry dude. anybody can just show up and
>> evidence their ignorance, non-analytical thinking and herd-like fear of
>> their unknown.
>
> Very true. Just look at nearly any of the posts made by 'jim beam' to
> confirm this.
>
>
you, hypocrite. you never contribute a goddamned thing except "buy
a new ing car ".