Military Empire and Climate Cycle Views

Archive for the month “May, 2014”

From Wargamer to Dr. Peace

A friend has advised me that people don’t know my personal history of peace.  So here it is.

Wargaming actually took me out of my reclusive mathematician origins into a new social role with my first friends outside of my neighborhood friends growing up.  I became the local Madison area hub of wargaming and then offered the second annual convention in the nation.  I published nationally and had leading roles in the largest national wargaming club.  These skills would later serve me well in graduate school decades later.  One car rider in college, when my friends and I were mostly high school, taught us reasons to doubt the Vietnam War by saying things and then quickly denying any anti-war sentiment when asked.  Although years of reading Newsweek cover to cover made me slightly pro-war, I also worked on the McGovern campaign despite reservations.  I went trick or treating dressed as a soldier up until age 16, but later feared the draft when I entered college.

I was shocked by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and joined the nuclear freeze movement and became a party official and legislative activist. In June 1989 I attended the “Searching for the True Meaning of Peace” conference that was the coming out party for the United Nations University of Peace in Costa Rica.  The Dalai Lama was a keynoter.  Before the conference I attended a Radio For Peace International conference located on the UN University of Peace campus.  In November 1989 I was attending a national convention of United Nations Association members in Washington DC when the Berlin Wall fell November 10, 1989.  In 1990 I was the second one out there as one young man started a weekly anti-war protest on Fridays in front of the federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon starting with the first Friday in September.  I went every week until the war started, when I gave up because it was hopeless to protest after the war started and a counter protest “Victory Through Air Power” mob had started across the street.  Then when I discovered the brochure that launched peace economics, I became active with Oregon Peace Works and eventually moderated the Eugene chapter board meetings from 1991 to 1993.  I wrote my peace economics monthly columns from 1989 to 1997, and wrote monthly letters to the editor in the Eugene Register Guard until moving to Wisconsin in 1993.

In Wisconsin I became active with Midge Miller’s Progressive Roundtable of the Madison Institute.  Midge is the woman given credit by Gene McCarthy for recruiting him to run an anti-war campaign against President Johnson.  She also is in the postscript commentary with Professor and Quaker Joe Elder in the famous film “The War At Home” about the Madison Wisconsin anti-war movement that started with candlelight marches in the Kennedy administration.  Joe Elder is now one of my letters of reference.  Midge Miller always loved my flyers and gave copies to family and friends.  In the spring of 1997 I was persuaded to offer a Radio For Peace International (RFPI) University of the Air course on Weather Wealth and Wars, a combination of my peace economics and global warming cycle research.  RFPI broadcast shortwave to the whole world from Costa Rica.  Due to limited time, this is when I stopped writing monthly columns in the Oregon PeaceWorker to make time for the preparations and taping of the 25 course tapes.  In 1999 I attended and presented peace economics material to The Hague Peace Conference 100th Anniversary gathering with Desmond Tutu speaking.  That same year I developed my website, so named so as to not turn off conservatives about my peace views.  Conservatives would see the title Peace Economics in my book and immediately get stuck in old fashioned debate notions that only made sense before the discovery of severe negative economic implications of high military spending levels.  They needed to know that economic growth, something they favored, was at odds with military spending, something that detracts from economic growth.  Without a teachable moment, they try to have it both ways.

In Madison, I joined US Out Now in 1998, the group opposed to the murderous sanctions in Iraq that killed 600,000 children.  When September 11th, 2001 came, the leader of this group became the leader of the new Madison Area Peace Coalition that organized on September 25th, 2001.  I went to five national World Federalist fall meetings in a row from October 1998 to 2002, making five peace economics presentations in workshops there.

After nine eleven, I witnessed the culmination of a long World Federalist dream with the start of the International Criminal Court holding leaders accountable for their atrocities.  But mostly I had the education of a lifetime networking anti-war articles between four list-serves.  I met the woman of my dreams in a candlelight war protest I started weekly after the Iraq War started.  The night of the first anti war rally the day after Bush’s announcement, 3000 of us marched 54 blocks around downtown Madison ending at a sit-in in the intersection of Francis and University Avenues by about 500 of us die-hards at 1:30am.  Then in 2006 I started my doctorate, finished in 2009. As soon as I graduated I applied for the license plate Dr. Peace.  The day after defending my dissertation on “Peace Economics in Peace Studies”, we flew out to the 40th Anniversary of Woodstock Peace Economy conference, where I ended up as the central figure in the newspaper photo of the event.  The long hard twilight struggle continues.

After decades of conferences having hardly made a dent in world consciousness, the last year has had a lot of traction for Peace Economics, with local weekly radio commentaries, weekly press releases to 7000 members of the press, and now up to 33 papers on my academic website.  Academic interest peaked with the comparison of Peace Economics with Peace Studies, but press interest has grown stronger with the emphasis on global warming and biographical press releases.  Current press releases are about three times as popular as the early months, showing a series of upward leaps on my graphs of viewership per press release.

See this link for a long partial list of academic conference presentations:

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein,

best contact

to leave message    608-230-6640

for more info


Smash Hit In Nashville

One day back from rocking two conferences with stunning new theories, both of my two best chances at winning a Nobel Prize were on the table for academic peers to judge.  And both were greeted with intense interest, applause, and people coming up to talk to me afterwards.  After all I had won a peer reviewed presentation excellence award for “Empire Economics” last year at the joint conference of Academic Business World and International  Conference on Learning and Administration in Higher Education.  Edd Joyner had obviously put together three of his best presenters for the opening act of the Centennial A “center stage” slot of three simultaneous slots for presentations.  Edd avoids keynoters to make room for all to make two presentations at this, the tenth annual edition of this Nashville classic.  My “Accurate Economics” had the co-presenter from Homeland Security nodding her head in frequent agreement during my presentation.  The moderator kept us on pace with fingers showing how many minutes we had left.  When we reached finger one, I was ready to wrap it up.  In my second presentation first up in Centennial B on Thursday, the second morning, the moderator was so taken with my presentation he sacrificed most of his time to let me go on.

Sunday this press release broke all viewership records, 155 views in just 15 hours.  Someone from Madison viewed the climate powerpoint nine times already on Sunday.   Time to hire me UW or lose a great researcher right under your nose.

I used to be happy when a press release reached 100 views in a week.  The Roosevelt press release reached 300 views in a week and this Nashville press release is already this morning at 278 views and will reach 300 in this the second day.

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein,

best contact

to leave message  608-230-6640

more info


Here are the peer reviewed abstracts approved for the conference presentations:

Title:  “Accurate Economics:  What can be inferred from macroeconomics if the model of it is found to be accurate”

Abstract For:  Academic Business World International Conference, Nashville, TN, May 21-23, 2014.

“The Accurate Economics approach is heavily based on 13 mathematical and logical relationships with military spending, the economy, climate, politics, and the social structure.  These 13 relationships average over 97% accuracy, with eight over 99% accuracy.

“The relatively unexplored worlds of 1) military spending, the economy, and the end of empires and 2) global warming and the long cycle can then be taught in depth.  The models that go the farthest in accuracy will have more meaning and successful corollaries.  Students will be equipped to analyze emerging or developing economies as well as those of the developed world.

“The result of a strong model is to show the folly of many traditional theories on the right or the left.

“Trade and banking are two very misunderstood fields, for example.  Military buildups can destroy the manufacturing sector just as well as the race to the bottom does.  Education can do wonders for an economy, but it cannot replace resources that are wasted on a massive scale.  The banking sector can be a huge source of profits, but financial manipulation at the expense of real innovations in our lives can set us back.”

Here is the power point used to present this topic:

Title:  “Teaching Global Warming the Third Way”

Abstract For:  The International Conference on Learning and Administration in Higher Education, Nashville, TN, May 21-23, 2014. (

“The temperature patterns on planet Earth are a fascinating thing.  The current global warming debate is unduly concerned about whether our climate is being changed because of manmade overconsumption of fossil fuels or it’s just natural variability in the climate.  There is a third way to teach about temperature changes over time on our planet.  This third way emphasizes not the Greenhouse Effect but the Evaporation Effect on our planet.  This takes us out of the paradigm of whether 97% of scientists agree on something or you can’t predict the weather far into the future.

“Climate scientists like Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State would have us believe that the Vikings didn’t farm Greenland for four centuries a thousand years ago or that Greenland is radically different than the rest of the planet.  Skeptics on the other hand would have us believe ice buildup on Greenland shows the opposite of global warming.  Either can easily be shown to be absurd.

“Seasonality is much stronger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, but we are never told this or why it is so.  Evaporation is the answer, because a major part of the use of solar radiation is to evaporate water.  So where there is lots of water, there will be less heating, and where there is little water there will be lots of heating.  The extremes would be oceans and deserts.

“Global warming will reduce winters but not change summers that much, another result you do not hear much about.  The third way will give people a more balanced understanding of some of the main forces effecting our planet and the people on it.”

Powerpoint used:

Roosevelt, Depression, War

So many myths of today still surround the Great Depression, the New Deal, and the War that followed.  The newspaper account is the one that seems to last.  The research of the actual numbers refutes the simplistic notion that the war brought us out of the Great Depression.  Actually, the eight peacetime years before the war grew the economy 86%.  But when you look at the total war effect including the three year postwar recession which actually started in the last year of the war, the four war years plus the two postwar recession years the economy only grew 17%.   That’s New Deal five to one over the war.  It’s not even close.  What people remember is the coincidence, that the war came at the end of the recovery period and took all the credit for what was really only a tiny last step.  The formula was simple.  Send 12 million men overseas, put the wives to work in the factories, work the factories on Saturday bringing the prewar workweek up from 38 hours per week to 44 hours per week. The workweek went back down to 39 hours per week after the war, when you return to Monday through Friday.  Yes, you bring the 10% unemployment rate of 1941 down to 2%.  It seems like full employment.  But we forget that bringing the rate down from 25% in 1933 represents a 15% change during the new deal and only an 8% change during the war.  The unemployment rate was dropping about 3% each year of the New Deal, before and after the 1938 recession.

But that leaves out the big mistake.  Roosevelt took his foot off the throttle for reelection in 1936, trying to balance the budget for two straight years until they realized their mistake.  Too late, the 1937 and 1938 growth rates drop to the two lowest rates of the prewar recovery period, the New Deal period.  The huge pump priming deficits of the thirties disappear for two years and the recovery reverses course.  1937 starts the social security tax and drops to a rate of 5% growth.  Then 1938 drops further to minus 5% growth, essentially a two year no growth period when the other six New Deal years average over 10% growth per year.  So the steady dropping of the unemployment rate reverses in one year and suddenly climbs up 5%.  The Treasury Secretary panics and says we are hopelessly locked in the Great Depression.  He was wrong, it was just one year, and without that setback year, we would have been back to full employment in 1940 and spared the myth that the war brought us out of the Great Depression. Had the 1937 unemployment rate of 14% kept dropping at the 3% a year rate, it would have been 5% in 1940, essentially full employment, and perhaps 2% in 1941 under the lend lease program of keeping Britain afloat, just like the three war years, 1943-1945, when the unemployment reached about 2% or less.  Only massive deficits kept the economy afloat during the war years, and when the war bonding deficit started failing to match the war cost, the economy reduced its economic growth rate every year from 1941 to 1946, a five year downward slide in economic growth rate.

Paul Krugman still falls for the nonsense that the war brought us out of the Depression, but Joseph Stiglitz is very measured in his description of the war economy, he knows that the peace dividend from the Cold War propelled much of the nineties economic growth spurt under Clinton.  Alone among the leading economists, Stiglitz seems to get it that military spending hurts not helps the economy.  The others still cling to classic Keynesian dogma, what I and others before me have called, military Keynesianism.  They try to have it both ways, that military spending hurts the economy in the long run, but stimulates the economy in the short run.  To the two Nobel laureates just mentioned, add Knox into the last category when I heard him talk at Notre Dame.

That nonsense is refuted by the period 1941 to 1948, where military spending net of the deficit drags the economy down for five years then reverses direction and stimulates the economy for the last two years, with a correlation of 0.97 for the eight year period, just three points below a perfect 100 fit.  The deficit correlates about 0.74 with either the unemployment rate or the economic growth rate changes in the late thirties.

Here are the actual data for those who wish to verify my claims:

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein, best contact

608-230-6640 to leave message  more info

Politician in Eugene Oregon

Having done some political campaign work for McGovern and Carter, I decided after 400 soul searching hours in LifeSpring trainings in 1978 to be a politician and pursue the presidency.  I started by getting myself appointed to the Citizen Involvement Committee of Springfield Oregon in December 1978.  Then I left my accounting controller factory job in a failing company in March 1979. I began with a year of 400 political and community meetings in the Eugene Springfield area.  I was educating myself for a run at the elected post of Lane County Commissioner.  I moved to the newly redistricted North Eugene district of the five member board.  May 20, 1980 was the election date.  Conservative Democrat Archie Weinstein was redistricted into this district that he could not win in.  At one point two of the county commissioners offered to help me, but I did not follow up on that offer, and a City Councilman ended up winning the office.  So I ran for treasurer of the Lane County Democrats in June and lost 37-38 to a married woman who had one more vote in her family than I had in mine.  I was appointed Budget Chair and elected alternate to the State Central Committee. I attended 13 years of the State Central Committee as either Lane County delegate or alternate serving as delegate, for the Democrat Party of Oregon.  In 1981 I became involved in the first of three Oregon Legislative Sessions as an intern in the Senate Environment and Energy Chair’s office.  Late in the session I got a small change in the redistricting plan through and got 44 of 90 legislators to cosponsor a venture capital “invest in Oregon” bill as an economic development option.  The bill went nowhere, but the Public Employees Retirement System board adopted a policy of investing 5% of their fund in small business venture capital in 1983.  Oregon had the highest unemployment rate in the nation in the 1982 recession at 14%.

In 1982 I was elected Chair of the Fourth Congressional District Democrats which put me on the State Executive Committee.  There I pushed through a controversial budget reducing staff winning the majority vote over the objection of the State Chair who had appointed me Budget Chair.  I also was assigned the task of updating our Delegate Selection Plan for National Convention Delegates for the upcoming 1984 election.  I had a presidential election debate by proxy in the fall of 1983 for the Congressional District Democrats.  I won reelection in 1984 with 73% of the vote and was put on the Oregon Democratic Party slate for the 1984 Electoral College after serving as a National Delegate at the 1984 Convention.  I cast my vote at that convention for the first woman on a major party presidential ticket, Geraldine Ferraro.

One state legislator gave me the nickname “Fighting Bob Reuschlein” because he knew I was from Wisconsin and he knew of the LaFollette tradition.  At his wedding in 1981, I heard a story from a party elder about a man whose dancing stole the show at a Corvallis Bar called the Tower Dungeon.  On Thanksgiving weekend in 1975 with a Seattle band playing, a man started dancing and spinning with such amazing vigor and force that the crowd parted off the dance floor and started hooting and hollering in support as the whirling dervish danced the song away.  As I compared notes with the person telling the story five years later, I confirmed that that was me.  Later when I told this story in 1989 when we were dancing after a Radio For Peace International meeting in Costa Rica, the person I talked to said “Now you’re a legend on two continents”.

I developed a 1984 strategy for Jesse Jackson precinct persons to win election to the state convention and thereby share one of two national delegates elected at the state convention with the Hart caucus.  Because Jesse didn’t get over the 15% threshold, he did not win any delegates with his 10% of the vote.  But his precinct persons each had a slate of 21 other Jesse Jackson precinct persons to secretly vote for each other, and that was enough to elect about 17 of them as state delegates in the Hart caucus at the congressional district level.  This strategy worked in all the Congressional Districts except the 2nd where they foolishly joined the Mondale caucus of establishment Democrats where everyone knew each other and weren’t fooled into voting for the Jackson upstarts.  The Hart caucus of moderate Democrats was all political newcomers and didn’t know who to vote for, so the Jackson block vote was enough to capture most of the state delegate seats.  As a result, Jesse Jackson’s spokesperson from Oregon, a black man from Portland, was elected a national convention delegate.

I left the State Executive Committee in 1987, after five years, when my term as Congressional District Chair expired.  I had helped elect the new congressperson Peter DeFazio who is still there, and he gave me a gold plated coffee cup with his name on it when I moved back to Madison Wisconsin in 1993.  I was one of the dignitaries behind Jesse Jackson when he spoke to a then campaign record crowd of 20,000 people in Eugene in 1988 and later was extended the same honor in 1992, when I shook hands with Bill Clinton.  I was invited to the Clinton Inauguration on January 20, 1993 and attended one of the Inaugural Balls.  Afterwards, my dad offered me a job in Madison, which I thought about and then accepted.

My farewell party Roast in Eugene was attended by 60 people.  Included were the first woman to win an Electoral College vote, Tony Nathan of the Libertarian Party, and the Provost of the University of Oregon, a Rubicon Forum Republican friend.  Chairs of the local Libertarian (Bob Fauvre, a friend and public access TV host) and Communist (unknown admirer) Parties were there, but the overwhelming majority of the crowd was Democratic friends.  Including:  the moderator of the local Demo Forum (Larry Craig who wrote a newspaper farewell about me) that I attended religiously and spoke at occasionally; and the staff (Doug Card, Martin Lewis, and my treasurer) of my unsuccessful legislative campaign in 1992; and the press agent (Frank Arundel) of my run for the US Senate in 1990. Then I became an unknown again moving to Madison Wisconsin in 1993.  My Eugene farewell party was April 26th and my Madison arrival was May 3.  I have never been accepted by the Madison community like the celebrity I was in Eugene.  Even the editor of the award winning Eugene Register Guard regretted the loss of my monthly letters to the editor.  I was invited to an encore appearance at an Oregon State Senate Committee Hearing on my Peace Economics ideas, which I had to turn down because I had already moved.  Only now, 2014, after a year of weekly radio commentaries in Madison, am I beginning to reach some of the celebrity I had in Eugene twenty years ago when every statewide elected person knew me on a first name basis.  The Democratic congresspersons all read my monthly column in the Oregon Peaceworker.

Here is what took me off the political path and put me on the scientific research path:

Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein, best contact

608-230-6640 to leave message  more info

How I Earned My Doctorate

How I Earned My Doctorate

Peace Economics started for me in 1985 and 1986 with the original research and the first two publications.  Although the reception was outstanding, it was limited, so I decided I needed a Doctorate in order to have the world accept my findings for real.  I taught my first course and passed the GRE and applied to the local school’s economic department, the University of Oregon.  With only four economics courses to my name, but armed with the electrical engineering degree and an MBA, I was accepted and started in the fall of 1987.  At that same time I was teaching my second class of Peace Economics in the sociology department through the innovative education program.  Mike Grove of the economics department had helped me as I had helped him earlier in his run for the legislature.  He suggested URPE, the Union of Radical Political Economics for my first conference presentation.  That had gone well in August 1987 with a Japanese man buying two of everything I had (both books) and having my picture taken with him.

As the term unfolded, I learned from my instructors that they already knew about the non productive nature of military spending, but it was nowhere in their teachings.  Military Keynesianism was the basis for the first year of mathematical modeling of the economy, with a grade of incomplete until the full year was over.  My classmates were seven Koreans and I was the only American.  The model was one factor representing all businesses, one factor representing all households, and one factor representing all government spending.  The focus was on changes in inflation and interest rates.  I knew this model was useless to the model I was building around the “lost capital” nature of military spending.  Government spending had to have two components at least, one stimulative as in normal Keynesian economics, and one for military spending, that would do the opposite, depress the economy.  Furthermore, I saw inflation and interest rates as secondary factors that adjusted as necessary to clear the markets, but were reactive to the real economy effects of military spending representing a waste of manufacturing resources.  Thus, one factor for all businesses was also unrealistic, as the military business ends up wasted as governmental military spending.  Military spending did have a placeholder function as economic activity and could increase the deficit, which did stimulate the economy in my 99.9% accurate 60 year model of manufacturing productivity.  But if military spending is paid for with taxes, with no increase in the deficit, the effect is disastrous to the economy.

Then I got a snotty note in my mailbox saying I could not expect economists to accept my model.  I knew then that I had about as much chance in that program as Jesus had getting approval from the Jewish Sanhedrin or Galileo had with the church.  I was a heretic.  So I withdrew and was also rejected by political science and sociology.

Twenty years later, after a long career with my father in accounting, a friend helped me find a  good program as I enrolled in the Educational Leadership Doctoral program of Edgewood College in Madison Wisconsin.  I was completing the trifecta, having grown up two blocks away and attended Edgewood Elementary and High School on the same giant property.  Edgewood College had a cohort program with the philosophy that you should be able to complete the program if you were accepted into it, not the cutthroat way of most doctoral programs which capriciously weed people out.  With scant educational teaching experience, I was a stretch for the program admissions committee, but I talked my way into the program in the program founder’s living room.

Their philosophy of aiming for everyone in the class to pass saved me late in the program when the research supervisor took a dislike to me for reasons never explained.  She wanted everyone to do qualitative research and I insisted on quantitative research, so much so that I had to appeal to the doctoral program director.  The head of the school’s education department, had promised me I could do a dissertation on Peace Economics when I was recruited March 1, 2006.  Numbers have always come first in my life.  Fortunately, they hired an economist to teach political administration in the program, and he guided me through the dissertation, not without stormy incidents.  My major advisor stood up to the research director and ensured I completed the program.  I passed my final defense on August 14, 2009 and flew out to New York the next day for a Woodstock 40th anniversary conference on the Peace Economy.

At Woodstock I stole the show and made the cover of the local paper with the picture of my talking to the group on the second day.  By then I had secured the Wisconsin license plate DR PEACE.  My dissertation consisted of a survey of 32 peace studies program directors with four follow up interviews.  It was essentially a market survey, not a proof of concept, but I finally had the all important ticket to be recognized in academic circles.

Four years later in March 2013, I was honored to make three presentations at Youngstown State, the last a dinner in my honor.  Then I presented “Empire Economics” in Nashville getting a peer reviewed presentation excellence award in May.  Finally I presented to the World Futurist Society in July with fifty people so stunned at the key power-point frame that jaws dropped and cell-phone cameras went off all across the first row.  My 55 year moving average turned global warming into three straight lines, proving the 54 year cycle and showing how amazingly consistent the Earth can be.

That was last year, and this year I’m sharing my secrets with weekly radio commentaries on Madison’s WORT radio; and to the world press with 7780 press release viewings of 37 press releases; and to academia with 1200 viewings mainly by peace and justice academics.  My celebrity is growing.  Among the academic viewings, about one fourth is local from Wisconsin, one fourth Internationals, and one half from the rest of the United States.  I have another 1300 viewings from my website and another 600 from my blog, where I have 51 former press releases and commentaries archived since last summer.  Most of this is from just the last 12 months or less.

Here is my motivation for the doctorate, especially number one that started it all:

Here are my curriculum vitae:

Dr. Peace

Dr. Bob Reuschlein best contact

608-230-6640 to leave message  more info

No More Ethanol Fuel Please

Gas was just fine, thank you, up until 2011.  Then that January 2011, I noticed something wrong with my fuel mileage.  Since my Toyota Camry, made in Kentucky and bought new, was fourteen years old with 267,000 miles on it, I thought something was wrong with the car.  I was getting about 10% lower mileage than expected.

As a numbers nerd, MBA CPA accountant, and engineer, I was compulsive about getting my fuel mileage with every fill up, at least since 1974 when I bought the first of several new cars, a Ford Pinto Wagon.  When they lifted the 55 mile per hour limit on highways, the highway mileage went up, at higher speeds, not down. It went from 23.5 miles per gallon to 24.5 miles per gallon, when the car was allowed to run the way it was designed.  The car was designed and sold for about six months before the speed limit was reduced nationally in the middle of that first model year.  I bought that Pinto Wagon on June 10, 1974 and got 159,000 miles on it before the engine blew on April 20, 1990 after a friend worked on it the day before.

When I took the 1997 Camry in to my original dealer for service in 2011, someone told me about the fuel supply changing, with a new mandate for 10% ethanol fuels, so I checked out the story on the internet.  I knew from my deep politics background that environmentalists were skeptical about ethanol fuels made with corn, because there are no environmental benefits, since corn takes so much fertilizer made from fossil fuels and then there are transportation costs, etc.  I knew we did it wrong with corn and the sugar based alcohol fuels in Brazil did it right. Electrics, hybrids, natural gas, and hydrogen fuels would all be improvements.  But I did not know half the story, nor did the experts on C-SPAN.  I have been a C-SPAN junkie since the eighties.  Then I saw a show on C-SPAN where an expert was saying ethanol may be only 70% efficient and engines may burn a little too hot.  But that was nothing like the 10% mileage loss I was repeatedly averaging over the months, both city and highway, on each one of three different cars.  Fortunately, one of the rare gas stations that sell no ethanol gas was just on the other side of town.  Using that gas, I got my mileage back.  So it was worth it to drive across town to get 10% better mileage for my gas, worth it to pay about 10 cents a gallon more.  So I made a commentary on the local community radio station and gave a copy to Wayne, of Wayne’s gasoline on Madison’s far East side.  He explained to me that not only was ethanol forced on the public, the regular gas was reduced from octane 87 down to octane 84.  Not only was the ethanol inefficient, but the other 90% was 3 octane worse.

What Wayne did with his gas was add premium gas to bring the regular up to 87 octane.  Since the premium was 91 octane without ethanol and 93 octane with ethanol, he gave me the hint that those gas stations that said they sold no ethanol in their premium would be lying if it were octane 93.  He had to blend 43% no ethanol premium at 91 octane with 57% no ethanol regular at 84 octane to get 87 octane no ethanol gas.  So these were the other reasons that explain how 10% ethanol gas gave me 10% lower mileage, it wasn’t that the ethanol was completely useless.  It was a combination of 90% inferior regular in the new 10% ethanol regular blend and 43% premium gas in the non ethanol regular gas.  In other words, raising the octane level with ethanol is a phony improvement.

So if it requires you to buy 10% more gas to drive the same distance, the ethanol gas gives zero net environmental benefit, it’s just an excuse to sell you rotten regular at mostly 84 octane.  Not only that, but the federal government has not reduced the mileage posting on new cars to their ethanol reduced true value.  So the federal government is engaged in fraudulent collusion with the car companies when it uses non ethanol gas to rate the new cars.  Then they force consumers to buy 10% ethanol mixed with inferior regular gas to run these cars.  We bought a new Chevy Cruz in 2011 and still could never achieve the posted miles per gallon with ethanol fuels.  Then we used Wayne’s gas and got the mileage we were supposed to get all along.  Mileage was 10% better with no ethanol.  Same with the 2002 Toyota Highlander I replaced the Camry with.

Why isn’t this national news?  Maybe there’s a Pulitzer for the journalist who looks into this story and does there own investigation with their own engineers and cars.  I hope they are honest enough to then give me credit.  You heard it here first.

Dr. Peace

Dr. Bob Reuschlein best contact

608-230-6640 to leave message  more info

Post Navigation