 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2006E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?
Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end: BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol vs BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline and Simply burning the stuff: Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned vs Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors 1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the facilities on ethanol? 2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol vs gasoline? 3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU for BTU? I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about 118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of gas. Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their friends, a couple from green friendly studies. Thanks > Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream > credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Thanks >Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >vs >BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline It isn't that simple, there can be more power from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine needs to be timed different and other changes made. Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't have the power. The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions without paying the tax. But it may also improve starting in cold climate. Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change the timing and furl-air ratio automatically. >and > >Simply burning the stuff: >Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned >vs >Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin. >Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth character in the VIN. >People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil >fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU >for BTU? Already asked. >I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol >produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount >of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of >E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about >118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of >gas. Probably because E85 is not ethanol, it is 85 percent, and the flex-fuel system has to compromise to run the mixture. >Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to >reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info >on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their >friends, a couple from green friendly studies. >Thanks Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad they can use the same search engine ebay uses. Joe Fischer >>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine >needs to be timed different and other changes made. You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy. Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics. > Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within >a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't >have the power. Totally false. NASCAR is most race cars in this country, and they're just talking about going to unleaded gasoline. > The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make >E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions >without paying the tax. Ethanol doesn't start as easily -- lower vapor pressure. Ethanol by itself would have even less power and mileage and range. Ethanol by itself is a good solvent. Ethanol burns with a nearly-invisible flame. > But it may also improve starting in cold climate. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth >character in the VIN. Very few is the answer. Although most will run on E5, say, very few on E85. The CR report mentions which. >>People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil >>fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Joe Fischer >>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > energy. > Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics. First you have to understand the laws of physics. Power is the _rate_ of delivery/production of energy, and is not subject to conservation like energy is. Eric Lucas >>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Eric Lucas True, but irrelevant. If I have a 20-gallon tank, it makes sense to carry out 20 gallons of something with more energy than 20 gallons of something with less energy. Why does E85 give less mileage? Could it be because the auto makers have adjusted the engines to burn it faster so you get the same power as gasoline would give you? >>>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > True, but irrelevant. No, it's not. The post to which you replied was about power, not energy. And you made the statement that "you cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy"--that is just simply not a correct statement. That's like saying that "you cannot go faster if you're not capable of going further" or "you cannot make water flow faster if you do not have more water to flow." All three statements are just simply not true, since they all make the mistake of comparing a quantity and its rate of generation. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what power is, and how it relates to a conserved quantity like energy. There have been a lot of people in this discussion confusing power and total energy content. Your post only served to further the confusion. Eric Lucas >>>>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>>>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Eric Lucas You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, happier? >>>>>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>>>>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, > happier? That's fine and dandy...except that, as I said, it is irrelevant in response to a post that was talking about power...and all it does is serve to deepen the confusion that already exists over power and energy. Eric Lucas >............. >> You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the confusion that already exists over power and energy. >Eric Lucas Selling buy the gallon/liter is a convenient way to market liquid fuels, but it confuses any comparison of quantity of mass and the energy contained. Gasoline may still win over ethanol either way, but there will be some resolution of the conflicting statements of "ethanol has more power" and "gasoline gives better mileage. I consider the Indy 500 switch to ethanol as a logical advancement, that is what that particular is noted for, although all racing and performance makes advances in future common products and equipment. If ethanol has more power (per pound, or whatever is important about getting the fuel and oxygen into the cylinder, and has a higher octane rating, and burns cleaner, then it is the right fuel for now. But regardless if ethanol, gasoline, or diesel is used, for automobiles and trucks and even farm tractors, it should be a hybrid. I would prefer all hybrids be made to use the same voltage as the grid voltage where they are used, it would be great to have the backup of a generator without buying one just to have it sit around 51 weeks a year. There is lots of opportunity in doing the things needed to be innovative and have products and vehicles that are multi-purpose and standardized. The difference in the size of the fuel tank would not be much different except for hydrogen, and I am to the point where I don't want to use petroleum at all except as a lubricant. With the recent price of gasoline I had to buy a bigger jar of vaseline, is that a petroleum product too? Joe Fischer >>............. >>> You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > statements of "ethanol has more power" and "gasoline > gives better mileage. They're not conflicting statements. "Mileage" is a measure of total energy content (and the efficiency of the engine), "power" is a measure of how rate at which that energy can be converted into mechanical work (and the ability of the engine/vehicle to take advantage of that rate of conversion). Gasoline has more energy per unit (depending on what unit you choose to use--volume, mass, molecule, bond, etc.), whereas the kinetics of ethanol's reactions and the design of internal combustion engines are such that ethanol can deliver the energy that it has more rapidly. In any case, neither statement relates to an intrinsic property of the fuel. Instead of "ethanol has more power", it would be more precise to say "the engines currently in use are capable of delivering more power when using ethanol", since it's more a function of the engine design than anything. Likewise, instead of "gasoline gives better mileage", it would be more precise to say "the engines currently in use get better fuel mileage when using gasoline", as that is also strongly dependent on engine design. At least in the latter case, there is a kernel of an intrinsic truth, in that the heat of combustion of gasoline (a measure of the maximum total amount of energy it can deliver in a given engine/vehicle) is greater than the heat of combustion of ethanol, on either a volume or mass basis. Still, since ICEs and vehicles are so poorly efficient (I think I recall something lik e30 % for an ICE, and I'm not sure what the efficiency of the power train or the vehicle as a whole is), the mileage depends much more strongly on the design of the engine/vehicle than on the intrinsic energy content of the fuel. This is my argument with Archie's ridiculous experiment, that CR carried out without reporting/realizing that it is a meaningless experiment, except to compare *current* vehicles with different fuels. Unfortunately, people in this discussion have made the mistake of assuming that the result will hold true if and when vehicles are designed and optimized specifically for ethanol. > If ethanol has more power (per pound, > or whatever is important about getting the fuel > and oxygen into the cylinder, and has a higher > octane rating, and burns cleaner, then it is > the right fuel for now. No, because consumers buy fuel almost entirely on the basis of how far they can go for a given amount of money, and in this regard, clearly ethanol is inferior to gasoline or diesel. > But regardless if ethanol, gasoline, or > diesel is used, for automobiles and trucks and > even farm tractors, it should be a hybrid. That improves efficiency some, but my intuition is that hybrids won't be popular for very long. Having two engines essentially doubles the number of mechanical systems that can break down as a vehicle ages. While they look OK out of the showroom, wait until the first ones made begin to age to the point where mechanical systems begin to need maintenance--for example, battery replacement. Maintenance costs will then convince people that the relatively minimal increase in fuel mileage will not be worth the increased maintenance costs. As such, they will lost value more rapidly than similar ICE-only vehicles. > With the recent price of gasoline I had > to buy a bigger jar of vaseline, is that a petroleum > product too? :^) Yup. They get ya coming or going. Eric Lucas On Thu, 07 Sep 06 09:22:09 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: Yes you can. You simply burn it faster. The law of physics here is that power is a rate of energy production, not an amount of energy. >You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy. >Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics. Joe Fischer <joefischer@invisibleairplane.com> wrote in article <n7tuf2t3j0tk9ltkp76anu8phd56r0ednl@4ax.com>... > >Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream > >credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine > needs to be timed different and other changes made. Power in an internal combustion comes from heat, which is measured in British Thermal Units - or BTU. On a simple, direct comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains MORE BTU than ANY gallon of alcohol - methanol or ethanol.....thus the need to run higher quantities of an alcohol fuel to gain the same amount of work. Engines can be designed for gasoline or alcohol. Engines built to take the best advantage of alcohol will have much higher compression values than those built for gasoline. A multi-fuel engine is a study in compromise. It cannot be built with the high compressions that work best for alcohols if one expects to use gasoline in it, so it REALLY isn't best-suited for alcohol. "Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age technology. > Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within > a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't > have the power. "Almost all...." is a neat way to imply what just isn't true. The most popular racing series in the country - NASCAR Nextel Cup - will convert to unleaded gasoline next year - NOT alcohol. NASCAR's two other national series - Busch and Craftsman Truck - will also convert to unleaded. There are, approximately, 1,000 weekly, "Saturday Night Short Tracks" in the USA. Only a very small percentage of them run cars that normally run on methanol - i.e. Sprints, Midgets, SuperModifieds, etc. > The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make > E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions > without paying the tax. Much cheaper solutions are available. > But it may also improve starting in cold climate. No "may" about it. Alcohol fuels do not like the cold. They don't vaporize as easily, thus gasoline is needed......and, remember, "cold" to an internal combustion engine that normally runs above 190°F, is anything under 125°F. > Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is > able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change > the timing and furl-air ratio automatically. But there is no way to change copmpression ratio on the fly, so "flex-fuel" vehicles cannot take full advantage - not by a long shot - of ethanol as would an engine built specifically to run on alcohol. > >and > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin. A correctly-tuned car running on gasoline is pretty clean these days. The term "big margin" is somewhat misleading. Is 2:1 a "Big Margin"? Is 10:1 a "Big Margin"? > >Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85? > > Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth > character in the VIN. The above-poster does not know what he is talking about. There is no uniform application of the VIN digits among car makers. Most professional service manuals have a few pages dedicated to deciphering different car maker VINs on today's cars. The eighth digit can mean different things from different manufacturers. On some cars, it indicates the year of manufacture. > Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad > they can use the same search engine ebay uses. INTERPRETATION...... "Google will give you links to information that runs counter to what I am telling you, and may disprove what I am claiming. DON'T GO THERE! Just believe what I have to say." Too much information?????? ROFLMAO!!!! >"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age >technology. Modern cars have always had centrifugal advance and vacuum retardation at higher manifold pressure. The proper way to time the ignition is to advance it, drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little) on the most aggressive throttle setting. And that is how the factory setting is determined in the first place. So adjusting the timing is a constant thing, a chore taken over by the computer on most cars. Joe Fischer Joe Fischer <joefischer@invisibleairplane.com> wrote in article <b424g297tji8dqkm71djul2doka2f3j0r8@4ax.com>... > >"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age > >technology. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little) > on the most aggressive throttle setting. Again.....Model "A" Ford technology. I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a knock detector........ You're posting in the wrong forum.. Try alt.autos.antiques. > Joe Fischer <joefischer@invisibleairplane.com> wrote in article > <b424g297tji8dqkm71djul2doka2f3j0r8@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Try alt.autos.antiques. Discussion of the applicability of ethanol fuel to 'classic cars' is so far away from this group's purpose as to be wholly daft it has to be said ! The whole idea of setting timing via a disrtibutor is quite retarded. Graham >Discussion of the applicability of ethanol fuel to 'classic cars' is so far away >from this group's purpose as to be wholly daft it has to be said ! There are about 10 million classic cars in the US, and they are owned by people are more likely than average to convert to renewable fuel. About 25,000 were in town for a street rod show last month, and they have to be pre-1950 to be eligible. >The whole idea of setting timing via a disrtibutor is quite retarded. >Graham If it is retarded too much, it won't have any pep. Joe Fischer > >Discussion of the applicability of ethanol fuel to 'classic cars' is so far > >away [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and they are owned by people are more likely than average > to convert to renewable fuel. How is it that you manage to get just about everything backwards? The last thing someone would do is convert a classic car to an alternate fuel. The fact that the modifications would severely reduce the value of the car make such a notion ridiculous at the least. > About 25,000 were in town for a street rod show > last month, and they have to be pre-1950 to be eligible. Street rods are not classic cars. > >The whole idea of setting timing via a disrtibutor is quite retarded. > >Graham > > If it is retarded too much, it won't have any pep. You keep saying that like it's some new discovery. >Joe Fischer <joefischer@invisibleairplane.com> wrote in article ><b424g297tji8dqkm71djul2doka2f3j0r8@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a >knock detector........ Will ethanol knock? Joe Fischer >>I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a >>knock detector........ > > Will ethanol knock? > > Joe Fischer You seem to think it won't. But it certainly will, under the right conditions (such as an engine designed with high enough compression to really take advantage of it as a fuel). >>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > >Joe Fischer Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like octane? > >>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream > >>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like > octane? Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol but very useful for something like the Fischer-Tropsch reaction where you are taking something like syngas with very low energy density and transforming it into diesel. Ghostwriter [snip] >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like >> octane? Gordon [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Ghostwriter I was leading into the school of thought that perhaps in the future it might be possible to use a polymerization process (Fisher Tropish or something similar) to produce fuels like JP-8 and diesel, by means of energy inputs from, say, nuclear power plants. This might provide means for using nuclear power, indirectly, as aircraft fuel. If the organic sludge from the deep ocean floor could be retrieved and processed for ethanol, this would provide a nearly endless source of fuel with very little chance of any environmental harm. Gordon > [snip] > >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Gordon The problem would be the water content in the sludge, the water would have to be removed before you could process it into anything. Their might be a process that ignores the water but something like FT or thermal depolymerization which are the first processes to come to my mind would not handle the water well. Thinking further, with wet material syngas generation is about 50% efficient which sucks but if the feedstock is near free that wouldnt be a huge problem. Pumping the sludge however might be expensive given the density difference between it and the water. If the end result was only 20-30% efficient it might not be worth the destruction of a carbon trap. I will think about the numbers and see if I can come up with anything else. Ghostwriter >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like >> octane? > > Yes, but increasing the energy density means a loss in absolute energy > output. Thats a waste in the case of ethanol Yes, as an example, ethanol can be dehydrated to ethylene, which can be oligomerized to octene (which can be further hydrogenated to octane if necessary). This increases energy density modestly (about 30 % by the deltaH(combustion) numbers). I'm not sure what you mean "a loss in absolute energy output", but the process I just described does consume considerable energy. Perhaps you meant "a loss in total energy when summed across the cycle." However, that is trivially true for any processing step, even for your F-T example, since the syngas must have come from something lower in energy like methanol. In fact, any conversion step involves a loss in total energy, unless there is some mechanism to introduce energy into the system (for example, plant photosynthesis). Eric Lucas >>> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like >>> octane? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Eric Lucas That statement about "a loss in absolute energy output" was not from my previous post. Something got mixed up it seems. One of my main concerns is that jet engines must fly and the combustion process must be reliable in the upper atmosphere where the temperature can be as low as -65ºF. I'm not sure ethanol would be useable under these conditions. Wouldn't it tend to gel in the tanks and fuel lines, and even if this didn't happen, would it ignite in the engines? But, if virtually unlimited quantities of ethanol could be harvested from the organic sludge in the deep oceans, then converted into JP-8, these problems (if such problems exist in the first place) would be resolved. Gordon >......... >One of my main concerns is that jet engines must fly and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in the tanks and fuel lines, and even if this didn't happen, >would it ignite in the engines? I haven't read anything about ethanol being used in jet engines. I did post what I read in Aviation Week about the Air Force buying a large quantity of synthetic kerosene to be mixed with JP-8 and run in B-52s. I don't know where the mention of "gel" came from previously, there was a time when I only used alcohol in my car cooling system, and I don't remember it ever "jelling" (have you been watching that commercial?). :-) >But, if virtually unlimited quantities of ethanol could be >harvested from the organic sludge in the deep oceans, then >converted into JP-8, these problems (if such problems exist in >the first place) would be resolved. >Gordon Apparently there is enough coal in the US to last 2000 years, so synthetic kerosene is not going to be a problem, there was a time when I only used coal oil in the lamp to do my homework. Joe Fischer > >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like > >> octane? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > unless there is some mechanism to introduce energy into the system (for > example, plant photosynthesis). 1kg of ethanol burns for 409cals, it can be converted to 0.6kg of ethylene and 0.4kg of water. Ethylene burns at 370cals/kg so that gives off 225cals. A little more than 50% eifficient assuming you achieve 100% yeild (which you cant) and dont have to input heat to drive the reacion (which you must). Thats before you add any other steps, I am using the 1982 edition of the CRC handbook, but I doubt much has changed. F-T-diesel is actually worse from a total energy efficiency standpoint, but works out better since it isnt necessary to ferment and distill anything to produce syngas. A syngas generator doesnt care what the feedstock is, whereas a dehydration system would only run on straight ethanol. Diesel also has much higher energy density than ethanol. Ethanol is useful because it is well understood and easy to produce on a relativly low capital budget. F-T is only efficient as a large scale process currently, since cleaning the syngas so that it doesnt poision the catayst is a difficult and intensive process. In the end it comes down to priorities and available resourses not to any paticular advantage to either system. >> >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like >> >> octane? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > In the end it comes down to priorities and available resourses not to > any paticular advantage to either system. I have read about microbes that can convert syngas to ethanol as well as catalysts that can convert syngas to ethanol under the right conditions. I wondered why you would not just make SNG or methanol and then I figured that SNG and methanol might sell for a $1 per unit and ethanol might sell for twice that. > >> >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like > >> >> octane? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > figured that SNG and methanol might sell for a $1 per unit and ethanol > might sell for twice that. The problem is that installing a generator and selling the power is a lot cheaper and you already have a regular customer in the power company. Firmgreen is installing a landfill gas to methanol plant just south of Columbus, Ohio. I assume that a syngas system could be used to make something like that if you had a near free energy source. Ghostwriter >> >> >> Can ethanol be polymerized up to something approximately like >> >> >> octane? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Ghostwriter Yes, if the unit is say 100k BTUs you might make 10kwh in a peaker plant running a gas turbine. In California that 10kwh might get you $2 when the peak power is selling at $0.20 a kwh, which is a lot of the time in the summer, when people are over Tier 2 power consumption due to AC loads. > 1kg of ethanol burns for 409cals, it can be converted to 0.6kg of > ethylene and 0.4kg of water. Ethylene burns at 370cals/kg so that gives > off 225cals. I don't know how you got these numbers, but they're *ridiculously* wrong. An entire kg of ethanol being burned, and it wouldn't generate enough heat my cup of coffee by more than 2 C??? You need to critically evaluate your numbers, rather than just blindly parroting them. --Wikipedia (quoting NIST) gives the deltaHcombustion for ethanol as 29.7 *mega*joules/kg. At 4.184 J/cal, that's about 7.1 *mega*calories per kg (Mcal/kg), or about 327 kcal/mol. It makes sense that burning 1 kg of ethanol (ca. 1 quart--sorry, I still think best in English units for some things, like alcohol :^) ) would generate enough heat to boil almost 25 gallons of coffee from room temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion --The website listed below gives (no reason to doubt an engineering firm's website) deltaHcombustion for ethylene as 21323 BTU/lb, or at 0.454 kg/lb and 252 cal/BTU, this is 11.8 Mcal/kg, or about 331 kcal/mol, about a 1 % increase over ethanol per mole. In other words, quantitative dehydration of 1 kg of ethanol would give 0.61 kg of ethylene, which would burn to give 7.2 Mcal of combustion heat. This is consistent with what I know as a lab chemist, which is that the dehydration of an olefin is very close to thermoneutral, and is driven entirely by the TdeltaS term. This is why it takes elevated temperatures to dehydrate ethanol to ethylene but does not absorb much heat, if any. http://www.processassociates.com/process/property/hc_gas.htm --My original comments were about an oligomerization of ethylene to octene or octane. Assuming a 100 % yield, oligomerizing the ethylene to octene (in practicality, far from a simple process, still highly experimental, and currently not giving very good yields) gives a material that has a heat of combustion of 1269.3 kcal/mol, or about 11.3 Mcal/kg. This is about a 4 % decrease from the heat of combustion of an equivalent number of moles of ethylene, or a 3 % loss from the same number of moles of ethanol. http://www.cpchem.com/enu/docs_nao/1-Hexene_1-Octene_2005_rev1.pdf#search=%22hea t%20of%20combustion%20octene%22 --Finally, from the sci.chem gasoline FAQ, hydrogenation of octene gives octane, which has a heat of combustion of 44.4 MJ/kg, or about 10.6 Mcal/kg, or 1212 kcal/mol, again about a 4 % decrease from octene and a 7.5 % loss of heat of combustion from the equivalent number of moles of ethanol. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/ Of course, since about 40 % of the mass of ethanol is lost as water in the process, ethylene, octene and octane are much better on a *per mass* or *per volume* basis, but importantly, *not* on a per carbon atom basis. The upshot of all of this is that the heats of ordinary chemical conversion steps (dehydration, polymerization, hydrogenation) make very small differences in the heat of combustion of the reactants and products. The biggest difference (by far) in all of this is the 40 % of dead weight that ethanol is carrying around for about the same heat of combustion per mole as gasoline, followed by any heat and mass losses in steps that are less than 100 % efficient. However, since typical commodity chemical material and heat efficiencies are in the mid-to-high 90s, this is also a relatively small difference. (Yeah, I know there are a variety of different definitions of "calorie" and "BTU", and I'm not sure all tables I'm quoting use the same one, but none of the different calories definitions differ by more than 5 % or so, and all of the numbers above are still good to within 10 % or so.) Eric Lucas If you have not tried www.ethanol.org I would make that my first stop. > Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream > credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Thanks >If you have not tried >www.ethanol.org >I would make that my first stop. Sounds like a real objective group! >> Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream >> credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >> Thanks > If you have not tried > www.ethanol.org > I would make that my first stop. Yeah, I'm sure that site is 100% objective and unbiased :-/ >I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol >produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount >of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of >E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about >118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of >gas. Just addressing this one point, using figures from Our Very Own Federal Gov't: Linkname: EPA - OTAQ - Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG URL: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm regular gasoline: 108,500 -> 117,000 BTU/gallon depending on winter vs. summer blends and other factors. ethanol: 76,100 BTU/gallon. If we take the midrange of gasoline there we'll get 112,750. So.. pure ethanol vs gasoline: 76,100 : 112,750 = 67.5 percent I'll let you work out the E-10 and E-85 mixes... NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, (and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs  Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] >NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for >the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher >compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency, >(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might >be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no >way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because they are dummys? :-) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ Joe Fischer >>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for >>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because > they are dummys? :-) They aren't but you sure as hell are. This is the second idiotic post you've made on the subject of E85. >>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for >>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >They aren't but you sure as hell are. This is the second idiotic post you've >made on the subject of E85. Too bad the ethanol car was in an accident. Joe Fischer Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in sunny southwest USA sunbelt states. http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day. 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre. How many gallons of your biofuels sh.t per acre per year? http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html >Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html >http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html Can you use that energy to move your car down the highway? How about trucking supplies to your village? Trans-oceanic flights? Maybe we need to keep our minds open to several forms of alternate energy, without any irrational mindset. > >NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for > >the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Joe Fischer Did you even read the article? >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ >> Joe Fischer > >Did you even read the article? Why? Doesn't this paragraph say enough? "Slunecka says he does not expect any problems when Indy switches to pure ethanol in 2007. In fact, because ethanol generates more power than methanol, cars in the race will see their fuel efficiency rise by as much as 30 percent next year when they switch, he said." [unquote] Joe Fischer > >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ > >> Joe Fischer [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Joe Fischer "This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel." >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/ >> >> Joe Fischer [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it >does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel." No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group put up a lot of money. But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points, that means the timing can be advanced, and the same engine will have more pep. I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at least 35 degrees, which is a lot. The car was sluggish before timing it correctly, and real peppy after. There are lots of things good mentioned in the article, and not much bad. It mentioned some smoke when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol. Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol. Joe Fischer > >"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it > >does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel." > > No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group > put up a lot of money. Ya think? > But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points, > that means the timing can be advanced, and the same > engine will have more pep. I hadn't realized that Indy cars suffered from a "pep" problem. > I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody > had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a > supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at > least 35 degrees, which is a lot. > The car was sluggish before timing it correctly, > and real peppy after. I worked on a 1994 GMC Safari and a 2001 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi yesterday. Interestingly, they both belong to the same person, an official with CART > There are lots of things good mentioned in the > article, and not much bad. Naturally, it's a sales job. > It mentioned some smoke > when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol. No doubt an insurmountable problem when they made the switch from gasoline years ago. > Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is > a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol. Thing is; you only need to feed half as much of that "real dog" compared to ethanol or methanol. >> Somebody else wrote: >> >"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ya think? I may have read that wrong, the ethanol group did put up money for the 17 car, but I don't know if the article discussed what prompted the Indy officials to make a complete switch to ethanol next year. >> But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points, >> that means the timing can be advanced, and the same >> engine will have more pep. > >I hadn't realized that Indy cars suffered from a "pep" problem. All the teams want more pep, that is the reason they race, to try to win. Top speed is not where the race is won, it is getting out of the slow turns quicker. >> I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody >> had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >yesterday. Interestingly, they both belong to the same person, >an official with CART Are they timed at 35 degrees BTC? :-) >> There are lots of things good mentioned in the >> article, and not much bad. > >Naturally, it's a sales job. If the published US oil reserves were accurate, there would not be much choice to switch from gasoline as quickly as possible. Gasoline is down to $2.29 here, and I fear any lower price and it will put ethanol on the back burner again, and we need to reduce oil imports, every year we give the money equivalent of an entire state to buy imported oil. And there are people who would like to see a fuel used that will use the same (amount of) CO2 over and over, and not release more and more, even people other than Al Gore. >> It mentioned some smoke >> when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol. > >No doubt an insurmountable problem when they made the switch from >gasoline years ago. It was a problem seeing if there was a fire, but neither are very pleasant to think about. >> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is >> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol. > >Thing is; you only need to feed half as much of that "real dog" >compared to ethanol or methanol. Chances are it is not anywhere "half". The BTU per pound may not be the total picture, a study of fuels may show that oxygen is the indicator of power. Ethanol contains oxygen. If I were to build a dragster, I would want to use pure oxygen instead of air, allowing the use of more than three times as much fuel, but the engine would probably need beefed up crankshaft, connecting rods, and better bearings. It is too early to predict what will happen with ethanol, in racing, or in wide use in vehicles. But it is easy to predict what the motor fuel of the future will be, and it will be alcohol. Joe Fischer >>> Somebody else wrote: >>> >"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >per pound may not be the total picture, a study of fuels >may show that oxygen is the indicator of power. You don't burn oxygen. Thus, it contributes zero to calories/joules/BTUs. > Ethanol contains oxygen. And so helps fuel burn cleaner, which is why oxygenates are mandated in areas with air pollution problems. If you're displacing burnable material with nonburnable, you're further reducing the energy available per gallon though. > If I were to build >a dragster, I would want to use pure oxygen instead >of air, allowing the use of more than three times as >much fuel, but the engine would probably need >beefed up crankshaft, connecting rods, and better >bearings. Nitrous oxide is almost as good, and a lot safer to handle. > It is too early to predict what will happen >with ethanol, in racing, or in wide use in vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Joe Fischer Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in sunny southwest USA sunbelt states. http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day. 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre. How many gallons of your biofuels sh.t per acre per year? http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html >........ >> Chances are it is not anywhere "half". The BTU >>per pound may not be the total picture, a study of fuels >>may show that oxygen is the indicator of power. > >You don't burn oxygen. Thus, it contributes zero to calories/joules/BTUs. But it is required in specific amounts to achieve full combustion and cleaner burning. The nitrogen in the air inducted along with the oxygen and fuel may reduce the expansion ratio of the mixture. I think the oxygen in ethanol is bound as OH, isn't that hydrogen peroxide? A chemist might be able to offer a lot of information on the chemical reactions of ethanol burning in air, I think the number of hydrogen atoms relative to carbon atoms is 3X while in gasolines is 2X + 2. The other chemical with the same elements and number of atoms of each has completely different properties, and the primary difference seems to be the oxygen atom isn't bound to a hydrogen atom. The low cost of oil may have caused chemists to ignore study of all possible chemicals that could be used as fuels, especially the renewable ones. A chemist might be able to say the reason for ethanol being a more powerful ICE fuel, he might say the reason is that less air is needed to burn ethanol, and that may mean that there is more heat for the amount of gas to be expanded to create the pressure to push the cylinder. This may be the type of discussion useful to examine all aspects of ethanol as a motor fuel, and I feel the switch for the Indy 500 will bring out the facts. Joe Fischer >>........ >>> Chances are it is not anywhere "half". The BTU [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Joe Fischer Plus one more useful fact about Oxygen... When you electrolyze H2O you get 8 kilograms of O2 per every kilogram of H2. Catalytically made in H2O2 (Hydrogern Peroxide) it has a combustion and explosive power far greater than the H2 or gasoline. Sometimes used as torpedo propellent it also is used by amateur rocketeers. The commercial value of the O2 product made into H2O2 is eight times the commercial value of the O2 product on the bulk market prices of today. Used as a bleaching gent for sewage treatment and pulp paper bleaching it displaces the market niche of dioxin-producing chlorine chemicals, which is why OLIN chlorine and munitions is shoulder-to-shoulder to badmouth H2-PV right along with the carbon-pollution fossil fuels. OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research = $7,022,124 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding American Legislative Exchange Council = $215,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Americans for Tax Reform Foundation = $525,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlantic Legal Foundation = $210,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation = $5,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Brookings Institution = $1,217,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Capital Legal Foundation = $150,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Cato Institute = $832,500 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Media and Public Affairs = $730,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Security Policy = $261,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Center for Strategic and International Studies = $2,112,318 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation = $1,375,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Competitive Enterprise Institute = $230,300 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Consumer Alert = $28,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies = $4,008,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding for ASCH = $865,500 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) = $484,250 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Fraser Institute = $10,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George C. Marshall Institute = $350,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University = $6,665,824 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding George Mason University Institute for Humane Studies = $797,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heartland Institute = $40,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Heritage Foundation = $8,320,835 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace = $5,015,660 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Hudson Institute, Inc. = $3,034,840 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Independent Institute = $65,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding John Locke Institute = $15,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Landmark Legal Foundation = $320,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Manhattan Institute for Policy Research = $4,899,500 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Media Institute = $148,750 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Policy Analysis = $1,069,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Center for Public Policy Research, Inc = $100,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Legal Center for The Public Interest = $63,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding National Wilderness Institute =$25,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding New England Legal Foundation = $75,200 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Legal Foundation = $665,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy = $735,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) = $640,775 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Reason Foundation = $276,500 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Southeastern Legal Foundation = $145,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Washington Legal Foundation = $2,460,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Funding Weidenbaum Center = $94,650 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Media Research Center = $495,000 OLIN Munitions & Chlorine-DDT Mercatus Center, George Mason University = $80,000 > The low cost of oil may have caused chemists > to ignore study of all possible chemicals that could > be used as fuels, especially the renewable ones. Its not just the low cost, and I don't think anyone has "ignored study." The key feature that makes petrochemicals so useful is not that they're common, its that they are a) incredibly dense in energy, and b) very stable despite the high energy density. There is FAR more energy in a poound of gasoline (even more in kerosene and more than that in diesel) than there is in a pound of TNT, a pound of alcohol, or a pound of modern high explosive (for example, RDX). The alcohol is just about as stable, but has half the energy density- and its darn near as close as you can come to petrochemicals. There just aren't that many choices when it comes to high energy-density, safely portable, liquid, stable, relatively harmless fuel chemicals. > A chemist might be able to say the reason > for ethanol being a more powerful ICE fuel, he > might say the reason is that less air is needed to > burn ethanol, and that may mean that there is > more heat for the amount of gas to be expanded > to create the pressure to push the cylinder. You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist. And alcohol is most certainly NOT a "more powerful ICE fuel," as has been proven already. You can build an engine to burn alcohol, and make it about AS powerful as a given gasoline engine, but if you go to absolute extremes- the utter limit of power that you can get out of a given engine displacement, then there really is little difference or gasoline actually wins. > This may be the type of discussion useful > to examine all aspects of ethanol as a motor fuel, > and I feel the switch for the Indy 500 will bring > out the facts. No, it won't. It will determine that IRL engine builders can get acceptable power from their engines under the displacement and induction rules set by the IRL using ethanol, nothing more or less and not at all applicable to real-world problems. F1 will still be getting more absolute power out of gasoline, and NASCAR will still be racing 4 times as many car-miles per year as IRL while producing about the same power per engine (about 800 horsepower) and with much simpler technology using gasoline. > You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my > disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist. There is a Loyd Parker who is a chemist at Emory, http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Directories/index.cfm?FuseAction=View&Thi sUserID=130. His email address is parker@learnlink.emory.edu. However, the person posting in these ethanol threads is lparker@emory.edu. It is unlikely that these are the same person. Evidence for this is that the latter poster has made several simple conceptual mistakes in his arguments, confusing "energy" and "power" for example, and apparently not knowing what is "carnot cycle" efficiency in a heat engine. A real scientist learns these things in high school or early college, and they become second nature. A real chemist would never make these kinds of mistakes over and over. Also, the latter poster never seems to make the kind of insightful technical arguments that enlighten and instruct. A chemistry professor with over 30 years of teaching experience could not help himself, he would fill his posts with information and interesting viewpoints that instruct and enlighten, he would not miss such an opportunity, it would be in his nature, in every fiber. I doubt these two email addresses are the same person. $.02 -Ron Shepard >> You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my >> disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist. Or at the very least, he play a chemist in a classroom. > There is a Loyd Parker who is a chemist at Emory, > http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Directories/index.cfm?FuseAction=View&Thi [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for example, and apparently not knowing what is "carnot cycle" > efficiency in a heat engine. I doubt your hypothesis is right, I think our Lloyd probably is the professor at Emory. I do, however, have to admit a great deal of surprise at his fundamental lack of understanding of some pretty basic principles of physics/physical chemistry. > A real scientist learns these things > in high school or early college, Well, keep in mind that the Lloyd Parker at Emory left HS almost 40 years ago. Not to be age-ist, but a bit of softening of the brain could be expected, particularly the unused parts. Still, I agree it surprises me. > and they become second nature. They only become second nature with use. As an analytical chemist, he doesn't really have an opportunity to use either concept. With years, things that don't get used get lost (as I'm learning all too well.) > A real chemist would never make these kinds of mistakes over and over. Well, more like a real chemist wouldn't continue to comment at length about things he doesn't understand, and would simply defer to those who do (especially when corrected). > Also, the latter poster never seems to make the kind of insightful > technical arguments that enlighten and instruct. A chemistry > professor with over 30 years of teaching experience could not help > himself, he would fill his posts with information and interesting > viewpoints that instruct and enlighten, he would not miss such an > opportunity, it would be in his nature, in every fiber. Have you ever *been* to college? I had a very good chemistry education (a top-15 department and a top-2 department), but a couple of my professors (one in undergrad, one in grad school) were real dogs that, if I didn't have a good textbook and my own motivation to learn, I never would have passed the class. Tenure is, on the whole, a good thing for academic freedom, but in the hands of the wrong person, it is a real abomination to both teaching and research. Eric Lucas >>You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my >>disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist. > > There is a Loyd Parker who is a chemist at Emory, > http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Directories/index.cfm?FuseAction=View&Thi > sUserID=130. His email address is parker@learnlink.emory.edu. I've crossed keyboards with Lloyd for years. I hadn't seen a post from him in the last couple of years because he no longer seems to hang out (and tolerate the continual corrections he received) in rec.autos.tech or rec.autos.makers.chrysler > However, the person posting in these ethanol threads is > lparker@emory.edu. It is unlikely that these are the same person. Oh, I don't know, I think it may be the same Lloyd Parker. But I do know that L1oyd Parker is someone else (pick a different font if its not obvious...) :-) > Evidence for this is that the latter poster has made several simple > conceptual mistakes in his arguments, confusing "energy" and "power" > for example, and apparently not knowing what is "carnot cycle" > efficiency in a heat engine. Yeah, that's the same old Parker for sure. I never said he was a physicist. Or an engineer. :-) > If I were to build > a dragster, I would want to use pure oxygen instead > of air, allowing the use of more than three times as > much fuel, but the engine would probably need > beefed up crankshaft, connecting rods, and better > bearings. ================================= The Don Garlits Drag Racing Museum in Ocala on I-75 has one of his experimental rail jobs with a huge compressed air tank... enough for about 1/4 mile I'd imagine. Was supposed to save the couple hundred HP needed to run the blower. I guess you could fill it up with O2 as well as air..... Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in sunny southwest USA sunbelt states. http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day. 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre. How many gallons of your biofuels sh.t per acre per year? http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html >> If I were to build >> a dragster, I would want to use pure oxygen instead [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >needed to run the blower. I guess you could fill it up with O2 as well >as air..... The engine only turns a comparatively few RPM in a quarter mile. O2 might not be safe, but even 50-50 would be better than 20 percent oxygen in air. Joe Fischer > >Ya think? > > I may have read that wrong, the ethanol group did > put up money for the 17 car, but I don't know if the article > discussed what prompted the Indy officials to make a > complete switch to ethanol next year. We could have put our name on the side of a car to promote ethanol, but instead we did it the hard way, so we arranged this fuel switch," IOWs, palms were greased. > >> But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points, > >> that means the timing can be advanced, and the same [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Top speed is not where the race is won, it is > getting out of the slow turns quicker. And if the engine overpowers the tires, what do you suppose happens? Bear in mind, while the article mentions some track records being broken by ethanol powered cars, it stops short of actually attributing those broken records to the specific use of ethanol. IOWs, those track records may well have been broken anyway without the use of ethanol. > >> I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody > >> had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Are they timed at 35 degrees BTC? :-) I am 100% certain that at some given throttle position, RPM and manifold pressure, the ignition timing would be 35 degrees BTDC Is the base timing on either vehicle 35 degrees BTDC? Nope, and I'm 100% certain that the base timing on a 1964 Corvair Spyder isn't 35 degrees BTDC either. > >> There are lots of things good mentioned in the > >> article, and not much bad. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there would not be much choice to switch from gasoline > as quickly as possible. Taxes are charged on published reserves, the less reserves you report, the less the tax you pay. > Gasoline is down to $2.29 here, and I fear > any lower price and it will put ethanol on the back > burner again, and we need to reduce oil imports, > every year we give the money equivalent of an > entire state to buy imported oil. Same can be said for a lot of products/circumstances. > And there are people who would like to see > a fuel used that will use the same (amount of) CO2 > over and over, and not release more and more, even > people other than Al Gore. "Like to see" and actually seeing are two different things. > >> It mentioned some smoke > >> when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Chances are it is not anywhere "half". Long ago established. Run alcohol, double the jet size. > The BTU > per pound may not be the total picture, a study of fuels > may show that oxygen is the indicator of power. To a point, yes. > Ethanol contains oxygen. If I were to build > a dragster, I would want to use pure oxygen instead > of air, allowing the use of more than three times as > much fuel, but the engine would probably need > beefed up crankshaft, connecting rods, and better > bearings. The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here was never heard from again. > It is too early to predict what will happen > with ethanol, in racing, or in wide use in vehicles. > > But it is easy to predict what the motor fuel > of the future will be, and it will be alcohol. That may well be, but I doubt that it will be in any form that we're seeing marketed now. >........ >The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here >was never heard from again. A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon. I think it will be very interesting to see what the Indy car mechanics do with ethanol. Joe Fischer >>........ >>The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here >>was never heard from again. > > A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need >a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon. Totally false. The chemical rxn is a combustion which has an activation energy. Mix a hydrocarbon with oxygen and it will sit there doing nothing. > I think it will be very interesting to see what the >Indy car mechanics do with ethanol. > >Joe Fischer >>>........ >>>The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > energy. Mix a hydrocarbon with oxygen and it will sit there doing > nothing. What you say is didactically true, but practically false. The activation energy is so low that unusually mild events can set it off. This is why O2 regulators must not be lubricated with hydrocarbon oils. Just the heat generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion. Eric Lucas >>>>........ >>>>The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >energy is so low that unusually mild events can set it off. This is why O2 >regulators must not be lubricated with hydrocarbon oils. No, it's because O2 under high pressure can react violently. The rxn under normal pressure is so slow because the activation energy is so high. Under high pressure, the rxn is faster, so fast it's explosive. >Just the heat >generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion. But not O2 at 1 atm. Otherwise nobody could breathe it without combustion. >Eric Lucas >>Just the heat >>generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion. > > But not O2 at 1 atm. Otherwise nobody could breathe it without combustion. Nobody DOES breathe PURE 02 at 1 atmosphere. Even wearing an O2 mask, there is dilution with nitrogen (primarily) and all the other gasses that make up the soup we call "air." I agree that technically you are correct- there is an activation energy required to start combustion when pure o2 and a fuel are mixed, but the PRACTICAL result is that its much easier to light a mixture of 02 and fuel than air and fuel. Whoever said that you don't need ANY activator was certainly wrong, but the activator can be much more trivial. In sci.environment, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:19:46 -0500 <XICdnTF5atMORp_YnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@texas.net>: >>>Just the heat >>>generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there is dilution with nitrogen (primarily) and all the other gasses > that make up the soup we call "air." Pedant point: there was or is the concept of an oxygen tent for seriously ill folks. (Such are presumably rather dangerous because of the problem of increased flammability of burnable materials therein. Apollo 1 was a very sad demonstration thereof.) Wiki gives Earth's oxygen percentage as 20.94%. I don't know if that's by weight or by molecular count, but that gives an approximate partial pressure of about 21220 Pascal. > I agree that technically you are correct- there is an activation energy > required to start combustion when pure o2 and a fuel are mixed, but the > PRACTICAL result is that its much easier to light a mixture of 02 and > fuel than air and fuel. Whoever said that you don't need ANY activator > was certainly wrong, but the activator can be much more trivial. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us. > In sci.environment, Steve > & |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message