Ethanol Powered Aircraft

On 16 Aug 2006 06:38:59 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?

BRRRRRRR!

Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...

and once aloft, there is no wind.

"It's a dry cold..."

Evidently this is not in Michigan!


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 15 Aug 2006 10:13:59 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:


Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a

Unfortunately if you are talking electricity production you are not
talking oil, but rather coal and lots of it. I read an article
earlier this week that stated all but a few of the new proposed power
plants will be coal fired.

large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.

If that central engine puts out a lot of particulate matter, sulphur,
and other pollutants it makes one.


Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

Now that's Hydrogen. We'd need to nearly double our grid capacity
to go to Hydrogen and/or electric power on a large scale and it takes
more power to produce Hydrogen than you get out of it.




-Robert
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Robert M. Gary wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.


There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from

That is one of the main fallacies of the electric car. They also need
to be charged during the day due to limited range.

peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In

The technology already exists to build much better plants than we have
now.

the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge

land is probably a better place to keep pollutants down in case of a
leak. Salt water is good at becoming radioactive.

subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:44:35 -0400, Roger
wrote:
it takes more power to produce Hydrogen than you get out of it.

Correct, but the idea is that with fusion, you have the energy to
waste in order to convert it into a more useful form of energy for
existing technology... Unfortunately, hydrogen either needs to be kept
really ****in' cold or under quite a bit of pressure in order to
provide a useful reserve of BTUs of energy that could be used in
vehicles... I'm not sure that is going to happen anytime soon...
Retrofitting existing aircraft to run on hydrogen would definitely be
problematic... LPG is possible due to less strength needed in the
pressure vessel... Automobiles on the other hand would be able to more
readily handle the added size and weight of hydrogen tanks...

Not sure how many cu-ft of gasoline vapor you get out of a gallon of
gasoline, but you get around 36 cu-ft of propane vapor out of a gallon
of propane liquid... A standard (i.e. AL80) SCUBA tank holds 80 cu-ft
of gas at 3000 psi and ends up weighing about 38 lbs... For a 50g
tank, you get 1800 cu-ft of gas... This would take around 22.5
equivalent SCUBA tanks, or 855 lbs... The 50g of avgas would have
weighed 300 lbs, therefore we're looking at 555 lbs extra in tankage
-- assuming your aircraft even has roof for this many tanks...

Carbon fiber tanks might work a bit better though... They're 11.3 lbs
empty for an 88 cu-ft tank... Hydrogen weighs 0.005229 lbs per cu-ft,
thus the 88 cu-ft tank would weigh approximately 11.76 lbs... We would
need approximately 20.45 tanks, for a total weight of 240.492 lbs...

From what I understand, hydrogen contains quite a bit more BTUs of
energy in it per pound than gasoline -- 61,000 vs around 20,500... As
such, it sounds like we might actually be able to use hydrogen in our
aircraft, assuming we could find room for the tanks...

There's also the issue of how fast these carbon fiber tanks can be
filled...

Other stuff here...
http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html

Basically, it boils down to the best way to use hydrogen might be to
add carbon back to it and convert it to gasoline...

Roger wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Robert M. Gary wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.


There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from

That is one of the main fallacies of the electric car. They also need
to be charged during the day due to limited range.


Electric cars will supplant rather than replace IC cars. The people
who are good candidates for electric cars are those that customarily
drive a 5 to 25 mile radius to work, as 10 to 50 miles is the optimum
range of electric cars. Those with substantially longer commutes or who
mostly use their cars for long trips are simply not good candidates for
electric cars and no effort should be made to sell those people an
electric car.

Vacation trips and occasional longer drives are best handled in one of
two ways. Electric cars can be built with low power gensets making them
"electric-primary" hybrids (as opposed to today's hybrids which are all
"gasoline primary" hybrids.) Or, a second vehicle can be used.

The only need to charge during the day for people who fit the EV
mileage profile would be third shift workers, who therefore are poor EV
candidates as well.

kontiki wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
and cranks.

Can you provide any information to back that statement up?

Yes. The supply of "desireable dash number" RR Merlin (and Allison)
parts is becoming very limited. A few things are available new from PMA
or noncertified suppliers-most, but not all Warbirds operate
Experimental but P-51s may be on restricted, Limited or even, I think,,
standard C of A-but others are not. No one will make cranks and gears
are quite problematic now. Aeroproducts prop parts are also getting
very scarce. Of course they can do what Spitfire owners have had to do
and go over to a German Hoffmann prop.

The R-3350 Turbocompound was a maintenance nightmare in its own day.
Conversion to a straight 3350 would be possible but the power is
substantially less. The later aircraft would have to operate virtually
empty. R-4360s could be adapted but they are also cantankerous. I think
the day of the flying Connie is nearly over myself.


The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
Allisons are in the same boat.

A Connie has limited "collector" value as opposed to "exhibitor" or
however you want to put it value. A turbine conversion on one would be
very expensive but since the trend is that the very wealthy are getting
a lot richer and everyone else is getting poorer , there are thoise for
whom money is no deterrent. (For better or worse, few are particularly
interested in old airplanes.)


Turbine engines are extremely expensive.... turbine conversions have been
certified for a few types but waay to expensive for most people. You
are not gonna get people who own classic airplanes to pretty much destroy
their collector value by installing a turbine... even if it could be done.

Most people are not who flies warbirds.


Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

If its so easy why haven't you come out with the kit and STC for all these
airplanes? Can wee sue you if things don't work out?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time in the US. However,
frankly your chances of getting money are nil.



Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).


I don't think you are running on all cylinders.

You are not very observant.

"Morgans" wrote in message ...

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote

You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases
for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue.
The more you try to defend your incorrect
drivel the deeper you get.

God forbid that I would in any way defend anything that this nutjob says,
but I think there is incomplete statements on both your parts going on here.

You store these gasses at low temps, because it is impractical to store them
at the crazy pressures that they would have to be, if kept at room
temperature. The way things are done, in a real world? Very cold, with
some pressure to help out, so you get a you are right, on this one.

Yes, as he said, they can be kept at room temperatures. Almost anything can
be. Practical? No. Wrongly stated? No.
--
Jim in NC

Sorry for the late reply, Jim. We had to restart the plant and I was working some long hours. What you say above is
correct. But some things he has stated, not included above, are totally incorrect. I'm just sick of Ludwig making
blanket statements that are only partially correct so that he can forward his troll agenda. Some of his statements
are correct enough that some people "partially in the know" might accept them as gospel. That was my sole reason for
responding to the group. I try hard not to fall for troll bait If you'll go back and read his drivel, he says
things like, "you can't condense methane". Yeah right! He makes statements about the way products are stored when
there are multiple ways to store them. I tried to reply that in my experience he was wrong. There are other ways.
He attacks Van and Rutan, two of the icons of the experimental aircraft movement. He calls Van's keen observations
blather. Another "for instance": His assertion that natural gas is methane: Natural gas varies in composition
depending on a host of factors including what processing it has gone through, if any, and also from gas well to gas
well. It is not "only" methane: Here is an example. From one of our supply pipe lines, on August 9th it was 96.00
mole % methane, .43% carbon dioxide, .08 helium, .0012 i-butane, .0012 n-butane, 2.4621% ethane, .9300 nitrogen,
..0957 propane. Another pipeline was 95.76% methane, .00220 C6+, .64 carbon dioxide, .04 helium, 2.7004 ethane, .74
nitrogen, .1101 propane, .0023 i-butane, .0020 n-butane. So what? He replied that 96% is mostly methane. Each of
these constituents affects the BTU value of the gas. The first pipeline was running 1017 BTU's and the second 1027
BTU's. This is a huge factor not only in using the gas as a fuel but also in process it into other commodities such
as ammonia, methanol, carbon dioxide, etc.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 09:52:03 -0500, "JJS" jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net wrote:


"Morgans" wrote in message ...

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote

You are in way over your head Ludwig. I've worked with all these gases
for 28 years, in well, let's just say very
large quantities. I do this stuff for a living. You don't have a clue.
The more you try to defend your incorrect
drivel the deeper you get.

God forbid that I would in any way defend anything that this nutjob says,
but I think there is incomplete statements on both your parts going on here.

You store these gasses at low temps, because it is impractical to store them
at the crazy pressures that they would have to be, if kept at room

I worked for a company that used a *LOT* of H2. Probably as much or
even more than NASA. We had a very large tank farm which "as I
recall" had 12 tanks. (This was well over 20 years ago so I may be
mis-remembering some of it) We had a lot of tankers loaded with H2
coming into that place.

Of course the tanks were insulated, but we used the pressure of the
vaporizing H2 to move the stuff. N2 for us was a contaminant.

Cold? I noted some liquid running off one of the fittings and figured
it was way too cold for water, but it sure looked like it. The tank
farm operator remarked; "Water? No, it's way too cold for that. That
stuff running off is liquid Oxygen".

temperature. The way things are done, in a real world? Very cold, with
some pressure to help out, so you get a you are right, on this one.

For us the only alternative for pressure besides the evaporating
liquid H2 was Helium (analysis grade which I believe is five nines)
and even with all those tanks the stuff didn't evaporate fast enough
go keep the pressure up.

Purity was our problem as we were working at less than one part per
billion. That is difficult to maintain.


Yes, as he said, they can be kept at room temperatures. Almost anything can
be. Practical? No. Wrongly stated? No.

Times change though.The output of that plant is many times what it
used to be and they have gone through two very large expansions since
they became the world's largest supplier of that product. Currently
(according to the local paper) they are looking "world wide" for a new
site to build another plant and it's my understanding there are a lot
of places that want them.

With improved recovery techniques and some "other processes" that
tank farm has disappeared. Last I saw there was only one small tank.
Probably 5 to 10,000 gallons give or take a bunch as I don't know how
much they kept in there. Stuff that was byproduct is reused in one
form or another. Recovery techniques have dropped the H2 use to a tiny
fraction of what it was at one time.

However I would add that there is a way to keep a lot of H2 in a
relatively small space at room temperature that is "physically
practical". Unfortunately it takes a lot of some very expensive
material that is also toxic. They can use metal Hydrides as "metal
sponges" and the things do hold a tremendous amount of H2. Also a
ruptured tank is not a fire safety issue as you normally have to use a
small heater to get the H2 out.

I believe these are the same type of Hydrides they use in batteries
which are a disposal problem. They aren't supposed to go in the
garbage, but being sold to the general public I'd bet way more than
half of those batteries do end up in the trash. Think of what NiMH
batteries cost and then think of a chunk of that stuff the size of the
gas tank in a car.

A bit of history. I started working for that company about the time
they moved from using an old two story farm house for an office and a
large cement block garage for production to a new office building plus
a new production facility about the size of a basketball court.

With the first expansion we were using so much H2 we installed the
World's largest electrolytic cell for generating H2 as there wasn't
enough liquid H2 capacity in the US to supply us and NASA. For some
strange reason they gave NASA a higher priority than us.

You should have heard that cell. When running at capacity it was
deafening. The O2 was just vented to the atmosphere and that was a
*lot* of O2. It was sorta like standing in front of an F-16 getting
ready to taxi. That cell was dismantled not long after sufficient
quantities of liquid H2 became available.

I worked there 26 years, quit and went back to college to earn my
degree. Never went back except in an official capacity to consult on
a computer system as they were a subsidiary for the corporation I
ended up working for after graduating.




--
Jim in NC

Sorry for the late reply, Jim. We had to restart the plant and I was working some long hours. What you say above is
correct. But some things he has stated, not included above, are totally incorrect. I'm just sick of Ludwig making
blanket statements that are only partially correct so that he can forward his troll agenda. Some of his statements
are correct enough that some people "partially in the know" might accept them as gospel. That was my sole reason for
responding to the group. I try hard not to fall for troll bait If you'll go back and read his drivel, he says
things like, "you can't condense methane". Yeah right! He makes statements about the way products are stored when
there are multiple ways to store them. I tried to reply that in my experience he was wrong. There are other ways.
He attacks Van and Rutan, two of the icons of the experimental aircraft movement. He calls Van's keen observations
blather. Another "for instance": His assertion that natural gas is methane: Natural gas varies in composition
depending on a host of factors including what processing it has gone through, if any, and also from gas well to gas
well. It is not "only" methane: Here is an example. From one of our supply pipe lines, on August 9th it was 96.00
mole % methane, .43% carbon dioxide, .08 helium, .0012 i-butane, .0012 n-butane, 2.4621% ethane, .9300 nitrogen,
.0957 propane. Another pipeline was 95.76% methane, .00220 C6+, .64 carbon dioxide, .04 helium, 2.7004 ethane, .74
nitrogen, .1101 propane, .0023 i-butane, .0020 n-butane. So what? He replied that 96% is mostly methane. Each of
these constituents affects the BTU value of the gas. The first pipeline was running 1017 BTU's and the second 1027
BTU's. This is a huge factor not only in using the gas as a fuel but also in process it into other commodities such
as ammonia, methanol, carbon dioxide, etc.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:52:40 -0400, Roger
wrote:

Cold? I noted some liquid running off one of the fittings and figured
it was way too cold for water, but it sure looked like it. The tank
farm operator remarked; "Water? No, it's way too cold for that. That
stuff running off is liquid Oxygen".

Jesus. What was it dripping onto?

However I would add that there is a way to keep a lot of H2 in a
relatively small space at room temperature that is "physically
practical". Unfortunately it takes a lot of some very expensive
material that is also toxic. They can use metal Hydrides as "metal
sponges" and the things do hold a tremendous amount of H2. Also a
ruptured tank is not a fire safety issue as you normally have to use a
small heater to get the H2 out.

FWIW, the H2 in GM's little hydrogen-fueled electric cars is gaseous,
pressureized to 10K psi.

Don

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:32:27 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

No, he was quite clear about a FUSION reactor. A fusion reactor takes two
hydrogen atoms and fuses them together into helium plus energy. Now you
could take that energy and convert it into electricity to electrolyze water,
but what's the point? The electrical energy is what we need, not hydrogen.

Now all we need to do is develop a fusion reactor that works well and
develops useful power, something that has been eluding us for many
decades..

And agreed. If we have the cheap power why do we need to generate the
hydrogen to run the cars.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com