New fuel

Cub Driver wrote:

So I reckon diesel gets
sludgy at an even higher temp than my father-in-law's outside fuel-oil
tank.

Dunno if this is universally the case, but the heating oil sold in the Atlanta area
is #2 diesel. I expect that's the case pretty much everywhere, since there was some
talk a few years ago about dying one of them red to try to catch people who avoid
road taxes by filling up their cars from the heating oil tank.

I expect the VW quit at higher temperatures simply because the fuel lines for the
heaters are larger than those in the car.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

The reason jets use kerosene instead of diesel is that diesel freezes
at higher temperatures than kerosene.

New Hampshire trailers and backwoods houses often have a 55-gallon oil
drum on stilts out back. It's filled with kerosene. If you try the
same thing with heating oil, it turns to sludge on some brisk morning,
and the stove goes out. Not every winter, but maybe one in five. That
would suggest 15 below to me. My father-in-law learned the truth of
this when he moved the oil tank outside to make room for a cellar
workshop.

During the great Arab Oil Embargo (1975? whenever) a friend bought a
VW with a diesel engine. He lived farther down the road than we did.
One morning here he comes, pushing the VW, which he rolled into our
drive and hitched the rest of the way to school. It happened several
times that winter, which was a cold one. So I reckon diesel gets
sludgy at an even higher temp than my father-in-law's outside fuel-oil
tank.

Don't know about there, but here in the UK they add a certain amount
of kerosene to diesel in the winter to lower the freezing point.

Paul

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Cub Driver wrote:

So I reckon diesel gets
sludgy at an even higher temp than my father-in-law's outside fuel-oil
tank.

Dunno if this is universally the case, but the heating oil sold in the
Atlanta area
is #2 diesel. I expect that's the case pretty much everywhere, since there
was some
talk a few years ago about dying one of them red to try to catch people
who avoid
road taxes by filling up their cars from the heating oil tank.

Met a guy from up north sort of way when I was in Florida who
had a Fouga Magister. When he was at home, he ran it on heating
oil. I think he said he bought tankers full at a time at something like
$0.40 a gallon...this was a few years ago now.

You can run a diesel car on kerosene as long as the fuel pump can
handle lack of lubrication. Some airport vehicles here are run on
avtur (Jet-A) if they don't have to go on the public roads (fuel tax).

Paul

Trent

You forget the non polluting nature of fuel cells and their effect on
the green house effect.

I know that making the hydrogen can be dirty unless Atomic energy is
used.

And again, the storage of Nuc waste until we can launch into the sun
has to be sold to the great unwashed masses G

Lots of hills to climb.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:41:45 -0400, "Trent Moorehead"
wrote:


"BllFs6" wrote in message
news:20040818094952.12124.00003620@mb- If you dont do THAT, then your at
best making a little more ethanol than the
gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the
process)
and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with
(and
have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....

This reminds me of something I saw on Scientific American Frontiers last
night. It was a show on new car technology and was touting the glorious
revolution that will be Fuel Cells run on hydrogen.

While it was very interesting, there was this theme that the American market
was slowing the development of fuel efficient cars because we (Egads!!) keep
demanding more power and utility from our vehicles. Kind of irritating
actually. The American market, in a big way, helps fund their development
programs through car sales.

Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
hygogen. They said that to solve this catch-22, we can extract hydrogen from
hyrdrocarbons (ie coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) or use nuclear to extract
hydrogen from water. Doesn't seem to be all that glorious of a solution now,
does it?

As I see it, what's slowing down the development of hydrogen fuel cells is
the fact that getting hydrogen isn't easy or cheap (cost or energy-wise).
It's great technology, but it still has a long way to go before it will be
accepted by the buying public.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:41:45 -0400, "Trent Moorehead"
wrote in
::

Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
hygogen.

If solar power is used to disassociate the H & O2 water atoms, there
is no pollution generated, and only sunlight, that would otherwise be
wasted, is consumed. Of course, it might be more efficient to
directly store the solar power in a battery for use in an electric
vehicle. In any event, the question becomes, does the production of
solar cells consume more energy than can be expected to be generated
by them over their useful life span?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[all non-aviation content snipped]

And then, right after your net cop post, you manage to post an
even-more-off-topic post. At least Jay's post had *some* aviation content
in it.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...