ethanol question

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:37:40 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:
..

There is no question regarding the fact that the ethanol solution as a farse
and a fraud, and there is also no doubt that it is less efficient. But you
certainly do not need 50% more fuel--the worst number that I have heard is
10% and simple chemistry suggests a worst case of 4% if the maximum dilution
of 10% ethanol is used.

I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.
Further, there is considerable doubt that
automotive fuel tanks are presurized in any meaningfull way--from all that I
have heard, they have sealed filler caps and any "breathing" occurs through
the evaporative emission controller.
They hold about 3-5psi

OTOH, crank induction two stroke engines are another matter. There are
already intollerant of premixing the oil too far in advance and, from all I
have heard, the addition of ethanol adds fuel system clogging to the
problems. That sounds like really bad Mojo!

The biggest problems, other than certification, are probably:
1) A lot of fiberglass fuel tanks were allegedly marginal with straight
gasolene, and are untested with E10.
2) Long term storage of E10 may untested, in documented and controlled
testing, and the oil companies supposedly don't attempt to store
E10--instead any ethanol is allegedly added as a final step prior to retail
delivery. The horror stories that I have heard, involving 4 stroke engines,
have involved lawn and garden equipment which sat idle for long periods.

Personally, I really doubt that it is a big problem in the case of frequent
use with filler caps in good condition. But, at this time, I think it makes
more sense to buy Avgas whenever undiluted Mogas is not currently available
from the FBO.

Peter



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:37:40 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:
.

There is no question regarding the fact that the ethanol solution as a
farse
and a fraud, and there is also no doubt that it is less efficient. But
you
certainly do not need 50% more fuel--the worst number that I have heard is
10% and simple chemistry suggests a worst case of 4% if the maximum
dilution
of 10% ethanol is used.

I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.

That's a completely different proposition!

In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption are
both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and fuel
system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating for some
time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages in octane
(or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am content to
watch from the sidelines.

Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a fuel,
ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular seives--so
it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation process.
Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor pressure for
ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional pressurization of the tanks
would be needed.

However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt than
carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding CO2 and
petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2 levels in the
atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of promoting plant
growth and ultimately providing an increased food supply--both directly and
through the feeding of domestic animals which are raised, slaughtered, and
eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing against the need.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:

I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.


That's a completely different proposition!

In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption are
both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and fuel
system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating for some
time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages in octane
(or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am content to
watch from the sidelines.

Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a fuel,
ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular seives--so
it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation process.
Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor pressure for
ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional pressurization of the tanks
would be needed.

However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt than
carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding CO2 and
petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2 levels in the
atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of promoting plant
growth and ultimately providing an increased food supply--both directly and
through the feeding of domestic animals which are raised, slaughtered, and
eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing against the need.

Peter




What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire jeopardy.

Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a while?

Richard

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
Peter Dohm wrote:

I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.


That's a completely different proposition!

In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption
are both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and
fuel system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating
for some time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages
in octane (or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am
content to watch from the sidelines.

Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a
fuel, ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular
seives--so it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation
process. Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor
pressure for ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional
pressurization of the tanks would be needed.

However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt
than carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding
CO2 and petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2
levels in the atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of
promoting plant growth and ultimately providing an increased food
supply--both directly and through the feeding of domestic animals which
are raised, slaughtered, and eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing
against the need.

Peter


What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire
jeopardy.

Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a
while?

Richard

It seems almost goulish to say it; but, yes, I believe that it will reduce
the supply.

Peter

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:58:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire
jeopardy.

Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a
while?

Richard

It seems almost goulish to say it; but, yes, I believe that it will reduce
the supply.

Yep. The price will go up, and the gas companies will import even more ethanol.

Some government bureaucrat will notice this, and say, "Gee, it's costing people
more money and increasing our reliability on foreign suppliers." They'll
immediately suspend all laws requiring ethanol in motor gasoline and rescind all
gas-company incentives for selling it.

Then Santa Claus will join forces with the Easter Bunny to develop new
distribution systems for the non-alcohol gasoline, with the full assistance of
an assembly of honest politicians.....

Ron "The Tooth Fairy has to enter into it somewhere" Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:58:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire
jeopardy.

Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a
while?

Richard

It seems almost goulish to say it; but, yes, I believe that it will
reduce
the supply.

Yep. The price will go up, and the gas companies will import even more
ethanol.

Some government bureaucrat will notice this, and say, "Gee, it's costing
people
more money and increasing our reliability on foreign suppliers." They'll
immediately suspend all laws requiring ethanol in motor gasoline and
rescind all
gas-company incentives for selling it.

Then Santa Claus will join forces with the Easter Bunny to develop new
distribution systems for the non-alcohol gasoline, with the full
assistance of
an assembly of honest politicians.....

Ron "The Tooth Fairy has to enter into it somewhere" Wanttaja

Indeed, this is only a speed-bump on the road to ruin. :-(

Peter

They'll probably divert other farm lands into corn production for ethanol.
After which is more important--food prices or ethanol???

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

In article ,
wright1902glider wrote:
Perhaps rather than sitting in front of the computer knocking MOGAS
for no longer being a cheap alternative to 100LL, we might actually
start educating ourselves and experimenting on how to make gasahol or
even E85 work in an aircraft. A quick web search turned up this
project: http://www.age85.org/. If there's going to be a new and
viable alternative to 100LL, somebody is going to have to either find
or invent one.

Or you could just learn to hang-glide. (did I say that out loud???)


Puts a new twist on the old phrase about:

"We'll all have to hang together,
or we will all surely hang(-glide) separately."


*GRIN*