Removing Ethanol from Gas?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?

Iowa hasn't used MTBE for many years. Ethanol was its replacement, and
pretty well any automobile engine is allowed to use a mixture of up to 10
percent ethanol.

So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
octane?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


It's made that way. Around these parts there are 2 octanes of gasoline
delivered to the gas stations. Regular and Premium. The mid grade gas is a
mix of the 2.

COuld we do it by patch and mend? Possibly. Would it pay for itself? Not
unless the mogas sold for approximately what avgas is selling for.

Although I would prefer that it be cheaper, if given a choice I would
buy mogas for my plane if it were available on the field, even if it
were the same price as avgas.

My O-540 simply runs better with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The same way you get 100 proof vodka instead of 80 proof. You just keep
distilling it until the lower proof stuff remains in the barrel.

Jim



So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
octane?

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?

Iowa hasn't used MTBE for many years. Ethanol was its replacement,
and pretty well any automobile engine is allowed to use a mixture of
up to 10 percent ethanol.

So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
octane?

There are differences in octane depending on where the crude oil
originally came from. Therefore, crude that has the characteristics of
higher octane can be directed to refineries that produce high octane
fuels.

Simple refineries might only have a distiller and reformer, and cannot
enhance the octane of the base fuel. They get what comes out. Therefore,
if you want even higher octane numbers, you have to process the fuel
more.

In particular, isomerization is used to boost the octane number after
base refining. That is a process that breaks up longer carbon chains
into shorter branch chains. The shorter chains have higher ignition
temperatures, and burn more slowly, which are characteristics of higher
octane fuels.

The whole refining process is a balance where they try to get the most
saleable products out of the original crude with the least left over.
They have a certain amount of ability to adjust the output between
various fuels, like diesel vs gasoline, and various octane levels,
depending on the demand.

As environmental laws have progressively limited things like sulfurs,
volotiles, butane and other compounds in the fuel, they have also tended
to lower the base octane from the normal refining processes, since those
compounds were often used to boost octane during refining. As a result,
the refineries have had to add equipment to further refine the fuels to
again push up the base octane ratings. This, of course, cost money in
capital investments, which have been recovered through higher fuel
prices.

You might remember when tetraethyl lead was no longer added to gasoline,
when "unleaded" fuel first appeared on the market, that the unleaded fuel
cost more than the original leaded fuels. This seemed a contradition to
many in that they couldn't understand why fuel price would rise when
something that had been added to fuel was no longer being added. The
answer was that the refineries had to refine the fuels further to make up
for the loss of the lead octane booster. That cost money.

Once the fuel has been refined, then octane boosters can be added to the
fuel to further raise things. The boosters can only go so far, however,
so the base fuel has to be refined sufficiently to provide the necessary
grades before the boosters are added.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
: "Al" wrote in message
: ...
: So, I just run it richer? Or, in the case of a departure, where the
: mixture is already full rich, you're saying there will be NO loss of
: performance by using a mixture of autogas and alcohol?
:
: No, what he's saying is that if full power with regular gas is 28" at 2650
: RPM, then you aren't going to see 28" at 2650 RPM using alcohol or a blend
: of alcohol.
:
:

Actually, what I am saying is if you can maintain 28" at 2650 RPM on either fuel, you are making the same
horsepowerpower. Most likely the mixture at will be leaner (assuming teh same max mixture is available), but hte
horsepower will be the same. If either the MP or the RPM decrease, then you power is of course less.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
gasoline, so it seems...

On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
but that's just me...)

His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
sound particularly safe or easy.

Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Hey Jay,

I added your web site to my links page!

http://www.aircraftdelivery.net/links.htm

On 9 Aug 2006 08:13:11 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
gasoline, so it seems...

On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his

Then he's most likely doing it illegally as he's not using a know auto
gas which means no STC.

fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
but that's just me...)

Crazy is not quite the word I'd use.

It's not just those fiberglass tips, seals and O-rings that are
attacked by ethanol. He's looking for far more problems than tip
tanks. BTW he might want to consider where the disolved resin and
some fiberglass went. I wonder what his fuel filter and gascolator
look like inside.


His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
sound particularly safe or easy.

Or smart.

Alcohol, in addition to burning cleaner is also an octane booster.
That means even if you sucessfully remove it, you are left with a
lower octane gas and no STC which probably means no insurance.


Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?

And what do you do to raise the octane back up?

Yes there is a relatively easy way to remove alcohol from gas that
just takes a bit of filtering after the process. Remember Alcohol is
hydroscopic.

But I repeat, it's no longer car gas so no STC which probably means no
insurance and how much lower octane can the specific engine handle.

Have a problem and the FAA, Insurance company, and lawyers will not be
on your side.

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

On 10 Aug 2006 08:10:39 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Everyone might drop in on Baylor U's flight research programs. The've
been flying numerous aircraft on everything from straight avgas to 100%
grain alcohol. They even have STC's for the O-235 and IO-540 series
engines to run on any percentage of ethanol.

Absolutely. There were several planes on display at OSH this year that
are STC'd to use alcohol.

True, but were they standard planes and what had to be done to make
them suitable to qualify for that STC which I think is still
experimental.


It's apparently not that big a deal to make planes work with the stuff

It depends on what you call a big deal. Replacing all of the buna N
O-rings and seals as well as using alcohol friendly materials in the
tanks and lines would be to me.

-- but that's not the subject here. I want to know -- is it possible
to REMOVE the stuff, so that our current STCs could be used?

You'd need to ask the FAA for a definitive ruling, but my guess would
be a straight NO.

If you remove the stuff you have changed the octane rating. The STC
is for gas without alcohol and of a given octane rating or range.

Yes you can remove the alcohol or the vast majority of it from Gasohol
(10% alcohol). You'll still have enough left to show in an analysis.
Any approach that completely removes the alcohol is going to give you
a gas that costs far more than avgas.

BTW it's picking a nit, but there are no engines running on pure
alcohol. True, they are close enough for practical purposes, but
Alcohol is so strongly hygroscopic that only research grades will be
above roughly 95% and it takes very careful handling to even keep
that. People *claim* to be running 100% but that is almost impossible
to make let alone keep above 95%. It gets really expensive in a
hurry.

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

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:06:36 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:


Thus the MON of autogas rated 87 octane is about 82, which makes it
about the equivalent of 80-octane aviation fuel.. Autogas with a pump
rating of 91 (premium) would be like 86-octane aviation fuel, if there
were such a beast.

(According to the site, aviation rich, the higher value in 80/87 is
only important in supercharged engines.)

That's a bit misleading. I have an IO-470N in the Debonair which
requires 100LL. There are a lot of high performance engines out there
that require 100LL and there aren't any STCs to replace that.


This site: http://www.cheresources.com/greengas.shtml

says refineries *can* use catalytic naptha reforming and/or fluidized
catalytic cracking to produce a bunch of stuff, but mustly MTBE and
tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME). The other refinery products
available for blending have various problems including causing cancer
(benzine), releasing sulphur, and gunking up your tailpipe.

So I haven't found anything on-line (yet) that absolutely persuades me
that high-test isn't just regular with more alcohol in it. (Which is
the part of my screed that actually relates to this thread.

I don't know how to convince you, but here in Michigan about
everything has 10% Alcohol be it regular, mid-grade, or high-test.


Now for a slight change of direction. If you're writing your
legislators, one thing to remind them of is that we got the TEL out of
gasoline, NOT because it was making us sick (although I was never keen
on eating the blackberries that grow right alongside the highways
everywhere in Oregon), but because it destroyes catalytic converters.
And whatever anybody's opinion about catalytic converters is, nobody
is proposing CCs for the tiny piston-powered general aviation fleet.

Don't bet on it. My last lawnmower has one. I think the snow blower
has one too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Therefore efforts to remove the TEL from aviation fuel for
"environmental" reasons are quixotic and contrary to good sense.

In fact, a good case could be made for a mandate that TEL in avfuel be
REDUCED from the current ridiculous levels to something that wouldn'f
foul sparkplugs without drastic leaning.

THAT would make everybody happy.

Don

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

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:04:36 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On 9 Aug 2006 11:27:58 -0700, "M" wrote in
s.com:

That's a huge amount of ethanol to be made from corn or other
plants, plus the cost and the energy in distillation.

You forgot to mention the cost of growing the corn.

Ethanol production requires:

Land
Farm equipment for planting, irrigating and harvesting
Fuel for the farm equipment
Irrigation water
Fertilizers
Insecticides
Distillation equipment
Fuel for the still
Water for fermentation (CO2 byproduct)
Labor, labor, labor

So, if all the costs are factored in, Ethanol is probably more
expensive than gasoline.


Considering subsidies it's about $3.50 a gallon.

But the farm lobby is happy.

Corn is hard on the land and is very sensitive to how much moisture
and heat it gets and when.. A lot of us would prefer to grow
something else.


The next generation of photovoltaic equipment may be the ultimate
answer to energy the shortage. With solar there are no moving parts,
nor nuclear radiation emissions, nor decommissioning costs, nor waste
storage costs.

Depends on how you look at it. A good size solar set up requires a
hefty set of batteries. Some of the really good batteries are quite
toxic. Will they be able to recondition them or have to dispose of
them? I don't know.



http://world.honda.com/news/2005/c051219.html

Corporate December 19, 2005
Honda to Mass Produce Next-Generation Thin Film Solar Cell

TOKYO, Japan, December 19, 2005 – Honda Motor Co., Ltd. announced its
plan to begin mass production in 2007, of an independently developed
thin film solar cell composed of non-silicon compound materials, which
requires 50% less energy, and thus generate 50% less CO2, during
production compared to a conventional solar cell. A mass production
plant with annual capacity of 27.5 megawatts will be established at
Honda’s Kumamoto factory.

Honda will produce and sell solar panels in a limited area, starting
from 2006 fall, using assembly line within Honda Engineering Co.,
Ltd., the production engineering subsidiary of Honda.

By using thin film made from a compound of copper, indium, gallium and
selenium (CIGS),

All highly toxic materials that appear to be in a form that would be
difficult to recover..

Honda’s next-generation solar cell achieved a major
reduction in energy consumed during the manufacturing process to
approximately 50% of the amount required by conventional crystal
silicon solar cells. Thus, this new solar cell is more
environmentally-friendly by reducing the amount of CO2 even from the
production stage. Further, this next-generation solar cell has
achieved the highest level of photoelectric transfer efficiency for a
thin film solar cell (almost equivalent to the conventional crystal
silicon solar cell).

Since spring 2002, Honda has been using and monitoring the performance
of this solar cell, first at the Outboard Engine Plant in Hosoe, and
then also at 12 other Honda facilities including Honda Engineering
headquarters and the Honda Wako Building in Japan and 3 overseas sites
such as the U.S. and Thailand.

Achieving lower costs and higher photoelectric transfer efficiency is
required in order to expand use of solar cells which will help protect
the global environment. This non-silicon thin film solar cell has been
attracting significant attention as a potential solution to these
challenges. The only remaining challenges were the stabilization of
performance and development of mass production technologies. The mass
production of Honda’s next-generation solar cell became possible with
a new mass production process for thin film solar cells developed
independently by Honda Engineering – a production engineering company
that has long developed production equipment and technologies for
Honda’s motorcycle, automobile, engine, electric motor for hybrid
vehicles and other items.

In addition to its effort to lower environmental load through
achieving reduced emissions and higher fuel efficiency, as the first
automaker to enter into solar cell business, Honda will contribute to
the effort to prevent global warming through production and sales of a
clean energy source which does not use fossil fuels. In its vision for
2010, Honda has committed itself to take on new challenges in new
areas and to develop environmentally-friendly and sustainable energy
technologies. Honda’s entrance into the solar cell business with

Using some of the most environmentally unfriendly materials in those
cells which is fine until some have to be disposed.

It would be interesting to see how these cells age compared to silicon
solar cells. I understand they've pretty much doubled the output and
cut the price in half on the silicon solar cells.

So we end up in a trade off between pollution during manufacture or
the materials from which they are made. Which is worse? I don't know.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
independently developed technologies is an example of the realization
of Honda’s 2010 vision.


About New Mass Production Line

Location: Within the current site of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Kumamoto
Plant

Establishment: The line will become operational in latter half of 2007

Facility size: 12,000 square meters

Production capacity: 27.5 megawatts annually, (Equivalent amount of
electricity to power approximately 8,000 houses when calculated at
3.5kw per house)

Product/Use: Solar cell panel for individual residential use and
public industrial use

-----------------------

Here's a picture and article of Nanosolar's product:
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/merc081504p.htm
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/