Alcohol as a fuel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005, dyno wrote:
>
>
>>>>Your point was that one could NOT get the power back.
>
>
>>>That was (and is) one of my points, and for virtually the entire
>>>on-road fleet in North America, it's quite true. Even the flex-fuel
>>>models!
>
>
>>This is where I and any engine text book would disagree.
>
>
> Grand. For your next lesson, get your nose out of your textbook. Go drive
> half a dozen FFV vehicles marketed in North America in the last decade,
> back-to-back on gasoline and then on *thanol blends. Do it at a racetrack
> with a timing system, or do it on a chassis dynamometer.
>
> Then come back and pewl on about how much you disagree.
>
> DS
Where is your back-to-back data? All you do is go on and on in vague
generalities with no factual data. All the published engine experts are
wrong? Sorry, this doesn't make sense. Where is all of the on-road fleet
data you refer to?

Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 13:59:49 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern" >
> wrote:
> >On Mon, 9 May 2005, Jasper Janssen wrote:
> >
> >> Biomass fuel is, pretty much by definition, CO2 neutral. All the CO2
> >> that gets produced while it burns is the *same* CO2 that the plant took
> >> out of the air to store in its biomass in the first place.
> >
> >Jolly good, but once it's been released, it's no longer sequestered --
> >which means biomass fuel is NOT "CO2 neutral".
>
> what exactly do you think would happen to the biomass if it *wasn't*
> processed into fuel? Apart from biomass which sinks to the bottom of the
> ocean (and nobody yet is talking about plankton-diesel), *all* CO2 that
> gets sequestered in biomass eventually finds its way back into the air.

Limestone, coal, etc seems like very long term storage...

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
>>what exactly do you think would happen to the biomass if it *wasn't*
>>processed into fuel? Apart from biomass which sinks to the bottom of the
>>ocean (and nobody yet is talking about plankton-diesel), *all* CO2 that
>>gets sequestered in biomass eventually finds its way back into the air.
>
>
> Limestone, coal, etc seems like very long term storage...
>
> Ed

As long as we don't burn it for fuel. That brings it back into air.

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote:

> if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is realized

....which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when driven on
M85 than on gasoline.

In article ich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>
>> if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is realized
>
> ...which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when driven on
> M85 than on gasoline.

Flex fuel is a compromise, that's why. It's basically a change in fuel
map and spark timing if that. The compression ratio isn't changed to take
advantage of the E85 for instance.

If an engine is set up for E85 as it's fuel, then it should have equal or
better power than an otherwise equivilent engine set up for gasoline.
Will the E85 engine consume a greater volume of fuel? Sure. Just like the
engine designed for 92 octane gasoline will consume more than the one
designed for 87 octane gasoline. But there is no reason the engine
running on 92 octane can't produce equal or greater power because the
fuel has less energy per unit volume.

Brent P wrote:
> In article
ich.edu>, Daniel J.
Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
> >
> >> if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is
realized
> >
> > ...which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when
driven on
> > M85 than on gasoline.
>
> Flex fuel is a compromise, that's why. It's basically a change in
fuel
> map and spark timing if that. The compression ratio isn't changed to
take
> advantage of the E85 for instance.
>
> If an engine is set up for E85 as it's fuel, then it should have
equal or
> better power than an otherwise equivilent engine set up for gasoline.

> Will the E85 engine consume a greater volume of fuel? Sure. Just like
the
> engine designed for 92 octane gasoline will consume more than the one

> designed for 87 octane gasoline. But there is no reason the engine
> running on 92 octane can't produce equal or greater power because the

> fuel has less energy per unit volume.

I agree with most of your points, but how do you figure that an engine
optimized for 92 would consume more fuel than one designed to allow use
of 87? AFAIK there's not a significant difference in the energy
densities of gasolines with different octane ratings as there is
between gasoline and E85.

If anything, I would suspect that the engine optimized for 92 would get
the *best* economy of the three, all other factors remaining equal, on
a MPG basis.

nate

No, it does not work that way. Ask any physicist and he/she will tell
you.

wrote:

> No, it does not work that way. Ask any physicist and he/she will tell
> you.
>

A little context would help, if you expect anyone to understand your
post. However, since you're replying to my post, I'm just going to have
to assume that you're disagreeing with something I said...?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>
>
>>if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is realized
>
>
> ...which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when driven on
> M85 than on gasoline.

They really shouldn't be, ASSuming they have big enough injectors. MPG
would be in the toilet of course.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> >>if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is realized

> > ...which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when driven on
> > M85 than on gasoline.

> They really shouldn't be

And yet...!