E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

* wrote:

> Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch >
> wrote in article 02>...
> > > wrote in
> > . com:
>
> > California now has 24 operational H2 fueling stations and a governator
> > who
> > is pushing it. There's one bus line driving H2 buses, and numerous
> > government cars and light trucks are running H2.
>
> And, people wonder why California is going broke... Amazing!

It's quite crazy.

California is actually *increasing* pollution and energy inefficiency by running
hydrogen fuelled buses.

Graham

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>>On Fri, 08 Sep 06 08:30:04 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>>>>On Fri, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>>>>>........
>>>>>The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here
>>>>>was never heard from again.
>>>>
>>>> A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need
>>>>a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon.
>>>
>>>Totally false. The chemical rxn is a combustion which has an activation
>>>energy. Mix a hydrocarbon with oxygen and it will sit there doing
>>>nothing.
>>
>> Please don't make statements that could cause an
>>accident, any welder is aware that oil in oxygen gauges
>>and hose fittings can start a fire or explode.
>>
>
> Only if the oxygen is at a high pressure. The rxn proceeds much more
> rapidly
> then.
>
>> Perhaps it takes static electricity or friction, but
>>many of use remember the Apollo accident using
>>pure oxygen, and I think subsequent tests and missions
>>use a mixture.
>>
>>Joe Fischer
>>
>
> Yes, but something set off the Apollo fire.

Another tragic part of the Apollo fire is that it was designed for pure O2
while in orbit, but at much lower pressure (only about 4 psia IIRC). With a
partial pressure that low, reaction rates aren't too bad. But for the test
that resulted in the tragedy, it was pressurized to 4 psi above the
surrounding atmosphere. That resulted in a partial pressure of ~19 psia and
reaction rates are much faster.

daestrom

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe Fischer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 07 Sep "*" > wrote:
>>
>>>I also taught Vocational Automotive Technology for 10 years - mid-'70s to
>>>mid-'80s.
>>>
>>>In that time period, a lot of automotive electronics were introduced.
>>
>> Electronic ignition works great, when it works.
>>
>> If the points got pitted or the condensor shorted,
>> I could still get home, but if a sensor coil goes bad,
>> it means a tow truck.
>
> Electonic ignition is probably at least 100 times as reliable as points
> were. And a failed sensor rarely means you need a tow truck.
>

As with so many things in life, 'it depends'.

Yes, some sensors such as a faulty O2 sensor in the exhaust or coolant
temperature sensor will not shut down the engine, just light the 'check
engine' light. Likewise, atmospheric pressure sensor will just default the
mixture to a 'default' setting and you can still limp home. But there are a
few sensors that are critical to operation and the engine will just not run
without them. One is the crank position sensor for the ignition. In many
cars, the oil-pressure sensor is used to enable the electric fuel pump, if
it fails you get nowhere.

daestrom

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> >The whole point of which is that it is orders of magnitude more
> >reliable than breaker point ignition.
>
> I would say so, at least until I would get stuck
> 100 miles from the nearest place to buy one if it fails.

There is no law that says you can't carry a spare.

> >> If the points got pitted or the condensor shorted,
> >> I could still get home, but if a sensor coil goes bad,
> >> it means a tow truck.
> >
> >The first scenario allows for you to continue driving the car,
> >sputtering and misfiring, fouling the atmosphere.
>
> With over one million acres burning out west,
> I should worry about my car smoking?

Yes. It is smoking cars that wrought that which you object to.

> >The second
> >scenario pretty much demands that the condition be corrected 100%
> >and the vehicle brought back into compliance.
>
> With a possible $200 towing charge and maybe
> a full day or more wait.

Funny, in an hour and a half, there is a car being towed to my
shop for a jammed ignition switch (key no longer turns), so I
guess there are a number of things that can fail that cause ones
car to be towed.

> >It has a well earned reputation, unless of course you're
> >referring to how many children you put thru college by repairing
> >them. (suspect not)
>
> Not really, the only rumored problem is the
> aluminum block, and I did not have a problem with that.

Chuckle...

> >> And as soon as E85 is available here, I want to
> >> convert at least one of the cars to use nothing else but.
> >
> >Why wait? You could simply flush $100 bills down the toilet.
>
> It seems I do that too often, I need to stop.

Indeed.

> While others blow money on 64 bit computers
> and software for them, I prefer to run a car on E85,
> or pure ethanol.

You are a man of contradictions, you bemoan the reliability of
electronic ignition yet you desire a fuel that is fraught with
problems relating to reliability.

In article >,
"daestrom" > wrote:

> In many cars, the oil-pressure sensor is used to enable the electric fuel pump, if
> it fails you get nowhere.
>
> daestrom

Which?
Not GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:00:47 -0500, "*" > wrote:

>Joe Fischer > wrote in article
>...
>> On Thu, "*" > wrote:
>> >"Adjusting the timing....." is a Model A Ford approach to space age
>> >technology.
>>
>> Modern cars have always had centrifugal advance and
>> vacuum retardation at higher manifold pressure.
>>
>> The proper way to time the ignition is to advance it,
>> drive the car, and advance some more until it pings (a little)
>> on the most aggressive throttle setting.
>
>Again.....Model "A" Ford technology.
>
>I'd LOVE to see you out there adjusting the timing in a car equipped with a
>knock detector........

Will ethanol knock?

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:59:36 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>Discussion of the applicability of ethanol fuel to 'classic cars' is so far away
>from this group's purpose as to be wholly daft it has to be said !

There are about 10 million classic cars in the US,
and they are owned by people are more likely than average
to convert to renewable fuel.
About 25,000 were in town for a street rod show
last month, and they have to be pre-1950 to be eligible.

>The whole idea of setting timing via a disrtibutor is quite retarded.
>Graham

If it is retarded too much, it won't have any pep.

Joe Fischer

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>Just the heat
>>generated by turning the knob can set it off and cause a fire/explosion.
>>
>
>
> But not O2 at 1 atm. Otherwise nobody could breathe it without combustion.
>

Nobody DOES breathe PURE 02 at 1 atmosphere. Even wearing an O2 mask,
there is dilution with nitrogen (primarily) and all the other gasses
that make up the soup we call "air."

I agree that technically you are correct- there is an activation energy
required to start combustion when pure o2 and a fuel are mixed, but the
PRACTICAL result is that its much easier to light a mixture of 02 and
fuel than air and fuel. Whoever said that you don't need ANY activator
was certainly wrong, but the activator can be much more trivial.

Joe Fischer wrote:

> The low cost of oil may have caused chemists
> to ignore study of all possible chemicals that could
> be used as fuels, especially the renewable ones.

Its not just the low cost, and I don't think anyone has "ignored study."
The key feature that makes petrochemicals so useful is not that they're
common, its that they are a) incredibly dense in energy, and b) very
stable despite the high energy density. There is FAR more energy in a
poound of gasoline (even more in kerosene and more than that in diesel)
than there is in a pound of TNT, a pound of alcohol, or a pound of
modern high explosive (for example, RDX). The alcohol is just about as
stable, but has half the energy density- and its darn near as close as
you can come to petrochemicals. There just aren't that many choices when
it comes to high energy-density, safely portable, liquid, stable,
relatively harmless fuel chemicals.

>
> A chemist might be able to say the reason
> for ethanol being a more powerful ICE fuel, he
> might say the reason is that less air is needed to
> burn ethanol, and that may mean that there is
> more heat for the amount of gas to be expanded
> to create the pressure to push the cylinder.

You do know that Parker is a chemist, right? I've certainly had my
disagreements with him, but he IS a chemist.


And alcohol is most certainly NOT a "more powerful ICE fuel," as has
been proven already. You can build an engine to burn alcohol, and make
it about AS powerful as a given gasoline engine, but if you go to
absolute extremes- the utter limit of power that you can get out of a
given engine displacement, then there really is little difference or
gasoline actually wins.
>
> This may be the type of discussion useful
> to examine all aspects of ethanol as a motor fuel,
> and I feel the switch for the Indy 500 will bring
> out the facts.

No, it won't. It will determine that IRL engine builders can get
acceptable power from their engines under the displacement and induction
rules set by the IRL using ethanol, nothing more or less and not at all
applicable to real-world problems. F1 will still be getting more
absolute power out of gasoline, and NASCAR will still be racing 4 times
as many car-miles per year as IRL while producing about the same power
per engine (about 800 horsepower) and with much simpler technology using
gasoline.

Bob wrote:

> "Joe Fischer" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>
>> But my favorite engine is the 4100 fuel injected,
>>even though it has a bad reputation.
>
>
> Are you referring to the Caddilac 4100? Good god, I hope not.
>

Given everything else he's said, why would you be surprised? :-p

Ah, the old HT4100. Wrecking-yard owner's dream, because if you get one
in a wrecked car you can sell it at an exhorbitant price sight-unseen.
For every running HT4100-equipped car that got wrecked there were 5 in
need of engine replacement because they just blew apart for no good
reason. Its amazed me for 25 years that the engineers that built superb
engines like the Cadillac 472 (before the HT4100) and the Northstar
(after the 4100) could produce something as horrid as the 4100.