Diesel vs. Gasoline - why one preferred over another??

"TCS" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:39:15 -0500, Don Stauffer
> wrote:
>
> >The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial
need,
> >where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If
gasoline
> >were cheap enough compared to diesel fuel, it is certainly possible
to
> >build large gasoline diesels. Aircraft engines were built with
over
> >4000 horsepower.
>
> People flying aircraft don't mind having to wait for warmup. Most
of the
> time is spent operating at a constant load where diesels excel.
>
> Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear
about that.

Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy.

http://beta.motorsportsforum.com/ris01/legends.htm
FRED AGABASHIAN

Enshrined 1992

Agabashian was one of the winningest drivers during the postwar boom
years of West Coast Midget racing. He began racing in 1936, winning an
AAA Midget championship, was the Bay Cities Racing Association
champion in 1947, ’48 and ’49, and also won the 1948 Aztec
Championship, a special 15-race series between BCRA and Mexican
drivers. During his run of championships he won between 27 and 56
races a year in seasons that often stretched to 150 nights against
contemporaries that included Bill Vukovich, Johnnie Parsons and Bob
Sweikert. He made 11 Indy appearances, and in 1952 became the only
driver to qualify a diesel-powered machine on the pole (at 138.010
mph). After retiring as a driver, he became a spokesman for Champion
Spark Plugs and was on the radio broadcast crew for the Indy 500 for
many years.

And a link about performance diesels in general.

http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_dieselperf.cfm

The Banks Sidewinder is the world's fastest pickup.
http://www.bankspower.com/sidewinder.cfm

Ken

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:50:21 -0400, Napalm Heart > wrote:

>Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy.

Got anything newer than 1952?

"TCS" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:50:21 -0400, Napalm Heart
> wrote:
>
> >Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy.
>
> Got anything newer than 1952?
>

Google it.

TCS wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:39:15 -0500, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>
>
>>The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need,
>>where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline
>>were cheap enough compared to diesel fuel, it is certainly possible to
>>build large gasoline diesels. Aircraft engines were built with over
>>4000 horsepower.
>
>
> People flying aircraft don't mind having to wait for warmup. Most of the
> time is spent operating at a constant load where diesels excel.
>
> Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear about that.


There HAVE been aircraft powered by Diesel engines. I think it was Jumo
that did the German ones that powered Dornier flying boats. In the US
Packard built them. But the sparkplug of the operation was killed in a
crash and the rest of Packard management didn't continue development.
One major problem- the Diesel fumes made pilots ill. These were the
fumes from the fuel itself, not the exhaust.

The Indy cars were sponsored by Cummins. They ran twice- once pre-war
and once postwar. The post-war car, driven by Freddie Agabashian, was a
highlight! It captured the pole. However, while fast it was heavy, and
ended up going through tires way to fast, and didn't place well because
of number of pit stops. While Cummins continued to enter cars,
subsequent ones were conventional si engines.

Mark Levitski wrote:
> Thanks, except one thing: methanol is NOT acceptable. I am not in a
> business of racing to hell, methanol destroys regular/consumer engines, my
> onwership style is a direct opposite - dont have spare cash to abuse my car
> so methanol is out and ruled out in Nissan Sentra manual. It's corrosive.
> Pure ethanol i salso not an option but 10-15% additive is defacto standard
> additive at ALL gas stations I ever used here in NewYork/NewJersey, it's a
> given fact. SO thiese both are nopt a solution and dont come to my mind
> when referring to biofuiels. Biofuel is something dirt cheap (e.g. used
> cooking oil), nontoxic and homemade, ethanol is alcohol, if it were so
> simple we'd seen hordes of people drving aroung on alcohol, it's too
> aggressive for fuel lines.
>
>

But it IS possible to make fuel systems that can use methanol.
Thousands of race cars around the country do. Yes, you cannot use it in
existing engines, but you can't use E85 with existing engines either
without some changes. Ditto hydrogen. We should make cars for almost
ANY alternate fuel specific for that fuel.

I am in the fix of a state intending to move to 20% ethanol. Even it it
WILL work in cars, mfgs will void warranty. I can't afford to buy a new
car that does not have a warranty, so I am opposed to this move until
Detroit says it is okay. Yet my one car has almost 90,000, the other
110,000 miles, so I will be needing new cars soon.

Mark Levitski wrote:
> Oh Hydrogen:
> I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED HYDROGEN SUBJECT REPEATEDLY HERE AND ALL OTHER AUTO
> NEWSGROUPS, MANY RIDICULED ME, I FIRED BACK AND WAS RIDICULED EVEN MORE, NOW
> I SEE YOU MENTION IT.
>
> SO I AM NOT ALONE. GM/EXXON WILL BUILD MULTIPLE HYDROGEN REFUELING STTAIONS
> HERE IN NY LATER THIS YEAR, CA, MI, FL HAVE THEM AND GROWING FLEET OF
> FORDS/GM VEHCILES RUN ON THIS MOST ABUNDANT FUEL ON EARTH AND IN UNIVERSE!!!
> Hydriogen is the basic most abandunt element of the universe, i dont want to
> get into physics but take as a fact. The first non-quark partcile since
> creation was probably electron and proton, hydrogen is nothing but that
> (single proton+electron)
>
>
I am also a supporter of hydrogen, but believe the R & D should go into
SOURCES of hydrogen, not in cars using it. The later is an easy
problem. We can do that quickly, IF we have a viable source of hydrogen.

Don Stauffer > wrote in
news:1114435109.ea332441e08ac7a8fce4e2f90b4bde17@t eranews:


> I am also a supporter of hydrogen, but believe the R & D should go
> into SOURCES of hydrogen, not in cars using it. The later is an easy
> problem. We can do that quickly, IF we have a viable source of
> hydrogen.



According to the Cato Institute's Donald Anthrop, it takes 140kW-hours of
energy to get 17.4kW-hours of power from a hydrogen fuel cell.

It's a bit like turning a dollar into a dime and figuring you're getting
richer that way.


And Jon Hykawy, a director of technology research at Fraser Mackenzie Ltd.,
says this:
"Power from internal combustion costs $100 to $200 per kilowatt. Today's
hydrogen fuel cells cost about $2,000 per kilowatt of power produced. If we
need 40kW of power in a small car, $80,000 for the power plant seems
expensive.
"The cost of fuel cells is strongly tied to the platimum catalysts needed
to make the reactions in the cell occur at useful rates. Cutting costs
means significantly reducing the use of platinum, but doing so to the
required level without sacrificing the reaction rate will likely win the
lucky researcher a Nobel Prize."


Hydrogen ain't happening any time soon. But if it's forced into happening,
we'll all be turning our dollars into dimes for the privilege.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:24:45 -0400, Napalm Heart > wrote:

>"TCS" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:50:21 -0400, Napalm Heart
> wrote:
>>
>> >Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy.
>>
>> Got anything newer than 1952?
>>

>Google it.


In other words, no.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:11:21 -0500, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>TCS wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:39:15 -0500, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need,
>>>where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline
>>>were cheap enough compared to diesel fuel, it is certainly possible to
>>>build large gasoline diesels. Aircraft engines were built with over
>>>4000 horsepower.
>>
>>
>> People flying aircraft don't mind having to wait for warmup. Most of the
>> time is spent operating at a constant load where diesels excel.
>>
>> Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear about that.


>There HAVE been aircraft powered by Diesel engines. I think it was Jumo
>that did the German ones that powered Dornier flying boats. In the US
So ****ing what? We also have aircraft carriers using diesels, and semi's.
Neither are even slightly like a passenger car.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:18:23 -0500, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>Mark Levitski wrote:
>> Oh Hydrogen:
>> I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED HYDROGEN SUBJECT REPEATEDLY HERE AND ALL OTHER AUTO
>> NEWSGROUPS, MANY RIDICULED ME, I FIRED BACK AND WAS RIDICULED EVEN MORE, NOW
>> I SEE YOU MENTION IT.
>>
>> SO I AM NOT ALONE. GM/EXXON WILL BUILD MULTIPLE HYDROGEN REFUELING STTAIONS
>> HERE IN NY LATER THIS YEAR, CA, MI, FL HAVE THEM AND GROWING FLEET OF
>> FORDS/GM VEHCILES RUN ON THIS MOST ABUNDANT FUEL ON EARTH AND IN UNIVERSE!!!
>> Hydriogen is the basic most abandunt element of the universe, i dont want to
>> get into physics but take as a fact. The first non-quark partcile since
>> creation was probably electron and proton, hydrogen is nothing but that
>> (single proton+electron)
>>
>>
>I am also a supporter of hydrogen, but believe the R & D should go into
>SOURCES of hydrogen, not in cars using it. The later is an easy
>problem. We can do that quickly, IF we have a viable source of hydrogen.

There are no sources of hydrogen; it isn't something you're going to mine.
It can be made from other petrolium products, but it is much much more efficient
to use those petrolium products directly. Making hydrogen from electricity is
a complete joke. You're lucky to see 10% efficiency by the time you're done.