Use of ethanol in Chrysler products

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:

> > Any company that loses sight of its customers' best interests soon
> > goes out of business. Witness GM.

> GM's going out of business? Don't think so stern.

You, uh, don't get out much, there, do ya?

> > So you dispute the existence of heavy Federal subsidies for fuel
> > ethanol in the US?

> Don't know. Don't care.

....says the man who claims to have an overspanning knowledge of the
subject, and a deep interest in it.

G'night, Gracie.

Rick Blaine wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> .umich.edu...
>
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>You've put your finger right on the shell game being played here. The
>>
>>discussion about ethanol restarts whenever gasoline prices increase; it is
>>a discussion rooted in fuel economics. Blinkered ethanol proponents would
>>like very much for us not to realise that the "extra power potential" they
>>crow about (or, since it's the same thing, the ability to "make up for the
>>lost power") comes at a very steep penalty in real terms of miles per
>>gallon.
>>
>>DS
>
>
> It'd sure be refreshing if you posted something you actually had a clue
> about, stern. I know you know next to nothing on the subject or you would
> bring up the very real drawbacks of using ethanol. None of the detractors
> so far has mentioned any of the real problems with ethanol other than the
> corrosiveness of the fuel. I'm done here, none of you here has any real
> interest in the subject all you're concerned with is spewing forth your
> uniformed bull**** opinions.

My opinions wear no clothes. 8^)

We were just discussing the inferior energy content (to get the same
power, the mpg and any chance of economy has to go down, so I don't
think we only brought up one thing.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Do we have to quote every post before making a response? Seems like all I
am doing is scrolling to the bottom of massive threads for a two sentence
comment.

Mgrant wrote:

Anyone who disagrees is either close minded and
> uneducated or is gullable to the words spoken by those who have the
> most to loose from the advancement in the bio-fuels industry.


Or simply understands that a fuel that takes almost as much energy to
produce as it releases when burned can never be a viable primary fuel
source...

Rick Blaine wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> .umich.edu...

>>discussion about ethanol restarts whenever gasoline prices increase; it is
>>a discussion rooted in fuel economics. Blinkered ethanol proponents would
>>like very much for us not to realise that the "extra power potential" they
>>crow about (or, since it's the same thing, the ability to "make up for the
>>lost power") comes at a very steep penalty in real terms of miles per
>>gallon.
>>
>>DS
>
>
> It'd sure be refreshing if you posted something you actually had a clue
> about, stern. I know you know next to nothing on the subject or you would
> bring up the very real drawbacks of using ethanol. None of the detractors
> so far has mentioned any of the real problems with ethanol other than the
> corrosiveness of the fuel. I'm done here, none of you here has any real
> interest in the subject all you're concerned with is spewing forth your
> uniformed bull**** opinions.
>
>

What crawled up your backside and rotted your brain? Its not a "bull****
opinion" that *thanol contains about 60% as much energy per unit volume
as gasoline, which itself contains significantly less per unit volume
than diesel fuel. Any nitwit can look those numbers up in a CRC Handbook
of Chemistry and Physics, and it follows DIRECTLY from those numbers
that in order to produce the same amount of power, you have to burn more
gasoline than you do diesel, and more *thanol than you do gasoline.

It has nothing to do with the "power potential" of the fuel at all.
Hell, nitromethane (the fuel used by Top Fuel dragsters) contains less
energy per unit volume than *ANY* of the fuels we've been discussing by
a huge factor, but that doesn't prevent dragsters from producing
thousands of horsepower from 500 cubic inch engines! They just have to
burn a LOT of liquid fuel- in fact the air/fuel ratio is so low that
they run right on the edge of hydraulically locking the cylinders all
the time.

So sure, you can get the exact same horsepower out of an engine
optimized for *thanol as you can out of a similar engine optimized for
gasoline, but a) the *thanol engine will burn nearly twice as many
gallons per unit time at the same power level, and b) some of the
changes needed to fully optimize the engine can't be realized if the
engine management system must be able to operate on either gasoline or
*thanol.

Electronic engine management systems are able to sense percentages of
gasoline and either methanol or ethanol, I don't know if they can
differentially discern ethanol from methanol and either from gas
accurately. Certainly spark and fuel can be varied accordingly, but
compression ratio cannot. Optimizing an engine for high alcohol fuels
means running a higher compression ratio, which can slightly compensate
for the lower heat energy of alcohols, but not enough to make a
colossal difference.

Methanol is quite corrosive unless fuel systems entirely fabricated
from certain plastics, stainless steel, or certain high energy metals
are used. Race cars using methanol usually are purged of fuel in
storage.

It's not a huge challenge to build a hobby vehicle running on ethanol
or methanol if you want to tinker, IF you don't need to meet emissions
regs. There is a E85 vendor in my area and he has several street rod,
drag racer, etc customers, and a guy with a Alfa Romeo powered vintage
road racer with Webers that buy it all the time.

If I were rebuilding an old car I would make it a 100% alcohols-proof
fuel system. The old tanks can be sloshed with a compound that is
alcohol-proof, you run stainless or Monel fuel lines, and use an
alcoholproof electric fuel pump and carb or aftermarket EFI. Eventually
we will have alcohol blends, like it or not.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:20:40 -0500, Steve > wrote:

>Rick Blaine wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> .umich.edu...
>
>>>discussion about ethanol restarts whenever gasoline prices increase; it is
>>>a discussion rooted in fuel economics. Blinkered ethanol proponents would
>>>like very much for us not to realise that the "extra power potential" they
>>>crow about (or, since it's the same thing, the ability to "make up for the
>>>lost power") comes at a very steep penalty in real terms of miles per
>>>gallon.
>>>
>>>DS
>>
>>
>> It'd sure be refreshing if you posted something you actually had a clue
>> about, stern. I know you know next to nothing on the subject or you would
>> bring up the very real drawbacks of using ethanol. None of the detractors
>> so far has mentioned any of the real problems with ethanol other than the
>> corrosiveness of the fuel. I'm done here, none of you here has any real
>> interest in the subject all you're concerned with is spewing forth your
>> uniformed bull**** opinions.
>>
>>
>
>What crawled up your backside and rotted your brain? Its not a "bull****
>opinion" that *thanol contains about 60% as much energy per unit volume
>as gasoline, which itself contains significantly less per unit volume
>than diesel fuel. Any nitwit can look those numbers up in a CRC Handbook
>of Chemistry and Physics, and it follows DIRECTLY from those numbers
>that in order to produce the same amount of power, you have to burn more
>gasoline than you do diesel, and more *thanol than you do gasoline.
>
>It has nothing to do with the "power potential" of the fuel at all.
>Hell, nitromethane (the fuel used by Top Fuel dragsters) contains less
>energy per unit volume than *ANY* of the fuels we've been discussing by
>a huge factor, but that doesn't prevent dragsters from producing
>thousands of horsepower from 500 cubic inch engines! They just have to
>burn a LOT of liquid fuel- in fact the air/fuel ratio is so low that
>they run right on the edge of hydraulically locking the cylinders all
>the time.
>
>So sure, you can get the exact same horsepower out of an engine
>optimized for *thanol as you can out of a similar engine optimized for
>gasoline, but a) the *thanol engine will burn nearly twice as many
>gallons per unit time at the same power level, and b) some of the
>changes needed to fully optimize the engine can't be realized if the
>engine management system must be able to operate on either gasoline or
>*thanol.
>
Steve - there IS one thing you are not taking into account. The
thermal efficiency of a gasoline engine is abyssimal. A lot of "power"
goes out the exhaust pipe, and a lot more out of the radiator. If more
heat could be kept in the engine and converted to actual useable
mechanical power,a lot more horsepower hours could be produced by a
gallon of any fuel.

Gasoline has several limitations - the largest being it's octane
rating. Run a gasoline engine too hot and the fuel detonates - and
kills the engine in short order. Keep the expanding gasses in the cyl
long enough to convert more heat to power, and the engine gets too
hot. Force feed the air into the engine, or run higher compression
ratios (which also get more power out of each unit of fuel burned) and
you are back into detonation again.

An Ethanol powered engine - like a propane powered engine, has the
advantage of a motor octane rating in the 130 range - allowing
enhanced valve timing, higher compression ratios, advanced ignition
timing, and a hotter running engine - all of which increase the
specific power output of the engine for the same amount of fuel
burned.

If a gasoline engine is 33% thermally efficient and gets X number of
HP hours per gallon of gasoline burned, and an ethanol engine can run
at 66% efficiency, even with only 60% as much energy per gallon, the
ethanol engine will produce (2X)x.6, 0r 1.2X HP hours per gallon of
ethanol.
Granted, you might not get 66% efficiency, but even at 50% you get
(1.5X)x.6, or 90% of the power you would get from the gas engine.

And IIRC, Ethanol is better than 60% as "powereful" as gasoline.

> wrote
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:20:40 -0500, Steve > wrote:
> > ...
> Steve - there IS one thing you are not taking into account. The
> thermal efficiency of a gasoline engine is abyssimal. A lot of "power"
> goes out the exhaust pipe, and a lot more out of the radiator. If more
> heat could be kept in the engine and converted to actual useable
> mechanical power,a lot more horsepower hours could be produced by a
> gallon of any fuel.

You are sort of right. But you haven't looked at the numbers.

> Gasoline has several limitations - the largest being it's octane
> rating. Run a gasoline engine too hot and the fuel detonates - and
> kills the engine in short order. Keep the expanding gasses in the cyl
> long enough to convert more heat to power, and the engine gets too
> hot. Force feed the air into the engine, or run higher compression
> ratios (which also get more power out of each unit of fuel burned) and
> you are back into detonation again.
>
> An Ethanol powered engine - like a propane powered engine, has the
> advantage of a motor octane rating in the 130 range - allowing
> enhanced valve timing, higher compression ratios, advanced ignition
> timing, and a hotter running engine - all of which increase the
> specific power output of the engine for the same amount of fuel
> burned.


Direct injections now coming into existence solve this problem
for gasoline engines; allowing high compression.

> If a gasoline engine is 33% thermally efficient and gets X number of
> HP hours per gallon of gasoline burned, and an ethanol engine can run
> at 66% efficiency, even with only 60% as much energy per gallon, the
> ethanol engine will produce (2X)x.6, 0r 1.2X HP hours per gallon of
> ethanol.
> Granted, you might not get 66% efficiency, but even at 50% you get
> (1.5X)x.6, or 90% of the power you would get from the gas engine.

You don't know how to calculate thermal efficiency. The difference
is much smaller than you imagine and wrote above. I doubt that
it even approaches 5%. Thermal efficiency is defined as the
difference between initial and final temperature.
In both cases above, the final temp Tf (outside temp) is the same.
Combustion (initial) temp Ti is directly related to compression ratio
(we're measuring the amount of work extracted by the gas expansion).

Unfortunately, the temperatures are measured in degrees absolute
(Kelvins) so the combustion temp difference between the two is quite
small - 50K or so - so the difference in efficiency is small: Ti/(Ti-Tf).

Most thermal power are no better than about 40% efficient;
internal combustion engines (gas, diesel, whatever) are less.

Floyd

On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:20:40 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

> wrote
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:20:40 -0500, Steve > wrote:
>> > ...
>> Steve - there IS one thing you are not taking into account. The
>> thermal efficiency of a gasoline engine is abyssimal. A lot of "power"
>> goes out the exhaust pipe, and a lot more out of the radiator. If more
>> heat could be kept in the engine and converted to actual useable
>> mechanical power,a lot more horsepower hours could be produced by a
>> gallon of any fuel.
>
>You are sort of right. But you haven't looked at the numbers.
>
>> Gasoline has several limitations - the largest being it's octane
>> rating. Run a gasoline engine too hot and the fuel detonates - and
>> kills the engine in short order. Keep the expanding gasses in the cyl
>> long enough to convert more heat to power, and the engine gets too
>> hot. Force feed the air into the engine, or run higher compression
>> ratios (which also get more power out of each unit of fuel burned) and
>> you are back into detonation again.
>>
>> An Ethanol powered engine - like a propane powered engine, has the
>> advantage of a motor octane rating in the 130 range - allowing
>> enhanced valve timing, higher compression ratios, advanced ignition
>> timing, and a hotter running engine - all of which increase the
>> specific power output of the engine for the same amount of fuel
>> burned.
>
>
>Direct injections now coming into existence solve this problem
>for gasoline engines; allowing high compression.
>
>> If a gasoline engine is 33% thermally efficient and gets X number of
>> HP hours per gallon of gasoline burned, and an ethanol engine can run
>> at 66% efficiency, even with only 60% as much energy per gallon, the
>> ethanol engine will produce (2X)x.6, 0r 1.2X HP hours per gallon of
>> ethanol.
>> Granted, you might not get 66% efficiency, but even at 50% you get
>> (1.5X)x.6, or 90% of the power you would get from the gas engine.
>
>You don't know how to calculate thermal efficiency. The difference
>is much smaller than you imagine and wrote above. I doubt that
>it even approaches 5%. Thermal efficiency is defined as the
>difference between initial and final temperature.
>In both cases above, the final temp Tf (outside temp) is the same.
>Combustion (initial) temp Ti is directly related to compression ratio
>(we're measuring the amount of work extracted by the gas expansion).
>
>Unfortunately, the temperatures are measured in degrees absolute
>(Kelvins) so the combustion temp difference between the two is quite
>small - 50K or so - so the difference in efficiency is small: Ti/(Ti-Tf).
>
>Most thermal power are no better than about 40% efficient;
>internal combustion engines (gas, diesel, whatever) are less.
>
>Floyd


Mabee Inused the wrong term.
My definition of thermal efficiency is the number of BTUs of heat
turned into useable HP as a ratio to the amount of BTUs in a pound, or
gallon, of fuel.

One hp is 42.375 btu/minute, or 2542.47 btu/hour.
Diesel fuel has something like .13 or .14 million BTU per US gallon.
That is 130000-140000 PTU per US Gallon. At 100% efficiency, an engine
running on this fuel would produce (140,000/2542.5)= roughly 55 HP for
one hour on one american gallon.

If the engine only produces 27.5 HP for an hour, or 55 hp for 30
minutes on a gallon, it is 50% efficient - and since the only place
the rest of the BTUs go is producing heat and noise, the thermal
efficiency is just SLIGHTLY under 50%

I do not have the BTU content of gasoline right at my fingertips - but
it is lower per gallon - closer on a per lb basis - Gasoline has an SG
of roughly .74, and Diesel about .84, so gasoline is LIKELY about
123,000 BTU per gallon

A gasoline engine converts about 15% of the fuel it burns into power
to move the car, and another small percentage to run power steering,
friction losses in the drivetrain, running AC and charging system,
etc. Overall - something around 23-25% "efficiency"
The base 15% is closer to 24% in a diesel, with the actual "efficiency
pushing 30%

You are talking more of cooling efficiency, I think - and cooling
efficiency increases when operating temperatures increase, because the
"Delta T" between the coolant and the outside air is higher. This is
NOT what I was talking about.