A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Alcohol as a fuel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 10th 05, 04:05 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Alcohol as a fuel

On Tue, 10 May 2005, C. E. White wrote:

> Chevron was saying that must cars will run fine on oxygenated fuel. I am
> not sure what you mean when you say you get less power. If you mean you
> lose engine power, I don't agree. I believe the fuel injection systems
> of most modern vehicles have enough fuel delivery capacity to increase
> fuel delivery to make up for the reduced energy content of the
> oxygenated fuel.


Doesn't work that way unless you have forced induction (supercharger or
turbocharger). Yours is a common error, though, thinking that a correction
in air/fuel ratio will make up for the reduced energy content of the fuel.
Air is the working fluid -- fuel's just used to heat up the air so it
expands and does work. Less energy in the fuel = less heat = less bang =
less power. One does not trump this physical law by monkeying with the
air/fuel ratio.

DS
Ads
  #2  
Old May 10th 05, 04:16 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 10 May 2005, dyno wrote:

> Since both ethanol and methanol have less energy per volume of fuel, one
> just adds more fuel until all of the oxygen is consumed.


<snip a bunch of inapplicable handwaving and ooh-ha-ha>

....and we still wind up with less work done by a given volume of fuel.
Call it lower MPGs or lower power, whichever you like, it doesn't really
matter. For any set of conditions, one gallon of gasoline does more work
than one gallon of ethanol or methanol, straight or blended with gasoline,
simply because the alcohols contain less energy. And that's just always
the case. Ethanol and methanol both contain less energy than gasoline, per
volume unit, period, no matter what magic modifications you do to an
engine.

To the degree the effective air-fuel ratio is leaned by the use of alcohol
relative to gasoline, the mixture can be corrected by dumping in more
fuel, but this doesn't mean you get the lost power back. Putting the
effect into real-world terms, as long as you have travel left in the
accelerator, you can simply push it down further with alcohol-blended fuel
than with gasoline to compensate for the loss, though MPGs will continue
to suffer. However, this is just *compensation*, not deletion of the loss.
The extreme case illustrates this: In the extreme case (Underpowered,
fully-loaded vehicle climbing a mountain highway, let's say) when the
accelerator is already on the floorboard and you're climbing the hill at
35 mph in the right lane with your blinkers going -- running on gasoline
-- changing to a lower-energy-content fuel means your foot will still be
on the floor but you'll be doing, say, 25 or 30 mph instead of 35. (I
didn't run the calculations to come up with an exact mph difference; the
point is illustrative without it.)

DS


  #3  
Old May 11th 05, 05:54 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:

> Since alcohols have less energy per volume and must run much richer to
> maintain the same relative A/F, one increases the delivered fuel volume.


Thereby getting less work (or "power", if you must) out of any given
volume of fuel. Exactly.
  #4  
Old May 11th 05, 05:59 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:

> > To the degree the effective air-fuel ratio is leaned by the use of alcohol
> > relative to gasoline, the mixture can be corrected by dumping in more
> > fuel, but this doesn't mean you get the lost power back.


> Oh really. Why not?


Because there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol
contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more
alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work.

> > The extreme case illustrates this: In the extreme case (Underpowered,
> > fully-loaded vehicle climbing a mountain highway, let's say) when the
> > accelerator is already on the floorboard and you're climbing the hill
> > at 35 mph in the right lane with your blinkers going -- running on
> > gasoline -- changing to a lower-energy-content fuel means your foot
> > will still be on the floor but you'll be doing, say, 25 or 30 mph
> > instead of 35. (I didn't run the calculations to come up with an exact
> > mph difference; the point is illustrative without it.)


> No it isn't.


Well, ol' bean, I'm afraid I'm disinclined to put together a PowerPoint
presentation for you. Perhaps if you think about it a little harder you'll
catch on.

> You seem to confuse power with fuel economy.


For all practical purposes in street-driven cars, they are merely two
means of expressing the same thing: Work done per unit of fuel consumed.
It's just that talking in terms of "power" puts the emphasis on work done,
while talking in terms of "fuel economy" puts the emphasis on fuel
consumed.

Fulminating about race cars, dyno engines and suchlike is fun and nifty,
but not particularly applicable to the hordes of Chevies and Toyotas on
US roads today.
  #5  
Old May 11th 05, 05:00 PM
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>>Chevron was saying that must cars will run fine on oxygenated fuel. I am
>>not sure what you mean when you say you get less power. If you mean you
>>lose engine power, I don't agree. I believe the fuel injection systems
>>of most modern vehicles have enough fuel delivery capacity to increase
>>fuel delivery to make up for the reduced energy content of the
>>oxygenated fuel.

>
>
> Doesn't work that way unless you have forced induction (supercharger or
> turbocharger). Yours is a common error, though, thinking that a correction
> in air/fuel ratio will make up for the reduced energy content of the fuel.
> Air is the working fluid -- fuel's just used to heat up the air so it
> expands and does work. Less energy in the fuel = less heat = less bang =
> less power. One does not trump this physical law by monkeying with the
> air/fuel ratio.
>
> DS



The PROPER fuel air mixture will return the power, as the proper mixture
for alcohol is twice the fuel per unit of air than gasoline. IF the
engine is made to sense alcohol, as in an E85 vehicle, it will restore
the power, though not the milage. I doubt if non-E85 setups will
recalibrate, however.

My vintage racing car is set up to run alky. The main jets are bored
out to approx twice the area of the stock jets. Car runs great- lots of
power. I am running the stock CR, and whenever I have to rebuild
engine, I will raise CR so that I will get even more power than
currently. Alky powered cars are not wimpy. They sure guzzle fuel,
however. Even though alky is cheaper here than gasoline, it still costs
me more than if I were using gasoline.
  #6  
Old May 11th 05, 05:17 PM
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>
> Because there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol
> contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more
> alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work.
>


The exception would be if the octane rating of the low energy fuel were
high enough to greatly increase the CR. However, I don't think the
octane of ethanol (I believe it is about 125) is high enough to allow
that increase in CR. Yeah, fuel economy is a strong function of CR, but
you'd have to increase it a LOT to get a 50% increase in efficiency. I
tend to agree with Daniel that alcohol will never deliver the mpg that
gasoline does, though it can deliver the same HP/CI.
  #7  
Old May 11th 05, 05:23 PM
Kevin Bottorff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
n.umich.edu:

> On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:
>
>> > To the degree the effective air-fuel ratio is leaned by the use of
>> > alcohol relative to gasoline, the mixture can be corrected by
>> > dumping in more fuel, but this doesn't mean you get the lost power
>> > back.

>
>> Oh really. Why not?

>
> Because there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol
> contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more
> alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work.


your still not getting it!!! only less per "volume" add the proper
volume of alcohol back (as in richer mix) you add the total power, btu,
any measure you want to use, and your power is returned to the same
level. the only thing changed is the vol efficiency of the fuel.
>
>> > The extreme case illustrates this: In the extreme case
>> > (Underpowered, fully-loaded vehicle climbing a mountain highway,
>> > let's say) when the accelerator is already on the floorboard and
>> > you're climbing the hill at 35 mph in the right lane with your
>> > blinkers going -- running on gasoline -- changing to a
>> > lower-energy-content fuel means your foot will still be on the
>> > floor but you'll be doing, say, 25 or 30 mph instead of 35. (I
>> > didn't run the calculations to come up with an exact mph
>> > difference; the point is illustrative without it.)



this will not happen unless you do not have the correct a/f ratio. If the
ratio is changed to accout for the alcohol the power at WOT will not
change. no speed reduction, only lower MPG. KB

>
>> No it isn't.

>
> Well, ol' bean, I'm afraid I'm disinclined to put together a
> PowerPoint presentation for you. Perhaps if you think about it a
> little harder you'll catch on.
>
>> You seem to confuse power with fuel economy.

>
> For all practical purposes in street-driven cars, they are merely two
> means of expressing the same thing: Work done per unit of fuel
> consumed. It's just that talking in terms of "power" puts the emphasis
> on work done, while talking in terms of "fuel economy" puts the
> emphasis on fuel consumed.
>
> Fulminating about race cars, dyno engines and suchlike is fun and
> nifty, but not particularly applicable to the hordes of Chevies and
> Toyotas on US roads today.
>




--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on
  #8  
Old May 11th 05, 06:09 PM
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> My vintage racing car is set up to run alky. The main jets are bored
> out to approx twice the area of the stock jets. Car runs great- lots of
> power. I am running the stock CR, and whenever I have to rebuild
> engine, I will raise CR so that I will get even more power than
> currently. Alky powered cars are not wimpy. They sure guzzle fuel,
> however. Even though alky is cheaper here than gasoline, it still costs
> me more than if I were using gasoline.


Was talking to a local sprint car guy that runs alky...
in a 25 lap race on a 4/10 mile track, they'll use almost 30 gallons.
Yikes.
  #9  
Old May 11th 05, 06:44 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote:

> > there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol
> > contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more
> > alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work.

>
> your still not getting it!!! only less per "volume"


Yes. Less work per volume unit of fuel burned. I'm not sure what you
imagine I'm "not getting".

  #10  
Old May 11th 05, 11:17 PM
dyno
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:
>
>
>>Since alcohols have less energy per volume and must run much richer to
>>maintain the same relative A/F, one increases the delivered fuel volume.

>
>
> Thereby getting less work (or "power", if you must) out of any given
> volume of fuel. Exactly.

Your point was that one could NOT get the power back. And all I have
stated (as have others) is that by adjusting the fuel quantity back to
the same equivalence ratio the total energy in the cylinder will be the
same (or slightly better) and therefore the power will be at least as
good as it was on pure gasoline. This is really pretty basic chemistry
and thermo. If you don't want to believe me, look in Heywood's, Obert's
or the Taylor and Tayor IC engine text books.

No disagrees that more fuel mass is needed.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alcohol as a fuel JP White Technology 118 May 17th 05 09:50 PM
warman i am surprised you mix oil [email protected] Ford Mustang 5 May 8th 05 04:04 AM
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell Shrike Dodge 0 March 30th 05 09:03 PM
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM TheSmogTech Technology 0 January 30th 05 05:16 PM
Infiniti Q45 oil pan removal procedure Miki Technology 25 December 30th 04 01:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.