Alcohol as a fuel

"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