Use of ethanol in Chrysler products

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> > > NOx emissions increase with ethanol vs. gasoline at any compression
> > > level.
>
> > I tried searching for some information on NOx emissions and came up with
> > conflicting information.
>
> The Denver-Metro area was the first major metropolitan area in the US to
> experiment with oxygenated fuels, starting in the late '80s. I lived
> there, and was very involved with the public hearings and scientific
> debate on the matter. There were plenty of differing opinions, but one
> drawback both sides agreed existed was the increase in NOx -- and
> resultant photochemical smog -- that was observable and measurable (and
> demonstrated and measured) with ethanol-blended gasoline compared to
> straight gasoline. The increase in NOx was larger with ethanol than with
> MTBE, ETBE or TAME, the non-ethanol (ether) oxygenates. For some years,
> the ethers were therefore the preferred oxygenates in that market, for
> Denver-Metro has not only a particulate problem but a photochemical smog
> problem.
>
> Then they found MTBE in the water, realised they hadn't specced good
> enough storage tanks and storage protocols, ADM jumped in and gave their
> customary pu$h for ethanol, which started showing up at the pumps again.
>
> DS

Did they test E85 or straight ethanol?

Brazil has the most experience of operating vehicles on ethanol, and
the determined researcher will look to their experience.

Any engine that has a BSFC as good on E85 as on gasoline is a
seriously misdesigned one. There is, as a point of interest, just such
an engine in existence-the air cooled, horizontally opposed high
compression Lycoming aircraft engine. Because there is a Supplemental
Type Certificate allowing for legal use of ethanol fuel in certain
Lycoming engines in certain airframes, a significant collection of data
points exists.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brazil has the most experience of operating vehicles on ethanol, and
> the determined researcher will look to their experience.
>
> Any engine that has a BSFC as good on E85 as on gasoline is a
> seriously misdesigned one.

How so?

Rick Blaine wrote:
>>Does it address the question that was raised that if the same effort
>>were put into the same vehicle that similar increases in mileage
>>would/could be achieved in gasoline, i.e., for a given effort with E85,
>>if the same effort were put into E0 or E10, would the gasoline always
>>come out ahead (for the same effort/compromises in power and other
>
> factors)?
>
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> If you're really intersested why not read the article Bill?

So the answer is 'no'. See how much time I saved?

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:

> > wrote:

> > Any engine that has a BSFC as good on E85 as on gasoline is a
> > seriously misdesigned one.

> How so?

Gosh, Rick, you're the one with all the answers. What's the matter, there,
ace? Cat got your tongue?

In article <rZUfe.1298301$Xk.267113@pd7tw3no>,
Rick Blaine > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <Rhgfe.1272782$6l.769756@pd7tw2no>,
>> Rick Blaine > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> in.umich.edu...
>> >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
>> >>
>> >> Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume unit.
>> >
>> >True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression) the same
>> >fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.
>>
>> No, it can't.
>
>Proof?

You post outrageous statements without evidence and then demand I
provide proof? I'm not your research assistant.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Rick Blaine wrote:
> "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <Rhgfe.1272782$6l.769756@pd7tw2no>,
> > Rick Blaine > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> > in.umich.edu...
> > >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
> > >>
> > >> Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume
unit.
> > >
> > >True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression)
the same
> > >fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.
> >
> > No, it can't.
>
> Proof?
>
>
> > >And the higher compression will
> > >produce more power and emit only carbon dioxide and water.
> >
> > No, it won't.
>
> Proof?
>
> > >Even if the
> > >economy was worse (which it isn't), it is possible to construct a
still
> and
> > >produce ethanol for next to nothing.
> >
> > No, it isn't.
>
> I erred here. It does not cost next to nothing, but the cost is far
less
> than what we are currently paying at the pump for gas.
>
>
> > --
> > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting
practices
> can
> > result in a fully-depreciated one.
>
> It's easy to type something, how about posting some link or
scientific data
> that prove your point? I'm more than willing to read it, unlike some
other
> members of this group.

Your claim is so ludicrous it's not worth responding to in detail. If
you want to know why, look up the energy density of ethanol or methanol
and compare and contrast with that of pump gasoline. On a per gallon
basis there's quite a bit of difference. Therefore an engine may be
running *more* efficiently on *thanol but will still show lower
efficiency on a MPG basis than gasoline. Any mechanical improvements
in efficiency will skew the numbers for *both* fuels, thus *thanol will
always be at a disadvantage.

This, incidentally, is also the reason that stoichiometric for *thanol
is *not* 14.7:1 as it is for gasoline. It takes a *lot* more *thanol
to 100% utilize the same volume of O2 as it does gasoline.

nate

Rick Blaine wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Brazil has the most experience of operating vehicles on ethanol, and
>>the determined researcher will look to their experience.
>>
>> Any engine that has a BSFC as good on E85 as on gasoline is a
>>seriously misdesigned one.
>
>
> How so?


Because there is more energy per unit volume with gasoline than there is
with E85, so if BFSC doesn't go DOWN with a switch to E85, then it was
seriously too high on straight gasoline.

On 10 May 2005 08:57:38 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:

>
>Rick Blaine wrote:
>> "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <Rhgfe.1272782$6l.769756@pd7tw2no>,
>> > Rick Blaine > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> > in.umich.edu...
>> > >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Rick Blaine wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > ethanol is superior to gasoline in almost every way
>> > >>
>> > >> Except, y'know, for minor things like energy content per volume
>unit.
>> > >
>> > >True, but with an engine properly set up (i.e. high compression)
>the same
>> > >fuel mileage as gasoline can be obtained.
>> >
>> > No, it can't.
>>
>> Proof?
>>
>>
>> > >And the higher compression will
>> > >produce more power and emit only carbon dioxide and water.
>> >
>> > No, it won't.
>>
>> Proof?
>>
>> > >Even if the
>> > >economy was worse (which it isn't), it is possible to construct a
>still
>> and
>> > >produce ethanol for next to nothing.
>> >
>> > No, it isn't.
>>
>> I erred here. It does not cost next to nothing, but the cost is far
>less
>> than what we are currently paying at the pump for gas.
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting
>practices
>> can
>> > result in a fully-depreciated one.
>>
>> It's easy to type something, how about posting some link or
>scientific data
>> that prove your point? I'm more than willing to read it, unlike some
>other
>> members of this group.
>
>Your claim is so ludicrous it's not worth responding to in detail. If
>you want to know why, look up the energy density of ethanol or methanol
>and compare and contrast with that of pump gasoline. On a per gallon
>basis there's quite a bit of difference. Therefore an engine may be
>running *more* efficiently on *thanol but will still show lower
>efficiency on a MPG basis than gasoline. Any mechanical improvements
>in efficiency will skew the numbers for *both* fuels, thus *thanol will
>always be at a disadvantage.
>
>This, incidentally, is also the reason that stoichiometric for *thanol
>is *not* 14.7:1 as it is for gasoline. It takes a *lot* more *thanol
>to 100% utilize the same volume of O2 as it does gasoline.
>
>nate


The same arguement has been used against LP gas - but because of the
higher octane rating of LP, an engine optimized for LP (higher
compression and different valve timing) can deliver more crankshaft
horsepower per gallon of fuel burned on LP than on Gasoline. Even
without changing cam timing, you CAN get the same power output

I suspect the same would be true of Ethanol, as it also has a higher
octane rating, does it not?

Run advanced timing, higher compression, and higher operating
temperature - then all you need to warry about is NoX. So you need a
good reduction catalyst ----.

In article >,
wrote:

> Run advanced timing, higher compression, and higher operating
> temperature - then all you need to warry about is NoX. So you need a
> good reduction catalyst ----.

Except that the added oxygen from the ethanol will keep the
reduction bed in the catalyst from working.