Perhaps I didn't mention it, and I should have known you would bring it up: yes, the major brands add chemicals to the fuel they receive - that's a given, in my knowlege; those additives that name-brand companies add to the fuel are quite concentrated: one quart of what Citgo put in their gas tanks after a fillup treated 1,500 gallons of gasoline. I don't know who Shell gets its gas from locally, but it isn't the usual, and I am sure they pour into the fuel, as they refill the tanks, their own additives. I am reminded of Shell's "Platformate" commercials... That being said, to me the markup of the price per gallon does not seem congruent with the cost of the concentrate. I feel that the cost comes with them paying a fortune for advertizing. Being that there is little or no oil in gasoline, it would dry out rubber/plastic compounds; some aftermarket additives for cleaning up fuel systems are quite oily, I've noticed, and I am sure they revitalize plastic and rubber components in the fuel system as well as clean up the carbon residue that seems to build up on the intake valve stems of later model engines, and the tips of injectors. I am sure valve timing has something to do with that buildup, and also with the fact that in a critical heat situation the intake valve will burn as well as exhaust valves. Honda CVCC engines with the third valve and a three-barrel carb usually have problems with the small enrichment chamber sooting up when the carburetor begins to malfunction; perhaps it would not occur as frequently with ethanol, but I believe the stoichometrics for ethanol may be somewhat different than for gasoline? If you are considering propane, why not make a fuel delivery system that turns gasoline to a gaseous state and then burn it in the engine? It's more feasible, as propane and lpg are more dangerous; and also, it takes more of it. Propane = 91,330 btu; gasoline = 114,100 btu, regular; heating oil = 138,690 btu #1 kero = 135,000 2-D diesel = 129,500 ethanol = 75,700 But, let's get to the bottom line here: it takes more energy to distill ethanol from corn, and more water is used in the process. Also, the net result in energy after that spent in producing it is nil for corn, which has been till just recently the major source of ethanol production. And the purity is the decisive factor in the energy content. The more pure, the more energy required to make it so.
Bottom line: the net balance is, it takes just as much energy to produce it and use it as total energy consumed, and sometimes a negative net energy balance. That means it takes up so much energy to make it that you couldn't burn it in an engine and come out ahead in total consumption of energy. That means you're losing money; hence, government subsidy. Anything the government subsidizes is more than likely losing money. Here in La. a company is starting up ethanol production with bagasse, which is, essentially, the pulp left over after squeezing the sugary liquid out of cane. It still is water intensive, but there is more yield for energy spent, because there is more sugar present. Plus, they are going to now have a use for the bagasse, which was formerly a waste product of sugar production. A drawback is, cane takes somewhere from around 9 - 14 months to mature. There is a grass that can also be used the name of which I forget, which matures in around three months if I remember correctly; probably a lot of farmers will be growing that instead of other crops. Problem: once again, too much water required to produce. Many communities are concerned about the volume consumed in producing ethanol and the effects that will have on their water supply. The water table here across from where I work and where I lived as a child back in 1947 used to be just a foot below soil. Six or seven years ago it was down 14.5 feet. I don't know what it is, now, but Lafayette is rationing water already. So, I am both talking and not talking politics here. Ethanol is only an alternative when there isn't something less expensive to produce, and besides, the tractors harvesting that corn, as part of the energy consumed to produce the energy source - ethanol - you embrace, are burning diesel fuel. One of the above listed fuels is likely being used to distill the water out of the mix, and there is also the CO2 to consider as being present in ethanol. It may be less pure than you maintain; and as such, will produce even fewer than 75,700 BTUs. Why use 85,000 BTUs to get 75,700 BTUs worth of fuel? A waste of time, a waste of fuel. Fuelish. As for the hydrocarbons spewing into the air, it has been proven that vegetation - trees and other plant life - grow faster with the increase of CO2 in the air around big cities. So, the excess CO2 goes into the cycle again. Maybe for its first time? Lets be real. Even with twice the ethanol coming from an acre of cane than from an acre of corn, we are using too much water to produce it. One way or another it's not good business. You want to use it, you grow the crops and harvest them and make alcohol from then. I am sure your Nighthawk would love to drink it once you alter it. My motorized bicycle gets around 175 miles to the gallon if I keep a WOT. If I want to let it sip fuel, it would be getting around 220. The only alternative fuel I feel is viable is hydrogen. That is, in an internal combustion engine. BMW seems to feel the same about it, as they have modified the valvetrains of their engines to run on pure hydrogen. There are those who have made an apparatus that can separate water into oxygen and hydrogen fast enough to burn in an I /C engine, but they are silent, because they value their lives. One who did it and was public about it was arrested and thrown in jail. That's the last that was heard from him. Are you getting the picture? ________________________________ From: Kurt Nolte <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 6:10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Nighthawk Lovers] Slightly OT... Fuel Again, "gasoline" isn't a single chemical compound, and most of the name-brand stations load up their base stock with all kinds of additive packages. Ethanol aside, generally you /do/ get better performance/mileage/longevity running the name brand gasolines, simply because they are doing that load up. You're also paying for those additive packages, as they're often a fair amount higher than the "discount" brands. Most of the issues with sudden ethanol introduction are the same experienced when suddenly adding biodiesel to an engine that's been running petroleum based diesel for a long time. Most of the materials used in engines, even as far back as the 70s, are ethanol compatible. Many of the rubbers, especially, are more compatible with ethanol than they are with gasoline! The problem is that over time, these rubbers absorb some of the chemicals in gasoline. It's expected, the engineers know about it, and it's a tolerable result that's within their expectations. The problem is that ethanol /pulls these chemicals back out/. With biodiesel, this leads to leaks, mushy hoses, degraded and shrunken seals, and so on and so forth, so of course people start screaming that "biodiesel is attacking my seals/hoses/diaphragms!" without ever realising that it was in fact the /diesel/ that's been slowly degrading the rubber. With gasoline, some of the components absorbed by the rubber over time serve as softeners and plasticizers, keeping the rubber soft and pliable when the environment and heat and vibrations keep trying to dry it out and crack it. These chemicals being absorbed allow you to run the hose long past it's design life; the ethanol makes this fact blatantly clear, as the formerly pliable rubbers suddenly stiffen, crack and then leak when the ethanol dissolves the chemicals back out of the rubber. We have a small motor. It's about eight years old, lives in a riding mower. We bought it used, from an owner that ran marina gas through it (generally the stuff he drained out of his boat, since he believed in storing the boat with an empty tank). Thus, no ethanol for its first 5-6 years of life. We run regular pump gas through it. When we first started doing this, it leaked a little. We replaced hoses. Then the carburetor gummed up. We took it apart, cleaned it out, and put a new diaphragm in it. Ever since, no problems whatsoever. Hmmmmm.... My next step is I hope to swap it over to running on propane, then milling down the head a little to bump compression. A sidevalve design means that I can successfully do this without having to worry about adjusting valve rockers, just a quick unbolt, flat mill, and bolt it back down. I seek improvements in fuel economy and oil longevity in all the equipment! I would very much like to keep the politics on all sides out of this, focus on the science of the issue. What ethanol does and does not do, it's energy content or lack thereof, compatibility and so on. Politics is an arena where nobody wins in the end, whereas science exists to be challenged and questioned and defended, in the hopes that the facts win out. -Kurt On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:52 PM, stanley/ Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: If you will note, I was speaking of back when; and yes, most tanks are probably ABS now, along with a not of other parts that don't need to resist a lot of heat and yet can withstand most of the heat under a normal hood. I was referring to your seemingly knee-jerk reaction to people who get very vociferous when ethanol and methanol are mentioned. >Yes, alcohols, being covalent, take either or and by nature suck up water; and >hence, cause problems in rusting tanks, without rust inhibitors. It - alcohol >- >may hold water tightly, but it is still present and is in contact with the >surfaces of the tank, lines, etc. >And again, I was referring to persons who have been through the experience and >don't like the results. Ford in particular had a styrofoam float in their >carbs >that dissolved after a few tankfuls. Others have experienced serious troubles >with small engines, and it is for the reasons you mention: the chemical >composition of rubber parts being susceptible to the ethanol. They dry out >prematurely and can no longer function. I aquired a virtually brand new edger >because the diaphragm carburetor's diaphragm became too stiff to move the >gasoline. >I am no chemist, no chemical engineer, but I know experientially and >anecdotally >the problems caused by ethanol, and I think that there are times when the >percentage is a lot more than they are claiming, because of the seriousness of >the resulting problems. Carb diaphragms don't go stiff that quickly. One >practically needs to use fuel saver to protect the more delicate parts of the >carburetors of older lawn mower and other small engines. >Personally I don't care for ethanol in my fuel, and I don't like the dictators >telling me what they think is good for me either. I am intelligent enough >that >I don't need some elite Harvard or Brown or Cornel --- on and on ad nauseam >-grad telling me what is best for me. >I don't like the government, like Jefferson, telling me to give my money to >some >high paid do-nothing exec at Chrysler or GM when they deserve to fail for lack >of innovation and for the laws that they had promulgated to protect themselves >from people who might have something more efficient and safer and better >performing to offer. >Like I said in another post, Honda would never have gotten his bikes and cars >off to a start if he had been born in the States. Tucker was, and look what >they did to him. We would not be experiencing this conversation. >And I am not convinced that the alcohol, even though it holds the water, is >not >going to cause problems with it being present therein. >My 250 Honda did perform better and achieve better mileage on Shell; and now >that I am thinking of it, it probably was because back then, there wasn't any >ethanol in their gasoline. >It (my 250) performed better on Shell regular than it did on Murphy mid or >high >grade. Or Racetrac. And Petron wasn't the one delivering to Shell. That's >the >local tanker distributor serving almost all of the generic and some brand name >stations in this area. By perform, I mean better acceleration, better top >speed, better mileage. And better idle also. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en.
