Ethanol replacment for gasonline...

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: SagaLore
An existing gasoline station is already capable of supplying ethanol fuel... but to supply hydrogen, you have to start from scratch. And then if we went to fuel cells, those hydrogen stations would become obsolete. I don't understand why you think that is more economical...

My point is that with ethanol, we don't have to switch over any infrastructure... we'd be using what we already have. The fuel stations would be the same, the engines would nearly be the same, the fuel tanks would be the same, the methods of transporting it around the U.S. would be the same... and instead of drilling for oil, which some view as pure evil, we could just make it out of agricultural/lumber scraps.

You have to build the infrastructure to produce ethanol in the quantities we'd need, you'd have to modify car engines...

If we went to fuel cells hydrogen stations would be a NECESSITY, not obsolete. You'd still have to fill up your car with hydrogen to make it run.

The difference is that you can retrofit existing engine manufacturers, and since existing gas pumps can be used for ethanol, this can be a gradual changeover to support the production buildup rather than an expensive overhaul.

I also have a bit of a problem with hydrogen... my fear, is that since it is the second lightest gas, using it as a primary fuel source could lead to it's loss. Hydrogen floats into the atmosphere and is leaked off as a trail into space. We could be shooting ourselves in the foot... At least with carbon-dioxide and water vapor, it makes its way back into the ecosystem quickly.

 

[PG]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Roger

Right, but, there is more precision in burning ethanol, especially if you use the diesel combustion method. But you wouldn't need heavy diesel equipment to perform this, because alcohol has a much lower ignition point than diesel fuel. So basically we can do a better job fine tuning the engine... you realize that on many cars, all you had to do is pull off your catalytic converter and you get double the mileage (I know people that have done this... temporarily of course...). Gasoline consists of many types of carbon compounds, so the engine has to be flexible enough to burn that range - plus you need all the additives to prevent ping and to clean up the exhaust, etc.

What have you been smoking ?
Can I have some ?

I don't smoke, but I have been drinking a lot of hot Green Tea lately.

I'm not making this stuff up, a few years ago I was obsessed with the Wankel Rotary engine and my research lead me into several directions. The wankel rotary engine can only achieve a maximum of a 7:1 compression ratio, and because of large amount of surface area, the chamber always stays colder than in a normal piston engine. It was harder to keep the fuel mixture from solidfying on the surfaces, they realized they had to cool it less to keep the chamber warm. Now Mazda is looking to using hydrogen as a fuel, but because hydrogen has less expansion and more heat as a byproduct of combustion, they have looked to using additional water vapor as a medium for expansion. Heat + Water = Steam = A lot of kintetic expansion.

Besides, you're telling me that adding water into a combustion chamber cools the chamber. I'm not going to dispute that, because it's true - however - you want that! Radiant heat does didilly squat. It's a waste. However, by letting water turn the heat into kinetic energy, you can do something with it. The phase between water and steam has a very beneficial kinetic burst.

You missed his point. There's no way in hell removing the catalytic converter doubles mileage. I don't know who told you that but they are wrong.

 

I don't smoke, but I have been drinking a lot of hot Green Tea lately.

I'm not making this stuff up, a few years ago I was obsessed with the Wankel Rotary engine and my research lead me into several directions. The wankel rotary engine can only achieve a maximum of a 7:1 compression ratio, and because of large amount of surface area, the chamber always stays colder than in a normal piston engine. It was harder to keep the fuel mixture from solidfying on the surfaces, they realized they had to cool it less to keep the chamber warm. Now Mazda is looking to using hydrogen as a fuel, but because hydrogen has less expansion and more heat as a byproduct of combustion, they have looked to using additional water vapor as a medium for expansion. Heat + Water = Steam = A lot of kintetic expansion.

Besides, you're telling me that adding water into a combustion chamber cools the chamber. I'm not going to dispute that, because it's true - however - you want that! Radiant heat does didilly squat. It's a waste. However, by letting water turn the heat into kinetic energy, you can do something with it. The phase between water and steam has a very beneficial kinetic burst.

First off, Wankel engines can be made with up to 13 to 1 compression, second, you are not considering the fact that injecting water into the combustion chamber inhibits the complete combustion of the fuel/air mix.
I can prove that your theory is wrong, take any internal combustion engine, run it on a dyno, retrieve hp and torque figures, now add water injection, you will not see an increase in either the hp or torque, what you will see is a increase in emissions and a lower torque curve.
I have done this multiple times on my 1962 and 1964 Corvair engines, the results are always the same.

Besides, you're telling me that adding water into a combustion chamber cools the chamber.

It cools the expanding gasses as well, also you are inhibiting complete combustion because you are seperating the air/fuel molecules with H20 molecules.

When water is introduced into an engine, the reduction in heat has a negative effect, not a positive one.

I have been building engines for the past twenty plus years, I have heard all sorts of claims, without hard data, that's all they are, claims.

You would be laughed right out of thermal engineering class, no offense meant

 

[desy]

Ethanol makes a nice additive and if made from stocks and forest fringe schrubbery, the cellulose way is how you do it making it a cost viable solution. It also creates Kyoto credits.
I can see using it 10-15 % in fuel I ususally fill up already at the stations that use Ethanol blended fuels.
It will never wholly replace oil though.
Cars have become a lot more effeicient but if you remeber the Texmaster days a huge oil supporter he provided information that Hybrid/electrics have been quelched by the auto industry not the oil industry.
Reason a car with a gasoline engine is hard to make and is a barrier to competition but anybody can make an electric motor super simple.
Just ask Tucker who eneded up having to put airplane engines in his cars.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Roger

I don't smoke, but I have been drinking a lot of hot Green Tea lately.

I'm not making this stuff up, a few years ago I was obsessed with the Wankel Rotary engine and my research lead me into several directions. The wankel rotary engine can only achieve a maximum of a 7:1 compression ratio, and because of large amount of surface area, the chamber always stays colder than in a normal piston engine. It was harder to keep the fuel mixture from solidfying on the surfaces, they realized they had to cool it less to keep the chamber warm. Now Mazda is looking to using hydrogen as a fuel, but because hydrogen has less expansion and more heat as a byproduct of combustion, they have looked to using additional water vapor as a medium for expansion. Heat + Water = Steam = A lot of kintetic expansion.

Besides, you're telling me that adding water into a combustion chamber cools the chamber. I'm not going to dispute that, because it's true - however - you want that! Radiant heat does didilly squat. It's a waste. However, by letting water turn the heat into kinetic energy, you can do something with it. The phase between water and steam has a very beneficial kinetic burst.

First off, Wankel engines can be made with up to 13 to 1 compression, second, you are not considering the fact that injecting water into the combustion chamber inhibits the complete combustion of the fuel/air mix.
I can prove that your theory is wrong, take any internal combustion engine, run it on a dyno, retrieve hp and torque figures, now add water injection, you will not see an increase in either the hp or torque, what you will see is a increase in emissions and a lower torque curve.
I have done this multiple times on my 1962 and 1964 Corvair engines, the results are always the same.

When water is introduced into an engine, the reduction in heat has a negative effect, not a positive one.

I'm not proposing water injection on a gasoline engine.

That is a good observation and analysis you did, but get back to me when you do it on an ethanol engine that uses Diesel type compression for ignition (no spark plugs).

PG: You're right, I missed his point but I see it now. Okay, honestly, I was exagerating a bit on the double mileage. But you do see a mileage improvement.

 

I am not going to argue with you, believe what you want, injecting water into any type of internal combustion engine cannot raise horsepower or torque, why ?

You are not adding fuel or air, you are not increasing the thermal efficiancy of the engine.

There are only a couple of ways to make more horsepower and torque ;

(1)Add more fuel and air
(2)Increase the efficiancy of the engine (Higher compression ratio, better combustion chamber design, adding thermal coatings to redirect the heat back into the combustion chamber)
(3)Reduce heat loss in the exhaust and or cooling system (Very hard to do)

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Roger
I am not going to argue with you, believe what you want, injecting water into any type of internal combustion engine cannot raise horsepower or torque, why ?

You are not adding fuel or air, you are not increasing the thermal efficiancy of the engine.

There are only a couple of ways to make more horsepower and torque ;

(1)Add more fuel and air
(2)Increase the efficiancy of the engine (Higher compression ratio, better combustion chamber design, adding thermal coatings to redirect the heat back into the combustion chamber)
(3)Reduce heat loss in the exhaust and or cooling system (Very hard to do)

Right, I understand that. I'm just saying that observations and experience you've had with gasoline engines doesn't apply 100% to other engine designs.

In regards to #3, you can reduce heat loss by applying it to a medium capable of furthering gas expansion. I do realize that in a gasoline engine, the water molecules seperate the gasoline and air molecules. Gasoline engines are ignited using a spark plug, with is hierarchial reaction. Spark creates a very high local temperature, which ignites surrounding gasoline, which ignites surrounding gasoline, which ignites surrounding gasoline - etc. Now however fast this may be, it still takes a 2 dimensional approach to combustion. The water molecules act as barriers to the reaction - although they absorb the heat and expand, they stop the combustion prematurely.

But in a diesel engine, the air is compressed extremely dense, and as shown by Boyle's law, creates a ultra high temperature. Heavy fuel is then ignited into the chamber, and as it enters the chamber is ignite instantly and produces more heat. Perhaps water could be injected, but still, it would have to be a seperate injection (not mixed with the diesel), and since diesel is such a heavy fuel you need all the heat you can get to combust the denser carbon compounds, so pulling the heat from the chamber probably isn't a good idea.

However, ethanol has a much lower igniting temperature - if you injected it into a chamber compressed for very high temperatures, the temperature would drop a little, but as long as the ethanol was still capable of combusting, you have a good result. The heat produced is absorbed by the water vapor, which in turn creates highly kinetic steam, and pushes the piston. Instead of simply exhausting the excess heat, we've put it to use. I'm not saying this would work in a normal otto-cylcle engine involving spark plugs. It would have to be the diesel method.

 

[SagaLore]

edit: whoops, duplicate

 

An Otto cycle engine is a 4 stroke design, a diesel is a Otto cycle engine.

Your theory is only a theory, that's all it is, go manufacture a Ethanol engine, run the dyno, then run water injection and prove me wrong.

The problem is that injecting water does not increase the thermal efficiancy of any internal combustion engine no matter what fuel is burned.


Pressure is what moves the piston, the only way to increase the pressure is to redirect the excaping heat back into the combustion chamber or add more fuel and air.

Adding water does neither of these, all it does is cool the expanding gasses which is exactly what you do not want to do.
Thinking that by creating steam will create more pressure does not conform to any thermal dynamic laws.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Roger
An Otto cycle engine is a 4 stroke design, a diesel is a Otto cycle engine.

Your theory is only a theory, that's all it is, go manufacture a Ethanol engine, run the dyno, then run water injection and prove me wrong.

I would have to disagree, an Otto cycle engine and Diesel engine are defined as seperate methods. Otto cycle pulls in a fuel/air mixture as an intake stroke, then compresses it, and then ignites it using a spark plug. The diesel cycle compresses just air on the same stroke, but then directly injects the fuel which then combusts. But yes both are 4 stroke.

Okay, I will. Might be a few years though. When I do, want me to give you a call? Maybe you could help me gather data on it.

 

Otto cycle definition ;

4 strokes for one power stroke.

Otto Cycle

It has nothing to do with the method of ignition or air/fuel methods.

Dr.Otto invented the 4 stroke Otto cycle engine, in Germany in the 1800's.

Look it up in a book or use Google.

Any engine that uses four strokes to complete one power stroke is a Otto cycle engine.

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: Roger
An Otto cycle engine is a 4 stroke design, a diesel is a Otto cycle engine.

Your theory is only a theory, that's all it is, go manufacture a Ethanol engine, run the dyno, then run water injection and prove me wrong.

The problem is that injecting water does not increase the thermal efficiancy of any internal combustion engine no matter what fuel is burned.


Pressure is what moves the piston, the only way to increase the pressure is to redirect the excaping heat back into the combustion chamber or add more fuel and air.

Adding water does neither of these, all it does is cool the expanding gasses which is exactly what you do not want to do.
Thinking that by creating steam will create more pressure does not conform to any thermal dynamic laws.

Roger is correct in this statement. By adding water to engine that requires combustion decreases the amount of energy produced.

 

[C'DaleRider]

Until recently, the production of ethanol created an energy deficit. In other words, it took more energy to make the ethanol than the ethanol could produce. Now ethanol can be produced with a small positive energy balance of about 25 percent. It takes the energy of 80 percent of a gallon of ethanol to produce one gallon of ethanol. If you compare that to gasoline, the factor is about 6-to-1 or more. The energy contained in a gallon of gasoline will produce 6 to 7 gallons of gasoline. Making ethanol is not a very efficient use of our energy supplies.

Ethanol by volume contains only 70 percent of the energy of gasoline. By mixing ethanol with gasoline at a ratio of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline (the formula decreed by the EPA), the fuel mixture created will be 3 percent less efficient than straight gasoline. In other words, your mileage will be reduced by 3 percent and fuel prices will go up by 7 to 12 percent because of increased manufacturing costs. With ethanol, your fuel bills will go up by at least 10 to 15 percent over nonoxygenated fuel.

The bottom line is that you will pay more for less gas mileage for a fuel that does little, if anything, to reduce emissions. But it will make the corn farmers more money. And some people in government will think they have done something good. Others will relish in their new-found power. Any way you slice it, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and bad.

Of course, this does not discuss the expense of trying to deal with ethanol as a fuel. Ethanol is a very corrosive product, so corrosive that in its gasahol mixture, (90% gas, 10% ethanol), unless your car is approved for ethanol use (most modern cars are, but many from the early '90's back aren't), you can quickly corrode your fuel lines, injecotrs/carburetors, etc. The entire fuel delivery system would need a major upgrade to handle pure ethanol's corrosive aspects, as would cars.

 

[Eli]

I am curious, whos name does the 2-cycle engine design come with?

 

[dxkj]

Didn't the vapor carborator increase efficiency by like 2 x at least?



I think that was the design where they turned the gas from a liquid to a vapor by forcing it through a "radiator" of sorts before it reached the enginge?



I always thought that alone would double our fule mileage.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Until recently, the production of ethanol created an energy deficit. In other words, it took more energy to make the ethanol than the ethanol could produce. Now ethanol can be produced with a small positive energy balance of about 25 percent. It takes the energy of 80 percent of a gallon of ethanol to produce one gallon of ethanol. If you compare that to gasoline, the factor is about 6-to-1 or more. The energy contained in a gallon of gasoline will produce 6 to 7 gallons of gasoline. Making ethanol is not a very efficient use of our energy supplies.

Ethanol by volume contains only 70 percent of the energy of gasoline. By mixing ethanol with gasoline at a ratio of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline (the formula decreed by the EPA), the fuel mixture created will be 3 percent less efficient than straight gasoline. In other words, your mileage will be reduced by 3 percent and fuel prices will go up by 7 to 12 percent because of increased manufacturing costs. With ethanol, your fuel bills will go up by at least 10 to 15 percent over nonoxygenated fuel.

The bottom line is that you will pay more for less gas mileage for a fuel that does little, if anything, to reduce emissions. But it will make the corn farmers more money. And some people in government will think they have done something good. Others will relish in their new-found power. Any way you slice it, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and bad.

Of course, this does not discuss the expense of trying to deal with ethanol as a fuel. Ethanol is a very corrosive product, so corrosive that in its gasahol mixture, (90% gas, 10% ethanol), unless your car is approved for ethanol use (most modern cars are, but many from the early '90's back aren't), you can quickly corrode your fuel lines, injecotrs/carburetors, etc. The entire fuel delivery system would need a major upgrade to handle pure ethanol's corrosive aspects, as would cars.

Are you sure you aren't confusing Ethanol with Methanol, in regards to its corrosive properties? I've never seen ethanol itself cause anything to corrode.

However, since it very readily absorbs water.. if the water concentration becomes high enough, then that can cause corrosion.

The steel drum my 200proof Ethanol is sitting in is perfectly clean.

I was lucky enough to work at a place that used a lot of alcohol. I only have one 5 gallon drum left.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: dxkj
Didn't the vapor carborator increase efficiency by like 2 x at least?

I think that was the design where they turned the gas from a liquid to a vapor by forcing it through a "radiator" of sorts before it reached the enginge?

I always thought that alone would double our fule mileage.

A carburetor, by definition, is a vaporizer.

Therefor, all carburetors are "vapor carburetors".

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: Eli
I am curious, whos name does the 2-cycle engine design come with?

Kramer?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Roger
Otto cycle definition ;

4 strokes for one power stroke.

Otto Cycle

It has nothing to do with the method of ignition or air/fuel methods.

Dr.Otto invented the 4 stroke Otto cycle engine, in Germany in the 1800's.

Look it up in a book or use Google.

Any engine that uses four strokes to complete one power stroke is a Otto cycle engine.

Lol - well if you're going to get nitty gritty, here's a better site:

"Are there any other cycles besides the Otto cycle used in car engines? The two-stroke engine cycle is different, as is the diesel cycle described above. The engine in the Mazda Millennia uses a modification of the Otto cycle called the Miller cycle. Gas turbine engines use the Brayton cycle. Wankle rotary engines use the Otto cycle, but they do it in a very different way than four-stroke piston engines."

 

[ElFenix]

eh, pulling off the cat makes more power, don't it?

so you could use a smaller engine

or something

 

How stuff works is for the N00b or imbecile who understands very little, the fact is that any 4 stroke engine is a Otto Cycle engine, I am now quiting, I am tired of arguing with you.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: Eli
I am curious, whos name does the 2-cycle engine design come with?

Kramer?

History of the Auto

Nicolas Cugnot built the first steam engine...

More info

Jean-Joseph Etienne Lenoir built the first 2-stroke engine automobile...

Having trouble finding a designated inventor of the 2 stroke. I think the concept of the 2 stroke was a gradual evolution from steam engines, since it wasn't revolutionary, nobody cared.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Roger
How stuff works is for the N00b or imbecile who understands very little, the fact is that any 4 stroke engine is a Otto Cycle engine, I am now quiting, I am tired of arguing with you.

Now you don't have to get insulting.

You think you know what you're talking about because you have hands-on experience. I think I know what I'm talking about because I paid attention in Physics and Chemistry class and have years of research.

No biggie. Healthy debate!

 

You think you know what you're talking about because you have hands-on experience. I think I know what I'm talking about because I paid attention in Physics and Chemistry class and have years of research.

I don't think, I know

Have you taken any classes on thermodynamics of internal combustion engines ?
Any classes on thermodynamics at all ?

I have, back in the seventies.

and have years of research.

What research ?
Have you built a engine, any type of internal combustion engine at all and applied your theories to it ?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Roger

You think you know what you're talking about because you have hands-on experience. I think I know what I'm talking about because I paid attention in Physics and Chemistry class and have years of research.

I don't think, I know

Have you taken any classes on thermodynamics of internal combustion engines ?
Any classes on thermodynamics at all ?

Does 12th grade physics count?

I have, back in the seventies.

and have years of research.

What research ?
Have you built a engine, any type of internal combustion engine at all and applied your theories to it ?

Okay okay you win. What is your degree in?