Gasoline with alcohol in it
American Resolve
it and very seldomly Methonal is at "Thrifty" gas stations. This
stuff is the very cheapest gas you can find.
So the gas doesn't have MTBE in it but can the alcohol be bad for your
engine?
+Good for the environment
+Good for American farmers so it's better for the American economy
+Cheaper alternative to the bigger brands like Mobile, Chevron,
Texaco, Shell and Exxon
+No MTBE so that means less pollution to ground water
-Possibly hard on the engine
-The stuff seems to evaporate and you don't get as good gas mileage
But what about all the gas stations that are far fewer like "fast gas,
Pilot, beacon, World, USA" Do those gas stations put alcohol in the
gas? And I wonder why Thrifty gas one of the last gas stations that
used to offer leaded fuel is still doing so well.
Mr. Underhill
gaskets, seals, and hoses. Methanol will deteriorate rubber in a hurry. In
a low blend, it should be safe, but why push it huh? The reason these
"gasahol" blends don't get as good of a fuel economy is that all alcohols
have a lower heat content than gasoline. So, the engine is having to consume
more fuel to produce the same amount of work (simplified description). I
would stick to the ethanol blends if you have to burn gasahol. The only
problems you will encounter is when the temperature drops. But I doubt that
it would be too much of a problem because there are additives to prevent
separation, and condensation.
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:57:22 -0400, American Resolve wrote
(in message <a6e92d68.02091...@posting.google.com>):
VWGirl
--
Lauren
"Mr. Underhill" <unde...@hobbiton.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.B9A7BF58...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
NE Whitlock
cells by first converting it to Hydrogen (and some sort of carbon
compound, presumably). The Hydrogen reacts with Oxygen to form water.
I've never seen a fuel cell used in a vehicle yet, but I know "they"
would like to do it. There does exist (in fairly large quantities) an
engine that runs on either gasoline or compressed natural gas (CNG,
which is mostly methane). Mostly these are used in corporate fleets.
VWGirl
cell powered city bus here, but it is only used for reseacrh (one of the
first 3 or was it 4 made?) are all those cars still prototypes? geez theyre
slow.... BTW VW has a prototype bora fuel cell vehicle :)
--
Lauren
"NE Whitlock" <newhi...@eat.my.shorts.yahoo.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:fVrg9.256171$kp.8...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Mr. Underhill
fuel cell.
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:16:44 -0400, VWGirl wrote
(in message <alth87$tpk3$1...@ID-144585.news.dfncis.de>):
Andrew Rossmann
cited author.]
In article <a6e92d68.02091...@posting.google.com>,
american_r...@hotmail.com says...
Look on the pump. If a gas contains alcohol, it should be posted. It's
often added because it adds oxygen, which helps reduce polution. The
drawback is that it tends to increase volatility (evaporation rate.) It's
a balancing act on the quality of the gas and the amount of alcohol added.
Most cars made over the past 10-15 years should have been designed for
up to 10% ethanol or 5% methanol. Read the owners manual. Fords with FFV
capability can supposedly use up to 80% methanol.
If you've ever added a gas 'drier' like HEET to your gas, you've added
alcohol.
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Daniel J. Stern
> Around where I live the only gas you can find with usualy Hethonal in
"Ethanol". Most car makers state that such fuel is acceptable as long as
the ethanol content is no greater than 10 percent.
> and very seldomly Methonal
I have yet to see any car manufacturer state that methanol is acceptable
at ANY level.
> So the gas doesn't have MTBE in it but can the alcohol be bad for your
> engine?
Most fuel systems these days are made with materials resistant to alcohol;
older cars have materials-compatibility problems. Gasoline containing
ethanol contains less energy per unit volume than straight gasoline, which
reduces fuel efficiency since more of the lower-energy fuel must be burned
to bring the vehicle to any given speed and maintain it at that speed.
> +Good for the environment
It is NOT good for the environment, this is pure propaganda. In cars with
feedback-controlled fuel systems (basically all gasoline-powered vehicles
sold in America since 1981, and some before that date), the feedback
system notes the increased oxygen content in the exhaust stream and adds
more fuel to bring the mixture back to stoichiometry. There is no
emissions reduction here. It is only in non-feedback cars *with improperly
adjusted fuel systems* that there is an emissions reduction. In addition,
the amount of energy required to produce ethanol must be factored into the
total emissions of a fuel, and with current technology ethanol is a big
loser in this regard. It is only economical to add to fuel because of the
massive Federal subsidy it receives (due to intense lobbying by Archer
Daniels Midland, the company that makes the vast majority of fuel ethanol
in America), and because of the per-gallon gasoline tax exemption for
gasoline containing ethanol (also a result of the same lobbying).
> +Good for American farmers so it's better for the American economy
It is not the job of the public at large to keep the American farmer in
groceries through mandatory subscription to policies (such as tax
subsidies for ethanol) put in place as a direct result of those farmers'
lobbyists activities.
DS
Mr. Underhill
(in message
<Pine.SOL.4.33.020913...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>):
> On 13 Sep 2002, American Resolve wrote:
>
>> Around where I live the only gas you can find with usualy Hethonal in
>
> "Ethanol". Most car makers state that such fuel is acceptable as long as
> the ethanol content is no greater than 10 percent.
>
>> and very seldomly Methonal
>
> I have yet to see any car manufacturer state that methanol is acceptable
> at ANY level.
"Blend of gasoline methanol (wood alcohol or methyl alcohol)
- Anti-knock index must be 87 or higher
- Blend must contain no more than 3% methanol
- Blend must contain more than 2% cosolvents
Methanol fuels which do not meet these requirements may cause corrosion and
damage to plastic and rubber components in the fuel system."
Quoted from 2000 VW Golf owners manual pages 4 and 5 of Booklet 3.2
I have seen similar recommendations in every vehicle I've ever used. That
includes Toyota, Nissan, Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, VW, and Isuzu.
>
>> So the gas doesn't have MTBE in it but can the alcohol be bad for your
>> engine?
>
> Most fuel systems these days are made with materials resistant to alcohol;
> older cars have materials-compatibility problems. Gasoline containing
> ethanol contains less energy per unit volume than straight gasoline, which
> reduces fuel efficiency since more of the lower-energy fuel must be burned
> to bring the vehicle to any given speed and maintain it at that speed.
"Blend of gasoline and MTBE
- Anti-knock index must be 87 AKI or higher.
- Blend must contain not more than 15% MTBE"
Page 5 of Book 3.2 2000 Golf Owner's manual
>
>> +Good for the environment
>
> It is NOT good for the environment, this is pure propaganda. In cars with
> feedback-controlled fuel systems (basically all gasoline-powered vehicles
> sold in America since 1981, and some before that date), the feedback
> system notes the increased oxygen content in the exhaust stream and adds
> more fuel to bring the mixture back to stoichiometry. There is no
> emissions reduction here. It is only in non-feedback cars *with improperly
> adjusted fuel systems* that there is an emissions reduction. In addition,
> the amount of energy required to produce ethanol must be factored into the
> total emissions of a fuel, and with current technology ethanol is a big
> loser in this regard. It is only economical to add to fuel because of the
> massive Federal subsidy it receives (due to intense lobbying by Archer
> Daniels Midland, the company that makes the vast majority of fuel ethanol
> in America), and because of the per-gallon gasoline tax exemption for
> gasoline containing ethanol (also a result of the same lobbying).
>
>> +Good for American farmers so it's better for the American economy
>
> It is not the job of the public at large to keep the American farmer in
> groceries through mandatory subscription to policies (such as tax
> subsidies for ethanol) put in place as a direct result of those farmers'
> lobbyists activities.
>
> DS
>
Also "Blend of Gasoline and ethanol (grain alcohol or ethyl alcohol)
- Anti-knock index must be 87 AKI or higher.
- Blend must not contain more than 10% ethanol."
SPAMJL@frontier.net J. Louis
I have never seen them in NY, NJ, PA, MA, or FL. I stay away from them.
I like for my cars to run correctly, have the proper fuel additives in the
fuel,
and not to contain any water.
As for alchahol in your fuel. That depends, How well do you like your car?
You will be buying a new one or at the very least replacing the engine
and exhaust system with a new cat. Not a good idea. The vehicle has to
be made specially to accept alternative fuels. And then you use only
the alternative fuel that the manufacturer recommends.
JL
"American Resolve" <american_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6e92d68.02091...@posting.google.com...
Manu
Most of the "cheap" brands (Arco, Albertson's, Fred Meyers, Pilot, Etc.)
have high levels of alcohol. The most common is ethanol, though methanol is
prevalent in some states. All of the fuel alcohols are corrosive in nature,
so they tend to be a bit harder on an engine. Additionally, they provide
slightly less power than straight gasoline, so your mileage goes down a bit.
On the other hand, "gasohol" is less expensive and so /can/ reduce your
overall expenses in operating the vehicle, at least in the short term. The
downside is increased maintenance. Because of its corrosive nature, alcohol
fuel is hard on your motor oil and on any metal that is not prepared for its
use. Usually, this means more frequent oil changes and engine rebuilds.
However, it is not hard to prep an engine to run alcohol fuels. This is
usually accomplished using a lined fuel tank, stainless steel fuel lines and
stainless exhaust. Just keep the oil fresh, and you shouldn't have any
problems you wouldn't otherwise have.
Saturn's have most of the necessary stuff and can run alcohol fuels quite
comfortably, again, assuming you keep the oil fresh. I've even seen one
running straight ethanol. If the only fuels available have high alcohol
content, then I'd suggest that you change your oil every 2000-2500 miles
religiously.
"American Resolve" <american_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6e92d68.02091...@posting.google.com...
Stephan Mynarkiewicz
ethanol in them.
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
alochol in it. Reportedly, the gasoline for all of the stations comes from
the same refinery regardless of brand. So the cheapest thing (and best
thing) to do is use the lowest octane recommended for your car from the
cheapest gas station. In other places where there is alcohol in the gas, you
have to weigh slightly less milage vs. slightly less cost.
I takes more energy to make 1 gallon of high octane than one gallon of low
octane, so it is better for the environment if you use the lowest octane
recommended.
All the best,
Wyle
"Manu" <pho...@agileemmy.com> wrote in message
news:2BGg9.4764$Le2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jeremy Cusick
mixture. I wish they'd start selling straight Ethanol... that way I could
build and drive my dream engine (street rod with a blown small block on
alcohol). The reason I say that it leans out the fuel mixture (on
carbureted cars) is that it generally takes twice the amount of alcohol to
air as it does with gasoline (a much richer mix).
Mr. Underhill
refinery if you use higher octane fuel. If you use lower octane fuel, you
are tranferring the point of pollution to the car's immediate environment.
If you want to use the fuel that has the highest energy content and takes the
least amount of energy to refine, then you would be using a diesel vehicle!
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 9:52:15 -0400, Wyle E. Coyote, M.D. wrote
(in message
<A979B8E2ABB828E2.C7B0D420...@lp.airnews.net>):
Mr. Underhill
(in message <3D833F46...@shawneelink.net>):
> I hate ethanol based gasoline! All that crap does is lean out the fuel
> mixture. I wish they'd start selling straight Ethanol... that way I could
> build and drive my dream engine (street rod with a blown small block on
> alcohol). The reason I say that it leans out the fuel mixture (on
> carbureted cars) is that it generally takes twice the amount of alcohol to
> air as it does with gasoline (a much richer mix).
1.6 times for ethanol and 2.2 times for methanol? (Its been a long time
since I did the research. All alcohols have a lower heat content than
gasoline and thus have to be burned in greater quantities.
As a side note, VW had a pure ethanol burning research vehicle in the 1970's.
And the Brazilians have a large number of vehicles running ethanol. It is
cheaper for them because they are one of the largest (if no THE largest)
producers of sugar cane in the world.
Ken Sternberg
more than I ever wanted to know.
A 10 percent ethanol/90 percent gasoline mix is fine for cars. As for
performance, it depends on how good or crappy the gasoline base is and
its octane.
The "methanol is bad for cars" myth is total crap. When blended into
gasoline at the proper ratio, there has been no documented damage to
seals or other engine parts. I mean, race car drivers often run on
next to pure methanol. Would they knowingly damage their expensive
engines?
It's likely true that the ethanol industry, basically Archer Daniels
Midland, would be unprofitable without the federal subsidy. Some free
market thinking, huh?
Neo
>
> +Good for the environment
Disputable: many engines with electronic fuel injection notice the
excess of oxygen in the exhaust and enriches the mixture, removing the
"green" out of alcohol.
> +Good for American farmers so it's better for the American economy
Not necessarily. Agricultural subsidies make more harm than good.
Besides, the domestic production cannot meet the demand and it has to be
imported.
> +Cheaper alternative to the bigger brands like Mobile, Chevron,
> Texaco, Shell and Exxon
???
> -Possibly hard on the engine
Corrosion galore.
> -The stuff seems to evaporate and you don't get as good gas mileage
It has lower energy content, which means that the driver will step
harder on the gas, canceling the oxygenation effect.
--
______________________________________________________
Evandro Menezes ICQ:7957253
Austin, TX http://geocities.com/evandro
Neo
> BTW VW has a prototype bora fuel cell vehicle :)
Everybody and their dog have one, just like 30 years ago with Wänkel
engines and 50 years ago with turbine engines...
Neo
>
> And the Brazilians have a large number of vehicles running ethanol. It is
> cheaper for them because they are one of the largest (if no THE largest)
> producers of sugar cane in the world.
And it still needs subsidies... Alcohol only makes economic sense when
oil costs more than $30 per barrel.
Neo
> I mean, race car drivers often run on
> next to pure methanol.
They are designed and manufatured to burn alcohol...
Mr. Underhill
types of gasahol. See "Fuel Recommendations from VW Owner's Manual".
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 16:21:43 -0400, Neo wrote
(in message <3D839A54...@trbpvgvrf.pbz>):
Kevin M. Keller
with:
>
> And it still needs subsidies... Alcohol only makes economic sense
> when oil costs more than $30 per barrel.
>
Oil closed at $33 a barrel Friday. Just something to keep in mind.
--
Visit the Saturn Performance Club - http://www.saturnperformanceclub.com
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
> Well, what you are doing is transferring the pollution to the point of the
> refinery if you use higher octane fuel. If you use lower octane fuel, you
> are tranferring the point of pollution to the car's immediate environment.
Wrong. Cars designed for regular ocatane fuel get the same milage and have
the same power with mid-grade or high octane as with low octane. Cars
designed for midgrade or high octane need the fuel and have more power
because the ignition retards the iginition time.
So if you use low octane fuel in a car that is designed for low octane fuel,
you will produce less polution overall than if you use high octane fuel.
> If you want to use the fuel that has the highest energy content and takes
the
> least amount of energy to refine, then you would be using a diesel
vehicle!
Correct. There is a problem with particaulate polution with diesels, but
they are working on that.
All the best,
Wyle
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
(I think it keep unburned hydrocarbons down).
All the best
Wyle
"Neo" <rin...@trbpvgvrf.pbz> wrote in message
news:3D8393E8...@trbpvgvrf.pbz...
Mr. Underhill
(in message
<25B5258DC02A61C9.3E4F6484...@lp.airnews.net>):
>
> "Mr. Underhill" <unde...@hobbiton.com> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B9A8CF450...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
>> Well, what you are doing is transferring the pollution to the point of the
>> refinery if you use higher octane fuel. If you use lower octane fuel, you
>> are tranferring the point of pollution to the car's immediate environment.
>
> Wrong. Cars designed for regular ocatane fuel get the same milage and have
> the same power with mid-grade or high octane as with low octane. Cars
> designed for midgrade or high octane need the fuel and have more power
> because the ignition retards the iginition time.
>
> So if you use low octane fuel in a car that is designed for low octane fuel,
> you will produce less polution overall than if you use high octane fuel.
Incorrect, lower octane fuel produces more pollutants than higher octane
fuel.
>
>> If you want to use the fuel that has the highest energy content and takes
> the
>> least amount of energy to refine, then you would be using a diesel
> vehicle!
>
> Correct. There is a problem with particaulate polution with diesels, but
> they are working on that.
True, with modern catalytic converters and other pollution control equipment
along with the precision of injection systems like TDI and CDI, the
particulates are very minute. Add into that, ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel
and various bio-diesels, they are far more environmentally friendly than any
gasoline engine.
>
> All the best,
>
> Wyle
>
Neo
> Wrong, the oxygenation helps keep down pollution comign out of the tailpipes
> (I think it keep unburned hydrocarbons down).
In a modern car there's barely any HC in exhaust gases, for they damage
a catalytic converter in minutes.
Besides, oxygenates as alcohol increase the emission of NOx, which
causes smog.
Bob Gross
---Bob Gross---
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:25B5258DC02A61C9.3E4F6484...@lp.airnews.net...
snip
Neo
> True, with modern catalytic converters and other pollution control equipment
> along with the precision of injection systems like TDI and CDI, the
> particulates are very minute.
Still much more than Otto-cycle engines. For future emission laws, a
particulate filter will be necessary, one that demands almost
sulfur-free Diesel.
Mr. Underhill
lower than we currently have here in the U.S. The European standard will be
mandated in the U.S. in 2006. My point is that the diesel engine can much
more easily be used with environmentally friendly fuels such as (but not
limited to) vegetable oil.
Gasoline engines have a ways to go. For example, abandoning the otto-cycle
altogether would be a step forward. The Miller-cycle engine is more
efficient and powerful for example.
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:44:28 -0400, Neo wrote
(in message <3D83AD...@trbpvgvrf.pbz>):
Neo
> In many parts of Europe, the level is 15ppm of sulphur, which is much, much
> lower than we currently have here in the U.S.
Many parts, not all. That's why only with Euro5 will particulate
filters be mandatory for Diesel engines and not now.
> The European standard will be
> mandated in the U.S. in 2006.
The same year as Euro5...
> My point is that the diesel engine can much
> more easily be used with environmentally friendly fuels such as (but not
> limited to) vegetable oil.
Not much friendlier, as the problem is with the Diesel cycle, not with
the fuel burnt in it. Carcinogen particulates are not nice, whether the
tail pipe smells like rotten egg or like cheap fries...
> Gasoline engines have a ways to go. For example, abandoning the otto-cycle
> altogether would be a step forward. The Miller-cycle engine is more
> efficient and powerful for example.
If it was so evident, why is Mazda dumping the only production
Miller-cycle engine ever?
Mr. Underhill
manufacturer is arguably cutting back on the production of its Miller-cycle
engines does NOT mean that there is something inherently wrong with the
design itself. It has been used in large and stationary applications such as
ships and electric generators for years. Mazda may have other priorities.
The public might not be buying the technology. The general public has a long
history of not buying something new or superior (on its own merit) but
sticking with whatever is cheapest or what they are used to (case in point,
Windows and Intel processors!). But all this is still moot if their website
is any indication. They are still building them.
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 18:06:29 -0400, Neo wrote
(in message <3D83B2E4...@trbpvgvrf.pbz>):
Baboo
like:
intake/consumption masses
exhaust composition
production costs
energy costs
output energy
infrastructure
then it is all supposition (i meant bs)!
Basic thermodynamics demands In=Out
So the solution must consider all factors, and anyone solution may not fit one
locale.
be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net
Neo
> Look again, the S series Millenium still uses it.
The Millennia has been discontinued.
> Just because one
> manufacturer is arguably cutting back on the production of its Miller-cycle
> engines does NOT mean that there is something inherently wrong with the
> design itself.
But it surely means that it's nothing out of ordinary...
> The general public has a long
> history of not buying something new or superior (on its own merit) but
> sticking with whatever is cheapest or what they are used to (case in point,
> Windows and Intel processors!). But all this is still moot if their website
> is any indication.
The consumer couldn't care less about the specifics of the engine.
There's only one car with the Miller engine because the engineers don't
agree with you that it's a sure shot. Not even Mazda, otherwise it'd
had used in other models.
> They are still building them.
Sorry, no more Millennias...
Mr. Underhill
(in message <3D83BCD2...@trbpvgvrf.pbz>):
> Mr. Underhill wrote:
>
>> Look again, the S series Millenium still uses it.
>
> The Millennia has been discontinued.
Didn't realize that I was looking at the 2002 models.
>
>> Just because one
>> manufacturer is arguably cutting back on the production of its
>> Miller-cycle
>> engines does NOT mean that there is something inherently wrong with the
>> design itself.
>
> But it surely means that it's nothing out of ordinary...
>
No, it has been used for years in other non-automotive applications. :-)
>> The general public has a long
>> history of not buying something new or superior (on its own merit) but
>> sticking with whatever is cheapest or what they are used to (case in
>> point,
>> Windows and Intel processors!). But all this is still moot if their
>> website
>> is any indication.
>
> The consumer couldn't care less about the specifics of the engine.
> There's only one car with the Miller engine because the engineers don't
> agree with you that it's a sure shot. Not even Mazda, otherwise it'd
> had used in other models.
Once again, other factors are probably at fault. Construction costs, the V6
implementation, corporate bean counters, etc. For efficiency, the
Miller-cycle is far better than the Otto-cycle. For a quick, simple,
explanation of the Miller-cycle engine, go to
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question132.htm
>
>> They are still building them.
>
> Sorry, no more Millennias...
Sadly. It was arguably their best vehicle. The new "6" will probably replace
it and the 626, a la Ford and its Focus replacing the Contour and Escort.
>
>
Brent P
> The "methanol is bad for cars" myth is total crap. When blended into
> gasoline at the proper ratio, there has been no documented damage to
> seals or other engine parts. I mean, race car drivers often run on
> next to pure methanol. Would they knowingly damage their expensive
> engines?
There are seal materials that can hold up to methanol. the race cars
use those. In the consumer auto industry, the urge of auto manufacturers
to use cheaper seal materials that won't hold up to methanol is likely
quite strong.
Brent P
> Wrong, the oxygenation helps keep down pollution comign out of the tailpipes
> (I think it keep unburned hydrocarbons down).
It does nothing! Practically very car made since 1982 has an oxygen sensor
feed back system that will automatically compensate for the oxygen in the
fuel by sending in more fuel. For cars made before 1982, the first tune
up with a manual mixture adjustement does this.
Durring the first tankful of RFG when it first became mandated in chicago
I readjusted the fuel mixture to keep the old car running right.
RFG is a look-like-we-are-doing-something-to-clean-the-air legislation.
The only benefit it might eventually have is to reduce the consumption
of oil. I say eventually because ethanol production has to reach a point
where less energy is used to make it than one gets back burning it. Last
I read state of the art is at the break even point by using waste heat
from one step to power the next and simple things like that. With any
luck it has continued to get better.
NE Whitlock
does this research paper that you wrote appear of the web? I'd like to
read it. How did you analyze the gasoline samples?
Marc
>On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 16:51:32 -0400, Wyle E. Coyote, M.D. wrote (in message <25B5258DC02A61C9.3E4F6484...@lp.airnews.net>):
>> "Mr. Underhill" <unde...@hobbiton.com> wrote in message news:01HW.B9A8CF450...@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com...
>>> Well, what you are doing is transferring the pollution to the point of the
>>> refinery if you use higher octane fuel. If you use lower octane fuel, you
>>> are tranferring the point of pollution to the car's immediate environment.
>>
>> Wrong. Cars designed for regular ocatane fuel get the same milage and have
>> the same power with mid-grade or high octane as with low octane. Cars
>> designed for midgrade or high octane need the fuel and have more power
>> because the ignition retards the iginition time.
>>
>> So if you use low octane fuel in a car that is designed for low octane fuel,
>> you will produce less polution overall than if you use high octane fuel.
>
>Incorrect, lower octane fuel produces more pollutants than higher octane
>fuel.
I have not heard that before. Who determined that and how?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Robert Hancock
some additives like MMT or something, and get high-octane fuel, but that's
not going to change the pollutant output. Now, if the engine is knocking
badly, it's going to put out more pollution, and some higher-octane gas may
happen to be formulated in such a way that it produces less pollution, but
it's not the octane that does it..
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Marc" <whin...@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:89r7ous545j6bbb2f...@4ax.com...
vwgirl
will cause the knocking... so yeah i guess it doesnt directly cause more
pollution, the way the car runs does... but since it causes the car to run
that way....
--
Lauren
"Robert Hancock" <hanc...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:R6Tg9.331976$f05.17...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Alice Cabrera
: Look again, the S series Millenium still uses it. Just because one
: engines does NOT mean that there is something inherently wrong with the
: design itself. It has been used in large and stationary applications such as
Ok, what is the Miller cycle vs. the Otto Cycle? Soryr, this is the first
time I've heard of it so if some one wants to give an explanation I'd
appreciate it.
Alice (who is enjoying reading the discussion so far but just got lost)
--
The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't
worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev
|\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' tig...@havoc.gtf.gatech.edu
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee.
Manu
engine will cause knocking. Higher-octane fuel burns more slowly, reducing
premature detonation, which is the major source of knocking, excluding
physical damage to the valve train. In that case of the Saturns, this is a
moot point.
They are built with a static compression ratio of about 95.:1 (as I recall).
Theoretically, we should be feeding them only 95octane or higher. However,
because of computer controls and electronic ignition, we can give them the
less expensive low-octane fuel and it will be just fine. The computer
retards the ignition until the knocking goes away. This only works to a
certain point, though. As you run up the miles on the car, carbon builds up
in the combustion chamber. Those carbon deposits do two things. First,
they hold their heat far longer than the metal on which they reside. This
/CAN/ increase operating temperatures in extreme cases. Secondly, they
increase compression by taking up space in the combustion chamber. Usually
this isn't very noticeable unless, again, we are talking about a really bad
case of it. Most fuel system cleaners are good at cleaning this stuff out,
at which point you can go back to the low octane stuff.
"vwgirl" <vwla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8A_g9.129817$2L.63...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> but putting higher octane gas in a car that needs a lower octane gas
usually
> will cause the knocking... so yeah i guess it doesnt directly cause more
> pollution, the way the car runs does... but since it causes the car to run
> that way....
>
> --
> Lauren
<SNIP>
Manu
from the refiners themselves. I talked to Arco, Texaco, Chevron and Exxon.
Turns out Arco is the largest "cheap" producer and sell to lots of places
like 7-11 and Albertsons. There are other "cheap" refiners, but they
wouldn't talk to me.
The paper was written for a college english class, and its focus was on
alternative fuels. In that paper, I noted that most gasoline replacements
are alcohol based. When I started looking into the modification necessary
to run those fuels, I found that many american models are either already
equipped for it, or have such equipment available as an option. That led me
to wonder why, so when I talked to the refiners about the production of alt
fuels, I also asked about alcohol content in their current fuels. Texaco
and Exxon both have "cheap" brands that they sell to other distributors
without their names attached. Kind of like Pioneer and RCA selling
equipment to Radio Shack who then rebadges that equipment with the Optimus
label. Arco, on the other hand, formulates their fuels with higher levels
of alcohol from the beginning. I did not have my wits sufficiently about me
when I was talking to them to ask why, but I'm assuming, based on the
average street price for those fuels, that its about selling cheaper (or at
least less expensive) gas. It turns out that Ford's "Flexible Fuel"
vehicles run quite happily on this stuff. Most other cars (the ones not
equipped for alcohol) have problems with it in the long run.
Sorry about that. I got to running off at the mouth. :)
To answer your question, I did not do such analysis. I asked the refiners
about it.
"NE Whitlock" <newhi...@eat.my.shorts.yahoo.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:q0Qg9.322453$aA.56441@sccrnsc02...
Manu
get it for you. Many keep it on hand.
"Jeremy Cusick" <gta...@shawneelink.net> wrote in message
news:3D833F46...@shawneelink.net...
> I hate ethanol based gasoline! All that crap does is lean out the fuel
> mixture. I wish they'd start selling straight Ethanol... that way I could
> build and drive my dream engine (street rod with a blown small block on
> alcohol). The reason I say that it leans out the fuel mixture (on
> carbureted cars) is that it generally takes twice the amount of alcohol to
> air as it does with gasoline (a much richer mix).
>
> American Resolve wrote:
>
> > Around where I live the only gas you can find with usualy Hethonal in
> > it and very seldomly Methonal is at "Thrifty" gas stations. This
> > stuff is the very cheapest gas you can find.
> >
> > So the gas doesn't have MTBE in it but can the alcohol be bad for your
> > engine?
> >
> > +Good for the environment
> > +Good for American farmers so it's better for the American economy
> > +Cheaper alternative to the bigger brands like Mobile, Chevron,
> > Texaco, Shell and Exxon
> > +No MTBE so that means less pollution to ground water
> >
> > -Possibly hard on the engine
> > -The stuff seems to evaporate and you don't get as good gas mileage
> >
bi...@pippinf.com
wrote:
>but putting higher octane gas in a car that needs a lower octane gas usually
>will cause the knocking... so yeah i guess it doesnt directly cause more
>pollution, the way the car runs does... but since it causes the car to run
>that way....
When does this happen?
Why would higher octane than needed cause knocking (preignition)?
VWGirl
of fuel your car was designed for...
--
Lauren
"Manu" <pho...@agileemmy.com> wrote in message
news:VQ1h9.632$Ko2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Peter Parker
VWGirl <tsajzin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>if i said it backwards so be it... the point is that you should run the type
>of fuel your car was designed for...
Agree. I use 89 octane (mix between 87 and 91), the middle grade. Originally
with the stock PROM chip 87 octane was fine. With the chip, the anti-knock
sensor was working overtime. I started using 91 octane but after a while I
realized that 89 octane was just as good at performance and mileage.
In my manual it states:
The recommended gasoline octane rating for your engine can be found on a
label located on the inside of the fuel tank flap. My `94 Jetta flap reads
Unleaded fuel only min 87 clc.
Aside from the usual, if you happen to use blended gasoline methanol it
states that the anti-knock index must be 87 or higher and blend no
more than 3% methanol. Also, blend must contain more than 2% CO-solvents.
If this is not met the methanol can cause corrosion and damage to
plastic and rubber components in the fuel system.
--
nos...@zero.com
Replace nospam with jetta to reply via e-mail
bi...@pippinf.com
<tig...@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
>In rec.autos.driving Mr. Underhill <unde...@hobbiton.com> wrote:
>: Look again, the S series Millenium still uses it. Just because one
>: manufacturer is arguably cutting back on the production of its Miller-cycle
>: engines does NOT mean that there is something inherently wrong with the
>: design itself. It has been used in large and stationary applications such as
>
>Ok, what is the Miller cycle vs. the Otto Cycle? Soryr, this is the first
>time I've heard of it so if some one wants to give an explanation I'd
>appreciate it.
>
>Alice (who is enjoying reading the discussion so far but just got lost)
Google is your friend!
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question132.htm
Daniel J. Stern
> where in the world would you get the idea that
> 'oxygenated fuel' causes increased oxygen in the exhaust fumes?
From the fact that it does. Oxygenated fuel leans the mixture, which
increases the relative percentage of O2 in the exhaust stream. This is
measured by the O2 sensor, which whispers in the ear of the engine control
computer, which increases the injector pulse width (or mixture control
solenoid duty cycle on a feedback carburetor system) to bring the mixture
back to stoichiometry. End result: More fuel consumed, no reduction in
emissions.
It is only in the absence of a feedback system and with a poor state of
engine repair that oxygenated fuels reduce emissions. If a non-feedback
engine is running rich due to a maladjusted carburetor or fuel injection
system, a dirty air filter or other fault, the extra oxygen in the fuel
will nudge the combustion mixture back towards the direction of
correctness. It is not a very effective way of reducing the emissions of
out-of-tune vehicles, and since non-feedback vehicles make up only a tiny
minority of the on-road fleet, it is an ineffective way of reducing
overall fleet emissions.
> The 'oxygenates' term is misleading. They merely burn cleaner.
Er...no. There is nothing misleading about the term "oxygenates" or
"oxygenated", and they do not "burn cleaner". See above for the mechanism
of oxygenated fuel.
> Less CO produced,
No. CO release off the manifold and at the end of the tailpipe is
minimized when the combustion mixture is stoichiometric (least CO
produced, most effective catalytic conversion of CO). That's what the
O2 sensor is for, to monitor exhaust gas Oxygen concentration and keep the
mixture stoichiometric!
> probably less NO, NO2, NO3, etc due to them burning cooler, too, but
> I'm not 100% sure of that.
Also wrong. Fuels containing certain oxygenates actually produce *more*
NOx, not less.
> They fully combust
> more easily.
Where are you getting this stuff? They don't "fully combust more easily".
Please learn the science before turning professor.
DS
C.R. Krieger
news:30Bg9.12965$AY5.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> As for the cheap gas stations that you mentioned, They must be local to you
> I have never seen them in NY, NJ, PA, MA, or FL. I stay away from them.
> I like for my cars to run correctly, have the proper fuel additives in the
> fuel, and not to contain any water.
>
> As for alchahol in your fuel. That depends, How well do you like your car?
> You will be buying a new one or at the very least replacing the engine
> and exhaust system with a new cat. Not a good idea. The vehicle has to
> be made specially to accept alternative fuels.
If you don't know WTF you're talking about (and it's obvious, from your answer,
that you don't know anything relevant about 'gasohol'), it's better not to
reply.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Don't argue with 'em, dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields
C.R. Krieger
news:am2503$o4o$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
> Ok, what is the Miller cycle vs. the Otto Cycle?
Go visit your local Mazda dealership for a brochure ...
C.R. Krieger
> The only
> problems you will encounter is when the temperature drops. But I doubt that
> it would be too much of a problem because there are additives to prevent
> separation, and condensation.
There are no additives needed to deal with these 'issues' in gas/<10%-alcohol
mixes. Lower alcohols (like methanol, ethanol, and propanol) are entirely
miscible in gasoline. Water is entirely miscible in alcohol. It is precisely
this principle that is used to *remove* condensation from auto fuels. What do
you think is in those bottles they call 'dry gas'?
C.R. Krieger
news:f3092ece.02091...@posting.google.com...
> I used to cover the ethanol and methanol fuel industries and learned
> more than I ever wanted to know.
>
> A 10 percent ethanol/90 percent gasoline mix is fine for cars. As for
> performance, it depends on how good or crappy the gasoline base is and
> its octane.
Thank you for a breath of rationality, Ken.
> The "methanol is bad for cars" myth is total crap. When blended into
> gasoline at the proper ratio, there has been no documented damage to
> seals or other engine parts.
No; but the crap that comes loose after being methanol-degraded in the fuel
delivery system on the average road car over a long period of time *can* cause
damage. It's much more likely to be of the 'clogged-up-injectors' variety than
anything catastrophic.
> I mean, race car drivers often run on
> next to pure methanol. Would they knowingly damage their expensive
> engines?
Unfortunately, you apparently don't hang around racing much and I don't have
enough time to completely educate you about this issue. The simple answer to
your question with regard to the cars that usually run almost pure methanol is,
"Hell, *yes*! - if it means a win!" Those who have to have the engine last all
season are using pump gas - or something very close to it.
C.R. Krieger
news:8A_g9.129817$2L.63...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> but putting higher octane gas in a car that needs a lower octane gas usually
> will cause the knocking...
Sorry, but you have that absolutely, completely, and unquestionably backwards.
Brandon Sommerville
<war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote:
>"Ken Sternberg" <kster...@acm.org> wrote in message
>news:f3092ece.02091...@posting.google.com...
>> I mean, race car drivers often run on
>> next to pure methanol. Would they knowingly damage their expensive
>> engines?
>
>Unfortunately, you apparently don't hang around racing much and I don't have
>enough time to completely educate you about this issue. The simple answer to
>your question with regard to the cars that usually run almost pure methanol is,
>"Hell, *yes*! - if it means a win!" Those who have to have the engine last all
>season are using pump gas - or something very close to it.
Yeah, it's nice being able to rebuild every few thousand miles, isn't
it?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
The easy way is always mined.
Matthew Russotto
C.R. Krieger <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, you apparently don't hang around racing much and I don't have
>enough time to completely educate you about this issue. The simple answer to
>your question with regard to the cars that usually run almost pure methanol is,
>"Hell, *yes*! - if it means a win!" Those who have to have the engine last all
>season are using pump gas - or something very close to it.
Yep. A car that lets you win every time but completely falls apart
(with no harm to driver) just after crossing the line would be desirable
to any racer whose sponsors will keep paying for replacements...
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
John David Galt
> Around where I live the only gas you can find with usualy Hethonal in
> it and very seldomly Methonal is at "Thrifty" gas stations. This
> stuff is the very cheapest gas you can find.
>
> So the gas doesn't have MTBE in it but can the alcohol be bad for your
> engine?
Yes, depending on your engine and other factors (for instance, does the
gas station's holding tank leak when it rains? Methanol increases the
amount of water that gasoline will absorb.)
> +Good for the environment
> +Good for American farmers so it's better for the American economy
> +Cheaper alternative to the bigger brands like Mobile, Chevron,
> Texaco, Shell and Exxon
> +No MTBE so that means less pollution to ground water
>
> -Possibly hard on the engine
> -The stuff seems to evaporate and you don't get as good gas mileage
Methanol doesn't do anything for the environment. The only reason it's
used is that big producers such as ADM bribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hgave campaign
contributions and got Congress to subsidize it.
This is why you won't find it in gas outside the USA.
Daniel J. Stern
> Methanol doesn't do anything for the environment. The only reason it's
> used is that big producers such as ADM bribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hgave campaign
> contributions and got Congress to subsidize it.
That's *ethanol*.
DS
James Alrad
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>American Resolve wrote:
>> Around where I live the only gas you can find with usualy Hethonal in
>> it and very seldomly Methonal is at "Thrifty" gas stations. This
>> stuff is the very cheapest gas you can find.
>>
>> So the gas doesn't have MTBE in it but can the alcohol be bad for your
>> engine?
>
>Yes, depending on your engine and other factors (for instance, does the
>gas station's holding tank leak when it rains? Methanol increases the
>amount of water that gasoline will absorb.)
Except it is Ethanol. Have a beer sometime. You can get a taste of it.
Robert Hancock
> increases the relative percentage of O2 in the exhaust stream. This is
> measured by the O2 sensor, which whispers in the ear of the engine control
> computer, which increases the injector pulse width (or mixture control
> solenoid duty cycle on a feedback carburetor system) to bring the mixture
> back to stoichiometry. End result: More fuel consumed, no reduction in
> emissions.
I don't think "no reduction in emissions" logically follows from this. It's
quite possible that the presence of the oxygenate allows more complete
combustion (less HC/CO) even when still at the stoichiometric ratio. (Of
course, I don't know if that's true or not..)
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.020916...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Daniel J. Stern
> quite possible that the presence of the oxygenate allows more complete
> combustion (less HC/CO) even when still at the stoichiometric ratio.
No it isn't. Look up the definition of stoichiometry.
DS
Geoff Welsh
(dictionary.com)
stoi·chi·om·e·try
n.
1.Calculation of the quantities of reactants and products in a
chemical reaction.
2.The quantitative relationship between reactants and products in
a chemical reaction.
Daniel J. Stern
> That helps.
> (dictionary.com)
>
> stoichiometry n.
>
> 1.Calculation of the quantities of reactants and products in a
> chemical reaction.
> 2.The quantitative relationship between reactants and products in
> a chemical reaction.
You have to get off your keister and use a *real* dictionary and look up
the word as it applies to combustion.
DS
Robert Hancock
mixture was stoichiometric there'd never be any HC or CO being put out..
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.020916...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Daniel J. Stern
> I think you're missing the point. The way you seem to be thinking, if the
> mixture was stoichiometric there'd never be any HC or CO being put out..
Um, no. I repeat myself:
When the mixture is stoichiometric, two nice things happen: CO and UBNMHC
production is minimised, and catalytic converter effectiveness at
oxidising CO and UBNMHC and reducing NOx is maximised. Therefore,
emissions at the tailpipe are lowest when the mixture is held to
stoichiometry.
DS
Geoff Welsh
That is a real dictionary.
And so is the 6 inch thich Oxford one on my shelf that agrees.
If you want to argue whether or not the perfect stoichiometrictric air to fuel
ratio is 14.7:1, there is no discussion. If you want me to spend $80 on a text
book, than say that.
If you want to tell people what a real dictionary is...........
G
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
--
GW-note incorrect email address
Daniel J. Stern
> If you want to argue whether or not the perfect stoichiometrictric air
> to fuel ratio is 14.7:1, there is no discussion.
No, I wish to point out that the word "stoichiometric" as applied to
gasoline combustion refers to the 14.7:1 ratio you mention, not simply to
the measurement in general of reagents and products.
DS
vwgirl
--
Lauren
"C.R. Krieger" <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote in message
news:3d8621ba$0$311$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net...
James Alrad
wrote:
>thats fine, no one asked you
Go find a book titled "Usenet for Dummies"
C.R. Krieger
> "C.R. Krieger" <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote in message
> news:3d8621ba$0$311$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net...
> > "vwgirl" <vwla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8A_g9.129817$2L.63...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > > but putting higher octane gas in a car that needs a lower octane gas
> > > usually will cause the knocking...
> >
> > Sorry, but you have that absolutely, completely, and unquestionably
> > backwards.
> thats fine, no one asked you
>
> --
> Lauren
Awww, did I *hurt* Lauwen's wittle feewings?
No one asked *you* for this misinformation either, but you felt compelled to
spew it. I therefore felt compelled to *correct* it - as well as your
top-posting. Now go do some research on 'detonation', 'pre-ignition', or
'pinging' so you don't continue making a fool of yourself in the future.
James Alrad
<tsajzin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>if i said it backwards so be it... the point is that you should run the type
>of fuel your car was designed for...
This renews my faith in usenet. Just when you thought there was little
real information out there we get this profound insight.
nmoberg
<tsajzin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>if i said it backwards so be it... the point is that you should run the type
>of fuel your car was designed for...
That's really you isn't it Christian?
vwgirl
--
Lauren
"C.R. Krieger" <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote in message
news:3d8751d2$0$311$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net...
Robert Hancock
oxygenate in the fuel would allow lower emissions levels while still at
stoichiometric, which is what I was talking about in the first place..
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.020917...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
Daniel J. Stern
> >However, that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the presence of
> >oxygenate in the fuel would allow lower emissions levels while still at
> >stoichiometric, which is what I was talking about in the first place..
> >
>
> How about higher?
Yep. How 'bout it.
> But to answer your question one only needs to observe fuel trim
> numbers on a scan tool between oxygenated and non-oxygenated fuel to
> see that the incresed oxygen from the oxygenated fuel does appear to
> the ECM as a slightly lean condition which the ECM then tries to
> compensate for.
Agreement
> At the tailpipe in a feedback system, it [aggravated] NOx on systems
> with marginal capability to deal with it (NOX).
My own '92 LeBaron and scads of other cars like it come to mind. The '92
came in two flavours: With EGR and without EGR. Mine is the "without"
type. NOx *soars* with Oxyfuel.
DS
Daniel J. Stern
> what the hell is UBNMHC?????
<aHEM> Quoting you: "thats fine, no one asked you" "I could [you mean
"couldn't] care less what you think of me".
Your attitude sucks, missy. Look up the term in an emissions or a
combustion manual.
DS
Daniel J. Stern
> > When the mixture is stoichiometric, two nice things happen: CO and UBNMHC
> > production is minimised, and catalytic converter effectiveness at
> > oxidising CO and UBNMHC and reducing NOx is maximised. Therefore,
> > emissions at the tailpipe are lowest when the mixture is held to
> > stoichiometry.
> However, that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the presence of
> oxygenate in the fuel would allow lower emissions levels
Um, which part of "minimised" do you fail to understand?
DS
Neil Nelson
Hancock" <hanc...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:
>However, that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the presence of
>oxygenate in the fuel would allow lower emissions levels while still at
>stoichiometric, which is what I was talking about in the first place..
>
How about higher?
I recall the spring of 95 (IIRC), I got my AAR out of storage and after the
first tankful of fuel (oxygenated was introduced over winter) the engine had
a nasty lean surge at highway speed. Had to go up three jet sizes in the center
carburetor to get rid of it.
Under different circumstances the wrong fix might have been attempted
un-successfully, or just left alone and the vehicle would have no doubt been
a gross polluter.
But to answer your question one only needs to observe fuel trim numbers
on a scan tool between oxygenated and non-oxygenated fuel to see that the
incresed oxygen from the oxygenated fuel does appear to the ECM as a
slightly lean
condition which the ECM then tries to compensate for.
At the tailpipe in a feedback system, it makes no difference according to
the IM-240
baseline tests I ran back in 95 and 96, other than agrivating NOX on
Marc
The question as I saw it (or at least as I'd like to have had it
answered) is:
If you run the engine lean, why wouldn't the burning of the fuel be
more complete, though more unutilized O2 would be in the exhaust?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Matthew Russotto
Chris Warren <chrisc...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, vwgirl wrote:
>>
>> > what the hell is UBNMHC?????
>>
>
I had the rest figured out, but why is methane special?
Matthew Russotto
That extra O2 doesn't just sit around. It combines with N2 to make
NOx. It also makes the engine hotter, which can cause other problems
(like detonation) which will increase both NOx and HC.
Dain Bramage
>i could really care less what your opinion of me is
Please help us to better understand your devastating
utterances - are you saying that you COULD care less,
but you choose not to care less? That could only
mean that you choose to maintain your caring at its
present non-zero level. OK, fine. But do you really
think that merits a public announcement?
Oh! Oh! Wait - another possibility just occurred to
me: maybe you're just so ignorant that you don't know
how to execute even the most basic of cliches. Sheesh!
I guess standards have fallen so far that they'll let
anyone onto the Net these days.
OK, here - if you practice these lines it shouldn't
take a mental giant like you more than a couple of
days to get it right:
I couldn't care less.
.
.
.
I couldn't care less.
.
.
.
I couldn't care less.
.
.
.
I couldn't care less.
.
.
.
HTH! Good luck. And please try not to
reproduce - we'll all be better off. Thanks.
VWGirl
does it matter how much i could/couldn't care?
I have no interest whatsoever in ICE's... I don't care if what i said was
backwards, it means no difference to me. As far as I am concerned ICE's are
old news, ancient history... why don't you go think about fuel cells for a
minute... tell me how they work and THEN we'll get into a discussion.
and which newsgroup are you guys replying from?
--
Lauren
"Dain Bramage" <ms...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:zI%h9.507982$UU1.84293@sccrnsc03...
Daniel J. Stern
> If you run the engine lean, why wouldn't the burning of the fuel be
> more complete
Because when you run the engine lean, reliable ignition and complete
combustion is much, much less likely. Cylinders won't light (misfire) or
the combustion will be incomplete because there will be areas in the
cylinder of insufficient mixture strength to support the burn. Voila, big
increase in UBNMHC. In addition, extra O2 sends combustion chamber
temperatures through the roof. Voila, big increases in NOx (for awhile,
until a valve burns or a piston melts-through).
They tried leaning-out cars to reduce emissions, back in the '60s. It
worked to no small degre, because cars had been set overly rich as the
fast and easy (and, in the old days, consequence-free) way to ensure good
driveability. Once they leaned 'em past the point of correct mixture, bad
things started happening to driveability *and* emissions.
Now we have very good combustion engineering and induction technology
available to us, so hamfisted measures like leaning-out the mixture are
NOT the way to reduced emissions.
DS
fbloogyuds
> I have no interest whatsoever in ICE's... I don't care if what i said was
> backwards, it means no difference to me. As far as I am concerned ICE's
are
> old news, ancient history...
> and which newsgroup are you guys replying from?
1) learn how to post properly - it's common courtesy to use the style
(bottom
in this case) in general practice.
2) Your alias (VWGirl), newsgroup (rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled?)
and the fact that _EVERYONE_ in the world has an interest in ICE and their
(some here may insert "alleged") pollution gives a lie to your statement
that you
have "... no interest whatsoever in ICE's..."
3) Many of these characters are from rec.autos.driving.
FloydR
vwgirl
news:uoh5maa...@corp.supernews.com...
> 1) learn how to post properly - it's common courtesy to use the style
> (bottom
> in this case) in general practice.
I have no clue what that is supposed to mean
>
> 2) Your alias (VWGirl), newsgroup (rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled?)
> and the fact that _EVERYONE_ in the world has an interest in ICE and their
> (some here may insert "alleged") pollution gives a lie to your statement
> that you
> have "... no interest whatsoever in ICE's..."
My alias??? ok... and no I don't like ICE's so it is not a lie that I have
no interest in them... That is a stupid statement to claim that EVERYONE in
the world has an interest in them... you know there are some places in the
world where not everyone owns a car or has any desire to have a car and I
can garauntee you that there are some people that couldN'T care less about
an ICE and it's pollution levels. But then again it is not YOUR intelligence
(or lack there of) that is at question here is it? I woudn't drive them
[ICE] if i had an alternative... and at the moment I don't. It was not until
recently that I was even driving a gasoline powered vehicle
>
> 3) Many of these characters are from rec.autos.driving.
Thanks
--
Lauren
NE Whitlock
in-duh-vidual misuses this cliche? I was thinking of posting something
similar, but I'm glad I didn't, since yours is much better.
Robert Hancock
to do with what I'm talking about..
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.020917...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
fbloogyuds
> Yes, the CO/HC production is minimized at stoichiometric. That has nothing
> to do with what I'm talking about..
The problem is, none of us can tell what you're talking about; perhaps
because you don't know what you're talking about, either.
Floyd
Chris Warren
> In article <3D87E940...@ameritech.net>,
> Chris Warren <chrisc...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, vwgirl wrote:
> >>
> >> > what the hell is UBNMHC?????
> >>
> >
> >Unburned Non-methane Hydrocarbons.
>
> I had the rest figured out, but why is methane special?
> --
Because methane does not react with oxides of nitrogen to produce
photo-chemical smog.
Chris Warren
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Marc wrote:
>
> > If you run the engine lean, why wouldn't the burning of the fuel be
> > more complete
>
> Because when you run the engine lean, reliable ignition and complete
> combustion is much, much less likely. Cylinders won't light (misfire) or
> the combustion will be incomplete because there will be areas in the
> cylinder of insufficient mixture strength to support the burn. Voila, big
> increase in UBNMHC. In addition, extra O2 sends combustion chamber
> temperatures through the roof. Voila, big increases in NOx (for awhile,
> until a valve burns or a piston melts-through).
>
No. Any modern engine can easily run somewhat lean (up to at least 17.5:1 or
18:1 A/F) with good combustion stability. Yes, engine out NOx rises up to
about 16:1 A/F and then drops off. Combustion temperatures go DOWN as you
lean out as long as ignition timing is adjusted to compensate for the slower
burn rates. As long as combustion stability is good, fuel efficiency improves
as the engine is run lean. Engines are not run lean these days because the
3-way catalyst NOx conversion efficiency drops dramatically when the engine
diverges from stoich.
>
> They tried leaning-out cars to reduce emissions, back in the '60s. It
> worked to no small degre, because cars had been set overly rich as the
> fast and easy (and, in the old days, consequence-free) way to ensure good
> driveability. Once they leaned 'em past the point of correct mixture, bad
> things started happening to driveability *and* emissions.
>
> Now we have very good combustion engineering and induction technology
> available to us, so hamfisted measures like leaning-out the mixture are
> NOT the way to reduced emissions.
>
Nonsense. As lean after treatment systems are developed, lean burn and/or
stratified charge will emerge as viable systems. They are already in place in
Europe (easier standards).
The complaints about early lean burn systems were not because they didn't
work, they were because people didn't like the throttle feel. Convention
mechanical throttles tended to have a very stretchy feel, meaning the torque
output didn't seem to match the pedal travel expectation. With advanced
lean/stratified charge systems, load control will be more drive-by-wire in
which case any throttle feel can be programmed in.
Dain Bramage
OK - I do hereby authorize all use of the material in
question. I'd ask you include proper attribution but
since I'm posting under an alias the point is moot...
--Dain
Daniel J. Stern
> Any modern engine can easily run somewhat lean (up to at least 17.5:1 or
> 18:1 A/F) with good combustion stability.
"Any" modern engine? No. The lean-burn engines beginning to appear outside
North America and the ones that have been the subject of experimentation
have extensively redesigned combustion chambers and other changes to get
back the combustion stability/reliability lost to the lean mixture.
> Yes, engine out NOx rises up to about 16:1 A/F and then drops off.
Yes. And since oxygenated fuels (such as gasoline with alcohol in it, the
subject of this thread) does not contain nearly enough oxygen to push the
mixture anywhere near 16:1, NOx production rises when oxyfuels are burned.
> Combustion temperatures go DOWN as you lean out
The real world does not agree with this idea.
> Engines are not run lean these days because the 3-way catalyst NOx
> conversion efficiency drops dramatically when the engine diverges from
> stoich.
True, we still don't have a particularly effective lean-burn catalyst.
> As lean after treatment systems are developed, lean burn and/or
> stratified charge will emerge as viable systems.
Perhaps. We'll have to wait and see.
> The complaints about early lean burn systems were not because they didn't
> work, they were because people didn't like the throttle feel.
*laugh* Right. Spoken like someone who's read a book about them.
DS
Daniel J. Stern
> Yes, the CO/HC production is minimized at stoichiometric. That has nothing
> to do with what I'm talking about..
It has everything to do with what you're talking about. We agree that
a stoich mixture minimizes CO, HC and NOx. A stoichiometric mixture is one
that is neither too rich nor too lean.
If you start with a stoichiometric mixture and introduce oxyfuel in the
absence of a feedback system, the mixture will go lean due to the Oxygen
in the fuel. And that means the mixture will no longer be stoichiometric,
and that means CO, HC and NOx will no longer be minimized.
If you start with a stoichiometric mixture and introduce oxyfuel in the
*presence* of a feedback system, the O2 sensor will detect the extra
oxygen in the exhaust stream and will increase the amount of fuel to push
the mixture back to stoichiometric. Result: More fuel burned, therefore
more total CO, HC and CO2 released, even though concentrations may remain
the same. NOx often increases dramatically.
If you start with a too-rich mixture in the absence of a feedback system
and introduce oxyfuel, then and ONLY THEN will emissions be reduced.
Cars that lack a feedback system and are running too rich were last
somewhat common on North American roads around 1985 or so.
DS
Matthew Hunt
Daniel J. Stern <das...@engin.umich> wrote:
> If you start with a stoichiometric mixture and introduce oxyfuel in the
> *presence* of a feedback system, the O2 sensor will detect the extra
> oxygen in the exhaust stream and will increase the amount of fuel to push
> the mixture back to stoichiometric. Result: More fuel burned, therefore
> more total CO, HC and CO2 released, even though concentrations may remain
> the same. NOx often increases dramatically.
It seems to me that in order to return the mixture to stoichiometric,
the system does indeed need to dump more fuel into the engine, in the
sense of more gallons from the tank, but the number of molecules being
burned will be the same as with non-oxygenated fuel; that is, you're
burning enough hydrocarbons to meet the driver's power demands, but need
to pump a larger volume to get them due to dilution from oxygenates.
If this is true, and you're burning the same amount of hydrocarbons as
you would with non-oxygenated fuel, won't the reaction products (CO, etc.)
be the same as for non-oxygenated fuel?
(I'm assuming that the driver's power demands are the same in both the
oxygenated and non-oxygenated cases. I think your argument assumes
constant throttle position, which doesn't seem as meaningful to me on
street-driven vehicles.)
Daniel J. Stern
> > If you start with a stoichiometric mixture and introduce oxyfuel in the
> > *presence* of a feedback system, the O2 sensor will detect the extra
> > oxygen in the exhaust stream and will increase the amount of fuel to push
> > the mixture back to stoichiometric. Result: More fuel burned, therefore
> > more total CO, HC and CO2 released, even though concentrations may remain
> > the same. NOx often increases dramatically.
>
> It seems to me that in order to return the mixture to stoichiometric,
> the system does indeed need to dump more fuel into the engine, in the
> sense of more gallons from the tank, but the number of molecules being
> burned will be the same as with non-oxygenated fuel
No. Oxyfuel density is not significantly different from ordinary fuel
density. More gallons in = more molecules in.
> (I'm assuming that the driver's power demands are the same in both the
> oxygenated and non-oxygenated cases. I think your argument assumes
> constant throttle position,
No, it doesn't. Due to the lower energy content of oxyfuel compared to
ordinary fuel, the driver will need to push his foot down farther with
oxyfuel.
DS
Matthew Hunt
Daniel J. Stern <das...@engin.umich> wrote:
> No. Oxyfuel density is not significantly different from ordinary fuel
> density. More gallons in = more molecules in.
More *total* molecules, some of which are the oxygenate. It still seems
to me that to get the car to produce the same power with the two fuels
(which is what a driver normally wants, e.g. to cruise at a given speed)
you simply need to burn the same number of molecules of useful hydrocarbon
fuel, and hence produce the same number of molecules of combustion
byproducts. The fact that you need to pump in a greater volume from the
tank, due to dilution by oxygenates, shouldn't matter.
> No, it doesn't. Due to the lower energy content of oxyfuel compared to
> ordinary fuel, the driver will need to push his foot down farther with
> oxyfuel.
But the feedback system is already pumping in more fuel, no? If you
keep the throttle position constant, you're fixing the amount of air
that you intake per second. On regular fuel, the system is pumping in
a certain amount of fuel to keep the mix stoichiometric. Now, when you
introduce oxygenate, the O2S measures a lean condition and the system
delivers a greater volume of fuel from the tank. In order to return the
system to stoichiometric, it needs to deliver more fuel to achieve the
correct mix with the intake stream, which we've held constant. Now,
we've also dumped some oxygenate into the engine, so we need even *more*
fuel. It certainly looks to me like the system will deliver more molecules
of useful fuel if we add oxygenate and keep the throttle constant, which
will result in more power (power simply being proportional to number of
molecules burned).
In other words, if we keep intake air constant (in cfm or whatever),
*and* we add an oxygenate, we've increased the amount of oxygen
available for combustion. By definition of stoichiometry, which is
preserved automatically by the feedback system, we need to provide more
hydrocarbon molecules to "use up" the oxygen, which results in more
energy released. (And more fuel drawn from the tank, hence the hit
in fuel efficiency.)
Daniel J. Stern
> > No. Oxyfuel density is not significantly different from ordinary fuel
> > density. More gallons in = more molecules in.
>
> More *total* molecules, some of which are the oxygenate. It still seems
> to me that to get the car to produce the same power with the two fuels
> (which is what a driver normally wants, e.g. to cruise at a given speed)
> you simply need to burn the same number of molecules of useful hydrocarbon
Oxygenates burn too! Methyl Tertiary Butyl *ETHER*. Ethyl *ALCOHOL*. These
are combustibles. It's not like there's water added to the fuel. And the
average driver has all kinds of wants. he wants to accelerate to 30mph and
hold that speed, then acelerate to 60, then to 75, brake to 54, accelerate
to 70, brake to 45, idle for 15 minutes, accelerate to 25...
> > No, it doesn't. Due to the lower energy content of oxyfuel compared to
> > ordinary fuel, the driver will need to push his foot down farther with
> > oxyfuel.
>
> But the feedback system is already pumping in more fuel, no?
Yes, which corrects the mixture. Remember, though, oxyfuel contains less
energy per unit volume.
> It certainly looks to me like the system will deliver more molecules
> of useful fuel if we add oxygenate and keep the throttle constant, which
> will result in more power (power simply being proportional to number of
> molecules burned).
I give up trying to convince you that the real world doesn't work like it
"looks to you" as though it does.
DS
Matthew Hunt
Daniel J. Stern <das...@engin.umich> wrote:
> Oxygenates burn too! Methyl Tertiary Butyl *ETHER*. Ethyl *ALCOHOL*. These
> are combustibles.
Fine. That's what I didn't realize. I thought they only added to the
oxygen side of the equation. Thank you for clarifying this.