aviation gas
Gary Todd
Have you ever heard of 104 Octane boost. It will give you a higher octane
number and get this... its cheaper too.
Besides unless you have a race preped machine you'll stand a good chance
of actually hurting your engine. I use the Octane boost in my racecar but
not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
Gary
'91 EX500 Selling my baby
'78 RD400D Wow this thing is fun!
'88 Rocketsports Olds Calais The more tires I have in the air
the faster I go.
John M. Feiereisen
wrote:
>
<snip>
> Besides unless you have a race preped machine you'll stand a good chance
> of actually hurting your engine. I use the Octane boost in my racecar but
> not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
> the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
> for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
>
I suspect your racecar engine has a high enough compression ratio where
you'll knock and ping like crazy with 92 octane. Therefore you need
a higher octane fuel.
Octane rating has nothing to do with the energy content of the fuel.
Burning higher octane fuel will not produce any more heat than a
lower octane fuel. A higher octane rating than required will buy
you nothing and won't hurt your engine in any way. Incidentally,
running too low an octane fuel and having lots of knocking will
cause your engine to run hotter because of lower combustion system
efficiency. Less of the chemical energy in the fuel is going into
pushing the pistons down. Instead, it's going through the head and
cylinder walls into the cooling system.
You say your bike is perfectly happy with 92 octane fuel. If your
owner's manual specs an 86 octane fuel, I'll bet it'll be just as
happy burning that.
If high octane fuel produces so much power, why don't racers
just forget about the gasoline and burn straight octane booster?
Oh, BTW, do you run a synthetic oil in your racecar? :-)
John M. Feiereisen feie...@ecn.purdue.edu
'85 CB700SC Nighthawk High-Speed Backpacker
45256-Don Zielke(CB0333)325
Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
>tod...@news.unr.edu (Gary Todd) wrote:
>> WHY?....
>>
>> Have you ever heard of 104 Octane boost. It will give you a higher octane
>> number and get this... its cheaper too.
>>
>> Besides unless you have a race preped machine you'll stand a good chance
>> of actually hurting your engine. I use the Octane boost in my racecar but
>> not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
>> the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
>> for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
>
>
>"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
>the laugh.
>
> tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
Actually Tom, Gary is correct. The higher the octane rating of the fuel
used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
--
Donald Zielke | AT&T Bell Laboratories
d...@cbstp2.att.com | 6200 E. Broad ST.
'89 Honda Hawk GT | Columbus, OH 43213-1569
Tom Coradeschi
> WHY?....
>
> Have you ever heard of 104 Octane boost. It will give you a higher octane
> number and get this... its cheaper too.
>
> Besides unless you have a race preped machine you'll stand a good chance
> of actually hurting your engine. I use the Octane boost in my racecar but
> not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
> the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
> for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
hee hee hee hee snark snark snark
John M. Feiereisen
Zielke(CB0333)325) wrote:
>
> In article <tcora-13079...@k-whiner.pica.army.mil>,
> Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
> >tod...@news.unr.edu (Gary Todd) wrote:
> >> WHY?....
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of 104 Octane boost. It will give you a higher octane
> >> number and get this... its cheaper too.
> >>
> >> Besides unless you have a race preped machine you'll stand a good chance
> >> of actually hurting your engine. I use the Octane boost in my racecar but
> >> not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
> >> the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
> >> for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
> >
> >hee hee hee hee snark snark snark
> >
> >"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
> >the laugh.
> >
> > tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
>
> Actually Tom, Gary is correct. The higher the octane rating of the fuel
> used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
>
Sorry, Don, you and Gary are incorrect and Tom is correct. You'll get
higher combustion temperatures ONLY if you up the compression ratio or
advance the spark accordingly. Just putting in a higher octane fuel
will do nothing.
One more time..... using higher octane fuel will buy you nothing
unless you modify the engine to take advantage of it. Once you
use a high enough octane rating to avoid knock, any higher is just
a waste of money.
Bruce T. Brodnax
>WHY?....
>
>Have you ever heard of 104 Octane boost. It will give you a higher octane
>number and get this... its cheaper too.
You sure? Wrt to the rest of your post [snipped], I didn't think the
original poster intended to run the Avgas full strength. And mixing it,
it probably comes out cheaper than the 104boost overall.
I don't have any hard numbers, but how much is the 104 per can? And that
can is about a pint? And you use about a quarter can per tank? Etc....
The avgas is _per gallon_, and will boost the rating of the cheaper gas
by a larger amount; equal volumes mixed gives you a higher-than-averaged
octane rating. And you still end up with _two_ gallons of fuel, not just
one+a-spit's-worth.
Of course, purchasing avgas (no excise taxes) for use in a road vehicle
is technically illegal, so this is all just hypothetical rhetoric for
off-road use only, anyway... ;-)
Fly low and avoid the radar!
Bruce Brodnax "I'M *NOT* CRAZY! MY BRAIN IS ON FIRE!!!" <tm>
John Wesley Lewellen IV
John M. Feiereisen <feie...@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>I suspect your racecar engine has a high enough compression ratio where
>you'll knock and ping like crazy with 92 octane. Therefore you need
>a higher octane fuel.
>
>Octane rating has nothing to do with the energy content of the fuel.
This is true now, since "octane rating" no longer means the same thing
as "octane content." It was once correlated, and the correlation stopped
when gasoline was first leaded to increase the "effective" octane content -
or octane rating - of cheap gasoline.
>Burning higher octane fuel will not produce any more heat than a
>lower octane fuel. A higher octane rating than required will buy
>you nothing and won't hurt your engine in any way.
Right. A higher octane _content_ fuel (which, btw, automatically gives you
a higher octane _rating_) does typically contain more energy per unit volume.
>Incidentally,
>running too low an octane fuel and having lots of knocking will
>cause your engine to run hotter because of lower combustion system
>efficiency. Less of the chemical energy in the fuel is going into
>pushing the pistons down. Instead, it's going through the head and
>cylinder walls into the cooling system.
Actually, no. A lower octane-rated fuel burns faster than a higher octane-
rated fuel. It's also more flammable, making it more susceptible to
detonation, knock and ping, especially in high-compression engines. A fuel
with higher octane rating burns more slowly and uniformly, delivering power
more smoothly to the piston. The lower operating temperaure comes from two
sources ... a "knock or ping" ignition burn happens more rapidly and unevenly
than a "usual" ignition burn, so local temperatures can increase faster.
Also, it takes more energy to vaporize a higher octane content fuel (longer
molecular chains on average) which reduces the overall temperature slightly.
>You say your bike is perfectly happy with 92 octane fuel. If your
>owner's manual specs an 86 octane fuel, I'll bet it'll be just as
>happy burning that.
If the fuel is clean and the bike hasn't been modified in some fashion
(e.g. higher compression) such that it requires higher octane fuel.
>If high octane fuel produces so much power, why don't racers
>just forget about the gasoline and burn straight octane booster?
Because most octane boosters increase the octane _rating_, not the octane
_content_ and don't deliver any more power per unit fuel.
- John L.
John M. Feiereisen
Wesley Lewellen IV) wrote:
>
<snip>
I said:
> >Burning higher octane fuel will not produce any more heat than a
> >lower octane fuel. A higher octane rating than required will buy
> >you nothing and won't hurt your engine in any way.
>
> Right. A higher octane _content_ fuel (which, btw, automatically gives you
> a higher octane _rating_) does typically contain more energy per unit volume.
Gasoline is a mixture of lots of hydrocarbons. Let's talk about octane
rating for individual hydrocarbons. At the pump we see (R+M)/2. I'll
provide the ratings as R,M. I'll also provide the lower heating value
of the fuel in BTU/lbm and the heat of vaporization (hfg) in BTU/lbm.
Fuel R,M Heating Value hfg
--------------------------------------------------
Isobutane 102,98 19444 157
Pentane 62,63 19340 154
Isopentane 93,90 19301 147
Hexane 25,26 19233 144
Isohexane 104,94 19192 136
Heptane 0,0* 19157 136
Triptane 112,101 19104 124
Octane -20,-17** 19100 129
Isooctane 100,100* 19065 117
Methanol 106,92 8644 502
Ethanol 107,89 11604 396
Nitromethane na,na 5160 268
* by definition
** estimated
From the list above I'd say there's very little (if any) correlation
between the octane rating of the fuel and the energy content. Funny thing,
isooctane has the lowest energy content of the alkanes listed above.
Adding
this to any of the other alkanes would decrease the heating value of
the mixture. Sorry to burst your bubble.
>
> >Incidentally,
> >running too low an octane fuel and having lots of knocking will
> >cause your engine to run hotter because of lower combustion system
> >efficiency. Less of the chemical energy in the fuel is going into
> >pushing the pistons down. Instead, it's going through the head and
> >cylinder walls into the cooling system.
>
> Actually, no. A lower octane-rated fuel burns faster than a higher octane-
> rated fuel. It's also more flammable, making it more susceptible to
> detonation, knock and ping, especially in high-compression engines. A fuel
> with higher octane rating burns more slowly and uniformly, delivering power
> more smoothly to the piston. The lower operating temperaure comes from two
> sources ... a "knock or ping" ignition burn happens more rapidly and unevenly
> than a "usual" ignition burn, so local temperatures can increase faster.
> Also, it takes more energy to vaporize a higher octane content fuel (longer
> molecular chains on average) which reduces the overall temperature slightly.
Compare methanol, isooctane, and nitromethane each at an equivalence ratio
of 1.0 (i.e. stoichiometric) and you'll see that methanol has a flame speed
approximately 20% higher than isooctane. Methanol has a much lower heating
value and almost the same (R+M)/2 rating. Nitromethane has a flame
speed approximately 60% higher than isooctane with only a third the
energy content.
This blows your flame speed argument.
BTW, they use a weak fuel such as nitromethane in the top fuel
dragsters because the flame speed is so high. They need to get the
combustion event over with quickly since the engine is spinning so fast.
Knocking and pinging can scrub off the boundary layers inside the
cylinder, leading to rapid overheating of the metal. This rapid heating
has nothing to do with the heat release rate of the fuel, rather,
it has everything to do with the fluid mechanics in the cylinder.
Compare the heats of vaporization (the energy required to vaporize
a given quantity of liquid) for several fuels. It seems that as
the chain length goes up the heat of vaporization goes down.
Another of your points bites the dust.
The alcohols have much higher heats of vaporization than the alkanes.
This is put to good use in cooling the engines in alcohol funny cars.
The heating values of the alcohols are quite a bit lower than those
of the alkanes. This just means you have to burn more fuel to
make the same power.
Might I recommend a course in Applied Combustion? Maybe Internal
Combustion Engines?
BTW, all the above figures are drawn from:
Internal Combustion Engines and Air Pollution
Edward F. Obert
ISBN 0-352-04560-0
Tom Coradeschi
> Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
> >tod...@news.unr.edu (Gary Todd) wrote:
> >> WHY?....
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of 104 Octane boost. It will give you a higher octane
> >> number and get this... its cheaper too.
> >>
> >> Besides unless you have a race preped machine you'll stand a good chance
> >> of actually hurting your engine. I use the Octane boost in my racecar but
> >> not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
> >> the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
> >> for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
> >
> >hee hee hee hee snark snark snark
> >
> >"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
> >the laugh.
>
> used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
BZZZT. Thank you for playing. Next. (Altho what you say is partially
correct if read in a twisted enough fashion.)
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
Tom Coradeschi
>d...@stp7838.cb-stp (45256-Don Zielke(CB0333)325) wrote:
> > Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
> > >tod...@news.unr.edu (Gary Todd) wrote:
> > >> not in my bike. My car hase an engine that was made to beable to stand
> > >> the extra heat that the added octane will produce. My bike wasn't made
> > >> for that. It is perfectly happy with 92 octane.
> > >
> > >hee hee hee hee snark snark snark
> > >
> > >"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
> > >the laugh.
> >
> > used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
>
> Sorry, Don, you and Gary are incorrect and Tom is correct. You'll get
> higher combustion temperatures ONLY if you up the compression ratio or
> advance the spark accordingly. Just putting in a higher octane fuel
> will do nothing.
>
> One more time..... using higher octane fuel will buy you nothing
> unless you modify the engine to take advantage of it. Once you
> use a high enough octane rating to avoid knock, any higher is just
> a waste of money.
Right.
As a data point, I added 1.1 gallons of 100 octane (R+M/2 method) unleaded
to the ~2.5 gallons of 92 octane remaining in my tank last week (from the
pumps at Watkins Glen - no brakelights or mirrors and only an hour for
lunch [gasp $3.75/gallon]). Figgering on a straight average, that's about
94.5 octane. Didn't run a damn bit different that I could tell. And I was,
aaaah, shall we say, exploring the upper reaches of the powerband:-}
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
Ravi Narayan
= In article <>, d...@stp7838.cb-stp (45256-Don Zielke(CB0333)325) wrote:
= > In article <>, Tom Coradeschi <> wrote:
= > >tod...@news.unr.edu (Gary Todd) wrote:
= >
= > > Tom says Gary is wrong.
= >
= > Actually Tom, Gary is correct.
= >
= Sorry, Don, you and Gary are incorrect and Tom is correct.
=
actually, tom and don are squids, you are a edu-breath and gary
is an aa member coz he took to drinking after he was thrown out of
his msf beginner's course due to his question "ok, where's the
pedal?".
lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
and only *i* am correct.
- ravi
Christopher G Karras
Thanks. Who has the FAQ to add this good stuff?
--
Christopher G. Karras
CGKa...@world.std.com
DoD #2412
Gary Todd
1) Open mouth
2) Insert foot
or
Maybe you've heard this one:
(paraphrase) "The second someone thinks they know everything is when they
know nothing at all..
I admit I don't know everything. If I did life would be a bore.
Instead of making a hobby out of flaming people..
I would prefer to continue my current hobbies...
Women
Motorcycles
Racecars
Later.
****Sorry for the flame, but somebody had to do it.
Ravi Narayan (r...@big.att.com) wrote:
Dave Tharp CDS
>In article <tcora-13079...@k-whiner.pica.army.mil>,
>Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
>>
>>"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
>>the laugh.
>>
>> tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
>
>Actually Tom, Gary is correct. The higher the octane rating of the fuel
>used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
Actually Donald, Tom is completely correct. Heat is different than
temperature. Heat is a measure of energy. The octane rating of a fuel
is no indication at all of the amount of energy obtainable by combusting
it.
Heating oil, a very low octane fuel, contains a great deal more energy
than gasoline.
Methyl alcohol, a very high octane fuel, contains a great deal less
energy than gasoline.
Likewise, combustion chamber temperature depends to a much larger extent
on the conditions of combustion than on the octane rating.
Trivial examples:
High-compression engine has lower combustion chamber temperature on
high-octane fuel than on low octane fuel. Reason: low octane fuel is
causing detonation, and energy is raising the chamber temperature rather
than driving the piston down.
Two fuels with exactly the same octane rating produce different
combustion chamber temperatures. Reason: one fuel is heavily doped with
MTBE, which has a high octane rating, but has a much lower energy
content.
I sometimes get the feeling that thermodynamics should be a required
course for everybody.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Tharp | DoD #0751 | "You can't wear out |
| da...@interceptor.CDS.TEK.COM | MRA #151 | an Indian Scout, |
| '88 K75S '48 Indian Chief | AHRMA #751 | Or its brother the Chief.|
| '75 R90S(#151) '70 TR-2B(#751) | AMA #524737 | They're built like rocks |
| '65 R50/2/Velorex '57 NSU Max | | to take the knocks, |
| 1937 BMW R12 | (Compulsive | It's the Harleys that |
| My employer has no idea. | Joiner) | give you grief." |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Coradeschi
> d...@stp7838.cb-stp (45256-Don Zielke(CB0333)325) writes:
>>Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
>>>
>>>"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
>>>the laugh.
>>
>>used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
>
>temperature. Heat is a measure of energy. The octane rating of a fuel
>is no indication at all of the amount of energy obtainable by combusting
>it.
>I sometimes get the feeling that thermodynamics should be a required
>course for everybody.
Hey. I don't think so. Remember - there are two kinds of poeple in the world:
Those who are Mechanical Engineers and those who wish they were.
--
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
John M. Feiereisen
Narayan) wrote:
> actually, tom and don are squids, you are a edu-breath and gary
> is an aa member coz he took to drinking after he was thrown out of
> his msf beginner's course due to his question "ok, where's the
> pedal?".
>
> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
> and only *i* am correct.
>
> - ravi
Oops, sorry Ravi. I'll start riding like a squid so I can pound my
head against the pavement and shed some of this useless education.
I'll join a fraternity so I can learn how to do it efficiently
(and impress the babes in the process).
BTW, did I hear somewhere that you have a WWW home page? If so,
please post the URL. Thanks.
John M. Feiereisen
wrote:
>
>
> 1) Open mouth
> 2) Insert foot
>
> or
>
> Maybe you've heard this one:
>
> (paraphrase) "The second someone thinks they know everything is when they
> know nothing at all..
>
I can't tell if this flame was directed toward Ravi or me. If it was
at me, I don't profess to know everything. I do have significant
education and work experience in combustion, fuels, and lubes, and have
always been lousy at being misinformed on the subjects. Rather boring
subjects, though. Now jet engines.............
If it was directed at Ravi, well, he *does* know everthing.
John M. Feiereisen
Tharp CDS) wrote:
>
> Two fuels with exactly the same octane rating produce different
> combustion chamber temperatures. Reason: one fuel is heavily doped with
> MTBE, which has a high octane rating, but has a much lower energy
> content.
>
MTBE is something I have absolutely no experience with. One time tanking
up in Reno I noticed that the pump had a sticker on it saying that the
fuel contained MTBE (mono-tert-butyl-ether???) I was under the impression
that this was added to the fuel to increase the volatility for colder
weather operation. If anybody knows anything about this stuff, please
post something.
> I sometimes get the feeling that thermodynamics should be a required
> course for everybody.
>
Definitely. How about a basic physics class too?
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>
>If it was directed at Ravi, well, he *does* know everthing.
This is true with *one* leetle teeny exception. That exception
is what "landed" him in Keith's creel yesterday.
;-)
Chuck Rogers
DoD #0003 KotSBS
--
Nick Pettefar
> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
> and only *i* am correct.
Ravi, dear boy. That should read "I".
--
Nick (It's all true)
M'Lud. He who road rashly Concise Oxford Dictionary
.--------------------------------------------------------------.
| ni...@holly.ukmail.NET Tel. ++44 81 340 9623 DoD 1069, OGRI |
`--------------------------------------------------------------'
Ravi Narayan
= Narayan) wrote:
= > actually, tom and don are squids, you are a edu-breath and gary
= > is an aa member coz he took to drinking after he was thrown out of
= > his msf beginner's course due to his question "ok, where's the
= > pedal?".
= > lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
= > and only *i* am correct.
= >
= Oops, sorry Ravi. I'll start riding like a squid so I can pound my
= head against the pavement and shed some of this useless education.
= I'll join a fraternity so I can learn how to do it efficiently
= (and impress the babes in the process).
=
you are on the right track. only a squid apologizes on rec.moto
;-).
= BTW, did I hear somewhere that you have a WWW home page? If so,
= please post the URL. Thanks.
yep. check out:
there are a few other interesting ones. eric gunnerson's site is
quite comprehensive and sits at:
http://www.halcyon.com/moto/rec_moto.html
the best hypertext moto site i have seen is jason "crash"
molenda's stuff at:
check out the mndod hypertext ride report!
- ravi
Ravi Narayan
= In article <> feie...@ecn.purdue.edu (John M. Feiereisen) writes:
= >
= >If it was directed at Ravi, well, he *does* know everthing.
=
= This is true with *one* leetle teeny exception. That exception
= is what "landed" him in Keith's creel yesterday.
=
hey!!! i didnt even swim by that one! in fact, since the recent
success of my company's BAIT-B-GON products on rec.motorcycles, i
have had little chance to attend to reading the newsgroup. since i
am on the subject i might as well explain the terms, conditions
and features: fishermen with a heart, is a totally non-profit
organization (but we expect this to change soon ;-)), dedicated to
saving the smaller fish of this world. bait b' gon is an advanced
formula bait detector and repellent that works 100% for all forms
of clueless newbies in evading bait. though bait-b-gon is 100%
guaranteed to work, we do include a late-saver kit for those of
you who forgot to take the pill, to save face after being caught.
this includes in-depth explanation of counter-methods such as "i
was counter-fishing! you fell for the bait!", "your bait does not
conform to the jeff deeney standard on fishing baits and hence is
invalid", etc.
to order your bottle of bait-b-gon pills please call immediately.
operators are standing by the telephone, the fax machine and the
ladies room.
this is a public service announcement and is not to be
misinterpreted as a commercial advertising plug!
- ravi
Ravi Narayan
= r...@big.att.com "Ravi" wibbles, incorrectly:
=
= > lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
= > and only *i* am correct.
=
= Ravi, dear boy. That should read "I".
=
shame on you nick! i am not so much an egoist that i would ever
use a capital 'i' to refer to myself.
;-)
Andrew Bajorinas
>MTBE is something I have absolutely no experience with. One time tanking
>up in Reno I noticed that the pump had a sticker on it saying that the
>fuel contained MTBE (mono-tert-butyl-ether???) I was under the impression
>that this was added to the fuel to increase the volatility for colder
>weather operation. If anybody knows anything about this stuff, please
>post something.
Gladly.
MTBE is added to gasoline to raise the oxygen content. This is now mandated
by the government in areas where certains type of polution are a problem. The
extra oxygen can make the combustion more complete. This means instead of
emitting, say, the toxic Carbon-monoxide (CO)you will get more harmless
Carbon-Dioxide (C02). Incomplete combustion is more of a problem in the cold
so that is why it is mandated only during cold seasons in most areas. I don;t
think this has much effect on engines (numbers are too low) but if it did it
would probably be a positive effect since the extra oxygen would only help
combustion. (MTBE is a more complex compound that work much like alchohol in
gasoline. They can not use plain alchohol because it raises the vapor pressure
too much. See below)
As for the volatility (vapor pressure) the government mandates force the
companies to lower the vapor pressure. High vapor pressure cause more fuel to
vaporize in to the atmosphere thus poluting. A fuel with a lower pressure of
vapor will evaporate more slowly. This has little effect on the engine and is
really just for polution control.
In a nutshell:
This stuff will not (in my understanding) hurt or help your engine
It is not used all year round simply because it is not much help in the
summer and it does add to the processing costs of the fuel.
Clean air is better than dirty air. Especially at 75mph!
Hope this helps.
Andy
(PS: On the original topic. Don't bother using a higher octane than your bike
needs to prevent detonation. There is nothing to be gained past that point.)
==========================================================================
== The above opinions are my own. My employer thinks I am working. ;) ==
== ==
== Andrew P. Bajorinas bajo...@perkin-elmer.com ==
== Perkin-Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT ==
==========================================================================
== I think my cat watches | Never underestimate the power of ==
== me while I am asleep. | of internet Luke. ==
== | -ObiWan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker- ==
==========================================================================
Dave Tharp CDS
>
>MTBE is added to gasoline to raise the oxygen content. This is now mandated
>by the government in areas where certains type of polution are a problem.
In Denver, where "oxygenated" fuels are now required in the winter, the
major pollutant problem is **DUST**.
Denver exceeded EPA pollutant limits on three days this winter. On all
three days, the pollutant that caused the problem was **DUST**.
The dust comes from sand that's spread on the road during icy
conditions. Denver has many sunny dry days between icy conditions.
When vehicles drive over it, it makes **DUST**.
I would be interested in finding out how these fuels will control dust.
>The
>extra oxygen can make the combustion more complete. This means instead of
>emitting, say, the toxic Carbon-monoxide (CO)you will get more harmless
>Carbon-Dioxide (C02).
Only under certain circumstances. In a well-tuned engine with the
mixture set perfectly, combustion of MTBE requires considerably less
oxygen than an equivalent amount of gasoline. There is therefore excess
oxygen in the mixture, and the net effect is that the mixture is leaner.
A leaner mixture in a previously optimum engine will actually result in
higher CO emissions.
The point of combustion after all, is to replace high-energy carbon
bonds with lower-energy oxygen bonds, thereby releasing energy to propel
the vehicle. Fuel with fewer carbon bonds and more oxygen bonds
requires less oxygen to burn optimally.
If one assumes that most vehicles have the mixtures set on the rich
side, then one could perhaps make a case that MTBE would reduce
pollution. This might have been true at one time. As older
uncontrolled cars are taken out of service, this becomes less and less
true, and will be completely wrong before the turn of the century.
>Incomplete combustion is more of a problem in the cold
>so that is why it is mandated only during cold seasons in most areas.
No it's not the reason. The areas in which these fuels are mandated
suffer from inversion layers in the winter, which trap pollutants close
to the ground.
>I don;t
>think this has much effect on engines (numbers are too low) but if it did it
>would probably be a positive effect since the extra oxygen would only help
>combustion.
More voodoo EPA chemistry here. The local EPA "fuels expert" actually
made a similar statement to the newspapers here. She said that the
oxygenated fuels would help all the cars in Denver because "they are
starved for oxygen at this altitude anyway."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The fuel produces less power
for unit burned, the driver presses down harder on the pedal, fuel
consumption goes up, and hill-climbing ability goes down.
>(MTBE is a more complex compound that work much like alchohol in
>gasoline. They can not use plain alchohol because it raises the vapor pressure
>too much. See below)
In fact, plain old ethanol is also allowed as an "oxygenate" in fuel
here in the winter time, and is commonly used. It also commonly
dissolves carburetor floats and fuel lines.
I have yet to meet a fuels person that can tell me what comes out of the
tailpipe when a 15% MTBE solution and a 12% ethanol solution (together
with it's chemicals that keep the alcohol in solution in the presence of
water) are mixed together in a fuel tank and then combusted in an
engine. If somebody could enlighten me, I would appreciate it. I
strongly suspect that at least some amount of formalin and formaldehyde
come out.
>As for the volatility (vapor pressure) the government mandates force the
>companies to lower the vapor pressure. High vapor pressure cause more fuel to
>vaporize in to the atmosphere thus poluting. A fuel with a lower pressure of
>vapor will evaporate more slowly. This has little effect on the engine and is
>really just for polution control.
In fact, in REALLY cold weather (below 0 degrees F), the MTBE fuels have
an astonishing ability to form puddles in intake manifolds, and flood
engines completely. The cold-start systems in vehicles are horribly
confused by the stuff.
>In a nutshell:
> This stuff will not (in my understanding) hurt or help your engine
* ethanol will hurt it
* MTBE will certainly reduce it's performance and increase its fuel
consumption. It will also make it difficult to start in the winter. It
made the fuel lines swell up and fall off on my '65 BMW.
* The jury is still out on the longevity of engines that burn MTBE.
>summer and it does add to the processing costs of the fuel.
Winter-only utilization is due only to the local weather conditions.
> Clean air is better than dirty air. Especially at 75mph!
I wish that there was more science involved in cleaning the air, and
fewer clueless bureaucracies.
Note that the use of "oxygenated" fuels has undergone an intense
lobbying effort by the Archer-Daniels-Midland Corporation, which also
happens to control 60% of the fuel alcohol in the US. I believe that
the effort backfired a bit though, when the oil companies came up with
MTBE, formerly a cheap solvent and considered useless as a fuel.
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>In article <bajoriap.1...@Perkin-Elmer.com> bajo...@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew Bajorinas) writes:
>>
>>MTBE is added to gasoline to raise the oxygen content. This is now mandated
>>by the government in areas where certains type of polution are a problem.
>
>In Denver, where "oxygenated" fuels are now required in the winter, the
>major pollutant problem is **DUST**.
>
>Denver exceeded EPA pollutant limits on three days this winter. On all
>three days, the pollutant that caused the problem was **DUST**.
>
>The dust comes from sand that's spread on the road during icy
>conditions. Denver has many sunny dry days between icy conditions.
>When vehicles drive over it, it makes **DUST**.
>
>I would be interested in finding out how these fuels will control dust.
Before oxy-fuels, Denver's most serious pollution problem was CO. How
many days did Denver exceed EPA CO safe limits before and after oxy-fuels?
Somehow, in your indictment of bureaucrats and their failure to use
science, you neglected to address the primary scientific reason and
justifying evidence why oxy-fuels are in use here. Gosh, what an oversight!
Chuck Rogers
--
Brian Burton
Tharp CDS) wrote:
> In article <bajoriap.1...@Perkin-Elmer.com>
bajo...@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew Bajorinas) writes:
> >
> >MTBE is added to gasoline to raise the oxygen content. This is now mandated
> >by the government in areas where certains type of polution are a problem.
>
> In Denver, where "oxygenated" fuels are now required in the winter, the
> major pollutant problem is **DUST**.
>
> Denver exceeded EPA pollutant limits on three days this winter. On all
> three days, the pollutant that caused the problem was **DUST**.
>
> The dust comes from sand that's spread on the road during icy
> conditions. Denver has many sunny dry days between icy conditions.
> When vehicles drive over it, it makes **DUST**.
>
> I would be interested in finding out how these fuels will control dust.
>
[major snip]
Obviously, these fuels will be more expensive. Ergo, more drivers may
wish to carpool. Ergo, fewer cars running over the sand. Ergo, less
dust. EPA is happy.
--
Brian Burton
bur...@andrew.com
We have an agreement. Andrew doesn't express my opinion and I don't express theirs.
Chris BeHanna
You may be correct, but *I* am right.
--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA Ed Green 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com Fan Club #004 1991 ZX-11 - Zexy
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. FOLMA #17 1973 RD350A - seized
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs. 1987 EX500 - the RaceBike
Chris BeHanna
If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
there wouldn't be any mechanical engineers.
Andy Woodward
>there wouldn't be any mechanical engineers.
And if it werent for the mathematicians working out the theory of a spherical
tool of zero radius...........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just another roadkill on the Information Superhighway
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andy Woodward
>:>= >
>:>= > Actually Tom, Gary is correct.
>:>= >
>:>= Sorry, Don, you and Gary are incorrect and Tom is correct.
>:>=
>:> actually, tom and don are squids, you are a edu-breath and gary
>:> is an aa member coz he took to drinking after he was thrown out of
>:> his msf beginner's course due to his question "ok, where's the
>:> pedal?".
>:> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
>:> and only *i* am correct.
> You may be correct, but *I* am right.
A right what?
Gaz
> If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
That would explain the number of tools in physics.....
Gaz
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. -- Van Roy
Bemben
>In article <1994Jul15.1...@big.att.com> Ravi Narayan (r...@big.att.com) wrote:
>:> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
>:> and only *i* am correct.
>
> You may be correct, but *I* am right.
So which "right" are you Chris?
Right handed? Politically Right? The next right? "Right" like
my wife is all the time? The right fielder?
--
Rich Bemben rbe...@mbunix.mitre.org
DoD #0044 (617) 271-7136
The street giveth and the street taketh away - Catmother
*********************************************************************
Tom Coradeschi
>Tom Coradeschi (tc...@pica.army.mil) wrote:
> :>da...@valiant.cds.tek.com (Dave Tharp CDS) writes:
> :>> d...@stp7838.cb-stp (45256-Don Zielke(CB0333)325) writes:
> :>>>Tom Coradeschi <tc...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
> :>>>>
> :>>>>"extra heat that the added octane will produce". That's rich. Thanks for
> :>>>>the laugh.
> :>>>
> :>>>Actually Tom, Gary is correct. The higher the octane rating of the fuel
> :>>>used, the higher the combustion temperature will be.
> :>>
> :>>Actually Donald, Tom is completely correct. Heat is different than
> :>>temperature. Heat is a measure of energy. The octane rating of a fuel
> :>>is no indication at all of the amount of energy obtainable by combusting
> :>>it.
> :>[...]
> :>>I sometimes get the feeling that thermodynamics should be a required
> :>>course for everybody.
>
> :>Hey. I don't think so. Remember - there are two kinds of poeple in the
world:
> :>Those who are Mechanical Engineers and those who wish they were.
>
> If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
> there wouldn't be any mechanical engineers.
Psaw.
Scientists concern themselves with what is.
Engineers concern themselves with what will be.
There's a big difference between Doing Physics and Being A Physicist
(speaking from the point of view of someone who's done the former and been
around the latter and knows which he prefers).
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
Dan Gambel
>
>>MTBE is something I have absolutely no experience with. One time tanking
>>up in Reno I noticed that the pump had a sticker on it saying that the
>>fuel contained MTBE (mono-tert-butyl-ether???) I was under the impression
>>that this was added to the fuel to increase the volatility for colder
>>weather operation.
>
> Clean air is better than dirty air. Especially at 75mph!
>
>Hope this helps.
> Andy
>
And The stuff ruins gas mileage. Summer I get ~40MPG
commuting, Winter ~30MPG and the only difference is
MTBE, the air temp, and the electric vest and gloves.
x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x
x Dan Gambel - Herndon, VA x '90 Gold Wing Aspencade x
x Northrop Grumman x AMA # 356297 GWRRA #84501 x
x Data Systems and Services x AARP, ADPA, AFCEA, ROA, etcx
x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x-----x
charles.a.rogers
>>
>And The stuff ruins gas mileage. Summer I get ~40MPG
> commuting, Winter ~30MPG and the only difference is
>MTBE, the air temp, and the electric vest and gloves.
There isn't anything else *except* MTBE or Ethanol here in GC in the
winter. While it's getting more difficult to find non-oxygenated fuel
in other seasons, I've succeeded so far, so I run without MTBE in the warm
months and with MTBE in the winter, and my FJ1100 stays rock steady at
42 mpg year round. Being a righteous manly-man Denizen of Doom, (and too
cheap to shell out the bux yet) I don't use any electrical or pneumatic
accessories. Maybe your electricware is a gas hog?
Chuck Rogers
Ravi Narayan
= In article <> Tom Coradeschi (tc...@pica.army.mil) wrote:
=
= :>Hey. I don't think so. Remember - there are two kinds of poeple in the world
= :>Those who are Mechanical Engineers and those who wish they were.
=
= If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
= there wouldn't be any mechanical engineers.
=
if it weren't for us day labourers who pay for you physicists
and mechanical engineers and your toys nobody would have invented
anything and we all would have been happily riding harleys.
;-)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravi Narayan, AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ. 89 Suzuki GS500E
H: 908-353-5405 W: 908-949-5822 92 Ducati 750SS
r...@big.att.com ________________________________________ DoD Squid #1 ___
Ravi Narayan
=
= If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
=
hey!!! no physicist invented the tools i use!!!
Ravi Narayan
=
= :> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
= :> and only *i* am correct.
=
= You may be correct, but *I* am right.
=
i will admit that you are right in that you think i may be
correct.
Seth Zirin
Cut the bullshit Ravi. You're a physicist. I know it!
--
Seth Zirin
s...@mare.att.com
Val Gregory
(article omitted in the interests of space)
On the subject of Denver's *DUST* problem - I noticed a front page
article (Post, I think), that Denver is considering reducing the
amount of "sand" they put down next winter. THANK GOD! Aside
from the pollution problem, on those dry, sunny days between
storms, the "sand" is the biggest road hazard I deal with.
Chipped/cracked windshields, sliding under moderate braking/
avoidance manouvers, etc. Prior to the '82 Christmas blizzard,
which quite frankly caught the road crews with their pants down,
sand was only applied to hills, bridges, overpasses and intersections.
The tendency after the '82 blizzard has been to dump 50 lbs every
50 feet, whether the conditions warrant it or not. This is a prime
example of government overeacting in their solution to the WRONG
problem.
Val Gregory
'90 Hawk GT - "Redtailed"
DoD #1258
Tom Coradeschi
> In a previous article, Chris Behanna waxed eloquently:
> =
> = If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
>
Sign on the wall in my old office: Beware computer scientists bearing hand
tools!
tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>
>On the subject of Denver's *DUST* problem -
>Prior to the '82 Christmas blizzard,
>which quite frankly caught the road crews with their pants down,
>sand was only applied to hills, bridges, overpasses and intersections.
>The tendency after the '82 blizzard has been to dump 50 lbs every
>50 feet, whether the conditions warrant it or not. This is a prime
>example of government overeacting in their solution to the WRONG
>problem.
The real problem, of course, is that the brain-dead people of Denver
and vicinity think they can drive around on smooth street tires all
year round and if their cars start sliding off the road because of
ice&snow conditions, then it's the government's job to fix the surface.
If they could muster enough functioning synapses to figure out that
their *tires* are the real problem and assume enough personal
responsibility to get appropriate tires for the area, we wouldn't need
the sand. I put M&S radials on both my cages, and I buy 'em on
sale, so they don't cost me significantly more than slicks would.
I seldom, if ever, have traction troubles regardless of the weather,
but I get to see a lot of street tires headed for the ditch every
year.
Chuck Rogers
--
Keith Michael Gawlik
>The real problem, of course, is that the brain-dead people of Denver
>and vicinity think they can drive around on smooth street tires all
>year round and if their cars start sliding off the road because of
>ice&snow conditions, then it's the government's job to fix the surface.
I can certainly live with less of the pea gravel they spread everywhere,
but they not only want to reduce how much they use, but replace it with
increased use of de-icing chemicals. Oh well, sounds like more body rot
for the BMW cage that's old enough to vote. A good set of tires, and some
consciousness of the slippery conditions are all that are really needed here.
ObMoto: Rode out from Boulder to Paonia and back on Saturday to check out
the Top of the Rockies rally. Looked like a great rally--BMWs, Moto Guzzis,
Ducatis, a couple of Indians and Nortons, and other fine machines and their
riders were in attendance. Had a fun time hanging out with Gooz. Maybe
next year I can do it right and stay the whole weekend.
Keith
'71 R75/5
--
___________________________________________
gaw...@colorado.edu
George Lyle (233789)
Heck, look at most of the tires out there. About 75% are "M+S rated.
About the only ones that aren't rated M+S are the low-profile
performance types.
I think that the problem is more related to their driving abilities
than to the tires on their car. Some idiots would find their way
into a ditch with chains on all four wheels. I see a lot of these
around thanksgiving, heading up US395 for Mammoth. Best one was a
guy in a new Carrera who had broken a cross link. That fender looked
like a guy had worked for hours with a ball-peen hammer from the inside!
George Lyle
Dave Tharp CDS
>
>ObMoto: Rode out from Boulder to Paonia and back on Saturday to check out
>the Top of the Rockies rally. Looked like a great rally--BMWs, Moto Guzzis,
>Ducatis, a couple of Indians and Nortons, and other fine machines
Mine was the BLUE one.
__
~% _/
(/ /\ /
*_/_) / @
_ / _ _ / _ _
/ ) / '% ) / % / / ~' '% )
| / / / / / / / / / / /
`-' ' `-'`-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-'
davet
Chris BeHanna
:>> If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
:>That would explain the number of tools in physics.....
My tool always worked just fine, and I didn't need no damned MechE
to build it for me.
Chris BeHanna
:>beh...@syl.nj.nec.com wrote:
:>> If it weren't for the Physicists who invented the tools you use,
:>> there wouldn't be any mechanical engineers.
:>Psaw.
:>Scientists concern themselves with what is.
:>Engineers concern themselves with what will be.
You mean like the auto engineers who designed the Chevy Lumina
concerned themselves with spark plug removal on the rear bank of cylinders
(you have to unbolt a motor mount and rotate the engine forward--my, how
clever)?
You mean like the engineers who designed the electrics for Brit
bikes?
You mean like the engineers who figured that a crankshaft in a large
bore parallel twin doesn't need any central support (Norton)?
Yeah, these engineer types are brilliant dudes.
:>There's a big difference between Doing Physics and Being A Physicist
:>(speaking from the point of view of someone who's done the former and been
:>around the latter and knows which he prefers).
Feynman did physics and was a physicist, and by all accounts, he
was an absolute pleasure to work with. I am, sadly, not employed as a
physicist, but I still do physics as recreation from time to time.
(stirring the pot) Truth be told, I wouldn't mind being an
engine research engineer. It's fascinating stuff.
(burning the soup, and stirring the pot even more) My title is
"Software ENGINEER".
Chris BeHanna
:>In article <30hhdj$3...@newsserver.nj.nec.com> beh...@syl.nj.nec.com writes:
:>>In article <1994Jul15.1...@big.att.com> Ravi Narayan (r...@big.att.com) wrote:
:>>:> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
:>>:> and only *i* am correct.
:>>
:>> You may be correct, but *I* am right.
:>So which "right" are you Chris?
:> Right handed? Politically Right? The next right? "Right" like
:> my wife is all the time? The right fielder?
LEFT handed, thank you. Politically right on most things, but not
all. Not "right" like your wife, 'cause she's probably not (but damnit if
it isn't humble pie time when she is!), and I did play right field for a
season in colt league.
Chris BeHanna
:>>:>= > > Tom says Gary is wrong.
:>>:>= >
:>>:>= > Actually Tom, Gary is correct.
:>>:>= >
:>>:>= Sorry, Don, you and Gary are incorrect and Tom is correct.
:>>:>=
:>>:> actually, tom and don are squids, you are a edu-breath and gary
:>>:> is an aa member coz he took to drinking after he was thrown out of
:>>:> his msf beginner's course due to his question "ok, where's the
:>>:> pedal?".
:>>:> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
:>>:> and only *i* am correct.
:>> You may be correct, but *I* am right.
:>A right what?
A right thinking individual. (Hi, BruceR)
Chris BeHanna
:>In a previous article, beh...@syl.nj.nec.com said:
:>= In article <> Ravi Narayan (r...@big.att.com) wrote:
:>=
:>= :> lets get this correct for once and for all: on this newsgroup, *i*
:>= :> and only *i* am correct.
:>=
:>= You may be correct, but *I* am right.
:>=
:> i will admit that you are right in that you think i may be
:> correct.
:> ;-)
"I know you think you understand what you think I said, but I am
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
-- Senator Robert McCloskey, circa 1969
Andy Woodward
>:>> there wouldn't be any mechanical engineers.
And if it werent for teh mathematicians who worked out teh theory of a
spherical tool of zero size.