GasBuddy Blog

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics	Add to favorite topics Post New Topic

Author	Topic: BTU's are 35% less for Ethanol but we are not heating water...	Post a Reply Back to Topics

JonnyEnergyE85 Rookie Author Illinois Posts:32 Points:720 Joined:Mar 2012	Message Posted: Apr 11, 2012 9:28:07 AM Ignore JonnyEnergyE85 Report Abuse The minimal difference in mileage is not a matter of BTU. A British Thermal Unit is a measurement of how long it takes a particular fuel to heat one pound of water one degree. It is a heat measurement, and if we were all concerned about only BTU for our engines we would be running them on candle wax, dynamite or any other number of high BTU content fuels. The problems with running candle wax or dynamite should be obvious. Lets say that there are other more important issues with a liquid fuel than just the very simple and blunt BTU, shall we? I see BTU content as more of a red herring, something to bitch about and a chip to use with less than knowledgeable people who dont understand the inner workings of engines and the relationship they have with differing fuels. If all we wanted to do was heat water, then sure gasoline is better than ethanol. The thing is we want to do work, in an internal combustion engine, that has to suck its air in, squeeze it pretty hard, ignite it, then expel the burned gasses. The fact of the matter is, ethanol does that work more efficiently than does gasoline. Outlaw was being overly generous with gasoline engines and thermal efficiency, they are usually around 20%, and rarely if ever above 25%, because the vast majority of the BTUs in gasoline go to waste heat, that needs to be shed through the radiator to the air, or it will cause all the parts in the engine to expand, break down the oil film protecting the surfaces, and destroy the engine due to friction. So we want to do work, you know, twist the crankshaft which turns the transmission, which turns the diveshaft and then the wheels. Work, moving something that would be otherwise stationary. Work over time is horsepower, a simple measurement of work is Torque, or twisting force measured in ftlbs or Nm.We want torque, its what moves things. Engines with pistons, connecting rods, and crankshafts all respond similarly to increases in compression and airflow as to how much work they can do. It affects the engines capability because it changes the amount of torque the engine produces. Cam timing can move the torque range around a bit, but it is still based on air and fuel going in, then exploding thus shoving the piston back down the cylinder to move the crankshaft. Higher compression results in higher torque for a given displacement. Just raising the static compression ratio (SCR) will have an effect on the torque produced even if nothing else in the engine is changed. An engine with an 8:1 scr will produce less torque than a same sized engine with 14:1, quite a bit less actually. Timing also has an effect on the torque output, and preignition and other problems can arise with gasoline that simply arent there with ethanol. To a certain extent advancing the timting from top dead center will increase power, retarding it from TDC will reduce power, generally speaking (Thanks Thumpin)

JonnyEnergyE85

Rookie Author
Illinois

Posts:32
Points:720
Joined:Mar 2012

Message Posted: Apr 11, 2012 9:28:07 AM

Ignore JonnyEnergyE85 Report Abuse

The minimal difference in mileage is not a matter of BTU. A British Thermal Unit is a measurement of how long it takes a particular fuel to heat one pound of water one degree. It is a heat measurement, and if we were all concerned about only BTU for our engines we would be running them on candle wax, dynamite or any other number of high BTU content fuels. The problems with running candle wax or dynamite should be obvious. Lets say that there are other more important issues with a liquid fuel than just the very simple and blunt BTU, shall we? I see BTU content as more of a red herring, something to bitch about and a chip to use with less than knowledgeable people who dont understand the inner workings of engines and the relationship they have with differing fuels.

If all we wanted to do was heat water, then sure gasoline is better than ethanol. The thing is we want to do work, in an internal combustion engine, that has to suck its air in, squeeze it pretty hard, ignite it, then expel the burned gasses. The fact of the matter is, ethanol does that work more efficiently than does gasoline. Outlaw was being overly generous with gasoline engines and thermal efficiency, they are usually around 20%, and rarely if ever above 25%, because the vast majority of the BTUs in gasoline go to waste heat, that needs to be shed through the radiator to the air, or it will cause all the parts in the engine to expand, break down the oil film protecting the surfaces, and destroy the engine due to friction.

So we want to do work, you know, twist the crankshaft which turns the transmission, which turns the diveshaft and then the wheels. Work, moving something that would be otherwise stationary. Work over time is horsepower, a simple measurement of work is Torque, or twisting force measured in ftlbs or Nm.We want torque, its what moves things. Engines with pistons, connecting rods, and crankshafts all respond similarly to increases in compression and airflow as to how much work they can do. It affects the engines capability because it changes the amount of torque the engine produces. Cam timing can move the torque range around a bit, but it is still based on air and fuel going in, then exploding thus shoving the piston back down the cylinder to move the crankshaft.

Higher compression results in higher torque for a given displacement. Just raising the static compression ratio (SCR) will have an effect on the torque produced even if nothing else in the engine is changed. An engine with an 8:1 scr will produce less torque than a same sized engine with 14:1, quite a bit less actually. Timing also has an effect on the torque output, and preignition and other problems can arise with gasoline that simply arent there with ethanol. To a certain extent advancing the timting from top dead center will increase power, retarding it from TDC will reduce power, generally speaking

(Thanks Thumpin)

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

First

Next Last

Banjoe Champion Author Winnipeg Posts:4,250 Points:614,265 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Apr 27, 2013 1:22:10 PM Ignore Banjoe Report Abuse borst - your wise words and reference material cheer this old engineer's heart. Clearly I've driven you back to some college flashbacks and you, in turn, have responded by causing me to take the same mental journey. As previously noted, I find this site and, for some reason, this particular topic, an excellent place to stretch my mind and discover new ways of thinking of things. There are some exceptionally gifted & experienced people contributing their knowledge, the majority who are searching for pearls of wisdom in this oyster barrel, and a small majority who seem to have been born with innate wisdom that required neither education or experience to develop. The mix is perfect and I look forward to the symphony every time I can make it to this site. Thanks for keeping my world spinning borst et al.
borsht All-Star Author Oakland Posts:793 Points:190,335 Joined:Aug 2012	Message Posted: Apr 27, 2013 1:50:32 AM Ignore borsht Report Abuse Hello Banjoe: Great insight. And extraodinarily complex question. Actually, a sphere is flat at any point. A topological sphere can have a geometry that is flat except at a finite number of points: for example, the regular polyhedra are spheres that are flat except at their vertices. At the vertices themselves, the curvature becomes infinite, in such a way that its integral gives the deficit angle at that vertex. There are "index theorems" which relate the total curvature integrated over a manifold to that manifold's topological invariants. In particular, for a 2-manifold, the integral of the Ricci scalar gives (2 pi times) the Euler characteristic. The Euler characteristic of a sphere is 2, so there must be some curvature somewhere if a manifold is to be topologically a sphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature Anyway, it's a long time since I worked with these heavy concepts, in tensor space. about 50 years ago. In a nut shell, no pun intended. if you accept a quanta as a minimal dimension. Then a Sphere is a surface with an infant number of flat infinitesimal spaces. But I agree with you the arguments on this board become pretty mundane and almost pointless. again no pun intended. Its mostly in fun, no scholars here.
Banjoe Champion Author Winnipeg Posts:4,250 Points:614,265 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Apr 26, 2013 10:44:52 PM Ignore Banjoe Report Abuse This is still the wackadoodliest topic on this site and I really thank all the contributors for making my days so enjoyable. Hope you guys determine if the world is really flat or not at some point.
borsht All-Star Author Oakland Posts:793 Points:190,335 Joined:Aug 2012	Message Posted: Apr 24, 2013 11:41:41 PM Ignore borsht Report Abuse Johnnyenergy said"The minimal difference in mileage is not a matter of BTU. A British Thermal Unit is a measurement of how long it takes a particular fuel to heat one pound of water one degree." BTU's are a measurement of energy. Got it. It has nothing to do with time or how long it takes to burn. Let's try to discuss subjects accurately, and factually.. Especially premises... Let’s skip the pretexts.
GrumpyCat Champion Author Alabama Posts:2,606 Points:789,560 Joined:Jun 2009	Message Posted: Apr 24, 2013 11:33:00 PM Ignore GrumpyCat Report Abuse No, not "heating water." But internal combustion engines are heat engines and heat makes them go. The more heat the more go. The EPA is the foremost ethanol apologists, yet even they can not lie with a straight face the way this topic practices. Typical FFV, Ford Focus: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32922&id=32918 Notice 28 MPG city on E10, 20 on E85. 40 highway on E10, 28 on E85. The turbocharged version, which according to conspiracy theorists here should be able to make the most out of E85 is not FFV. With all E85 (supposedly) has to offer why would Ford do such a thing? Perhaps E85 is a lie?
krzysiek_ck Champion Author Illinois Posts:5,322 Points:728,910 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Apr 14, 2013 8:45:35 PM Ignore krzysiek_ck Report Abuse Shockjock1961 wrote: "Unless your FFV is supercharged or have a high compression engines (which virtually none do), then E85 does not "magically" burn more efficiently then gasoline..." I have non-FFV turbo engine so I guess E85 does indeed "magically" burn more efficiently then gasoline.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Apr 14, 2013 2:31:00 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse Lastly, In other words, higher-octane fuel confers an advantage in some cars, but not others. It allows performance-oriented engines (specifically, those with higher compression ratios) to burn gasoline at higher pressures and higher temperatures. These conditions at the moment of combustion create better thermodynamic efficiency, so a greater percentage of the gasoline’s heat energy gets converted into motive power. Unless your FFV is supercharged or have a high compression engines (which virtually none do), then E85 does not "magically" burn more efficiently then gasoline...
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Apr 14, 2013 2:24:51 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse An engine's tendency to knock is influenced most by its compression ratio, although combustion-chamber design also has a large effect. A higher ratio extracts more power during the expansion stroke, but it also creates higher cylinder pressures and temperatures, which tend to induce knock. In supercharged engines boost pressure behaves the same way. That's why the highest-performance engines require higher-octane fuel. If you feed such an engine a fuel with insufficient octane, it will knock. Since it is impossible, for now, to change an engine's compression ratio, the only solution is to retard the ignition timing (or reduce boost pressure). Conversely, in some engines designed for regular fuel, you can advance the timing if you burn premium, but whether this will yield additional power varies from engine to engine. "Since it is impossible, for now, to change an engine's compression ratio" Need more be said?
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Apr 14, 2013 2:19:44 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse Virtually nothing is gained by filling up with a premium or more expensive grade of fuel than the vehicle manufacturer has recommended, the experts say. And many of the same experts explain that drivers may not lose much performance from their cars by using a lower grade of fuel than recommended by the car manufacturer. There is little difference in energy content of regular versus premium gasoline. They both contain about 111,400 British Thermal Units of energy per gallon.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Apr 14, 2013 8:32:24 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "If this were true, then higher octane gasoline would provide better mileage in a car then regular, which it does not. " I never made that claim. But, since you brought up mileage, premium fuel can contain significantly more energy per gallon than regular gasoline. The energy content of gasoline ranges from 100,000 btu per gallon to 125,000 plus. What you put in your car ranges from 103,000 to 112,000. Interesting that you'll never hear anyone say there's a difference in fuel economy between the different gasoline blends. The reason is there's more to it than just energy content. Furthermore, statistically, it's just really difficult for the average person to accurately measure a plus or minus 5% diference in fuel economy fillling at the pump.
Banjoe Champion Author Winnipeg Posts:4,250 Points:614,265 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Apr 14, 2013 6:52:32 AM Ignore Banjoe Report Abuse Good parry & thrust there fellows but I think you're actually agreeing on the outcome if not the basic functions as well. You two do make us think quite a bit with your different viewpoints on the same elephant. Keep up the excellent work as it's actually forcing us to think a bit and get somewhat more informed through the process.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Apr 13, 2013 8:15:19 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse "The sooner or longer the fuel burns, the more heat and combustion gasses that are generated." Wrong answer. If this were true, then higher octane gasoline would provide better mileage in a car then regular, which it does not. Higher octane fuel simple resists pre-mature detonation, and keeps your engine from knocking.... " An injector is either on or off. The amount of fuel delivered is determined by the number of times the computer allows the injector to fire or pulse per unit of time." A fuel injector is nothing more then a solenoid controlled valve. The amount of fuel it delivers is determined by the length of time the valve is open. The longer the pulse width, the more fuel that is injected... When the injector is energized, an electromagnet moves a plunger that opens the valve, allowing the pressurized fuel to squirt out through a tiny nozzle. The nozzle is designed to atomize the fuel -- to make as fine a mist as possible so that it can burn easily. The amount of fuel supplied to the engine is determined by the amount of time the fuel injector stays open. This is called the pulse width, and it is controlled by the ECU. It's simple physics, SG. Not magic.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Apr 13, 2013 8:24:59 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "So what changes in an engine, "dynamically" that makes ethanol burn hotter? " Timing and fuel mixture. When the fuel mixture burns in your engine it resembles a brush fire, not an explosion. The fuel is ignited when the piston on the upstroke. Higher octane fuel can be ignited sooner, without detonation. The sooner or longer the fuel burns, the more heat and combustion gasses that are generated. The more heat, the more pressure at top dead center. More pressure means more kinetic energy transfer or horsepower. As far as fuel mixture, the more air a pound of fuel is exposed to, the more temperature that is created. The fuel mixture is again limited by octane. Higher temperatures influence engine detonation. So, a higher octane fuel can be challenged with a leaner fuel mixture, to a greater extent, without producing knock. "Longer injector pulse widths? " An injector is either on or off. The amount of fuel delivered is determined by the number of times the computer allows the injector to fire or pulse per unit of time. About the only thing the driver controls is air flow delivered by the throttle body, which is controlled by the accellerator pedal. The ECU simply calculates the number of injector pulses required to provide the approprate amount of fuel to the engine based on rpm, detonation, and emissions. It's simple physics, shockjock. No magic.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 2:09:24 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse "Engines are now highly dynamic, when they run" So what changes in an engine, "dynamically" that makes ethanol burn hotter? Bigger spark? Don't think so... Change in timing? That just compensates for the higher octane and the slower, cooler burning ethanol... Strike two... Longer injector pulse widths? Perhaps, but the more fuel you inject the lower the mileage that results...
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Apr 12, 2013 7:19:13 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "Engine compression would need to change if the fuel use changes; you can't change one variable without another changing." Relative compression is not the only thing that affects how a fuel burns. Engines are now highly dynamic, when they run.
tdioiler All-Star Author Detroit Posts:892 Points:419,940 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 10:02:26 PM Ignore tdioiler Report Abuse Engine compression would need to change if the fuel use changes; you can't change one variable without another changing. Diesel uses higher compression to get diesel to burn. Ethanol is in the same category, but not as high. So the engine would change to handle the compression increase. Hence more weight to burn the fuel efficiently. But would the total cost of the engine really be that much higher in low market sales (not everywhere has E-85)?
rumbleseat Champion Author Winnipeg Posts:22,925 Points:3,530,290 Joined:Oct 2002	Message Posted: Apr 11, 2013 2:27:27 AM Ignore rumbleseat Report Abuse "Second sentence is wrong. BTU does NO have to do with how LONG it takes to heat one pound of water one degree celsius." If you read the sentence, it doesn't say degree C, it just says degree! Since most Americans don't work in metric, they would likely assume a sentence with pounds, not kilograms, would use temperature in Fahrenheit, not Centigrade. A British Thermal Unit is the amount of heat energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree F, and it is the standard measurement used to state the amount of energy that a fuel has as well as the amount of output of furnaces or other heat generating devices. [Edited by: rumbleseat at 4/11/2013 2:29:09 AM EST]
giwan Veteran Author Michigan Posts:483 Points:88,390 Joined:Aug 2009	Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 11:26:21 PM Ignore giwan Report Abuse Second sentence is wrong. BTU does NO have to do with how LONG it takes to heat one pound of water one degree celsius.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 10:51:40 PM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "So, if you have to increase the engine compression from 8:1 to say 16:1 for better ethanol efficiency, will the lower cost of fuel with the improvement of MPG be enough to offset the original investment in a bigger and robust engine?" Doesn't work that way. Increasing relative compression ratio will increase peak horse power, no question. But, that increase in horse power is primarily at maximum rpm. It would also make for a really fun car to drive if you had your foot in the firewall all the time. Furthermore, the hp gain is not that dramatic. Increasing the relative compression ratio from 10:1 to 12:1 would result in a 5% hp gain. Five percent is a dramatic increase on the strip. But, in your regular car, you'd be hard pressed to notice a difference, especially in fuel economy. http://www.bgsoflex/crchange.html
borsht All-Star Author Oakland Posts:793 Points:190,335 Joined:Aug 2012	Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 10:24:03 PM Ignore borsht Report Abuse Doesn't about 75% of the energy burned in your car go to heating water? Unless you have a air cooled engine then your car is making hot air.
tdioiler All-Star Author Detroit Posts:892 Points:419,940 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 9:17:50 PM Ignore tdioiler Report Abuse So, if you have to increase the engine compression from 8:1 to say 16:1 for better ethanol efficiency, will the lower cost of fuel with the improvement of MPG be enough to offset the original investment in a bigger and robust engine? My vote says yes. But will they build something that has limited sales market tied to a fancy fuel only the EPA and a few agro states love? That's a problem.
SilverStreaker Champion Author Twin Cities Posts:11,936 Points:2,216,330 Joined:Mar 2006	Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 7:44:59 PM Ignore SilverStreaker Report Abuse Bump
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 7:47:41 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "This is not true. Increased compression increases efficiency, horsepower and torque from off idle to max RPM." The objective of increasing RELATIVE compression is to increase peak or absolute pressure at top dead center. Increasing relative compression is only one of several ways to increase peak pressure. timing, fuel mixture, manifold pressure, and relative compression all affect peak pressure. At what rpm you want to use the engine at determines how you build the engine. Of course an engine with 14/1 relative compression will develop more power. Will it develop much better fuel economy than an engine with 8/1 relative compression at 55 mph? Not enough that you would see a difference.
Daurel Veteran Author Indiana Posts:313 Points:32,850 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Feb 22, 2013 9:36:39 AM Ignore Daurel Report Abuse You are right oilpan a TFC in the first 500ft is only turning 4500rpm making 6 to 7 thousand HP and going over 270mph. The supercharger makes the compression as the engine without it is only around 7to1. [Edited by: Daurel at 2/22/2013 9:38:46 AM EST]
krzysiek_ck Champion Author Illinois Posts:5,322 Points:728,910 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 3:18:35 PM Ignore krzysiek_ck Report Abuse oilpan4 wrote: "You trying to tell me all the flex fuel engines out there have sprouted turbochargers?" Since you have asked for the plan, the answer stands. More and more vehicles are using FI with Flex Fuel. On the other hand, I took a turbo car and use E85 in it. I love it.
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,053 Points:306,800 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:31:38 PM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse "Forced Induction". You trying to tell me all the flex fuel engines out there have sprouted turbochargers? "Depends on how fast you want to run the engine. The benefits of higher relative compression are beneficial at higher RPM". This is not true. Increased compression increases efficiency, horsepower and torque from off idle to max RPM.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 17, 2013 1:03:23 PM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "Changing the fuel mixture simply allows you to increase the fuel mixed in when using ethanol, (decreasing mileage) necessary due to different stoichiometric ratio required (9:1 for ethanol vs 14.7:1 for gasoline)." That simply means a pound of ehtanol requires less air to burn than a pound of gasoline. It has no relationship to how much fuel needs to be burned to create a given amount of horse power. The only relationship fuel air ratio has to fuel consumption is more fuel air mixture can be taken in by the engine to produce more horsepower. "The ideal alcohol engine runs high compression and cold plugs." Depends on how fast you want to run the engine. The benefits of higher relative compression are beneficial at higher rpm. At lower rpm, timing advance will produce similar absolute compression or peak pressure as increasing relative compression. So, if you produce X psi peak pressure at 2,000 rpm by increasing timing or increasing relative compression ratio, it doesn't make any difference. The result is the same or so close, you won't notice a difference.
krzysiek_ck Champion Author Illinois Posts:5,322 Points:728,910 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 17, 2013 10:32:11 AM Ignore krzysiek_ck Report Abuse oilpan4 wrote "Whats the grand plan to up the compression?" Forced Induction.
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,053 Points:306,800 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Feb 16, 2013 8:08:20 PM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse "That's not true. In a computer controlled engine, fuel mixture and timing are adjusted in microseconds. You can program the engine to do whatever it needs to and encompass both fuels in the process". The ideal alcohol engine runs high compression and cold plugs. Both of which you don't want in a gasoline engine. Screwing with the timing and air fuel mixture are just a half measure to make a gasoline engine run better off alcohol. " It can be challenged with more timing, compression, air, etc. without detonation. So, it can be burned much hotter than gasoline". Whats the grand plan to up the compression?
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 16, 2013 8:55:48 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse "That's not true. In a computer controlled engine, fuel mixture and timing are adjusted in microseconds." Changing the fuel mixture simply allows you to increase the fuel mixed in when using ethanol, (decreasing mileage) necessary due to different stoichiometric ratio required (9:1 for ethanol vs 14.7:1 for gasoline). Changing the timing does relatively little to improve mileage it simply allows you to compensate for differing octanes...
debonairpilot Rookie Author Tampa Posts:13 Points:950 Joined:Feb 2013	Message Posted: Feb 15, 2013 5:38:57 PM Ignore debonairpilot Report Abuse the ethanol in the fuel could absorb some water and thus be heated during combustion.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 15, 2013 12:48:29 PM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "As long as you are using hybrid engines that run on ethanol or gasoline, it will do neither at peak efficiency... " That's not true. In a computer controlled engine, fuel mixture and timing are adjusted in microseconds. You can program the engine to do whatever it needs to and encompass both fuels in the process.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 15, 2013 9:17:43 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse You won't get these benefits unless an engine is designed to run on ethanol. The problem is that if you build an engine to maximize the efficiency of ethanol it will not run on gasoline. As long as you are using hybrid engines that run on ethanol or gasoline, it will do neither at peak efficiency...
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 15, 2013 8:41:33 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "Gasoline and ethanol in the same conditions burn so close to the same temperature I am not really sure which one is hotter burning.: The primary advantage of ethanol is it is not restricted to burning in the same conditions as gasoline. It can be challenged with more timing, compression, air, etc. without detonation. So, it can be burned much hotter than gasoline.
oilpan4 Champion Author Virginia Posts:12,053 Points:306,800 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 5:51:29 PM Ignore oilpan4 Report Abuse "In most cases we could push the engine harder because of alky's cooling effect." "So ethanol burns hotter and cooler at the same time"? It takes more heat to phase change liquid ethanol to ethanol vapor so it cools the intake charge much better than gasoline. Gasoline and ethanol in the same conditions burn so close to the same temperature I am not really sure which one is hotter burning. The only fuel I know of that is used in piston engines that also burns noticeably hotter than other common fuels is nitromethane.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 12:40:19 PM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "Dynamite is not a substance that you can measure the BTU's of." That's BS. depending on the trinitrotoluene content, dynamite contains about 1/15th the energy as does regular gasoline. "The fact is that you are not contributing to arriving at the truth of the matter, and I understand that your grasp of engineering is preventing you." Your understanding of how heat energy is converted to kinetic energy by an engine is weak.
Hannie59 All-Star Author Appleton Posts:585 Points:15,175 Joined:Apr 2010	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 12:04:38 PM Ignore Hannie59 Report Abuse Nope, you've sold out. Drank the kool-aid. Unfortunately, so have many others. [Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/6/2013 12:09:11 PM EST]
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 11:28:00 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse " shock DOES know the facts" Yes I do Hannie, unfortunately, most of what you have been posting cannot be considered such...
borsht All-Star Author Oakland Posts:793 Points:190,335 Joined:Aug 2012	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 11:18:11 AM Ignore borsht Report Abuse Hello JonnyEnergyE85 It's unfortunate you never took a coarse in thermodynamics or chemistry OR ENGINEERING.. Or if you did, you never got a grasp of it. Dynamite is not a substance that you can measure the BTU's of. It is a mixture of nitroglycern, with some clay, or sawdust to control ,(buffer)the energy release rate for very fast work. Dynamite of all shades is inapropriate energy source for heating water as well as running a car engine. There are a lot more blends in dynamite than in gasoline. So are you trying to say all mixtures of gasoline are the same. Then why have this discussion? I don’t see any points you have made toward making a rational decision on E85. What is candle wax. It can be bee's wax or paraffin. It’s just an easily combustible solid fuel that and is usually a mixture of stuff. It does not require a computer and complex systems to burn it. If this is how you regard gasoline, then maybe you are talking about the Flintstones automobile. It has a very low rate of energy release. also inappropriate for car engine fuel. With out being specific as to the exact mixture you are talking about with these items you cannot make any quantitative decisions, only EMOTIONAL PERCEPTIONS. Which is what you are attempting to do.. These are very poor reference for comparison with A very WELL DEFINE D QUANTITATIVE MIXTURE.. E85. Since you seem to be saying that BTU's is only for heating water. That is like saying degrees C or F is only for water. since both degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius are defined by melting point and freezing ponts of water. The BTU is defined by its ability to raise the temperature of water. IT is just a unit of measurement of thermal energy. If you had studied thermodynamics, you would understand that an internal combustion engine is a heat engine. It converts work to heat. And obviously, the energy input and it's rate of burning are the most essential of many parameters. Since you equated BTU's to dynamite, Let me ask you, WHO HEATS WATER WITH DYNAMITE? or with candles. Anyway I don’t want to waist anymore of the readers time. Let’s be rational about these things. The fact is that you are not contributing to arriving at the truth of the matter, and I understand that your grasp of engineering is preventing you.
Banjoe Champion Author Winnipeg Posts:4,250 Points:614,265 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 11:10:11 AM Ignore Banjoe Report Abuse Modern engines do run at some good pressures so it's interesting to note the research of that day eliminates gasoline as a fuel at pressures above "70 to 75 pounds per square inch above atmostpheric". That should be about 90 psi or so but we seem to be doing well with gasoline well above those pressures. Something new in the gas mixes today?
krzysiek_ck Champion Author Illinois Posts:5,322 Points:728,910 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 11:00:37 AM Ignore krzysiek_ck Report Abuse Shockjock1961 wrote: "Not really. All that I've heard is thoughtless propaganda, and there's nothing to learn from that..." Thank you for proving my point for me again Shockjock1961. Shockjock1961's motto: whine, spin, half-truth, and lies. This Troll is not interested in anything but spreading his/hers lies.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 10:55:31 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse "That's what happens as the fuel is flowing through the intake and on the down stroke and part of the up stroke. Now, you've learned something new." If the cooling effect was that great, then thermal loss would result during ignition making your engine less efficient... "Now, you've learned something new" Not really. All that I've heard is thoughtless propaganda, and there's nothing to learn from that... [Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/6/2013 10:56:59 AM EST]
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 10:07:42 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse Typically, the PSI in current production engines is typically well over 150 PSI. Thats above the range mentioned in the paper. As mentioned before, the researchers evaluated static parameters. A modern engine is computer controlled and optimizes how the fuel burns, whether its gasoline or an ethanol blend.
SilverStreaker Champion Author Twin Cities Posts:11,936 Points:2,216,330 Joined:Mar 2006	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:54:46 AM Ignore SilverStreaker Report Abuse To add to krzysiek_ck's reply, modern engines tend to have higher compression ratios and use turbo charging, which utilizes ethanol's benefitial properties.
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:54:44 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse "I didn't think spraying an engine with ethanol to cool it off was a common practice... " That's what happens as the fuel is flowing through the intake and on the down stroke and part of the up stroke. Now, you've learned something new.
krzysiek_ck Champion Author Illinois Posts:5,322 Points:728,910 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:14:28 AM Ignore krzysiek_ck Report Abuse Banjoe wrote: "I'm working my way through the 1909 research report and note that they found that operating a gasoline engine on alcohol will result in the consumption of alcohol to "be from one and half times to twice as much as the consumption of gasoline for the same power"." When Ethanol was used in the gasoline engine without any adjustments like changes to compression ratio, timing, and air fuel ratio the results were as noted. Simply put, when you don't take advantage of the benefits provided by ethanol usage the results are not that good. On the other hand, the modern engines are much more capable of adjusting to benefits provided by ethanol. Some are better than other. Of course there is more room for improvement. [Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 2/6/2013 9:19:19 AM EST]
Hannie59 All-Star Author Appleton Posts:585 Points:15,175 Joined:Apr 2010	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:00:09 AM Ignore Hannie59 Report Abuse I don't care where he works, shock DOES know the facts. He has chosen the dark side despite the fact that he knows ethanol is a good fuel. [Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/6/2013 9:03:44 AM EST]
Banjoe Champion Author Winnipeg Posts:4,250 Points:614,265 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 8:56:18 AM Ignore Banjoe Report Abuse I'm working my way through the 1909 research report and note that they found that operating a gasoline engine on alcohol will result in the consumption of alcohol to "be from one and half times to twice as much as the consumption of gasoline for the same power". Of course they also note that it is possible to build an alcohol engine that consumes the same gallons per horsepower as a gasoline engine but that engine could not be used to burn gasoline. Good stuff on water injecttion that I still need to get into.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,118 Points:2,185,160 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 8:51:01 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse "No one said that. Daurel was referring to latent heat of vaporization" I didn't think spraying an engine with ethanol to cool it off was a common practice...
SoylentGrain Veteran Author Illinois Posts:435 Points:7,940 Joined:Nov 2012	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 8:16:56 AM Ignore SoylentGrain Report Abuse " The idea that ethanol burns hotter and cooler simultaneously is completely ludicrous. But so is most of the propaganda that is spread here... " No one said that. Daurel was referring to latent heat of vaporization. That's different from combustion temperature. These are simple concepts that would be common knowledge in a physics department of a major university. What on earth do you do there?