From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable
Subject: Re: Ethanol and Gasoline
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:02:24 GMT

"Steve Spence" <stevespence@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Why mix with it with gasoline? Why not run it straight? Increase the flow
>(8:1 instead of 14:1), advance the timing, and your off and running. Then
>you have no mixing problems. Todays fuel systems should not have any
>problems with corrosivity. This works with either eth or meth.

Heard of the cold-start problems with alcohol fuels?.
That, along with safety reasons, is why most of the 
"Methanol" and "Ethanol" fuels sold in service stations
in the USA actually have a few % of hydrocarbons. 
They are not M100 or E100, but more like M90 or E90. 

Your assertion about corrosion is quite wrong, the only
cars that won't have problems with pure alcohols are
those that are specifically designed to handle M100,
such as some FFV. 

[ somebody wrote ]
>>> The problem, with methanol, is that it is corrosive, to some metals,
>>> esp. Al; this limits how high a percentage can be used.

No. The addition of 1% of water ( along with some other
anti-corrosion additives ) to methanol will eliminate
corrosion.

[ Somebody else wrote ] 
>>Actually, the big problem with methanol is that it is rather hydrophilic
>>and will separate out of a gasoline mixture at compositions above 10 %
>>(by volume I think).  It is rather useful as an octane booster, but can
>>only be used in mixtures less than 10%.  If the separation occurs, you
>>cna have a slug of super high octane fuel (methanol) fed to the engine
>>and then a lower octane slug (gasoline) which will preignite.  That's
>>why some octane booster mfgs. warn you not to use more than a certain
>>volume-% of their product.

There is so much mis-information that I don't know where to start
1. The undesirable phase- separating abilities of alcohol-gasoline 
   blends increase with decreasing alcohol content. The reason low
   alcohol ( ~15% )  blends were used was because minimal retuning
   was required to obtain the same performance, and the fuel systems
   were compatible.
2. There are no fossil-fuel saving advantages in using blends of <10%
3. The separation temperature is very dependant on the alcohols used,
   and the amount of water. Using a higher alcohol ( C3 or C4 ) instead
   of methanol greatly reduces the temperature as which separation occurs. 
4. The lower phase is actually a water-alcohol layer which can not
   burn under normal engine conditions ( high latent heat inhibits
   vaporisation, and incorrect stoichiometry ) and the car stops.    
5. The octane rating affects knock, not preignition.
6. Methanol is not a gasoline additive permitted by the US EPA.
   - obviously clearly-labelled products and trials are permitted
     on a case-by-case basis.   

>>3) Ethanol has the same separation problems as methanol.  So the
>>gasoline companies look for ways to use organics which will increase
>>octane ratings, yet not separate from the fuel, and burn cleanly.

No. The water tolerance curves for ethanol are far-far better than
those for methanol, that's one reason why ethanol is used in 
preference to methanol. The major reason is the huge agricultural
lobby for ethanol that has obtain the $0.54/federal subsidy and
a diverse range of state subsidies.


Just to add a little more information from the Gasoline FAQ

	[[[ sections 9.3, 4.13, and 4.5 ]]]



        Bruce Hamilton

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable
Subject: Re: Ethanol and Gasoline
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:49:01 GMT

Ken Lux <lux@milliways.hip.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> [ Somebody else wrote ]
>I am somebody else.
>
>> >>Actually, the big problem with methanol is that it is rather hydrophilic
>> >>and will separate out of a gasoline mixture at compositions above 10 %
>> >>(by volume I think).  It is rather useful as an octane booster, but can
>> >>only be used in mixtures less than 10%.  If the separation occurs, you
>> >>cna have a slug of super high octane fuel (methanol) fed to the engine
>> >>and then a lower octane slug (gasoline) which will preignite.  That's
>> >>why some octane booster mfgs. warn you not to use more than a certain
>> >>volume-% of their product.
>> 
>> There is so much mis-information that I don't know where to start
>> 1. The undesirable phase- separating abilities of alcohol-gasoline
>>    blends increase with decreasing alcohol content. The reason low
>>    alcohol ( ~15% )  blends were used was because minimal retuning
>>    was required to obtain the same performance, and the fuel systems
>>    were compatible.
>
>I forget the reference for my statement, but it was a quite
>comprehensive book on ICEs.  By a Prof. of MechE, but I don't remember
>the University though I think it might have been Purdue.

Well, my statement is based on my own measurements of water tolerance
of alcohol-gasoline blends 20 years ago. However if you want similar
information, try "Alcohols and Ethers. A Technical Assessment of their
application as Fuels and Fuel Components. Second Edition July 1988
API Publication 4261. Figure 6 on page 9 plots curves for various
mixtures. The water tolerance is also dependent on the aromatics
content, as methanol is not very soluble in alkanes, but much more
soluble in aromatics. For example, 10% methanol will separate from
alkanes at temperatures below 80F, but in a fuel containing 78%
2% olefins, and 20% alkanes it stays in solution down to 4F.
Water tolerance curves can be found in many papers published in 
the early "International Symposiums on Alcohol Fuels " held every
two years. There was a lot of intensive research to find the best
co-solvents to prevent phase separation. In general, tertiary
and iso C3 and C4 alcohols are the best cosolvents. eg 5% methanol
will separate with around 400ppm water, but the addition of 2.5%
tertiary butyl alcohol will require 1600 ppm of water. 15% of 
methanol would require around 1000 ppm at the same temperature. 

Your statement was wrong. 


>> 3. The separation temperature is very dependant on the alcohols used,
>>    and the amount of water. Using a higher alcohol ( C3 or C4 ) instead
>>    of methanol greatly reduces the temperature as which separation occurs.
>
>This is very true, but as you increase the number of carbons, you reduce
>the O:C ratio, the very thing that gives you the increased octane rating
>and cleaner emissions.

The octane rating of the fuel is determined by the hydrocarbon
fraction and the alcohol fraction. As alcohols are added the
emissions profiles change with some increasing. The intent is
to ensure that undesirable emissions ( such as CO and HC ) 
are reduced, however other emissions ( carbonyls such as
formaldehyde ( from MeOH ) or acetaldehyde ( from ethanol ))
increase. The issue of total benefits is still being reviewed,
as the use of oxygenates results in increased potable water 
contamination from both leaks and evaporative emissions that
are rained out. 
 
>> 5. The octane rating affects knock, not preignition.
>Preignition is what causes knock.

No. From the Gasoline FAQ.

	[[[ sections 6.2, 8.2 ]]]



   Bruce Hamilton

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Ethanol vs. Methanol
Message-ID: <7948@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 27 Apr 90 23:18:04 GMT

In article <1513@cirrusl.UUCP> pete@cirrusl (Pete Carpenter) writes:
>Can someone explain the difference in energy between these two alcohols?

Methanol is H3C0H
Ethanol is  H3CH2COH

The extra H2C in the middle is the difference.  Methanol has less energy
per volume than ethanol.  It is more corrosive (though I have yet to
see any evidence of corrosion in my lawn mower after several YEARS of
running methanol in it ... Briggs and Stratton must do something right!)

Methanol is also easy to make from coal at low prices.  Ethanol is
harder to make from coal and, thus, more expensive.  Ethanol made from
corn is more expensive since corn is more expensive than coal.  It also
removes corn from the food baskets of people, cows, chickens, and pigs.

In cold weather it is harder to start an engine on methanol than on ethanol.

So, what will you do?  The 'better' fuel is more expensive and has
political implications vis a vis food aid to starving nations.
It may also be the case that any really large consumption of ethanol
would exceed the ability to grow starting material!

The cheaper fuel is harder to make work due to vaporization temperature
and corrosion issues.  It is also politically loaded in that many
folks don't like the idea of digging up the {west, midwest, Virginia,
etc.} to get the coal and don't like the big companies that own the
coal.

>Whenever people talk about alternative fuel mixtures, someone always
>points out the damage that methanol can cause to aluminum carbuerators(?sp).
>Is this a red herring?

I think it is, since I've seen no evidence of such corrosion in my own
experience and since plastic is cheap.  You DON'T need a stainless
steel fuel tank.  You MAY need a plastic lined steel one.  Methanol
is commonly used on Sail Boats as a stove fuel and is widely available
in plastic bottles.  To me corrosion looks like a red herring.  It's
a solved problem at worst case.  (Go look at alcohol stoves on boats!).

>Why use methanol, which must be produced from
>coal or methane gas, when ethanol is simple grain alcohol? Archer Daniels
>Midland Corp., who advertises on the "Sunday morning politics" circuit
>"ADM - super market to the world" indicates that they use a lot of corn
>to make ethanol, for mixing with gasoline.

Cost and volume available.  See above.

>So why does methanol keep getting mentioned? Are these folks just being
>obstructionist?  Is methanol a much higher energy fuel?

Lots of it can be made cheaply from coal with present technology.

>Is it true that in Brazil they use 100% ethanol, with no gasoline, and
>no modifications necessary?

Yes.  They also have cars that were built with ethanol in mind.  No need
to modify since it was designed in from the start.  They also don't have
to try starting their alcohol fueled engines in North Dakota or upper
Michigan, or Idaho in winter at 40 below zero (when even gasoline is
thinking about turning to jelly like the oil already has ...).

The tropics provide a nice built in fuel warmer ...

>Comments?

Methanol has some problems as a fuel.  They are relatively minor and
can be solved by a freshman engineering class at a good University.
(Or, more quickly, by the grease monkey at the local race track.)

There are literally dozens of methanol fueled demonstration cars
driving all over the place today and thousands of methanol fuelers
running at local race tracks across the nation. (Not to mention the
millions of model airplane engines that run on methanol with a little
nitro methane added).

Moonshine runners have been known to fuel up a car with 'moonshine'
as a way to transport it where it was hard to find.  Mostly it takes
opening up the fuel jets some.  In really cold weather, a squirt
can of 'cold weather starting fluid' (often ether) is helpful.  A
squirt of plain gas is usually enough unless your talking serious cold.

If you design an engine to run ONLY on alcohol you can push the
compression up Real High for performance that a gasoline engine can
only dream about (which is why it is the fuel of choice for all those
big drag race cars, and other 'fuelers').  They worry about the water
that pure alcohol sucks from the air, since any dilution will cut
their performance.  Mere mortals need not worry and just need to open
up the fuel jets a little wider (we have no Rules Committee deciding
how much fuel we can carry and how often we can fuel up...).

--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Ethanol vs. Methanol
Message-ID: <2012@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 28 Apr 90 18:51:34 GMT

pete@sun1102.UUCP (Peter R. Carpenter) writes:

>Whenever people talk about alternative fuel mixtures, someone always
>points out the damage that methanol can cause to aluminum carbuerators(?sp).
>Is this a red herring?

This is getting to be a Frequently Asked Question.  No, it is not a
red herring.  Methanol will rapidly and completely turn light metals
into white powder.  I learned that lesson the hard way when using
methanol as a racing fuel.  If you want to see for yourself, go to
the hardware store, buy a gallon, and chunk some aluminum foil into it.

>Why use methanol, which must be produced from
>coal or methane gas, when ethanol is simple grain alcohol? Archer Daniels
>Midland Corp., who advertises on the "Sunday morning politics" circuit
>"ADM - super market to the world" indicates that they use a lot of corn
>to make ethanol, for mixing with gasoline.

The traditional reason for mentioning methanol in the same breath as
motor fuels is that a) it is cheap to make relative to ethanol, b)
it is widely used as a racing fuel and thus well known as a motor
fuel, and c) you don't have to worry about the Prohibitionists jumping
down your throat screaming BOOZE with methanol.

Ethanol carries a bit less oxygen in its structure and thus will run
a bit leaner than methanol.  A good rule of thumb is that methanol
consumption is just about twice that of gasoline in a given engine
and ethanol will be a few percentage points behind it.

Both alcohols have several disadvantages that will make it impractical as
a motor fuel for most average appliance-operating drivers.  First,
its high heat of vaporization and low vapor pressure means that unassisted
cold starting below about 40 degrees is impossible and lots of carb
heat is necessary at all times to prevent carb icing.  I've seen
racing carbs ice even in the summertime.  Aux starting fuel, such as
gasoline or propane would be almost mandatory for low temperature
starting.  Even if sufficient spark and carb heat were somehow to become
available, the huge flow of fuel into cold combustion chambers would
cause severe abrasion as the alcohol washes the oil from the cylinders
and dilutes the crankcase oil.

Next, alcohol mixes poorly with oil, especially if the alcohol is hydrated
(an almost inevitable condition).  This means that the oil will rapidly
sludge and become corrosive.  Race mechanics address this situation by
changing the oil after each race.  Consumers are not likely to
adhere to such a dicipline.  Synthetic oils may hold some promise but
I've read nothing definitive on this subject.

Finally, since about twice the volume of alcohol is needed as for
gasoline, mileage will be about half that of gasoline.  Assuming
that per-gallon costs are about the same for the two, (a reasonable
assumption since the greenies will encourage taxes to eat up any
differences) people will be VERY unhappy with large cars that get under
10 mpg and small cars that get under 20.  Not to mention that either
shorter range will have to be accepted or larger tanks fitted
which will hurt mileage even more.

I don't personally think that alcohol will become anything more than
an additive to more normal fuels.  Alternative fuels will most
likely be some kind of synthesized gasoline-like liquid that burns
with similiar characteristics to gasoline.

>Is it true that in Brazil they use 100% ethanol, with no gasoline, and
>no modifications necessary?

No, not at all.  They have converted over to 100% ethanol fuel but their
cars are purpose-built for the fuel.  Brazil's experience in this form
of social engineering will likely be used for years to come as justification
not to repeat the mistake.  The original conversion was motivated by a
combination of nationalist pride, a huge national debt, essential no petroleum
reserves and a huge surplus of sugar cane.  Motorists pretty much have
to put up with the driveability problems.  Cold start problems are, of
course, not a problem since Brazil is in the tropics.

What they found was that in order to produce enough ethanol to supply the
(relatively poor) country with fuel,  all the surplus sugar cane
crops had to be consumed.  Worse, demand encroached into that
sugar that normally was sold in foriegn trade, thereby denying them
of valuable dollars.  An article I recently read quoted their energy
minister as saying that they regret making this experimental mistake
and that they would most likely reconvert to petroleum fuels.

A very valuable lesson.

John

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Ethanol vs. Methanol
Message-ID: <7978@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 May 90 04:56:31 GMT

In article <1521@cirrusl.UUCP> pete@cirrusl (Pete Carpenter) writes:
>In article <7948@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:

>>Methanol is also easy to make from coal at low prices.  Ethanol is
>>harder to make from coal and, thus, more expensive.  Ethanol made from
>>corn is more expensive since corn is more expensive than coal.  It also
>>removes corn from the food baskets of people, cows, chickens, and pigs.

>Thanks for the info. Without getting too terribly political, aren't we
>paying farmers NOT to grow corn? I think this is a good case for removing
>farm subsidies. Then the better fuel will be less expensive to make, the
>added volume of business should make the farmers happy, and the taxpayers
>won't have to pay for subsidies and get cheaper gas-ahol to boot!

This question leads to a long discussion of price supports for agriculture.
A VERY SIMPLIFIED version (as relates to corn and ethanol):

Farm income is dependent on a highly volitile set of factors.  Most farm
subsidies are aimed at stabilizing prices (rather than just jacking them
up) at a level where farmers can make a small profit.  Farmers don't make
much money, even with price supports (your talking about 10ish percent
in a very good year.)  That 10%, if totally applied to the cost of corn,
wouldn't make a significant difference to the price of ethanol, since
corn is only part of the cost of making and delivering ethanol.  The
quantity of land kept out of production is also rather small.

Would removing the price subsidies make for cheaper corn?  Sometimes yes,
sometimes no.  Volatility would go up.  In bumper crop years the price
could fall below the cost to produce (and, historically, has in times
of no price stabilization) and many farms either go under or stop growing
corn.  Yes, you read right.  When the weather is good, much more crop
is produced.  The extra supply drives the prices down rather sharply.
A 'bumper crop' year is usually not a 'good year' in agriculture
commodities.

In low crop years the price would climb dramatically, as would
beef, chicken, fish (farmed catfish and trout), pork, etc. prices.
Including motor fuel alcohol.  The 'added volume' of business wouldn't
have much effect on the weather or corn blight; so volatility would remain.
Most farmers would rather have less volatility than the extra volume at
lower prices ...

Strangely enough, since motor fuel consumption is rather insensitive
to price changes (price in-elastic), most of the change in corn available
would have to taken up by things that are price sensitive; which just
happens to be beef, chicken, fish, pork, etc. ...  The cars would be
fed, people would eat less meat.  You might consider this a good thing,
you might also not like it.

The silver lining:  There is a process to convert woody material to
ethanol.  You need not use feed grain, you can use wood scraps or
other 'trash' biomass to make ethanol.
--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Ethanol vs. Methanol
Message-ID: <7989@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 1 May 90 18:08:15 GMT

In article <1990May1.130237.16460@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@mintaka.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
>>>In article <7948@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:

>>The silver lining:  There is a process to convert woody material to
>>ethanol.  You need not use feed grain, you can use wood scraps or
>>other 'trash' biomass to make ethanol.

> Can you tell me where I can find out more about this? I've only seen
>wood>methanol digesters up to now. Is this process practical on a small
>scale?

The reference is a paperback book titled something like 'The Solar Alcohol
Fuel Revolution' or some such ( Warm Fuzzy, to borrow Johns term, book
if ever there was one).  I'll get the correct title and post it in a day
or two.  It refers to a U.S Army {mumble} project that developed an
enzyme to break down cellulose to sugar.  I'll get the bibliography
entry for it too ...

It isn't particularly suited to small scale, unless you buy the enzyme
from someone else.




--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Ethanol vs. Methanol
Message-ID: <1990May3.204018.8343@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 3 May 90 20:40:18 GMT

In article <1513@cirrusl.UUCP> pete@cirrusl (Pete Carpenter) writes:
>Can someone explain the difference in energy between these two alcohols?

Figures I have seen quoted for energy content:

Gasoline	116,000 BTU/gal
Methanol	 69,000 BTU/gal

I have seen the number "75%" quoted for the energy of ethanol vs. gasoline.

>Whenever people talk about alternative fuel mixtures, someone always
>points out the damage that methanol can cause to aluminum carbuerators(?sp).

Methanol is corrosive to aluminum.  The auto companies are talking about
using some rather exotic materials, like fluorinated plastics, to handle
the witches-brew fuels of the future.  They are a definite storage hassle.

>Is this a red herring?  Why use methanol, which must be produced from
>coal or methane gas, when ethanol is simple grain alcohol?

The amount of energy put into a gallon of ethanol made from corn,
in the form of fertilizer, pesticides, and diesel fuel for the
farm equipment, comes out to more than the energy of the ethanol.
Sure, ethanol is great... if you grow corn for a living.  The tax
subsidy of gasohol winds up paying ethanol producers about $2.00
per gallon of a fuel with only about $.75 worth of energy in it.

Methanol can be made from coal or natural gas.  Unlike the gasoline
or diesel which must be imported to make corn, we have these locally.

>Is it true that in Brazil they use 100% ethanol, with no gasoline, and
>no modifications necessary?

Modifications are definitely necessary.  Among other things, the
fuel system must handle the larger volume of ethanol required.
This means re-jetting carburetors or re-calibrating fuel injection
systems to deliver the increased amount of fuel.

Cold starting is also nearly impossible; the vapor pressure of
alcohol is very low.  If you don't live in a warm climate, another
fuel will be required to start the engine.  (Butane, which is
already added to gasoline for that purpose, seems ideal.  It
could be stored separately under pressure to eliminate evaporation.)
--
			  Oversimplification doesn't solve problems, it just
(313) 662-4147		  changes them into less tractable problems.
Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.            russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us

From: milligan@blake.acs.washington.edu (Gregory Milligan)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Aluminum in methanol, a modest test
Message-ID: <6882@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 4 May 90 23:35:18 GMT

	The reactions of alcohols with metals (including aluminum) can
be unpredictable.  Most metals are coated with a thin layer of oxide,
which protects the surface from attack by the alcohol.  In order for the
reaction to start, the oxide coating must be disturbed, exposing fresh
metal.  When chemists _want_ the reaction to happen, we often file, scrape,
cut, sandpaper, or otherwise mangle the metal in order to break the oxide
layer.
	I have not reacted aluminum with methanol before, but I have
reacted aluminum with isopropanol.  As I recall, sandpapering and heat-
ing were required to start the reaction, but once it started, IT WENT!
An undisturbed piece of foil might rest comfortably in methanol without
noticable deterioration, but if corrosion ever started someplace, I bet
it would go pretty fast after that.
	Another factor might be water content of the methanol.  Methanol
is very good at sucking up water from the air, and that might affect
the rate of corrosion.  Offhand, I don't know if water would accelerate
or hinder corrosion.

Greg

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Aluminum in methanol, a modest test
Message-ID: <8102@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 7 May 90 17:27:30 GMT

In article <6882@blake.acs.washington.edu> milligan@blake.acs.washington.edu (Gregory Milligan) writes:

>	The reactions of alcohols with metals (including aluminum) can
>be unpredictable.  Most metals are coated with a thin layer of oxide,
>which protects the surface from attack by the alcohol.  In order for the
>reaction to start, the oxide coating must be disturbed, exposing fresh
>metal.  When chemists _want_ the reaction to happen, we often file, scrape,
>cut, sandpaper, or otherwise mangle the metal in order to break the oxide
>layer.

This was a freshly cut piece of foil and should have had an exposed metal
surface at the cut edge; but your point is well taken.  I will modify the
test procedure by cutting the foil a couple of times while in the methanol.
(The methanol should then have a shot at the cut surface before the
 air can start to oxidize it.)

The experiment was started with more or less water free methanol.  It
should gain water from the air over time, so I would expect that if a
reaction was helped or hindered by water we should have both conditions
at some point and the reaction should begin.

How hot did you have to heat it to get the AL to react with isopropanol?
Hotter than an engine compartment?

--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Aluminum in methanol, a modest test
Message-ID: <8126@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 8 May 90 22:20:25 GMT

In article <2128@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:

You might also want to check back with the hotrod store.  Many racing fuels
>contain inhibitors to minimize corrosion.  You are likely dealing with one
>of these.

Nope.  The methanol came from a 55 gallon drum of plain methanol
from the Ashland Chemical company.  The lable mentioned many things,
but corrosion inhibition and racing fuel were not among them (mostly
they were warnings about not drinking the stuff and fire danger).

The owner of the speed shop assures me that it isn't doctored in any
way and that it is just commercial methanol as sold for solvent and
chemical use.

But while we're on the subject:  Thanks for pointing out that corrosive
fuels issues have been solved already by the inclusion of corrosion
inhibitors.  If you had stated before that it was a solved problem
then I wouldn't have bothered taking up your test!  But is it possible
that the corrosion you speak of comes from NITRO fuels rather than just
plain methanol?

In a prior article you stated:

> Methanol will rapidly and completely turn light metals
> into white powder.  I learned that lesson the hard way when using
> methanol as a racing fuel.  If you want to see for yourself, go to
> the hardware store, buy a gallon, and chunk some aluminum foil into it.

Nowhere in this statement does it state that I have to 1)  Sand the foil.
2)  Heat it up.  3)  Add iodine.  4)  Avoid racing methanol, since it
might have an existing known fix in it (and in fact you imply strongly
that racing fuel is the problem 'the hard way when using methanol as a
racing fuel').  5)  Add water.  6)  Avoid water.  7)  Add salt.

At the risk of being non-scientific in my comments, I would like to
point out that I've sunk about $45 dollars into this experiment (putting
my money where John's mouth is) and still haven't seen any evidence
whatsoever that 'Methanol will rapidly and completely turn light
metals into white powder'.

Is it possible that John G. De Armond is, gasp!, wrong on a technical
issue?

> its high heat of vaporization and low vapor pressure means that unassisted
> cold starting below about 40 degrees is impossible and lots of carb
> heat is necessary at all times to prevent carb icing.  I've seen
> racing carbs ice even in the summertime.

--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Methanol, purity, Zinc, and corrosion
Keywords: methanol zinc aluminum corrosion purity of essence where's the beef
Message-ID: <8133@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 9 May 90 00:14:18 GMT

After John De Armond complained that my methanol might not be
pure enough, I went to the local Science Shop and bought a bottle
of 'pure' methanol.  While is isn't reagent grade, it does state
that is is "Methanol, anhydrous,, acetone free" and is packed by
HUMCO Laboratory.  I presume that it will not have any corrosion
inhibiters in it...

I also purchased a couple of Erlenmeyer flasks with black rubber
lab stoppers and a sheet of Zinc.

I now have one flask with the HUMCO methanol in it and a fresh
piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil in it (cut under methanol).

I have another flask with the HUMCO methanol in it and a fresh
piece of Sheet Zinc in it (cut in air).  (Zinc is a common casting
metal).

So far?  Nothing has happenend.  I'm now out about $58 for a
variety of stuff ($19 for a real nice 5 gal. race fuel bottle
$12 for 5 gal of methanol from a drum.  Another $25 at the
Science Shop and a couple of bucks for aluminum foil).  I've
put alot of money where John's mouth is, so now I have a couple
of questions:

Is Zinc a 'light metal'?

You state:

> Methanol will rapidly and completely turn light metals
> into white powder.

Which 'light metals' were you talking about?  It is looking less and
less like Aluminum and Zinc ...

> I learned that lesson the hard way when using methanol as a racing fuel.

Was this methanol doctored in some way?  Corrosion inhibiters?  NITRO?

> If you want to see for yourself, go to the hardware store, buy a gallon,
> and chunk some aluminum foil into it.

I've done this.  Nothing happened.  I've tried it with methanol from
a racing car supply store.  Nothing happened.  I've tried it with
methanol from a science supply store.  Nothing happened.  I've tried
it with my lawn mower carb (which another person has assured me IS
aluminium on a Briggs & Stratton engine) and methanol from the hardware
store.  Nothing happened.

I will continue with the present series of experiments (and may even add
copper, iron, and some other metals and try lacing with iodine and/or
salt) but this is straying ever farther from the expected composition
for the fuel and carberetor.  (Iodine and salt in my fuel? YIKES!)

But John, what am I doing wrong?  I'm not particularly interested in
funding too many more variations on this experiment, so please give
me enough facts to make some 'light metal' (preferably aluminum)
corrode in methanol.  It would be nice if you spent some of your own
money first to make sure that the facts were right ...

I'll give it a couple of weeks more, but I'm beginning to doubt the
much talked about 'corrosive' nature of methanol.

Oh yes, I almost forgot:  The methanol at the race shop was shipped
from Ashland Chemical in Steel 55 gallon drums.  Looks like there is
some kind of simple way to assure that is doesn't corrode steel ...
and the plastic bottle from the Science Shop seems to have no
problems either.  Somehow I suspect that finding suitable materials
to handle methanol will not require stainless steels or exotic
flourochloroplastics.

--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Methanol, purity, Zinc, and corrosion
Keywords: methanol zinc aluminum corrosion purity of essence where's the beef
Message-ID: <2150@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 9 May 90 05:54:16 GMT

ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:

>But John, what am I doing wrong?  I'm not particularly interested in
>funding too many more variations on this experiment, so please give
>me enough facts to make some 'light metal' (preferably aluminum)
>corrode in methanol.  It would be nice if you spent some of your own
>money first to make sure that the facts were right ...

I really cannot diagnose your experimental or materials problems from
long distance.  You'll have to do that.  I do, however, wonder if you
will be ready to go in record refuting a rather vast body of experience
regarding the corrosive effects of methanol on light alloys (generally
defined as aluminum or aluminum/magnesium alloys with or without
silicone.) based on your single, rather uncontrolled experiment?  If
not, the you might want to be a bit careful about generalizing based
on a single event.

As to spending my money, I already have - in the form of a totally trashed
racing chain saw and severe damage to light alloy motorcycle carbs.  Most
race mechanics, especially those involved in speedway, midget, formula,
or top alcohol drag racing will have a horror story or 2  regarding careless
choices of materials and alcohol.  I've never tried aluminum foil and
I have no idea of the composition of same.  But that's what's so nice about
this net - I can learn about corrosion (or lack thereof) of aluminum foil
at your expense and you can learn about the corrosive effects of methanol
in other  contexts from me and others at our expense - if you listen.

To make your experiment complete, you really should experiment with
a range of temperature, moisture, and contaminations typical of
an automotive environment, and with a range of alloy compositions.
You could even be published, perhaps.

>Oh yes, I almost forgot:  The methanol at the race shop was shipped
>from Ashland Chemical in Steel 55 gallon drums.  Looks like there is
>some kind of simple way to assure that is doesn't corrode steel ...
>and the plastic bottle from the Science Shop seems to have no
>problems either.  Somehow I suspect that finding suitable materials
>to handle methanol will not require stainless steels or exotic
>flourochloroplastics.

Are you again extrapolating from the rather benign conditions a 55 gal
drum experiences to the general case of automotive fuel systems?  I
hope not.  On the other hand, as I understand it (and I'll let net.chemists
help me get the terminology correct), the corrosive property of alcohol
toward light metal stems from the OH ion on the molecule.  Hydroxyl ions
have never to my knowledge been reported to be corrosive to ferrous
metals.  I do know that ordinary carbon steel is the ASME-approved
material for handling strong bases such as NaOH.

John

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Methanol, purity, Zinc, and corrosion
Keywords: methanol zinc aluminum corrosion purity of essence where's the beef
Message-ID: <8139@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 9 May 90 15:44:41 GMT

In article <2150@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:
>ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>
>>But John, what am I doing wrong?  I'm not particularly interested in
>>funding too many more variations on this experiment, so please give
>>me enough facts to make some 'light metal' (preferably aluminum)
>>corrode in methanol.

>I really cannot diagnose your experimental or materials problems from
>long distance.  You'll have to do that.  I do, however, wonder if you
>will be ready to go in record refuting a rather vast body of experience
>regarding the corrosive effects of methanol on light alloys (generally
>defined as aluminum or aluminum/magnesium alloys with or without
>silicone.) based on your single, rather uncontrolled experiment?  If
>not, the you might want to be a bit careful about generalizing based
>on a single event.

Whose 'vast body of experience'?  Please post specifics and cite
the degree of control used in the evaluation.

Yes, I would like to go on record.  My position is only that some
resonably available casting materials (plastics, zinc, aluminum)
can be found that do not cost a great deal and yet suffer no
significant corrosion effects from alcohols.  I think I've shown
that there does exist some 'safe' combination of materials and fuels.
I don't need to prove that there is never any corrosion, only that
there are reasonably simple cases where there is no corrosion.

As to the degree of control:  I've now got four different tests running
(not a 'single' experiment).  Two of them in rather traditional lab
ware with typical chemical house materials, one in a cheap plastic tub
with typical racing shop methanol, and one being a real world test
in a production engine with commercial methanol.  This involves a
range of test materials and environments, some controlled for temperature
and humidity and others subjected to the typical climate variations
in California.  Are you perhaps suggesting that typical lab technique
and/or real world trials of a fuel in a real engine are bad technique?

>As to spending my money, I already have - in the form of a totally trashed
>racing chain saw and severe damage to light alloy motorcycle carbs.  Most

Hmmm, what's a 'racing chain saw'?  Sounds like an interesting event,
but where do you sit?  :-)

I really cannot diagnose your mechanical or materials problems from
long distance.  You'll have to do that.  I do, however, wonder if you
will be ready to go on record refuting a rather specific body of
experimental evidence regarding the corrosive effects of methanol
on aluminum and zinc based on your individual, rather uncontrolled,
anecdotal experience?  If not, the you might want to be a bit careful
about generalizing based on a single event.

>To make your experiment complete, you really should experiment with
>a range of temperature, moisture, and contaminations typical of
>an automotive environment, and with a range of alloy compositions.

I have.  My lawn mower is still doing just fine.  It has been run
in the heat and cold.  In wet and dry.  With anhydrous fuel and with
water added to the fuel (wanted to see what would happen...).  The
gas tank is a different metal from the carb.  The carb has some
plastic parts in it and the head, piston, valves, etc. are all
different alloys from the carb, fuel tank (and fuel tank cap).  While
it isn't exactly the same as any particular automobile, it is a
close enough model.  All I really need to show is that some readily
available cheap casting material is available that is suitable for
making methanol carbs.  This is an existance proof.

>>Oh yes, I almost forgot:  The methanol at the race shop was shipped
>>from Ashland Chemical in Steel 55 gallon drums.  Looks like there is
>>some kind of simple way to assure that is doesn't corrode steel ...
>>and the plastic bottle from the Science Shop seems to have no
>>problems either.  Somehow I suspect that finding suitable materials
>>to handle methanol will not require stainless steels or exotic
>>flourochloroplastics.

>Are you again extrapolating from the rather benign conditions a 55 gal
>drum experiences to the general case of automotive fuel systems?  I
>hope not.

Why not?  These rather 'benign conditions' include being stored in the
back of a large van and trucked back and forth to races (all the
road vibrations & etc. that a car or truck can hope for); being
parked for weeks on end in the heat of summer and cold of winter
(the fuel van is left outside in the sun); being exposed to wind
and rain as fuel is dispensed (it is pumped into containers by
hand from the open back of the truck on the lift gate) and generally
being given all the 'benign conditions' that a car gas tank can
expect to see.  The only exception that I can think of is their
lifespan.  I believe that they don't spend a decade in service
prior to disposal, though they are returned for re-use for some
extended lifespan.  Then again, my cars gas tank doesn't have to
be rolled around on a hand truck or have people stand on it ...

>On the other hand, as I understand it (and I'll let net.chemists
>help me get the terminology correct), the corrosive property of alcohol
>toward light metal stems from the OH ion on the molecule.  Hydroxyl ions
>have never to my knowledge been reported to be corrosive to ferrous
>metals.  I do know that ordinary carbon steel is the ASME-approved
>material for handling strong bases such as NaOH.

I have dug out my organic chem book and will post a bit of the
chemistry of alcohols as time permits (and assuming that the
topic seems to be of interest to others).  One interesting note:
it states that alcohols are somewhat less acidic than water.
Nowhere does it state anything about alcohol being 'corrosive'.
Can you cite a reference for the statement that alcohol is corrosive?

My experience agrees with what I've re-read in the text; that the
behaviour of alcohols is very much like that of water when it comes
to reactions with metals.  I would expect that much or your corrosion
experiences would have been about the same if the material in use
had been water instead of alcohol.  Some aluminum alloys will be
corroded by acidic water (as I've experience with tomato sauce left,
cold, too long in the pan...) and some plastics are damaged by
methanol.  Many are not.  So use the ones that aren't damaged.
--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Aluminum in methanol, a modest test
Message-ID: <8140@goofy.Apple.COM>
Date: 9 May 90 15:57:09 GMT

In article <1990May9.122616.13835@mlb.semi.harris.com> jws@thumper.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
>In article <8126@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>In article <2128@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:
>>
>(Can't follow the attribution, but anyway...)
 The t-t-p quote is from John G De Armond.
>>
>>> Methanol will rapidly and completely turn light metals
>>> into white powder.  I learned that lesson the hard way when using
>>> methanol as a racing fuel.  If you want to see for yourself, go to
>>> the hardware store, buy a gallon, and chunk some aluminum foil into it.
>
> A couple of points regarding this thread. First, "light metals" may be
>something besides aluminum. I wouldn't expect aluminum to corrode without
>(a) a solvent for Al2O3 and (b) an oxidizer or (c) an acid/salt plus a
>galvanic couple present.

This agrees with my organic chem text which implies that it takes
a heat and a halogen to get things cooking.  I'll post the specifics
Real Soon Now.  An oxidizer and a galvanic couple would help too...

>My guess at a likely candidate would be
>'pot metal', which I believe is some castable alloy of zinc. This junk
>has a built-in galvanic couple and I would expect it to 'turn to powder'
>in the presence of something nasty like a methanol/water/weak acid
>solution.

Hmmm, maybe I'll hunt up a sample or two ... I would like to see SOMETHING
happen in at least one of the metal/alcohol trials I've got running...

> Does anyone have information on what sorts of components do the t-t-p
>thing and what their composition was?

--

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.

From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: chainsaw racing
Message-ID: <2165@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 10 May 90 07:26:57 GMT

ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:


>>As to spending my money, I already have - in the form of a totally trashed
>>racing chain saw and severe damage to light alloy motorcycle carbs.  Most

>Hmmm, what's a 'racing chain saw'?  Sounds like an interesting event,
>but where do you sit?  :-)

Actually you stand as far behind the thing as you can :-)  The contest is
to see how fast one can cut a standard log - usually about 4 ft in diameter
in the East and about 6 feet in the West (so I'm told, having never
raced out west).  Cut times when we were involved 20 years ago avereaged
under 3 seconds for the nitro class and <6 seconds for the alcohol class.

My alcohol saw was a McCoulloh Super Pro 80 with an 81 cc engine
running 2 pumper carbs and an expansion chamber.  Bar length was a
tad under 6 feet.  Peak power was at about 14,000 rpm and blades
lasted one pass between sharpening.  The sharpening techniques were
very secret.

The nitro saw was one of the old gear-drive saws that use the
go-kart-style 100 cc engines.  An overbore brought it up to about
125 cc.  The 90% nitromethane/methanol mix was fed by dual 40 mm
pumper carbs, each with its own reed valve assemly.  Estimated
power was 30 hp at 14,000 rpm.  We did some experiments with
100% nitromethane in one carb and hydrazine in the other.  Since
the mixture is hypergolic, this did not prove practical at race time.

The operator dressed quite similiarly to a top fuel drag racer, with
fireproof suit and breathing mask.  The engine was started on gasoline
with an electric start-pack and was converted to nitro as it warmed up.
My mentor and partner (I started when I was 15), a fellow named
John Davis was a champion racer and engine builder.  We were also into
karting with about the same engine setup at the same time.

Ahh, nothing like the smell of nitro and castor fumes wafting
through the woods in the morning :-)   Of course, the greenies
would now probably be on us for killing misquitoes.

John

From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: chainsaw racing
Message-ID: <2193@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 11 May 90 13:05:05 GMT

Jeff.Cook@FtCollins.NCR.COM ( Jeff Cook) writes:


>I've seen this on ESPN.

Great!  So we've made it to the big times, eh :-)  I'll have to watch.
I had no idea it had gotten that big.

>What I saw was each guy standing next to his chain saw with the motor
>off, so they had to race from a dead start.  When the race began, they
>would bend over and yank on the cord--hopefully only once.  (The guy who
>had to yank twice usually lost.)  They would then pick up their saws and
>cut the log.  The whole race didn't last more than a few seconds, and
>those saws just SCREAMED.  Amazing sight--very impressive.

Those guys were probably running production class saws or perhaps
they've changed the rules.  In the old "top fuel" class, aux starting
was mandatory.  We started off trying to pull-start ours but a
combination of 13:1 compression, >40 degrees of spark lead and
nitromethane or alcohol resulted in backfires that would literally
break fingers.

>This looked mighty dangerous to me.  If one of those saws had a kickback,
>I'll bet it would cut you in half before you knew what hit you.

Yeah, and I'll bet that the safety nazis also got rid of the good stuff
like nitro and the like.  That's probably why they do cold starts now.
I'll bet it's still fun to watch.

john

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Water in Methanol/Nitromethane fuel
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:19:27 +12

In article <3521A0D6.3193@ix.netcom.com>
 Uncle Al <UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>Wallace Louie wrote:
>> Does anyone know of a test that I can use to detect the level of
>> water absorbed in Model Airplane fuel (composed of Methanol,
>> Nitromethane, and a lubricant: castor oil or some senthetic oil)?
>> What easily accessible chemicals do I need?  How easy is it to
>> perform? Fast? Safe?
>
>Methanol is much like water short of drinking it.  The standard answer
>would be a Karl-Fisher titration.

Yes, Karl Fischer is the usual method. There are meters and sensors that
use exotic properties like dielectric constants ( many of which have been
discussed in journals and proceedings devoted to alcohol fuels ), however
the presence of oils will probably stuff the accuracy of most of them.

You can actually use the Karl Fischer reagents in the field, using the colour
endpoint, rather than the electromeric dead stop endpoint. Just take a known
volume of the fuel in a stoppered measuring cylinder, and add the Karl
Fischer reagent from a graduated pipette until the solution remains dark
crimson. Calibrate by either adding water to the sample of using methanol
with a known water content. Because of the hygroscopic nature of methanol,
care has to be taken to minimise contact with air, but quite reasonable
results can be obtained.

Another relatively easy method would be to mix a known volume with a
known volume of non-oxygenated gasoline in a sealed glass container,
and cool the mixture in the fridge ( warning!, fridges can go bang because
their light switch or thermostat may arc when switching in the presence
of flammable vapours). The solution should be gently shaken occassionally
to ensure even temperature.

At a temperature that is dependent on the ratio of the gasoline and
methanol/water/castor oil, the solution will suddenly go turbid. You
can create a calibration graph of temperature versus water content by
adding known volumes of water  ( use 1 drop = 0.05ml if your local
drug addict won't give you a syringe )  to the mixture and measuring
the temperature that phase separation occurs.

Alternatively, you can use the same principle, but keep the sample
at ambient temperature, and add known volumes of water to the
gasoline / methanol fuel mixture until it separates. Draw the calibration
curve, and work out the original water content.

>A better approach might be to buy a pound of activated 3A molecular
>sieves (e.g., Aldrich, http://www.sial.com/ ) and dehydrate the fuel.
>Molecular sieves absorb about 15% of their weight in water, down to low
>ppm.  3A is barely small enough to exclude methanol.  Remember to filter
>out the sieve dust before feeding your engine.

However, totally-anhydrous methanol is *extremely* corrosive to the
light metals ( aluminium, magnesium ) and a small amount of water
is often added to methanol ( 0.5-1% ) to prevent the corrosion and, as
many model engines are made from light metals......

         Bruce Hamilton

From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Keeping methanol fuel dry.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 06:05:46 GMT

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Alchemist wrote:
>> Model aeroplane engines run on methanol based fuel
>> containing natural or sythetic castor oil and nitromethane.
>> Methanol, being hydroscopic, picks up water like crazy and
>> can often produce an in flight condition known
>> as "plummeting" (as in earthwards).

Note that anhydrous methanol is extremely corrosive to light
metals ( aluminium and magnesium alloys ). The corrosive
product is a gel that blocks filters/lines etc. The usual, and
simplest, method to stop corrosion is to add 0.5-1% of distilled
water to anhydrous methanol. I suspect the caster oil stops most
corrosion, but if you flush the system with methanol....

>> Could I use molecular sieves to keep the methanol dry? I
>> know they work for pure methanol, but would there be some
>> interaction with the other components?
>
>Activated 3A sieves.  Anything bigger will also suck up methanol.

However it's likely that castor oil will coat the sieves, so
you may need some flow through the system, and keep it hermetic,
because if the solvents evaporate the castor oil will permanently
coat and polymerise on the sieves. I'd dry the methanol, ensure
the nitromethane is dry, and mix blends on cool, fine days. The
main issues would be storage, and I'd pack a batch into small
hermetic containers sufficient for one use. Is the fuel system
easy to flush?. If so, perhaps a low volatility, cheap, solvent
could be used to flush between batches ( nitromethane presumably
is rather expensive, and a too-volatile solvent would cause
condensation as it evaporates ).

Alternatively, you could try to reduce the exposure to atmosphere.
We use a short length ( 2-3" ) of thin wall 1/8"OD FEP capillary
as the only vent line on sealed winchesters ( 2-4 litre ) bottles of
hydroscopic solvents, such as methanol/acetonitrile mixtures, and
it greatly reduces H2O uptake without causing significant vacuum.

Depends on the design of the tank and fuel system, but I'd go for
trying to prevent easy water ingress to fuel, rather than fight
the battle of keeping the methanol water content around the 500
ppm it starts out at.

>sieves will loose clouds of ultrafine ceramic particles.  This may
>adversely affect your piston rings and cylinder walls long term.

Do all model aircraft engines have piston rings?. I vaguely recall
a cheap small engine that used cylinder bore taper as the seal
( which would still be killed by ceramic fines ).

Gravity or pressure filtration through a <1um membrane filter
( such as a prefabricated 25+mm unit ) should eliminate most of the
fines of concern. Alternatively, find an old burette and pack with
molesieves and set up a hermetic gravity feed system with slow flow
( adjust burette tap ).

       Bruce Hamilton