Index
Home
About
Blog
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <an=4tsg@dixie.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 23:44:26 GMT
ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>That will be a problem for current and old cars because MBTE and the
>>alcohols require so much more fuel for stoich. Flex-fuel cars with
>>advanced engine management systems will, of course, handle it
>>but as long as the existing fleet dominates, what comes out of the
>>pump have to approximate gasoline. Which really isn't a problem.
>MTBE has 5 carbons in it ... rather close to Pentane in the 'mix'
>needed. ETBE has 6, rather close to Hexane. I think you will find
>that the 'heavy ethers' like MTBE and ETBE are well within the range
>of jets for old cars...
That is misleading. The ethers also carry oxygens and that is what
makes the difference.
From "Automotive Fuels Handbook", Table 11.2 "Some Properties of
Oxygenates and Gasoline"
RVP HVm HVv Stoich SG Vis
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MTBE 7.8 15,100 93,500 11.7 0.744 0.35
TBA 1.8 14,280 94,100 11.1 0.791 4.2 @ 78 deg F
Ethanol 4.6 11,500 76,000 9.0 0.794 1.19
Methanol 4.6 8,570 56,800 6.45 0.796 0.59
Gasoline 8-15 18,500 114,000 14.7 .72-.78 0.37-0.44
0.75 typ 0.4 typ
Notes:
RVP = Reid vapor pressure, PSI
HVm = Heating value, mass BTU/lb
HVv = Heating value, volume BTU/gal
SToich = Stoichiometric ratio
SG = Specific Gravity, 60 deg F UOS
Vis = Viscosity in Centipoise @ 60 def F
MTBE = Methyl tertiary Butyl Ether
TBA = Tetra Butyl alcohol
RVP is a measure of how suitable the fuel is for cold starting and
good throttle response. Pump Gasoline's RVP is padded with
high vapor pressure additives such as butane according to the season.
The heating value (mass) is a comparison of the potential work obtainable
from each fuel. Heating value (volume) is a comparison of how much
potential work per gallon each fuel has. And since gas tax is
applied on a per-gallon basis, this gives a good idea of how much
work per unit tax is available, the larger number the better for us.
The stoichiometric ratio is a direct comparison of the amount of
each fuel required.
Metering jets flow fuel proportional to the differential pressure across
the orfice and the viscosity and density of the fuel. (Ref: Principles and
Practice of Flow Meter Engineering, L.K.Spink) The relationship
between the parameters and flow are complex enough that people are
making careers developing flex-fuel algorithms. A reasonable
indication of the effects of the different fuels can be deduced from
the viscosity spec. MTBE is a bit less viscous so a given jet will
flow a bit more which will partially compensate for the vastly lower
stoich ratio. But not nearly enough. For example, a rule of
thumb for tuning a methanol engine is that it requires about
2.5X as much fuel as the same engine on gasoline. Part of this
is due to the meth engine being very intolerant of lean detonation
so tuners compensate on the rich side but most of the increase is
due to lower stoich. MTBE is closer to the alcohols than to gasoline.
>While old cars may not run on high percentages of ethanol, the tertiary
>ethers should be usable in very high concentrations. What, say, 75%?
A simple, first order approximation of the stoich of the mix:
(0.75*11.7) + (0.25*14.7) = 12.4:1
A 14.7:1 mix of this would probably not ignite.
>While draining the fuel tank on my Honda, I noticed that the 'stuff'
>that came out was far different from what I'd handled 20 years ago.
>It was VERY dehydrating to the skin and had very little 'oily' feel
>to it (not much stuff left on the hands after evaporation). There
>is a fair quantity of ether in it already ... It smells different,
>if feels different, it works just like 'gasoline'... MTBE, great stuff.
Go buy a can of the 104+ Octane brand of Real Lead. For about
8 bux, you can buy a quart of what is essentially premium leaded
fuel from the 60s. It feels and smells just like you remember it.
I keep a little can around here for when I need a good shot
of nostalgia :-)
>>Yup. Indeed I'm doing a lot of that to my old 68 Plymoth Fury just to
>>show it can be done and done cheaply.
>I liked the posting about the 'add on' oxygen sensor system. Hadn't
>thought of that... elegant...
Yeah, I was slapped with the old "why didn't I think of that" response
when I read the literature.
I should also point out that all of the big Three are doing a booming
business in "crate motors". These are engines complete and ready to
install. Many crate motors are high performance engines but
standard production emission controlled V8s are also available,
complete with special stand-alone engine electronics. The Chevy
350 TPI crate motor is especially popular with the hotrodders
because it make good power, gets great mileage and starts instantly.
This is another alternative to just junking "clunkers". Of course,
the auto industry WANTS to junk these cars so people will buy
new ones. These are the same guys who used the government to
ban both R-12 and the substitutes. At least they got caught
at that one.
John
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <1994Feb9.224018.5397@michael.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 22:40:18 GMT
Summary: John and I argue qualitatively over a quantitative issue
that can't be resolved without real world testing that neither of us
has done. We agree on the numbers, but do not agree on the effect...
In article <an=4tsg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>>>That will be a problem for current and old cars because MBTE and the
>>>alcohols require so much more fuel for stoich.
>>MTBE has 5 carbons in it ... rather close to Pentane in the 'mix'
>>needed. ETBE has 6, rather close to Hexane. I think you will find
>>that the 'heavy ethers' like MTBE and ETBE are well within the range
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>of jets for old cars...
>That is misleading. The ethers also carry oxygens and that is what
>makes the difference.
"Yes, but" ... Your chart includes the light alcohols (fine with me,
but not as important as the heavy ethers that I'd asserted would work.)
It also ommitted ETBE ...
Don't forget the part where I postulated that about 75% ought
to be the maximum of this in the mix ...
Chopping out the light stuff, and just comparing MTBE and gasoline:
>From "Automotive Fuels Handbook", Table 11.2 "Some Properties of
>Oxygenates and Gasoline"
>
> RVP HVm HVv Stoich SG Vis
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>MTBE 7.8 15,100 93,500 11.7 0.744 0.35
>Gasoline 8-15 18,500 114,000 14.7 .72-.78 0.37-0.44
We get a very close RVP. Rounded, it is 8 vs 8-15.
We get a very close SG. Rounded, it is .7 vs .7 - .8
We get a very close Vis Rounded, it is .4 vs .4
We get a close HVm at 15k vs 18k and a close HVv at 94k vs 114k.
We get a near Stoich at 12 vs 15.
No, I don't think 12 vs 15 is 'Vastly Different' ...
I DO think it will be swamped by the increased range of flamability
in air for ethers. Ether is, after all, used as a starting aid
for cold weather and other problem starting situations due to the
ease with which it is ignited...
>RVP is a measure of how suitable the fuel is for cold starting and
>good throttle response. Pump Gasoline's RVP is padded with
>high vapor pressure additives such as butane according to the season.
And one could still do that with a high MTBE ETBE gasoline. You would
still have 20-30 % of 'gasoline' fraction to work with.
>The heating value (mass) is a comparison of the potential work obtainable
>from each fuel. Heating value (volume) is a comparison of how much
>potential work per gallon each fuel has. And since gas tax is
>applied on a per-gallon basis, this gives a good idea of how much
>work per unit tax is available, the larger number the better for us.
This is a financial issue, not a technical issue. Yes, it will cost
more per mile you go. Never said it wouldn't. Getting rid of smog
does have costs.
>The stoichiometric ratio is a direct comparison of the amount of
>each fuel required.
At optimum mix for complete combustion of both reactants, fuel and air.
We don't really need to optimize for air consumption, so a leaner mix
is OK as long as it still ignites and burns clean. Ethers can burn
lean easier than gasolines.
>Metering jets flow fuel proportional to the differential pressure across
>the orfice and the viscosity and density of the fuel. (Ref: Principles and
>Practice of Flow Meter Engineering, L.K.Spink) The relationship
>between the parameters and flow are complex enough that people are
>making careers developing flex-fuel algorithms. A reasonable
>indication of the effects of the different fuels can be deduced from
>the viscosity spec. MTBE is a bit less viscous so a given jet will
>flow a bit more which will partially compensate for the vastly lower
>stoich ratio. But not nearly enough.
How can you assert that it is not nearly enough? Hell, I've run a
completely unmodified car on 30% light alcohol OK; which is a far
cry from MTBE in terms of stoich ... and don't forget that I said
tertiary etherS ... ETBE will also move the mix up a bit in stoich...
And don't forget that the mass change is also in favor or more flow
along with the (minor) viscosity change...
The only way to know for sure is to try it. I'm game. I've also
dumped enough strange stuff into enough cars over the years to have
a decent intuitive calibration of what does and doesn't fail. The
heavy ethers ought to work just fine, in my OPINION, and I'm willing
to buy some and run a car on it to generate real data points.
Don't know when, where, or how I'll get it, but I'll start looking.
(God, I love Kitchen Science... ;-)
>For example, a rule of
>thumb for tuning a methanol engine is that it requires about
>2.5X as much fuel as the same engine on gasoline. Part of this
>is due to the meth engine being very intolerant of lean detonation
>so tuners compensate on the rich side but most of the increase is
>due to lower stoich.
Methanol is not germain to the issue of heavy ethers. While it DOES
have the worst possible numbers and does work best in your arguement,
it is just too far removed from the ethers... and is NOT what I'd
asserted would work.
>MTBE is closer to the alcohols than to gasoline.
A 'bald assertion' ... The numbers you posted make it look to me
a whole lot closer to gasoline than to the light alcohols! And the
folks who produce it are saying the same (there is some 'sellers puff'
in what they say, but I can tell you for a fact that MTBE laced gasoline
is MUCH easier to run in a cold blooded car than ETHANOL laced gas...
My old F350 would NOT start on ethanol oxygenate without major effort.
It did not detect any change between MTBE oxygenated and non-oxygenated.)
There is even a very large difference between Methanol and Ethanol.
Ethanol will go to much higher percentages in gasoline with no problem.
I could get about 30% more ethanol into a mix than methanol before onset
of detectable problems. Ethers are even more forgiving.
>>While old cars may not run on high percentages of ethanol, the tertiary
>>ethers should be usable in very high concentrations. What, say, 75%?
>
>A simple, first order approximation of the stoich of the mix:
>
>(0.75*11.7) + (0.25*14.7) = 12.4:1
>
>A 14.7:1 mix of this would probably not ignite.
Bull Pucky! It is all of 16% leaner. Ought to be about like
running on a cold day vs the middle of summer (air mass change
and poor fuel vaporization in winter). Or taking a car tuned
up at 7000 feet down to sea level.
What can I say... It can. It does. It HAS. (actually, it was a
worse test that had ... alcohols and ethers blended...)
Check out the history of the two Great Wars. In both WWII and WWI
fleets were converted to run on many different mixes of alcohols and
ethers. Often up to the 50%+ range. On several continents. They
were using light ethers too, not heavy ethers...
I've posted the data before, so I won't do it again, but back in
both world wars, and after WWII, there were ether/alcohol/gasoline
blends sold to J.Q.Public. (The ether was surplus that they didn't
need for explosives manufacture any more.)
The 'conversion', if it was needed at all, consisted of adjusting the
idle jet. Turning a screw on most of them. On some cars you can't do
this any more, but then again we are talking MTBE/ETBE here not
di-ethyl ether... Given that 30% blends of ether were in common use
with no adjustments at all, going with MTBE or ETBE ought to let you
get up into the 75% range. Ethers have rather wide flamability limits.
No, I haven't tried it. (Anyone know were I can get 10 gallons of
MTBE or ETBE cheap?) I HAVE dumped lots of other stuff into engines
over the years. There is NO WAY that a 12:1 vs 14:1 ratio is going
to stop that engine from running. It MAY make it hard to start when
cold (so pump the gas pedal some).
The new cars have oxygen sensors, so they will self adjust just fine.
The really old ones have lots of adjustments on the carb, so they
can be adjusted with a turn of the screw driver (IFF needed at all...)
(In my experience, anything pre-1970 is already running Real Rich,
either by design or because the jets have worn out larger...)
The only group of cars where there MIGHT be a problem would be the
ones made in the 1970-1980 range. (varies somewhat with maker)
Where they were being made with no user adjustable jets at all
(weld the carb shut at the factory mentality...) AND were being
made to run at the very edge of lean. And then only those with
low miles and un-worn jets... My 1986 F350 was one of them.
(Trucks run a bit later in years for a given technology of smog,
due to California having this easier scale for them to meet...)
It could not tell an MTBE mix from straight gasoline... It would
not start when cold on even 5% ethanol without vigorous gas pedal
pumping...
So, worst case, you have to change a jet in the carb for SOME of
the cars made in a 10 to 15 year range. Big whoop. This would
all be phased in slowly anyway (already is... MTBE/ethanol in smog
areas up to 10% is now The Law). The percentage would just be worked
up slowly over time as needed to clean up the air enough.
Kind of like the unleaded introduction. You keep some 'low oxgenates'
on the island as the high oxgenates come out. Tax it enough to make
it a premium option (and thus encourage folks to use the other fuel
even if it does mean a carb adjustment) and as the fleet ages you
will have ever fewer cars going for that stuff... Oh, and you could
even go to more exotic blends on that pump with even heavier ethers..
>>I liked the posting about the 'add on' oxygen sensor system. Hadn't
>>thought of that... elegant...
>
>Yeah, I was slapped with the old "why didn't I think of that" response
>when I read the literature.
>
>I should also point out that all of the big Three are doing a booming
>business in "crate motors".
...
>This is another alternative to just junking "clunkers". Of course,
>the auto industry WANTS to junk these cars so people will buy
>new ones.
Criminy man, you jump on me that MTBE won't work when all it would
talk, worst case, is a change of a $2 (maybe $5 these days...) jet,
but then turn around and suggest that buying a whole new engine is
a reasonable alternative for some folks? Must be a slow day in Atlanta...
>These are the same guys who used the government to
>ban both R-12 and the substitutes. At least they got caught
>at that one.
Have they been caught? I'm still waiting for GHG-12 at Pep Boys...
(And wondering why Brazil, Germany, Russia, China, India, South Africa,
et. al. don't just tell the US EPA to go stuff it and sell the non-R134a
stuff in their own countries... They would have a dandy grey market. ;-)
--
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: srgxbhh@grv.grace.cri.nz
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: RE: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:04:17 GMT
Message-ID: <2jgs13INNoc7@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>
In Article <an=4tsg@dixie.com>
jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>.MTBE has 5 carbons in it ... rather close to Pentane in the 'mix'
>>needed. ETBE has 6, rather close to Hexane. I think you will find
>>that the 'heavy ethers' like MTBE and ETBE are well within the range
>>of jets for old cars...
>That is misleading. The ethers also carry oxygens and that is what
>makes the difference.
They increase the octane rating of hydrocarbon fuels, but decrease
the energy content because they carry oxygen.
The ethers work by retarding the progress of the low temperature
or cool flame reactions, consuming radical species, particularly OH
radicals and producing isobutene. The iso-butene in turn consumes
additional OH radicals and produces unreactive, resonantly stabilised
radicals such as allyl and methyl allyl, as well as stable species
such as allene with resist further oxidation. As well as that it
produces energy from oxidation of its Hydrogen and Carbon.
The alkyl lead compounds work by the lead oxide reacts with HO2 in
the intermediate temperature range, thereby deactivating the chain
branching reactions. They contribute no energy
>From "Automotive Fuels Handbook", Table 11.2 "Some Properties of
>Oxygenates and Gasoline"
[ table deleted ]
>RVP is a measure of how suitable the fuel is for cold starting and
>good throttle response. Pump Gasoline's RVP is padded with
>high vapor pressure additives such as butane according to the season.
John knows, but omitted to mention, that gasoline can't be high
volatility all the time because of vapour lock in the fuel system
and volatile hydrocarbon emissions regulations.
The factor that John's table didn't include is the requirement to
vaporise the fuel. Here's some additional data on oxygenates
From SAE J1297 " Alternative Automotive Fuels - Information Report )
Blending Octane Value Oxygen Latent Heat
( in 87 (R+M)/2 UL gasoline) Content of Vaporisation.
Research Motor (R+M)/2 (% mass) ( BTU/US Gal ))
Gasoline - - - 0.0 800
Toluene 111 95 103 0.0 1130
MTBE 116 103 110 18.2 900
TBA 103 91 97 21.6 1700
IPA 118 98 108 26.6 2100
EtOH 129 102 115 34.7 2600
MeOH 133 105 119 49.9 3300
The latent heat is very important for engines that vaporise the
fuel in the incoming air stream ( carbs, port injection )
It can cool the airstream, resulting in more charge, but for
methanol ( at least ) additional heat has to be supplied to
ensure complete vaporisation. John may wish to describe the
tradeoff in greater detail....
Oxygenates are usually blended in as a substitute to aromatics
such as toluene, but the reduction in pollutants decreases as
the concentration is increased ( eg 1% of oxygen reduces CO by
15%, 2% reduces it a further 7%, 3% a further 3% etc. )
As emission reduction ( by aromaic substitution and enleanment )
is the intention, 2% oxygen is used, versus the optimum 3.5% for
CO reduction and 2.3% for HC reduction ), additional gains can
be achieved by reformulating the hydrocarbon base, rather than
increasing the oxygenate content.
Bruce Hamilton
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <2pc4h9c@dixie.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:57:32 GMT
ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>We get a near Stoich at 12 vs 15.
>No, I don't think 12 vs 15 is 'Vastly Different' ...
Regardless of what you think, that large a range is HUGE. That's the
range between normal cruise mixture and full rich for acceleration.
>I DO think it will be swamped by the increased range of flamability
>in air for ethers. Ether is, after all, used as a starting aid
>for cold weather and other problem starting situations due to the
>ease with which it is ignited...
Absolutely no relationship between "petroleum ether" (which really
isn't) starting fluid and the heavy ethers other than in name.
>At optimum mix for complete combustion of both reactants, fuel and air.
>We don't really need to optimize for air consumption, so a leaner mix
>is OK as long as it still ignites and burns clean. Ethers can burn
>lean easier than gasolines.
Boy, Mike, you must know something no one else in the industry doesn't.
Everyone else seems to think that stoich burning is necessary to let
3-way catalysts work. Remember any soup you come up with has to run
in modern cars too. Everyone also seems to think that driveability
is an important parameter and lean mixtures are NOT driveable.
The statement that "ethers" burn lean easier than gas is patently
false. First off "ethers" cover a broad range of oxygenated hydrocarbons.
I don't have a listing for the range of flammability for MTBE but
let's take a look at some other common ethers from the Rubber Book:
Ether Formula Percent range of flammability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dichloroethyl ether C4H8CL2O non-flammable
Bis ether C4H10O 2-17
Diethyl ether C4H10O 2-48 (what people think of as "ether)
Diisopropyl ether C6H14O 1-21
Ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether C6H14O2 4-13
Ethylene glycol
monoethyl ether C4H10O2 3-18
Ethylene glycol
monoethyl ether
acetate C6H12O3 2-8
Octane C8H18 1-7
Toluene C7H8 1-7
As you can see, almost none of the ethers, including what most people
think of as "starting fluid" will ignite as lean as either octane or
toluene, common "gasoline" components. Gasoline wasn't listed in
this table so these are good approximations.
>The only way to know for sure is to try it. I'm game. I've also
>dumped enough strange stuff into enough cars over the years to have
>a decent intuitive calibration of what does and doesn't fail. The
>heavy eithers ought to work just fine, in my OPINION, and I'm willing
>to buy some and run a car on it to generate real data points.
>Don't know when, where, or how I'll get it, but I'll start looking.
>(God, I love Kitchen Science... ;-)
Go for it.
>Bull Pucky! It is all of 16% leaner. Ought to be about like
>running on a cold day vs the middle of summer (air mass change
>and poor fuel vaporization in winter). Or taking a car tuned
>up at 7000 feet down to sea level.
Since none of these fuels is flammable from 0 to 100 % concentration,
a percentage comparison is irrevelant. Going from 14.7 to 12.4:1
with your 75% mix is like going from 14.7 to 17.4:1 on gasoline.
Other than lean-burn engines, a gas engine will not run this lean,
particularly the old carburated engines that were tuned lean
to begin with in order to try and meet emission standards of the
time without using any real technology. When you do your experiment,
be sure to do it with a representative car of the era.
>Check out the history of the two Great Wars. In both WWII and WWI
>fleets were converted to run on many different mixes of alcohols and
>ethers. Often up to the 50%+ range. On several continents. They
>were using light ethers too, not heavy ethers...
I challenge you to come up with ANY reference to an ICE fuel
based on light ethers. Dimethyl ether has an octane rating of
essentially zero which makes it completely unsuited as a blending
ingredient. Everything I can lay my hands on indicates that
all the synthetic/alternative fuels were gasoline-like (Fischer-Tropsch
for Germany, SASOL for S. Africa, Lurgi coal gasification, solvent
extraction from coal) Besides, we have not been talking about
converting cars to run on your soup; we've been talking about whether
your MTBE soup will run in existing cars as a way of cleaning up
the old gross polluters. Let's not change context in mid-stream.
>The 'conversion', if it was needed at all, consisted of adjusting the
>idle jet. Turning a screw on most of them. On some cars you can't do
>this any more, but then again we are talking MTBE/ETBE here not
>di-ethyl ether... Given that 30% blends of ether were in common use
>with no adjustments at all, going with MTBE or ETBE ought to let you
>get up into the 75% range. Ethers have rather wide flamability limits.
Idle adjustments typically have a "bite" of only a couple of percentage
points of CO or perhaps half a mixture ratio or less. Sorry, but
you're not going to move two whole clicks on the idle jet.
>No, I haven't tried it. (Anyone know were I can get 10 gallons of
>MTBE or ETBE cheap?) I HAVE dumped lots of other stuff into engines
>over the years. There is NO WAY that a 12:1 vs 14:1 ratio is going
>to stop that engine from running. It MAY make it hard to start when
>cold (so pump the gas pedal some).
So are we now re-defining "success" as nothing more than getting a
to start? I thought we were interested in reducing pollution.
Lean surge and misfire certainly does not do that.
>The new cars have oxygen sensors, so they will self adjust just fine.
Sorry, but no. closed loop operation is only at idle after cranking
and cruise. Acceleration, even a little bit, and power
operation runs open loop off the map tables.
>The really old ones have lots of adjustments on the carb, so they
>can be adjusted with a turn of the screw driver (IFF needed at all...)
>(In my experience, anything pre-1970 is already running Real Rich,
>either by design or because the jets have worn out larger...)
Well my 68 plymouth with the detroit-standard 2 barrel runs LEAN
because the throttle shaft has worn a bit and leaks air in
under the jets. The idle mixture screws lack sufficient range
to bring the mix back in even from this minor dilution. There is,
of course, no midrange or power adjustments. The Quadrajet
I'm about to replace this carb with has the same adjustments -
two idle screws. No midrange or mainjet adjustments. Certainly
not a raise-the-hood-and-turn-a-screw to make it run on your magic
elixir.
>So, worst case, you have to change a jet in the carb for SOME of
>the cars made in a 10 to 15 year range. Big whoop. This would
>all be phased in slowly anyway (already is... MTBE/ethanol in smog
>areas up to 10% is now The Law). The percentage would just be worked
>up slowly over time as needed to clean up the air enough.
How you gonna change jets in all the OEM carbs that don't HAVE jets?
Jets became superflouous long ago, replaced by precision drillings
in the castings.
>>This is another alternative to just junking "clunkers". Of course,
>>the auto industry WANTS to junk these cars so people will buy
>>new ones.
>Criminy man, you jump on me that MTBE won't work when all it would
>talk, worst case, is a change of a $2 (maybe $5 these days...) jet,
>but then turn around and suggest that buying a whole new engine is
>a reasonable alternative for some folks? Must be a slow day in Atlanta...
Considering that many "clunkers" ARE clunkers because the engine is
shot, that's no big deal. Engine swapping is now a booming business
here in Atlanta. A new drive-in franchise has just started proliferating
here. Drive in, leave your car for a day, and for about $2500-$3000,
you have a rebuilt engine installed and tuned and ready to go. A crate
motor is in the same price range.
John
From: russ@m-net.arbornet.org (Russ Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Date: 12 Feb 1994 18:59:58 GMT
Message-ID: <2jj8ve$53b@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
In article <2pc4h9c@dixie.com>, John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> wrote:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>The new cars have oxygen sensors, so they will self adjust just fine.
>
>Sorry, but no. closed loop operation is only at idle after cranking
>and cruise. Acceleration, even a little bit, and power
>operation runs open loop off the map tables.
Not entirely. They run on the learned value of stoich determined
while running under closed-loop conditions. If the self-adjustment
range is sufficient to run at a 12.5:1 ratio, the system will crank
up just fine the next time it's run. The time you'll have problems
is when you've just tanked up with MTBE after running gasoline and
your learned value is way off. This is standard stuff, has been
since before I started doing EEC work in 1990.
Flex-fuel vehicles have had this issue beat for years; when you're
feeding the car anything between 0% and 85% methanol, you have to
be able to adjust widely and quickly. Fuel-line sensors do part
of the work of determining how much to feed the engine (especially
after refueling), but they don't correct for injector variations
and the like. Learning systems do.
---
Russ Cage | Forewarned is half an octopus
russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
(313) 662-9259 | Software engineer for hire, real-time a specialty.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <1994Feb14.220404.29603@michael.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 22:04:04 GMT
In article <2pc4h9c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>I DO think it will be swamped by the increased range of flamability
>>in air for ethers. Ether is, after all, used as a starting aid
>>for cold weather and other problem starting situations due to the
>>ease with which it is ignited...
>
>Absolutely no relationship between "petroleum ether" (which really
>isn't) starting fluid and the heavy ethers other than in name.
Um, and the small matter of an 'ether bond'. That oxygen in
the middle of the two HC chains...
>>At optimum mix for complete combustion of both reactants, fuel and air.
>>We don't really need to optimize for air consumption, so a leaner mix
>>is OK as long as it still ignites and burns clean. Ethers can burn
>>lean easier than gasolines.
>
>Boy, Mike, you must know something no one else in the industry doesn't.
>Everyone else seems to think that stoich burning is necessary to let
>3-way catalysts work.
Last time I looked, leaner burning by adding oxygenates WAS what
the folks in the industry 'knew'... You may have me on the '3-way
catalysts', since most of what I know is from back in the 'platinum'
catalyst days ... At least then, you pumped extra air in up stream
of the catalyst to over lean the mix to help the catalytic oxidation...
>Remember any soup you come up with has to run
>in modern cars too. Everyone also seems to think that driveability
>is an important parameter and lean mixtures are NOT driveable.
Lean GASOLINE mixes are not very drivable, but lean ether mixes are
more drivable, due to wider flamability limits.
>The statement that "ethers" burn lean easier than gas is patently
>false. First off "ethers" cover a broad range of oxygenated hydrocarbons.
>I don't have a listing for the range of flammability for MTBE but
>let's take a look at some other common ethers from the Rubber Book:
>
>Ether Formula Percent range of flammability
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Dichloroethyl ether C4H8CL2O non-flammable
>Bis ether C4H10O 2-17
>Diethyl ether C4H10O 2-48 (what people think of as "ether)
>Diisopropyl ether C6H14O 1-21
>Ethylene glycol
> monobutyl ether C6H14O2 4-13
>Ethylene glycol
> monoethyl ether C4H10O2 3-18
>Ethylene glycol
> monoethyl ether
> acetate C6H12O3 2-8
>
>Octane C8H18 1-7
>Toluene C7H8 1-7
>
>As you can see, almost none of the ethers, including what most people
>think of as "starting fluid" will ignite as lean as either octane or
>toluene, common "gasoline" components. Gasoline wasn't listed in
>this table so these are good approximations.
Um, your use of Dichloroethyl ether and the glycol ethers is
disengenuous at best... A mono-ether on a glycol backbone has
as much in common with alchol as it does with ethers... while
a chlorinated substance starts to get freon like character...
Taking the Diisopropyl ether as being closest to ETBE (both
have 6 carbons, one as C3-O-C3 and the other as C2-O-C4
and ingoring the H) is instructive. Wider range than Octane,
and 'same' lower bound. Unfortunately, you did not show if these
are mass ratios or volume ratios. Also, unfortunately, the use
of integers masks the true lowest bound. (I find it hard to
believe that octane is EXACTY 1:1 lower bound... and that
toluene is IDENTICAL; so we have shown nothing, really, about
lowest bounds...)
My guess is that these are vapor volume ratios, and that a greater
volume of ETBE will be delivered through a typical carb than will
octane, yielding a greater vapor quantity. But this is only a guess.
>>The only way to know for sure is to try it. I'm game. I've also
>>dumped enough strange stuff into enough cars over the years to have
>>a decent intuitive calibration of what does and doesn't fail. The
>>heavy eithers ought to work just fine, in my OPINION, and I'm willing
>>to buy some and run a car on it to generate real data points.
>>Don't know when, where, or how I'll get it, but I'll start looking.
>>(God, I love Kitchen Science... ;-)
>
>Go for it.
Got to find some first... and God only knows what the paperwork
will be ...
>>Bull Pucky! It is all of 16% leaner. Ought to be about like
>>running on a cold day vs the middle of summer (air mass change
>>and poor fuel vaporization in winter). Or taking a car tuned
>>up at 7000 feet down to sea level.
>
>Since none of these fuels is flammable from 0 to 100 % concentration,
>a percentage comparison is irrevelant. Going from 14.7 to 12.4:1
It is a valuable heuristic.
>with your 75% mix is like going from 14.7 to 17.4:1 on gasoline.
Yeah. So? I've seen worse on the street.
>Other than lean-burn engines, a gas engine will not run this lean,
>particularly the old carburated engines that were tuned lean
>to begin with in order to try and meet emission standards of the
>time without using any real technology.
That should only be cars from the '70s. '60s were run rich and have
no problem with leaning. '80s started being smarter about their fuel
monitoring and handling gear...
>When you do your experiment,
>be sure to do it with a representative car of the era.
I have access to a nice '72 Mazda/Ford Courier. Has a manual
choke so I can get it started on anything damn near, but also
has the lean adjusted carb and air pump typical of the '70s ...
It also only just bairly passes smog...
>>Check out the history of the two Great Wars. In both WWII and WWI
>>fleets were converted to run on many different mixes of alcohols and
>>ethers. Often up to the 50%+ range. On several continents. They
>>were using light ethers too, not heavy ethers...
>
>I challenge you to come up with ANY reference to an ICE fuel
>based on light ethers.
"Methanol and Other Ways Around the Gas Pump". Has a good bibliography
and a decent coverage of alternative fuels through history. Di-ethyl
ether was used as a blending agent with alchols in gasolines. There
were several 'brand names' (documented in the book) for different
mixes. I think Europe used the highest non-gasoline percent. The
ether was used to make up for the poor vaporization of the alcohols.
One mix I remember was about equal parts alcohol and di-ethyl ether
mixed with about 70% gasoline.
If you need a more detailed citation, I can get the book from home
and post the gory details. I've posted it here before, but it was
a couple of years ago...
>Dimethyl ether has an octane rating of
>essentially zero which makes it completely unsuited as a blending
>ingredient.
De-ethyl ether was the most common blending agent, since it is
a liquid...
>Everything I can lay my hands on indicates that
>all the synthetic/alternative fuels were gasoline-like (Fischer-Tropsch
>for Germany, SASOL for S. Africa, Lurgi coal gasification, solvent
>extraction from coal)
Right. This stuff was used to replace the 'gasoline' stock. Then
the 'gasoline' be it natural or synthetic, was 'extended' by adding
ethers/alcohols to it. "Agrol' was one name, I think.
>Besides, we have not been talking about
>converting cars to run on your soup; we've been talking about whether
>your MTBE soup will run in existing cars as a way of cleaning up
>the old gross polluters. Let's not change context in mid-stream.
I think an 'existance proof' is appropriate evidence... Since the
'conversion' done was trivial (jets) and they were using a harder
substance to subsitute (de-ethyl ether and methanol/ethanol rather
than heavier ethers and heavier alcohols...) this prior art shows
that the burden ought not to be onerous.
>>The 'conversion', if it was needed at all, consisted of adjusting the
>>idle jet. Turning a screw on most of them. On some cars you can't do
>>this any more, but then again we are talking MTBE/ETBE here not
>>di-ethyl ether... Given that 30% blends of ether were in common use
>>with no adjustments at all, going with MTBE or ETBE ought to let you
>>get up into the 75% range. Ethers have rather wide flamability limits.
>
>Idle adjustments typically have a "bite" of only a couple of percentage
>points of CO or perhaps half a mixture ratio or less. Sorry, but
>you're not going to move two whole clicks on the idle jet.
So, worst case, you swap a couple of jets. Did this in 10 minutes
or less a half dozen times on my old VW. (Idle was easy. The main
jet you had to take a bolt out of the fuel bowl...)
>
>>No, I haven't tried it. (Anyone know were I can get 10 gallons of
>>MTBE or ETBE cheap?) I HAVE dumped lots of other stuff into engines
>>over the years. There is NO WAY that a 12:1 vs 14:1 ratio is going
>>to stop that engine from running. It MAY make it hard to start when
>>cold (so pump the gas pedal some).
>
>So are we now re-defining "success" as nothing more than getting a
>to start? I thought we were interested in reducing pollution.
No, I'm asserting that getting it to start *cold* is THE HARD PART. In
my experience, getting it to start is harder than keeping it running.
And that I expect this mix to be modestly hard to start cold and
acceptable in use. (Bald assertion).
>Lean surge and misfire certainly does not do that.
In my experience, if you have lean surge and misfire, you have a
damned hard time getting it to start when cold. (i.e. just pumping
the pedal a couple of times won't do it..) Thus my statement above.
>>The new cars have oxygen sensors, so they will self adjust just fine.
>
>Sorry, but no. closed loop operation is only at idle after cranking
>and cruise. Acceleration, even a little bit, and power
>operation runs open loop off the map tables.
See the post from Russ.
>>The really old ones have lots of adjustments on the carb, so they
>>can be adjusted with a turn of the screw driver (IFF needed at all...)
>>(In my experience, anything pre-1970 is already running Real Rich,
>>either by design or because the jets have worn out larger...)
>
>Well my 68 plymouth with the detroit-standard 2 barrel runs LEAN
>because the throttle shaft has worn a bit and leaks air in
>under the jets.
Odd problem... Try some 'gland nut packing' ...
>The idle mixture screws lack sufficient range
>to bring the mix back in even from this minor dilution. There is,
>of course, no midrange or power adjustments. The Quadrajet
>I'm about to replace this carb with has the same adjustments -
>two idle screws. No midrange or mainjet adjustments. Certainly
>not a raise-the-hood-and-turn-a-screw to make it run on your magic
>elixir.
OK, for those without adjustable main jets, you get to do a jet
swap IFF needed. I've done these before. On some cars it's
a bolt and a screw instead of just a screw (VW). On others
you get to do the equivilant of a carb rebuild. Not exactly
an onerous proposition considering the alternatives under
consideration are things like BANNING the old cars all together.
>>So, worst case, you have to change a jet in the carb for SOME of
>>the cars made in a 10 to 15 year range. Big whoop. This would
>>all be phased in slowly anyway (already is... MTBE/ethanol in smog
>>areas up to 10% is now The Law). The percentage would just be worked
>>up slowly over time as needed to clean up the air enough.
>
>How you gonna change jets in all the OEM carbs that don't HAVE jets?
>Jets became superflouous long ago, replaced by precision drillings
>in the castings.
You take the carb off, and put on a 'rebuilt' one. The old carb
is sent to the rebuilder who precision drills a slightly larger
hole in them. IFF needed, of course.
>>>This is another alternative to just junking "clunkers". Of course,
>>>the auto industry WANTS to junk these cars so people will buy
>>>new ones.
>>Criminy man, you jump on me that MTBE won't work when all it would
>>talk, worst case, is a change of a $2 (maybe $5 these days...) jet,
>>but then turn around and suggest that buying a whole new engine is
>>a reasonable alternative for some folks? Must be a slow day in Atlanta...
>
>Considering that many "clunkers" ARE clunkers because the engine is
>shot, that's no big deal. Engine swapping is now a booming business
>here in Atlanta. A new drive-in franchise has just started proliferating
>here. Drive in, leave your car for a day, and for about $2500-$3000,
>you have a rebuilt engine installed and tuned and ready to go. A crate
>motor is in the same price range.
If the engine is shot, by all means spend the $3k. But if it is just
a turn of a scew, a $3 jet, a $100 rebuild, or a $200 carb swap; I'll
take the lowest cost approach for my particular car...
Considering that the present limits for 'repair costs' to meet smog
are in the mid hundreds (depends on year) for many cars, this is not
an 'out of line' scale of costs.
--
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
"A goal is a dream taken seriously" -- Henry David Thoreau
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <31h4x0j@dixie.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 07:34:30 GMT
ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>In article <2pc4h9c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>Boy, Mike, you must know something no one else in the industry doesn't.
>>Everyone else seems to think that stoich burning is necessary to let
>>3-way catalysts work.
>Last time I looked, leaner burning by adding oxygenates WAS what
>the folks in the industry 'knew'... You may have me on the '3-way
>catalysts', since most of what I know is from back in the 'platinum'
>catalyst days ... At least then, you pumped extra air in up stream
>of the catalyst to over lean the mix to help the catalytic oxidation...
Three way catalysts, catalysts capable of both oxidizing HC and CO and
reducing NOX requires a near-stoich mix in order to work properly.
This is the only reason for closed loop lambda control. Power range
operation is open loop because it doesn't matter for the EPA cycle
and it greatly simplifies the generation of the fuel maps.
The Big Lie in this oxygenated fuel escapade is the government's claim
that modern cars would adjust to the fuel and thus would not run any
differently on the 10% oxygenates. That was a lie, as most anyone
with a modern car can attest. Most will block learn for those periods
when the ECU is in closed loop mode that that does NOT include
the power range. That's with only 10% oxygenate (max 2% oxygen)
in the current "experimental" fuel we must buy.
>>Remember any soup you come up with has to run
>>in modern cars too. Everyone also seems to think that driveability
>>is an important parameter and lean mixtures are NOT driveable.
>Lean GASOLINE mixes are not very drivable, but lean ether mixes are
>more drivable, due to wider flamability limits.
Other way. Oxygenates tolerate RICH mixtures better than ordinary
fuel. Not only does not the flammability limit extend as low as
gasoline's, the oxygenates typically exhibit extreme octane sensitivity
on the lean side.
>>As you can see, almost none of the ethers, including what most people
>>think of as "starting fluid" will ignite as lean as either octane or
>>toluene, common "gasoline" components. Gasoline wasn't listed in
>>this table so these are good approximations.
>Um, your use of Dichloroethyl ether and the glycol ethers is
>disengenuous at best... A mono-ether on a glycol backbone has
>as much in common with alchol as it does with ethers... while
>a chlorinated substance starts to get freon like character...
Nope. I simply quoted everything listed in the Rubber book that had
ether in its name just to be complete.
>Taking the Diisopropyl ether as being closest to ETBE (both
>have 6 carbons, one as C3-O-C3 and the other as C2-O-C4
>and ingoring the H) is instructive. Wider range than Octane,
>and 'same' lower bound. Unfortunately, you did not show if these
>are mass ratios or volume ratios. Also, unfortunately, the use
>of integers masks the true lowest bound. (I find it hard to
>believe that octane is EXACTY 1:1 lower bound... and that
>toluene is IDENTICAL; so we have shown nothing, really, about
>lowest bounds...)
Take it up with David Lide, the editor of the Rubber Book. Whole
percentages are more than adequate to get a feel for the situation
which is all this shithouse discussion needs.
>>Since none of these fuels is flammable from 0 to 100 % concentration,
>>a percentage comparison is irrevelant. Going from 14.7 to 12.4:1
>It is a valuable heuristic.
>>with your 75% mix is like going from 14.7 to 17.4:1 on gasoline.
>Yeah. So? I've seen worse on the street.
Perhaps in a Honda VTEC.
>That should only be cars from the '70s. '60s were run rich and have
>no problem with leaning. '80s started being smarter about their fuel
>monitoring and handling gear...
Closed loop didn't come into common use until the mid 80s and even
then it was crap, usually implemented with some jerry-rigged
electronic carburator. That leaves out all the cars made in the
60s and 70s, the ones I THOUGHT this discussion started about.
>>Idle adjustments typically have a "bite" of only a couple of percentage
>>points of CO or perhaps half a mixture ratio or less. Sorry, but
>>you're not going to move two whole clicks on the idle jet.
>So, worst case, you swap a couple of jets. Did this in 10 minutes
>or less a half dozen times on my old VW. (Idle was easy. The main
>jet you had to take a bolt out of the fuel bowl...)
This is really frustrating. Mike, you seen to need the last word but
are arguing from a position of almost complete ignorance of
carburator systems used on the cars in question. The fancy lawn
mower carb on your volkswagen bears little resemblence to emissions
carbs.
Let's take a look at what would have to be changed in, say, a simple
Holly. The more sophisticated carbs such as the Quad have even more
metering devices so the Holly is SIMPLE.
Idle jets - drilled orfices
Idle air jet - drilled orfices
Idle discharge port - machined slot in the throttle bore.
Emulsion tube jet - drilled orfices
Emulsion air jet - drilled orfices.
Main jet - drilled orfice in the metering plate.
Main air bleed - drilled orfices
Booster venturies - typically not removable in OEM carbs.
Power valve
Power valve jet - drilled orfice
Accelerator pump volume - the pump is either a thin-walled cylinder and piston
or a diaphram pump. No mods possible.
Accelerator pump cam
Accelerator pump discharge nozzles - crimped-in nozzles or drilled orfices.
For any car built after 66, you're going to get to run a complete
emission cycle on the converted carb just to stay legal. And you must do
it for each vehicle/propulsion package. If you don't do this, you are
merely guessing.
You're proposing to set up a whole industry in order to use your
elixir. It is VASTLY easier just to retrofit a closed loop adaptor.
>>>The new cars have oxygen sensors, so they will self adjust just fine.
>>
>>Sorry, but no. closed loop operation is only at idle after cranking
>>and cruise. Acceleration, even a little bit, and power
>>operation runs open loop off the map tables.
>See the post from Russ.
I don't know what Russ has to say but I DO know what GM, at least, does
because I have a system description and source code listing for their
previous generation ECU (C3?) GM controls closed loop after warmup
and only during part throttle and idle operation. As soon as Jim
and his merry band of hackers gets through, we'll have a reverse-
engineered source code listing for the Bosch ECUs. From what they've
done so far, it looks like Bosch does it just like GM.
You don't need a source code listing to see this for your very own self.
When the ECU is in closed loop mode, the output from the lambda sensor
dithers from rich to lean and back several times a second. GM even
measures this frequency and drops a code when the rate slows as a leading
indicator of Lambda sensor failure. All you need to observe this is
a voltmeter or even better, a bargraph display. You can get one from
Cyberdyne for about $20 designed for the purpose. Connected to the
lambda sensor, it will whip from lean to rich several times a second
when idling or cruising. It will peg rich when accelerating or under
power. "Pegged" is only about half a point away from stoich.
This system simply will NOT compensate for large changes in fuel.
It's more likely to drop a code indicating apparent lambda sensor
failure.
>>Well my 68 plymouth with the detroit-standard 2 barrel runs LEAN
>>because the throttle shaft has worn a bit and leaks air in
>>under the jets.
>Odd problem... Try some 'gland nut packing' ...
If I had a gland nut to pack.... Actually worn throttle shafts
are very common on old cars. it is the odd car that doesn't have
excessive shaft clearance after a decade or so. Holly sells a re-bush
kit for their carbs but it involves a complete carb disassembly to
install. Needless to say, not many people do it. The important
point is that this is a common problem and does NOT contribute to
rich running.
>If the engine is shot, by all means spend the $3k. But if it is just
>a turn of a scew, a $3 jet, a $100 rebuild, or a $200 carb swap; I'll
>take the lowest cost approach for my particular car...
since it won't be, none of these are really considerations. Retrofitting
emission controls and/or installing new engines ARE.
>Considering that the present limits for 'repair costs' to meet smog
>are in the mid hundreds (depends on year) for many cars, this is not
>an 'out of line' scale of costs.
What the expense limit says is that fixing the few number of cars which
fail and can't be fixed for the $$$ limit simply isn't worth it. Most
of this rattling about gross polluters is IMHO, bunk. It is mainly a
guy wanting the government to create a market for his neat little
roadside infrared gadget and some bureaucrats wanting to increase their
empire by having to manage these neat little gadgets. Just fix the really
gross ones with visible emissions as they are now doing in CA and
let natural turnover take care of the rest. There just aren't enough
of us driving really old cars to matter. And yes, the weather here
in the South is as car-friendly as is CA's.
John
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <1994Feb16.205401.24544@michael.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 20:54:01 GMT
In article <31h4x0j@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>>In article <2pc4h9c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>Boy, Mike, you must know something no one else in the industry doesn't.
>>>Everyone else seems to think that stoich burning is necessary to let
>>>3-way catalysts work.
>>Last time I looked, leaner burning by adding oxygenates WAS what
>>the folks in the industry 'knew'... You may have me on the '3-way
>>catalysts'
Which John then proceeds to demonstrate that he indeed does ...
>Three way catalysts, catalysts capable of both oxidizing HC and CO and
>reducing NOX requires a near-stoich mix in order to work properly.
Hmm, mumble frutsle snurgle... Damn it John, you KNOW I hate it
when your right ...
>>>Remember any soup you come up with has to run
>>>in modern cars too. Everyone also seems to think that driveability
>>>is an important parameter and lean mixtures are NOT driveable.
>>Lean GASOLINE mixes are not very drivable, but lean ether mixes are
>>more drivable, due to wider flamability limits.
>
>Other way. Oxygenates tolerate RICH mixtures better than ordinary
>fuel. Not only does not the flammability limit extend as low as
>gasoline's, the oxygenates typically exhibit extreme octane sensitivity
>on the lean side.
I think here that you are aggregating things that I'm disaggregating...
You are absolutely correct on many of the oxgenates, especially the
light alcohols, and I do not disagree. My old F350 would not take
one iota of ethanol in the gas without cold start complaints and
bad running. Acting as though you were 'running very very lean'.
It was on the 'hairy edge' of not running due to lean settings.
The heavy ethers are a different matter, though. They had a known
tendency when first introduced to carbon plugs and generally seemed
to be 'running rich'. (This was shown on a news show some years ago
covering the Denver roll out. I forget who did the piece.) The
mechanics in that area at that time stated that leaning the mix
seemed to help in those cars where it could be leaned.
That is the major basis for my assertion that the heavy ethers
ought not to have over-leanness problems. Yes, anecdotal, but
I'll take experience over theory any day. IF I can find a source
of MTBE or ETBE, I'm willing to try it in higher concentrations
to find out for sure which theory is right.
>Nope. I simply quoted everything listed in the Rubber book that had
>ether in its name just to be complete.
Completeness that includes a bunch of stuff that doesn't act
at all like a straight ether is, er, um, misleading... It may
not be deliberate, but it is what it is...
>>Taking the Diisopropyl ether as being closest to ETBE (both
>>have 6 carbons, one as C3-O-C3 and the other as C2-O-C4
>>and ingoring the H) is instructive. Wider range than Octane,
>>and 'same' lower bound. Unfortunately, you did not show if these
>>are mass ratios or volume ratios. Also, unfortunately, the use
>>of integers masks the true lowest bound. (I find it hard to
>>believe that octane is EXACTY 1:1 lower bound... and that
>>toluene is IDENTICAL; so we have shown nothing, really, about
>>lowest bounds...)
>
>Take it up with David Lide, the editor of the Rubber Book. Whole
>percentages are more than adequate to get a feel for the situation
>which is all this shithouse discussion needs.
Since it is what we are having dissent over, it seems pertinent
to point out that the data provided do not help solve the dissent...
I'm quite willing to admit that I don't have "The Answer", only
a resonable theory.
>>That should only be cars from the '70s. '60s were run rich and have
>>no problem with leaning. '80s started being smarter about their fuel
>>monitoring and handling gear...
>
>Closed loop didn't come into common use until the mid 80s and even
>then it was crap, usually implemented with some jerry-rigged
>electronic carburator.
Really? I thought they were smarter than that... In the '80s I
was 'into' Hondas so I didn't look much at US stuff. What I
think you are saying here is that most of the '80s stuff is
about like my '86 F350 was in terms of fuel sensitivity. If that
is true, they will likely behave as you have asserted.
>That leaves out all the cars made in the
>60s and 70s, the ones I THOUGHT this discussion started about.
That is what I thought we started on as well, but we drifted.
My '60s & '70s experience was with VW, Fords and Dodge, mostly.
ALL the ones I worked with had changeable jets, but I'm willing
to accept that there are some not so equiped.
>>>Idle adjustments typically have a "bite" of only a couple of percentage
>>>points of CO or perhaps half a mixture ratio or less. Sorry, but
>>>you're not going to move two whole clicks on the idle jet.
>>So, worst case, you swap a couple of jets. Did this in 10 minutes
>>or less a half dozen times on my old VW. (Idle was easy. The main
>>jet you had to take a bolt out of the fuel bowl...)
>
>This is really frustrating. Mike, you seen to need the last word but
No I don't! ;-)
>are arguing from a position of almost complete ignorance of
>carburator systems used on the cars in question.
I've looked at more than I care to in my shop manuals and rebuilt
about 1/2 dozen in my life. Yeah, they have a bunch of other jets
and passages. What I've experienced is that with most of them the
main jet and idle mix are all you need to dink with. May well be
that for the '80s era cars they are far more touchy... any rebuilds
I've done on them have not involved changing anything other than
that standard kit parts.
>The fancy lawn
>mower carb on your volkswagen bears little resemblence to emissions
>carbs.
Looked rather similar to me... a few less things hooked into the
vaccuum, though. And the one on my Honda is a real rats nest.
>Let's take a look at what would have to be changed in, say, a simple
>Holly. The more sophisticated carbs such as the Quad have even more
>metering devices so the Holly is SIMPLE.
I'm going to delete the list of parts. Yes John, I knew they existed.
No, I don't think they would all have to be changed. Yes, that's a
matter of opinion, so I'm not going to argue it any more. Neither of
us can know for sure until someone dumps some fuel into one and tries it.
>For any car built after 66, you're going to get to run a complete
>emission cycle on the converted carb just to stay legal. And you must do
>it for each vehicle/propulsion package.
Damn. Forgot about that... CARB would have a cow.
>You're proposing to set up a whole industry in order to use your
>elixir. It is VASTLY easier just to retrofit a closed loop adaptor.
Not quite. I'm proposing to take the existing automotive fuels
industry and move it from having: {diesel, Super Unleaded, Mid Grade
Unleaded, Regular Unleaded, M85} where the unleaded has up to
about 10% oxygenates some parts of the year to having: {diesel,
Super Unleaded, Regular Unleaded, High Oxgenate, M85} where the
High Oxgenate has a percentage of oxgenate in it that has added
benefit for reducing smog in many (not all) cars and were some (not
all) of the cars can run it with moderate costs tune ups and/or
modifications. About all it would take is having the refineries
blend the mid-grade differently. (This shouldn't and wouldn't
happen until well after enough MTBE/ETBE plant is built to handle
the present need for oxgenate in normal gasoline.)
Actually, what I proposed (long long ago...) was that there be a
tax added to straight gasoline (say, 25 cents/gallon) that would
be used to buy down the price of a very high oxigenate gasoline
(MAYBE up to 75% ETBE) AND that car owners be left free to run which
ever they wanted, but offer a cut rate on what ever 'conversion'
was needed to meet smog laws, be it {pump in the gas, change the
jets, swap the carb, put on a retrofit closed loop adaptor}.
That would let folks choose to 'convert' to a cleaner fuel or not,
as their economics and/or particular vehicle type allowed.
BTW, wouldn't the retrofit close loop adaptor also have to have a
smog retest/recert?
The idea was that a car, pulled over as a super-emitter, has to
do something to get back on the road. Rather than crushing a bunch
of nice old cars, you give them some choices. IF they can 'meet smog'
by a change of jets, fine. IF they need an add on adaptor, go for it.
IF they can just dump in a really high oxygenate fuel and turn the idle
mix screw, go for it... Folks who could not do one, would do the other.
Heck, even a LPG conversion ought to be in the mix ...
The price differencial on the two fuels would be used to entice folks
to choose a non-gasoline 'conversion' more often and to entice them to
NOT get a carb change and then just run straight gasoline in it...
BTW, the biggest problem, IMHO, with my 'scenario' is that high
oxgenate gasolines may have evaporative emissions problems in summer...
I'm not sure there is a way to handle that in older cars...
>>>>The new cars have oxygen sensors, so they will self adjust just fine.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but no.
>>See the post from Russ.
>
>I don't know what Russ has to say but ...
I'm bowing out of this disagreement. Russ says yes, you say no.
I'll wait for the dust to settle...
For cars that didn't run well on high oxgenates, they would just
pay a bit of 'smog tax' at the gasoline pump to subsidize the conversion
of someone else who could do it cheaply and easily (or subsidize the
cost of THEIR add on sensor/adaptor when THEY get pulled over for
being a super-emitter..)
>If I had a gland nut to pack.... Actually worn throttle shafts
>are very common on old cars. it is the odd car that doesn't have
>excessive shaft clearance after a decade or so.
I've had it once. We used some lead wire to pack the space around
the shaft. Worked OK. I've had jets that wore rich more often. YMMV.
>The important
>point is that this is a common problem and does NOT contribute to
>rich running.
There will always be some folks for whom a given solution does not
work, that is why I prefere a market force driven model. If, for
a particular superemitter, the BEST solution is a rebuild of the
carb, then that is what they would choose when they got their
ticket and reported to the repair shop ... At the same time, they
might then choose the 'high oxygenates' carb (IF one is available
for their car) to get the cheaper fuel and reduced emissions.
>>If the engine is shot, by all means spend the $3k. But if it is just
>>a turn of a scew, a $3 jet, a $100 rebuild, or a $200 carb swap; I'll
>>take the lowest cost approach for my particular car...
>
>since it won't be, none of these are really considerations.
If my carb is what's broken and it's what making me a superemitter,
it most certainly WILL be cheapest to rebuild or swap the carb
rather than doing a retofit! This may or may not have any relationship
to running any additional high oxgenate fuels in the fuel markets...
Another way to look at it is this: CARB has said M85 is a 'good thing'
but it takes special engine/car designs. CARB has said that a tinsy bit
of MTBE in gasoline part of the year is a 'good thing' and it takes
no changes. I'm advocating that for many folks having a lot of MTBE
and/or ETBE AND a minor to moderate conversion effort could be a 'good
thing', expecially if the alternative is a $1k sensor kit or the crusher...
It's just another alternative, not THE answer for everyone.
--
E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
"A goal is a dream taken seriously" -- Henry David Thoreau
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
From: russ@m-net.arbornet.org (Russ Cage)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Date: 17 Feb 1994 05:13:48 GMT
Message-ID: <2juuec$g8b@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
In article <31h4x0j@dixie.com>, John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> wrote:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>Closed loop didn't come into common use until the mid 80s and even
>then it was crap, usually implemented with some jerry-rigged
>electronic carburator.
Just FYI, in 1982 the Chevette/T-1000 had an electronic carburetor
which used a solenoid to vary the mixture by about 10%. Under most
conditions it could maintain stoich or close. When the charcoal
cannister was heavily loaded and the purge turned on, the solenoid
duty cycle would often be pegged at the lean limit...
The GM V8's had TBI that year, I think.
>You're proposing to set up a whole industry in order to use your
>elixir. It is VASTLY easier just to retrofit a closed loop adaptor.
That depends, John. Think for a minute about the rich-lean distribution
problems with what amounts to a big vacuum leak, plus the inherent
driveability problems associated with keeping airflow up during a
back-out prior to a shift (else you get a lot of fuel coming off the
manifold walls with nothing to burn it). Doing it right may not be
easy no matter which way you go. Instead of doing it right, you can
do it fast, which usually takes more time and turns out to be half-fast. ;-)
>I don't know what Russ has to say but I DO know what GM, at least, does
>because I have a system description and source code listing for their
>previous generation ECU (C3?) GM controls closed loop after warmup
>and only during part throttle and idle operation.
Yes, but you haven't said what the open-loop mixture is set by. Is
it hard-coded or does it use a learned-mixture multiplier? Injectors
vary from one unit to the next and change with age. Learning just
how much fuel a millisecond pulse gives is essential to smooth
operation of the system. You can't learn while the lambda sensor
is cold, but you can use historical data to set your mixture. Ford's
EEC's have done that for years. If the system control limits have not
been set too narrow to adjust to ether fuel, it should work just fine
if you can get it started the first time.
(This does presuppose some algorithm smarts. The algorithm has to vary
the mix rich before it will see the O2 sensor voltage switch; if it
runs perpetually lean, it will never switch "on". If it will vary it
far enough to go rich with ether fuel, it will work fine, otherwise it
will give up and declare the O2 sensor bad.)
---
Russ Cage | Forewarned is half an octopus
russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
(313) 662-9259 | Software engineer for hire, real-time a specialty.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <1994Feb22.001102.24245@michael.apple.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 00:11:02 GMT
In article <CL8M0z.7HE@hpl.hp.com> curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry) writes:
>: >In article <2pc4h9c@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>: >Absolutely no relationship between "petroleum ether" (which really
>: >isn't) starting fluid and the heavy ethers other than in name.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: E. Michael Smith (ems@michael.apple.com) wrote:
>: Um, and the small matter of an 'ether bond'. That oxygen in
>: the middle of the two HC chains...
All the 'starting fluid' ether I've seen has been a real ether. Di-ethyl
I think. Maybe your stuff is labled differently? (Or maybe I'm
misremembering the lable. We don't use that much of it out here...).
>Pet ether doesn't have an ether bond. It's a mixture of hydrocarbons,
>with an average MW a bit lower than octane (usually, if unqualified.
>There are different grades). The "ether" designation is historical.
I took John's statement to be that: 'starting fluid' is often called
'petroleum ether' which it isn't and that 'starting fluid' had no
relationship to heavy ethers other than the name (which isn't true,
since both are ethers. Di-ethyl ether vs methyl tertiary butyl ether)
You seem to have taken John's statement to be that: 'starting fluid' is
'petroleum ether' which isn't really an ether and that 'petroleum ether'
had no relationship to heavy ethers other than the name (which is true,
since one is a light hydrocarbon and the other is an ether).
I suppose one could read it either way depending on what is in
your local cans of starting fluid.
><I mostly agree with the rest of your remarks>
Thanks!
Though I guess now I'm going to be surveying the labels of 'starting
fluid' cans to see just what which brands claim to contain ... in
addition to looking for a source of MTBE &/or ETBE for motor fuel
testing that doesn't get the {EPA, DEA, Cal OSHA, HAZMAT, etc. etc.}
breathing down my neck.
The local 'Science Shop' (that's really their name!) has a sign up
that purchases of ANY amount of 'ether', R12 (!) or purchases
of over $100 of GLASSWARE will require that a record be kept and sent
off to some police-agency-in-charge-of-harrassing-home-experimenters-to-
make-sure-they-arn't-making-drugs. Gee, buy Pyrex, go to prison, IT'S
THE LAW ... (plus a long list of other stuff that they track too...)
Somehow I've got this feeling that The Police State has gone too far...
I wish I could put a smiley face on this, but it really is true.
Buy over $100 of glassware and you get a record sent to the police. I'm
fairly sure that it's gonna be Damned Hard to get 30 gallons of MTBE...
--
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
"A goal is a dream taken seriously" -- Henry David Thoreau
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: John De Armond
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <0tq4ksd@dixie.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 04:21:19 GMT
ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>All the 'starting fluid' ether I've seen has been a real ether. Di-ethyl
>I think. Maybe your stuff is labled differently? (Or maybe I'm
>misremembering the lable. We don't use that much of it out here...).
I just walked out to my shop to see what was on the shelf. A can
of Gunk brand contains n-heptane, di-ethyl ether, CO2 and lube oil.
A can of PEP boys generic only lists "petroleum ether". Looks
like it depends on what brand you look at.
>The local 'Science Shop' (that's really their name!) has a sign up
>that purchases of ANY amount of 'ether', R12 (!) or purchases
>of over $100 of GLASSWARE will require that a record be kept and sent
>off to some police-agency-in-charge-of-harrassing-home-experimenters-to-
>make-sure-they-arn't-making-drugs. Gee, buy Pyrex, go to prison, IT'S
>THE LAW ... (plus a long list of other stuff that they track too...)
so go in and buy one of everything they have to track just to introduce
some noise into big brother's database.
>Somehow I've got this feeling that The Police State has gone too far...
>I wish I could put a smiley face on this, but it really is true.
As a weary gun rights activist, I say NO SHIT!!!!
>Buy over $100 of glassware and you get a record sent to the police. I'm
>fairly sure that it's gonna be Damned Hard to get 30 gallons of MTBE...
Just call Phillips Petroleum. Both George Goble and I bought a wide
variety of interesting industrial chemicals from them in the course of
our refrigeration hacking with no hassles at all. About the only thing
that came up is that when George bought some isobutane, they told him
not to tell them if he was going to use it to blend a motor fuel
or else they'd have to ask for some sort of tax number. Of course,
we both bought through our corporations. Buying from a PO and
company check has completely facilitated just about everything I've
ever tried to do like this.
John
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Subject: Re: Alternative fuel (was Re: EV's vs HEV's)
Message-ID: <1994Mar3.034111.5826@michael.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 03:41:11 GMT
In article <2kvvlf$352@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller - X7114) writes:
>In article <2kt5sl$dv2@clarknet.clark.net> kencorn@clark.net (Kenneth T. Cornelius) writes:
>
>>: Somehow I've got this feeling that The Police State has gone too far...
>>: I wish I could put a smiley face on this, but it really is true.
>>: Buy over $100 of glassware and you get a record sent to the police. I'm
>>: fairly sure that it's gonna be Damned Hard to get 30 gallons of MTBE...
>>You're being a bit paranoid here, aren't you? Years (40) ago I bought
>>some concentrated sulfuric and nitric acid from a drug store and the same
>>thing happened. It's darned few of those reports that ever are acted
>>upon.
I think I'm displaying a 'just' level of paranoia. 25 years ago I bought
a gallon of conc. sulphuric acid from the drug store and there was NO
paperwork done. That was then, this is now.
>But 40 years ago, the technology and manpower didn't exist to really track
>all that stuff. These days, the technology is cheap (computers) and there
>is a lot more manpower (government is MUCH bigger).
And 40 years ago there wasn't a PC DEA that had tons of money and
RICO to let them confiscate assets for their own use first and leave
you to prove you're innocent later (with no money to buy a lawyer left...)
Back then, they had to spend money to go after you; now they make a
profit first and foremost.
It is a VERY REAL possibility that some DEA dweeb could say "Gee, no one
with any legitimate use would want to buy 30 gallons of ether; it would
only be used by an individual to make drugs (since it is on our list
of things to make drugs from/with) so we better go confiscate his home.
If he's innocent, he can prove it to the judge."
One might well prevail in the end. One might also have lost everything
in the 10 years it took to come to a hearing ...
>And being a little paranoid is essential. Freedom from the tyranny
>of one's own government is something you have to win every day.
I find myself in agreement with this statement.
Sadly, the 'war on drugs' and RICO have conspired to make it a
non-paranoid scenario to think that a disasterous outcome could
result from an innocent act.
On one local TV documentary they had an example of a small commercial
air freight company. They were put out of business because someone
air-freighted a package from one place to another that had drugs in
it. At no time was the company privy to the contents. At no time were
they ever charged with anything. The DEA 'arrested' the airplane for
having contributed to a crime. They impounded the guys fleet, and
basically said "Prove we're wrong and you might get it back, someday".
Well, with no means of production, the company folded... This
means that any air freight company can be shut down by having one
customer who, UNKNOWN TO THE COMPANY, packages up some dope and ships
it via that company.
Similarly, anyone who comes through customs with large quanties
of cash can have the cash confiscated if a drug dog signals that
the money is drug tainted. One small problem... Something like
80%(?) of ALL CASH is drug tainted. One guy snorts a line with a
dollar bill rolled up as a straw, the residue then transfers to
OTHER bills in the cash drawer when he spends it... It takes damn
little to contaminate the whole cash stock with enough for a dog to
point. But if you can prove a negative (that the money could not
have been used in a drug deal) then you can get it back, maybe, someday.
These are real examples, not hypothetical.
If they can do that, getting busted for buying 'drug precursors'
and needing to prove a negative (that you did not intend to use
them to make drugs) is a very real, non-paranoid, possibility.
Especially if the DEA computers are combing through the data
looking for new revenue sources to confiscate... And remember,
you get to do the proving AFTER they have done the confiscation
and sold the assets... (i.e. FIRST you lose your home, car, computer,
wife, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. THEN you get to go try
to find a judge to LET YOU argue why you MIGHT deserve to not have
had them taken...)
Tying this back to energy: I want to do some testing of high ether
fuels mixes. Ether is a DEA hot button. (I don't know why.) So
it is only prudent to plan the research into high ether fuels in such
a way as to not trigger some paranoid DEA action... At least they
were nice enough to put up a sign at the Science Shop to let the
innocents know that the DEA was being paranoid about.
--
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
"A goal is a dream taken seriously" -- Henry David Thoreau
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Index
Home
About
Blog