FlyingMonkey Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 So maybe we just take it back to the Big Bang an say it all comes from the four fundamental forces. Which would all just be one force if our physicists weren't such slackers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Ethanol is one of those things that I'm really not sure about. Supposedly, it decreases carbon monoxide emissions. This I'm having trouble finding a lot of reliable research for though (admittedly, I don't have a lot of time for this). On the other hand though, ethanol is an octane booster. Back when petrol refinement was not standardized (turn of the 20th century), it was used to great effect, it would considerably boost the octane. Once lead got pulled out of gas, something had to be used in its place. MTBE was used. Now it's pretty much completely banned, so something else needs to be used, and ethanol is it. Without the octane boosting, considerably more expensive refining methods have to be used to get closer to the "magic 100" number. As for how much it would actually cost... again, can't find the answers (but don't have the time to look too hard)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 It's not surprising that ethanol boosts octane. Octane rating is a measure of *resistance* to combustion. Take a very energetic and volatile fuel and cut it with one that is much less energetic...voila, decreased combustibility / increased octane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted December 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Guess my "rant" resulted in an interesting discussion. I originally brought up this subject because I am concerned about our government's plan to go past the current 10% ethanol in 2016 - which begins tomorrow. There are currently large distilleries in many states which are pumping out ethanol. New distilleries are being built and new pipelines are now being built to add to the current ones to carry this to refineries. There is going to be a very large increase of methanol being produced and our government has dictated (which is how we now carry out business in Washington) that this will be mixed into our fuel. This will screw up a lot of fuel systems, including, perhaps, the fuel system on our CT's? Guess this can be added to the wind and solar boondoggles. Oops, don't want to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Guess my "rant" resulted in an interesting discussion. I originally brought up this subject because I am concerned about our government's plan to go past the current 10% ethanol in 2016 - which begins tomorrow. There are currently large distilleries in many states which are pumping out ethanol. New distilleries are being built and new pipelines are now being built to add to the current ones to carry this to refineries. There is going to be a very large increase of methanol being produced and our government has dictated (which is how we now carry out business in Washington) that this will be mixed into our fuel. This will screw up a lot of fuel systems, including, perhaps, the fuel system on our CT's? Guess this can be added to the wind and solar boondoggles. Oops, don't want to go there. This could certainly cause problems for our CTs. I know in other parts of the world CTs are flying with higher ethanol content, but the factory guidance is that ethanol up to 10% is acceptable. So going beyond that number would be done at one's own risk. Also, as Doug noted, higher ethanol content will mean less range in our airplanes. I have tested the ethanol in the BP-branded 93 octane gasoline I put in my airplane, and it seems to fall about 6%. I guess I will start doing periodic re-testing of my fuel. If it goes above 10% I will have to figure something else out. We have ethanol free gas available at a few stations around (for boats, ATVs, and other 'off road' uses), but the octane is 90, below the 91 specified by Rotax. I could cut it with a little 100LL, but then I'd have all the issues associated with lead use. If I cut it with the higher ethanol 93 octane gas, I'd probably have to go 50/50 mix to get to 91 octane. The logistics of that start to get annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 You would need a rather insignificant amount of 100LL to push it 1 point. Or you can add toluene (114 octane when pure). Toluene is already added to gas as an additive, and more is used for racing fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 You would need a rather insignificant amount of 100LL to push it 1 point. Or you can add toluene (114 octane when pure). Toluene is already added to gas as an additive, and more is used for racing fuels. Yeah, probably a half gallon or so per side in full tanks would do it, but I try to keep as much lead away from my engine/gearbox as possible. I will look into the toluene solution, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 This could certainly cause problems for our CTs. I know in other parts of the world CTs are flying with higher ethanol content, but the factory guidance is that ethanol up to 10% is acceptable. So going beyond that number would be done at one's own risk. Also, as Doug noted, higher ethanol content will mean less range in our airplanes. I have tested the ethanol in the BP-branded 93 octane gasoline I put in my airplane, and it seems to fall about 6%. I guess I will start doing periodic re-testing of my fuel. If it goes above 10% I will have to figure something else out. We have ethanol free gas available at a few stations around (for boats, ATVs, and other 'off road' uses), but the octane is 90, below the 91 specified by Rotax. I could cut it with a little 100LL, but then I'd have all the issues associated with lead use. If I cut it with the higher ethanol 93 octane gas, I'd probably have to go 50/50 mix to get to 91 octane. The logistics of that start to get annoying. Or use LL with Decalin. TCP. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted December 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Anyone know how effective decalin is in removing lead from 100LL? Does lead level drop to 6 to 10% levels similar to MoGas? Like Andy says, we do not want any lead in our fuel, if possible. I've seen a sprag clutch removed from a 912ULS that was plugged with lead and Roger shown some pretty ugly pictures of the effects of lead contamination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Decalin doesn't make the lead go away, it just keeps most of it from depositing in the gearbox and engine. Instead it ends up in your exhaust, where it leaves a coating and long term can lead to brittleness and cracks in exhaust components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Anyone know how effective decalin is in removing lead from 100LL? Does lead level drop to 6 to 10% levels similar to MoGas? Like Andy says, we do not want any lead in our fuel, if possible. I've seen a sprag clutch removed from a 912ULS that was plugged with lead and Roger shown some pretty ugly pictures of the effects of lead contamination. I have an anecdote. The previous owner of my airplane used exclusively 100LL in my airplane. He used TCP on every fill up and changed the oil at 25 hrs. When the "transmission" was serviced , I was told there were no Lead deposits and that in fact it looked very good. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 Be aware, Alcor TCP has quite a bit of toxicity. Here's Alcor TCP's MSDS: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/tcp-msds.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 Exports of Taxpayer-Subsidized Ethanol to China Grew 975% in 2015 Scuse stated, “U.S. ethanol exports to China have jumped from $8 million to more than $86 million since our May 2014 visit. In October, we exported more ethanol to China than in the previous 10 years combined.” Ethanol production in America is subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars each year by the government. This production has grown since an increasing number of taxpayer dollars have been added to subsidy. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/31/exports-taxpayer-subsidized-ethanol-china-grew-975-2015/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 How does this apply to the fuel I put in my airplane? This belongs in random thoughts rather than politicizing this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 How does this apply to the fuel I put in my airplane? This belongs in random thoughts rather than politicizing this conversation. Guess my "rant" resulted in an interesting discussion. I originally brought up this subject because I am concerned about our government's plan to go past the current 10% ethanol in 2016 - which begins tomorrow. There are currently large distilleries in many states which are pumping out ethanol. New distilleries are being built and new pipelines are now being built to add to the current ones to carry this to refineries. There is going to be a very large increase of methanol being produced and our government has dictated (which is how we now carry out business in Washington) that this will be mixed into our fuel. This will screw up a lot of fuel systems, including, perhaps, the fuel system on our CT's? Guess this can be added to the wind and solar boondoggles. Oops, don't want to go there. This might screw up our fuel systems and its nothing but politics there is no real benefit only cost. Is it a political benefit or an unintended consequence that results in subsidizing China? I would rather have cheaper gas and a pristine fuel system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 How does this apply to the fuel I put in my airplane? This belongs in random thoughts rather than politicizing this conversation. Notice the thread title? 'Government Putting More Ethanol in Our Fuel' Ethanol is a political football from the get go. Doug, why do you spend so much time policing my posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 "Doug, why do you spend so much time policing my posts?" CT - I'm not Doug, but I think the answer is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Seems to me if someone doesn't want a hot debate or a politically charged post dissected then better not to post them. There are never any winners in politics and religious discussions and if you're thin skinned you'll always be the looser. Better to just leave these emotionally charged outings at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 When the govt forces us to buy a commodity that we don't want, like corn in our fuel there are unintended consequences like incompatibility with fuel systems and performance issues as well as transfer of wealth. We can discuss the problems caused but until we discuss the govt mandate there is little that can be done except discussing it. Granted we used to talk about washing the fuel to remove the ethanol, I prefer to also question why it is there in the first place and whether or not the practice should be continued. I don't care if its the left or right currently in charge, it doesn't matter ethanol lives on no matter who is in charge. Are we now so sensitive that we cannot even question the wisdom of the bureaucracies that remain after sides change? Should we only discuss how to live with lead and ethanol and not how to phase them out if they are bad ideas? I can see how some think such discussion should be silenced and in this current climate silence is happening from aviation web sites to university campuses, buy why? I don't understand this new right to not be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Jefts Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 I am certainly not offended by the discussions. Good to see both sides and then I can make my own decisions but.... Really not happy that I am unable to purchase non ethanol fuel (besides 100) for my Cessna in Arizona. The refinery's will not provide, the stations will not provide, and no one in Tucson will provide. I know there is demand so why can't we get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 I don't think anyone cares about debates, just the personal attacks and sometimes offensive language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Notice the thread title? 'Government Putting More Ethanol in Our Fuel' Ethanol is a political football from the get go. Doug, why do you spend so much time policing my posts? CT, Government Putting More Ethanol in Out Fuel (even without shouting) is not the same as "Government Sends More Ethanol to China." One (although it is not accurate - it is proposed, not a fact) would affect my CT. The other from dubious source Brietbart.com, will not. Sorry CT, you can't in one place complain that people try to silence climate deniers, and in the next try to shout down someone who questions why you are politicizing a good discussion. I know your usual tactic is to shift to a different topic. I am talking only about the China post. So please limit your response to that post and how it, if it is true, affects the fuel or fluids (you did notice that is the thread, right) in my CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Oh, and CT, I haven't singled you out. You are the only one posing political stuff, so I guess you have singled yourself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 CT, Government Putting More Ethanol in Out Fuel (even without shouting) is not the same as "Government Sends More Ethanol to China Its not the govt sending fuel to China and its not a proposal its a report of a 975% growth in subsidized ethanol going to China in 2015. This means the US taxpayers in 2015 began paying millions of dollars to subsidize China's fuel. A brand new unintended consequence funded by me and you every time we fuel our CTs. Before I can tell my representatives that I no longer want to subsidies China's fuel (of big corn farmers) I have to know it is taking place. You keep making these comments on sources, Breitbart is simply reporting what was said by the source: 'U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Michael Scuse'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Ok, I repeat. What does government subsidy for ethanol sent to China have to do with the fuel put in my CT? Please answer the question? I am trying to keep it simple and straight forward. If Brietbart is such a good source (some if the stuff the report certainly isn't - if you want unbiased try Stratfor.com) why use the secondary source, and, why bring China exports into this at all? You would think you are trying to make a political point, not an aviation one. Put it in Random, not here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.