Jump to content

Remove Ethanol/Alcohol Separation System


Guest teknosmurf

Recommended Posts

Guest teknosmurf

Anyone besides me notice that technosmurf has not repsponded to my point of why intro his device at an air port, where ethanol use is prohibited?

Sorry for the delay, I decided to allow a couple of days to get responses, and apparently I got more than I bargained for!

In answer to your question, ethanol is banned by the FAA for certified aircraft (and for good reason). Generally that implies it is not good for experimental aircraft as well. Also, many certified and experimental aircraft are allowed to use automotive fuel. Once Arizona started using ethanol all year round, I found myself with the problem of using the cheaper auto fuel, but no way to remove the ethanol. So I created a solution. I have been flying for over 2 years with separated fuel, perfectly legally. Since I know how to discuss airplanes, it makes sense that I would start marketing at fly-ins first. Hopefully I will get to that comfort level with cars very quickly!

I do not want to attemp to address all of the points that have been brought up in the last day or two, but I do want to address the disposal problem and let you guys know that we are working on this from various viewpoints:

1) We are in discussions with Lawyers about simple evaporation. This is not nearly as cut-and-dried as many would have you think. Since this is essentially a watered down solution being generated in the home (and not commercially) things are very gray.

2) Every component present in the waste (except the water) has a device on the market that will burn it as fuel. Thus, we are working with a company now to get an official approval/endorsement that our product can be used in their lanterns, heaters, and stoves.

3) Since there are already companies that sell devices to burn these components, we are also disucssing the legalities of simply telling burning it off.

4) As a result of the above discussions, we ar also considering designing our own line of products to use this unique fuel.

Just so I am clear, PortableFuelSystems is NOT currently endorsing any of the above mentioned disposal methods as of yet. We may do that very soon, at which time I will definitely let you know.

I am very confident that we will have a solid answer to the disposal questions. I appreciate that people brought this to my attention so quickly. As you can see, your comments have been taken to heart.

Please keep the questions/comments coming, I do appreciate the feedback!

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

________________________________________________________________

Dave, I have two current model fuel injected cars that are in perfect order. Both cars have lost a consistent 4mpg since 10% ethanol was introduced. I'm not just talking about SD Pontiac's, but everything we drive. There is plenty of oil around so lets use it. Lets get rid of a EPA and other agencies that have no accountability to government or the people. BTW that was not a political statement it is merely saying No agency should be allowed to make policy without the governs consent.

Don

At the risk of being political: Federal agencies do as much or as little as they are delegated by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. The electorate selects members of Congress and the President. So "we the people" delegate to the elected members of government who then delegate to agencies they create and fund. We are being governed by our consent.

If you don't like how you are being governed, vote differently but please educate yourself on the people you are voting for or against and don't just do it based on 15 second sound bites paid for by the highest bidder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EPA has positioned itself to set climate policy, and amend the clean air act... Powers it was never delegated by congress and signed by the president. The EPA has done this by declaring greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare in a proceeding known as "endangerment finding".

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being political:

If you don't like how you are being governed, vote differently but please educate yourself on the people you are voting for or against and don't just do it based on 15 second sound bites paid for by the highest bidder.

Education is always a good thing! Don't forget to check the public records for the list of financial contributors. In seemingly TOO MANY cases, it's "the lesser of the two _____" in more recent times, by observation (Your observations might be different, which I respect).

Regards,

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible to opine on this subject for one hundred pages, but to cut to the short of it, with the ethanol removed, what would the new shelf life of the fuel be? And will the oxygenation agents, detergents, and lubricants added to the fuel that remains behind stay in solution, degrade, of alter their compounds to cause more or less problems after the ethanol is removed? Most vehicles with poor results are the earlier less adjustable carbs, (pre WWII) and the very small displacement engines. While most cars can be made to run reasonably well on today's fuel WITH LOTS OF TIME AND EXPENSE, it scares me to think about 15 or even 20 percent ethanol that has been tossed around by the tree huggers. It would also be useful if someone started a new technical thread on Stoichiometry, list all the fuel blends from the old days to today, with both fuel density, heat and energy content, and use of blending stocks on the overall ratio of air to fuel. Anybody up for that discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EPA has positioned itself to set climate policy, and amend the clean air act... Powers it was never delegated by congress and signed by the president. The EPA has done this by declaring greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare in a proceeding known as "endangerment finding".

True.

They were forced into doing so by a Supreme Court decision in 2009 after almost 20 years of ducking the issue, the last 8-10 of which were in stark contrast to how the rest of the world is addressing it. It took legal action before the high court on the part of numerous state agencies to finally bring the U.S. into the 21st Century on greenhouse gas regulation. ( Supreme Court sends carbon regulation back to the EPA )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible to opine on this subject for one hundred pages, but to cut to the short of it, with the ethanol removed, what would the new shelf life of the fuel be? And will the oxygenation agents, detergents, and lubricants added to the fuel that remains behind stay in solution, degrade, of alter their compounds to cause more or less problems after the ethanol is removed?

Either a decade plus of exhaustive testing would need to be done, or the first consumers of the machine will be the testing regime for this aspect of the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

They were forced into doing so by a Supreme Court decision in 2009 after almost 20 years of ducking the issue, the last 8-10 of which were in stark contrast to how the rest of the world is addressing it. It took legal action before the high court on the part of numerous state agencies to finally bring the U.S. into the 21st Century on greenhouse gas regulation. ( Supreme Court sends carbon regulation back to the EPA )

__________________________________________________________________

China, Taiwan, India, addressing well are they?? Which state agencies besides the peoples republic of California who do what they want and have businesses large and small leaving the state at record levels, even the ones going bankrupt on our dime??? Just gotta love that GE Immelt guy who sits on the Council on jobs and competitiveness and then goes in partner with the Chinese to build planes in China to undercut Boeing.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either a decade plus of exhaustive testing would need to be done, or the first consumers of the machine will be the testing regime for this aspect of the process.

__________________________________________________________________

They have already been testing on our cars for decades. So what is new about that???

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

__________________________________________________________________

Which state agencies besides the peoples republic of California who do what they want and have businesses large and small leaving the state at record levels, even the ones going bankrupt on our dime???

I'm going to assume this question was meant to be read "Which state agencies besides the peoples republic of California (were co-litigants suing the EPA to apply the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gasses)?"

In that case the answer to that question is the state governments of Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts (the originator of the suit), New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (state). In addition the suit was enjoined by the Cities of New York, Baltimore, and Washington (DC), as well as the Territory of American Samoa.

This is not an issue that is controversial or partisan, although many are sadly fooled into thinking that it is. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, you failed to quote the entire comment which means unreasonable entanglements are causing business to flee to friendly states. Once those states become entangled the larger corporations go offshore. We need to manufacture in all spheres to put Americans to work. Business and manufacturing in specific is like electricity and water. They ALL flow from the greatest resistance to the least. Try and remember that.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, you failed to quote the entire comment which means unreasonable entanglements are causing business to flee to friendly states.

...mostly because the point being discussed is a national issue resulting from Federal actions, but also because I'm at least adhereing to the "no politics" policy of this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...... but also because I'm at least adhereing to the "no politics" policy of this site.

And at times like these I wish we still had rants and raves again.

As it is we have gone off subject here again, and also.... I have strong feelings about these issues too.

Hey, maybe we can take up donations for an AACA offshoot Political forum???? Umm, maybe not.:rolleyes:

Ok guys back to the ethanol subject at hand.;)

Wayen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at times like these I wish we still had rants and raves again.

As it is we have gone off subject here again, and also.... I have strong feelings about these issues too.

Hey, maybe we can take up donations for an AACA offshoot Political forum???? Umm, maybe not.:rolleyes:

Ok guys back to the ethanol subject at hand.;)

Wayen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne,

Thanks for intervening graciously and not popping the thread.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Piston aircraft and Antique cars have a lot of similar problems with fuel.

If an aircraft owner fly’s off a grass strip 30 miles from any airport he has a real problem getting fuel. If that airport stops serving fuel then the problem gets even bigger. He will then go to the local gas station and refine the fuel in order to operate the aircraft safely and be within regulations.

Antique car’s do not have a non alcohol fuel regulation because if the carburetor ices, or vapor locks, you can pull over to the side of the road. An aircraft can crash in the same situation.

Most of the general aviation fleet utilizes engines designed over 50 years ago which were designed to use derivatives of the same fuel supplied to the cars. If refiners decide they do not want to produce aviation 100LL fuel then most general aviation aircraft will retire. If the fuel used in antique car’s is increased to greater than 15% alcohol. A large percentage of the Antique car fleet will be retired due to unreliability.

So I see a need for this product but product price is a problem, if it was harbor freight special for under $200 then I could afford to buy it and fill with fuel. If you can mass market it to the collector car world then it will reduce the cost to the aviation industry which really needs a break and is in more danger of retirement than antique cars.

But my biggest concern is how to know what octane rating the fuel is after refinement, since ethanol/Alcohol is a major anti knock agent and other knock agents have been removed from current fuels. If you have an octane test kit along with the refine apparatus then it will be better to use for a car or aircraft owner.

Another problem is a lot of antique car owners do not know what type of fuel their vehicle was designed for. A table with year ranges and refinery octane ratings would be useful. Since a batch of low octane refined fuel from the apparatus may work great for a 1930’s and older car, ok for a 40’s to 50’s car and not good for a 60’s-70’s car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if it was marketed to car clubs and groups? If you could get the costs down a bit and then a club with say 25 members could each donate 100 for a 2500 machine. Lowering it even more would make it that much more marketable and viable for smaller groups of hobbyists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my biggest concern is how to know what octane rating the fuel is after refinement, since ethanol/Alcohol is a major anti knock agent and other knock agents have been removed from current fuels. If you have an octane test kit along with the refine apparatus then it will be better to use for a car or aircraft owner.

I think edinmass's shelf life concern is even more urgent in a device like this. With all the variations in petroleum components and additives, especially accross the 20 or so "boutique" blends of gasoline specific to a given area's needs, the impact of this device on each and every one of the components will vary...., and this will impact the characteristics of the resultant fuels, perhaps severely.

How will the use of this device effect shelf life? Varnish formation? Vaporization characteristics? Detergent action? Etc., etc, etc... including anti-knock capacity. And if it does "A" to fuel characteristics in Boston, and does "B" in Atlanta, what kind of predictive possiblilities might there be for what it does in in Seattle...., "A", "B", "C", or whatever combination there might be. And then what about the next season (or year), when the formulations change.

I can easily see where there may be a lot more problems made than solved with this device, especially if it is only used to treat the relatively (when handled carefully and correctly) harmless E10 gasoline blends.

Edited by Dave@Moon
left out word "there" in last paragraph (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In researching the shelf life issue, I found widely-varying information. Is the fuel stored in an approved container? Temperature variations? Is the storage container tightly sealed?

I recall reading that, about 20 years ago, Phillips66 Racing Fuel had a shelf life of about a year, in a tightly-sealed drum. In more modern times, some claim gasoline shelf life to be 90 days. Varying orientations? Let's also define "shelf life" to be "as near to what the product was when it left the refinery", too.

Let's say we have the fuel stored in a container similar to an automotive fuel tank, circa 1966, which is vented. Or a later model which would normally be vented through the charcoal canister. We also need to understand that what we call "gasoline" is a combination of many different "factions" of differing chemical components, some more volative (quick to evaoporate) than others.

The first factions of the fuel to evaporate are the ones which are "lighter". These would be some of the things which make a cold engine easy to start in cooler weather. Some octane enhancers might be in this group, too. This is why gasoline shelf life is best in a tightly-sealed container. Using the above definition of "shelf life", the loss of these lighter-end items can be the first degradation of the fuel from "as produced", which can be reasonably quick to happen.

So, not only do we lose volume through evaporation, we also lose some capabilities of the fuel to work well in our engines.

From the SAE Transaction journals I found circa 1973 (presented in about 1957 or 1958), the spec Research Octane of premium fuel in 1957 was "97", which might equate to a current posted pump octane of "93". Using this guideline can also work for the general "high compression" ratios of about 10.0 to 1. This could be extended to the later engines with 10.0 to 1 and above mechanical compression ratios of the earlier 1970s, before compression ratios for low-lead and unleaded fuel fell to the 8.0-8.5 to 1 range. As the amount of ethanol (as an octane level enhancer) can vary from one brand of fuel to another, up to the legal-stated amount, you'd have to know the exact amount in the "un-washed" ethanol-enhanced fuel in order to hazzard to speculate what the ending octane level might be. Even back then, some brands and blends of fuels tended to work better in some engines than others.

With the 1971-era lower mechanical compression ratios, the formerly "sub-regular" grade of fuel (91 Research Octane, rather than the prior 94 Research Octane for "Regular") became the new Unleaded Regular. This would be fuel now labeled as "87" octane on the pump. The new "mid-range" fuel became the new "Mid-Grade" fuel of about 93 Research Octane ("89" on the pumps), low-lead or unleaded. Super Unleaded used to be about "92" pump octane, but has increased to current levels of "93-95", replacing the old "ethyl" or "premium" octane level fuels. In higher altitude areas, even above 1000 ft elevation, the pump octane could be "91" rather than "92" or "93".

As most of the compression ratios of engines prior to 1955 were under 9.0 to 1, their octane needs probably could be easily met with pretty much any fuel now available . . . I suspect . . . especially for mechanical compression ratios of 8.0 to 1 and less. One complicating factor might be that with the alcohol-enhanced fuels, they do tend to burn a little leaner than prior gasolines, so this additional leanness might edge the octane requirements upward, slightly.

Another issue can be that the earlier engines, typically, had shorter-duration shorter-overlap period camshafts. This can tend to increase effective cylinder pressure during the compression cycle, which might make an 8.0 compression ratio engine need fuel octane for an 8.5 to 1 compression ratio motor at cruise to mid-range rpm levels. This is a very variable situation dependent upon the particular engine's design.

So this can come back to the old "cut and try" method of determining fuel needs of an engine. If you have the engine timed and otherwise set to factory specs, then try lower octane fuels until you get a "compression rattle" at lower rpms and heavy load conditions . . . or at WOT acceleration . . . then go up until the noise goes away. If there's no noise, you might also consider advancing the base timing setting a little for added fuel economy and performance . . . at least that's what many used to do. But, generally, staying in the factory specs is the best way to do things. With the 2bbl carb motors, with generally lower compression ratios, starting at "89" pump octane would be operative, but if you've got a "Power Pack" 4bbl motor, then start with "93" pump octane fuels. If you normally drive slow 'n easy, then you might be able to sneak by with the next notch down octane, but the first time you "shower down on it", the sounds might not be good ones.

The use of "ethyl" lead for octane boosting is relatively new, considering when it was introduced and the then-age of the automobile era. Even then, there were some brands of fuel which were unleaded, but had other additives for octane boosting functions. Amoco was one that had unleaded high octane fuel in the earlier 1960s or so. But that's getting into a different area of things.

The one issue with "washing" ethanol out of gasoline is that, perhaps, some of the other high-aromatic items in the fuel (which might cause NO problems, but help things work better) might also be washed away at the same time. The only way to know that would be a complete chemical "before" and "after" analysis of the particular fuel. Considering that it appears that there might be a "base" gasoline stock (which is already refined when it's purchased by the marketing-gasoline companies) of a known base chemistry, what will fine-tune it to be a particular brand of fuel for a particular location in the world for a particular time of the year is the additive package which is added at the distribution terminal. To me, this makes the use of a broad-brush approach to how much octane is removed via the "washing" of ethanol'd gasoline a very imprecise situation at best, even for the same brand and posted pump octane of gasoline in different locations in the USA.

I suspect that AvGas will be available for many years to come, just as "racing gas" will be for drag racers. One issue with using these fuels (or blends of such with normal pump gas) is that their price does generally NOT include "on-road tax" in the price. For some taxing entities, this is a BIG deal, but in the total scheme of things, it can be a very minor situation. For some AvGas sellers, it can be a really big deal too! To me, the best alternative would be "race gas" as AvGas has some unique properties fine-tuned for the atmosphere in which the aircraft usually operates.

I saw a news item this morning that the U.N. claimed that leaded gasoline would be extinct in the world in two years. I didn't know the United Nations was involved in those things!

Regards,

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a news item this morning that the U.N. claimed that leaded gasoline would be extinct in the world in two years. I didn't know the United Nations was involved in those things!

Regards,

NTX5467

United Nations: Leaded gasoline to be eliminated worldwide in two years after long fight - The Washington Post

The U.N. are partners with several organization in The Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles ( ::. Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles .:: ). On leaded fuels the following description of their involvement can be found on their web site.

PCFV was able, through a series of targeted actions including public awareness and sensitisation of both public and policy makers to bring attention and consensus for action to this global heath and pollution issue. Policy evelopment and Program support, through experts, workshops and Blood lead testing, was provided to support
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teknosmurf

But my biggest concern is how to know what octane rating the fuel is after refinement

We have done extensive testing, and as noted on the website:

Independent Lab Tests for Ethanol: Before 9.8%, after <0.1%

Independent Lab Tests for Octane: Before 90.8, after 89.5

Note that these are typical results, but the least octane reading we have ever seen was 88.7 R+M/2. Note that this minimum value is still well above the 87 required for most auto engines.

Perhaps if it was marketed to car clubs and groups?

I am really not intending for this to be a marketing excercise, but since the subject has come up many times: Unfortunately the price is the way it is for a reason. We have had to do a lot of testing, development, and research, and in order to get it "right" we have to do a lot of things that are not cheap...like custom sensor, circuit board, and software, along with the switches, pump, and everything else. We are offering discounted pricing as noted on the website. The $2499 is the MSRP, not what it "really" sells for. We have no restrictions on you purchasing one for a club or group.

The one issue with "washing" ethanol out of gasoline is that, perhaps, some of the other high-aromatic items in the fuel (which might cause NO problems, but help things work better) might also be washed away at the same time. The only way to know that would be a complete chemical "before" and "after" analysis of the particular fuel.

In the interest of providing everyone with some reading material that will help you fall asleep, but will answer a lot of questions posted on this site, I have posted a copy of a typical set of test results on our website in the Resources page, both before the separation and after the separation results are contained in this file. Note that these results were taken by an independant lab, not PortableFuelSystems, and are a basic Infrared Spectrometry test, not the full-blown D4815 test. Also note that you will need MS Excell to view this file. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the ethanol readings in yellow and the octane readings in blue for clarity.

http://www.portablefuelsystems.com/resources/Separation%20Process%20Before%20and%20After%20Tests%20Results.xls

Edited by teknosmurf (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bob Call

I don't know if the following is still true or not. Back before the mandate to remove lead from motor fuel, my wife and an uncle worked for a gasoline transport company. My wife in the office and uncle was a driver. We have 2 refineries in our town and back then one was Mid-Continent ( later merged into Sun Oil Company) and the other was Texaco. Both refineries ran two grades of gasoline, leaded regular and leaded premium. These were delivered to the transport company's bulk storage facility. When an order was received from a jobber or service station the tank truck was loaded with gasoline from either of the refineries, they were interchangable. Before loading at the bulk plant the driver put the brand specific additives in the trailer's tanks and then loaded the tanks with gasoline. I wasn't real happy when my wife quit there for a better job as I had a 59 Impala with the tripower 348, etc., that got about 10 MPG and she could buy gasoline at the bulk plant at the wholesale price.

I suspect that it's pretty much the same today a gasoline qualities are federally mandated by regions and seasons so all refineries serving a region are producing the same product except for the brand specific additives.

Edited by Bob Call (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tekno,

I dislike the advent of ethanol as much as the next guy, but . . .

I have been told by at least two sources, one of whom was an API engineer, that removing the ethanol form a tank of modern gasoline reduces the remainder's combustion characteristics by three octane points. If this is true, so doing would simply be a costly exercise in supplaning one undesirable characteristic with another.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teknosmurf

I have been told by at least two sources, one of whom was an API engineer, that removing the ethanol form a tank of modern gasoline reduces the remainder's combustion characteristics by three octane points

My guess is they were talking in generic terms. In the lab results I have, the worst case drop I have ever seen in the same batch of fuel is 2.7. When rounded that is approximately 3 octane points. So I would agree in a general sense.

So...even if starting with the lowest octane readin I have...which is 90.8, and then subtracting this worst case scenario of 2.7, you still end if with 88.1. Which is still well above the 87 required. Because of this headroom, there is no real problem.

BTW, On a more personal front...I have been flying on this separated fuel (always starting with 91 octane) for over 2 years with more than excellent results. As a matter of fact, I just had the annual inspection on my airplane two months ago, and at my instruction/request, the A&P (mechanic) thoroughly inspected the fuel system since we already had the plane appart. He was very impressed with the fact that there was no damage, and everything was clean and correct. It is worth noting that my engine is a 1940's design...very similar to these autos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tekno,

I have no doubt that what you say is true, but wouild 93 octane premium run through your ethanol-extraction system still be capable of operating (for example) my 1970 Chyrsler 300's 440, a relatively high-compression engine, without spark knock?

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teknosmurf

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before that can be answered. If indeed you have 93 AKI available (all of the pumps around here are 91), and it is laced with 10% ethanol, then it would bring it down to somewhere between 90 and 91 AKI. Different levels of ethanol will bring different octane values, but that should be in the ballpark

Next is what your engine is designed to operate on. If you have a high compression engine timed to fire very close to TDC, then you will need higher octane. The best judge of the tuned performance of your engine is the octane number recommended by the manufacturer assuming your engine is tuned to their specifications (timing, compression, etc).

All of that said, and I would bet you intended to say you had 91 octane available. If that is true, you will be down in the 88.5 to 89 range. If your engine is rated for 87, then you are just fine. If it is rated for 89, you might be pushing it. If it is rated for 91, then I would not run the separated fuel in that auto unless you can find some 93 to separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you need to talk in terms of RESEARCH octane with respect to older engines. In that case the minimum for leaded premium (i.e., 'ethyl") gasoline was 97+ Octane. Taking "three numbers" off of that would yield 94 RESEARCH octane, which is ONE number less that what leaded REGULAR used to be. This would mean that it would NOT be a viable fuel for ANY higher-performance motor with more than rated mechanical compression ratio of approx. 9.5 to 1--period.

PUMP OCTANE is the average of Research and Motor Octane numbers, which usually makes the posted pump octane approx 4 numbers LESS than the Research octane number, which is how the older engines were referenced.

When the pump octane labels were first used, leaded premium Phillips 66 FliteFuel had a pump octane of "95.5", which would have meant it was 100-101 Research Octane. That's the way it was in the P66 stations in Lubbock, TX, where I was in the 1972-74 time frame. In the DFW metro area, the same brand and level of fuel was more like 94-95 pump octane.

So, with all due respect, technosmurf, your process takes fuel which is approx 97 Research octane and makes it into fuel which is what "regular" fuel used to be, Research octane-wise, and close to what mid-grade now is. Considering that some engines from the 1960s with 9.2 to 1 compression ratios did not like Regular fuel back then, at 95 Research Octane, they probably might not like your 94 Research Octane fuels . . . but this is a variable situation, depending upon engine design characteristics, combustion chamber design, and carbon deposit presence.

The 87 Pump Octane number, which equates to the sub-regular fuel of the later 1960s at 91-2 Research Octane, would have a "washed" octane rating of even less, in the "Research Octane" rating. To me, that would mean "engines with 8.0 to 1 compression ratios or lower".

I'll admit that I haven't looked at your data, but going by your comments of octane level drop, it seems that you're mixing Research Octane numbers and Pump Octane numbers interchangeably, which they are NOT.

As you might find in an extended Google search for problems with ethanol'd fuels, the main problems happen with extended "sitting time" of the vehicle. As others have noted in other threads, if the vehicle is used relatively often, no phase separation usually happens. But one phase separation starts, it can't be stopped unless the "gunk" is removed from the tank and replaced with fresh fuel. Remember, too, that the carburetor float bowl is a miniature fuel container, which is usually more readily open to the ambient atmosphere than the fuel tank might be.

I'm sure your process has a place and could benefit some in various vehicular hobby groups, BUT the issue of which octane rating method is being mentioned should be made much more clear . . . at least that's the way I see it. To me, it would be better business to make these distinctions very clear, up front, even telling some potential customers that the resulting fuel will be less Research Octane than their motor needs to operate as designed, if necessary. To me, it would be better to tell a potential customer not to use your product than to sell it to them and have complaints. Others might have different orientations, which I respect.

Regards,

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teknosmurf,

I have just read this thread after being out of action for a while and I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned the problem of vapor lock. I run cars of the 1920's that have no rubber components and are not sensitive to grade of fuel however it is my perception along with many other owners of old cars that the ethynol containing fuels are more prone to vapor lock suggesting that they have more lower boiling point fractions. However I have no hard evidence of this and your device would not be a cost effective solution for that problem (if in fact ethynol is the cause) when a simple inexpensive electric fuel pump in parallel with the original fuel supply system, activated only when needed solves the problem.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest teknosmurf

I'll admit that I haven't looked at your data, but going by your comments of octane level drop, it seems that you're mixing Research Octane numbers and Pump Octane numbers interchangeably, which they are NOT.

I actually am not mixing them up. I did state in my last post that the numbers were AKI or Anti-Knock-Index...also known as the R+M/2, or as you put it "Pump Octane Number". Your insight on this subject is well taken. I did not know older octane numbers were represented using the research number only. That is very useful information to have. I will have to go do some digging around on this fact. Thank you for pointing it out.

In my datasheet, they do list both the research and the motor octane numbers as well. You may want to check that data out if you are curious, but I will tell you that in that particular set of data, the research number dropped from 96.1 to 94.3.

I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned the problem of vapor lock.

Interesting you bring this up DavidMC! This is one of the very big reasons the FAA frowns on ethanol...even in airplanes that have fuel systems and engines that can tolerate the ethanol. Can you imagine vapor lock at altitude?!? I imagine this would be a big issue with cars as well since temperatures on the ground are usually higher than at altitude...especially in the hotter parts of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teknosmurf,

I have just read this thread after being out of action for a while and I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned the problem of vapor lock. I run cars of the 1920's that have no rubber components and are not sensitive to grade of fuel however it is my perception along with many other owners of old cars that the ethynol containing fuels are more prone to vapor lock suggesting that they have more lower boiling point fractions. However I have no hard evidence of this and your device would not be a cost effective solution for that problem (if in fact ethynol is the cause) when a simple inexpensive electric fuel pump in parallel with the original fuel supply system, activated only when needed solves the problem.

Just my 2 cents worth.

___________________________________________________________________

I mentioned it in thread #20

D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...