Log in

View Full Version : Re: Fuel prices--BTU's per gal.


George
May 30th 07, 01:14 AM
I think it was 1995, at Oshkosh, I attended a forum on the differences
between auto fuel and avgas. It was presented by a fellow who owned
and operated one of the few refinerys which produce avgas.

IIRC, a refinery turns crude oil into different hydro-carbons. They
are all solvents, and all support combustion. They are ranked from
light to heavy, based on how many hydrogen atoms there are per each
carbon atom. Butane has two hydrogen, and octane has eight. The
heaviest is asphalt, which is the goo left after all lighter fuels are
driven off, has the most energy per lb, but is the most difficult to
ignite.

Auto fuel is a blend which includes the asphalt, as well as butane in
the winter. Avgas has only three components, which do not include
those at either end of the spectrum (ashalt and butane). So avgas
does not leave the residue that old auto fuel will, nor does the
engine start as easily, nor does it produce as much power.
Because the avgas does not have the lighter components, it does not
vapor lock as readily either.

The octane rating compares the tendency of an engine to knock, based
on the speed of the flamespread. Higher octane ratings mean only that
the fuel burns more slowly, as if lead were added. It does not mean
that the fuel has more power, only that engines can have a higher
compression ratio without knock, so the engine can utilize more of the
energy in the fuel. The lowest octane rating, that will not knock,
makes the most power.

If that fellow gives his talk again, you will certainly enjoy the
hour.

Matt Whiting
May 30th 07, 01:55 AM
George wrote:
> I think it was 1995, at Oshkosh, I attended a forum on the differences
> between auto fuel and avgas. It was presented by a fellow who owned
> and operated one of the few refinerys which produce avgas.
>
> IIRC, a refinery turns crude oil into different hydro-carbons. They
> are all solvents, and all support combustion. They are ranked from
> light to heavy, based on how many hydrogen atoms there are per each
> carbon atom. Butane has two hydrogen, and octane has eight. The
> heaviest is asphalt, which is the goo left after all lighter fuels are
> driven off, has the most energy per lb, but is the most difficult to
> ignite.

It isn't the number of hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. It is the number
of carbon atoms fundamentally as the number of hydrogen atoms is defined
by the bond structure. Octane has 8 carbon atoms, but only 18 hydrogen
atoms which isn't even close to an 8 to 1 ratio.


> Auto fuel is a blend which includes the asphalt, as well as butane in
> the winter. Avgas has only three components, which do not include
> those at either end of the spectrum (ashalt and butane). So avgas
> does not leave the residue that old auto fuel will, nor does the
> engine start as easily, nor does it produce as much power.
> Because the avgas does not have the lighter components, it does not
> vapor lock as readily either.
>
> The octane rating compares the tendency of an engine to knock, based
> on the speed of the flamespread. Higher octane ratings mean only that
> the fuel burns more slowly, as if lead were added. It does not mean
> that the fuel has more power, only that engines can have a higher
> compression ratio without knock, so the engine can utilize more of the
> energy in the fuel. The lowest octane rating, that will not knock,
> makes the most power.

And burn speed is not related to octane rating.

Two fundamental errors from the "expert", eh? Makes me question just
how expert he really is.

Matt

George
May 30th 07, 06:52 PM
On May 29, 8:55 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> George wrote:
> > I think it was 1995, at Oshkosh, I attended a forum on the differences
> > between auto fuel and avgas. It was presented by a fellow who owned
> > and operated one of the few refinerys which produce avgas.
>
> > IIRC,

<snip> > makes the most power.
>
> And burn speed is not related to octane rating.
>
> Two fundamental errors from the "expert", eh? Makes me question just
> how expert he really is.
>
> Matt


OK Matt, Which "expert" are you trying to insult?

The author who went to a one hour forum about twelve years ago, or the
poor guy who gives a talk at Oshkosh, which may or may not be
remembered accurately by anybody twelve years later ?

Personally, I am glad that you know how many carbon atoms are in
octane, but if you do know so much, why not share it without insult?
We don't have enough space for me to list all the data I've forgotten
these last 12 years or so, even if I could.

Matt Whiting
May 30th 07, 09:25 PM
George wrote:
> On May 29, 8:55 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> I think it was 1995, at Oshkosh, I attended a forum on the differences
>>> between auto fuel and avgas. It was presented by a fellow who owned
>>> and operated one of the few refinerys which produce avgas.
>>> IIRC,
>
> <snip> > makes the most power.
>> And burn speed is not related to octane rating.
>>
>> Two fundamental errors from the "expert", eh? Makes me question just
>> how expert he really is.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> OK Matt, Which "expert" are you trying to insult?

Neither. I was simply stating a fact that I don't trust an expert that
gets two fundamental things that wrong.


> The author who went to a one hour forum about twelve years ago, or the
> poor guy who gives a talk at Oshkosh, which may or may not be
> remembered accurately by anybody twelve years later ?
>
> Personally, I am glad that you know how many carbon atoms are in
> octane, but if you do know so much, why not share it without insult?

There was no insult.

Matt

Google