Gasohol [Archive] - AviationBanter

clare at snyder.on.ca

May 31st 07, 05:01 PM

On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
> wrote:

>
>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>> contaminated with alcohol?
>
>Worse.
>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold must
>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>
>Tony
Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but 5%
of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0, making
the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold in
Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just from
what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
worse yet the beurocrats

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jay Honeck

May 31st 07, 05:16 PM

> I'm curious. I can understand a whole tablet, a half tablet, or a quarter
> tablet. What is magic about a THIRD of a tablet?

It's very technical.

Actually, I meant to type a "4", but I hit the "3" by accident. In a
flash, I thought "Should I bother to correct that?" and the answer was
"Nah...it doesn't matter."...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Gig 601XL Builder

May 31st 07, 05:29 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I'm curious. I can understand a whole tablet, a half tablet, or a
>> quarter tablet. What is magic about a THIRD of a tablet?
>
> It's very technical.
>
> Actually, I meant to type a "4", but I hit the "3" by accident. In a
> flash, I thought "Should I bother to correct that?" and the answer was
> "Nah...it doesn't matter."...
>
> :-)

Tell the truth Jay. Is it because a 1/2 or full tablet won't fit in the Coke
bottle you are using?

Ken Finney

May 31st 07, 06:13 PM

<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>
>>Worse.
>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold must
>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>
>>Tony
> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but 5%
> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0, making
> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold in
> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just from
> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
> worse yet the beurocrats
>

IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real irritant.
I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel aircraft engines
becoming available. Since I should be making my own biodiesel by the end of
this Summer (for something less than 45 cents a gallon), are any of the new
diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?

Al G[_2_]

May 31st 07, 06:57 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>>
>>>Worse.
>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold must
>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>>
>>>Tony
>> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but 5%
>> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
>> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
>> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0, making
>> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold in
>> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just from
>> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
>> worse yet the beurocrats
>>
>
> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel aircraft
> engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own biodiesel by
> the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents a gallon), are
> any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>
>
>

What do you grow to make biodiesel?

Al G

Jose

May 31st 07, 07:19 PM

> ...making the blended 89 E5

Only if the blend is 50-50. I bet it's not. Just looking at the octane
numbers, the blend is mostly low test, and the price is mostly high test.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder

May 31st 07, 07:22 PM

Ken Finney wrote:

>
> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents
> a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?

You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better start
thinking experimental.

Ken Finney

May 31st 07, 07:40 PM

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>>>
>>>>Worse.
>>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold must
>>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>>>
>>>>Tony
>>> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but 5%
>>> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
>>> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
>>> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0, making
>>> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold in
>>> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just from
>>> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
>>> worse yet the beurocrats
>>>
>>
>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel aircraft
>> engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own biodiesel by
>> the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents a gallon), are
>> any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>>
>>
>>
>
> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>

Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste fryer
oil!

Robert M. Gary

May 31st 07, 07:41 PM

On May 30, 9:32 pm, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Blueskies" wrote)
>
> > Jay, where do you fill the grape from and how do you know there is no evil
> > alcohol in it?
>
> In the Twin Cities (St Paul / Mpls) the pumps with NO ethanol are marked
> special. About 1 in 50 stations has such a pump - and it's usually 93
> Premium ...Non-Oxy.

Can I have some shipped out to California? I'm tired of having to
drain my lawn mower and edger after every mowing and having to throw
out the gas in my cans every 30 days. The mower shops are booked up 3
months out cleaning the gook out of carbs.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

May 31st 07, 07:44 PM

On May 31, 11:22 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Ken Finney wrote:
>
> > IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
> > irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
> > aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
> > biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents
> > a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>
> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better start
> thinking experimental.

Actually there is a company with an STC for biodiesel. They have a
C-172 at Sacramento City College that if fully STC'd on biodiesel
rigtht now. If you really want give these guys a call
http://www.do.losrios.cc.ca.us/scc/spring/aviation.htm

-Robert

Darrel Toepfer

May 31st 07, 07:53 PM

"Al G" > wrote:

> What do you grow to make biodiesel?

Freedom Fries...

Gig 601XL Builder

May 31st 07, 07:53 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On May 31, 11:22 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>
>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>>> own biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45
>>> cents a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912
>>> class?
>>
>> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better
>> start thinking experimental.
>
> Actually there is a company with an STC for biodiesel. They have a
> C-172 at Sacramento City College that if fully STC'd on biodiesel
> rigtht now. If you really want give these guys a call
> http://www.do.losrios.cc.ca.us/scc/spring/aviation.htm
>
> -Robert

Link is broken. I'm sure it is from the 10s of 1000s of folks wanting to buy
that STC. :)

Steve Foley

May 31st 07, 08:02 PM

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>
> Al G
>

Wild wood flower grew down on the farm, but we never knew what it was
called......

Cubdriver

May 31st 07, 08:03 PM

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:13:12 -0400, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>Jay, where do you fill the grape from and how do you know there is no evil alcohol in it?

Hampton Airport in SE New Hampshire sells straight mogas with no
additives. They buy it by the tankload at the terminal in Portland ME
before the bad stuff goes in.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Ken Finney

May 31st 07, 08:17 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ken Finney wrote:
>
>>
>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
>> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents
>> a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>
> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better start
> thinking experimental.

I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.

NW_Pilot

May 31st 07, 08:47 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 30, 9:32 pm, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> > wrote:
>> ("Blueskies" wrote)
>>
>> > Jay, where do you fill the grape from and how do you know there is no
>> > evil
>> > alcohol in it?
>>
>> In the Twin Cities (St Paul / Mpls) the pumps with NO ethanol are marked
>> special. About 1 in 50 stations has such a pump - and it's usually 93
>> Premium ...Non-Oxy.
>
> Can I have some shipped out to California? I'm tired of having to
> drain my lawn mower and edger after every mowing and having to throw
> out the gas in my cans every 30 days. The mower shops are booked up 3
> months out cleaning the gook out of carbs.
>
> -Robert
>

Lawnmower carbs are simple to clean!!!!! I run Avgas in mine Never a
Problem!!!!

Gig 601XL Builder

May 31st 07, 09:16 PM

Ken Finney wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>>> own biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45
>>> cents a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912
>>> class?
>>
>> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better
>> start thinking experimental.
>
> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.

Diesels and diesels running Freedom Fry grease are going to require two very
different STCs. Robert posted a link to a outfit with a Biodiesel STC but I
couldn't get the link to work.

Gig 601XL Builder

May 31st 07, 09:17 PM

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>
>> Al G
>>
>
> Wild wood flower grew down on the farm, but we never knew what it was
> called......

.....Some called it was a flower and some called it a weed...

RST Engineering

May 31st 07, 09:45 PM

The leftover sticks, stems, and seeds ...

"No sticks, no stones, no stems, no seeds
Acapulco Gold is badass weed."

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who count in binary and those who don't

> "Al G" > wrote:
>
>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?

Jay Honeck

May 31st 07, 10:30 PM

> Tell the truth Jay. Is it because a 1/2 or full tablet won't fit in the Coke
> bottle you are using?

Actually, we use a genuine AOPA coffee mug for our testing...

;-)

Really, it doesn't matter how big the piece is -- if it fizzes, you've
got junk gas. It's only got to be big enough to see at the bottom of
the mug.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Al G[_2_]

May 31st 07, 10:52 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>>>>
>>>>>Worse.
>>>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold
>>>>>must
>>>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tony
>>>> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but 5%
>>>> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
>>>> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
>>>> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0, making
>>>> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold in
>>>> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just from
>>>> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
>>>> worse yet the beurocrats
>>>>
>>>
>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
>>> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents a
>>> gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>
>
> Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste fryer
> oil!
>
>
>
You grow relatives?

Al G

Ken Finney

May 31st 07, 11:05 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ken Finney wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>>>> own biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45
>>>> cents a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912
>>>> class?
>>>
>>> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better
>>> start thinking experimental.
>>
>> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
>
> Diesels and diesels running Freedom Fry grease are going to require two
> very different STCs. Robert posted a link to a outfit with a Biodiesel STC
> but I couldn't get the link to work.

As much of the diesel fuel sold today as some biodiesel mixed with it, I'd
hope that the engines being sold are certified for petrodiesel, biodiesel,
and any combination thereof. "Freedom Fry grease" (aka WVO = waste
vegetable oil or SVO = straight vegetable oil) is a different animal than
biodiesel.

Ken Finney

May 31st 07, 11:30 PM

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>>>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Worse.
>>>>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>>>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold
>>>>>>must
>>>>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony
>>>>> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but 5%
>>>>> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
>>>>> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
>>>>> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0, making
>>>>> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold in
>>>>> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just from
>>>>> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
>>>>> worse yet the beurocrats
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
>>>> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents a
>>>> gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>>
>>
>> Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste fryer
>> oil!
>>
>>
>>
> You grow relatives?
>

Well, somebody planted the seed and they tend to grow on their own. I just
fertilize them now and then!

Blueskies

June 1st 07, 02:06 AM

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message t...
> mike regish wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure Mass. is already there. I don't know if there's a minimum, but we've got 10% ethanol everywhere now.
>
> Same in CT.
>
> I think most, if not all, of the Northeastern states sell the same blend, no longer labeling the pumps for the 10%
> alchohol content.

And that means that all of us using gasohol are getting worse gas mileage than we would get with straight gasoline. If
the fuel is 10% ethanol that is 10% less gasoline being pumped while the price has gone up double in the last two years.
Energy bill of 2005, eh?????

Blueskies

June 1st 07, 02:12 AM

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:08:45 GMT, "Dick" > wrote:
>
>>How is <the add water to gas test > made ? Thanks
>
> See Page 4 of
>
> http://www.eaa26.org/apr06.pdf
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Yup, works real well. A test tube with a 10% level line on it. Fill with water to the 10% line, fill remainder with fuel
under test. Shake it up, and if the separation line is higher up the tube that the original water separation line, the
water absorbed the alcohol adding to its volume. Works right now basically no waiting...

I have not tried Jays Alka Seltzer method....

June 1st 07, 03:33 AM

> The mower shops are booked up 3 months out cleaning the gook out of carbs.
>
> -Robert
>

Must be why mine was running rough last weekend, it operates maybe twice a
month for about 15 minutes or less and it has not been serviced in 10 years.

B

Orval Fairbairn

June 1st 07, 03:37 AM

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:08:45 GMT, "Dick" > wrote:
> >
> >>How is <the add water to gas test > made ? Thanks
> >
> > See Page 4 of
> >
> > http://www.eaa26.org/apr06.pdf
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> Yup, works real well. A test tube with a 10% level line on it. Fill with
> water to the 10% line, fill remainder with fuel
> under test. Shake it up, and if the separation line is higher up the tube
> that the original water separation line, the
> water absorbed the alcohol adding to its volume. Works right now basically no
> waiting...
>
> I have not tried Jays Alka Seltzer method....

I tried the Alka Seltzer trick on some denatured alcohol -- no result.
It did not fizz!

June 1st 07, 03:37 AM

>
> And that means that all of us using gasohol are getting worse gas mileage
> than we would get with straight gasoline. If the fuel is 10% ethanol that
> is 10% less gasoline being pumped while the price has gone up double in
> the last two years. Energy bill of 2005, eh?????

The oil companies recently blamed the Bush Administration's emphasis on
converting to bio fuels as the cause for the price increase in gasoline.
Their statement: If they (bush) would support gasoline, then the oil
companies would spend money on additional refineries to meet the demand and
price could stay low. But with the emphasis on conversion to bio fuels and
alternative energy, the oil companies have no incentives to
rebuild/repair/build new refineries to meet the increasing consumption
demand.

So they say as they pocket record profits.

BT

Jay Honeck

June 1st 07, 04:33 AM

> I tried the Alka Seltzer trick on some denatured alcohol -- no result.
> It did not fizz!- Hide quoted text -

You talking about "rubbing alcohol"? We tested it with that, and it
worked for us.

Fizzing, that is...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

orange

June 1st 07, 05:18 AM

All of New England has 10% gasohol at the auto pump...
However, it isn't blended in until it gets to this regon... so many aero
clubs can still get batches of straight gas
Greg Dwinell

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm pretty sure Mass. is already there. I don't know if there's a minimum,
> but we've got 10% ethanol everywhere now.
>
> mike
>
> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:indiacharlieecho-9E437A.22120430052007@shawnews...
>>
>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>
>> Worse.
>> I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>> Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold must
>> contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>
>> Tony
>> --
>>
>> Tony Roberts
>> PP-ASEL
>> VFR OTT
>> Night
>> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>
>

Steve Foley

June 1st 07, 11:30 AM

"orange" > wrote in message
news:x6N7i.4362$aW5.2739@trndny09...
> All of New England has 10% gasohol at the auto pump...
> However, it isn't blended in until it gets to this regon... so many aero
> clubs can still get batches of straight gas
> Greg Dwinell
>

I just saw this on the EAA site:

ETHANOL-FREE AUTOFUEL TO BE AVAILABLE AT THREE NEW ENGLAND
AIRPORTS STARTING IN JUNE

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/070531_autofuel.html

Denny

June 1st 07, 12:28 PM

>
> Hampton Airport in SE New Hampshire sells straight mogas with no
> additives. They buy it by the tankload at the terminal in Portland ME
> before the bad stuff goes in.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

The joke on us all is that gas pumped to your local distribution
terminal has no alcohol in it... At the distribution terminal are huge
tanks of gas, and smaller tnaks of alcohol, dye, additives, etc...
The driver pulls up with his tanker... Keys in who the gas is for
<Shell, Marathon, ETC.>and what the octane rating is and the computer
selects the appropriate base stock of gasoline and mixes in the proper
additives and dyes as it pumps the load to his tanker, including the
alcohol... We are being hosed by the oil companies, in cahoots with
the government, in more ways than just price...

This is straight from the tanker driver's mouth... He spent a good ten
minutes showing me his work sheets, computer instruction sheet, mixing
receipt for his load, and gas analysis sheet including percent of
water, etc. that he leaves a copy of with the station after
delivery...

denny

ktbr

June 1st 07, 12:53 PM

Denny wrote:
>>Hampton Airport in SE New Hampshire sells straight mogas with no
>>additives. They buy it by the tankload at the terminal in Portland ME
>>before the bad stuff goes in.
>>
>>Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
>
> The joke on us all is that gas pumped to your local distribution
> terminal has no alcohol in it... At the distribution terminal are huge
> tanks of gas, and smaller tnaks of alcohol, dye, additives, etc...
> The driver pulls up with his tanker... Keys in who the gas is for
> <Shell, Marathon, ETC.>and what the octane rating is and the computer
> selects the appropriate base stock of gasoline and mixes in the proper
> additives and dyes as it pumps the load to his tanker, including the
> alcohol... We are being hosed by the oil companies, in cahoots with
> the government, in more ways than just price...

It is true that all oil companies fuel is essentially the same,
and has been true for a long time. Explain how the government is
somewhow in "cahoots" with the oil companies? Federal, state and
local governments together make more on a gallon of gas than the
oil companies do.

B A R R Y[_2_]

June 1st 07, 01:26 PM

Ken Finney wrote:
>
> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
>

Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.

B A R R Y[_2_]

June 1st 07, 01:27 PM

Blueskies wrote:
>
> And that means that all of us using gasohol are getting worse gas mileage than we would get with straight gasoline.

I have personally verified that to be true in my vehicles.

Peter Dohm

June 1st 07, 03:19 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Al G" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label
gasoline
> >>>>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Worse.
> >>>>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
> >>>>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold
> >>>>>>must
> >>>>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Tony
> >>>>> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but
5%
> >>>>> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
> >>>>> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane will
> >>>>> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0,
making
> >>>>> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold
in
> >>>>> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just
from
> >>>>> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
> >>>>> worse yet the beurocrats
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
> >>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
> >>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
> >>>> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents
a
> >>>> gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste
fryer
> >> oil!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > You grow relatives?
> >
>
> Well, somebody planted the seed and they tend to grow on their own. I
just
> fertilize them now and then!
>
>
>
What do you actually do to the waste fryer oil to make it useful as
biodiesel?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:22 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I'm curious. I can understand a whole tablet, a half tablet, or a
>>> quarter tablet. What is magic about a THIRD of a tablet?
>>
>> It's very technical.
>>
>> Actually, I meant to type a "4", but I hit the "3" by accident. In a
>> flash, I thought "Should I bother to correct that?" and the answer was
>> "Nah...it doesn't matter."...
>>
>> :-)
>
> Tell the truth Jay. Is it because a 1/2 or full tablet won't fit in the
> Coke bottle you are using?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon051507c.gif

{Chuckle}

--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:23 PM

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...

>>>>
>>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my own
>>>> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45 cents a
>>>> gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>>
>>
>> Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste fryer
>> oil!
>>
>>
>>
> You grow relatives?
>

That's like deliberately breeding flies or mosquitoes.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:24 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>>>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste fryer
>>> oil!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You grow relatives?
>>
>
> Well, somebody planted the seed and they tend to grow on their own. I
> just fertilize them now and then!
>

I planted some birdseed. A bird came up; now I don't know what to feed it.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:25 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>
>> Al G
>>
>
> Wild wood flower grew down on the farm, but we never knew what it was
> called......
We all waved good-bye...sittin' on that there sack of seeds.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:26 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>>
>>> Al G
>>>
>>
>> Wild wood flower grew down on the farm, but we never knew what it was
>> called......
>
> ....Some called it was a flower and some called it a weed...
Loco weed. That must be what congress 'been smokin'!

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:47 PM

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Denny wrote:
>>>Hampton Airport in SE New Hampshire sells straight mogas with no
>>>additives. They buy it by the tankload at the terminal in Portland ME
>>>before the bad stuff goes in.
>>>
>>>Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>>
>>
>> The joke on us all is that gas pumped to your local distribution
>> terminal has no alcohol in it... At the distribution terminal are huge
>> tanks of gas, and smaller tnaks of alcohol, dye, additives, etc...
>> The driver pulls up with his tanker... Keys in who the gas is for
>> <Shell, Marathon, ETC.>and what the octane rating is and the computer
>> selects the appropriate base stock of gasoline and mixes in the proper
>> additives and dyes as it pumps the load to his tanker, including the
>> alcohol... We are being hosed by the oil companies, in cahoots with
>> the government, in more ways than just price...
>
> It is true that all oil companies fuel is essentially the same,
> and has been true for a long time. Explain how the government is
> somewhow in "cahoots" with the oil companies? Federal, state and
> local governments together make more on a gallon of gas than the
> oil companies do.

http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/032207gasprices.jpg

Peter Dohm

June 1st 07, 03:49 PM

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
et...
> Ken Finney wrote:
> >
> > I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
> >
>
> Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.

AKAIK, Jet-A, Diesel Fuel, and Bio-Diesel all solve the Ethanol problem and
diesel engines have better thermal efficiency.

Actually, in many ways, this whole series of discussions reminds me of a
poster that I used to see as a kid, which said:
"When you're up to your ass in aligators, remember
that you came here to drain the swamp!"

With that in mind, remember that the purpose of the mogas stc's, and the
research leading up to them, was to alleviate the lead-fouling casued by the
use of 100-115LL in some of the older designed low compression engines. It
was a maintenance and reliability issue and was not related to any cost per
gallon spread between avgas and mogas. At that time, IIRC, avgas contained
more lead than it does today.

Also, with that in mind, the modern development of diesel aircraft engines
was a response to the possible, or probably, end of avgas production as
avgas is a small and shrinking market niche and the possibility remains that
leaded fuel could be completely phased out. Ethanol has the octane, but is
problematic (deliberate understatement) to store in aircraft fuel
tanks--even if all to the material compatability issues are resolved. OTOH,
supplies of Jet-A (and Jet-B where applicable) seem assured well into the
future. The greater efficiency of diesel engines is an excellent bonus; but
was not part of the original purpose.

Peter

Al G[_2_]

June 1st 07, 03:50 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
>> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label
> gasoline
>> >>>>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Worse.
>> >>>>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>> >>>>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold
>> >>>>>>must
>> >>>>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Tony
>> >>>>> Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but
> 5%
>> >>>>> of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
>> >>>>> satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane
>> >>>>> will
>> >>>>> be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0,
> making
>> >>>>> the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold
> in
>> >>>>> Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just
> from
>> >>>>> what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
>> >>>>> worse yet the beurocrats
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>> >>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>> >>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>> >>>> own
>> >>>> biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45
>> >>>> cents
> a
>> >>>> gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste
> fryer
>> >> oil!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > You grow relatives?
>> >
>>
>> Well, somebody planted the seed and they tend to grow on their own. I
> just
>> fertilize them now and then!
>>
>>
>>
> What do you actually do to the waste fryer oil to make it useful as
> biodiesel?
>
>
>

Filter it. (ref. Myth Busters)

Al G

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:50 PM

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> And that means that all of us using gasohol are getting worse gas mileage
>> than we would get with straight gasoline. If the fuel is 10% ethanol that
>> is 10% less gasoline being pumped while the price has gone up double in
>> the last two years. Energy bill of 2005, eh?????
>
> The oil companies recently blamed the Bush Administration's emphasis on
> converting to bio fuels as the cause for the price increase in gasoline.
> Their statement: If they (bush) would support gasoline, then the oil
> companies would spend money on additional refineries to meet the demand
> and price could stay low. But with the emphasis on conversion to bio fuels
> and alternative energy, the oil companies have no incentives to
> rebuild/repair/build new refineries to meet the increasing consumption
> demand.

Got a cite for that? That's just one of the reasons I've seen them give,
amongst others are, botique fuels, world-wide demand, drillingand
exploration restrictions, capacity running near 100%...

>
> So they say as they pocket record profits.

http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/032207gasprices.jpg

BTW...do you know the difference between a "PROFIT" and a "Profit Margin"?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 1st 07, 03:52 PM

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. net...
> Blueskies wrote:
>> And that means that all of us using gasohol are getting worse gas
>> mileage than we would get with straight gasoline.
>
> I have personally verified that to be true in my vehicles.

No big secret.

Don't be surprised to find that there's a lot of evaporation from the tanks,
either.

Orval Fairbairn

June 1st 07, 04:53 PM

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > I tried the Alka Seltzer trick on some denatured alcohol -- no result.
> > It did not fizz!- Hide quoted text -
>
> You talking about "rubbing alcohol"? We tested it with that, and it
> worked for us.
>
> Fizzing, that is...

nope -- "Denatured Alcohol" purchased in a gallon can.

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 1st 07, 05:10 PM

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:19:59 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>>
>What do you actually do to the waste fryer oil to make it useful as
>biodiesel?
>
>
You remove the glycerine

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 1st 07, 05:12 PM

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:50:08 -0700, "Al G" >
wrote:

>>
>
> Filter it. (ref. Myth Busters)
>
> Al G
>
>
No. that just makes useable WVO - biodiesel is significantly more
involved.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ken Finney

June 1st 07, 05:27 PM

Jim Logajan

June 1st 07, 06:58 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/032207gasprices.jpg

It varies of course with location, but for a gallon of branded gas sold
in California the average values appear to be[1]:

$3.44 Retail price per gallon.
$0.62 Taxes (18%)
$1.61 Crude oil cost (47%)

Profit margins vary a lot by company and over time, but a mid-term (not
long term) average of ~8% seems a useful number.[2] Though Exxon managed
to get nearly 11% last year.[3] So for the above $3.44 gallon of gas,
and if they were still getting 11%, their profit would have been:

$0.38 Oil company profit.

So the $0.09 in the cartoon may be the gas station owner's EBITDA per
gallon.

The industries that really have high profit margins are banking, drugs,
and software. People rarely complain about price gouging from Microsoft
or other software companies, but their profit margins are quite large
relative to other industries. And some people wonder why I'm still in
the software business. ;-)

[1] http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html
[2] http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
[3] http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/index.htm

Jim Logajan

June 1st 07, 07:04 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon051507c.gif

Agreed. There is not a single kernel of evidence to validate growing
corn for the purpose of using the resulting alcohol as fuel.

Darrel Toepfer

June 1st 07, 07:14 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon051507c
> .gif

Wouldn't that considered a >> corntoon << ?

Gig 601XL Builder

June 1st 07, 08:38 PM

Ken Finney wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>>>>> own biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than
>>>>> 45 cents a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax
>>>>> 912 class?
>>>>
>>>> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better
>>>> start thinking experimental.
>>>
>>> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
>>
>> Diesels and diesels running Freedom Fry grease are going to require
>> two very different STCs. Robert posted a link to a outfit with a
>> Biodiesel STC but I couldn't get the link to work.
>
> As much of the diesel fuel sold today as some biodiesel mixed with
> it, I'd hope that the engines being sold are certified for
> petrodiesel, biodiesel, and any combination thereof. "Freedom Fry
> grease" (aka WVO = waste vegetable oil or SVO = straight vegetable
> oil) is a different animal than biodiesel.

Aren't most if not all of the certified diesel engines certified for JetA
and not auto-diesel.

Ken Finney

June 1st 07, 09:33 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ken Finney wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Ken Finney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>>>>> irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>>>>> aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>>>>>> own biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than
>>>>>> 45 cents a gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax
>>>>>> 912 class?
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll never get an STC to put it in a certified aircraft. Better
>>>>> start thinking experimental.
>>>>
>>>> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
>>>
>>> Diesels and diesels running Freedom Fry grease are going to require
>>> two very different STCs. Robert posted a link to a outfit with a
>>> Biodiesel STC but I couldn't get the link to work.
>>
>> As much of the diesel fuel sold today as some biodiesel mixed with
>> it, I'd hope that the engines being sold are certified for
>> petrodiesel, biodiesel, and any combination thereof. "Freedom Fry
>> grease" (aka WVO = waste vegetable oil or SVO = straight vegetable
>> oil) is a different animal than biodiesel.
>
> Aren't most if not all of the certified diesel engines certified for JetA
> and not auto-diesel.

You are very likely correct. And since (I assume) JetA doesn't have low
sulphur requirements, it probably doesn't contain any biodiesel.

Blueskies

June 1st 07, 11:23 PM

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "orange" > wrote in message news:x6N7i.4362$aW5.2739@trndny09...
>> All of New England has 10% gasohol at the auto pump...
>> However, it isn't blended in until it gets to this regon... so many aero clubs can still get batches of straight gas
>> Greg Dwinell
>>
>
> I just saw this on the EAA site:
>
>
> ETHANOL-FREE AUTOFUEL TO BE AVAILABLE AT THREE NEW ENGLAND AIRPORTS STARTING IN JUNE
>
>
>
> http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/070531_autofuel.html
>

And I'm sure it will cost way more to be processed less, kinda like that organic food....

Barnyard BOb

June 2nd 07, 04:22 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> I tried the Alka Seltzer trick on some denatured alcohol -- no result.
>> It did not fizz!- Hide quoted text -
>
>You talking about "rubbing alcohol"? We tested it with that, and it
>worked for us.
>
>Fizzing, that is...
>
>;-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

NO....
"rubbing alcohol" is_NOT_ denatured alcohol.

It is Isopropyl. <===<<<

Isopropyl "rubbing" alcohol smells nasty.
Denatured alcohol smells sweet and temptingly drinkable.

DANGER: both have poisons added - mandated by the FEDS.
Gotta pay the liquor tax if you want alcohol that's 'safe' to drink.

P.S.
I'm still uncertain what you mean by... "worked for us".
It would seem that neither would fizz without the presence of H20.

- Barnyard BOb -

J. Severyn

June 2nd 07, 07:01 AM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
snip
>
> I tried the Alka Seltzer trick on some denatured alcohol -- no result.
> It did not fizz!

You know I've been wondering: Does the Alka Seltzer trick really check to
see if alcohol is present? I'm no chemist, but I wonder if the Alka Seltzer
is just reacting with the water that most alcohols will attract from the
moisture in the air.

How about it? Any chemists in the group? If the mogas were blended with
alcohol with low water content, would the Alka Seltzer fizz at all? Maybe
the best test is still the "line on the beaker" test.

Regards,
John Severyn
KLVK (all mogas has alky in my area, making my STC no good at all)

mike regish

June 2nd 07, 11:12 AM

Somebody in the Piper group just posted that Peterson (the STC provider) is
going to start getting 91 octane ethanol free autogas at a couple of
airports out here.

I'll get the info and post it here.

mike

"orange" > wrote in message
news:x6N7i.4362$aW5.2739@trndny09...
> All of New England has 10% gasohol at the auto pump...
> However, it isn't blended in until it gets to this regon... so many aero
> clubs can still get batches of straight gas
> Greg Dwinell
>
>
>
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I'm pretty sure Mass. is already there. I don't know if there's a
>> minimum, but we've got 10% ethanol everywhere now.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
>> news:indiacharlieecho-9E437A.22120430052007@shawnews...
>>>
>>>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline
>>>> contaminated with alcohol?
>>>
>>> Worse.
>>> I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>> Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold must
>>> contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>> --
>>>
>>> Tony Roberts
>>> PP-ASEL
>>> VFR OTT
>>> Night
>>> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>>
>>
>
>

mike regish

June 2nd 07, 11:15 AM

Here it is.

Petersen Aviation, Inc., which like EAA provides autofuel
>> supplementary type certificates (STC), reports it will begin
>> distributing non-ethanol, 91-octane gasoline to three New England
>> airports during the first week of June 2007. The airports include
>> Minuteman Airport (6B6) in Stow, Massachusetts (978-897-3933);
>> Plymouth Airport (PYM) in Plymouth, Massachusetts (508-746-2020);
>> and Skylark Airport (7B6), East Windsor, Connecticut
>> (860-623-8085).
>>
>> Only ethanol-blended gasoline has been available at New England
>> service stations over the past several years. This has made it
>> impossible for pilots who hold EAA and Petersen Aviation autogas
>> STCs, or other aircraft that can use autofuel, including many
>> light-sport aircraft and homebuilts, to find suitable fuel. But
>> since automotive gasoline sold at airports for use in aircraft is
>> considered “aviation” gasoline, it is exempt from oxygenated fuel
>> requirements under the Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program.
>> Therefore importing non-ethanol gasoline into regions such as New
>> England is allowed.
>>
>> Peterson says the ethanol-free 91-octane gasoline will be certified
>> to meet the specifications required by both Petersen and EAA STCs.

mike

>
> "orange" > wrote in message
> news:x6N7i.4362$aW5.2739@trndny09...
>> All of New England has 10% gasohol at the auto pump...
>> However, it isn't blended in until it gets to this regon... so many aero
>> clubs can still get batches of straight gas
>> Greg Dwinell
>>

Cubdriver

June 2nd 07, 12:23 PM

some out to Massachusetts, also.
\
How far are you from Hampton NH?

Grass strip, Piper Cubs, New Standard biplane, splendid cafe (closes
at 2pm), and clean mogas at the pump, $3.40 a gallon.

I bought four gallons two months ago and haven't used it all yet. It's
astonishing how far gasoline goes in small engines. (Well, okay, I
don't mow my lawn any more. The clean mogas goes into the chain saw,
generator, and snow blower.... My tractor runs fine on gasoline
polluted with ethanol.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 2nd 07, 12:27 PM

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:18:37 GMT, "orange" > wrote:

>All of New England has 10% gasohol at the auto pump...
>However, it isn't blended in until it gets to this regon... so many aero
>clubs can still get batches of straight gas

The last part is correct in my experience. Hampton Airfield buys its
mogas from the terminal in Portland ME.

The wonderful thing about ethanol is that it can't presently be pumped
through pipelines, so straight gasoline is theoretically available at
whatever central point it's mixed in.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 2nd 07, 12:28 PM

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:23:20 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>And I'm sure it will cost way more to be processed less, kinda like that organic food....

Well, avgas always costs more, because the airport is making a profit
on it, and in the case of mogas is not selling very much of it.

Mogas at Hampton Airfield NH is still $3.40, though I suppose it will
go up in time, especially if lots of people discover they can buy
unadulterated gas there.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 2nd 07, 12:32 PM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 06:15:49 -0400, "mike regish" >
wrote:

>>> Only ethanol-blended gasoline has been available at New England
>>> service stations over the past several years.

Not correct. New Hampshire sold auto fuel (in the southern counties
only) with MBTE until fairly recently. The swtich to alky was no more
than six months ago.

In the northern counties (Carroll being the one closest to me, a drive
of about thirty miles) MBTE wasn't required, and I knew more than one
car owner who made the trip weekly because he didn't like the notion
of MBTE (or is it MTBE, crikey, I don't know). I'm uncertain whether
the ethanol mandate applies there or not; I don't think it does, since
ethanol was introduced only as a substitute for MBTE.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 2nd 07, 12:44 PM

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:58:28 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Profit margins vary a lot by company and over time, but a mid-term (not
>long term) average of ~8% seems a useful number.[2] Though Exxon managed
>to get nearly 11% last year.[3]

Exxon had a good year in part because it owns a lot of refineries. In
the past, refineries have been a very bad business (the money was all
in extracting oil from the ground) but lately there's been a huge
shortgage of capacity (hurricane Katrina, Europe no longer exporting
much gasoline) so refineries are stretched to the limit.

When something is stretched, the price goes up, which is why Exxon did
better last year than say Royal Dutch Shell or Beyond Petroleum.

(For years, we have been importing gasoline from Europe. Isn't that a
hoot? They've historically tended to need more diesel than the
refineries could easily produce without exporting the lighter stuff,
and the excess came to us so the yuppies didn't have to have a bad ole
refinery in their backyard.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Jay Honeck

June 2nd 07, 02:21 PM

> You know I've been wondering: Does the Alka Seltzer trick really check to
> see if alcohol is present? I'm no chemist, but I wonder if the Alka Seltzer
> is just reacting with the water that most alcohols will attract from the
> moisture in the air.
>
> How about it? Any chemists in the group? If the mogas were blended with
> alcohol with low water content, would the Alka Seltzer fizz at all? Maybe
> the best test is still the "line on the beaker" test.

Well, we've been down this road before, back when the Alky test first
came on the scene. Some chemist here ended up concluding that the
test was valid, but I'm always open to hearing other thoughts on the
matter.

If the danged test DIDN'T work, that could ruin my whole day...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

June 2nd 07, 02:22 PM

> > You talking about "rubbing alcohol"? We tested it with that, and it
> > worked for us.
>
> > Fizzing, that is...
>
> nope -- "Denatured Alcohol" purchased in a gallon can.

What's the difference? Is one ethanol, and one methanol?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 2nd 07, 02:52 PM

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:22:28 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote:

>> > You talking about "rubbing alcohol"? We tested it with that, and it
>> > worked for us.
>>
>> > Fizzing, that is...
>>
>> nope -- "Denatured Alcohol" purchased in a gallon can.
>
>What's the difference? Is one ethanol, and one methanol?
Denatured is ethanol poluted with anything to make it undrinkable.
Generally Methyl, but sometimes even Gasoline is used to "denature"
it. Rubbing alky is generally Isopropyl

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 2nd 07, 02:52 PM

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:01:22 -0700, "J. Severyn"
> wrote:

>
>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>snip
>>
>> I tried the Alka Seltzer trick on some denatured alcohol -- no result.
>> It did not fizz!
>
>You know I've been wondering: Does the Alka Seltzer trick really check to
>see if alcohol is present? I'm no chemist, but I wonder if the Alka Seltzer
>is just reacting with the water that most alcohols will attract from the
>moisture in the air.
>
>How about it? Any chemists in the group? If the mogas were blended with
>alcohol with low water content, would the Alka Seltzer fizz at all? Maybe
>the best test is still the "line on the beaker" test.
>
>Regards,
>John Severyn
>KLVK (all mogas has alky in my area, making my STC no good at all)
>
Seltzer reacts with water.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Morgans[_2_]

June 2nd 07, 03:38 PM

"Cubdriver" wrote

> I bought four gallons two months ago and haven't used it all yet. It's
> astonishing how far gasoline goes in small engines. (Well, okay, I
> don't mow my lawn any more. The clean mogas goes into the chain saw,
> generator, and snow blower

I'll bet it really lasts a loooong time in your snow blower, this time of
year! <ggg>
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_2_]

June 2nd 07, 03:42 PM

"Cubdriver"> wrote

> Mogas at Hampton Airfield NH is still $3.40, though I suppose it will
> go up in time, especially if lots of people discover they can buy
> unadulterated gas there.

It depends on management's philosophy.

If they were to keep their profit margin low, and sell a lot of it, they
might find it is better to keep it cheap to sell a large quantity of it. Of
course, it all hinges on being able to keep the supply coming fast enough.
--
Jim in NC

kontiki

June 2nd 07, 06:44 PM

Ken Finney wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:11:27 GMT, tony roberts
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label
>>
>>gasoline
>>
>>>>>>>>>>contaminated with alcohol?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Worse.
>>>>>>>>>I read that, starting in 2007, in some places, California and some
>>>>>>>>>Canadian Provinces included, it is regulated that all gasoline sold
>>>>>>>>>must
>>>>>>>>>contain at least 5% alcohol/ethanol.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here in Ontario I was told not all gasoline must have 5% alky, but
>>
>>5%
>>
>>>>>>>>of all fuel sold must be alky - so 50% of all fuel sold being E10
>>>>>>>>satisfies the requirement. In practice, virtually all 87 octane
>>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>>be e10. Premium 91 will (from some companies, at least) be E0,
>>
>>making
>>
>>>>>>>>the blended 89 E5. Since significantly over half the gasoline sold
>>
>>in
>>
>>>>>>>>Ontario is 87 octane, this would excede the requirements. - Just
>>
>>from
>>
>>>>>>>>what I've been told, but you can never trust the elected idiots, or
>>>>>>>>worse yet the beurocrats
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>IF I ever get a plane, all these silly fuel issues would be a real
>>>>>>>irritant. I haven't been paying much attention to the new diesel
>>>>>>>aircraft engines becoming available. Since I should be making my
>>>>>>>own
>>>>>>>biodiesel by the end of this Summer (for something less than 45
>>>>>>>cents
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>>>gallon), are any of the new diesels in the O-200/Rotax 912 class?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you grow to make biodiesel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Relatives that own restuarants and have to pay to dispose of waste
>>
>>fryer
>>
>>>>>oil!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You grow relatives?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, somebody planted the seed and they tend to grow on their own. I
>>
>>just
>>
>>>fertilize them now and then!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What do you actually do to the waste fryer oil to make it useful as
>>biodiesel?
>>
>
>
> A common misconception is that biodiesel is just filtered vegetable oil;
> this is not the case. Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) (and Waste Vegetable Oil
> (WVO), for that matter) don't have the proper viscosity to run in a diesel
> engine unless they are heated to the 140 F to 170 F range. More
> importantly, they solidify at too high a temperature and will clog the
> injector pump and injectors. Biodiesel is vegetable oil that has gone
> through the transesterification process. Simplified, you mix many parts
> vegetable oil with one part methanol and a little bit of lye, then heat and
> stir the mixture. After a while, you have a tank of cloudy oil with
> glycerine on the bottom. You then bubble air through the oil until it is
> no longer cloudy, and the clear oil is biodiesel.
>
>
>

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 2nd 07, 07:12 PM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:42:25 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Cubdriver"> wrote
>
>> Mogas at Hampton Airfield NH is still $3.40, though I suppose it will
>> go up in time, especially if lots of people discover they can buy
>> unadulterated gas there.
>
>It depends on management's philosophy.
>
>If they were to keep their profit margin low, and sell a lot of it, they
>might find it is better to keep it cheap to sell a large quantity of it. Of
>course, it all hinges on being able to keep the supply coming fast enough.

Selling lots makes sure the supply stays fresh, too.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Blueskies

June 3rd 07, 12:38 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> You know I've been wondering: Does the Alka Seltzer trick really check to
>> see if alcohol is present? I'm no chemist, but I wonder if the Alka Seltzer
>> is just reacting with the water that most alcohols will attract from the
>> moisture in the air.
>>
>> How about it? Any chemists in the group? If the mogas were blended with
>> alcohol with low water content, would the Alka Seltzer fizz at all? Maybe
>> the best test is still the "line on the beaker" test.
>
> Well, we've been down this road before, back when the Alky test first
> came on the scene. Some chemist here ended up concluding that the
> test was valid, but I'm always open to hearing other thoughts on the
> matter.
>
> If the danged test DIDN'T work, that could ruin my whole day...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Seems to me the best test would be to do the alka seltzer test right alongside the 'water to the line' test, using the
same fuel sample, preferable a known dirty gasoline sample...

Peter Dohm

June 3rd 07, 02:55 AM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >> You know I've been wondering: Does the Alka Seltzer trick really check
to
> >> see if alcohol is present? I'm no chemist, but I wonder if the Alka
Seltzer
> >> is just reacting with the water that most alcohols will attract from
the
> >> moisture in the air.
> >>
> >> How about it? Any chemists in the group? If the mogas were blended
with
> >> alcohol with low water content, would the Alka Seltzer fizz at all?
Maybe
> >> the best test is still the "line on the beaker" test.
> >
> > Well, we've been down this road before, back when the Alky test first
> > came on the scene. Some chemist here ended up concluding that the
> > test was valid, but I'm always open to hearing other thoughts on the
> > matter.
> >
> > If the danged test DIDN'T work, that could ruin my whole day...
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
>
> Seems to me the best test would be to do the alka seltzer test right
alongside the 'water to the line' test, using the
> same fuel sample, preferable a known dirty gasoline sample...
>
>
Two of the more knowledgeable contributors have stated that the Alka Seltzer
reacts with the water.

Logically, one could split a fuel sample into two parts and test both.
Then, if the fuel passes the AlkaSeltzer test and fails the "line on the
beaker" test; then Clare and Bob will have been proved correct and we will
have also gained a means to determine that fuel has alcohol added, but has
not absorbed moisture.

However, if the Alka Seltzer fizzes and the combined water and alcohol rises
above the "line on the beaker"; then the fuel will have failed both tests
and nothing at all will have been proved--because, as far as I know, the
"line on the beaker" does not seperately determine the amounts of water and
alcohol in the fuel sample.

Really, the only way that I know to correctly "do the science" is to
purchase a small amount (perhaps a liter) of anhydrous ethanol from a
medical supply and perform a series of tests on a variety of
samples--including samples of known pure and dry avgas and mogas. For the
moment, I am unwilling to undertake the project, and also I believe that
Clare and Bob are correct.

Peter

Morgans[_2_]

June 3rd 07, 03:16 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Really, the only way that I know to correctly "do the science" is to
> purchase a small amount (perhaps a liter) of anhydrous ethanol from a
> medical supply and perform a series of tests on a variety of
> samples--including samples of known pure and dry avgas and mogas. For the
> moment, I am unwilling to undertake the project, and also I believe that
> Clare and Bob are correct.

How sure are we that the gasohol in service station tanks contain no water?

Is it possible that all tanks containing gasohol contain at least some water
dissolved?

Is it a certainty that the alcohol added to gasoline contains no dissolved
water?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Does anyone know, for
CERTAIN, any of these questions?

My guess is that all service station tanks, (unless they have never had
straight gas, and that they are BRAND NEW) have had an opportunity to get
some water in their tanks. If that is the case, and you put gasohol in
them, the gasohol samples will contain some dissolved water, and the seltzer
test will work.

If that is the case, doing a scientific test with clean gas and adding water
free alcohol will prove nothing.
--
Jim in NC

David Lesher

June 3rd 07, 03:52 AM

B A R R Y > writes:

>Ken Finney wrote:
>>
>> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
>>

>Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.

Which is just kerosene...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

David Lesher

June 3rd 07, 04:06 AM

ktbr > writes:

>> The joke on us all is that gas pumped to your local distribution
>> terminal has no alcohol in it... At the distribution terminal are huge
>> tanks of gas, and smaller tnaks of alcohol, dye, additives, etc...
.....

>It is true that all oil companies fuel is essentially the same,
>and has been true for a long time.

Anyone here recall Sohio with Winter-Ice Guard?

A) Yes, pipeline carry fuel that is traded widely between companies.
Many times, groups of competitors jointly own the pipeline company.
Inland Corp == Sun, Union, Shell & BP

[There are large efficiencies of scale on same; it costs almost as
much to run a 6" dia pipeline as an 18" one.]

Exception was that no one would take low-end Sunoco as it was lower
octane than regular. [Sun mixed a % of the low end and high octane
right at the pump.]

B) Yes, all the additives are injected at the marketing terminal;
aka where the trucks are loaded. So yes, you should be able to
buy un-altered gas, with the right connections...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[email protected]

June 3rd 07, 05:05 AM

In rec.aviation.owning David Lesher > wrote:
> B A R R Y > writes:

> >Ken Finney wrote:
> >>
> >> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
> >>

> >Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.

> Which is just kerosene...

Almost everything on or dealing with airplanes "is just whatever"
with a pile of drawings and specifications to prove to the satisfaction
of the FAA that it is the correct "whatever" right down to the
material covering the seat.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

June 3rd 07, 05:15 AM

In rec.aviation.owning Morgans > wrote:

> "Peter Dohm" > wrote

> > Really, the only way that I know to correctly "do the science" is to
> > purchase a small amount (perhaps a liter) of anhydrous ethanol from a
> > medical supply and perform a series of tests on a variety of
> > samples--including samples of known pure and dry avgas and mogas. For the
> > moment, I am unwilling to undertake the project, and also I believe that
> > Clare and Bob are correct.

> How sure are we that the gasohol in service station tanks contain no water?

> Is it possible that all tanks containing gasohol contain at least some water
> dissolved?

> Is it a certainty that the alcohol added to gasoline contains no dissolved
> water?

> I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Does anyone know, for
> CERTAIN, any of these questions?

> My guess is that all service station tanks, (unless they have never had
> straight gas, and that they are BRAND NEW) have had an opportunity to get
> some water in their tanks. If that is the case, and you put gasohol in
> them, the gasohol samples will contain some dissolved water, and the seltzer
> test will work.

> If that is the case, doing a scientific test with clean gas and adding water
> free alcohol will prove nothing.

Finding water free alcohol is basically impossible.

Alcohol will absorb about 2-3% water by volume as soon as it is exposed
to normal air, and that is what you will find in a medical supply
alcohol that is about 98%..

So if everything is kept as dry as possible, you can expect gas that
is 10% alcohol to be at least .2% water minimum.

Whether .2% water is enough to fizz an Alka-Seltzer tablet I have no idea.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jay Honeck

June 3rd 07, 05:27 AM

> Whether .2% water is enough to fizz an Alka-Seltzer tablet I have no idea.

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I've run almost
9,000 gallons of mogas through Atlas' Lycoming O-540, without a
burp.

In that time, I would be willing to bet that SOME ethanol-polluted
gasoline has run though his veins. It almost seems inevitable.

Personally, I am skeptical that gasohol is going to harm my 1974-
vintage aircraft. I use the damn stuff in every other gasoline engine
I own, including my 1986 Goldwing, my 1995 Toyota, my 1995 Ford van,
my 1997 Subaru, my 2000 Mustang, my three lawn-mowers, my two yard
blowers, and my one snowblower -- ALL without problems.

But, hey, if the FAA says it's bad, I gotta believe 'em -- so I test
every tank for alcohol.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans[_2_]

June 3rd 07, 06:09 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Personally, I am skeptical that gasohol is going to harm my 1974-
> vintage aircraft. I use the damn stuff in every other gasoline engine
> I own, including my 1986 Goldwing, my 1995 Toyota, my 1995 Ford van,
> my 1997 Subaru, my 2000 Mustang, my three lawn-mowers, my two yard
> blowers, and my one snowblower -- ALL without problems.
>
> But, hey, if the FAA says it's bad, I gotta believe 'em -- so I test
> every tank for alcohol.

No doubt that you engine doesn't give a crap, but your fuel system could be
a different story.

I have seen pictures of fuel line swollen to the size of sausages, and who
knows what the other rubber parts (O-rings, fuel bladders, if you have them)
would look like, and how much alcohol it would take to get it to swell.

I think you are wise to keep on testing. If it were me, I would want to
know if the seltzer test worked as reliably as the add water test, and how
the seltzer would work on a fresh batch of alcohol.

Perhaps you can catch the gas tanker starting to fill a station's tanks, and
get a sample of gasohol right off the tanker, where it is less likely to
have gotten mixed with water, from storage tanks.
--
Jim in NC

B A R R Y

June 3rd 07, 11:22 AM

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:05:01 GMT, wrote:

>>
>Almost everything on or dealing with airplanes "is just whatever"
>with a pile of drawings and specifications to prove to the satisfaction
>of the FAA that it is the correct "whatever" right down to the
>material covering the seat.

Exactly. <G>

A point totally lost on non-pilots.

Blueskies

June 3rd 07, 12:35 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> Whether .2% water is enough to fizz an Alka-Seltzer tablet I have no idea.
>
> I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I've run almost
> 9,000 gallons of mogas through Atlas' Lycoming O-540, without a
> burp.
>
> In that time, I would be willing to bet that SOME ethanol-polluted
> gasoline has run though his veins. It almost seems inevitable.
>
> Personally, I am skeptical that gasohol is going to harm my 1974-
> vintage aircraft. I use the damn stuff in every other gasoline engine
> I own, including my 1986 Goldwing, my 1995 Toyota, my 1995 Ford van,
> my 1997 Subaru, my 2000 Mustang, my three lawn-mowers, my two yard
> blowers, and my one snowblower -- ALL without problems.
>
> But, hey, if the FAA says it's bad, I gotta believe 'em -- so I test
> every tank for alcohol.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

If the alka seltzer test is good, I would think the STC folks would promote it as a way to detect alcohol, but they
don't. They say to do the water to the line test.

Peter, you need to read over the water to the line test. It starts out with a known quantity of water, and then if the
apparent volume increases it has absorbed alcohol. Depending on the beaker you are using, you can then calculate the
amount of alcohol absorbed and therefore the amount of alcohol in the 'fuel' sample.

Jay, didn't you say you had a fuel hose leak at your last annual? Be very careful...

I do the water to the line test...

Peter Dohm

June 3rd 07, 01:39 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> > Really, the only way that I know to correctly "do the science" is to
> > purchase a small amount (perhaps a liter) of anhydrous ethanol from a
> > medical supply and perform a series of tests on a variety of
> > samples--including samples of known pure and dry avgas and mogas. For
the
> > moment, I am unwilling to undertake the project, and also I believe that
> > Clare and Bob are correct.
>
> How sure are we that the gasohol in service station tanks contain no
water?
>
> Is it possible that all tanks containing gasohol contain at least some
water
> dissolved?
>
> Is it a certainty that the alcohol added to gasoline contains no dissolved
> water?
>
> I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Does anyone know, for
> CERTAIN, any of these questions?
>
> My guess is that all service station tanks, (unless they have never had
> straight gas, and that they are BRAND NEW) have had an opportunity to get
> some water in their tanks. If that is the case, and you put gasohol in
> them, the gasohol samples will contain some dissolved water, and the
seltzer
> test will work.
>
> If that is the case, doing a scientific test with clean gas and adding
water
> free alcohol will prove nothing.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
According to annecdotes that I heard many years ago, service station gas
tanks have always contained some water--but since the gasolene is lighter,
the water settled to the bottom, so they were able to draw straight gasolene
from a floating pickup. According to those annecdotes, there could have
been as much as a couple of feet on water below the gasolene before it was
drawn of as part of periodic maintenance, with the result that the apparatus
were designed to shut off with a considerable level of liquid remaining in
the tanks--in order to avoid pumping water.

At this time, I have no reliable means to verify the the original story, nor
whether service stations now have sealed tanks with evaporative controls and
driers similar to the vehicles they service--which I doubt.

However, one obvious possibility is as droll as it is annoying.

Peter

Peter Dohm

June 3rd 07, 01:45 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Whether .2% water is enough to fizz an Alka-Seltzer tablet I have no
idea.
>
> I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I've run almost
> 9,000 gallons of mogas through Atlas' Lycoming O-540, without a
> burp.
>
> In that time, I would be willing to bet that SOME ethanol-polluted
> gasoline has run though his veins. It almost seems inevitable.
>
> Personally, I am skeptical that gasohol is going to harm my 1974-
> vintage aircraft. I use the damn stuff in every other gasoline engine
> I own, including my 1986 Goldwing, my 1995 Toyota, my 1995 Ford van,
> my 1997 Subaru, my 2000 Mustang, my three lawn-mowers, my two yard
> blowers, and my one snowblower -- ALL without problems.
>
> But, hey, if the FAA says it's bad, I gotta believe 'em -- so I test
> every tank for alcohol.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
A lot of this is simply that the STC was never attempted, and therefore,
never accomplished using any form of "gasohol" and therefore, it is not an
approved fuel. It may cause problems as well, but that is outside my area
of knowledge.

Peter

Barnyard BOb

June 3rd 07, 01:47 PM

>Finding water free alcohol is basically impossible.
>
>Alcohol will absorb about 2-3% water by volume as soon as it is exposed
>to normal air, and that is what you will find in a medical supply
>alcohol that is about 98%..
>
>So if everything is kept as dry as possible, you can expect gas that
>is 10% alcohol to be at least .2% water minimum.
>
>Whether .2% water is enough to fizz an Alka-Seltzer tablet I have no idea.
>
>
>--
>Jim Pennino
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Jim,
Following your line of thinking...

I believe underground gasoline storage tanks have their
pickup point some distance off of the bottom of the tank
to avoid picking up the water that IS on the tank bottom.

Periodically, the bottom water is siphoned off to keep the
water level below the pickup point. This is what they do
at our airport for the underground avgas tanks and at my
local gas station.

If one applies this same thinking to underground gasohol
storage tanks, it is apparent how we get... Alka-Seltzer fizz.

Could one envision the Alka-Seltzer test ever becoming
a legitimate and legal test for the presents of alcohol?

No in this lifetime, IMO!!!!!

No way is this method ever going to be approved
as good science by an authoritive body....
even tho' we might know INDIRECTLY how and why
water contaminated alcohol fizzes.

What a way to get yer butt sued! 8-)

-Barnyard BOb-

Peter Dohm

June 3rd 07, 01:54 PM

> >
>
> If the alka seltzer test is good, I would think the STC folks would
promote it as a way to detect alcohol, but they
> don't. They say to do the water to the line test.
>
> Peter, you need to read over the water to the line test. It starts out
with a known quantity of water, and then if the
> apparent volume increases it has absorbed alcohol. Depending on the beaker
you are using, you can then calculate the
> amount of alcohol absorbed and therefore the amount of alcohol in the
'fuel' sample.
>
> Jay, didn't you say you had a fuel hose leak at your last annual? Be very
careful...
>
> I do the water to the line test...
>
>
I agree that the "water to the line" test is the one to use. It might
mistake any water already absorbed as ethanol, but is obviously very
reliable for the intended purpose.

OTOH, the AlkaSeltzer test will only work with a fresh, dry peice of
AlkaSeltzer. If not kept hermetically sealed--usually in one of those
unbroken foil pouches--it won't fizz in a jar of tap water!

Nevertheless, the combination would be technically interesting.

Peter

Peter Dohm

June 3rd 07, 02:02 PM

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> B A R R Y > writes:
>
> >Ken Finney wrote:
> >>
> >> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
> >>
>
> >Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.
>
> Which is just kerosene...
>
> --
> A host is a host from coast to
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

There are really three of issues (that I can recall) here:
1) A diesel will run on any hydrocarbon fuel that it can pump and meter.
2) Different seals and hoses are compatible with different
chemicals--although it would be no surprise to find that all were compatible
with biodiesel.
3) Certified aircraft/engines require fuels authorized in the type
certificate and/or an STC.

Blueskies

June 3rd 07, 02:02 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message .. .
>
>>
>>
> According to annecdotes that I heard many years ago, service station gas
> tanks have always contained some water--but since the gasolene is lighter,
> the water settled to the bottom, so they were able to draw straight gasolene
> from a floating pickup. According to those annecdotes, there could have
> been as much as a couple of feet on water below the gasolene before it was
> drawn of as part of periodic maintenance, with the result that the apparatus
> were designed to shut off with a considerable level of liquid remaining in
> the tanks--in order to avoid pumping water.
>
> At this time, I have no reliable means to verify the the original story, nor
> whether service stations now have sealed tanks with evaporative controls and
> driers similar to the vehicles they service--which I doubt.
>
> However, one obvious possibility is as droll as it is annoying.
>
> Peter
>

It seems to me that if there were a considerable amount of water in the gasoline tanks, and those tanks were filled with
alcohol laced gasoline, then the effect would be the same as the 'water to the line test'; in other words the alcohol
would be drawn from the gasohol mix and the user would have fuel that does not satisfy the octane ratings as posted on
the pump. The bonus would maybe result in gasoline being pumped that contained less alcohol than the supplier
intended...

Cubdriver

June 3rd 07, 04:26 PM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:38:20 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>I'll bet it really lasts a loooong time in your snow blower, this time of
>year! <ggg>

And that, indeed, is the point of the exercise!

The denatured gasoline evidently starts breaking down in a month.
Straight gas in a year.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 3rd 07, 04:32 PM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:16:03 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>How sure are we that the gasohol in service station tanks contain no water?

It's pretty sure to contain some water, at least some of the time,
especially in summer and especially in the east. As the tank is drawn
down, air is going to replace what's been pumped out. That air is
going to contain some water, which will be absorbed in time by the
alcohol.

>
>Is it possible that all tanks containing gasohol contain at least some water
>dissolved?

See above.

>
>Is it a certainty that the alcohol added to gasoline contains no dissolved
>water?

Well, the alky presumably was shipped in full tanks / barrels /
whatever, so we can hope it's undiluted.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Morgans[_2_]

June 3rd 07, 05:37 PM

"Cubdriver" > wrote

> Well, the alky presumably was shipped in full tanks / barrels /
> whatever, so we can hope it's undiluted.

But, it is _very_ difficult (it takes some expensive chemistry tricks) to
get all of the water distilled out of alcohol, in other words, stronger than
around 98% alcohol. Is that all the alky producers go for, or do they use
the expensive tricks to get the last two percentage points of water out of
the alky?
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

June 3rd 07, 06:35 PM

In rec.aviation.owning Morgans > wrote:

> "Cubdriver" > wrote

> > Well, the alky presumably was shipped in full tanks / barrels /
> > whatever, so we can hope it's undiluted.

> But, it is _very_ difficult (it takes some expensive chemistry tricks) to
> get all of the water distilled out of alcohol, in other words, stronger than
> around 98% alcohol. Is that all the alky producers go for, or do they use
> the expensive tricks to get the last two percentage points of water out of
> the alky?

It would be pointless as 100% alcohol would immediately start absorbing
water from the air.

In another post I said alcohol would absorb about 2-3% by volume. A web
search gives numbers in the range of 2-4%.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

601XL Builder

June 3rd 07, 06:37 PM

Blueskies wrote:

>
> If the alka seltzer test is good, I would think the STC folks would promote it as a way to detect alcohol, but they
> don't. They say to do the water to the line test.

Probably because the folks that make Alka Seltzer would sue the living
crap out of them. This would happen because if they didn't sue and stop
the practice then the first time a plane crashes after the pilot uses
the Alka Seltzer test they would get sued for a faulty product.

mike regish

June 3rd 07, 06:38 PM

The water line test works consistently and, if you have the graduated tube
from Petersen will give a fairly accurate percentage. Except for here, I
have never heard of the Alka Seltzer test.

mike

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think you are wise to keep on testing. If it were me, I would want to
> know if the seltzer test worked as reliably as the add water test, and how
> the seltzer would work on a fresh batch of alcohol.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Morgans[_2_]

June 3rd 07, 07:03 PM

> wrote

> It would be pointless as 100% alcohol would immediately start absorbing
> water from the air.
>
> In another post I said alcohol would absorb about 2-3% by volume. A web
> search gives numbers in the range of 2-4%.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I do wonder what the water content of the
pure alky is, the moment it comes out of production, though.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

June 3rd 07, 07:35 PM

In rec.aviation.owning Morgans > wrote:

> > wrote

> > It would be pointless as 100% alcohol would immediately start absorbing
> > water from the air.
> >
> > In another post I said alcohol would absorb about 2-3% by volume. A web
> > search gives numbers in the range of 2-4%.

> I'm not disagreeing with you. I do wonder what the water content of the
> pure alky is, the moment it comes out of production, though.

Probably around 5-8%.

Back in my college days I did "fermentation and chemistry experiments"
and with half-way decent temperature control that's what you get.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Blueskies

June 3rd 07, 11:44 PM

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>>
>> If the alka seltzer test is good, I would think the STC folks would promote it as a way to detect alcohol, but they
>> don't. They say to do the water to the line test.
>
> Probably because the folks that make Alka Seltzer would sue the living crap out of them. This would happen because if
> they didn't sue and stop the practice then the first time a plane crashes after the pilot uses the Alka Seltzer test
> they would get sued for a faulty product.

Or....
it is a test for water....

cavelamb himself

June 4th 07, 01:19 AM

MSNBC story about bad gas at a walmart in Louisville.

The "regular" stuff turned out to be 80% water and some diesel???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18950569/

Peter Dohm

June 4th 07, 01:27 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cubdriver" > wrote
>
> > Well, the alky presumably was shipped in full tanks / barrels /
> > whatever, so we can hope it's undiluted.
>
> But, it is _very_ difficult (it takes some expensive chemistry tricks) to
> get all of the water distilled out of alcohol, in other words, stronger
than
> around 98% alcohol. Is that all the alky producers go for, or do they use
> the expensive tricks to get the last two percentage points of water out of
> the alky?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
I don't know whether they do any initial distillation, to get to
approximately the 60% (or 120 proof) level, but the rest is apparently now
done by filtration through molecular sieves. The process is far less
expensive than distillation and achieves about 99% purity.

Various sources are offering a variety of grades of pure ethanol, up to
99.9%--although that does get expensive. Here is just one of the many links
that I found with Google:
http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11549831/Ethanol_Anhydrous_Fuel_Grade_Bio_Eth
anol.html

Peter

SS2MO

June 4th 07, 03:31 AM

On May 30, 7:13 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline contaminated with alcohol?
>
> Good article here:http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/Gasoline.html
>
> I just did the add water to gas test on a couple of local gas sources and all contain alcohol, and none of the pumps
> said anything about it. The feds just dropped the requirement to label the pumps and we all missed it?
>
> Jay, where do you fill the grape from and how do you know there is no evil alcohol in it?

When MTBE was outlawed, the only feasable alternative to add oxygen to
gasoline was alcohol. This is mandated in ceartin parts of the
country - mostly the east and west coasts plus mant of the major
cities. Many states have followed suit and now require 5 or 10%
alcohol to be add to auto gas. Some states require that the retail
pumps lable that the gasoline contains alcohol - some states do not.
Currently retailers can save money by adding alcohol to the gasoline
because the alcohol is less expensive than gasoline, so they can blen
it in and sell it to you as auto gasoline - you may not know it. Any
percentage of alcohol in the gasoline will void your auto gas STC.
There are many pushing for a national requirement for alcohol to be
added to auto gas.

Non alcohol auto gas will be available for FBO's to purchase and sell
as auto gas for aviation, but anyone buying auto gas at a retial
outlet and taking it to the airport in 5 gallon containers will need
to check it for alcohol. EAA has a method on line to tell you how to
check it. I recently did a presentation on auto gas with alcoho for
an aviation group, added 10% alcohol to pure 87 octane auto gas - then
some samples I added water - then lowered the temps on all samples to
below freezing.

First thing was that the alcohol would not stay mixed with the auto
gas - it would seperate out. Second thing is that alcohol absorbs
water - so you could not see the water in the alcohol/auto gas
mixture, but when the temp was lowered to below freezing the water
froze and ice settled out to the bottom.

All said - I will not be using auto gas in my plane - it looked like
an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.

nrp

June 4th 07, 04:50 AM

> an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.

Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
though...........

I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
~5% power reduction.

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 4th 07, 05:21 AM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:55:58 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

..
>
>Really, the only way that I know to correctly "do the science" is to
>purchase a small amount (perhaps a liter) of anhydrous ethanol from a
>medical supply and perform a series of tests on a variety of
>samples--including samples of known pure and dry avgas and mogas. For the
>moment, I am unwilling to undertake the project, and also I believe that
>Clare and Bob are correct.
>
>Peter
>
Definitive test for water in fuel.
Get some copper sulphate chystals. Put them in a warm oven untill they
are totally white. Store in a sealed dry container. Place a few
crystals in your check bottle and add fuel. If the crystal turns blue,
YOU HAVE WATER.Can't tell you how much, but if it stays white the gas
is DRY.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 4th 07, 05:25 AM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:16:03 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>How sure are we that the gasohol in service station tanks contain no water?
I would never bet on it.
>Is it possible that all tanks containing gasohol contain at least some water
>dissolved?
Extremely likely, from past experience (pumping gas decades ago)
>Is it a certainty that the alcohol added to gasoline contains no dissolved
>water?
No. Definitely NOT a certainty.
>I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Does anyone know, for
>CERTAIN, any of these questions?
>
>My guess is that all service station tanks, (unless they have never had
>straight gas, and that they are BRAND NEW) have had an opportunity to get
>some water in their tanks. If that is the case, and you put gasohol in
>them, the gasohol samples will contain some dissolved water, and the seltzer
>test will work.
>
>If that is the case, doing a scientific test with clean gas and adding water
>free alcohol will prove nothing.
Except you can NEVER say NEVER, and ALWAYS avoid ALWAYS.
It is POSSIBLE you may GET totally dry gasohol. The probability that
it will remain dry is slim.(alcohol is hygroscopic - it attracts and
binds water)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Denny

June 4th 07, 12:43 PM

Well, lemmee give ya a very simple example of cahoots...

First picture the double bottom fuel tanker... He goes to the terminal
and loads premium gas for Chevron in the front tanker and premium gas
for Shell in the back tanker... The computer adds the dyes,
carcinogenic additives, and alcohol, and off he goes... Each company
runs advertising on how its premium is better than anyone elses
premium because of the companies expertise and care in every step of
the production process - and how they search the world for the best
crude - and oh yes, they are GREEN to boot...

Your gas actually comes from the same generic tank fed off a generic
pipeline from a generic refinery, that every branded and unbranded
gas station in the area buys from, each putting their own name on
it...
The FTC is happy with this...
The Atty General of the Hew Hess of Hey is happy with this...
The states Atty General's are happy with this...

Now picture Chivas Regal and Jack Daniels - and it comes to light
<Woodward and Bernstein strike again> that they are not actually
fermenting and distilling their own booze but are buying white
lightning from an industrial alcohol distillery in Trinidad and
Tobaggo <same one that supplies it for gasohol> and shipping it here
in converted petroleum tankers, whereupon they each runit through
charcoal, add coloring and flavoring, and each bottle it under their
own label...
The FTC and the combined Atty Generals will be good with that?
No way, mon! There will be executives in hand cuffs testifying in
front of Congress...
But if it is big oil? - well golly gee it's just a business decision
<wink, wink, nudge>...

denny - who is old enough to see the wool over his eyes

Dave Butler

June 4th 07, 02:41 PM

Peter Dohm wrote:

> According to annecdotes that I heard many years ago, service station gas
> tanks have always contained some water--but since the gasolene is lighter,
> the water settled to the bottom, so they were able to draw straight gasolene
> from a floating pickup. According to those annecdotes, there could have
> been as much as a couple of feet on water below the gasolene before it was
> drawn of as part of periodic maintenance, with the result that the apparatus
> were designed to shut off with a considerable level of liquid remaining in
> the tanks--in order to avoid pumping water.

Speaking as someone who pumped gas to earn tuition money back in the
early 60s before there was gasahol, we'd 'stick' the tanks daily at
closing time to verify the amount in the tanks. There was always some
water that was evident at the bottom of the stick, but it was never more
than an inch or so.

Roger (K8RI)

June 4th 07, 05:44 PM

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:26:38 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:38:20 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>>I'll bet it really lasts a loooong time in your snow blower, this time of
>>year! <ggg>
>
>And that, indeed, is the point of the exercise!
>
>The denatured gasoline evidently starts breaking down in a month.
>Straight gas in a year.
>
I never drain the tanks on my lawn morwer, snow blower, yard tractor,
or push lawn mower. I've never seen car gas break down even after
several years.

What I have seen is the stuff evaporate in the carburetors and leave a
shelac. However I always turn off the gas and run the carbs dry. The
next season I turn the gase on, wait a few minutes, prime and pull.
They usually start on the first pull.

>
>Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
>Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
>forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

RST Engineering

June 4th 07, 06:33 PM

The denizens of this ng have known and discussed this for some time now,
sir. WHere have you been?

Jim

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who count in binary and those who don't

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> The joke on us all is that gas pumped to your local distribution
> terminal has no alcohol in it... At the distribution terminal are huge
> tanks of gas, and smaller tnaks of alcohol, dye, additives, etc...
> The driver pulls up with his tanker... Keys in who the gas is for
> <Shell, Marathon, ETC.>and what the octane rating is and the computer
> selects the appropriate base stock of gasoline and mixes in the proper
> additives and dyes as it pumps the load to his tanker, including the
> alcohol... We are being hosed by the oil companies, in cahoots with
> the government, in more ways than just price...

Darrel Toepfer

June 4th 07, 07:03 PM

Dave Butler > wrote:

> Speaking as someone who pumped gas to earn tuition money back in the
> early 60s before there was gasahol, we'd 'stick' the tanks daily at
> closing time to verify the amount in the tanks. There was always some
> water that was evident at the bottom of the stick, but it was never
> more than an inch or so.

The only way we knew it to be "evident" was to put the paste on the stick
and note a color change...

I used to pump gas in the 70's, later I serviced the pumps and fuel systems
themselves (80's)...

Tri-Pacer

June 4th 07, 10:45 PM

Sportys used to sell a test kit that contained a chemical that would turn
purple if added to a fuel sample that was gasahol.

I have no idea of what the chemical was. It was a very easy to test the
fuel. They claim that their supplier no longer exists. I bought a bunch of
the kits and have about 1/2 a vial of the chemical left.

I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A

RST Engineering

June 5th 07, 12:48 AM

What is the color of the unreacted reagent? Water clear? I'll as the chair
of the chem department what it is and maybe buy a gallon or two and sell it
by the vial for only a thousand percent markup {;-)

I'm in training to run a pharmaceutical company

Jim

--
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who count in binary and those who don't
"Tri-Pacer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sportys used to sell a test kit that contained a chemical that would turn
> purple if added to a fuel sample that was gasahol.
>
> I have no idea of what the chemical was. It was a very easy to test the
> fuel. They claim that their supplier no longer exists. I bought a bunch of
> the kits and have about 1/2 a vial of the chemical left.
>
> I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.
>
> Cheers:
>
> Paul
> N1431A
>

Darrel Toepfer

June 5th 07, 12:51 AM

"Tri-Pacer" > wrote:

> Sportys used to sell a test kit that contained a chemical that would
> turn purple if added to a fuel sample that was gasahol.
>
> I have no idea of what the chemical was. It was a very easy to test
> the fuel. They claim that their supplier no longer exists. I bought a
> bunch of the kits and have about 1/2 a vial of the chemical left.
>
> I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.

Less than $3 a tube...

http://www.rectorseal.com/index.php?site_id=1&product_id=163

http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNSRIT?PMPXNO=1881556&PMT4NO=23640151

https://pe.cenex.com/store/detail.aspx?ID=468

http://www.icrc.org/emergency-
items/Volume1/07TRA/315TVECFUELWDTC/315TVECFUELWDTC.htm

http://www.rectorseal.com/index.php?site_id=1&product_id=162

Darrel Toepfer

June 5th 07, 12:57 AM

> Less than $3 a tube...

Don't tell Jim, he'll try to corner the market like the Hunt Bros...

See if you'd held onto that silver for 25 years, you'd have something,
besides silver...

Don Tuite

June 5th 07, 01:25 AM

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:48:32 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>What is the color of the unreacted reagent? Water clear? I'll as the chair
>of the chem department what it is and maybe buy a gallon or two and sell it
>by the vial for only a thousand percent markup {;-)
>
>I'm in training to run a pharmaceutical company
>
Google "Aquatec test strips"

Don

RST Engineering

June 5th 07, 02:15 AM

Aqua (as in "water") Aquatec test strips check for WATER, not alcohol.
Google Alcohol Test Strip and you get a million hits on how to test for
booze on the breath, but not a word about gasahol. Google Gasahol Test
Strip and you come up with nothing usable.

Jim--
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who count in binary and those who don't

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...

>>
> Google "Aquatec test strips"
>
> Don
>

Blueskies

June 5th 07, 02:27 AM

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message . 18...
> "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:
>
>> Sportys used to sell a test kit that contained a chemical that would
>> turn purple if added to a fuel sample that was gasahol.
>>
>> I have no idea of what the chemical was. It was a very easy to test
>> the fuel. They claim that their supplier no longer exists. I bought a
>> bunch of the kits and have about 1/2 a vial of the chemical left.
>>
>> I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.
>
> Less than $3 a tube...
>
> find water stuff snipped

Not looking for water, we're looking for alcohol...

Blueskies

June 5th 07, 02:32 AM

"Denny" > wrote in message ps.com...
> Well, lemmee give ya a very simple example of cahoots...
>
> First picture the double bottom fuel tanker... He goes to the terminal
> and loads premium gas for Chevron in the front tanker and premium gas
> for Shell in the back tanker... The computer adds the dyes,
> carcinogenic additives, and alcohol, and off he goes... Each company
> runs advertising on how its premium is better than anyone elses
> premium because of the companies expertise and care in every step of
> the production process - and how they search the world for the best
> crude - and oh yes, they are GREEN to boot...
>
> Your gas actually comes from the same generic tank fed off a generic
> pipeline from a generic refinery, that every branded and unbranded
> gas station in the area buys from, each putting their own name on
> it...
> The FTC is happy with this...
> The Atty General of the Hew Hess of Hey is happy with this...
> The states Atty General's are happy with this...
>
> Now picture Chivas Regal and Jack Daniels - and it comes to light
> <Woodward and Bernstein strike again> that they are not actually
> fermenting and distilling their own booze but are buying white
> lightning from an industrial alcohol distillery in Trinidad and
> Tobaggo <same one that supplies it for gasohol> and shipping it here
> in converted petroleum tankers, whereupon they each runit through
> charcoal, add coloring and flavoring, and each bottle it under their
> own label...
> The FTC and the combined Atty Generals will be good with that?
> No way, mon! There will be executives in hand cuffs testifying in
> front of Congress...
> But if it is big oil? - well golly gee it's just a business decision
> <wink, wink, nudge>...
>
> denny - who is old enough to see the wool over his eyes
>

Hit my thought right on the head! This crap is absolutely amazing. Hard to believe that there is any way this stuff is
called 'gasoline.' Interesting what definitions pop up when you do a web search for 'gasoline definition'. I see the
hydrocarbon bit by most, but there are now 'states' changing the definition to include the gasohol definition also...

sheeze.....

Darrel Toepfer

June 5th 07, 02:32 AM

"Blueskies" > wrote:

> Not looking for water, we're looking for alcohol...

Mybad, sorry... Sorry 'bout that...

Follow Jay, he's kneaux's where all the "water"ing holes are... ;-)

Blueskies

June 5th 07, 02:36 AM

"SS2MO" > wrote in message oups.com...
> On May 30, 7:13 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline contaminated with alcohol?
>>
>> Good article here:http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/Gasoline.html
>>
>> I just did the add water to gas test on a couple of local gas sources and all contain alcohol, and none of the pumps
>> said anything about it. The feds just dropped the requirement to label the pumps and we all missed it?
>>
>> Jay, where do you fill the grape from and how do you know there is no evil alcohol in it?
>
> When MTBE was outlawed, the only feasable alternative to add oxygen to
> gasoline was alcohol. This is mandated in ceartin parts of the
> country - mostly the east and west coasts plus mant of the major
> cities. Many states have followed suit and now require 5 or 10%
> alcohol to be add to auto gas. Some states require that the retail
> pumps lable that the gasoline contains alcohol - some states do not.
> Currently retailers can save money by adding alcohol to the gasoline
> because the alcohol is less expensive than gasoline, so they can blen
> it in and sell it to you as auto gasoline - you may not know it. Any
> percentage of alcohol in the gasoline will void your auto gas STC.
> There are many pushing for a national requirement for alcohol to be
> added to auto gas.
>

Old news...

Current news, the feds passed the law in 2005 that all auto fuel will contain alcohol.

> Non alcohol auto gas will be available for FBO's to purchase and sell
> as auto gas for aviation, but anyone buying auto gas at a retial
> outlet and taking it to the airport in 5 gallon containers will need
> to check it for alcohol. EAA has a method on line to tell you how to
> check it. I recently did a presentation on auto gas with alcoho for
> an aviation group, added 10% alcohol to pure 87 octane auto gas - then
> some samples I added water - then lowered the temps on all samples to
> below freezing.
>
> First thing was that the alcohol would not stay mixed with the auto
> gas - it would seperate out. Second thing is that alcohol absorbs
> water - so you could not see the water in the alcohol/auto gas
> mixture, but when the temp was lowered to below freezing the water
> froze and ice settled out to the bottom.
>

Is the so called cold weather auto fuel minus alcohol? I don't think so...

> All said - I will not be using auto gas in my plane - it looked like
> an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.
>

Just gotta be sure there is no alky in there...

Peter Dohm

June 5th 07, 03:28 AM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> > "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:
> >
> >> Sportys used to sell a test kit that contained a chemical that would
> >> turn purple if added to a fuel sample that was gasahol.
> >>
> >> I have no idea of what the chemical was. It was a very easy to test
> >> the fuel. They claim that their supplier no longer exists. I bought a
> >> bunch of the kits and have about 1/2 a vial of the chemical left.
> >>
> >> I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.
> >
> > Less than $3 a tube...
> >
> > find water stuff snipped
>
> Not looking for water, we're looking for alcohol...
>
>
Actually many of us are curious about each, and some of use would be
interested to know both.

Peter

Peter Dohm

June 5th 07, 03:30 AM

>
> Hit my thought right on the head! This crap is absolutely amazing. Hard to
believe that there is any way this stuff is
> called 'gasoline.' Interesting what definitions pop up when you do a web
search for 'gasoline definition'. I see the
> hydrocarbon bit by most, but there are now 'states' changing the
definition to include the gasohol definition also...
>
> sheeze.....
>
>
The really interesting thing is that "we" keep electing those guys...

David Lesher

June 5th 07, 03:52 AM

"Morgans" > writes:

>How sure are we that the gasohol in service station tanks contain no water?

I can assure you they will. When a pipeline delivers a tender [batch]
of gasoline into storage tankage; they let it sit for a while, then
drain the bottom of the tank ("water-draw") until they get gas...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Barnyard BOb

June 5th 07, 04:16 AM

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

>I never drain the tanks on my lawn morwer, snow blower, yard tractor,
>or push lawn mower. I've never seen car gas break down even after
>several years.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

For decades, old leftover mogas ALWAYS worked fine for me too.
Then came a Spring season when my lawn mower refused to start.
The cause was... old flat gas. It even smelled weird/stale.
Didn't hardly wanna' burn with a match.

After draining/replacing the old gas with fresh, all was well.

-Barnyard BOb-

Jay Honeck

June 5th 07, 04:25 AM

> > Not looking for water, we're looking for alcohol...
>
> Actually many of us are curious about each, and some of use would be
> interested to know both.

That is the supposed beauty of Alka Seltzer, is that it fizzes on both
water *and* alcohol...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Don Tuite

June 5th 07, 05:30 AM

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:15:55 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Aqua (as in "water") Aquatec test strips check for WATER, not alcohol.
>Google Alcohol Test Strip and you get a million hits on how to test for
>booze on the breath, but not a word about gasahol. Google Gasahol Test
>Strip and you come up with nothing usable.
>
Um . . . yeah. I missed the part where the thread morphed from
"sticking" the tanks at the gas station.

Don

Montblack

June 5th 07, 06:44 AM

("Roger (K8RI)" wrote)
> What I have seen is the stuff evaporate in the carburetors and leave a
> shelac. However I always turn off the gas and run the carbs dry. The
> next season I turn the gase on, wait a few minutes, prime and pull.
> They usually start on the first pull.

I would run Dad's snowblower a couple-three-four times per summer.

1. Mother's Day. Run the snowblower out in driveway. Yes, rev it up some.

2. Put in about a 1/2 quart of fresh gas. (It was run dry the last time)

3. Repeat around The 4th, again in September/October, and again before
Thanksgiving.

4. Do something else while the snowblower was running. Front "step" with a
beer often got the vote.

5. I tried all the other stuff. I liked this method best ...for the
snowblower.
(I think the idea of running the snowblower, in shorts and a t-shirt, was
the real appeal to this method)

Montblack
The boat - I did the fogging oil routine, emptied the carbs and filters,
blew out the lines, sloshed the 6 gallon tanks with straight oil, etc.

Montblack

June 5th 07, 07:56 AM

("David Lesher" wrote)
> I can assure you they will. When a pipeline delivers a tender [batch] of
> gasoline into storage tankage; they let it sit for a while, then drain the
> bottom of the tank ("water-draw") until they get gas...

At the Brewery (in the 80's) during beer changes, there were these sight
glasses in the lines - at the valves. We'd flush out the line with water,
watch the sight glass ...when we saw bubbles or a definite color change,
we'd wait a few seconds then throw the valve. The water in the line was
pumped out onto the floor, and/or "dumped" with a few spins of the bowl
(a.k.a. the filler).

Montblack

mike regish

June 5th 07, 11:01 AM

I ran out of gas twice with my latest vehicle. I had it before the gasohol
change and I knew where it ran out because I intentionally ran it out while
I was carrying gas for the plane. Since gasohol, I've run out twice well
above the empty mark set before.

Had to shake the car some to get it going when I put gas in, too.

mike

"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> With gasohol, the gas stations no longer have to bother draining out the
> accumulated water from their tanks. The small amount of water that
> condenses out in the tanks simply dissolves into the next load of
> gasohol that gets poured into the tank and you pump a little bit of it
> into your car every time you fill up. Of course, if you get too much
> water in the gas, it settles out to the bottom of the tank and takes all
> the alcohol with it. You end up with a mixture at the bottom that won't
> burn worth a damn and the rest of the gasoline with a much reduced
> octane rating.

Orval Fairbairn

June 5th 07, 02:24 PM

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Cubdriver" > wrote
>
> > Well, the alky presumably was shipped in full tanks / barrels /
> > whatever, so we can hope it's undiluted.
>
> But, it is _very_ difficult (it takes some expensive chemistry tricks) to
> get all of the water distilled out of alcohol, in other words, stronger than
> around 98% alcohol. Is that all the alky producers go for, or do they use
> the expensive tricks to get the last two percentage points of water out of
> the alky?

I doubt that they would go for the expensive tricks, since the alcohol
will absorb moisture out of the air and from the bottom of the fuel
tanks as soon as it contacts either. There is no point in trying for
higher purity.

Steve Foley

June 5th 07, 02:58 PM

Call up Sportys and tell them you need an MSDS for it.

"Tri-Pacer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sportys used to sell a test kit that contained a chemical that would turn
> purple if added to a fuel sample that was gasahol.
>
> I have no idea of what the chemical was. It was a very easy to test the
> fuel. They claim that their supplier no longer exists. I bought a bunch of
> the kits and have about 1/2 a vial of the chemical left.
>
> I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.
>
> Cheers:
>
> Paul
> N1431A
>

Cubdriver

June 5th 07, 06:22 PM

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:37:37 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>But, it is _very_ difficult (it takes some expensive chemistry tricks) to
>get all of the water distilled out of alcohol, in other words, stronger than
>around 98% alcohol.

I think that's correct. When I was a student in England years ago, we
used to buy a liquor known as Polish White Spirits, which was 180
proof or 90 percent. The local wisdom (university students) held that
anything stronger would promptly dilute itself back to 180 proof from
water in the air (this was England, remember, very humid).

Google tells me that one can buy 190 proof (95 percent) "Everclear"
grain alcochol in British stores today.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

(Proof = the concentration of alcohol at which gunpowder soaked with
it will still explode, or rather flash up. It was therefore called
"proof", which later became 100 proof. It just happened to be 50
percent alcohol, so 200 proof is 100 percent.

(More student wisdom.)

(Wiki tells me that 100 proof is actually 49.28 percent alcohol BY
WEIGHT. By volume, it's less, so the student wisdom is a bit shaky.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Cubdriver

June 5th 07, 06:26 PM

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:43:05 -0700, Denny > wrote:

>denny - who is old enough to see the wool over his eyes\\

Denny, you won't see much with the wool over your eyes. For example,
you evidently don't see the difference between gasoline (in economic
terms, a commodity) and whiskey (a franchise).

Do you drink much gasoline in the course of a week?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

Tri-Pacer

June 5th 07, 08:13 PM

The reagent is a light purple color and when it is introduced into a sample
of fuel with alcohol it turns the sample purple. A chart is included to
determine the percentage of alcohol. The kits were put together by a "B.B.
Travis Co." PO Box 287 Lodi CA 95241 and are supposedly Patent Pending.

I haven't found any sign of a BB Travis Company but my searching skills
aren't the best.

I have a small amount of the reagent left and would provide it as a sample
to someone who could analyze it.

Paul Anton
N1431A
KPLU

"> What is the color of the unreacted reagent? Water clear? I'll as the
chair
> of the chem department what it is and maybe buy a gallon or two and sell
> it by the vial for only a thousand percent markup {;-)
>
> I'm in training to run a pharmaceutical company
>
> Jim
>

Darrel Toepfer

June 5th 07, 08:57 PM

"Tri-Pacer" > wrote:

> The reagent is a light purple color and when it is introduced into a
> sample of fuel with alcohol it turns the sample purple. A chart is
> included to determine the percentage of alcohol. The kits were put
> together by a "B.B. Travis Co." PO Box 287 Lodi CA 95241 and are
> supposedly Patent Pending.
>
> I haven't found any sign of a BB Travis Company but my searching
> skills aren't the best.

I called the Lodi Post Office, they handle that zip as well, but can't
give any alternate contact info over the phone...

Post Office - Lodi
(209) 369-2351
120 S School ST
Lodi, CA 95240

Looking through the people and not businesses, I find:

B Travis
(209) 366-1559
Lodi, CA 95240

I left a message on the machine...

Dan Youngquist

June 5th 07, 09:08 PM

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Morgans wrote:

> I have seen pictures of fuel line swollen to the size of sausages, and
> who knows what the other rubber parts (O-rings, fuel bladders, if you
> have them) would look like, and how much alcohol it would take to get it
> to swell.

I'm no expert on the matter, but it's my understanding that that sort of
damage is done by methanol, as used in the early gasohol, but not by the
ethanol that's used in more recent times. Is that incorrect?

-Dan

[email protected]

June 5th 07, 10:30 PM

On Jun 5, 3:13 pm, "Tri-Pacer" > wrote:
> The reagent is a light purple color and when it is introduced into a sample
> of fuel with alcohol it turns the sample purple. A chart is included to
> determine the percentage of alcohol. The kits were put together by
> a "B.B.TravisCo." PO Box 287 Lodi CA 95241 and are supposedly Patent Pending.
>
> I haven't found any sign of a BBTravis Company but my searching skills
> aren't the best.
>
> I sure would like to know what the reagent is that was used.

The reagent appears to be methylrosaniline chloride.

See U.S. Pat. 5,229,295 issued to Basil B. Travis of Lodi, CA.

A colorimetric test for alcohols (any alcohol) comprises
0.1% gentian violet dye in mineral oil suspension which
when shaken with fuel causes the fuel to become purple
when there is at least 1% alcohol present. The purple color
is proportional to the alcohol concentration in the range 1%
to 5% where the percentage of alcohol may be estimated
by the intensity of the purple color.
<snip>
As it is perhaps well known, gentian violet dye is chemically
methylrosaniline chloride and has been used as both a
bacteriological and histological stain ...

mike regish

June 5th 07, 10:50 PM

I've heard that too, but it doesn't really matter since either invalidate
the STC and nobody is pursuing a STC to distinguish between them.

'Tis a true bummer.

mike

"Dan Youngquist" > wrote in message
hell.org...
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Morgans wrote:
>
>> I have seen pictures of fuel line swollen to the size of sausages, and
>> who knows what the other rubber parts (O-rings, fuel bladders, if you
>> have them) would look like, and how much alcohol it would take to get it
>> to swell.
>
> I'm no expert on the matter, but it's my understanding that that sort of
> damage is done by methanol, as used in the early gasohol, but not by the
> ethanol that's used in more recent times. Is that incorrect?
>
> -Dan

Morgans[_2_]

June 5th 07, 11:08 PM

"Dan Youngquist" <> wrote in message

> I'm no expert on the matter, but it's my understanding that that sort of
> damage is done by methanol, as used in the early gasohol, but not by the
> ethanol that's used in more recent times. Is that incorrect?

I don't know about that.

I did think I understood that the problem with gasohol for airplanes was
incompatibility with some rubber parts of the fuel system.
--
Jim in NC

Tri-Pacer

June 5th 07, 11:17 PM

<> The reagent appears to be methylrosaniline chloride.
>
> See U.S. Pat. 5,229,295 issued to Basil B. Travis of Lodi, CA.
>
> A colorimetric test for alcohols (any alcohol) comprises
> 0.1% gentian violet dye in mineral oil suspension which
> when shaken with fuel causes the fuel to become purple
> when there is at least 1% alcohol present. The purple color
> is proportional to the alcohol concentration in the range 1%
> to 5% where the percentage of alcohol may be estimated
> by the intensity of the purple color.
> <snip>
> As it is perhaps well known, gentian violet dye is chemically
> methylrosaniline chloride and has been used as both a
> bacteriological and histological stain ...
>

Wow we're getting somewhere.

I wonder why he quit packaging it and selling the stuff.

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

mike regish

June 5th 07, 11:24 PM

Probably because the water test with a graduated tube was a lot easier,
cheaper and probably more accurate.

When we first got the ethanol here, I was filling my plane from cans that I
had for awhile before I noticed the ethanol sticker. (I always looked, too)
I dumped 5 gallons into a partial tank before I checked just to make sure.
It came up exactly 10%, which is what the pump label says (no more than
10%). I shook up the plane to mix the gas and took a sample. That came up as
3%. I siphoned it all into my car. Fortunately, I hadn't started the plane
with it.

mike

"Tri-Pacer" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> <> The reagent appears to be methylrosaniline chloride.
>>
>> See U.S. Pat. 5,229,295 issued to Basil B. Travis of Lodi, CA.
>>
>> A colorimetric test for alcohols (any alcohol) comprises
>> 0.1% gentian violet dye in mineral oil suspension which
>> when shaken with fuel causes the fuel to become purple
>> when there is at least 1% alcohol present. The purple color
>> is proportional to the alcohol concentration in the range 1%
>> to 5% where the percentage of alcohol may be estimated
>> by the intensity of the purple color.
>> <snip>
>> As it is perhaps well known, gentian violet dye is chemically
>> methylrosaniline chloride and has been used as both a
>> bacteriological and histological stain ...
>>
>
> Wow we're getting somewhere.
>
> I wonder why he quit packaging it and selling the stuff.
>
> Paul
> N1431A
> KPLU
>

Tri-Pacer

June 5th 07, 11:53 PM

> Probably because the water test with a graduated tube was a lot easier,
> cheaper and probably more accurate.
>

>> I wonder why he quit packaging it and selling the stuff.
>>

Actually the test kit was very fast and easy. I was able to test a sample
before I filled my 5 gallon cans. when I tested the kit against known
gasohol it did indeed show positive with the color matching what a 10%
mixture would show.

Paul N1431A
KPLU

SS2MO

June 6th 07, 02:24 AM

On May 30, 7:13 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> Is it true that there is no longer any requirement to label gasoline contaminated with alcohol?
>
> Good article here:http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/Gasoline.html
>
> I just did the add water to gas test on a couple of local gas sources and all contain alcohol, and none of the pumps
> said anything about it. The feds just dropped the requirement to label the pumps and we all missed it?
>
> Jay, where do you fill the grape from and how do you know there is no evil alcohol in it?

When MTBE was outlawed, the only financially feasable alternative was
alcohol. It is mantdated to be used in about 20 states, mostly on the
two coasts, but several other states have 5-10% alcohol mandates -
Missouri is the latest - their mandate begins Jan 08. Becides entire
states most of the nations major cities have mandates that require
alcohol to be added to increase the oxygen content of the gasoline to
reduce emmissions. Retail pump labeling is not a federal requirement,
it varies state by state. Some states require that retail pumps be
labled if the gasoline contains alcohol, other states do not have such
a requirement.

Even if you do not live in a state that requires the addition of
alcohol to auto gas, that is no guarantee that your gasoline does not
contain alcohol. Currently retailers can make an extra 5-7 cents per
gallon by adding 10% aclohol to their auto gas.

I recently did a presentation on alcohol in auto gas for an aviation
group. I took several samples of 87 octane auto gas and added 10 %
alcohol to some samples and to some of these mixture samples I added
20% water. You could not see the water in the sample. Alcohol
absorbs water - this is the danger of using it in aircrft. I then
lowered the temperature on the samples and the water froze and settled
out. This would have been a sure way to plug and line or injector.

"Pure" auto gas will generally be available at FBO's - then can order
it delivered without alcohol, but I would not use any auto fuel that I
bought at a retail outlet (Convenience Store) and hauled to the
airport with out doing an alcohol test.

SS2MO

June 6th 07, 02:35 AM

On Jun 5, 12:22 pm, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:37:37 -0400, "Morgans"
>
> > wrote:
> >But, it is _very_ difficult (it takes some expensive chemistry tricks) to
> >get all of the water distilled out of alcohol, in other words, stronger than
> >around 98% alcohol.
>
> I think that's correct. When I was a student in England years ago, we
> used to buy a liquor known as Polish White Spirits, which was 180
> proof or 90 percent. The local wisdom (university students) held that
> anything stronger would promptly dilute itself back to 180 proof from
> water in the air (this was England, remember, very humid).
>
> Google tells me that one can buy 190 proof (95 percent) "Everclear"
> grain alcochol in British stores today.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> (Proof = the concentration of alcohol at which gunpowder soaked with
> it will still explode, or rather flash up. It was therefore called
> "proof", which later became 100 proof. It just happened to be 50
> percent alcohol, so 200 proof is 100 percent.
>
> (More student wisdom.)
>
> (Wiki tells me that 100 proof is actually 49.28 percent alcohol BY
> WEIGHT. By volume, it's less, so the student wisdom is a bit shaky.)
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> forthcoming from HarperCollinswww.flyingtigersbook.com

The only real difference between the 190 proof Everclear you refer to
and the alcohol that is added to auto gas is that the alcohol to be
added to auto fuel is "denatured". All this means is that it has been
poisioned so that it is unfit for human consumption. This is usually
done with natural gasoline and the regulations allow them to vary the
amount they add to 3-5%.

Dave Butler

June 6th 07, 02:27 PM

> As it is perhaps well known, gentian violet dye is chemically
> methylrosaniline chloride and has been used as both a
> bacteriological and histological stain ...

http://dermatology.about.com/library/bldefgentviolet.htm

Definition: Gentian Violet is a purple dye that is used to treat
vaginal yeast infections and thrush. The dye is "painted" on the
infection and kills the fungus. It can stain clothing.

David Lesher

June 6th 07, 03:51 PM

Want to emphesize that ALL gasoline has some water in it. It leaves
the refinery with some non-zero amount. It's stored in floating roof
tanks [1] that will let some in. It's in a truck in the rain... it's
there.

The question is getting rid of same.

We all know how -- let it sit quietly and it shall settle out. Then
open the bottom drain and watch. That might be under your wing, or
on a tank or inbetween...

[1] Gas does not go kabboom; gas vapor does. So it's stored not in
tanks as much as 4 million gallon cylinders with closed bottoms.

On top of the gas there's a big heavy floating roof that has a gasket
all the way around the edge. It floats directly atop the gas; ergo
no vapor space.

Then there's a sliding ladder deal so the pipeline operator can
climb up over the cylinder lip and back down onto the roof.

BUT, with the tank half full; there's a 2 million gallon trap atop
the roof to collect rainwater and snow; some of which leaks past
that gasket. Most is SUPPOSED to go through an articulated downspout
gadget INSIDE the tank and out the side at the bottom; but that's
only when the temperature is well above freezing...and they leak
a little too...

This was obvious to many pilots & few ground-dwellers, but now many
of the tanks also have a cap on top to keep some of the rain and
snow out. I was looking for a GoogleMap photo and all the ones I
worked on are now capped.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

David Lesher

June 6th 07, 03:57 PM

Given the issue with alcohol, and the fact it is injected at the
last stage - truck loading -- why aren't the STA owners such as EAA
running campaigns to set up procedures for FBO's to procure untainted
autogas?

I can see the average truck loading terminal saying "we can't do that"
until they get a memo saying that they can...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Gig 601XL Builder

June 6th 07, 04:03 PM

David Lesher wrote:

>
> This was obvious to many pilots & few ground-dwellers, but now many
> of the tanks also have a cap on top to keep some of the rain and
> snow out. I was looking for a GoogleMap photo and all the ones I
> worked on are now capped.

Here's some uncaped ones.

http://tinyurl.com/ypupkd

David Lesher

June 6th 07, 04:17 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> writes:

>David Lesher wrote:

>>
>> This was obvious to many pilots & few ground-dwellers, but now many
>> of the tanks also have a cap on top to keep some of the rain and
>> snow out. I was looking for a GoogleMap photo and all the ones I
>> worked on are now capped.

>Here's some uncaped ones.

>http://tinyurl.com/ypupkd

and one photo I just found:

https://www.piersystem.com/posted/425/DSC_0017.125127.JPG

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Dan Youngquist

June 6th 07, 07:26 PM

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Morgans wrote:

> I did think I understood that the problem with gasohol for airplanes was
> incompatibility with some rubber parts of the fuel system.

That's what I've always heard too, but I've never been able to get anyone
to back it up with info about SPECIFIC parts that are in danger. In
particular, I'd really like to know what SPECIFIC parts I have to change
in my IO-360-A1A's fuel system so I don't have to worry about alcohol.
(It's in an experimental, so legality isn't an issue.) At the same time,
I see all manner of decades-old cars & trucks running for many years on
gas that's part alcohol, with all original fuel system parts, with no ill
effects whatsoever. So I'm pretty close to writing off the whole ethanol
fuel system damage thing as an old wives' tale, but not yet willing to bet
the farm on it.

-Dan

Morgans[_2_]

June 6th 07, 09:41 PM

"Dan Youngquist" <> wrote

> That's what I've always heard too, but I've never been able to get anyone
> to back it up with info about SPECIFIC parts that are in danger. In
> particular, I'd really like to know what SPECIFIC parts I have to change
> in my IO-360-A1A's fuel system so I don't have to worry about alcohol.
> (It's in an experimental, so legality isn't an issue.)

Well, let's think about it.

I'm not an A&P, and have never torn an airplane carb or injector or fuel
pump, or ..... apart. Nevertheless, we can take some very educated guess,
and hopefully, some others with specific knowledge can jump in with some
specifics of the systems.

Let's look at the fuel system, from tank, all of the way until it goes
"bang." (the gas in the fuel system, that is!)

Fuel tank. Not a bladder, in an experimental, I would guess. Is it sloshed
sealed? Some sloshes will definitely NOT hold up to alcohol. Some will.
Is it sealed with other seam sealers? Again, some will hold up to alcohol,
and some will not. What did you use, if you did use them?

How about the seals or O-rings from the tank to fuel line fitting? What did
you use there? My suggestion for this, and most all of the other
replaceable parts, is to get an exact replacement and soak it in some E- 85.
If that does not cause the part to do strange things, 10% gasohol should not
cause a problem.

Fuel line, and flexible transitions, if used? Again, test what you used, or
find the manufacturer's recommendations, based on tests.

Fuel Valve. Lots of O-rings, there. Will they test alright?

Oh, back up. Fuel level indication sender, or sight glass and connections.
Test them.

Fuel pump, both electric auxiliary, and engine driven fuel pump. Use
manufacturer's recommendations, as there are so many variables, possibly
more in an electric. The engine driven pump recommendations will probably
not allow gasohol, but you, or someone who knows how could tear one down,
and soak test all of the non metal parts.

Gasolater and other filters. Test, to verify they will hold up.

Injector controls, spiders, and O-rings in all of these should be verified.
All of the non metal parts if it is a carburetor, for some people.

Then the injectors themselves will need a manufacturer's recommendation, or
a test.

Does that cover it all? What did I miss?

How about everyone, and you, Dan? Do you think this kind of step by step
investigation would uncover all of the weak parts, and prove them OK, or
vulerenable?

Is it all worth it? That would be a question you would have to answer.

Perhaps another valid approach would be to contact groups that have flown
gasohol, or pure ethanol airplanes. The EAA has done it; are there other
groups that have? Would they be willing to share what they have learned?

I await everyone's opinions. I agree with the premise that I think Dan has;
that it should be possible, and practical to develop a gasohol safe
airplane. "Some will no doubt shout, you will crash and burn!"

This could be an interesting discussion.
--
Jim in NC

Peter Dohm

June 6th 07, 10:04 PM

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Given the issue with alcohol, and the fact it is injected at the
> last stage - truck loading -- why aren't the STA owners such as EAA
> running campaigns to set up procedures for FBO's to procure untainted
> autogas?
>
> I can see the average truck loading terminal saying "we can't do that"
> until they get a memo saying that they can...
>
>
>
> --
> A host is a host from coast to
> & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

I really doubt that the terminal operators are so ignorant as to make that a
problem.

OTOH, there are some real problems for the FBO to overcome. One FBO owner,
who I know, stopped selling gasolene several years ago--saying that he
sometimes suspected that he lost more to evaporation than he pumped. That
was certainly an exageration, but the point was well made that the sales did
not justify the overhead--so now he only pumps Jet A, and gasolen powered
aircraft must taxi elsewhere on the field for their fuel. For many, if not
most, E-zero mogas would be an additional grade of fuel in a low volume
market--and one which would require additional infrastructure, and also
licensing, maintenance, and inspection of same.

Obviously, many also operate rental aircraft which they would prefer to run
on the most appropriate fuel. However, untill we are willing to guarantee
them a reasonable volume of sales, I don't see how they can do it. (They to
never bet on another man's game, but I will hazard a guess that an FBO needs
to use a full devivery every other month to keep the product available--and
at least twice that much to offer it at a competitive price. Any
requirement for above ground storage may also increase the required volume.)

Just my $0.02
Peter

[email protected]

June 6th 07, 10:05 PM

In rec.aviation.owning Morgans > wrote:

<snip>

> I await everyone's opinions. I agree with the premise that I think Dan has;
> that it should be possible, and practical to develop a gasohol safe
> airplane. "Some will no doubt shout, you will crash and burn!"

> This could be an interesting discussion.

Since Embraer has an alcohol fueled aircraft in production, it is
obviously possible.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/embraer/ipanema1000th.htm

The question then becomes what would it take to retrofit an existing
aircraft?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Blueskies

June 6th 07, 11:41 PM

"Dan Youngquist" > wrote in message
hell.org...
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Morgans wrote:
>
>> I did think I understood that the problem with gasohol for airplanes was incompatibility with some rubber parts of
>> the fuel system.
>
> That's what I've always heard too, but I've never been able to get anyone to back it up with info about SPECIFIC parts
> that are in danger. In particular, I'd really like to know what SPECIFIC parts I have to change in my IO-360-A1A's
> fuel system so I don't have to worry about alcohol. (It's in an experimental, so legality isn't an issue.) At the
> same time, I see all manner of decades-old cars & trucks running for many years on gas that's part alcohol, with all
> original fuel system parts, with no ill effects whatsoever. So I'm pretty close to writing off the whole ethanol fuel
> system damage thing as an old wives' tale, but not yet willing to bet the farm on it.
>
> -Dan

Fuel tank sealer (aka Proseal), fuel hoses, tank floats, carb floats, etc.

Blueskies

June 6th 07, 11:44 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> > Not looking for water, we're looking for alcohol...
>>
>> Actually many of us are curious about each, and some of use would be
>> interested to know both.
>
> That is the supposed beauty of Alka Seltzer, is that it fizzes on both
> water *and* alcohol...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Your alka seltzer fizzes in water. It all by itself does not detect alcohol...

Montblack

June 6th 07, 11:45 PM

"Blueskies"
> Fuel tank sealer (aka Proseal), fuel hoses, tank floats, carb floats, etc.

Miscellaneous gaskets

Montblack

Dave[_5_]

June 7th 07, 03:45 AM

> Well, we've been down this road before, back when the Alky test first
> came on the scene. Some chemist here ended up concluding that the
> test was valid, but I'm always open to hearing other thoughts on the
> matter.
>
> If the danged test DIDN'T work, that could ruin my whole day...

Just to satisfy my curiosity, I did the Alka Seltzer test on a sample
of Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) - the stuff I put in my lawn mowers.
No fizz. I buy it at
the pumps of a local supermarket chain in North Carolina. Dunno where
the State stands on Gasohol, but I don't see any Alcohol Notification
Stickers there (the pumps at some other local gas stations have
stickers stating that the gas MAY contain alcohol)

David Johnson

Morgans[_2_]

June 7th 07, 04:29 AM

"Dave" <> wrote

> Just to satisfy my curiosity, I did the Alka Seltzer test on a sample
> of Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) - the stuff I put in my lawn mowers.
> No fizz. I buy it at
> the pumps of a local supermarket chain in North Carolina. Dunno where
> the State stands on Gasohol, but I don't see any Alcohol Notification
> Stickers there (the pumps at some other local gas stations have
> stickers stating that the gas MAY contain alcohol)

Do you live in a county that has required emissions control testing for
cars? They have the red and white stripe inspection stickers.

I ask, because it is in these counties that are required to add an
oxygenator to the gas in the summer months. That is most likely alcohol.

I don't know when the addition to the fuel begins or ends. I would have to
say right about.......NOW ! ! !

When did you purchase said tested gas?
--
Jim in NC

David Lesher

June 7th 07, 04:50 AM

"Peter Dohm" > writes:

>> Given the issue with alcohol, and the fact it is injected at the
>> last stage - truck loading -- why aren't the STA owners such as EAA
>> running campaigns to set up procedures for FBO's to procure untainted
>> autogas?

>I really doubt that the terminal operators are so ignorant as to make that a
>problem.

Ha!

>OTOH, there are some real problems for the FBO to overcome. One FBO owner,
>who I know, stopped selling gasolene several years ago--saying that he
>sometimes suspected that he lost more to evaporation than he pumped.

That's a "selling autogas" problem;
vice "finding un-Ethenol'ed autogas to sell" one.

Agreed the first may be an issue..

BUT if you have a gaggle of STA'ed aircraft owners based there and
you but not evry EatHerAndGetGas sells what they want and need....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Denny

June 7th 07, 01:30 PM

>
> Your alka seltzer fizzes in water. It all by itself does not detect alcohol...

And now for the rest of the story....

Step 1....
Got a clean urine sample cup - meaning unused...
Using a sterile syringe I added 1.5cc of denatured alcohol (S-L-X
brand) from a previously opened can, which will have an unknown % of
absorbed water vapor, to the sample cup...
Dropped in a small chunk of Alka Seltzer Original...
Faint fizzing noted - you will have to be gimlet eyed to see it - but
it does fizz... So, we can assume that "pure" alcohol ( a weak
organic acid that always contains absorbed water) will 'fizz' Alka-
Seltzer (contains bicarb of soda) if a bit faintly...

Step 2....
Added 0.4 cc of warm <weak> tea ( it was handy) in 0.1cc increments...
Fizzing rate essentially doubled, or a bit more, by the time I reached
the 0.4 cc value... Easy to see... This is 26% imbibed water in the
alcohol... Dunno what effect the pH of the tea had - I assume <that
word> that it might enhance the fizzing from the bicarb...

**** the intellectual reason for the tea <besides it being in my hand>
is that water condensed on a metallic surface will be weakly
acidic****

Step 3...
Dumped the liquid from the cup and added a dash of tap water...
Fizzing about tripled the rate from Step 2...

Alka-Seltzer does not fizz explosively, like Arm&Hammer bicarbonate of
soda would because it is buffered with citric acid... <you will need
to google on buffering and rate of reactions to understand some of
that>

Unfortunately, for scientific rigor, I do not have any <so called>
gasoline handy to test with... I have one minute to start seeing
patients and I suspect they will not be impressed of I reek of the
nasty crap they sell for gas these days...

denny

Denny

June 7th 07, 03:16 PM

On Jun 4, 1:33 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> The denizens of this ng have known and discussed this for some time now,
> sir. WHere have you been?
>
> Jim
>

Did I beat you up or something when we were kids?

denny

Blueskies

June 7th 07, 10:07 PM

"Denny" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>>
>> Your alka seltzer fizzes in water. It all by itself does not detect alcohol...
>
> And now for the rest of the story....
>
> Step 1....
> Got a clean urine sample cup - meaning unused...
> Using a sterile syringe I added 1.5cc of denatured alcohol (S-L-X
> brand) from a previously opened can, which will have an unknown % of
> absorbed water vapor, to the sample cup...
> Dropped in a small chunk of Alka Seltzer Original...
> Faint fizzing noted - you will have to be gimlet eyed to see it - but
> it does fizz... So, we can assume that "pure" alcohol ( a weak
> organic acid that always contains absorbed water) will 'fizz' Alka-
> Seltzer (contains bicarb of soda) if a bit faintly...
>
> Step 2....
> Added 0.4 cc of warm <weak> tea ( it was handy) in 0.1cc increments...
> Fizzing rate essentially doubled, or a bit more, by the time I reached
> the 0.4 cc value... Easy to see... This is 26% imbibed water in the
> alcohol... Dunno what effect the pH of the tea had - I assume <that
> word> that it might enhance the fizzing from the bicarb...
>
> **** the intellectual reason for the tea <besides it being in my hand>
> is that water condensed on a metallic surface will be weakly
> acidic****
>
> Step 3...
> Dumped the liquid from the cup and added a dash of tap water...
> Fizzing about tripled the rate from Step 2...
>
>
> Alka-Seltzer does not fizz explosively, like Arm&Hammer bicarbonate of
> soda would because it is buffered with citric acid... <you will need
> to google on buffering and rate of reactions to understand some of
> that>
>
> Unfortunately, for scientific rigor, I do not have any <so called>
> gasoline handy to test with... I have one minute to start seeing
> patients and I suspect they will not be impressed of I reek of the
> nasty crap they sell for gas these days...
>
> denny
>

Thanks Denny, good post, esp. the "<so called> gasoline" comment...

Blueskies

June 7th 07, 10:09 PM

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> Well, we've been down this road before, back when the Alky test first
>> came on the scene. Some chemist here ended up concluding that the
>> test was valid, but I'm always open to hearing other thoughts on the
>> matter.
>>
>> If the danged test DIDN'T work, that could ruin my whole day...
>
> Just to satisfy my curiosity, I did the Alka Seltzer test on a sample
> of Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) - the stuff I put in my lawn mowers.
> No fizz. I buy it at
> the pumps of a local supermarket chain in North Carolina. Dunno where
> the State stands on Gasohol, but I don't see any Alcohol Notification
> Stickers there (the pumps at some other local gas stations have
> stickers stating that the gas MAY contain alcohol)
>
> David Johnson
>

There is no requirement for any gas station nationwide to put any notification on their pumps. Only some very few states
have tried to add the notification.

Try the 'water to the line' test when you have a chance...

M[_1_]

June 8th 07, 12:20 AM

On Jun 3, 7:31 pm, SS2MO > wrote:

> Currently retailers can save money by adding alcohol to the gasoline
> because the alcohol is less expensive than gasoline, so they can blen
> it in and sell it to you as auto gasoline - you may not know it.

I don't believe it's true anymore. At some point last year or so
wholesale price of ethonal started to exceed the wholesale price of 87
octane gasoline.

Dave[_5_]

June 8th 07, 02:34 AM

On Jun 6, 11:29 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Dave" <> wrote
>
> > Just to satisfy my curiosity, I did the Alka Seltzer test on a sample
> > of Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) - the stuff I put in my lawn mowers.
> > No fizz. I buy it at
> > the pumps of a local supermarket chain in North Carolina. Dunno where
> > the State stands on Gasohol, but I don't see any Alcohol Notification
> > Stickers there (the pumps at some other local gas stations have
> > stickers stating that the gas MAY contain alcohol)
>
> Do you live in a county that has required emissions control testing for
> cars? They have the red and white stripe inspection stickers.
>
> I ask, because it is in these counties that are required to add an
> oxygenator to the gas in the summer months. That is most likely alcohol.
>
> I don't know when the addition to the fuel begins or ends. I would have to
> say right about.......NOW ! ! !
>
> When did you purchase said tested gas?
> --
> Jim in NC

I am in Buncombe County, and yes - emissions testing is required for
some cars.
The gas is probably a couple months old. I have several 5 gallon cans
that I keep
full for use in my emergency generator - but rotate them as I use the
gas in my
lawnmowers, weedwacker & motorcycle. BTW - in my experience Unleaded
keeps much better than the old Leaded gas used to.

David Johnson

Blueskies

June 9th 07, 12:46 PM

"David Lesher" > wrote in message ...
> "Peter Dohm" > writes:
>
>
>>> Given the issue with alcohol, and the fact it is injected at the
>>> last stage - truck loading -- why aren't the STA owners such as EAA
>>> running campaigns to set up procedures for FBO's to procure untainted
>>> autogas?
>
>>I really doubt that the terminal operators are so ignorant as to make that a
>>problem.
>
> Ha!
>
>
>>OTOH, there are some real problems for the FBO to overcome. One FBO owner,
>>who I know, stopped selling gasolene several years ago--saying that he
>>sometimes suspected that he lost more to evaporation than he pumped.
>
>
> That's a "selling autogas" problem;
> vice "finding un-Ethenol'ed autogas to sell" one.
>
> Agreed the first may be an issue..
>
> BUT if you have a gaggle of STA'ed aircraft owners based there and
> you but not evry EatHerAndGetGas sells what they want and need....
>

If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and kept there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in these old low compression engines.

Bob Noel

June 9th 07, 12:58 PM

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and kept
> there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
> the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in these
> old low compression engines.

I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that were prune
to lead fouling.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

David Lesher

June 9th 07, 02:18 PM

Bob Noel > writes:

>> If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and kept
>> there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
>> the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in these
>> old low compression engines.

>I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that were prune
>to lead fouling.

I thought that autogas was popular for several reasons:

a) lead
b) price
.....

Gas bought by a FBO or club should be free of highway taxes but
I suspect will instead incur aviation fuel taxes...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

RST Engineering

June 9th 07, 04:02 PM

And if you thought lead was bad, those prunes REALLY gum up the works.

{;-)

Jim

--
"Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, and
dance like no one is watching."
--Satchel Paige

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...

>
> I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that were
> prune
> to lead fouling.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>

Denny

June 9th 07, 04:49 PM

>
> I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that were prune
> to lead fouling.

Yeah, we are into the summer time haul the grandkids routine where I
burn oodles of avcrap because I am fueling faster than I can haul it
and I am fueling at strange airports <and some are really strange>...
Fat Albert's engines are already grumping at me about it...

denny

Bob Noel

June 9th 07, 04:59 PM

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> And if you thought lead was bad, those prunes REALLY gum up the works.

aw ... nuts. :-(

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 9th 07, 10:10 PM

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:46:29 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"David Lesher" > wrote in message ...
>> "Peter Dohm" > writes:
>>
>>
>>>> Given the issue with alcohol, and the fact it is injected at the
>>>> last stage - truck loading -- why aren't the STA owners such as EAA
>>>> running campaigns to set up procedures for FBO's to procure untainted
>>>> autogas?
>>
>>>I really doubt that the terminal operators are so ignorant as to make that a
>>>problem.
>>
>> Ha!
>>
>>
>>>OTOH, there are some real problems for the FBO to overcome. One FBO owner,
>>>who I know, stopped selling gasolene several years ago--saying that he
>>>sometimes suspected that he lost more to evaporation than he pumped.
>>
>>
>> That's a "selling autogas" problem;
>> vice "finding un-Ethenol'ed autogas to sell" one.
>>
>> Agreed the first may be an issue..
>>
>> BUT if you have a gaggle of STA'ed aircraft owners based there and
>> you but not evry EatHerAndGetGas sells what they want and need....
>>
>
>
>
>If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and kept there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
>the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in these old low compression engines.
>
>
No, the point was to be able to use gasoline with less lead than the
currently available 100LL AvGas whick gives many older engines
"morning sickness" due to lead deposits making valves sluggish.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 10th 07, 01:29 AM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and kept
>> there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
>> the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in
>> these
>> old low compression engines.
>
> I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that were
> prune
> to lead fouling.

Wouldn't prunes give them gas?

Ernest Christley

June 10th 07, 04:26 AM

RST Engineering wrote:
> And if you thought lead was bad, those prunes REALLY gum up the works.
>
> {;-)
>
> Jim
>

Nope. He was talking about an old engine. It needs the prunes to keep
the works from gumming up. I think most of the guys here know that. 8*)

Morgans[_2_]

June 10th 07, 06:04 AM

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> Nope. He was talking about an old engine. It needs the prunes to keep
> the works from gumming up. I think most of the guys here know that. 8*)

I wonder if prunes work on old engines, like they work on me?

It would give the engine exhaust a certain.....
Aroma! <ggg>
--
Jim in NC

Blueskies

June 10th 07, 12:08 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
>> Nope. He was talking about an old engine. It needs the prunes to keep the works from gumming up. I think most of
>> the guys here know that. 8*)
>
> I wonder if prunes work on old engines, like they work on me?
>
> It would give the engine exhaust a certain.....
> Aroma! <ggg>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Free up the lifters?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 10th 07, 04:13 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ernest Christley" > wrote
>>
>>> Nope. He was talking about an old engine. It needs the prunes to keep
>>> the works from gumming up. I think most of the guys here know that. 8*)
>>
>> I wonder if prunes work on old engines, like they work on me?
>>
>> It would give the engine exhaust a certain.....
>> Aroma! <ggg>
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
> Free up the lifters?

Yes, that it would, but beware of potential backfires.

Roger (K8RI)

June 10th 07, 06:15 PM

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:29:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>
>>> If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and kept
>>> there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
>>> the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in
>>> these
>>> old low compression engines.
>>
>> I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that were
>> prune
>> to lead fouling.
>
>Wouldn't prunes give them gas?

Although gas might be a byproduct, prunes are primarily an agent for
cleaning out all the old crap which should leave the engine nice and
clean on the inside.

>

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 11th 07, 03:37 PM

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:29:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and
>>>> kept
>>>> there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
>>>> the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in
>>>> these
>>>> old low compression engines.
>>>
>>> I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that
>>> were
>>> prune
>>> to lead fouling.
>>
>>Wouldn't prunes give them gas?
>
> Although gas might be a byproduct, prunes are primarily an agent for
> cleaning out all the old crap which should leave the engine nice and
> clean on the inside.
>
Yes, but would the gas be Mogas or 100LL?

Roger (K8RI)

June 12th 07, 07:43 AM

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:37:45 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:29:04 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If this special clean gas w/o alcohol is brought to the airport and
>>>>> kept
>>>>> there, doesn't it pretty much miss the point of
>>>>> the autogas STC? The whole idea was to be able to use normal autogas in
>>>>> these
>>>>> old low compression engines.
>>>>
>>>> I thought one objective was to avoid using the 100LL in engines that
>>>> were
>>>> prune
>>>> to lead fouling.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't prunes give them gas?
>>
>> Although gas might be a byproduct, prunes are primarily an agent for
>> cleaning out all the old crap which should leave the engine nice and
>> clean on the inside.
>>
>Yes, but would the gas be Mogas or 100LL?

Prunes are "nature's dynamite and will clean out old or new pipes
regardless of what you've been running though them. They add a bit of
color to the diet.
>

Blueskies

June 19th 07, 10:30 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message t...
>
> "Denny" > wrote in message oups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Your alka seltzer fizzes in water. It all by itself does not detect alcohol...
>>
>> And now for the rest of the story....
>>
>> Step 1....
>> Got a clean urine sample cup - meaning unused...
>> Using a sterile syringe I added 1.5cc of denatured alcohol (S-L-X
>> brand) from a previously opened can, which will have an unknown % of
>> absorbed water vapor, to the sample cup...
>> Dropped in a small chunk of Alka Seltzer Original...
>> Faint fizzing noted - you will have to be gimlet eyed to see it - but
>> it does fizz... So, we can assume that "pure" alcohol ( a weak
>> organic acid that always contains absorbed water) will 'fizz' Alka-
>> Seltzer (contains bicarb of soda) if a bit faintly...
>>
>> Step 2....
>> Added 0.4 cc of warm <weak> tea ( it was handy) in 0.1cc increments...
>> Fizzing rate essentially doubled, or a bit more, by the time I reached
>> the 0.4 cc value... Easy to see... This is 26% imbibed water in the
>> alcohol... Dunno what effect the pH of the tea had - I assume <that
>> word> that it might enhance the fizzing from the bicarb...
>>
>> **** the intellectual reason for the tea <besides it being in my hand>
>> is that water condensed on a metallic surface will be weakly
>> acidic****
>>
>> Step 3...
>> Dumped the liquid from the cup and added a dash of tap water...
>> Fizzing about tripled the rate from Step 2...
>>
>>
>> Alka-Seltzer does not fizz explosively, like Arm&Hammer bicarbonate of
>> soda would because it is buffered with citric acid... <you will need
>> to google on buffering and rate of reactions to understand some of
>> that>
>>
>> Unfortunately, for scientific rigor, I do not have any <so called>
>> gasoline handy to test with... I have one minute to start seeing
>> patients and I suspect they will not be impressed of I reek of the
>> nasty crap they sell for gas these days...
>>
>> denny
>>
>
> Thanks Denny, good post, esp. the "<so called> gasoline" comment...
>
>

Went down to 'the shore' the other day and was able to check out the fuel pumps for the boats. The label on the pump
said "100% Pure Gasoline". So, the implication here is that unless you see a label that says 100% pure, you are most
likely getting gasohol. There needs to be a lawsuit or something to get the pumps labeled correctly...

Roger (K8RI)

June 20th 07, 07:51 AM

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:30:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Blueskies" > wrote in message t...
>>
>> "Denny" > wrote in message oups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your alka seltzer fizzes in water. It all by itself does not detect alcohol...
>>>
>>> And now for the rest of the story....
>>>
>>> Step 1....
>>> Got a clean urine sample cup - meaning unused...
>>> Using a sterile syringe I added 1.5cc of denatured alcohol (S-L-X
>>> brand) from a previously opened can, which will have an unknown % of
>>> absorbed water vapor, to the sample cup...
>>> Dropped in a small chunk of Alka Seltzer Original...
>>> Faint fizzing noted - you will have to be gimlet eyed to see it - but
>>> it does fizz... So, we can assume that "pure" alcohol ( a weak
>>> organic acid that always contains absorbed water) will 'fizz' Alka-
>>> Seltzer (contains bicarb of soda) if a bit faintly...
>>>
>>> Step 2....
>>> Added 0.4 cc of warm <weak> tea ( it was handy) in 0.1cc increments...
>>> Fizzing rate essentially doubled, or a bit more, by the time I reached
>>> the 0.4 cc value... Easy to see... This is 26% imbibed water in the
>>> alcohol... Dunno what effect the pH of the tea had - I assume <that
>>> word> that it might enhance the fizzing from the bicarb...
>>>
>>> **** the intellectual reason for the tea <besides it being in my hand>
>>> is that water condensed on a metallic surface will be weakly
>>> acidic****
>>>
>>> Step 3...
>>> Dumped the liquid from the cup and added a dash of tap water...
>>> Fizzing about tripled the rate from Step 2...
>>>
>>>
>>> Alka-Seltzer does not fizz explosively, like Arm&Hammer bicarbonate of
>>> soda would because it is buffered with citric acid... <you will need
>>> to google on buffering and rate of reactions to understand some of
>>> that>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, for scientific rigor, I do not have any <so called>
>>> gasoline handy to test with... I have one minute to start seeing
>>> patients and I suspect they will not be impressed of I reek of the
>>> nasty crap they sell for gas these days...
>>>
>>> denny
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Denny, good post, esp. the "<so called> gasoline" comment...
>>
>>
>
>Went down to 'the shore' the other day and was able to check out the fuel pumps for the boats. The label on the pump
>said "100% Pure Gasoline". So, the implication here is that unless you see a label that says 100% pure, you are most
>likely getting gasohol. There needs to be a lawsuit or something to get the pumps labeled correctly...
>
And you would sue who?

In Michigan the pumps are required to have a lable. That lable states
this fuel meets Michigan quality standard something or other. Nothing
is said about Alcohol. Back in the 70s the labels stated This gas
contains 10% Ethenol or something to that effect. Maybe Denny know why
it was changed.

>

Blueskies

June 21st 07, 12:29 AM

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:30:38 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blueskies" > wrote in message t...
>>
>>Went down to 'the shore' the other day and was able to check out the fuel pumps for the boats. The label on the pump
>>said "100% Pure Gasoline". So, the implication here is that unless you see a label that says 100% pure, you are most
>>likely getting gasohol. There needs to be a lawsuit or something to get the pumps labeled correctly...
>>
> And you would sue who?
>
> In Michigan the pumps are required to have a lable. That lable states
> this fuel meets Michigan quality standard something or other. Nothing
> is said about Alcohol. Back in the 70s the labels stated This gas
> contains 10% Ethenol or something to that effect. Maybe Denny know why
> it was changed.
>
>

Yes, that is my and a few others' point. It seems that any other product sold in the USA has some sort of truth in
labeling requirement. The feds dropped the requirement to indicate ethanol in the gasoline a few years ago, and since
that time the so-called gasoline is getting cut with higher and higher levels of ethanol. This is giving all of us lower
and lower gas mileage per gallon burned. This would never happen with any other product sold in the USA. It is false
marketing and should be challenged.

Just happened to catch CSPAN this afternoon, and they were debating the so-called energy bill. Amazing the comments from
both sides, and not one mention about how inefficient it is to make ethanol from corn! Believe it or not, the dems were
arguing for marked based corn prices, while the republicans were trying to get price controls in place. Jay's Iowa
senator is all for this corn subsidy stuff...simply baffling...

Stella Starr[_2_]

June 22nd 07, 02:29 AM

Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:

"2003—Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
consistent with national voluntary label standards..."

It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

> In Michigan the pumps are required to have a lable. That lable states
> this fuel meets Michigan quality standard something or other. Nothing
> is said about Alcohol. Back in the 70s the labels stated This gas
> contains 10% Ethenol or something to that effect. Maybe Denny know why
> it was changed.
>
>

Roger (K8RI)

June 22nd 07, 07:51 AM

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr >
wrote:

>Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
>a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:
>
>"2003—Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
>approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
>biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
>blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
>consistent with national voluntary label standards..."
>
>It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
>there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
>random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?
>

In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.

Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.

>
>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
>> In Michigan the pumps are required to have a lable. That lable states
>> this fuel meets Michigan quality standard something or other. Nothing
>> is said about Alcohol. Back in the 70s the labels stated This gas
>> contains 10% Ethenol or something to that effect. Maybe Denny know why
>> it was changed.
>>
>>

Blueskies

June 22nd 07, 12:04 PM

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr >
> wrote:
>
>>Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
>>a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:
>>
>>"2003-Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
>>approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
>>biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
>>blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
>>consistent with national voluntary label standards..."
>>
>>It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
>>there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
>>random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?
>>
>
> In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
> gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.
>
> Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
> was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
> fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.
>
>>

Which then gets you 75% of the mileage of 'pure gasoline'.

[email protected]

June 23rd 07, 02:40 AM

On Jun 3, 8:02 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "David Lesher" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > B A R R Y > writes:
>
> > >Ken Finney wrote:
>
> > >> I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.
>
> > >Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.
>
> > Which is just kerosene...
>
> > --
> > A host is a host from coast to
> > & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
> > Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
> > is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
>
> There are really three of issues (that I can recall) here:
> 1) A diesel will run on any hydrocarbon fuel that it can pump and meter.
> 2) Different seals and hoses are compatible with different
> chemicals--although it would be no surprise to find that all were compatible
> with biodiesel.
> 3) Certified aircraft/engines require fuels authorized in the type
> certificate and/or an STC.

My understanding is that biodiesel is compatible with all common
elastomeric components used in diesel systems. It has somewhat
higher lubricity and detergent properties compared with petroleum
diesel.

So the first tankful might clean enough crud out of the fuel system
to
foul the fuel filter. After changing that filter, the engine should
run
cleaner.

One reported problem with biodiesel is that it gels at low
temperatures.

--

FF

[email protected]

June 23rd 07, 02:46 AM

On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp > wrote:
> > an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.
>
> Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
> Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
> the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
> though...........
>
> I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
> ~5% power reduction.

Alcohol is an emulsifier that keeps water mixed with gasoline. It is
also an antifreeze that supresses the freezing temperature of water.
If you have a car that has ice in the fuel line, adding alcohol will
melt
it.

--

FF

clare at snyder.on.ca

June 23rd 07, 04:12 AM

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:46:05 -0700, wrote:

>On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp > wrote:
>> > an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.
>>
>> Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
>> Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
>> the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
>> though...........
>>
>> I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
>> ~5% power reduction.
>
>Alcohol is an emulsifier that keeps water mixed with gasoline. It is
>also an antifreeze that supresses the freezing temperature of water.
>If you have a car that has ice in the fuel line, adding alcohol will
>melt
>it.
And adding a bit more water makes the water and alky drop out od
suspension. Called Phase Separation. It's temperature sensitive, so in
a plane at ground level you may still have gasahol, but at 4000 feet,
you are about 16 degrees F. colder - and that may be enough to trip
the phase separation. Bad Ju-Ju when the engine gets a gulp of watered
down hooch when it's expecting gasoline.

On 2 stroke engines (ultralights, snowmobiles etc) when this happens
the engine not only looses fuel, but it looses lubrication too,
because the separated hooch has no oil in it. It's at the bottom of
the tank, where the pickup is, so pistons are often destroyed before
the driver/pilot even knows he has a problem.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ernest Christley

June 23rd 07, 04:19 AM

wrote:
> On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp > wrote:
>>> an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.
>> Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
>> Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
>> the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
>> though...........
>>
>> I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
>> ~5% power reduction.
>

I think ethanol in gasoline is a stupid waste of agricultural resources,
but if you are the typical GA pilot an you're computing your safety
margins out close enough that 5% makes a difference, you're likely to be
removed from the gene pool before long anyway.

SS2MO

June 23rd 07, 06:06 AM

On Jun 7, 6:20 pm, M > wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:31 pm, SS2MO > wrote:
>
> > Currently retailers can save money by adding alcohol to the gasoline
> > because the alcohol is less expensive than gasoline, so they can blen
> > it in and sell it to you as auto gasoline - you may not know it.
>
> I don't believe it's true anymore. At some point last year or so
> wholesale price of ethonal started to exceed the wholesale price of 87
> octane gasoline.

Today in Chicago, wholesale gasoline is trading at $2.30 per gallon.
This does not include freight to haul it from the terminal to the
retail outlet, taxes or the retailer margin. Ethanol in Chicago today
is trading for $2.05 per gallon. The blender of the ethanol receives
a 51 cent per gallon credit, so blending 10% alcohol reduces the price
5.1 cents per gallon.

$2.30 X 90% = $2.07
$2.05 - .051 X 10% = $.1997

$2.07 + $.1997 = $2.2697

This means that a retailer can blend alcohol tolday and sell it to you
as gasoline and save 3.03 cents per gallon. In many locations this is
double their margin.

[email protected]

June 23rd 07, 03:54 PM

On Jun 6, 9:05 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning Morgans > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I await everyone's opinions. I agree with the premise that I think Dan has;
> > that it should be possible, and practical to develop a gasohol safe
> > airplane. "Some will no doubt shout, you will crash and burn!"
> > This could be an interesting discussion.
>
> Since Embraer has an alcohol fueled aircraft in production, it is
> obviously possible.
>
> http://www.defesanet.com.br/embraer/ipanema1000th.htm
>
> The question then becomes what would it take to retrofit an existing
> aircraft?
>

My understanding is that multi-fuel engines were the norm
in Brazil for a while. These could run on straight gasoline or
high alcohol content fuel. The early ones had a manual
switch, but later models used a fuel density detector
which automatically adjusted on the fly.

The last I read, Brazil was moving towards tighter
standards for auto fuel, and the multifuel engines
were being phased out.

--

FF

[email protected]

June 23rd 07, 04:00 PM

On Jun 23, 3:12 am, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:46:05 -0700, wrote:
> >On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp > wrote:
> >> > an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.
>
> >> Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
> >> Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
> >> the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
> >> though...........
>
> >> I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
> >> ~5% power reduction.
>
> >Alcohol is an emulsifier that keeps water mixed with gasoline. It is
> >also an antifreeze that supresses the freezing temperature of water.
> >If you have a car that has ice in the fuel line, adding alcohol will
> >melt
> >it.
>
> And adding a bit more water makes the water and alky drop out od
> suspension. Called Phase Separation. It's temperature sensitive, so in
> a plane at ground level you may still have gasahol, but at 4000 feet,
> you are about 16 degrees F. colder - and that may be enough to trip
> the phase separation. Bad Ju-Ju when the engine gets a gulp of watered
> down hooch when it's expecting gasoline.
>
> On 2 stroke engines (ultralights, snowmobiles etc) when this happens
> the engine not only looses fuel, but it looses lubrication too,
> because the separated hooch has no oil in it. It's at the bottom of
> the tank, where the pickup is, so pistons are often destroyed before
> the driver/pilot even knows he has a problem.

The alcohol will also produce a greater temperature drop in
when it evaporates in the carburetor, increasing the danger
of carb ice, something that is seldom a problem in cars,
especially those with fuel injection....

--

FF

Roger (K8RI)

June 23rd 07, 08:15 PM

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:04:03 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
>>>a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:
>>>
>>>"2003-Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
>>>approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
>>>biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
>>>blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
>>>consistent with national voluntary label standards..."
>>>
>>>It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
>>>there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
>>>random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?
>>>
>>
>> In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
>> gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.
>>
>> Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
>> was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
>> fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.
>>
>>>
>
>
>Which then gets you 75% of the mileage of 'pure gasoline'.

Alcohol has 60% of the energy in gas. If 10% of the gas is Alcohol
then you have only lost 6% (0.1 X 0.6 = 0.06), but as the Alcohol acts
as an octane booster , *theoretically* they should be able to save a
bit in the refining process to produce the lower octane gas that they
boost back up with the alcohol. In the end though it's probably close
to a wash as far as cost. Corn futures are already going up and look
at the price of beef which is corn fed. Anything that uses corn is
already on the way up which means it will be more (maybe much more)
expensive to produce Ethanol using corn as will be any thing else that
contains, or eats corn. Having been a farmer in a previous life and
still owning the old family farm, as an educated guess I'd say the
price of cord will easily double within the next couple of years,
subsidies or no subsidies. It has the bonus of the *possibility* of
eliminating some farm subsidies, but even without the subsidies the
higher prices will still cost the tax payer more.

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

I think I mentioned it before, but now they want to build a coal
fired, 750 megawatt power station on the SE corner of Midland. (MI).
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18502422&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=578054&rfi=8
(watch out for line wrap in some readers) Caution, lots of spin in
article. <:-)) This figures out to be about a mile long train of coal
every other day. Even if they run 80% of the sulphur and 90% of the
mercury recovered from the stack gas it still leaves a staggering
amount of pollution.
>
>

Blueskies

June 24th 07, 04:45 PM

How can "pure gasoline" coming out of a 'supply depot' have the same 87 octane as the same "pure gasoline" mixed with
10% ethanol? Since all auto gasoline is coming from the same distribution pipes, what is the octane in those pipes?

Folks have said that the various sellers have their own additive packages, and others have said that the ethanol is
added near the point of use, and still others have indicated the ethanol is added to increase the octane rating. If all
this is true, then the gas in hte pipes could be some low octane rating which is then boosted with ethanol to 87 octane
for the pumps. That infers to me that even if you bought gas straight from the pipe it would not be 87 octane. Not good
for STC holders...

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 24th 07, 04:45 PM

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
> as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
> that expensive foreign oil.

Quite true.

The "foreign oil" dilemma is much more easily solved, but both issues are
political.

As to emissions, contrast engines from the 1960's with those of today. For
example, a 1969 Mustang with a 351ci V-8 for about 12 MPG and delivered 325
HP - today, a Nissan 3.5L for the 350-Z delivers 325HP, from 216ci engine,
gets 24 MPG, and does it with a twentieth the emissions, mostly CO2.
Contrast that with the 351ci that spewed all sorts of noxious stuff out the
tail pipe.

So do we spend $$trillions reducing emissions, while the rest of the world
continues on its merry way? You probably all heard that China now exceeds
the US as the biggest polluter, in terms of CO2 but all the other far more
noxious gases as well. You've all probably seen the charts that US fuel use
per $ of GNP is about a fourth of what it was in the 1980's.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
It's their karma.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 24th 07, 04:49 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
> How can "pure gasoline" coming out of a 'supply depot' have the same 87
> octane as the same "pure gasoline" mixed with 10% ethanol? Since all auto
> gasoline is coming from the same distribution pipes, what is the octane in
> those pipes?

IIRC, the octane rating is what it is measured at DELIVERY, not in the
pipeline.

Think (I think): Adjustments in the chemical composition at various points
in the delivery system.

Jose

June 24th 07, 05:26 PM

> I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
> vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Noel

June 24th 07, 05:34 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
> > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
>
> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
> hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Orval Fairbairn

June 24th 07, 05:38 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
> > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
>
> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
> hystericals?
>
> Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade
global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Morgans[_2_]

June 24th 07, 07:21 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote

> How can "pure gasoline" coming out of a 'supply depot' have the same 87
> octane as the same "pure gasoline" mixed with 10% ethanol? Since all auto
> gasoline is coming from the same distribution pipes, what is the octane in
> those pipes?
>
> Folks have said that the various sellers have their own additive packages,
> and others have said that the ethanol is added near the point of use, and
> still others have indicated the ethanol is added to increase the octane
> rating. If all this is true, then the gas in hte pipes could be some low
> octane rating which is then boosted with ethanol to 87 octane for the
> pumps. That infers to me that even if you bought gas straight from the
> pipe it would not be 87 octane. Not good for STC holders...

Not to worry.

The pipeline people send many various grades of gas, all through the same
pipeline. They may send 95 octane straight gas for 4 hours, then switch to
82 octane for 2 hours, and so on, with the right storage facilities along
the way intercepting it, and putting it into separate tanks. I believe how
they know how to switch over, is to first know how long the switch in types
to get to them, then the senders put a dye package into the fuel to alert
the storage and distribution people that it is time to switch some valves,
and send the next fuel into a different tank.

When the tanker comes to deliver the fuel to the gas station, they blend the
correct amounts of each into the tank, and you get what you ordered.

Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some distances
by tanker truck, or barge.
--
Jim in NC

Jose

June 24th 07, 10:03 PM

>> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
>> hystericals?
>
> The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 24th 07, 10:13 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel
>> > cell
>> > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back
>> > on.
>>
>> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
>> hystericals?
>
> The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.
>
Is it even something that NEEDS TO BE CURED?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 24th 07, 10:15 PM

Jose > wrote:

> > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
> > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
>
> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
> hystericals?
>

What has panic and mindless blather ever solved?

Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured?

Roger (K8RI)

June 24th 07, 11:47 PM

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:38:41 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
>> > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Anything that uses a hydrocarbon fuel releases CO2. In the case of the
fuel cell, or any other engine or power generation that uses a
hydrocarbon fuel for that matter, CO2 is released. If that CO2 is
coming from a renewable source then it is only putting back what had
been removed in producing the fuel. Fossil fuels OTOH strictly add CO2
to the atmosphere.

Great strides have been made in engine design allowing much smaller
engines to develop the HP that took much larger displacement in the
past and we've ended up with much more reliable and longer lived
engines. It still takes almost the same fuel to develop the same HP
now as it did then, BUT the smaller engines, like most car engines,
spend most of their lives developing on the order of 20 to 50 HP and
there the smaller engines take far less fuel. Also today's engines
produce far less nitrides than older, high compression, large
displacement engines. HOWEVER, in the long run our consumption of
fuel has gone up roughly on the order of 3.5% every year over the past
3 or 4 decades and it has not slackened with today's high prices.
Fleet economy, or MPG reached a peak of about 21.5 MPG some time in
the 1980's, but the loophole that lets SUVS and light trucks adhere to
a lesser standard has basically driven it down to just over 20 MPG.
Had we stuck to the fuel economy standards law passed in the 70's we'd
now be driving a fleet that would be getting roughly 37 MPG and saving
more than one million barrels of oil a day.

>>
>> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
>> hystericals?

Maybe, maybe not. Generally hystericals cause more resistance, and/or
create a lack of credibility. OTOH it sometimes takes a radical to
create public attention.

>>
>> Jose
>
>The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade

Most scientists agree that is has. There are only a few vocal holdouts
and fringe groups still denying it exists. Inhofe still calls it a
hoax.

Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated
or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a
couple of years old.

>global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
>own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.
I seriously doubt that. The upward trend of oil prices doesn't need
any help.

Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the
rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that
increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal
amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net
gain.

The US government was slow (downright reluctant) to admit the problem
even exists let alone being due to man, but they and even many staunch
deniers are swinging around. They are still playing down the results
of research and demanding government review of papers on the subject.
Even Bjorn Lomborg, a past Danish Greenpeace leader and author of the
book "Skeptical Environmentalist" is changing his stance. The
conclusions of the "G-8 summit" (June 7) are pretty forceful.
http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/anlagen/2007-06-07-gipfeldokument-wirtschaft-eng,property=publicationFile.pdf
(Watch out for line wrap in some readers) It's interesting if you can
stay awake long enough to read through 38 pages of that kind of
report.

As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us"
within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make
about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try
to set a good example.

Bob Noel

June 25th 07, 12:40 AM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
> >> hystericals?
> >
> > The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.
>
> Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
> companies don't spend money for nothing.

I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[email protected]

June 25th 07, 02:06 AM

On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Jose > wrote:
> > > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
> > > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
>
> > Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
> > hystericals?
>
> > Jose
>
> The case against CO2 has not been proven

Basic physics, molecular spectroscopy and the conservation
of energy prove the greenhouse effect. Do you consider
either of those to be unproven? If so, which.

It follows therefor that ncreasing the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. What
proof do you consider to be missing?

>-- nor has the case for manmade
> global warming.

The case for anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for the
observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is well established
both by closure and by the Suess effect. What is it that
you doubt about either or both of those?

> The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
> own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Hystericals are fond of raising this issue in newsgroups where
it is off-topic. I have crossposted to sci.environment, where it is
on-topic, set follow-ups accordingly, and will be happy to answer
any reasonable questions you would like to pose there.

Hystericals are also fond of making all sorts of irrational
excuses for not discussing such issues in newsgroups
frequented by people familiar with the subject matter. I
trust you will not.

--

FF

[email protected]

June 25th 07, 02:09 AM

On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> ...
> The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
> own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.
> ...

Now, if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to support that
assertion, please let me know.

Note followups.

--

FF

[email protected]

June 25th 07, 02:20 AM

On Jun 24, 10:47 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated
> or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a
> couple of years old.

Oh no!

That is a very common misconception. The most important
observations date to the 1970s. It was ignored by the popular
Press which found a new ice age to be a more interesting story.
But if you look at the proceedings of the climate conferences
of that time you will find a different story.

The essential Physics was established well before that. The
effects of aerosols also have been understood since then.

Quantifying the combined effects on global temperatures
is the more recent work, and there remains a lot of uncertainty
there. But the uncertainty is about how much of a rise and
how fast, not the direction of future trends.

> ...
> Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the
> rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that
> increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal
> amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net
> gain.

Unfortunately the oceans are rapidly approaching saturation. Should
the
oceans stop absorbing CO2, the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 will
jump to about 15 times the current rate.

> ....
>
> As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us"
> within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make
> about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try
> to set a good example.

And they are going to take over in a very big way.

Note followups.

--

FF

John Halpenny

June 25th 07, 02:23 AM

On Jun 24, 12:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Jose > wrote:
> > > I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
> > > vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
>
> > Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
> > hystericals?
>
> > Jose
>
> The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade
> global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
> own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

I can GUARANTEE that the world will continue to heat up, or else it
will not. If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals
were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will
prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good. There
is no point in fighting it.

John Halpenny

Jose

June 25th 07, 02:28 AM

>> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
>> hystericals?
> What has panic and mindless blather ever solved?
> Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured?

I was not referring to hysterics, but rather, to "hysterics", and should
have quoted the word originally. People opposed to environmental
safeguards call them hysterics in the same way that people opposed to
airport closures refer to "noise nazis".

In that sense, "hysterics" (legitimage drawing of attention to the
damage we are causing to our and our neighbor's environment) have cured
many things. I am most grateful to the "hysterics" of the 1960s for the
relatively clean air we breathe today. One only has to go to parts of
Europe to breathe the difference (at least when I was last there).

As for whether CO2 needed to be "cured", that's not my point. The
statement was made that it =was= cured (along with other things
including doubling the gas milage), proving that the "hysterics" were
unnecessary. I do not see any such proof demonstrated by the facts
presented (which I will stipulate), especially as the "cure" was likely
to be costly, and business doesn't like costly things.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

June 25th 07, 02:31 AM

> I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
> you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
> and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.

Alas, I was misread. Hysterical arguments don't convince anybody, but
rational arguments are derided as "hysterical" by those who oppose them.
I should have quoted the word.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

June 25th 07, 03:05 AM

> If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals
> were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will
> prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good.

No, that only works if we =did= do something good. Or at least
something expensive (that is, something that business would not do on
their own, like install scrubbers in their smokestacks, or pre-treat
waste before dumping it in the river, or improve gas milage).

And no, before some quick-ass jumps at the chance, I am not suggesting
that "something expensive" is a good substitute for "something good".

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 25th 07, 02:48 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jose > wrote:
>
>> >> Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
>> >> hystericals?
>> >
>> > The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.
>>
>> Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
>> companies don't spend money for nothing.
>
> I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
> you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
> and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.
>

Bob! He's a teacher, not a scholar.

David Lesher

June 28th 07, 01:15 AM

"Morgans" > writes:

>The pipeline people send many various grades of gas, all through the same
>pipeline. They may send 95 octane straight gas for 4 hours, then switch to
>82 octane for 2 hours, and so on, with the right storage facilities along
>the way intercepting it, and putting it into separate tanks. I believe how
>they know how to switch over, is to first know how long the switch in types
>to get to them, then the senders put a dye package into the fuel to alert
>the storage and distribution people that it is time to switch some valves,
>and send the next fuel into a different tank.

Pretty close.

We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the
slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the
incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He
has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it.

He "makes the cut" by observing the color change and the specific
gravity. He punches the [explosion-proof, of course!] pushbutton on the
valve panel when it's time.

He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The
schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly. Say $2 Fuel Oil
followed by Jet-A. That would be an late cut; he waits until he's sure
it's all Jet-A then he swings the valve. A few barrels of Jet-A aka
Kerosene will not hurt 100,000 bbls of #2FO.

If an unfriendly cut, say gas to Jet-A; he'll cut early to the slop
tank, and then ~~5-10 min later to Jet-A.

The slop tank is eventually emptied by being slowly injected into
a Kero/FO incoming stream; the tank is later tested to be sure its
flashpoint remains above 110F.

>Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some
>distances by tanker truck, or barge.

Fuels such as.... AvGas.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Blueskies

June 28th 07, 01:30 AM

"David Lesher" > wrote in message ...
>
> We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the
> slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the
> incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He
> has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it.
>
> He "makes the cut" by observing the color change and the specific
> gravity. He punches the [explosion-proof, of course!] pushbutton on the
> valve panel when it's time.
>
> He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The
> schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly. Say $2 Fuel Oil
> followed by Jet-A. That would be an late cut; he waits until he's sure
> it's all Jet-A then he swings the valve. A few barrels of Jet-A aka
> Kerosene will not hurt 100,000 bbls of #2FO.
>
> If an unfriendly cut, say gas to Jet-A; he'll cut early to the slop
> tank, and then ~~5-10 min later to Jet-A.
>
> The slop tank is eventually emptied by being slowly injected into
> a Kero/FO incoming stream; the tank is later tested to be sure its
> flashpoint remains above 110F.
>
>
>>Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some
>>distances by tanker truck, or barge.
>
> Fuels such as.... AvGas.
> --

Thanks Dave! Can 87 octane be mixed with ~93 octane to arrive at 90 octane? Seems like a lot of black magic (no pun
intended) in the oil business...

David Lesher

June 28th 07, 01:56 AM

"Blueskies" > writes:

>> --

>Thanks Dave! Can 87 octane be mixed with ~93 octane to arrive at 90 octane? Seems like a lot of black magic (no pun
>intended) in the oil business...

{please trim your quotes...}

We didn't {it was a Marketing function} but yes. Sunoco was the most
visible; their pump took both base [86 octane, ISTM] and high test & you
set the ratio before lifting the nozzle. Others did so in a less obvious
manner.

Most of the ''magic'' is marketing hype. It used to be "spot" gas [aka
noname] was dubious; maybe old, etc.. Since fuel injected cars took over;
IMHO 99.99% of gas is all the same, save the uniform on the attendent.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Roger (K8RI)

June 28th 07, 07:18 AM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:15:25 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>"Morgans" > writes:
>
>
>>The pipeline people send many various grades of gas, all through the same
>>pipeline. They may send 95 octane straight gas for 4 hours, then switch to
>>82 octane for 2 hours, and so on, with the right storage facilities along
>>the way intercepting it, and putting it into separate tanks. I believe how
>>they know how to switch over, is to first know how long the switch in types
>>to get to them, then the senders put a dye package into the fuel to alert
>>the storage and distribution people that it is time to switch some valves,
>>and send the next fuel into a different tank.
>
>Pretty close.
>
>We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the
>slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the
>incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He
>has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it.
>
Over 20 years ago I had the chance to tour the pumping and fuel
distribution control facility at a refinery. *Everything* was
controlled from that room. They measured flow rates
Vs time and claimed they could control the flow to the remote storage
facilities hundreds of miles away within several gallons. the system
was automated. The operator told it how many gallons of what to go
where. Different mixes and fuels were sent through the same pipeline
with no one on the other end to either make the switch or to monitor
it.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

June 28th 07, 02:04 PM

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the
>>slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the
>>incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He
>>has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it.
>>
> Over 20 years ago I had the chance to tour the pumping and fuel
> distribution control facility at a refinery. *Everything* was
> controlled from that room. They measured flow rates
> Vs time and claimed they could control the flow to the remote storage
> facilities hundreds of miles away within several gallons. the system
> was automated. The operator told it how many gallons of what to go
> where. Different mixes and fuels were sent through the same pipeline
> with no one on the other end to either make the switch or to monitor
> it.

Were it only that the ATC system was so automatic, instead of so antiquated.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Tri-Pacer

June 28th 07, 08:04 PM

>
> He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The
> schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly.

Interesting post. Thanks Dave

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

Newps

June 28th 07, 11:24 PM

Blueskies wrote:

>
>
> Thanks Dave! Can 87 octane be mixed with ~93 octane to arrive at 90 octane? Seems like a lot of black magic (no pun
> intended) in the oil business...

That's exactly how they make the mid grade gas.

Montblack

June 29th 07, 01:38 AM

("David Lesher" wrote)
> Since fuel injected cars took over; IMHO 99.99% of gas is all the same,
> save the uniform on the attendent.

Attendant? :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesoro
Tesoro's "fuel terminal" (in Roseville, MN) has pumps, and no building -
just credit card payment boxes. It's the only place in the Twin Cities I've
been able to find 87 OXY-Free. The other 'far-and-few-between' Non-OXY
pumps, around town I've seen, are premium.

Paul-Mont

Ernest Christley

June 29th 07, 04:24 AM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message

>> Over 20 years ago I had the chance to tour the pumping and fuel
>> distribution control facility at a refinery. *Everything* was
>> controlled from that room. They measured flow rates
>> Vs time and claimed they could control the flow to the remote storage
>> facilities hundreds of miles away within several gallons. the system
>> was automated. The operator told it how many gallons of what to go
>> where. Different mixes and fuels were sent through the same pipeline
>> with no one on the other end to either make the switch or to monitor
>> it.
>
>
> Were it only that the ATC system was so automatic, instead of so antiquated.

And about 15 years ago, the operators at the storage facilities in
Greensboro, NC were fined heavily for leaking fuels into ground water.
They tried to claim they didn't know it was happening.

Disk jockeys at the time were making fun of the fact that they pump
would meter out gas to the hundredth of a gallon, but they couldn't keep
track of the thousands that were pouring into the groundwater. 8*)

Greensboro is my hometown.

Jose

June 29th 07, 04:52 AM

> The operator told it how many gallons of what to go
> where. Different mixes and fuels were sent through the same pipeline
> with no one on the other end to either make the switch or to monitor
> it.

Is there no diffusion at the boundaries?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

David Lesher

June 29th 07, 05:33 AM

Jose > writes:

>Is there no diffusion at the boundaries?

There is some. How much is complex. It depends on what the two products
are, the rate, and a big issue, is the line kept tight?

By tight I mean, was it running non-stop at the same backpressure the
whole time? If the line went up & down in rate because they added pumps
or swung to a different tank, then there is a longer [time] or broader
[linear feet of product] mix region.

Some lines actually used spheres between, but they bring their own
problems...

For a real mess; picture a midline booster pump, only used for some
products. You must keep track of what product is now in the booster
station line section before you restart. No fair dumping Diesel or Kero
into the gas going by.... but the opposite is OK. [Too much gas in the
distillate is Not Allowed, but a bbl or 3 in a 100,000 bbl tank is no big
deal.]

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Mike Isaksen

June 29th 07, 10:19 PM

"David Lesher" > wrote
> Some lines actually used spheres between, but they bring their own
> problems...

A little further OT,... I've watched a lot of heavy #6 (needs to be heated
to pump) unloaded at the offshore platform. When the tanker is empty, we pig
the pipe and backfill with #2. The methods seem crude to the observer, but
the results are exact enough even for the accountants.

Morgans[_2_]

June 29th 07, 10:42 PM

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote
>
> A little further OT,... I've watched a lot of heavy #6 (needs to be heated
> to pump) unloaded at the offshore platform. When the tanker is empty, we
> pig the pipe and backfill with #2. The methods seem crude to the observer,
> but the results are exact enough even for the accountants.

Care to explain a little more, for the unfamiliar among us?

Pig the pipe?

Backfill with #2? What is that?

Why is it possible to be considered as crude, and why is it accurate?
--
Jim in NC

David Lesher

June 30th 07, 02:43 AM

"Morgans" > writes:

>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote
>>
>> A little further OT,... I've watched a lot of heavy #6 (needs to be heated
>> to pump) unloaded at the offshore platform. When the tanker is empty, we
>> pig the pipe and backfill with #2. The methods seem crude to the observer,
>> but the results are exact enough even for the accountants.

>Care to explain a little more, for the unfamiliar among us?

>Pig the pipe?

>Backfill with #2? What is that?

#6 Bunker is one step up from road tar. It's what's left over when you
take all the good stuph out at the refinery.

It's CHEAP, so BIG ships burned it. But it is virually solid when
cold. So first it must be heated to pump. Remember WWII movies about
"bringing another boiler on line"? They used handheld Kerosene torches
to bootstrap the process; then waste steam from the boiler..

#2 is Fuel Oil; slight heavier than #1 aka Kerosene. (Diesel is #2
with added goodies.) If they left #6 in the line, they'd be SOL
as it cooled. So they use thinner stuff to displace it.

A pig is a scraper. You run it down a line to scrape gunk off the
walls. It's pushed by the line flow. There are several types: A poly pig
is a GIANT Tylonol capsule. A conventional pig is a disk [picture an old
LP..] the ID of the line, with a gasket around the edge. The center hole
has a shaft trailing back with wire brushes articulated from it; they're
spring-loaded outward to scrape the wall.

You pig the line while pushing Kero or Fuel Oil; the dirt settles into
the destination tank bottom...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433