New GA fuel?

[Mike Noel]

On AvWeb:
New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost

"Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a professor
at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The company
recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be less
expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than any on
the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel is made of
synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it can provide an
effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about half as much to
produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with first-generation biofuels
like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't compete well right now with
petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology can produce the 1.8 million
gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S. by using just 5 percent of
the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the company said.

The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
the FAA to evaluate the fuel.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

[Al G[_1_]]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
. ..
> On AvWeb:
> New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
>
> "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
> petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a
> professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The
> company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be
> less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than
> any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel
> is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it
> can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about
> half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with
> first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't
> compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology
> can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S.
> by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the
> company said.
>
> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
> emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
> than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
> said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
> into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
> the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>
>
>
I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about the
process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and is
about to lose it's only source.

Al G

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Al G wrote:
> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On AvWeb:
>> New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
>>
>> "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
>> petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a
>> professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The
>> company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be
>> less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than
>> any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel
>> is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it
>> can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about
>> half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with
>> first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't
>> compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology
>> can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S.
>> by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the
>> company said.
>>
>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
>> emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
>> than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
>> said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
>> into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
>> the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>>
>>
>>
> I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about the
> process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
> startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and is
> about to lose it's only source.
>
> Al G
>
>
>


Remember, Soylent Green is people.

[Howard]

"Mike Noel" > wrote in message
. ..
> On AvWeb:
> New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
>
> "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
> petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a
> professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The
> company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be
> less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than
> any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel
> is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it
> can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about
> half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with
> first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't
> compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology
> can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S.
> by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the
> company said.
>
> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
> emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
> than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
> said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
> into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
> the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike
>
> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>

Don't know anything about this but first thing I thought of was the miracle
of "cold fusion". I can only hope it is true.and it is available.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Howard" > wrote:

> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On AvWeb:
> > New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
> >
> > "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
> > petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a
> > professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The
> > company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be
> > less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than
> > any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel
> > is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it
> > can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about
> > half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with
> > first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't
> > compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology
> > can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S.
> > by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the
> > company said.
> >
> > The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
> > emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
> > than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
> > said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
> > into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
> > the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> > http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
> >
>
> Don't know anything about this but first thing I thought of was the miracle
> of "cold fusion". I can only hope it is true.and it is available.

At first glance, it appears that it would have to be one of the
aromatics or paraffin-based hydrocarbons to get that kid of increase in
output and octane rating.

You would probably have to replace all of the hoses on switchover, as
the MAterials take on a "set," based on the type of fuel being used
(petroleum or aromatic).

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Lou]

Just remember, you will know how true this is when you never hear
about
it again. If there is such a fuel the oil companies will take care of
it.
Lou

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > "Al G" > writes:

>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
>> emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
>> than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
>> said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
>> into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
>> the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>>
> I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about the
>process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
>startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and is
>about to lose it's only source.

If it were true, these folks should be producing all they can. After all,
they could sell the stuff at or near current prices and make a bundle, and use
that to fund their expansion.

It would be wonderful if such were true and the processes were available to
have the country produce large amounts of this fuel (which should be an excellent
auto fuel from the description), but if it were, they would probably have more
on their web site than an announcement of what web site design team they had
hired to do the page.

Alan

[Mike Noel]

Here is an earlier article about this fuel:

http://www.checkbiotech.org/green_News_Biofuels.aspx?Name=biofuels&infoId=16922

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Al G"
> > writes:
>
>>> The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no
>>> sulfur
>>> emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
>>> than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
>>> said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
>>> into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working
>>> with
>>> the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>>>
>> I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about
>> the
>>process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
>>startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and
>>is
>>about to lose it's only source.
>
> If it were true, these folks should be producing all they can. After
> all,
> they could sell the stuff at or near current prices and make a bundle, and
> use
> that to fund their expansion.
>
> It would be wonderful if such were true and the processes were available
> to
> have the country produce large amounts of this fuel (which should be an
> excellent
> auto fuel from the description), but if it were, they would probably have
> more
> on their web site than an announcement of what web site design team they
> had
> hired to do the page.
>
> Alan

[terry]

On May 9, 2:26*am, "Al G" > wrote:
> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > On AvWeb:
> > New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
>
> > "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
> > petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a
> > professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The
> > company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be
> > less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than
> > any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel
> > is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it
> > can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about
> > half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with
> > first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't
> > compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology
> > can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S.
> > by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the
> > company said.
>
> > The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
> > emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
> > than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
> > said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
> > into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
> > the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Mike
>
> >http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>
> * * I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about the
> process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
> startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and is
> about to lose it's only source.

There are 5 components all from biomass. Here is a link to the
patent.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008013922&IA=WO2008013922&DIS...

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT), terry
> wrote:

>On May 9, 2:26*am, "Al G" > wrote:
>> "Mike Noel" > wrote in message
>>
>> . ..
>>
>>
>>
>> > On AvWeb:
>> > New GA Fuel Promises Better Range, Lower Cost
>>
>> > "Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard
>> > petroleum fuel [100LL], it can outperform it," says John Rusek, a
>> > professor at Purdue University and co-founder of Swift Enterprises. The
>> > company recently unveiled a new general aviation fuel that it says will be
>> > less expensive, more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than
>> > any on the market. Unlike other alternative fuels, Rusek said, SwiftFuel
>> > is made of synthetic hydrocarbons that are derived from biomass, and it
>> > can provide an effective range greater than 100LL, while costing about
>> > half as much to produce. "Our fuel should not be confused with
>> > first-generation biofuels like E-85 [85 percent ethanol], which don't
>> > compete well right now with petroleum," Rusek said. Patented technology
>> > can produce the 1.8 million gallons per day of fuel used by GA in the U.S.
>> > by using just 5 percent of the existing biofuel plant infrastructure, the
>> > company said.
>>
>> > The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
>> > emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
>> > than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
>> > said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
>> > into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
>> > the FAA to evaluate the fuel.
>>
>> > --
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Mike
>>
>> >http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>>
>> * * I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about the
>> process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
>> startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and is
>> about to lose it's only source.
>
>There are 5 components all from biomass. Here is a link to the
>patent.
>
>http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008013922&IA=WO2008013922&DIS...


It appears to be a patent of a formulation of conventional renewable
components so I'm surprised they were issued a patent.

It's not what I'd call a "synthetic fuel", but rather a formulation of
organic components (unless I missed something) "To Me" synthetic
indicates non organic compounds used in the fuel. This I might call
unconventional, but not synthetic.

As to the energy component, that depends on the molecular structure of
the compounds. Just as diesel fuel has a much higher energy content
than gasoline I see no reason whey with the formulation of components
listed they couldn't get more (or less) energy per unit volume/Gallon.
OTOH whether that extra energy would actually be useful in a standard
aircraft engine is something else.


Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com