ethanol question

[Dick[_1_]]

Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
contain up to 10% ethanol.

My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.

Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment bowls.
3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing leaks/breakages.


Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....

I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.

Thanks, Dick

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:46:58 GMT, "Dick" > wrote:

>Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
>contain up to 10% ethanol.
>
>My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.
>
>Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
>1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
>2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
>separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment bowls.
>3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing leaks/breakages.
>
>
>Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
>unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
>
>I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
>
>Thanks, Dick
>

for the reasons you mention I run my O-200 on 100/130 avgas with
REM38E plugs.

you have more worries than you've identified.

bacterial contamination that is not often checked for in mogas.
(surface of water stuff)

UV deterioration of the fuel leading to waxy deposits settling out.

a lot of your carby seals are actually leather. add that to your list.

just bye the bye when I pulled apart a marvel schebler carby I was
using, between the inlet filter and the needle seat was a lot of
friable black gunk which is supposedly from mogas that was used
previously. it was causing fuel dribbles after shutdown.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dick" > wrote in message
news:S084k.10872$kW2.67@trnddc01...
> Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
> contain up to 10% ethanol.
>
> My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.
>
> Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
> 1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
> 2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
> separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment bowls.
> 3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing
> leaks/breakages.
>
>
> Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
> unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
>
> I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
>
> Thanks, Dick
>
I am not flying at the present time, and I am really annoyed by the entire
"gasohol" farce.

(Brief Rant)
E-10 is a more expensive product, contains as little as 96 percent of the
energy, is generally regarded as less stable, and is the result of purely
political decisions of questionable merit!
(End of Brief Rant)

OTOH, since it is an experimental and you have been using MoGas all along,
you are more likely to know what materials are in the fuel system--if it was
mine and the problem was the tanks, I would switch immediately to AvGas and
avoid idling with rich mixture during warmup and taxiing.

Some assistance regarding the hoses, seals, and gakets may be as close as:
1) The auto parts store--those guys have been on the "front lines" a lot
longer, or
2) The nearest hose and o-ring suppliers for aircraft--who probably have
product data sheets for what the sell.

This is the first that I remember hearing of "phase separation" which may
just mean that I forgot. However, there is at least one obvious way to
test. Get something that can produce a good suction--a "feeding syringe"
from the nearest feed store might be a good choice. Then, put some E-10
gasohol in a clear glass soda bottle, connect the bottle to the feed syringe
with a sturdy hose (or something similar), pull back on the plunger, and see
what happens. That should give you a way to take your fuel sample from
about sea level to about 18000 feet in a hurry. Obviously, you would need
to add some instruments and test at various temperatures to learn what might
happen over a wide range of temperatures and altitudes; but a lot of us
bloviate a lot on usenet and, with some very simple testing, you should be
able to get an idea of whether the whole discussion really applies to your
application.

Peter

P.S.: A home brew test for the actual presence of ethanol was discussed
on this forum a few months ago.

[RST Engineering]

"Dick" ...

THis subject has been covered north, south, east, west, up, down, port, and
starboard in these newsgroups over the last two years. Please do your
research and investigation into prior threads before starting a new one.
Most folks who have posted good stuff just shine on somebody that isn't
willing to do the work before asking a very old question.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Dick" > wrote in message
news:S084k.10872$kW2.67@trnddc01...
> Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
> contain up to 10% ethanol.
>
> My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.
>
> Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
> 1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
> 2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
> separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment bowls.
> 3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing
> leaks/breakages.
>
>
> Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
> unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
>
> I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
>
> Thanks, Dick
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
m...
> "Dick" ...
>
> THis subject has been covered north, south, east, west, up, down, port,
> and starboard in these newsgroups over the last two years. Please do your
> research and investigation into prior threads before starting a new one.
> Most folks who have posted good stuff just shine on somebody that isn't
> willing to do the work before asking a very old question.
>

What's the harm. It's not like the daily message count is difficult to
manage.

You never can tell when there might be some new thinking or information, and
you won't find that in the archives.

[Dick[_1_]]

Jim,
What's the problem?? I did do some net research but couldn't get any
download this morning from the EAA site for whatever reason and apparently
made the mistake to ask here what others are doing.

Sorry,
Dick Ripper
Lakeland, Florida

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
m...
> "Dick" ...
>
> THis subject has been covered north, south, east, west, up, down, port,
> and starboard in these newsgroups over the last two years. Please do your
> research and investigation into prior threads before starting a new one.
> Most folks who have posted good stuff just shine on somebody that isn't
> willing to do the work before asking a very old question.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
> without accepting it."
> --Aristotle
>
>
> "Dick" > wrote in message
> news:S084k.10872$kW2.67@trnddc01...
>> Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
>> contain up to 10% ethanol.
>>
>> My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.
>>
>> Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
>> 1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
>> 2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
>> separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment
>> bowls.
>> 3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing
>> leaks/breakages.
>>
>>
>> Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
>> unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
>>
>> I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
>>
>> Thanks, Dick
>>
>
>

[Anyolmouse]

"Dick" > wrote in message
news:Hre4k.2$2_.1@trnddc01...
| Jim,
| What's the problem?? I did do some net research but couldn't get any
| download this morning from the EAA site for whatever reason and
apparently
| made the mistake to ask here what others are doing.
|
| Sorry,
| Dick Ripper
| Lakeland, Florida
|
| "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
| m...
| > "Dick" ...
| >
| > THis subject has been covered north, south, east, west, up, down,
port,
| > and starboard in these newsgroups over the last two years. Please
do your
| > research and investigation into prior threads before starting a new
one.
| > Most folks who have posted good stuff just shine on somebody that
isn't
| > willing to do the work before asking a very old question.
| >
| > Jim
| >
| > --
| > "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought
| > without accepting it."
| > --Aristotle
| >
| >
| > "Dick" > wrote in message
| > news:S084k.10872$kW2.67@trnddc01...
| >> Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it
could
| >> contain up to 10% ethanol.
| >>
| >> My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on
mogas.
| >>
| >> Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
| >> 1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
| >> 2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience
"phase
| >> separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment
| >> bowls.
| >> 3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing
| >> leaks/breakages.
| >>
| >>
| >> Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3,
but
| >> unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
| >>
| >> I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
| >>
| >> Thanks, Dick
| >>
| >
| >

Here is an STC for Ethanol 100% for a C-152.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgSTC.nsf/0/A4CF2661D292CC1D86257403007E31FB?OpenDocument
Forum comments on it.
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/index.php?topic=1689.msg13664

Greg Poe using E85 in his aerobatic plane.
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4274

--
Anyolmouse




---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> "Dick" > wrote in message
<...>
>
> This is the first that I remember hearing of "phase separation" which may
> just mean that I forgot. However, there is at least one obvious way to
<...>

Phase seperation is when you add water to the gas / ethanol mix and the
ethanol / water seperates out. The ammount of water required to do this
depends on the ethanol concentration and the temperature - so things might
be OK on the ground where it's warm...

The water / ethanol mix will be too "lean" for you engine and the gasoline
left behind will have a lower octane than the gasoline / ethanol blend that
may or may not be adequate for your needs.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Blueskies]

"Dick" > wrote in message news:S084k.10872$kW2.67@trnddc01...
> Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
> contain up to 10% ethanol.
>
> My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.
>
> Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
> 1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
> 2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
> separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment bowls.
> 3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing leaks/breakages.
>
>
> Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
> unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
>
> I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
>
> Thanks, Dick
>
>

Running 100LL...sad but true.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote

> Most folks who have posted good stuff " just shine on somebody"
> that isn't willing

"just shine on somebody" ???

I've never heard that expression before. Must be a Californie-i-a" type of
thing! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dick" > wrote in message news:Hre4k.2$2_.1@trnddc01...
> Jim,
> What's the problem?? I did do some net research but couldn't get any
> download this morning from the EAA site for whatever reason and apparently
> made the mistake to ask here what others are doing.

Do a google search, limiting it to this group. You should be able to come
up with several threads, with more information that you could come up with
from any one source like the EAA site.
--
Jim in NC

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:50 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Dick" > wrote in message
>news:S084k.10872$kW2.67@trnddc01...
>> Recently my gas station placed stickers on the pumps warning it could
>> contain up to 10% ethanol.
>>
>> My ride is an experimental built in 1997 with a C-85 always run on mogas.
>>
>> Quick research indicates 3 concerns:
>> 1-loosens debris inside the fuel system affecting filters.
>> 2-mixes more readily with water (hydroscopic) but can experience "phase
>> separation" during climbs causing water to overload filter/sediment bowls.
>> 3-can deteriorate composites, rubbers and plastics causing
>> leaks/breakages.
>>
>>
>> Leaning towards more frequent gascolator inspections for 1 and 3, but
>> unsure on overloading a sediment bowl....
>>
>> I'm wondering how others are addressing these concerns.
>>
>> Thanks, Dick
>>
>I am not flying at the present time, and I am really annoyed by the entire
>"gasohol" farce.
>
>(Brief Rant)
>E-10 is a more expensive product, contains as little as 96 percent of the
>energy, is generally regarded as less stable, and is the result of purely
>political decisions of questionable merit!
>(End of Brief Rant)
>
>OTOH, since it is an experimental and you have been using MoGas all along,
>you are more likely to know what materials are in the fuel system--if it was
>mine and the problem was the tanks, I would switch immediately to AvGas and
>avoid idling with rich mixture during warmup and taxiing.
>
>Some assistance regarding the hoses, seals, and gakets may be as close as:
>1) The auto parts store--those guys have been on the "front lines" a lot
>longer, or
>2) The nearest hose and o-ring suppliers for aircraft--who probably have
>product data sheets for what the sell.
>
>This is the first that I remember hearing of "phase separation" which may
>just mean that I forgot. However, there is at least one obvious way to
>test. Get something that can produce a good suction--a "feeding syringe"
>from the nearest feed store might be a good choice. Then, put some E-10
>gasohol in a clear glass soda bottle, connect the bottle to the feed syringe
>with a sturdy hose (or something similar), pull back on the plunger, and see
>what happens. That should give you a way to take your fuel sample from
>about sea level to about 18000 feet in a hurry. Obviously, you would need
>to add some instruments and test at various temperatures to learn what might
>happen over a wide range of temperatures and altitudes; but a lot of us
>bloviate a lot on usenet and, with some very simple testing, you should be
>able to get an idea of whether the whole discussion really applies to your
>application.
>
>Peter
>
>P.S.: A home brew test for the actual presence of ethanol was discussed
>on this forum a few months ago.
>
Phase separation is temperature dependent.
If the water content of the fuel is borderline at 70F and you go up
3000 feet the 54F temperature may cause the water and ethanol to drop
out.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Peter Dohm]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dick" > wrote in message
> <...>
>>
>> This is the first that I remember hearing of "phase separation" which may
>> just mean that I forgot. However, there is at least one obvious way to
> <...>
>
> Phase seperation is when you add water to the gas / ethanol mix and the
> ethanol / water seperates out. The ammount of water required to do this
> depends on the ethanol concentration and the temperature - so things might
> be OK on the ground where it's warm...
>
> The water / ethanol mix will be too "lean" for you engine and the
> gasoline left behind will have a lower octane than the gasoline / ethanol
> blend that may or may not be adequate for your needs.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
I know that I am flagellating a dead horse; but there are a very limited
munber of real solutions, and trying to substitute usenet dialog for the
work and expence of a new STC is simply ot one of the real
solutions--expecially since the percentage of ethanol or other oxiginate is
sure to remain a moving target.

1) Obviously, as already mentioned, you can switch to Avgas.

2) Presumably, with an experimental, you can just assume the risk and
"run watcha brung".

3) As discussed in several previous threads, you can precipitate the
alcohol out of the fuel, separate the remaining water (resulting from the
precipitation process) from the "pute" gasolene, and dispose of the
contaminated alcohol and water mixture which will probably contain too much
water to burn. As you just pointed out, an octane test would then be in
order--although I suspect that the fuel will remain well above the
requirement for a C-85 engine. I also have my doubts whether the resulting
fuel will be below the rating originally shown on the pump--mainly because I
strongly suspect that the ethanol is simply added to the existing fuel on an
"as available" basis.

4) The most correct solution is to recruit enough a sufficient user group
at the airport, and possibly at several nearby airports as well, to
guarrantee sufficient usage justify fuel deliveries to the FBOs and also
stocking of the additional fuel type by those FBOs. Unless there are
currently unused tanks at self service pumps, that would probably also mean
a substantial investment by the user group to purchase the needed equipment
for the FBOs. It is not just that that the FBOs probably can not afford or
justify the expense; but the phrasing of the original post suggests that the
local FBOs are not strangers to the problem of off-airpost price shopping.

IMHO, based on what I have seen and heard in my own local area, solution no.
4 will not happen; solutions 2 and 3 are problematic and probably
unacceptable; and that leaves the switch to AvGas--simply because the users
lack the understanding and resolve to support their FBOs in any other way.

Peter

[Vaughn Simon]

<clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
...

> Phase separation is temperature dependent.
> If the water content of the fuel is borderline at 70F and you go up
> 3000 feet the 54F temperature may cause the water and ethanol to drop
> out.

Why is this not a problem in cars? They can see a considerable temperature
swing between night and day, and I have yet to see a problem caused by ethanol.
(Not to say it has never happened, it is just not on my radar screen. Educate
me.)

Vaughn

[Dick[_1_]]

My thanks to the group for helping. This morning I was able to access
www.EAA.org/autofuel and am on the way to developing my plan of action.

Dick

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:23:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
><clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
...
>
>> Phase separation is temperature dependent.
>> If the water content of the fuel is borderline at 70F and you go up
>> 3000 feet the 54F temperature may cause the water and ethanol to drop
>> out.
>
> Why is this not a problem in cars? They can see a considerable temperature
>swing between night and day, and I have yet to see a problem caused by ethanol.
>(Not to say it has never happened, it is just not on my radar screen. Educate
>me.)
>
>Vaughn
>
It happens.
However, MOST cars on the road today have SEALED fuel systems, so
condensation is not a major issue.
I know of NO aircraft with sealed fuel suystems.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[wright1902glider]

Perhaps rather than sitting in front of the computer knocking MOGAS
for no longer being a cheap alternative to 100LL, we might actually
start educating ourselves and experimenting on how to make gasahol or
even E85 work in an aircraft. A quick web search turned up this
project: http://www.age85.org/. If there's going to be a new and
viable alternative to 100LL, somebody is going to have to either find
or invent one.

Or you could just learn to hang-glide. (did I say that out loud???)

Harry Frey
gliders n' stuff

[Vaughn Simon]

<clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:23:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
>> Why is this not a problem in cars? They can see a considerable temperature
>>swing between night and day, and I have yet to see a problem caused by
>>ethanol.
>>(Not to say it has never happened, it is just not on my radar screen. Educate
>>me.)

My point is that perhaps we need to be learning from taking a long hard look
at our cars. If cars can be made to run reliably on a gas-ethanol blend, than
so can airplanes, I see no big differences. If differences exist, they have
nothing to do with temperature changes at altitude, since cars see similar
temperature swings without apparent problems.

I see no insurmountable difficulties in retrofitting at least many of our
planes to sealed gas caps and installing a different venting system to the tanks
(if that is what it takes). Nothing in aviation is cheap and I don't predict
that this would be, but it may beat being grounded.

Vaughn

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:03:26 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
><clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:23:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
>> > wrote:
>>> Why is this not a problem in cars? They can see a considerable temperature
>>>swing between night and day, and I have yet to see a problem caused by
>>>ethanol.
>>>(Not to say it has never happened, it is just not on my radar screen. Educate
>>>me.)
>
> My point is that perhaps we need to be learning from taking a long hard look
>at our cars. If cars can be made to run reliably on a gas-ethanol blend, than
>so can airplanes, I see no big differences. If differences exist, they have
>nothing to do with temperature changes at altitude, since cars see similar
>temperature swings without apparent problems.
>
> I see no insurmountable difficulties in retrofitting at least many of our
>planes to sealed gas caps and installing a different venting system to the tanks
>(if that is what it takes). Nothing in aviation is cheap and I don't predict
>that this would be, but it may beat being grounded.
>
>Vaughn
>
The difference is, when your airplane stalls due to bad gas 5 miles
from home you can't just pull over to the side of the road and walk
home.

Can it be done? Most definitely. However, I think ethanol,
particularly in its North American guise, is NOT the (an) answer.
As a retrofit, most planes would loose half their load carrying
capacity if the heavier pressurizeable fuel tanks large enough to give
the same range were installed. You need 50% more fuel for starters,
and tanks that won't bulge/split/collapce under changing pressures -
and they need to be tollerant of both the alcohol and the water that
is inescapably part of the mix.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Peter Dohm]

<clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:03:26 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
>>
>> My point is that perhaps we need to be learning from taking a long hard
>> look
>>at our cars. If cars can be made to run reliably on a gas-ethanol blend,
>>than
>>so can airplanes, I see no big differences. If differences exist, they
>>have
>>nothing to do with temperature changes at altitude, since cars see similar
>>temperature swings without apparent problems.
>>
>> I see no insurmountable difficulties in retrofitting at least many of
>> our
>>planes to sealed gas caps and installing a different venting system to the
>>tanks
>>(if that is what it takes). Nothing in aviation is cheap and I don't
>>predict
>>that this would be, but it may beat being grounded.
>>
>>Vaughn
>>
> The difference is, when your airplane stalls due to bad gas 5 miles
> from home you can't just pull over to the side of the road and walk
> home.
>
> Can it be done? Most definitely. However, I think ethanol,
> particularly in its North American guise, is NOT the (an) answer.
> As a retrofit, most planes would loose half their load carrying
> capacity if the heavier pressurizeable fuel tanks large enough to give
> the same range were installed. You need 50% more fuel for starters,
> and tanks that won't bulge/split/collapce under changing pressures -
> and they need to be tollerant of both the alcohol and the water that
> is inescapably part of the mix.
>
There is no question regarding the fact that the ethanol solution as a farse
and a fraud, and there is also no doubt that it is less efficient. But you
certainly do not need 50% more fuel--the worst number that I have heard is
10% and simple chemistry suggests a worst case of 4% if the maximum dilution
of 10% ethanol is used. Further, there is considerable doubt that
automotive fuel tanks are presurized in any meaningfull way--from all that I
have heard, they have sealed filler caps and any "breathing" occurs through
the evaporative emission controller.

OTOH, crank induction two stroke engines are another matter. There are
already intollerant of premixing the oil too far in advance and, from all I
have heard, the addition of ethanol adds fuel system clogging to the
problems. That sounds like really bad Mojo!

The biggest problems, other than certification, are probably:
1) A lot of fiberglass fuel tanks were allegedly marginal with straight
gasolene, and are untested with E10.
2) Long term storage of E10 may untested, in documented and controlled
testing, and the oil companies supposedly don't attempt to store
E10--instead any ethanol is allegedly added as a final step prior to retail
delivery. The horror stories that I have heard, involving 4 stroke engines,
have involved lawn and garden equipment which sat idle for long periods.

Personally, I really doubt that it is a big problem in the case of frequent
use with filler caps in good condition. But, at this time, I think it makes
more sense to buy Avgas whenever undiluted Mogas is not currently available
from the FBO.

Peter

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:37:40 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:
..
>>
>There is no question regarding the fact that the ethanol solution as a farse
>and a fraud, and there is also no doubt that it is less efficient. But you
>certainly do not need 50% more fuel--the worst number that I have heard is
>10% and simple chemistry suggests a worst case of 4% if the maximum dilution
>of 10% ethanol is used.

I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.
Further, there is considerable doubt that
>automotive fuel tanks are presurized in any meaningfull way--from all that I
>have heard, they have sealed filler caps and any "breathing" occurs through
>the evaporative emission controller.
They hold about 3-5psi
>
>OTOH, crank induction two stroke engines are another matter. There are
>already intollerant of premixing the oil too far in advance and, from all I
>have heard, the addition of ethanol adds fuel system clogging to the
>problems. That sounds like really bad Mojo!
>
>The biggest problems, other than certification, are probably:
>1) A lot of fiberglass fuel tanks were allegedly marginal with straight
>gasolene, and are untested with E10.
>2) Long term storage of E10 may untested, in documented and controlled
>testing, and the oil companies supposedly don't attempt to store
>E10--instead any ethanol is allegedly added as a final step prior to retail
>delivery. The horror stories that I have heard, involving 4 stroke engines,
>have involved lawn and garden equipment which sat idle for long periods.
>
>Personally, I really doubt that it is a big problem in the case of frequent
>use with filler caps in good condition. But, at this time, I think it makes
>more sense to buy Avgas whenever undiluted Mogas is not currently available
>from the FBO.
>
>Peter
>
>

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Peter Dohm]

<clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:37:40 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
> .
>>>
>>There is no question regarding the fact that the ethanol solution as a
>>farse
>>and a fraud, and there is also no doubt that it is less efficient. But
>>you
>>certainly do not need 50% more fuel--the worst number that I have heard is
>>10% and simple chemistry suggests a worst case of 4% if the maximum
>>dilution
>>of 10% ethanol is used.
>
> I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.

That's a completely different proposition!

In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption are
both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and fuel
system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating for some
time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages in octane
(or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am content to
watch from the sidelines.

Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a fuel,
ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular seives--so
it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation process.
Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor pressure for
ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional pressurization of the tanks
would be needed.

However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt than
carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding CO2 and
petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2 levels in the
atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of promoting plant
growth and ultimately providing an increased food supply--both directly and
through the feeding of domestic animals which are raised, slaughtered, and
eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing against the need.

Peter

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>>I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.
>
>
> That's a completely different proposition!
>
> In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption are
> both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and fuel
> system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating for some
> time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages in octane
> (or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am content to
> watch from the sidelines.
>
> Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a fuel,
> ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular seives--so
> it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation process.
> Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor pressure for
> ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional pressurization of the tanks
> would be needed.
>
> However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt than
> carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding CO2 and
> petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2 levels in the
> atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of promoting plant
> growth and ultimately providing an increased food supply--both directly and
> through the feeding of domestic animals which are raised, slaughtered, and
> eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing against the need.
>
> Peter
>
>


What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire jeopardy.

Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a while?

Richard

[Peter Dohm]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
m...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>
>>>I was talking ethanol powered - deepo six the gasoline completely.
>>
>>
>> That's a completely different proposition!
>>
>> In that case, the issues of materials compatibility and water apsorption
>> are both dramatically worse; and the 50% number for additional fuel and
>> fuel system weight may be low. I realize that a demo project operating
>> for some time, using a small fleet of RVs, and there are some advantages
>> in octane (or performance number) rating; but, for now, I guess that I am
>> content to watch from the sidelines.
>>
>> Actually, at the industrial level and when intended only for use as a
>> fuel, ethanol is now concentrated by means of zeolites and/or molecular
>> seives--so it is not nearly as energy intensive as a purely distillation
>> process. Also, I am unsure of the relationship of temperature to vapor
>> pressure for ethanol--so it seems possible that no additional
>> pressurization of the tanks would be needed.
>>
>> However, fuel injection systems could prove far more difficult to adapt
>> than carburetors, and both the scientific and political debates regarding
>> CO2 and petroleum are far from settled. In fact, IMHO, increased CO2
>> levels in the atmosphere should have the obvious "green house" effect of
>> promoting plant growth and ultimately providing an increased food
>> supply--both directly and through the feeding of domestic animals which
>> are raised, slaughtered, and eaten by humans. Thus, I am mainly arguing
>> against the need.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
> What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire
> jeopardy.
>
> Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a
> while?
>
> Richard

It seems almost goulish to say it; but, yes, I believe that it will reduce
the supply.

Peter

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:58:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> "cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
> > What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire
> > jeopardy.
> >
> > Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a
> > while?
> >
> > Richard
>
> It seems almost goulish to say it; but, yes, I believe that it will reduce
> the supply.

Yep. The price will go up, and the gas companies will import even more ethanol.

Some government bureaucrat will notice this, and say, "Gee, it's costing people
more money and increasing our reliability on foreign suppliers." They'll
immediately suspend all laws requiring ethanol in motor gasoline and rescind all
gas-company incentives for selling it.

Then Santa Claus will join forces with the Easter Bunny to develop new
distribution systems for the non-alcohol gasoline, with the full assistance of
an assembly of honest politicians.....

Ron "The Tooth Fairy has to enter into it somewhere" Wanttaja

[Peter Dohm]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:58:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm" >
> wrote:
>
>> "cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
>> > What with the flooding and all, the corn crop seems to be in dire
>> > jeopardy.
>> >
>> > Maybe that will reduce the amonut of ethenol in the gas supply for a
>> > while?
>> >
>> > Richard
>>
>> It seems almost goulish to say it; but, yes, I believe that it will
>> reduce
>> the supply.
>
> Yep. The price will go up, and the gas companies will import even more
> ethanol.
>
> Some government bureaucrat will notice this, and say, "Gee, it's costing
> people
> more money and increasing our reliability on foreign suppliers." They'll
> immediately suspend all laws requiring ethanol in motor gasoline and
> rescind all
> gas-company incentives for selling it.
>
> Then Santa Claus will join forces with the Easter Bunny to develop new
> distribution systems for the non-alcohol gasoline, with the full
> assistance of
> an assembly of honest politicians.....
>
> Ron "The Tooth Fairy has to enter into it somewhere" Wanttaja

Indeed, this is only a speed-bump on the road to ruin. :-(

Peter

[Paul M. Anton]

They'll probably divert other farm lands into corn production for ethanol.
After which is more important--food prices or ethanol???

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
wright1902glider > wrote:
>Perhaps rather than sitting in front of the computer knocking MOGAS
>for no longer being a cheap alternative to 100LL, we might actually
>start educating ourselves and experimenting on how to make gasahol or
>even E85 work in an aircraft. A quick web search turned up this
>project: http://www.age85.org/. If there's going to be a new and
>viable alternative to 100LL, somebody is going to have to either find
>or invent one.
>
>Or you could just learn to hang-glide. (did I say that out loud???)


Puts a new twist on the old phrase about:

"We'll all have to hang together,
or we will all surely hang(-glide) separately."


*GRIN*