Ethanol Powered Aircraft

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:54:05 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.

I've had a couple of laptops over the years that definitely acted as
lap warmers... I remember an older IBM ThinkPad that would leave a red
mark on your leg if you left it there too long...

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.


There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In
the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:59:57 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:
I really don't want a Natural Gas powered lawn mower.

Probably wouldn't be any more inconvenient than one of the electrical
ones that require a cord (i.e. not the rechargable battery types)...
I've used air hoses like you use for shop air tools for routing
natural gas to grills for temporary use... CNG (compressed natural
gas) would work, but is not as convenient as LPG...

LPG (aka propane) would probably work since you see LPG powered fork
lifts and such...

Hmmm... A quick search via google shows that it's already been done...

http://www.landscapemanagement.net/l....jsp?id=317568
http://chenchang.en.alibaba.com/prod...awn_Mower.html

I started a couple of hours ago researching the production of ethanol,
use of land, fetilizers, an thos dam tracters.. I juss fin the sbjek
too be too dam comp, comp, cmmp, uhhh hard to ger reel faks... scuze me
I'm gonna resea, resear, resur, unhhh, opena nother pint...

d ennnn i

On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In
the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

What's your take on a distributed network of pebble-bed plants? I
like the advantages of easier containment, no single-point-of-failure
myself, but I don't understand all the disposal issues.

Don

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:54:05 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.

I've had a couple of laptops over the years that definitely acted as
lap warmers... I remember an older IBM ThinkPad that would leave a red
mark on your leg if you left it there too long...


But did yours do this?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32550

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:40:11 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

It's less than gasoline, but I'm not sure how it compares to
ethanol... Do you mean LNG or LPG though?

Propane has an octane rating of 110 to 120... Sounds great, right?
Unfortunately, the weight of the tanks is what would probably get
us... Our tanks would have to be built quite a bit sturdier to handle
the increased pressure... Although typical operating pressures are
around 130 psi, tanks are typically rated to over 300 psi...

With LNG, you need either higher pressure or a cooling system...

Here's some info:
http://www.wps.com/LPG/WVU-review.html

Larry Dighera wrote:

On 15 Aug 2006 08:15:58 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote in om:

Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
than does methanol.


How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

LNG has about 73,000 BTU/US Gal., while ethanol has about 80,000. Gasoline
ranges between 110,000 and 125,000.

Keep in mind that the LNG is also accompanied by a very heavy tank, which
has payload implications.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.


oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.

Sheesh... GA doesn't need anymore enemies... hopefully you are not
a pilot.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:56:11 -0500, James Robinson
wrote:
LNG has about 73,000 BTU/US Gal., while ethanol has about 80,000. Gasoline
ranges between 110,000 and 125,000.

Of course you also get to factor in the difference in weight per
gallon...

Keep in mind that the LNG is also accompanied by a very heavy tank, which
has payload implications.

LPG has lighter tanks, but still heavy compared to the ones we have
now for gasoline... Now, on the other hand, I can see the Grumman AA1
series aircraft fuel tanks possibly being converted to LPG in that
they use the tubular spar for a fuel tank... One could perhaps argue
that under pressure the spar might even be stronger... Still, that's a
20g fuel tank... Range will be decreased, but cargo capacity will go
up a few pounds from the reduced weight of the fuel... I suspect that
most aircraft would not be able to have their fuel tanks so easily
modified...