KymcoForum.com
General => Technical | How To => Topic started by: Yager200i on May 19, 2015, 04:33:22 PM
-
Hi, all.
I've been doing research into fuel additives to improve fuel efficiency, and I ran across the genius of Sir Harry Ricardo. He gave us large parts of the technology that are used even today in modern high-compression engines. In 1921 he patented the Racing Discol 1 and Racing Discol 2 (RD1 and RD2) fuels. Apparently RD1 gave as much as 20% better fuel efficiency, and more power.
It was comprised of 80% ethanol, 10% acetone and 10% water. Apparently, to protect their IP and patent rights, they also added a bit of finely ground bone meal, which confounded chemical analysis, but made the exhaust stink to high heaven. Of course, that needn't be added.
Given that most fuel is 10% ethanol now, that 10% ethanol in regular gasoline can be converted into RD1.
This can be done by adding ~38 ml of acetone and ~38 ml of water to each gallon of regular E10 gas. Unless my math is off... please correct me if it is.
{ EDIT: My math was off... it's not 47.32 ml, it's ~38 ml.
One gallon = 3785.41 ml.
10% of that (the 10% ethanol in E10 gasoline) = 378.54 ml.
10% of that (the 10% water and 10% acetone) = 37.85 ml.
So there would be ~76 ml of 50:50 water/acetone added to each gallon of E10 gasoline. }
So for each fill-up of ~2.5 gallons for a typical scooter, something on the order of 95 ml of water and 95 ml of acetone would be added. A small amount of Lucas upper cylinder lubricant, to ensure fuel lubricity, would also probably be a good idea.
Apparently the complete miscibility of acetone in water and ethanol binds the water to the ethanol, and the ethanol to the gasoline, making a homogeneous mixture that doesn't separate out. The ethanol and acetone add to the octane rating of the pump fuel, while the water provides an expansion medium that far exceeds that of combusting fuel in air (water expands to steam at approximately a 1:1600 ratio, at the same pressure), adding to cylinder pressure.
Given that gasoline itself and the ethanol in the gas are solvents, the relatively mild solvent acetone shouldn't affect any o-rings, gaskets, etc. But it, along with the steam in-cylinder, should help to keep combustion deposits from forming in the cylinder.
What do you guys think? Has anyone tried this?
-
Hi, all.
I've been doing research into fuel additives to improve fuel efficiency, and I ran across the genius of Sir Harry Ricardo. He gave us large parts of the technology that are used even today in modern high-compression engines. In 1921 he patented the Racing Discol 1 and Racing Discol 2 (RD1 and RD2) fuels. Apparently RD1 gave as much as 20% better fuel efficiency, and more power.
It was comprised of 80% ethanol, 10% acetone and 10% water. Apparently, to protect their IP and patent rights, they also added a bit of finely ground bone meal, which confounded chemical analysis, but made the exhaust stink to high heaven. Of course, that needn't be added.
Given that most fuel is 10% ethanol now, that 10% ethanol in regular gasoline can be converted into RD1.
This can be done by adding 47.32 ml of acetone and 47.32 ml of water to each gallon of regular E10 gas. Unless my math is off... please correct me if it is.
So for each fill-up of ~2.5 gallons for a typical scooter, something on the order of 118 ml of water and 118 ml of acetone would be added. A small amount of Lucas upper cylinder lubricant, to ensure fuel lubricity, would also probably be a good idea.
Apparently the complete miscibility of acetone in water and ethanol binds the water to the ethanol, and the ethanol to the gasoline, making a homogeneous mixture that doesn't separate out. The ethanol and acetone add to the octane rating of the pump fuel, while the water provides an expansion medium that far exceeds that of combusting fuel in air (water expands to steam at approximately a 1:1600 ratio, at the same pressure), adding to cylinder pressure.
Given that gasoline itself and the ethanol in the gas are solvents, the relatively mild solvent acetone shouldn't affect any o-rings, gaskets, etc. But it, along with the steam in-cylinder, should help to keep combustion deposits from forming in the cylinder.
What do you guys think? Has anyone tried this?
(http://i.giphy.com/EldfH1VJdbrwY.gif)
I've never felt so dumb reading this forum…and that's no small feat!
-
I've certainly never heard of this so I'm just going to give opinion in response.
Ok, so you make it sound plausible but my first instinct is that water doesn't burn, how can that help. Also introducing water into the system makes me wonder if there will always be some residual left somewhere in the exhaust system leaving it to corrode sooner than later.
The water is there to help increase cylinder pressure but why? Is this because with better pressure you use less gas and therein lies the better efficiency?
If I was to move forward with something like this I guess I would first make up the mixture (shaken, not stirred). Sorry, Bond just jumped into my head. Undiagnosed ADD popping in there. Anyways, mix it up and let it set for a month and then scientifically (with your eyeball) look for separation of the chemicals. From there I may drop a complete new mixture into an old lawn mower or something like that. Mow your yard 5 times with regular gas and measure how much you use. Try the "mixture" for 5 mowings and see how much you use. I'd probably put in a new spark plug each time for something additional to look at at the end of each 5 mow session. Maybe even before and after pictures of the cylinder and head for each. Record the time the mower was running for each session as additional data. Gather as much info as you can and in the end, make some decision about what has happened.
Where did you hear about this? Do you have (credible) links to research? I guess the gas companies are already adding water to gas cause that's what separates over the winter if you don't drain your carb right?
I had a neighbor tell me all about adding acetone to his tank for better gas mileage several years ago. Never had the courage to try it on one of my cars (expensive experiment if it goes wrong). I'm not sure if he ever went through with it either and he's a mechanic who can tear down and diagonose pretty much any combustible engine. Me not so much.
-
I've certainly never heard of this so I'm just going to give opinion in response.
Ok, so you make it sound plausible but my first instinct is that water doesn't burn, how can that help. Also introducing water into the system makes me wonder if there will always be some residual left somewhere in the exhaust system leaving it to corrode sooner than later.
There's water in the exhaust system already. For each gallon of fuel you combust, the engine forms approximately a gallon of water that's then chucked out the exhaust. Unfortunately, the water is usually formed late in the combustion phase from the hydrogen in the fuel and the oxygen in the air, and thus doesn't contribute much to engine power or fuel efficiency.
The water doesn't combust, it's merely there as a superior expansion medium to add to cylinder pressure. A side benefit is that it quenches combustion temperatures, so less NOx is created. It also acts as internal cooling, so less radiator-based cooling is required.
The water is there to help increase cylinder pressure but why? Is this because with better pressure you use less gas and therein lies the better efficiency?
Yes, the phase-change of water to steam is a better expansion medium than air. Not only does it expand more than air for any given temperature delta (water flashing to steam vs. air expanding due to temperature increase), but it also helps to quench and moderate the high combustion temperatures that cause NOx creation.
If I was to move forward with something like this I guess I would first make up the mixture (shaken, not stirred). Sorry, Bond just jumped into my head. Undiagnosed ADD popping in there. Anyways, mix it up and let it set for a month and then scientifically (with your eyeball) look for separation of the chemicals. From there I may drop a complete new mixture into an old lawn mower or something like that. Mow your yard 5 times with regular gas and measure how much you use. Try the "mixture" for 5 mowings and see how much you use. I'd probably put in a new spark plug each time for something additional to look at at the end of each 5 mow session. Maybe even before and after pictures of the cylinder and head for each. Record the time the mower was running for each session as additional data. Gather as much info as you can and in the end, make some decision about what has happened.
Where did you hear about this? Do you have (credible) links to research? I guess the gas companies are already adding water to gas cause that's what separates over the winter if you don't drain your carb right?
I was actually researching additives, came across acetone, and was wondering why some people experienced great gains, some experienced no gain, and some experienced losses... especially when using E10. In doing further research, Sir Harry Ricardo and his Racing Discol fuels came up, and it dawned on me that it's not the acetone alone that's causing an increase in power and fuel efficiency, it's acetone's miscibility with ethanol, the components of gasoline and water that was allowing any water in the tank to be used as an expansion medium in-cylinder. It also lowers the surface tension of fuel droplets, thus the droplets are smaller, thus providing more surface area per droplet, thus allowing them to evaporate more quickly.
You have to be careful when adding water, it can cause a tremendous increase of cylinder pressure. Thus the increase in power some have seen when adding acetone. It must have scavenged any water in the tank and sent it along with the fuel. Those same people later saw their gains in power and fuel efficiency mysteriously evaporate, going back to what they normally were. Most attributed this to their ECU adjusting to the fuel mix, but I suspect it's just that all the in-tank water was consumed. Relative humidity of the intake air may play some part, as well... humidity-laden air would have just enough time to mix the water with the ethanol and acetone before intake. So those who saw fuel efficiency and power gains on wet days, only to see those gains go away on other days, may have experienced this.
Here's some info on Ricardo's RD1 and RD2:
-----
http://www.vintagenorton.com/2012/07/benzole-alcohol-fuel-and-sir-harry.html (http://www.vintagenorton.com/2012/07/benzole-alcohol-fuel-and-sir-harry.html)
Writing in 1992, the late Dr. Joe Bayley told me that alcohol was used at Brooklands prior to the Great War, both as a fuel and as an additive. But he went on to say that it was towards the end of the 1922 season that Discol really became popular.
RD1 (RD= Racing Discol) was made up of 80% Ethanol, 10% acetone and 10% water. It was mainly used for short races. RD2 was 80% Ethanol, 10% Benzole and 10% Acetone - used mainly for longer races - while PMS2 (Pratt’s Motor Spirit), which JB considered probably the best of the three, was a simple mixture of 80% Ethanol and 20% Benzole.
-----
Benzole (aka Benzol) (a mixture of benzene, xylene and toluene, usually) is a carcinogen and the reformulated gasoline mixtures are attempts to remove or minimize these constituents from gasoline.
I had a neighbor tell me all about adding acetone to his tank for better gas mileage several years ago. Never had the courage to try it on one of my cars (expensive experiment if it goes wrong). I'm not sure if he ever went through with it either and he's a mechanic who can tear down and diagonose pretty much any combustible engine. Me not so much.
I'm going to do much the same as you suggest... mix up a batch in a glass container and let it sit for a while to ensure nothing settles out. Given the miscibility of acetone in water, ethanol and the components of gasoline, it should all stay homogeneous, unless the mixture ratios are way off. Then I'll give it a try in the FrankenYager if all goes well with the glass container test.
If worse comes to worst, I'll be draining the tank and refilling with regular gas. I don't expect it'll do any actual damage to the engine.
-
What's you plan for data gathering to see if it's really working besides MPG?
-
That's about all I've got is MPG. What other metrics should I be collecting?
-
Here's another one, a patent:
http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Future-fuel/US7717969.pdf (http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Future-fuel/US7717969.pdf)
2% 5W-30 synthetic motor oil
78% clean water
18% acetone
2% denatured alcohol
That completely replaces gasoline with a mix of oil (presumably to add fuel lubricity), water, acetone and isopropyl alcohol. That's a lot of water.
And another:
http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Fuel-combustion-engines/US4432308.pdf (http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Fuel-combustion-engines/US4432308.pdf)
25% acetone
75% water
Apparently, the lower the compression of the engine is, the more acetone you need, and the less water you can use.
-
Something about putting water through your engine feels like fingernails on a chalk board in my brain, I already go out of my way to get gas without corn, and therefore water. To me, it's the amount of ENERGY you can cram into the combustion cylinder. I'll be interested to see what you find, i know I've found bikes with bad water/ethanol contamination that physically did not run.
-
I think of it as "how much can I make the expansion medium expand using the smallest amount of energy input". The more we can push on that piston (while using the minimum amount of energy to generate that push), the more power we'll get out (using less fuel).
Thus a more efficient expansion medium than air alone makes sense.
-
That's about all I've got is MPG. What other metrics should I be collecting?
I'm not sure other than trying to gather data from anything that the "fuel" touches like mentioned earlier. Just trying to diagnose what is happening other than, "WOW, I get good gas mileage!" Cause so what if you do and then your engine is blown a 1000 miles later. If that happened I wouldn't be thinking about my great gas mileage, I'd be thinking, what the heck happened to my engine. Data is king and it can be good, bad or indifferent and each one tells a story of what is happening. Better MPG is good data but cylinder scaring or scoring is bad data. Weigh the data and decide if it is worth it to move forward. Armed with just the MPG data it is an easy solution. Add in the cylinder scoring and it makes that decision harder (yet more informative). If you don't want to gather the data you'll have a hard time convincing other people to try it. Most people want proof of a 20% increase in gas mileage if you just do "this". If you don't arm them with the ammo to make a good decision, most won't be buying what you are selling.
I use a cylinder head temp guage on my scoot from trail tech. If it is supposed to run cooler, then that would be an area which it should show a difference. Frankenyager may be on his last leg and you want to play around. All well and good but if I went into as much research as you have appeared to then I would put that same energy into proving that it does or doesn't work. I also mentioned some other things to look at in a post above.
You must let us know how this goes.
-
Part of the process of improving the bike's fuel efficiency is instrumentation... after I get the electric mag-drive coolant pumps installed, I'll be instrumenting the bike with exhaust temperature, cylinder head temperature, coolant temperature, fuel injector duty cycle, fuel pressure, TPS, T-MAP, oil temperature, road speed and coolant pump speed data readout and recording.
Some of those will be required to configure the electric coolant pumps initially and calibrate their sensors (TPS, coolant temp, head temp, exhaust temp), but they'll stay afterwards because I'll be dropping in a new programmable ECU, and they'll come in handy tweaking that.
But for right now, all I've got is the OEM ECU and tank-to-tank MPG.
-
You got it Yager. I am with you.
-
Here's something similar to what I'll be trying... but rather than passing acetone through ultraviolet light then introducing the altered acetone to the fuel, as they do in the patent in that PDF, I'll be generating ozone in the intake manifold, putting the acetone in with the fuel (along with water), heating the fuel and relying upon the mixing of fuel and intake air to introduce the ozone to the acetone and thereby create ketone radicals to improve the combustion process.
http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Method-apparatus-improving-fossil-fuel/US4149853.pdf (http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Method-apparatus-improving-fossil-fuel/US4149853.pdf)
-
My solution to that problem is to just pull up to a shell gas station and fillerup. Worry about the important things in life like steaks on the grill, what Jessica Alba looks like nude etc.
-
LOL
-
Another water-in-fuel patent, this time using different chemistry, allowing up to 15% water.
http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Fuel/US2125448.pdf (http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Fuel/US2125448.pdf)
This mixture works, but is cloudy:
Triethanolamine: 18cc
Oleic acid: 58 cc
Water: 75 cc
Gasoline: 750cc
This mixture works, and is clear... indistinguishable from neat gasoline:
Triethanolamine: 18cc
Oleic acid: 58 cc
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether: 20cc
Secondary hexyl alcohol: 25cc
Water: 75 cc
Gasoline: 750cc
It seems to me that using emulsifying agents (soap) in gasoline would make your engine blow soap bubbles. I like the acetone solution better, although modern gasoline does come with detergents added to clean up the engine... that may make it easier to sneak more water into the fuel without compromising engine performance.
I wonder why the fuel companies aren't already doing this... or perhaps they are, since no one can tell if they are or not... that'd be a great way to increase profits, 10% or more of your "fuel" being cheap water.
I guess when I experiment, if I find that no (or only a very small percentage) of water can be made miscible with gasoline, we'll know for sure.
-
A mention of acetone and water in gasoline by Julian Edgars:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_0115/article.html (http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_0115/article.html)
"Note that it has been suggested in some circles that the water can be directly added to the petrol by using a solvent such as acetone. However, I have not heard of anyone actually doing this!"
And another article:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=110615 (http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=110615)
-
Big question is, have YOU tried it yet!!!!!?? Grab the garden hose and fill er' up!!
-
No, not yet. I'm looking for half a dozen 1/2 gallon jars that can have their tops tightly sealed. Then I'll start testing.
I'm also looking at tungsten disulfide (WS2) as a fuel additive. Did you know it's not only one of the most lubricious materials known to man, and would help to lubricate the fuel pump and fuel injector spindle, but it's also used in catalytic cracking of gasoline? That stuff's got a million uses.
-
Well, I couldn't find any half-gallon glass containers that could be sealed, so I got six quart jars, often used in canning.
I also got four smaller 1/2 pint jars. I'll use them for measuring and weighing out the amount of each fuel additive.
I'll get started on my next days off.
-
I started experimenting with alternative fuels today.
The Sir Harry Ricardo Racing Discol 1 (RD1) fuel consisted of 80% ethanol, 10% acetone and 10% water. The reason it became popular with racers in 1921 was because it gave ~20% better power and fuel efficiency over straight gasoline of the day.
My plan is to convert the ethanol in E10 gasoline to RD1 to see if it causes an increase in fuel efficiency.
This means ~38 ml of water and ~38 ml of acetone needs to be added to each gallon of gasoline, a 1:100 ratio.
One gallon is 3785.41178 ml. 10% of that (the 10% ethanol in E10 gasoline) is 378.541 ml. 10% of that (the 10% of acetone and 10% of water) would be 37.854 ml each of water and acetone.
I put each solution into new, clean glass jars and sealed them tightly, marking the total level and in the case of Test #1, the level of the water that settled out.
****
TEST #1:
300 ml gasoline
3 ml acetone
3 ml water
The 6 ml acetone / water 50:50 mixture was perfectly mixed with no separation. But when added to the gasoline, it almost immediately turned slightly cloudy, and some water / ethanol mixture (~50% of the amount of acetone / water added) settled out in the bottom of the jar.
BUT, the acetone / water mixture that remained in solution with the gasoline can be considered "saturated" with water. So just add more gasoline, then add the appropriate proportion of acetone in accordance with the amount of extra gasoline added, and that extra water / ethanol should become miscible in the gasoline. So I'll have to do some calculations to get the ratios just right for E10 gasoline.
I've ordered some graduated pipettes and I'll do more exact measurements to get the ratios exact.
TEST #2:
100 ml acetone
100 ml water
This mixed together perfectly, with no separation or cloudiness, which is to be expected, since acetone is 100% miscible in water.
TEST #3:
400 ml gasoline
4 ml acetone
This mixed together perfectly, with no separation or cloudiness, which is to be expected, since acetone is 100% miscible in gasoline.
I'll let the three jars sit for a week or so, to see if anything settles out.
-
I can't believe that you (Yager) fell into a black hole.
Of all people I thought maybe Wordslinger or Axy or would post up such nonsense.
First problem is, ethanol is an azeotropic compound. It always contains at least 4% water. This includes the EtOH in gasoline.
Second problem is EtOH has a lower energy rating than gasoline. It lowers the octane rating. It adds nothing to gasoline except oxygen as it burns. That The sole purpose of it as an additive is to create more oxygen in the catalytic converter. The SMALL amount of water produced in this process comes from the 4% water in the initial 10% EyOH, and the conversion of hydrocarbons (carbon monoxide) to H2O in the cat converter. So from a gallon of gasoline you might get 2 ounces of water from the condensed steam in the fuel, and the conversion process in the cat.
Third problem is the acetone. Combining a keytone (acetone), and an alcohol creates a hemiacetal. This is a water soluble compound that does nothing to homogenize anything in the fuel. It simply is diluted in water.
I HATE to burst your bubble but you can do MUCH better running advanced ignition timing, and a water injection system to control ping. The GM engineers did this in the early 60's but stopped offering it because people forgot to top off the water bottles, and burnt up pistons.
There are no magic fuels or combinations that can be made at home to outperform gasoline. All the improvements to be had are in the engine, and additives can be used to temper these razor edge improvements but they do nothing on their own.
-
15% water in a fuel run engine....if you believe that then try it in your system and see what happens....Oh yea, be ready for your engine to stall
-
Yagers a good mechanic. this crap will keep him busy for awhile.
If you really want to have fun, and throw dollars out the tailpipe... Retune your injector to meter Nitro Methane. Now that works (25 bucks a gallon, and maybe 20-30 mpg) perhaps 10-15 mph faster tho
-
Again, it's not strictly about how much energy we can cram into the cylinder, unless we don't take into account other variables. Air has traditionally been the unalterable variable in that it's the only expansion medium used.
But given the same temperature delta in-cylinder, air will expand ~37.75:1, whereas water expands ~1600:1. So if we can get more expansion for the same temperature delta, logically we can get the same expansion for less temperature delta... ie: less fuel.
The acetone is merely there to act as a miscibility "bridge" between the hydrocarbon and aqueous. I'll also be experimenting with alkyl betaine as an emulsifier.
Water plays a critical role in oxidative combustion:
http://not2fast.com/thermo/water_injection/water_chemistry.txt (http://not2fast.com/thermo/water_injection/water_chemistry.txt)
By putting water (or hydroxide (OH-), given that hydroxide represents the last step water takes prior to initiation of combustion), we can actually accelerate combustion. The hydroxide is effective at stripping hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels, the faster we can strip those hydrogens out and burn them, the more time we give CO to burn to CO2, given that the two burning process are competing for available oxygen molecules, and CO -> CO2 is a slower process. And that combustion step not only gives a cleaner exhaust, it's exothermic. We want that to burn in-cylinder if at all possible.
-
I can't believe that you (Yager) fell into a black hole.
Of all people I thought maybe Wordslinger or Axy or would post up such nonsense.
First problem is, ethanol is an azeotropic compound.
How is that a bad thing?
Water boils at 100C. Ethanol boils at 78.4C. But the azeotropic mixture of 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water boils at 78.2C. We make it easier to get expansion in-cylinder.
It always contains at least 4% water. This includes the EtOH in gasoline.
Wrong. The azeotropic mixture of 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water always contains water, but ethanol doesn't necessarily contain much water from the fuel pump... if it did, when temperatures dropped a bit, you'd get phase separation and your engine would run rough (or not at all) as that water/ethanol mixture settled to the bottom of your tank and got sucked up by the fuel pump.
Second problem is EtOH has a lower energy rating than gasoline. It lowers the octane rating.
Huh? Ethanol has an octane rating of 113. It raises the octane rating of gasoline. It does, however, lower the energy content.
E10 gasoline has ~104481 BTU gasoline + 7600 BTU ethanol = 112081 BTU/gallon.
Straight gasoline has ~116,090 Btu/gal.
This represents a loss of ~3.45% energy content.
It adds nothing to gasoline except oxygen as it burns. That The sole purpose of it as an additive is to create more oxygen in the catalytic converter.
My bike doesn't have a catalytic converter, so I intend to get it to contribute in-cylinder.
The SMALL amount of water produced in this process comes from the 4% water in the initial 10% EyOH, and the conversion of hydrocarbons (carbon monoxide) to H2O in the cat converter. So from a gallon of gasoline you might get 2 ounces of water from the condensed steam in the fuel, and the conversion process in the cat.
The water's there (and eventually, the hydroxide will be there) for the express purpose of facilitating in-cylinder combustion and expansion. The water will be preheated to just below its latent heat of vaporization, so it doesn't have to absorb much heat in-cylinder to flash to steam.
Third problem is the acetone. Combining a keytone (acetone), and an alcohol creates a hemiacetal. This is a water soluble compound that does nothing to homogenize anything in the fuel. It simply is diluted in water.
Hemiacetals are notoriously unstable compounds. They stand in for the hydroxide radicals that will be used at a later date. Having hemiacetals in-cylinder isn't a bad thing.
I HATE to burst your bubble but you can do MUCH better running advanced ignition timing, and a water injection system to control ping. The GM engineers did this in the early 60's but stopped offering it because people forgot to top off the water bottles, and burnt up pistons.
There are no magic fuels or combinations that can be made at home to outperform gasoline. All the improvements to be had are in the engine, and additives can be used to temper these razor edge improvements but they do nothing on their own.
There's a reason Racing Discol 1 became popular amongst racers (purportedly it gave power and fuel efficiency gains over straight gasoline). I intend to re-discover exactly what that reason was, and if it's still applicable to modern-day fuel.
-
15% water in a fuel run engine....if you believe that then try it in your system and see what happens....Oh yea, be ready for your engine to stall
Take a look at how many cc/minute some of the racers are injecting via their water injection systems. Some of them are pumping more water through their engines than fuel.
-
How is that a bad thing?
Water boils at 100C. Ethanol boils at 78.4C. But the azeotropic mixture of 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water boils at 78.2C. We make it easier to get expansion in-cylinder.
It is actually a good thing BUT the energy rating is far less than gasoline so to create the same power you need more fuel. MPG, HP, and Torque all go down.
Wrong. The azeotropic mixture of 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water always contains water, but ethanol doesn't necessarily contain much water from the fuel pump... if it did, when temperatures dropped a bit, you'd get phase separation and your engine would run rough (or not at all) as that water/ethanol mixture settled to the bottom of your tank and got sucked up by the fuel pump.
Well that is actually the main issue w/ ethanol blended fuels. Phase separation. There are additives besides the Ethanol to counter act this but set a cup of EtOH fuel in your freezer, and you will see it happen.
"Phase Separation describes what happens to gasoline containing Ethanol when water is present. When gasoline containing even small amounts of Ethanol comes in contact with water, either liquid or in the form of humidity; the Ethanol will pick-up and absorb some or all of that water. When it reaches a saturation point the Ethanol and water will Phase Separate, actually coming out of solution and forming two or three distinct layers in the tank.
Phase Separation is also temperature dependent. For example, E-10 can hold approximately .05% water at 60°F. To better understand the amount of water that we are talking about, picture 1 gallon of E-10 at 60°F. This gallon will hold approximately 3.8 teaspoons of water. However if the temperature drops to 20°F it can only hold about 2.8 teaspoons of water."
http://www.lcbamarketing.com/phase_separation_in_ethanol_blen.htm (http://www.lcbamarketing.com/phase_separation_in_ethanol_blen.htm)
Huh? Ethanol has an octane rating of 113. It raises the octane rating of gasoline. It does, however, lower the energy content.
E10 gasoline has ~104481 BTU gasoline + 7600 BTU ethanol = 112081 BTU/gallon.
Straight gasoline has ~116,090 Btu/gal.
This represents a loss of ~3.45% energy content.
.
Exactly. Water plus EtOH reduce the power output of every engine designed to run on gasoline.
The water's there (and eventually, the hydroxide will be there) for the express purpose of facilitating in-cylinder combustion and expansion. The water will be preheated to just below its latent heat of vaporization, so it doesn't have to absorb much heat in-cylinder to flash to steam.
Hemiacetals are notoriously unstable compounds. They stand in for the hydroxide radicals that will be used at a later date. Having hemiacetals in-cylinder isn't a bad thing.
There's a reason Racing Discol 1 became popular amongst racers (purportedly it gave power and fuel efficiency gains over straight gasoline). I intend to re-discover exactly what that reason was, and if it's still applicable to modern-day fuel.
I don't get where you think these hydroxides will come from or the preheating of the water before injection.
Like I said earlier it is FAR easier to advance the Ign. timing, and inject (separately) pure water. Get the amount of advance, and water correct, and you will see an increase in both power, and MPG. This has nothing to do with Unicorn pee theory. It is simply as you expressed... The expansion of gasses in the cylinder. The advanced ignition allows for more power to be extracted from the gasoline, and the steam expansion of the water adds the "bonus" power.
Only problem is that in the long term use of water injectors the oil suffers, as do the cylinder walls, and piston rings. The cylinder is essentially steam cleaned on every cycle, and more frequent oil changes are needed as to correct steam passing the rings.
There is a current thread on peroxides as fuel here... http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=62803 (http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=62803)
It did not get too in depth because the topic has been beaten to death as has Ethanol in gasoline.
It's a fun idea to play with, and some small gains may be realized but the side issues far outweigh the tiny advantage. I did far better with methanol, and benzine blends, and almost stock jetting 30 years ago.
EtOH is one of two future fuels (bio-diesel, and EtOH) if we INSIST on keeping IC engines as the norm. As an additive it sucks, Literately sucks power, absorbs water, and creates mechanical problems in vehicles not designed to use it.
It (EtOH) is cheap, and readily available. Benzine, and methanol are not. Pure gasoline is the best, and least expensive option.
I wanted to add this thought...
It may be a better experiment to see if you can properly gauge your injection system to run on diesel fuel(s).
Perhaps some combo of diethelether, and diesel...
-
How is that a bad thing?
Water boils at 100C. Ethanol boils at 78.4C. But the azeotropic mixture of 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water boils at 78.2C. We make it easier to get expansion in-cylinder.
It is actually a good thing BUT the energy rating is far less than gasoline so to create the same power you need more fuel. MPG, HP, and Torque all go down.
E10-RD1 (E10 gasoline with the 10% ethanol tranformed into RD1) has:
102,391.38 BTU Gasoline + 7448 BTU ethanol + 858.753239 BTU acetone + 0 BTU water
~110,698.133 BTU / gallon
From my example above,
E10 gasoline has ~104481 BTU gasoline + 7600 BTU ethanol = 112081 BTU/gallon.
Straight gasoline has ~116,090 Btu/gal.
So going to E10-RD1 represents a 1.234% lower energy content than E10 gasoline.
Wrong. The azeotropic mixture of 95.63% ethanol and 4.37% water always contains water, but ethanol doesn't necessarily contain much water from the fuel pump... if it did, when temperatures dropped a bit, you'd get phase separation and your engine would run rough (or not at all) as that water/ethanol mixture settled to the bottom of your tank and got sucked up by the fuel pump.
Well that is actually the main issue w/ ethanol blended fuels. Phase separation. There are additives besides the Ethanol to counter act this but set a cup of EtOH fuel in your freezer, and you will see it happen.
"Phase Separation describes what happens to gasoline containing Ethanol when water is present. When gasoline containing even small amounts of Ethanol comes in contact with water, either liquid or in the form of humidity; the Ethanol will pick-up and absorb some or all of that water. When it reaches a saturation point the Ethanol and water will Phase Separate, actually coming out of solution and forming two or three distinct layers in the tank.
Phase Separation is also temperature dependent. For example, E-10 can hold approximately .05% water at 60°F. To better understand the amount of water that we are talking about, picture 1 gallon of E-10 at 60°F. This gallon will hold approximately 3.8 teaspoons of water. However if the temperature drops to 20°F it can only hold about 2.8 teaspoons of water."
http://www.lcbamarketing.com/phase_separation_in_ethanol_blen.htm (http://www.lcbamarketing.com/phase_separation_in_ethanol_blen.htm)
Yeah. But the acetone acts as a buffer to hold much more water in solution with the hydrocarbon. I'll be doing experiments to determine the stability of that solution at various temperatures soon.
Huh? Ethanol has an octane rating of 113. It raises the octane rating of gasoline. It does, however, lower the energy content.
E10 gasoline has ~104481 BTU gasoline + 7600 BTU ethanol = 112081 BTU/gallon.
Straight gasoline has ~116,090 Btu/gal.
This represents a loss of ~3.45% energy content.
Exactly. Water plus EtOH reduce the power output of every engine designed to run on gasoline.
But again, if we crank a billion BTUs per intake cycle worth of fuel into the cylinder, it wouldn't matter one iota if our expansion medium didn't expand efficiently.
Conversely, if we can utilize an expansion medium that expands more than air while using the same or less energy input as air, we come out ahead. Water is that expansion medium. We throw a lot of the heat of combustion away via temperature peaks because air doesn't expand linearly. It's not an Ideal Gas. We can get the same expansion (and thus cylinder pressure) from ~500 F peak combustion temperature with water flashing to steam as would require 1300 F for air alone.
The water's there (and eventually, the hydroxide will be there) for the express purpose of facilitating in-cylinder combustion and expansion. The water will be preheated to just below its latent heat of vaporization, so it doesn't have to absorb much heat in-cylinder to flash to steam.
Hemiacetals are notoriously unstable compounds. They stand in for the hydroxide radicals that will be used at a later date. Having hemiacetals in-cylinder isn't a bad thing.
There's a reason Racing Discol 1 became popular amongst racers (purportedly it gave power and fuel efficiency gains over straight gasoline). I intend to re-discover exactly what that reason was, and if it's still applicable to modern-day fuel.
I don't get where you think these hydroxides will come from or the preheating of the water before injection.
The liquid to be injected will be preheated from coolant heat exiting the engine. By getting the water as near its latent heat of vaporization as possible prior to it reaching the cylinder, the amount of in-cylinder heat it must absorb to flash to steam is minimized. Thus it flashes faster and contributes more to cylinder pressure.
But it's not just water, since the water is in the fuel... and evaporating the fuel will also have benefits as regards quicker combustion.
http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/MotorGasTechReview.pdf (http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/MotorGasTechReview.pdf)
On page 39, it shows the carbon number percentages for regular and premium gasolines, as well as the evaporation percentages versus temperature.
For regular gasoline, at 210F (temperature of coolant exiting the engine), we'd evaporate the gasoline up to carbon number 7, which would account for ~63% of regular gasoline.
Here's a chart showing the vapor pressures of the various carbon number hydrocarbons:
(http://petrowiki.org/images/thumb/6/6a/Vol1_Page_243_Image_0001.png/800px-Vol1_Page_243_Image_0001.png)
http://petrowiki.org/images/6/6a/Vol1_Page_243_Image_0001.png (http://petrowiki.org/images/6/6a/Vol1_Page_243_Image_0001.png)
The hydroxides are easy enough to make. H2O's constituent basic and acidic components during electrolysis are OH- (hydroxide) and H3O+ (hydronium). A voltage applied to water separates out the hydroxide and hydronium. Draw from your water tank at the hydroxide end to inject hydroxide-rich water. No large electrolysis current needed, just voltage to keep the basic and acidic components of water separated. It doesn't take a lot of hydroxide to greatly assist combustion.
Like I said earlier it is FAR easier to advance the Ign. timing, and inject (separately) pure water. Get the amount of advance, and water correct, and you will see an increase in both power, and MPG. This has nothing to do with Unicorn pee theory. It is simply as you expressed... The expansion of gasses in the cylinder. The advanced ignition allows for more power to be extracted from the gasoline, and the steam expansion of the water adds the "bonus" power.
Only problem is that in the long term use of water injectors the oil suffers, as do the cylinder walls, and piston rings. The cylinder is essentially steam cleaned on every cycle, and more frequent oil changes are needed as to correct steam passing the rings.
The cylinder will be WPC treated to maximize its oil holding capability and thus ring seal. It'll be WS2 coated to minimize friction. The piston will have a Total Seal gapless top ring to minimize blowby. The engine will be run hotter, so any water in the oil should boil off.
There is a current thread on peroxides as fuel here... http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=62803 (http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=62803)
That's nice, but I didn't say anything about peroxides. I said hydroxide.
Peroxide is H2O2. Hydroxide is OH-.
Peroxide is one step up the chain in facilitating combustion. I'm going for that last step in the chain. Less delay.
It did not get too in depth because the topic has been beaten to death as has Ethanol in gasoline.
It's a fun idea to play with, and some small gains may be realized but the side issues far outweigh the tiny advantage. I did far better with methanol, and benzine blends, and almost stock jetting 30 years ago.
EtOH is one of two future fuels (bio-diesel, and EtOH) if we INSIST on keeping IC engines as the norm. As an additive it sucks, Literately sucks power, absorbs water, and creates mechanical problems in vehicles not designed to use it.
It (EtOH) is cheap, and readily available. Benzine, and methanol are not. Pure gasoline is the best, and least expensive option.
I wanted to add this thought...
It may be a better experiment to see if you can properly gauge your injection system to run on diesel fuel(s).
Perhaps some combo of diethelether, and diesel...
Then you're getting into changing out not only your connecting rod and piston, but your bearings as well, to handle the shock load of diesel deflagration. If I were to do that, I'd make a really beefy direct-injection engine that was designed to detonate.
-
Well... Have fun.
I know you're a smart fella that loves fiddeling w/ engines so this should be a ball for you.
-
Well... Have fun.
I know you're a smart fella that loves fiddeling w/ engines so this should be a ball for you.
Zombie OUT!!! Lol
-
LOL... Yeah!
It took 27 pages to convince Axy that EtOH/water/gasoline = problems for IC engines... I can't do that again.