X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.84.174] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4984291 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 May 2011 10:08:48 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.84.174; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from [192.168.10.8] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4FE8APf022788 for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 07:08:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ceengland@bellsouth.net) Message-ID: <4DCFDE49.9040907@bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 09:08:09 -0500 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020105080007010602070001" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020105080007010602070001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With a nod to full disclosure, adding an oxygenate isn't the only technical reason for using alcohol. As mentioned earlier, it also has a much higher octane rating than gasoline. Think Indy cars with 14-1 compression (might be even higher by now). That is why, as mentioned earlier, leeching the alcohol out will leave a gas with a much lower octane rating; the alcohol replaces some of the octane enhancers that were previously added to the fuel. Actually, I think that alcohol is a pretty good fuel for piston engines, & it will work fine for rotaries, even though they don't need the extra octane (just kinda tough on the fiberglass fuel tank guys, both a/c & boats). But I also think that we have a hard time separating technical issues from political issues. That's why I made the comment that alcohol wouldn't be in gas without the corn lobby. If it had been put there for technical reasons, we'd be using sugar cane like Brazil, or sugar beets, or switch grass, or even kudzu, but not corn, because while corn does have a slightly positive net energy yield, it's far and away the worst of all the available sources. It's use in gas is driving food costs through the roof for us and the rest of the world, too. I read recently that around 30% of our corn production now goes into fuel instead of food, and corn is in *every* food product that's bought in a package. The 'corn lobby' is obviously the euphemism for giant farm production conglomerates. Now, isn't everyone happy that the 'conservative' Supreme Court has now ruled that corporations can contribute unlimited, undocumented money to political campaigns? Charlie On 5/14/2011 1:08 PM, wrjjrs@aol.com wrote: > Mike, > The real problem is that using ethanol to begin with is junk science. > All a oxygenate in your fuel does is make you get poorer mileage. All > modern fi cars richen the mixture automatically until the O2 sensor > says nada. If can cost a full 1-2 mpg. > Bill Jepson --------------020105080007010602070001 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With a nod to full disclosure, adding an oxygenate isn't the only technical reason for using alcohol. As mentioned earlier, it also has a much higher octane rating than gasoline. Think Indy cars with 14-1 compression (might be even higher by now). That is why, as mentioned earlier, leeching the alcohol out will leave a gas with a much lower octane rating; the alcohol replaces some of the octane enhancers that were previously added to the fuel.

Actually, I think that alcohol is a pretty good fuel for piston engines, & it will work fine for rotaries, even though they don't need the extra octane (just kinda tough on the fiberglass fuel tank guys, both a/c & boats). But I also think that we have a hard time separating technical issues from political issues. That's why I made the comment that alcohol wouldn't be in gas without the corn lobby. If it had been put there for technical reasons, we'd be using sugar cane like Brazil, or sugar beets, or switch grass, or even kudzu, but not corn, because while corn does have a slightly positive net energy yield, it's far and away the worst of all the available sources. It's use in gas is driving food costs through the roof for us and the rest of the world, too. I read recently that around 30% of our corn production now goes into fuel instead of food, and corn is in *every* food product that's bought in a package.

The 'corn lobby' is obviously the euphemism for giant farm production conglomerates.

Now, isn't everyone happy that the 'conservative' Supreme Court has now ruled that corporations can contribute unlimited, undocumented money to political campaigns?

Charlie



On 5/14/2011 1:08 PM, wrjjrs@aol.com wrote:
Mike,
The real problem is that using ethanol to begin with is junk science. All a oxygenate in your fuel does is make you get poorer mileage. All modern fi cars richen the mixture automatically until the O2 sensor says nada. If can cost a full 1-2 mpg.
Bill Jepson

--------------020105080007010602070001--