X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmfepo103.cox.net ([68.230.241.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4984555 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 May 2011 18:42:46 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.145; envelope-from=glasair2@me.com Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110515224210.NAKY20516.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 18:42:10 -0400 Received: from [192.168.2.201] ([70.177.24.126]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id jyi91g00S2jEC4N04yi9ro; Sun, 15 May 2011 18:42:09 -0400 X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020207.4DD056C1.0094,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Ec7VmHwsNfja0UHbA6E22/ZuZoE7jqKGtPJUn+7OEEM= c=1 sm=1 a=MzCxSdh3GCoA:10 a=J_oHuY-yf3cA:10 a=f32ykCDtWUuHg+z19x9HKQ==:17 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=h4QdAlGJyUgZiyMCrykA:9 a=wHhGoc97tSOUNXrXVEQA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=DsfstegOd-XGA7_D38YA:9 a=aqsAC_dgT0r-SKNAnM4A:7 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=f32ykCDtWUuHg+z19x9HKQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none From: Steve Thomas Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-774615050 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:42:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: To: Rotary motors in aircraft References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) --Apple-Mail-9-774615050 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii All they had to do was change the formula to butanol and all would have = been fine for us fiberglass guys. Butanol has nearly the same energy = content as gasoline and has none of the corrosive effects. =20 Best Regards, Steve Thomas _______________________________________________________ On May 15, 2011, at 7:08 AM, Charlie England wrote: > 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. >=20 > 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.=20 >=20 > The 'corn lobby' is obviously the euphemism for giant farm production = conglomerates.=20 >=20 > Now, isn't everyone happy that the 'conservative' Supreme Court has = now ruled that corporations can contribute unlimited, undocumented money = to political campaigns? >=20 > Charlie >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 5/14/2011 1:08 PM, wrjjrs@aol.com wrote: >>=20 >> 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail-9-774615050 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii All = they had to do was change the formula to butanol and all would have been = fine for us fiberglass guys.  Butanol has nearly the same energy = content as gasoline and has none of the corrosive effects. =  

Best Regards,

Steve = Thomas

______________________________________________________= _

On May 15, 2011, at 7:08 AM, Charlie England = wrote:

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


= --Apple-Mail-9-774615050--