X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm5-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.112] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4984672 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 15 May 2011 20:43:27 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.112; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from [98.139.44.99] by nm5.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 May 2011 00:42:52 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.92] by tm4.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 May 2011 00:42:52 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 May 2011 00:42:52 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 742091.95698.bm@omp1029.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 90319 invoked from network); 16 May 2011 00:42:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1305506571; bh=16BIKnfaQ/d4Bhq2fTWWaCvFNgYmlp4DWOSMqeAyEmk=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=U5HLcm6hpgjgtL4EJQKvWZqx1wPENkARMbLgeoB+OQDjIGgnZG2sWnTnCfcpgcO8Ou8mjeTxg/yG6mnbXW9Wk4hBkRCwxZ+NDpFJsFeA8U8e2kghBBU1h6BYw9LjsoROgamlsZY6+9mZjfIMuLqKPZatpZnc02hO9ZYyvNs4UAw= Received: from [192.168.10.8] (ceengland@74.240.6.78 with plain) by smtp106.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 May 2011 17:42:51 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: uXJ_6LOswBCr8InijhYErvjWlJuRkoKPGNeiuu7PA.5wcGoy X-YMail-OSG: AE8vc4kVM1mfOFsVfxezECzD3lZqd9DFloynp9RjlhKnV7x QhruZTlhDdghc10DeP4KQN3.zIJjQrQ5hWgOzUCiCtD1pqlRAJuAlp3sTyQp I2tFYmVZTfACqYySknpzchQ2Hy3SOu6nqOeJ46vrO9oCE9.hi7O5HjtShPS0 muxpQFDLEBoXZJeIfEWD2fiDIVqNRcWgd495G4W94bHCG24lyuPL1nCPoegN y9O8MYgx6vL8K7_XrzQg7F9QE_TLnZfmufFn3UFRXGysBWzJ.na6AJwUqbJY 0F_wZNKlD8vVHfCfSi7BOhy5mKwpoAi8LOTsj.CptnhQCL8bLM8YLVVs2eJh 4VvjLy7REYUQHBxI2aDYJhLFJIov5QvImgjbZRLZk9fF6b0LPv0UMQ.ZxzM2 MGsAx0VTkrtmxw7D58x0PQ3hzIJ_BNPnWYnt30g-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DD0730A.2060701@bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 19:42:50 -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="------------020407070703080102000106" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020407070703080102000106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not to mention that the right breed of algae actually pee almost-ready-to-fly butanol, and they can be fed waste on otherwise useless land. Isn't Swift fuel a butanol blend? Charlie On 5/15/2011 5:42 PM, Steve Thomas wrote: > 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 >> > --------------020407070703080102000106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not to mention that the right breed of algae actually pee almost-ready-to-fly butanol, and they can be fed waste on otherwise useless land. Isn't Swift fuel a butanol blend?

Charlie

On 5/15/2011 5:42 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
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



--------------020407070703080102000106--