Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 616053 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:51:09 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2005 09:58:30 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from echristl-linux.cisco.com (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.151]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j0LEoaW0008947 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:50:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Pport/cold side injectors From: Ernest Christley To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1106319036.2333.65.camel@echristl-linux.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:50:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 09:12, Ed Anderson wrote: > The Swiss Mistral rotary folks reported that when they went to long runners > that they believed they encountered a "distillation" problem as Ernest > mentioned. Due to this problem they believed that they encounter detonation > with their turbo set up due to the "Low Octane" part being ingested at a > different time than the lighter high octane part of the fuel. I am > certainly not enough of a chemist to even know if this even sounds > plausible. However, the team did have a Chemist and that is what he > reported. > > I must admit I'm a little bit skeptical of this mode as it would seem that > even if it happened you would have a continuos stream of light and heavy > elements intermixing between one injection period and the next. But, they > certainly had the resources and inclination to look into the problem and > that was their conclusion. > > Ed A It's entirely plausible, Ed. First consider gasoline. Being a organic substance, it is not a nice even mixture of identical molecules. It is a random and often chaotic mixture of carbon compounds. These compounds are mostly chains of carbon atoms with hydrogen hanging off the unused bonds. Sometimes the chains hook back on themselves, but mostly they just intertwine like strands in a cotton ball. The shorter strands evaporate and burn easier and faster. If I can get the order correct, the number of carbon atoms in each molecule goes: 1)methane 2)butane 3)propane . . 8)octane (this one's important) 12)hexane Now the way organic material burns is important. When exposed to oxygen and energy (we usually use heat, but other methods are possible), the oxidation process removes a carborn from the END of the chain, reacts it with the oxygen to give up carbon dioxide and water. It's very important to consider that the center carbons are safe till all the ends are burned off, and none will burn till the ends are exposed to oxygen. Now, how does that apply to us. First, liquid gas does not burn except for the very surface...the part exposed to oxygen. In the few milliseconds that a molecule will be in the combustion chamber of an engine, it has to be exposed to air and burn completely. If it has to wait for 1000 neighboring molecules to burn away first, it will be halfway down the exhaust before it can even get started. Second, if you let the gas distill, you seperate out the short chains from the long chains. Think of dried wheat chaff, stick, and logs. The chaff will flash and be gone. The sticks will keep an nice fire going, and the logs will burn all night...IF you can get them lit. For a nice campfire, you'd want some of all of it. What Mistral experienced was the chaff getting sucked in quickly and being burned off with some of the sticks, and then the logs clumping up and being sucked in as a tree trunk. Third, the magical 'octane'. The original test for octane was to compare the burning of a sample of a fuel in a calibrated engine. The engine was calibrate with pure OCTANE, exactly 8 carbon atoms in every molecule. You can burn any fuel in an internal combustion engine, you just have to get the mixture and spark timing correct. If the fuel burns fast like propane, you want to spark later. You'd want to spark diesel earlier. A mixture that is either lean or rich of peak will want an earlier spark. Higher compression calls for a later spark. In all cases, what you're doing is compensating for how quickly the fuel burns so that you can get maximum pressure in the cylinder at the right time. The problem that was found with the long runners was that it screwed the mixture up. Instead of a nice clean flame front that could be compensated for, you got a hodgepodge mixture of wheat chaff and oak tree trunks. This is courtesy of an overzealous organic chemistry professor from 1987. I may have forgotten a thing or two since then.