alt.energy.renewable

On Apr 7, 2:45=A0am, Fran wrote:
> On Apr 7, 11:41=A0am, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob Eld" wrote in messagenews:89VJj.787$CW.170@=
newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > > "tankfixer" wrote in message
> > >news:MPG.2261b459c3b36e87989f04@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > >> In article <60b475a4-34e5-4762-ba86-256f227519b5
> > >> @o1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, b...@canada.com says...
>
> > >> > University of Nebraska showed in the 70s that ethanol has got 18%
> > >> > greater distance per gallon than gas.
>
> > >> That would bee an odd thing since ethanol has less energy per unit of=

> > >> mass that straight gasoline.
>
> > >> Please post a link to that peer reviewed article, I'd like to read it=
.
>
> > > I think that is wrong too, but ethanol has an octane rating of 120, so=
is a
> > > much better performer in high compression engines that gasoline. That'=
s why
> > > it's used in racing. It doesn't give better mileage, it gives better
> > > performance, higher speed, higher power and acceleration.
>
> > Actually there might be some truth in the statement.
> > Higher octane means that compression can be higher, which not only means=
more power, but it also means that the (thermal) efficiency
> > of the engine can be higher (Carnot limit).
> > When the thermal efficiency is higher, you can then also use a smaller e=
ngine for the same power, which again increases efficiency
> > (fewer friction losses).
>
> > I have not seen a really good calculation of this effect, but it is poss=
ible that this increase in efficiency is larger than the 25%
> > loss due to reduced energy of combustion of ethanol versus gasoline.
>
> A rural friend of mine lost his 2000cc engine in a utility and ended
> up buying a second hand engine with a displacement of only 1600cc.
> He's a bit of a dab hand with these things and managed to reconfigure
> the ignition timing, the jets on the carburettor and so forth. He
> lives in a fairly hilly area and often has to carry loads in the back
> of the vehicle, but said that he noticed no loss in performance at all
> (and at low revs he was actually getting more speed off the mark), and
> yet was getting about 10-15% *better* fuel economy. Part of that would
> have been the smaller, lighter engine, and for all we know, he might
> have driven it differently, or conceivably his other engine might have
> been somewhat underperforming prior to falling over, so the test falls
> short of being scientific.
>
> If an ethanol-burning engine can at worst, perform comparably with a
> petrol-driven engine by most criteria, then that's probably going to
> be acceptable to most people. He managed to produce his with a home
> kit so he was saving quite a bit on fuel.

It will be, and most people will be permanemty deluded into
believing they understand science, economics, or cars.
Since the ethanol is to make make the computers, lasers, fibers,
glass,
robots, houses, PV Cells, DNA satellites, and tractors, so that
morons
in the US can make notes about their idiot petrol problems.



>
> Fran- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -