Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
04-11-2007, 03:35 AM
#27
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: dirtybird
Coleman fuel works great. Its just that it costs $5/gal
Coleman fuel works great. Its just that it costs $5/gal
--------------
I have several gallons of Coleman fuel that I have been running in a Poulan chainsaw and weed trimmer. The carb needed resetting, but it seems to work well enough. The Poulans call for higher octane than 87, so I tried them first just to see how they would run on the lower octane Coleman fuel. Granted, they are not as peppy, but the power isn't missed and the engines are not pinging, which was my primary concern.
Ed Cregger
04-11-2007, 04:46 AM
#28
My Feedback: (29)
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
Both avgas and camp fuel seem to have advantages over pump gas in regard to smell, storage, and solvency to rubbers. I have tested Camp fuel in many different engines/vehicles and found that it will always diesel in four-strokes, and in two-strokes when the temperature gets high enough. Avgas just fouls sparkplugs. Im thinking that a mixture of the two (say 80%camp-20%avgas) may provide enough octane with acceptable sparkplug life. If I get bored I will get out my octane testing engine find out how much to mix.
04-11-2007, 02:50 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arcen, , NETHERLANDS
Posts: 6,571
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
Too low octane for a certain compression ratio causes KNOCK. Instead of a smooth combustion, masses of the compressed charge burn at once.
This causes very high pressure rises that leads to rough running, piston and bearing damage. Piston rings start to flutter and get extra wear. When extreme, the high pressure rises causes a pinging sound, like a tin-foil crackle. Long before you hear this sound, the engine shows it's unhappiness by bogging down and overheating.
@ Ed,
The above sets in before you hear the detonation. Too high octane ratings do not hurt an engine if the gas is leadfree. Too low octane numbers cause damage. It's like walking on thin ice. Too thin will get you wet.
This causes very high pressure rises that leads to rough running, piston and bearing damage. Piston rings start to flutter and get extra wear. When extreme, the high pressure rises causes a pinging sound, like a tin-foil crackle. Long before you hear this sound, the engine shows it's unhappiness by bogging down and overheating.
@ Ed,
The above sets in before you hear the detonation. Too high octane ratings do not hurt an engine if the gas is leadfree. Too low octane numbers cause damage. It's like walking on thin ice. Too thin will get you wet.
04-11-2007, 02:54 PM
#31
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
The flammability of Coleman® Fuel is comparable to gasoline but it cannot be used in gasoline engines. It will burn out the valves.
04-11-2007, 04:28 PM
#33
My Feedback: (14)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
Even since Hurricane Katrina the gas in Connecticut has really stunk bad. The gas companies asked to have the regulations relaxed and I think they are getting rid of all the crap they can while they can. After all they can't make the same bug killers they used to.
04-11-2007, 04:32 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arcen, , NETHERLANDS
Posts: 6,571
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
Yes they did use coleman fuel. They also used a very small carburettor, so the engine volumetric efficiency was very low. This reduced compression end pressure and specific power considerably, so they did not need a high octane fuel.
Not my idea to get the most out of a certain amount of fuel, but they made it nonetheless using "standard" parts as much as possible and a healthy amount of perseverance. Quite an achievement.
Not my idea to get the most out of a certain amount of fuel, but they made it nonetheless using "standard" parts as much as possible and a healthy amount of perseverance. Quite an achievement.
04-11-2007, 09:49 PM
#37
Senior Member
My Feedback: (40)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bear, DE
Posts: 4,104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: Silversurfer
Bubba,
I've seen something similar happen in California. As you know, the fuel makers out here are always coming up with new additives to make the AQMD and EPA happy. Then again, they're also always looking for ways to dispose of otherwise poisonous substances (MTBE) and what better way that to let the people burn it while they get paid for it
In any case, often after a change in additives you'll encounter a rash of auto and motor home engine fires in this state. It usually gets shoved under the rug but the fact remains that all the new burn spots on the asphalt happen after the fuel formulas have been altered and new additives mixed in. I used to haul gasoline, diesel, and ethanol and know that most gas starts out equal and octane levels are modified when the delivery vehicle is loaded from a central source. Push the buttons and the chemicals are added for regular, midgrade, and premium, while the specific additives are added for whatever house brand you're loading. The gas in the tanks at many "name" service staions is very often not of that "name" at all, but loaded from a common or generic source.
As far as an MSDS is concerned, that's more or less a joke. Testing is almost never performed and when it is it's done with samples provided by the gas company specific for the purpose. The test may well match the MSDS but if you ever see a state of federal agency taking gas from a pump for testing let me know. That testing will be done in the area refineries by the producers of the fuel with a prepared handout passed on, not by some government agency. Same holds true for the accuracy of pump delivery to the end user.
I may appear a bit cynical but I've lived to long and seen to much to think otherwise anymore. You get what they give you regardless of what they say it is. They are now using more ethanol because it alledgely burns cleaner. They say the same about propane. Ever stand behind a propane powered forklift when it's running? Your eyes will burn worse than the old days in Los Angeles. Only thing that's certain is that it takes more ethanol to obtain the same amount of btu's as gasoline. They don't lower the cost of the product because of the reduced efficiency, nor do they pass on the substantially reduced cost of obtaining or processing the product. In California they charge more everytime they change an additive. It's only about money and what they can get for the product.
When they went to MTBE the prices went up because they had to "reformulate" the the gas and the additive was "more expensive". They failed to note that MTBE was a waste byproduct of gas and fuel processing. When they went back to ethanol, which is what they were using prior to MTBE, the prices again were increased to offset the cost of "reformulating" and for the "more expensive" additive.
Bubba,
I've seen something similar happen in California. As you know, the fuel makers out here are always coming up with new additives to make the AQMD and EPA happy. Then again, they're also always looking for ways to dispose of otherwise poisonous substances (MTBE) and what better way that to let the people burn it while they get paid for it
In any case, often after a change in additives you'll encounter a rash of auto and motor home engine fires in this state. It usually gets shoved under the rug but the fact remains that all the new burn spots on the asphalt happen after the fuel formulas have been altered and new additives mixed in. I used to haul gasoline, diesel, and ethanol and know that most gas starts out equal and octane levels are modified when the delivery vehicle is loaded from a central source. Push the buttons and the chemicals are added for regular, midgrade, and premium, while the specific additives are added for whatever house brand you're loading. The gas in the tanks at many "name" service staions is very often not of that "name" at all, but loaded from a common or generic source.
As far as an MSDS is concerned, that's more or less a joke. Testing is almost never performed and when it is it's done with samples provided by the gas company specific for the purpose. The test may well match the MSDS but if you ever see a state of federal agency taking gas from a pump for testing let me know. That testing will be done in the area refineries by the producers of the fuel with a prepared handout passed on, not by some government agency. Same holds true for the accuracy of pump delivery to the end user.
I may appear a bit cynical but I've lived to long and seen to much to think otherwise anymore. You get what they give you regardless of what they say it is. They are now using more ethanol because it alledgely burns cleaner. They say the same about propane. Ever stand behind a propane powered forklift when it's running? Your eyes will burn worse than the old days in Los Angeles. Only thing that's certain is that it takes more ethanol to obtain the same amount of btu's as gasoline. They don't lower the cost of the product because of the reduced efficiency, nor do they pass on the substantially reduced cost of obtaining or processing the product. In California they charge more everytime they change an additive. It's only about money and what they can get for the product.
When they went to MTBE the prices went up because they had to "reformulate" the the gas and the additive was "more expensive". They failed to note that MTBE was a waste byproduct of gas and fuel processing. When they went back to ethanol, which is what they were using prior to MTBE, the prices again were increased to offset the cost of "reformulating" and for the "more expensive" additive.
I am too lazy right now to read this entire thread after what yoou posted... but I often wondered if anyone ever tested the gas at the pumps. 2 weeks ago for the first time since started filling up cars with gas (say 18 years) I actually saw half of a station closed down with guys and test equipment taking gas from the pump. Was kinda funny to see since thought it was never ever done. Gave a me a laugh for the day
However I do hear all that you are saying here.
04-11-2007, 10:19 PM
#38
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: sinergy
I am too lazy right now to read this entire thread after what yoou posted... but I often wondered if anyone ever tested the gas at the pumps. 2 weeks ago for the first time since started filling up cars with gas (say 18 years) I actually saw half of a station closed down with guys and test equipment taking gas from the pump. Was kinda funny to see since thought it was never ever done. Gave a me a laugh for the day
However I do hear all that you are saying here.
I am too lazy right now to read this entire thread after what yoou posted... but I often wondered if anyone ever tested the gas at the pumps. 2 weeks ago for the first time since started filling up cars with gas (say 18 years) I actually saw half of a station closed down with guys and test equipment taking gas from the pump. Was kinda funny to see since thought it was never ever done. Gave a me a laugh for the day
However I do hear all that you are saying here.
04-11-2007, 10:28 PM
#39
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: Skypilot_one
Even since Hurricane Katrina the gas in Connecticut has really stunk bad. The gas companies asked to have the regulations relaxed and I think they are getting rid of all the crap they can while they can. After all they can't make the same bug killers they used to.
Even since Hurricane Katrina the gas in Connecticut has really stunk bad. The gas companies asked to have the regulations relaxed and I think they are getting rid of all the crap they can while they can. After all they can't make the same bug killers they used to.
Some years ago, a very good friend of mine worked for a major petroleum company. He is the one that first alerted me to all the different chemicals / solvents in gasoline. He even called gasoline a "dumping ground" for excessive chemicals the refiners wanted to dump and many were dumped in the winter blends because they would tend to evaporate out of the gas more easily in warm weather. And he worked for a major refiner!
04-11-2007, 10:30 PM
#40
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: Kweasel
Both avgas and camp fuel seem to have advantages over pump gas in regard to smell, storage, and solvency to rubbers. I have tested Camp fuel in many different engines/vehicles and found that it will always diesel in four-strokes, and in two-strokes when the temperature gets high enough. Avgas just fouls sparkplugs. Im thinking that a mixture of the two (say 80%camp-20%avgas) may provide enough octane with acceptable sparkplug life. If I get bored I will get out my octane testing engine find out how much to mix.
Both avgas and camp fuel seem to have advantages over pump gas in regard to smell, storage, and solvency to rubbers. I have tested Camp fuel in many different engines/vehicles and found that it will always diesel in four-strokes, and in two-strokes when the temperature gets high enough. Avgas just fouls sparkplugs. Im thinking that a mixture of the two (say 80%camp-20%avgas) may provide enough octane with acceptable sparkplug life. If I get bored I will get out my octane testing engine find out how much to mix.
04-11-2007, 11:55 PM
#41
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: bubbagates
Ok, Here's a question that no one has asked yet. The subject of this whole thing is certain chemicals in gas causing certain problems with our gas(petrol) engines. Yet no one has asked or mentioned what those problems may be.
Now, I'm not trying to be a pain, and I'm not trying to start a war on tuning or whatever, but can someone explain to me and everyone else for that matter, what sort of problems we are talking about.
Ok, Here's a question that no one has asked yet. The subject of this whole thing is certain chemicals in gas causing certain problems with our gas(petrol) engines. Yet no one has asked or mentioned what those problems may be.
Now, I'm not trying to be a pain, and I'm not trying to start a war on tuning or whatever, but can someone explain to me and everyone else for that matter, what sort of problems we are talking about.
I started this thread to point out that while ethanol may in deed cause problems, other gasoline principal ingredients may also be causing the problems. For example, when I think of Toluene, I think of lacquer thinner as that is a main ingredient in many thinners. Try soaking a carb diaphram in that for awhile and see what the results are! More than likely here in the US, our gas will have some percentage of toluene in it and the percentages may be higher than the ethanol.
Now there are a couple of points about toluene and xylene .... they are excellent fuels! In areas where racing gasoline is not readily available, Hot Rodders have used Toluene and Xylene for years as a fuel additive. They claim it has a very high octane and I believe that is one reason the refiners use these in pump gas. A known problem (other than damage to fuel systems) of high percentages of toluene and xylene is soot production and darkened plug electrodes that makes getting a good plug reading harder. In some cases when using gas with high percentages of these chemicals, a properly tuned engine could show a very dark plug making the owner think his engine is running rich when it is running right. Good case for tuning by ear I guess. I don't want to beat this fuel thing to death but I believe it is interesting to know what is in our gas and how it affects our RC engines.
04-12-2007, 07:56 AM
#42
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
This reduced compression end pressure and specific power considerably, so they did not need a high octane fuel.
04-12-2007, 07:58 AM
#43
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
ORIGINAL: Silversurfer
That little OS was the first publically acclaimed crossing of the Atlantic. There was one prior to that with a vehicle named the Aerosonde. Google it and check.
That little OS was the first publically acclaimed crossing of the Atlantic. There was one prior to that with a vehicle named the Aerosonde. Google it and check.
So? The Aerosounde was a much larger UAV, with a much larger capacity to carry some fuel, not a small model. Not nearly as impressive a feat. Though quite a feat nonetheless.
04-12-2007, 04:26 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arcen, , NETHERLANDS
Posts: 6,571
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
quote:
This reduced compression end pressure and specific power considerably, so they did not need a high octane fuel.
I wasn't talking about octane, I was reffering to burning valves. It doesn't burn hot enough to burn the valves. It's not that differant from aviation fuel, without the lead.
This reduced compression end pressure and specific power considerably, so they did not need a high octane fuel.
I wasn't talking about octane, I was reffering to burning valves. It doesn't burn hot enough to burn the valves. It's not that differant from aviation fuel, without the lead.
The idea is a bit more complex than just octane numbers, though intrinsically related.
Sequence of events:
The lead in avgas lubricates valve stems and valve seats, while detonation due to lack of the required octane rating tends to hammer all exposed parts just like cavitation does on ships propellors. This causes local heat spots, high residual part temperatures and subsequent higher valve seat temperatures. This in turn leads to valve burning, helped by the lack of lead assist in providing a good seal between valve and valve seat. The escaping gas then tends to cut into the valve seat, cause a larger leak, and eventually leads to a complete valve failure.
Burn temperature is governed by burn speed and related pressure rise. Low octane mixtures burn hotter, because they burn faster and thus cause more steep, but shorter (in time) pressure rises. It is these high pressure, high temperature flame fronts (read shock waves) that cause stagnant mixture pockets to explode, and aggravate the situation. These micture pockets would normally burn at a later time, and thus not cause damage.
04-12-2007, 10:19 PM
#45
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
Well all I got to say is I am glad Truckracer was able to post the data about gas. It is good to know as much as posible about fuels you use and the proper use of them. Also it is good to know about the health hazards too. I cannot hardly believe the guy that said "gas is gas...and get over it. What a simplistic view. Most likely from a simple-ton. Capt,n
04-12-2007, 11:26 PM
#46
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
The Aerosonde performed that crossing on about a gallon of gas. Yep. it was both larger AND heavier and used an Enya 4 stroke converted to gas. I suppose being larger and heavier, while using less fuel to accomplish the same task, and doing it first, is not nearly as impressive as being second. Both feats are impressive from my viewpoint. The intent of my original reference to the original Aerosonde was that the crossing made by the OS powered model WAS NOT the first.
04-13-2007, 09:20 AM
#48
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
The Aerosonde used 1.5 gallons of gas, TAM-5 used less than a gallon of gas. The larger airframe does help it to carry more gas as well as the larger engine. You are right, both feats are impressive.
04-15-2007, 06:56 AM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Arcen, , NETHERLANDS
Posts: 6,571
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
Rather than talk about transatlantic flight, which might be an interesting thread all by itself, I'd like to stay on subject.
I did a small refresh on my knowledge of hydrocarbond and aromats, and in doing so found this most comprehensive link. A FAQ on gasoline (petrol, benzine). I did not find the answer there on compatibility of walbro parts, but since the fuel then already contained up to 35% aromats, it is hardly likely that these cause the Walbro parts to harden. So it must be the new lead-replacing fluids like oxigenates and alkylates. Alkylates (like Aspen) seem to work well with old type Walbro's, which leaves the oxigenates as culprit.
See section 7 of the FAQ for octane info, and why running 87 PON is damaging to engines that run at high efficiencies.
http://www.turborick.com/gsxr1127/gasoline.html
I did a small refresh on my knowledge of hydrocarbond and aromats, and in doing so found this most comprehensive link. A FAQ on gasoline (petrol, benzine). I did not find the answer there on compatibility of walbro parts, but since the fuel then already contained up to 35% aromats, it is hardly likely that these cause the Walbro parts to harden. So it must be the new lead-replacing fluids like oxigenates and alkylates. Alkylates (like Aspen) seem to work well with old type Walbro's, which leaves the oxigenates as culprit.
See section 7 of the FAQ for octane info, and why running 87 PON is damaging to engines that run at high efficiencies.
http://www.turborick.com/gsxr1127/gasoline.html
04-15-2007, 10:13 AM
#50
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Tan Valley,
AZ
Posts: 5,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Everybody blames Ethanol for gasser problems
I guess I don't know why your are worried about burning valves. I haven't found any valves in my two stroke engines. I also read that detonation does not occur in small engines. That means octane numbers mean nothing. The question is, is how small is small?
