Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Equipment' started by 1LIFE2LIVE, Nov 20, 2012.
Great How-To article in the December issue of Motorcycle Consumer News
great, but I am not a subscriber.
Can you paraphase at a high level what the approach is?
It is actually pretty easy. Just put 10 gallons of water into a container and add a gallon of water. The Ethanol will cling to the water and sink to the bottom. Take the pure gas off the top and your GTG.
But why? Seriously, why would you do this? I can't stand Ethanol and understand that it is a scam with government backing, but removing it is counter-productive. Let's say E10 is causing you to have reduced fuel economy. Most "experts" claim the reduction is small, like 3-4% but I happen to think it is closer to 10%. So if I had pure gas, I would have 10% better fuel economy, right?
Well, yes, except I have to buy the E10 in the first place and then remove 10% of the volume so in terms of what I get for what I pay is really the same. Add in the fact that you then have to dispose of the water and alcohol mix.
There is another problem as well. When you do this, you reduce the octane rating of the gas. You can overcome this by using premium so once it is reduced from 93, you still have something you can use, but now you've paid for premium and now have something close to 87 octane and you have 10% less of it.
I'm a subscriber and I skimmed through the article, I'll go back and read it later in more depth, but basically the gist is that you add water to the gas and the ethanol is hygroscopic. You put the gas into a separatory funnel and let the mixture separate, and drain out the water and ethanol. They seemed to be doing smaller batches as a proof of concept, but talked about scaling up to do 5 gallons at a time or so. One thing they mentioned was that you'd have to put some octane booster in with the clean gas, since removing the ethanol also removes some octane.
Good points, but I think also the reasoning behind removing the ethanol is that it eats away at fuel lines and such. They also mentioned the oncoming of E15 fuel which no motorcycle manufacturer says should be run in their machines. Apparently there are supposed to be safeguards in place to prevent motorcycles from getting E15 fuel, but the article was pointing out how you can make your own clean gas if you were motivated enough.
I really don't kow how they could mandate E15. Toyota specifically states that using any more than 10% Ethanol will void your new car warranty. I doubt Toyota is alone in this. Can you imagine every car losing its warranty because of a new fuel requirement? Distribution and pump issues would be a nightmare as well. I don't think there are enough stimulus dollars to upgrade every gas pump in the country.... well wait... there weren't enough stimulus dollars to do anything else that has already been done anyway.
If you have 10% ethanol and get 10% less fuel economy, that would suggest that the ethanol has no energy content which is not correct. Ethanol does have lower energy content than gasoline (which has lower energy content than diesel) but it's 76,100 BTU/gal compared to 114,100 for gasoline.
So, if you have 10% ethanol, you have (76,100*0.10) + (114,100*0.90) = 110,300 BTU/gal or (110,300/114,100) = 96.7% or about 3.3% less energy than pure gasoline. So, all other variables removed, you are going to get about 3 - 4 % less mileage on ethanol blend fuel. That's assuming that your bike is optimized to run ethanol - otherwise you are just going to see a 3 -4 % reduction in power. I can adjust my mileage by more than 3-4% just by my riding style.
As mentioned, if you remove the ethanol, your octane rating is going down a few points, so now you have to buy octane booster, which brings all kinds of new issues. Why would anyone go to that much cost/expense unless you have a bike that simply can't run on ethanol blend? If you do have such a bike, you'd be better off to buy some 100 octane racing fuel, IMO.
I am old enough to remember when TetraEthyl Lead (TEL) was removed from gas and there were all kinds of snake oil solutions to the problem for older cars with non-hardened valve seats and high compression engines. The sky was falling, we would never have high performance vehicles again and all of our old cars were going to breakdown. Ultimately, everyone just replaced their valve seats (and maybe installed a thicker head gasket) and moved on. At least E10 has high octane - when TEL was phased out, all octane ratings dropped because TEL is a great octane booster.
BTW, don't get me started on the whole ethanol "economic" cycle or bike manufacturers who make fuel tanks that can't hold fuel with ethanol and make it the end user's responsibility to find non-ethanol fuel
Thanks. Luckily , for me , though it may be easier to drive about 25 minutes to get to an area that sells non-ethanol fuel . Some stations in Wisconsin offer "Premium" gas with out ethanol, interesting thing is that it is only 91 .
This is a good website to find stations, http://www.buyrealgas.com looks like they have an Android app too, I may have to check it out
I understand and agree with your math, but my Toyota Tacoma gets 19 mpg on the highway with ethanol and 21 with pure gasoline, which is a 9.5% reduction. I can't imagine that it is 30% ethanol so either the computer doesn't like it or something. I have validated this several times over when I have the opportunity to get gas with no ethanol and it's on the money everytime. I am not familar with all the monitoring and control of fuel injection on modern vehicles, is it possible that the exhaust gases are being monitored and the computer thinks the engine needs to be richer and increases the fuel consumption that way?
It's supposed to get 21 by the window sticker by the way, too bad they dont do the tests with ethanol, then we would hear a big stink from the auto industry!
I did a little web search since posting and found that some say e-10 can reduce mileage from 2-20% depending on the vehicle, I'm seeing a 10% reduction and somebody is benefiting from this stuff but it doesn't appear to be the consumer, surprise!
I did find this here: http://www.fuel-testers.com/state_guide_ethanol_laws.html
"It is shocking that the EPA recently (10/2010) approved E15 for 2001 and newer autos despite knowing manufacturers will invalidate engine warranties when fuel types above E10 are used.
*E15 is not legal for sale yet (12/2011) but MANY gas stations continue to illegally over-blend ethanol due to profit motives.
Exception: Flex-fuel vehicles are designed to accept up to 85% alcohol in gas (E85). "
Of course they are against ethanol but I would tend ot agree that when money is involved and nobody's monitoring the ethanol content there is going to be cheating.
I think with your process, you will get 11 gallons of water. period.
Another resource. They also have an iPhone app and a downloadable .kml file for the GPS.
I was originally trained as an analytical chemist, and the largest separatory funnel I ever saw was just two liters. It would sure take a lot of work to separate out enough pure gas to fill up the Wee Strom.
91 octane in north america = 98 in Europe.. (Can't remember now, but it's around that high on the Euro octane scale).
In Canada, Shell sells pure gasoline when you buy Premimim 91. There's a sticker on the pump that indicates the 87 and 89 contain up to 10% ethanol, but 91 contains NO ethanol.
Here in the U.S, Al Gore was a HUGE proponent of ethanol, started when he was Vice President. A year or so ago, he had a nice long editorial in the Wall Street Journal saying he was wrong and that ethanol is a crock.
The industry and tax breaks, not to mention brainwashing, are so entrenched that we'll never get rid of it. All it's really done is reduce pheasant habitat and drive up the price of tortillas.
Here's a link to a WSJ discussion of his 'mea culpa' but I can't find the original article. I've got it saved on my desktop someplace, if anybody's really interested I'll dig it up and cut n paste. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...oblem-admits-ethanol-subsidies-a-mistake.html
I believe the discrepancy between e10 energy content compared to " straight" gasoline and real world fuel efficiency is likely due to differences in flame propagation rates which would reduce the efficiency of conversion of chemical energy into mechanical energy.
Case in point is that a lean combustion condition actually is colder than stoichiometric, but it is associated with over heated engines. Why? It changes the flame propagation rate resulting in the chemical energy being converted into heat instead of moving the piston.
This is no big deal if the ignition timing is appropriately adjusted, but I don't know if manufacturers do that. Most likely they just compromise.
I didn't think E15 was out there... but apparently it is, and lots of car manufacturers say it's crap....
Gosh ... why didn't we think of that?
Sounds like a new stimulus plan... or a new version of "cash for clunkers".. or as I like to call them, "money for our banking donors".
The purpose of the ethanol,as I understand it, is principally to aid in more complete combustion and yield lower emissions from vehicles. Thus it is for the benefit of the consumer (of air). It was promoted as a replacement for MTBE which was found to be a huge environmental risk when released to groundwater from underground tanks and distribution systems. As an energy source, it is a crock of shit because of the amount of energy it takes to produce it from dedicated fuel crops.
And gee, guess what many octane boosters contain?
In fact, all the potential octane boosters have all kinds of problems, especially in a homebrew chemistry setting:
- Tolulene and Xylene - strong solvents -- even worse for certain parts of your fuel system than ethanol. Highly regulated.
- MTBE - highly regulated; very toxic to the environment in liquid form.
- Methanol, Ethanol, and other alcohols (isopropyl mostly) -- right back where you started
The point. I don't see it.