# Engineering Question. (Moved to Alt. Energy Forum)



## Bladesmith (Sep 20, 2003)

I'm no engineer. Not even close, and lots of numbers make me queasy. So a question for someone better at it than I.

Ethanol, moonshine, juice, whatever you want to call it, is a relatively easy to make renewable resource made from plants. Got that part.

Car engines cannot tolerate more than, what, 15% ethanol in the gas mix?

So.....what would be required to build an engine that ran only on Ethanol? Or is ethanol alone, not combustable enough to use as fuel?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

..


----------



## Bladesmith (Sep 20, 2003)

Hmm wonder if anyones experimented with Graphites, Ceramics or Cerametals, or things like Titanium? 

What I'm hearing from you is that a radical new design for ICE's is required. Isn't that sort of thing what America is supposed to be great at?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bladesmith said:


> Hmm wonder if anyones experimented with Graphites, Ceramics or Cerametals, or things like Titanium?



I doubt worth it for ethanol, but remember reading about ceramic direct injection diesels being developed by Isuzu. Ceramic allows them to run at higher temps and thus greater efficiency. Isuzu has some pretty good diesel technology.

As to ethanol, why not ask VW, or GM or Ford that manufacture and sell cars in Brazil for use with 100% ethanol. Obviously they can make cars that work with ethanol. Arent some vehicles that are sold in USA NOW that can use something like an 80% or 90% ethanol blend or regular gasoline whichever is available? Not sure why if 90% not 100% but that may be politically unwise. Big oil has lot of clout at the moment and lot money. Plus we cant yet manage to produce enough alcohol to make a 10% blend for all distribution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bladesmith said:


> So.....what would be required to build an engine that ran only on Ethanol? Or is ethanol alone, not combustable enough to use as fuel?


Cars will run on ethanol but the power output is poor and there will be corrosion problems. It's not a matter of getting engines to run on ethanol, because they already will.

If there was a way to produce enough ethanol to meet our needs at a price that would be competetive with gsoline then I suspect that the problems with corrosion and power output could be dealt with. Until that happens it is a moot question.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

...


----------



## skruzich (Jul 23, 2003)

Bladesmith said:


> I'm no engineer. Not even close, and lots of numbers make me queasy. So a question for someone better at it than I.
> 
> Ethanol, moonshine, juice, whatever you want to call it, is a relatively easy to make renewable resource made from plants. Got that part.
> 
> ...


You can outfit todays vehicles all the way back to vehicles from the 20's. 
I think the ones back pre 70's were better built to handle ethenol. One of the things that is a problem with running 100% is valves. They burn up in no time at all. You need stainless steel valves and valve seats to b able to burn alchohol. Plus you have to lubricate the fuel to prevent siezure. Not sure what kind of lubricant will work in it. 
Th older vehicles that the bootleggers used to use used flathead engines which had the valves in the sides of the pistons. They were built heavier and heartier. Hell you could run a flathead 8 cyl with a blown radiator and not blow the engine.

Biggest problem with alchohol today is its goiing to cost you 3 -4 bucks a gallon to produce and getting the sugar is going to be next to impossible without getting nailed by BATF. IF you go the route of getting a license to produce alchohol, your going to have to cough up the tax per gallon which is something like 10 - 12 bucks in tax.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

skruzich said:


> IF you go the route of getting a license to produce alchohol, your going to have to cough up the tax per gallon which is something like 10 - 12 bucks in tax.


If the ethanol is "denatured" there is no tax. To distill ethanol pure enough to use as fuel you would need to use benzene as an extraction agent. Benzene tainted ethanol would be considered denatured.


----------



## skruzich (Jul 23, 2003)

Nevada said:


> If the ethanol is "denatured" there is no tax. To distill ethanol pure enough to use as fuel you would need to use benzene as an extraction agent. Benzene tainted ethanol would be considered denatured.


ROTFLMAO really you think so?? Boy tell the folks around here that! No you don't have to use benzene. In fact 100% is not desired in a alchohol fuel. You do not ever want to run 100% alchohol, you want to run 85% max.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

skruzich said:


> ROTFLMAO really you think so?? Boy tell the folks around here that! No you don't have to use benzene. In fact 100% is not desired in a alchohol fuel. You do not ever want to run 100% alchohol, you want to run 85% max.


Who's the fuels expert here, you or me?


----------



## Bladesmith (Sep 20, 2003)

Which leads to my other thought. Is it possible that Big oil and Big Auto are in cahoots to keep America from growing their own fuel?


----------



## skruzich (Jul 23, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Who's the fuels expert here, you or me?


I have no clue as to your qualifications. I know that you don't have to use benzene in alchohol. I would say the bootleggers probably know a hell of a lot more than you do.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bladesmith said:


> Which leads to my other thought. Is it possible that Big oil and Big Auto are in cahoots to keep America from growing their own fuel?


I doubt it. It takes a lot of time and effort to gather and process enough organic matter to make a gallon of ethanol. I suspect that it is just not cost effective enough to do. Let gasoline go beyond $5/gal and we'll start seeing alternatives created in people's backyards though.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

skruzich said:


> I have no clue as to your qualifications. I know that you don't have to use benzene in alchohol. I would say the bootleggers probably know a hell of a lot more than you do.


Yeah, and Bootleggers don't need fuel-grade ethanol either. The problem with distilling pure ethanol from water is that ethanol & water make a binary azeotrope that boils at a lower temperature than either water or ethanol individually. Therefore, the ethanol will contain no less than 4% water, which is unacceptable for fuel use. Here is the cure:

******
This problem is solved by taking advantage of another azeotrope. The benzene-ethanol-water ternary azeotrope boils at a lower temperature than the ethanol-water azeotrope. By introducing benzene to a water ethanol mixture, the water can be extracted through distillation leaving behind the pure ethanol which contains a minor amount of benzene as an impurity."
http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/chemistry/azeotrope-woc.html
******

I have a four year degree in chemical engineering and retired from a 24 year career in the petroleum refining industry. Bootleggers indeed!


----------



## skruzich (Jul 23, 2003)

Thats funny they seem to get by with using it as fuel. Like i said its been used as fuel for decades straight out of the still. 
And i don't know about your vehicle, but alchohol burns fine with 15% water in it. 
Now in dragster fuel, you might end up with needing 100%. 



Nevada said:


> Yeah, and Bootleggers don't need fuel-grade ethanol either. The problem with distilling pure ethanol from water is that ethanol & water make a binary azeotrope that boils at a lower temperature than either water or ethanol individually. Therefore, the ethanol will contain no less than 4% water, which is unacceptable for fuel use. Here is the cure:
> 
> 
> I have a four year degree in chemical engineering and retired from a 24 year career in the petroleum refining industry.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

skruzich said:


> Thats funny they seem to get by with using it as fuel. Like i said its been used as fuel for decades straight out of the still.
> And i don't know about your vehicle, but alchohol burns fine with 15% water in it.
> Now in dragster fuel, you might end up with needing 100%.


You'll never find any water in a commercial fuel. Oil companies are also concerned about ethanol drawing water from air. Even the smallest amount of water is unacceptable.

The other problem with ethanol, even pure ethanol, is that it's vapor pressure is much lower than gasoline. The are concerned about inadequate fuel/air mixing with fuels with too much ethanol.

I've never seen a car run in wiskey-grade ethanol. I don't doubt that the car will run on it, but I do question how well the car runs and what kind of corrosion problems it creates.


----------



## skruzich (Jul 23, 2003)

Nevada said:


> You'll never find any water in a commercial fuel. Oil companies are also concerned about ethanol drawing water from air. Even the smallest amount of water is unacceptable.
> 
> The other problem with ethanol, even pure ethanol, is that it's vapor pressure is much lower than gasoline. The are concerned about inadequate fuel/air mixing with fuels with too much ethanol.
> 
> I've never seen a car run in wiskey-grade ethanol. I don't doubt that the car will run on it, but I do question how well the car runs and what kind of corrosion problems it creates.


Why not ask bill elliot he ran whiskey grade for years.


----------



## mohillbilly (Mar 24, 2005)

Bladesmith said:


> I'm no engineer. Not even close, and lots of numbers make me queasy. So a question for someone better at it than I.
> 
> Ethanol, moonshine, juice, whatever you want to call it, is a relatively easy to make renewable resource made from plants. Got that part.
> 
> ...



HE HE HE!!!!


done that, alternitive fuel that is! Not the drinkin kind!!!!!!!! (well, it does taste good, nough said)


Ran it in 2 old dodges at about 75%, for about 2 weeks. No issues developed. The damn cars run GREAT. Had to stop doing it though, the demand for it elsewhere was more beneficial, if ya know what i mean..........


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

> â¢ Life-safety designed monocoque integrated chassis and passenger survive cell with composite structure using the aeronautical technology âNiess Eliptical Survive Ringsâ
> 
> â¢ Three seats, high performance and high life-safety urban car
> 
> ...


Tritec Motors 1.6L 
Engine Model Otto cycle, 4-stroke gasoline or alcohol 
Induction Naturally aspirated 
Layout 4 cylinders in line, 16 Valves 
Displaceament (cc) 1598 
Valvetrain Type, Drive & Layout
16 valves, SOHC, roller rockers with hydraulic tappets. Chain driven with hydraulic tensioner. 
Bore x Stroke (mm) 77 x 85.8 
Compression Ratio 10.5:1 
Cylinder Blocks - Material Grey Cast Iron 
Cylinder Heads - Material Aluminum alloy A319 - High Silicium Content 
Fuel Delivery System Multipoint Sequential Fuel Injection 
Engine Management System 
Siemens 2000 
Valve Diameter (mm) 30.23 Intake 23.26 Exhaust 
Maximum torque (Nm @ rpm)
Obvio ! special specs â original starts at 149 @ 4500 RPM 
Maximum Power Output (kW @ rpm)
Obvio ! special specs â original starts at 85 @ 6.000 RPM 
External dimensions Length x Width x Height (mm)
590 x 465 x 675 
Weight of engine (kg) 104 

This is one of Obvio's models. They have been producing alcohol-fueld vehicles for 9 years, and exporting them.

Keep in mind that these will not be the first alcohol-fueled vehicles to run on American freeways.

My first car was a Rambler Classis with an aluminum block, and it would run on alcohol or kerosene.

My sister's family drives a model-T which was originally designed by it's manufacturer to run on alcohol, and it still can.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

> â¢ Life-safety designed monocoque integrated chassis and passenger survive cell with composite structure using the aeronautical technology âNiess Eliptical Survive Ringsâ
> 
> â¢ Three seats, high performance and high life-safety urban car
> 
> ...


Tritec Motors 1.6L 
Engine Model Otto cycle, 4-stroke gasoline or alcohol 
Induction Naturally aspirated 
Layout 4 cylinders in line, 16 Valves 
Displaceament (cc) 1598 
Valvetrain Type, Drive & Layout
16 valves, SOHC, roller rockers with hydraulic tappets.
Chain driven with hydraulic tensioner. 
Bore x Stroke (mm) 77 x 85.8 
Compression Ratio 10.5:1 
Cylinder Blocks - Material Grey Cast Iron 
Cylinder Heads - Material Aluminum alloy A319 - High Silicium Content 
Fuel Delivery System Multipoint Sequential Fuel Injection 
Engine Management System
Siemens 2000 
Valve Diameter (mm) 30.23 Intake 23.26 Exhaust 
Maximum torque (Nm @ rpm)
Obvio ! special specs â original starts at 149 @ 4500 RPM 
Maximum Power Output (kW @ rpm)
Obvio ! special specs â original starts at 85 @ 6.000 RPM 
External dimensions Length x Width x Height (mm)
590 x 465 x 675 
Weight of engine (kg) 104


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Bladesmith said:


> Which leads to my other thought. Is it possible that Big oil and Big Auto are in cahoots to keep America from growing their own fuel?


LOL

LOL

LOL

Google the relationship between Henry Ford and 'big oil', it all started then when he designed and produced alcohol-fueled automobiles. Mr. Ford had been a huge proponent of locally grown fuels, he beleived that each local area could and should produce it's own fuels. but then later ...


----------



## Bladesmith (Sep 20, 2003)

ET1 SS said:


> Tritec Motors 1.6L
> Engine Model Otto cycle, 4-stroke gasoline or alcohol
> Induction Naturally aspirated
> Layout 4 cylinders in line, 16 Valves
> ...



Very cool. But that thing looks like PlayDoh ate a Hot Wheel and barfed.....


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i heard there was a gasoline engine designed in the seventies that would run on a mix of 50% water and 50% gasoline? is this true? even water will "burn" if you heat it enough.

our fine president made a speech the other day concerning alternative fuels. he stated that many cars currently on the market will burn 85% ethanol with a few alterations. i had heard that before. it sounds like we have been kept in the dark for many years about the range of fuels we can actually use in our vehicles. now that fuel supply has become a security issue, maybe it will be taken seriously and we will be able to utilize what we already have.


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Hi,

There is a good site listed here for just about all aspects of the Ethanol and E85 picture (including how to make it):
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/BioFuel/biofuels.htm#Ethanol

Gary


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm sure you got lots of good replies, but your question is wrong.  An internal combustion engine can run great on 100% ethanol (grain alcohol). They do so in Brazil. There is very little difference from a 'normal' engine. Just different timing & fuel mix to make use of the different flash points & such of ethanol. As well a bit of attention to some plastic/ rubber parts.


E10, E20, E85, and E100 are all popular fuel mixes all across the globe. There is no limit of 15% or less, so long as the engine is designed to handle it.

--->Paul


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i heard there was a gasoline engine designed in the seventies that would run on a mix of 50% water and 50% gasoline? is this true? even water will "burn" if you heat it enough.
> 
> our fine president made a speech the other day concerning alternative fuels. he stated that many cars currently on the market will burn 85% ethanol with a few alterations. i had heard that before. it sounds like we have been kept in the dark for many years about the range of fuels we can actually use in our vehicles. now that fuel supply has become a security issue, maybe it will be taken seriously and we will be able to utilize what we already have.



I believe the plan with the gas/water is to use the heat of the gas to expand the water into steam? The water vapor does not actually burn, but uses the energy of turning a liquid into a vapor.


Flex-fuel vehicles (run on E85) have been available since the mid to late 90's. It's old news here in the upper mid-west of the USA. You can find a gas station selling E85 about every 20-30 miles here in my state.

What has happened - or not happened - in the rest of the country, that no one seems to know about this in the East & SouthEast?????? Seems odd.

Hitler ran his airplanes on straight ethanol back at the end of WWII, when they ran out of petrol. This is old ideas, old technology. Been around a long time. There isn't much new or complicated about it.

Ethanol will not replace all the perto fuels we use in the USA.

It will help tho.

There are a lot of silly people on the news channels these days, trying to blame ethanol for the hike in fuel prices. Think about it - crude oil prices have climbed. Oil companies are making record prices.

Using ethanol reduces the amount of crude oil needed. It pays farmers, not oil companies, for the raw material. If the oil companies aren't using ethanol, they will use _more_ crude oil. That would raise demand & crude oil prices even higher.....

Wonder where the silly people are coming from? Hum.

--->Paul

--->Paul


----------



## DrippingSprings (Sep 22, 2004)

skruzich said:


> I have no clue as to your qualifications. I know that you don't have to use benzene in alchohol. I would say the bootleggers probably know a hell of a lot more than you do.


I can speak on those qualifications coming from four generations of active moonshiners and bootleggers. (retired)

You build a reflux steel and make very pure alcohol not that slop out of a pot still. I have a friend with a alcohol burning 426 blown in an old drag car. Pops alcohol undiluted will run just fine in it. He drives it in parades etc and all he did was the usual reasonably cheap mods and added extra cooling ability ie electric radiator fans etc.

you can convert a old v8 to run on alcohol for about 2 grand if you do the wrench turning yourself. If it cost 5 it would still pay off when I can make 20 gallons of alcohol for about 12 dollars. 

I know someone who still is active and ads the results of his distilling with regular high oct at a 50/50 mix. Common knowledge back when cars was made to last shiners used shine in theri rum running cars

If you have a car set up for leaded gas ie pre 1974 especially it isnt much of an issue. 

I have had to in the past(retired now lol) mix other ingredients to the stuff out of the reflux because it is such hogh proof etc that you really shouldnt drink unless diluted about 50 percent. Pure clear alcohol. Add essence and you can have any flavor you like ie morgans etc. But the original product is akin to Everclear on steroids


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Bladesmith said:


> Hmm wonder if anyones experimented with Graphites, Ceramics or Cerametals, or things like Titanium?
> 
> What I'm hearing from you is that a radical new design for ICE's is required. Isn't that sort of thing what America is supposed to be great at?



Actually, no need for any of that. Pure ethanol (grain alcohol, _not_ methanol aka wood alcohol) is a clean burning fuel that leaves no deposits, has no problems with most regular metals and the proper plastics already in modern engines. It does not attack or corode most common metals, whatever anyone's qualifications around here, that is just plain wrong. Likely that is a confusion of _methanol_ which is very corrosive, very low power, and actually made from petro products & is the basis for MTBE, which ethanol is replacing.

You need to change the fuel mix, & volume for ethanol. Ethanol is a more stable product than gasoline, so easire to make a clean burn. Because of it's high octane, it would be more efficient with a higher compression than current gasoline engine setups.

It's not rocket science, & it's not a whole new metal to cast the block from. This is _simple_ stuff. Just match the fuel/air mix, compression, & timing to the different fuel characteristics.

I've seen colledge projects with a farm still made from anhydrous tank & pipe, older gas tractors reported to run on home made ethanol, air cleaner reducted to pull warm air off the muffler to prevent icing in our cold Minnesota winters. Works well.

I'm in the shadow of one of the many (getting close to 30) ethanol plants in my state. This one is expanding capacity again to double in size, will have 100,000,000 gal capacity starting around Thanksgiving, makes livestock feed, carbon dioxide, and ethanol from corn. The ethanol goes to E10 or E85 blends, which have been around for a decade or 2.

There is no magic or total retooling needed.

--->Paul


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i heard there was a gasoline engine designed in the seventies that would run on a mix of 50% water and 50% gasoline? is this true? even water will "burn" if you heat it enough.
> 
> our fine president made a speech the other day concerning alternative fuels. he stated that many cars currently on the market will burn 85% ethanol with a few alterations. i had heard that before. it sounds like we have been kept in the dark for many years about the range of fuels we can actually use in our vehicles. now that fuel supply has become a security issue, maybe it will be taken seriously and we will be able to utilize what we already have.


Actually water is the aftermath of burning hydrogen. Trying to "burn" water would be like trying to burn ashes from the woodstove.

A gain can come from getting water to vaperize into steam. Google "Bruce Crower six stroke engine" to see how it can be done. Water and gas aren't mixed. The water is injected seperately in the cylinder so it can vaperize to steam on a second power stroke.


----------



## Pink_Carnation (Apr 21, 2006)

I always heard that the reason for not using the ethanol in engines boiled down to taxes and how easy it would be for people to make their own fuel and bypass the gas tax. That and concern about people drinking it...again a tax issue.


----------



## JAK (Oct 15, 2005)

I understand the Brazilians used chrome plated carburetors. I am not sure what they do know with fuel injection, or if they still use 100%, or near to it. I understand one way to get up to 100% is to do your distilling in a vacuum, but at atmospheric pressure the best you can do is something like 95%. I think they do you something like benzene to get the last 5% water out. Not sure how.

I think the main reason that the price of ethanol goes up with oil prices is because people us so much petroleum to grow the corn, mostly in production of the nitrogen fertilizer and later in the conversion process, not just in driving tractors and drying the grain. Personally I don't think it makes sense to grown corn or even switchgrass for producing ethanol to replace petrol. The yield per acre is not there and it is just to hard on the soil. I think it would make more sense to find ways to grown corn and other crops and livestock in a less energy intensive manner. If ethanol made sense farmers would already be their own best customers.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

JAK said:


> I understand the Brazilians used chrome plated carburetors. I am not sure what they do know with fuel injection, or if they still use 100%, or near to it. I understand one way to get up to 100% is to do your distilling in a vacuum, but at atmospheric pressure the best you can do is something like 95%. I think they do you something like benzene to get the last 5% water out. Not sure how.
> 
> I think the main reason that the price of ethanol goes up with oil prices is because people us so much petroleum to grow the corn, mostly in production of the nitrogen fertilizer and later in the conversion process, not just in driving tractors and drying the grain. Personally I don't think it makes sense to grown corn or even switchgrass for producing ethanol to replace petrol. The yield per acre is not there and it is just to hard on the soil. I think it would make more sense to find ways to grown corn and other crops and livestock in a less energy intensive manner. If ethanol made sense farmers would already be their own best customers.


Many ethanol plants use natural gas in producing ethanol. So that ties into the cost of ethanol.

The rest of your items have little bearing on the price of corn or ethanol. Corn is a commodity product, and makes no matter what it costs to grow - it is sold on the open market at prices set by world markets. It is up to us farmers to decide if we want to try to grow anther crop this year or not, based on the prices available. We don't get to set our prices for our crop as others do. We take what we are given.

Ethanaol is also a commodity product now, and it's price will raise & fall based on demand. With the rather sudden change from MTBE to ethanol, it is in high demand at the moment, & so it is bringing a better price these days.

Farmers have been lowering costs & raising production for years. Minimum till & notill systems have become popular in many areas where it works, as it greatly reduces the need for iron & fuel. We can't, tho, waste land producing 1/2 the yeild we do now per acre, as it sounds you would like? Doesn't work that way. Best use of resources, including energy, is near top yield per acre. New ideas & systems are tried all the time, including variable rate technology, GPS steering so there is no overlap of fertilizer or spray, etc.

We keep trying. 

--->Paul


----------



## JAK (Oct 15, 2005)

Thanks Paul. Always good to hear from reality. 

I think it makes sense also for farmers to be able to do something if they end up with a bumper crop when prices are low, assuming they aren't forced to sell it anyways. Here in New Brunswick potato growers are often forced to just dump potatoes. It would be good if they hade the option of making something like ethanol and there was a market for it. 

Still I get a sense that in the near future energy costs might become artificially high and food costs kept artificially low, for policy reasons, and that might lead to strange things happening like people like me making ethanol out of food cheaper than I can buy ethanol at the pump, because of taxes and so forth. Stranger things have happened with government involved.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

rambler said:


> ... Ethanaol is also a commodity product now, ...


Spoken like an accountant.





> ... We can't, tho, waste land producing 1/2 the yeild we do now per acre, as it sounds you would like? Doesn't work that way. Best use of resources, including energy, is near top yield per acre. New ideas & systems are tried all the time, including variable rate technology, GPS steering so there is no overlap of fertilizer or spray, etc.


True while spraying toxic salts onto that soil, to plant GMO seeds it only makes sense [to an accountant] to perform at optimum performance regardless of the accumulation of toxins in the soil and the slow death of all life-giving enzymes therein.

As we dump petro-chem fertilizers on our soil, we can bring about yet another 'dust bowl', just as my grandparents did, the same exact method by which they did it too.


----------



## JAK (Oct 15, 2005)

Thanks ET1SS. Always good to hear from reality.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

ET1 SS said:


> Spoken like an accountant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No GMO, petro fertilizers, or corn yields over 75 bu an acre in your grandparents' day.

Confused, are you opposed to the salt, or the perto fertilizer?  Or just opposed to everything & everything perhaps? That's easy, to just be against everything, but not have any thoughts or help or positive answers.

Without herbicides, tillage & a dry spell caused the dust bowl.

Today, min-till & no-till have changed that.

Not that anyone has all the answers, not me either.

Accountant - that's funny.  Thanks for the chuckle. 

--->Paul


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

rambler said:


> No GMO, petro fertilizers, or corn yields over 75 bu an acre in your grandparents' day.
> 
> Confused, are you opposed to the salt, or the perto fertilizer?  Or just opposed to everything & everything perhaps? That's easy, to just be against everything, but not have any thoughts or help or positive answers.


My grandparents did use petro-chem fertilizers with their salts in Missouri and Oklahoma, and in doing so they helped poison their soil which went into creating the conditions which caused the 'dust bowl'.

My parents did largely the same thing in California. In southern California much of the farm waste drainage goes into the rivers where it has been a huge problem, with the build-up of salt and selenium. Tulare county, Kings county, Kern county and Fresno County all have huge salt build-up problems and in the mid-80's Reagan had to shut-down farm irrigation to thousands of farms as far North as Merced county. All due to farm run-off from petro-chem fertilizers and it's poisons. Reagan's issue with it came from the poison build-up in wildlife/bird preserves in each of those counties, which are 'protected' in a treaty with Canada as safe places for geese to witner-over. But the poison build-up was killing the geese, so the president had to get involved and shut down irrigation to many farms through-out five counties.

Dumping oil onto farm land is not a long term answer to anything.

It does double and triple harvests, for a while, but in the long term it hurts as all.

Organic farming does not poison the soil, it costs much less, but alas the harvests are lower.

In the case of 'corn for ethanol', growing the corn organically, also helps in this 'Net gain' issue as so much less oil is used during farming.

I do have suggestions for some of these problems, organic farming.




> Without herbicides, tillage & a dry spell caused the dust bowl.


We have had worse 'dry spells'.

Anyway that you kill the soil's organisms, hurts plants ability to absorb nutrients. to some degree you can fake-it by providing petro-chem nutrients. but in the mean time, the soil is still dead of live, and should a drought come along, poof the soil leaves.



I was attending college in Fresno when all this hit the local farmers there.


----------



## Ramblin Wreck (Jun 10, 2005)

One of the issues with ethanol production is the amount of energy expended to make it. A friend of mine worked with Brazil in the 70's-80's to develop plants that did part of the breakdown of the raw material with enzymes, thus giving a higher yield of "net energy" at the end of the process. We need to restart and further that research...which lost funding as oil got relatively cheaper in the 80's, 90's, and the early 21st century. I believe we've seen the last of cheap oil...but who knows? I've certainly been wrong about it before. I thought Ford (the Pres, not the company) with big additions by the Carter administration had us going down the right policy path for energy in the 70's...but again, oil got cheap and the path was abandoned.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Ramblin Wreck said:


> One of the issues with ethanol production is the amount of energy expended to make it. A friend of mine worked with Brazil in the 70's-80's to develop plants that did part of the breakdown of the raw material with enzymes, thus giving a higher yield of "net energy" at the end of the process. We need to restart and further that research...which lost funding as oil got relatively cheaper in the 80's, 90's, and the early 21st century. I believe we've seen the last of cheap oil...but who knows? I've certainly been wrong about it before. I thought Ford (the Pres, not the company) with big additions by the Carter administration had us going down the right policy path for energy in the 70's...but again, oil got cheap and the path was abandoned.


Sure any enzymes that can break down plant cellulose into sugars and starches, and make it ready for yeast engestion, would certainly change everything.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Bladesmith said:


> ... Car engines cannot tolerate more than, what, 15% ethanol in the gas mix?
> 
> So.....what would be required to build an engine that ran only on Ethanol? Or is ethanol alone, not combustable enough to use as fuel?




Saabs new E100 car

http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/about/pr_060330.jsp


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

ET1 SS said:


> Sure any enzymes that can break down plant cellulose into sugars and starches, and make it ready for yeast engestion, would certainly change everything.



My understanding is they have the enzymes. Will take 5-7 years to figure out a combination that will become positive energy return over the cost (in energy) of collection all that fiber.

Myself, seems like a _lot_ of transportation cost to collect it all, for a relatively low yield of sugar. Then you have a large pile of fiber waste when done, will it dry down & burn, or return to the fields, or?

But, all beyond me, I hope it works out.  I do.

Bark/ sawdust is a good candidate, as is cornstalks in the midwest, as is wheat straw in the west. And rice straw in specialized areas.

Need to find the right enzymes for each. Don't believe there will be a one fits all answer.

And, can only collect 1/3 or so of the fiber produced, so as not to hurt the soil. Said to be sustainable that way.


As to our other thoughts, I was thinking of the dust bowl in the 30's. Not sure what you are referencing. Sounds like there are salt issues in the small regions you mentioned; not a problem here in the midwest. I remember hearing of the Regan stuff back when. Obviously a problem if you happen to be in one of those areas, but nothing to worry about if you aren't.

Now low-salt fertilizers, applied as a liquid closer to the seed, and less of it thus needed, is becoming popular. Things change & evolve to meet conditions. Here, not because of any salt issue, but the cost of the fert - less used, less cost. Used to be you 'wanted' 1.6 lb of N per bu of corn produced. Now they are at 1 - 1.2 lb needed. They are looking at .8 lb being ideal, and getting to that...... Similar with P & K fertilizer - probably only 1/3 - 1/2 used per bu of production in bands now, compared to your folks broadcast applications if I may presume?

Sorry if this is too many numbers for you. Don't know how else to discuss it tho.

--->Paul


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

rambler said:


> ... As to our other thoughts, I was thinking of the dust bowl in the 30's. Not sure what you are referencing. Sounds like there are salt issues in the small regions you mentioned; not a problem here in the midwest. I remember hearing of the Regan stuff back when. Obviously a problem if you happen to be in one of those areas, but nothing to worry about if you aren't.


1930 dust-bowl in the midwest [Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Arkansas];

And comparing it to Southern San Joaquin Valley in the 1980s.





> Now low-salt fertilizers, applied as a liquid closer to the seed, and less of it thus needed, is becoming popular. Things change & evolve to meet conditions. Here, not because of any salt issue, but the cost of the fert - less used, less cost. Used to be you 'wanted' 1.6 lb of N per bu of corn produced. Now they are at 1 - 1.2 lb needed. They are looking at .8 lb being ideal, and getting to that...... Similar with P & K fertilizer - probably only 1/3 - 1/2 used per bu of production in bands now, compared to your folks broadcast applications if I may presume?


I have seen the 'pure' N applied in liquid, big tanks on the levies with a drip line going into the irrigation water. But all the NPK stuff that I have seen spread has been solid white granules.

My sister's family has 400 acres of Zinfandels just outside of Keyes Ca, they use liquid for N, and solid granules for NPK.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

MELOC said:


> i heard there was a gasoline engine designed in the seventies that would run on a mix of 50% water and 50% gasoline? is this true? even water will "burn" if you heat it enough.
> 
> our fine president made a speech the other day concerning alternative fuels. he stated that many cars currently on the market will burn 85% ethanol with a few alterations. i had heard that before. it sounds like we have been kept in the dark for many years about the range of fuels we can actually use in our vehicles. now that fuel supply has become a security issue, maybe it will be taken seriously and we will be able to utilize what we already have.


Not many, MOST. The only thing stopping todays vehicles from burning ethanol is plastic parts and compression that's too low. Replace the parts with metal parts and turn the compression up and the car will run well on it.

Yes, we've been kept in the dark but there are some places that tried to let us know. Mother earth news has a lot on it but I never knew about that until about 2 years ago. Cars can run on methane and wood gas too but big auto/oil pushed that info down as well.

There are high efficiency engines that run off of gas itself that we cannot get here because US customs wont let them in the country. Imagine that!


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

Aluminum and die cast parts are also adversely affected by alcohol in higher concentrations. Some parts can be anodized to reduce the effect of alcohol on them, but even anodizing can add some thickness to the parts.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Okay I admit that I am confused.

My rambler classic had an aluminum head [or so I was told], I was also told that since it was an older-simpler engine it could run on any flammable liquid. Goofing around I did run it with some kerosene in the tank and again with some diesel in the tank [though never on pure kerosene or diesel, just 5 gallons into the tank and then topped of with gasoline].

I never ran it on alcohol, but several old folks told me that I could have.

My sister's model-T will run on alcohol. I have seen it done.

I do have a 57 Willy Wagon, with a hurricane-6 flat head engine, though it is parked right now. I drove it a lot a couple years ago, but had to garage it during our recent move. I plan to haul it up to our new location this summer and begin driving the Willy some more. It is my understanding that it will run okay on alcohol.

Now I am not a mechanic. So please bear with me here. It was my understanding that low-compression engines will run okay on these other fuels, but that high-compression engines have problems.

Can anyone explain what I am missing?


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

I believe the higher octane allows a higher compression engine to run more efficiently.

A low compression old engine is built tougher, & is more forgiving of 'different' fuels, and was designed to burn the poor quality 'white gas' low octane stuff of years gone by.... However, this will be less efficient. The typical trade off.

In my opinion. 

--->Paul


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

I'm suprised that no one has mentioned that the Indy race *cars* have run on alky for years.
And many many moons ago I now and again ran alky blends in my stock outboard hydroplane. (not legall for racing)

Ok the disclaimer. Yes the alky that they run at Indy IS an exotic blend. It is a far cry from being straight alky. But never the less many a engine has run on alky for a LOT of years. And we don't want to talk about the price of alky racing fuel.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Jim-mi said:


> I'm suprised that no one has mentioned that the Indy race *cars* have run on alky for years.
> And many many moons ago I now and again ran alky blends in my stock outboard hydroplane. (not legall for racing)
> 
> Ok the disclaimer. Yes the alky that they run at Indy IS an exotic blend. It is a far cry from being straight alky. But never the less many a engine has run on alky for a LOT of years. And we don't want to talk about the price of alky racing fuel.


In the past the Indy series, as well as the other open wheel series I believe, ran on methanol. Very, very, very, very different than what we are brewing from corn or other sugars.

Next year, the Indy series will be run on the good stuff, ethanol, from grains.  I think this year they are on a 10% blend os something.

That driver that was killed a few weeks ago in the terrible wreck was being sponcered by Ethanol Groups.

I see they have a lot more educationg to do before folks grasp the difference between the bad methanol, and the good ethanol.

There is a world of difference between the 2, ethanol is not nearly so corrosive, and has far more BTU per gallon.

--->Paul


----------

