|
Post by silverdragon on May 8, 2017 10:11:33 GMT
So I may make a suggestion. Put a container of... Petrol, disease-oil, [diesel] Kerosene, Aviation fuel, "advanced" racing engine fuel, White Spirit, pure alcohol C2H5OH, or methanol sometimes known as Wood Alcohol which is CH3OH, and any other liquid fuel oil that may be of relevance...
In a "safe" environment, maybe use an old engine block cylinder?.. anything that can be sealed and vented for safety. Maybe not an engine block, heating that would be a nightmare?.
A Small amount, but, put it under test conditions, and set a stray spark, spark plug maybe, in with it, and "See how long it takes" to ignite, starting at say Minus 20degC up to say +40 degC which are sort of the expected working temperatures of average engine fuel. You could start lower of higher if you think necessary.
What you are looking for is the temp at which a stray spark suspended maybe 6 inch above the liquid causes the ignition of that fuel, at what temp it forms enough vapour to get enough "stoichiometry" to do that. Is it at all possible to measure the ratio of the gas as it is under test?. Can they throw in a "Major Mass Spec" as Abby Scluto would call it, to measure what is going on in the container "live" as the fuel warms up.
Seal the top of the container so it can be forced off, and measure the force as it blows.
Any thoughts on this?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 8, 2017 14:21:43 GMT
So I may make a suggestion. Put a container of... Petrol, disease-oil, [diesel] Kerosene, Aviation fuel, "advanced" racing engine fuel, White Spirit, pure alcohol C 2H 5OH, or methanol sometimes known as Wood Alcohol which is CH 3OH, and any other liquid fuel oil that may be of relevance... In a "safe" environment, maybe use an old engine block cylinder?.. anything that can be sealed and vented for safety. Maybe not an engine block, heating that would be a nightmare?. A Small amount, but, put it under test conditions, and set a stray spark, spark plug maybe, in with it, and "See how long it takes" to ignite, starting at say Minus 20degC up to say +40 degC which are sort of the expected working temperatures of average engine fuel. You could start lower of higher if you think necessary. What you are looking for is the temp at which a stray spark suspended maybe 6 inch above the liquid causes the ignition of that fuel, at what temp it forms enough vapour to get enough "stoichiometry" to do that. Is it at all possible to measure the ratio of the gas as it is under test?. Can they throw in a "Major Mass Spec" as Abby Scluto would call it, to measure what is going on in the container "live" as the fuel warms up. Seal the top of the container so it can be forced off, and measure the force as it blows. Any thoughts on this?. a lot of what you suggest is reinventing the wheel. I have a gadget in my fire engine that will do all the measurement for that, including going into alarm mode when it is approaching the sweet spot. all it requires is the correct modular sensor for the gas or vapor in question. I think maybe a slight modification, put a small pan of fuel at room temperature, an ignition source on a mechanical arm, and after sitting a set period of time you can see where the edge of the flammable vapor cloud is. another modification might be to set an aerosol system with a small amount of fuel - maybe half a cup - to blast a cloud of fuel past your igniter and measure the temperature and size of the fireball. - it could be easily converted to squirt a steam of fuel at your igniter, as well - if you switched to a match, you could see which fuels would put out the match, and which would catch fire. I'd say, do a calorimeter test, but that would probably be boring to the average viewer. I think for the final test they should modify an old carbureted car with a fuel cell and take it to a drag strip. obviously, it will be problematic getting it to run at all on the heavy fuel oils, but perhaps they could find an old diesel for that. measure the time to do a run, and measure the fuel consumed to do it, without making engine adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 9, 2017 9:07:27 GMT
I was thinking that as an education tool the show needs to show "what maybe we already know" to those who have no idea, so yeah, "re-invent the wheel" in a de-constructed way to show people how it works?.. but yeah, if you have a tool already that does all of that, get it on show, lets all have a look at the thing in action, whilst you explain how it works?.
As for the drag strip idea, yeah, thats good for showing the amount of power available. However, may I suggest that as some fuels require more retard on the ignition system to "Hit the sweet spot", take more than one identical vehicles and let them be tuned to the individual fuel "as best they can" to show the maximum energy that can be obtained. Make it a limited run of one litre max for the distance, and let the cars run around a circle track at constant speed until they run out of fuel. Furthest travelled wins?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 9, 2017 14:03:57 GMT
I was thinking that as an education tool the show needs to show "what maybe we already know" to those who have no idea, so yeah, "re-invent the wheel" in a de-constructed way to show people how it works?.. but yeah, if you have a tool already that does all of that, get it on show, lets all have a look at the thing in action, whilst you explain how it works?. As for the drag strip idea, yeah, thats good for showing the amount of power available. However, may I suggest that as some fuels require more retard on the ignition system to "Hit the sweet spot", take more than one identical vehicles and let them be tuned to the individual fuel "as best they can" to show the maximum energy that can be obtained. Make it a limited run of one litre max for the distance, and let the cars run around a circle track at constant speed until they run out of fuel. Furthest travelled wins?. also good ideas.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 9, 2017 16:05:09 GMT
I was thinking that as an education tool the show needs to show "what maybe we already know" to those who have no idea, so yeah, "re-invent the wheel" in a de-constructed way to show people how it works?.. but yeah, if you have a tool already that does all of that, get it on show, lets all have a look at the thing in action, whilst you explain how it works?. As for the drag strip idea, yeah, thats good for showing the amount of power available. However, may I suggest that as some fuels require more retard on the ignition system to "Hit the sweet spot", take more than one identical vehicles and let them be tuned to the individual fuel "as best they can" to show the maximum energy that can be obtained. Make it a limited run of one litre max for the distance, and let the cars run around a circle track at constant speed until they run out of fuel. Furthest travelled wins?. If you're looking at "how far can I go", Diesel fuel is probably going to win out. If you're talking "how fast can I use up this fuel", I'd bet on nitro-methane.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 9, 2017 16:42:19 GMT
I was thinking that as an education tool the show needs to show "what maybe we already know" to those who have no idea, so yeah, "re-invent the wheel" in a de-constructed way to show people how it works?.. but yeah, if you have a tool already that does all of that, get it on show, lets all have a look at the thing in action, whilst you explain how it works?. As for the drag strip idea, yeah, thats good for showing the amount of power available. However, may I suggest that as some fuels require more retard on the ignition system to "Hit the sweet spot", take more than one identical vehicles and let them be tuned to the individual fuel "as best they can" to show the maximum energy that can be obtained. Make it a limited run of one litre max for the distance, and let the cars run around a circle track at constant speed until they run out of fuel. Furthest travelled wins?. If you're looking at "how far can I go", Diesel fuel is probably going to win out. If you're talking "how fast can I use up this fuel", I'd bet on nitro-methane. will the results be different if you measure it in tons/miles/time per volume of fuel? wikipedia has Gasoline Gallon Equivalent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalentit says .88 gallons of diesel matches the energy in one gallon of gasoline, or about 2.3 gallons of nitromethane. this is getting quite interesting. hopefully we will be able to develop a presentation of the idea. the track mileage idea brings it to "how efficiently can I extract the energy from the fuel" as well as how energetic the fuel is. a dynamometer test wouldn't be as exciting to watch, but it would produce better data on what the peak energy per volume you could extract from fuel with a specific engine configuration might be.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 10, 2017 5:42:24 GMT
I was thinking that as an education tool the show needs to show "what maybe we already know" to those who have no idea, so yeah, "re-invent the wheel" in a de-constructed way to show people how it works?.. but yeah, if you have a tool already that does all of that, get it on show, lets all have a look at the thing in action, whilst you explain how it works?. As for the drag strip idea, yeah, thats good for showing the amount of power available. However, may I suggest that as some fuels require more retard on the ignition system to "Hit the sweet spot", take more than one identical vehicles and let them be tuned to the individual fuel "as best they can" to show the maximum energy that can be obtained. Make it a limited run of one litre max for the distance, and let the cars run around a circle track at constant speed until they run out of fuel. Furthest travelled wins?. If you're looking at "how far can I go", Diesel fuel is probably going to win out. If you're talking "how fast can I use up this fuel", I'd bet on nitro-methane. Both... we are looking at the drag strip for who gets the quarter mile first, and then the oval track for who gets furthest, to show why there are different fuels?.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 10, 2017 5:48:09 GMT
If you're looking at "how far can I go", Diesel fuel is probably going to win out. If you're talking "how fast can I use up this fuel", I'd bet on nitro-methane. will the results be different if you measure it in tons/miles/time per volume of fuel? wikipedia has Gasoline Gallon Equivalent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalentit says .88 gallons of diesel matches the energy in one gallon of gasoline, or about 2.3 gallons of nitromethane. this is getting quite interesting. hopefully we will be able to develop a presentation of the idea. the track mileage idea brings it to "how efficiently can I extract the energy from the fuel" as well as how energetic the fuel is. a dynamometer test wouldn't be as exciting to watch, but it would produce better data on what the peak energy per volume you could extract from fuel with a specific engine configuration might be. On the tons per mile, this is why my Transport trade uses diesel. Not just because it used to be cheaper, but more miles per ton is less visits to the truck stop. Big tanks help as well, but the owners hate us having to stop at a truck stop, hell, they hate us having to stop at a set of lights, spending 20 mins of their time or more squeezing go juice in the tank not being productive?.. This is also why a lot of new technology in aerodynamics. A Big heavy roof rack on the tractor that smooths out the flow of air over the trailer can add an extra few miles to the tank per day.... add in the side skirts, under the trailer, and make the sides of the cab sweep back around the sides of the trailer, thats almost a free tank of oil per so-many-miles...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2017 14:30:19 GMT
will the results be different if you measure it in tons/miles/time per volume of fuel? wikipedia has Gasoline Gallon Equivalent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalentit says .88 gallons of diesel matches the energy in one gallon of gasoline, or about 2.3 gallons of nitromethane. this is getting quite interesting. hopefully we will be able to develop a presentation of the idea. the track mileage idea brings it to "how efficiently can I extract the energy from the fuel" as well as how energetic the fuel is. a dynamometer test wouldn't be as exciting to watch, but it would produce better data on what the peak energy per volume you could extract from fuel with a specific engine configuration might be. On the tons per mile, this is why my Transport trade uses diesel. Not just because it used to be cheaper, but more miles per ton is less visits to the truck stop. Big tanks help as well, but the owners hate us having to stop at a truck stop, hell, they hate us having to stop at a set of lights, spending 20 mins of their time or more squeezing go juice in the tank not being productive?.. This is also why a lot of new technology in aerodynamics. A Big heavy roof rack on the tractor that smooths out the flow of air over the trailer can add an extra few miles to the tank per day.... add in the side skirts, under the trailer, and make the sides of the cab sweep back around the sides of the trailer, thats almost a free tank of oil per so-many-miles... I was moving into the drivetrain efficiency realm. it gets to the "if I am driving, my truck burns 6 gallons an hour, you calculate whether I am more efficient at 30 or 60 MPH" statement.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 10, 2017 15:14:08 GMT
will the results be different if you measure it in tons/miles/time per volume of fuel? wikipedia has Gasoline Gallon Equivalent: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalentit says .88 gallons of diesel matches the energy in one gallon of gasoline, or about 2.3 gallons of nitromethane. this is getting quite interesting. hopefully we will be able to develop a presentation of the idea. the track mileage idea brings it to "how efficiently can I extract the energy from the fuel" as well as how energetic the fuel is. a dynamometer test wouldn't be as exciting to watch, but it would produce better data on what the peak energy per volume you could extract from fuel with a specific engine configuration might be. On the tons per mile, this is why my Transport trade uses diesel. Not just because it used to be cheaper, but more miles per ton is less visits to the truck stop. Big tanks help as well, but the owners hate us having to stop at a truck stop, hell, they hate us having to stop at a set of lights, spending 20 mins of their time or more squeezing go juice in the tank not being productive?.. This is also why a lot of new technology in aerodynamics. A Big heavy roof rack on the tractor that smooths out the flow of air over the trailer can add an extra few miles to the tank per day.... add in the side skirts, under the trailer, and make the sides of the cab sweep back around the sides of the trailer, thats almost a free tank of oil per so-many-miles... I think we are getting a little off track and dangerously too far away from a big explosion. Are we talking what fuel is best to propel a big rig down the highway, or what fuel is more likely to give us a big fireball when slammed into the ground at 200 mph?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2017 15:35:05 GMT
On the tons per mile, this is why my Transport trade uses diesel. Not just because it used to be cheaper, but more miles per ton is less visits to the truck stop. Big tanks help as well, but the owners hate us having to stop at a truck stop, hell, they hate us having to stop at a set of lights, spending 20 mins of their time or more squeezing go juice in the tank not being productive?.. This is also why a lot of new technology in aerodynamics. A Big heavy roof rack on the tractor that smooths out the flow of air over the trailer can add an extra few miles to the tank per day.... add in the side skirts, under the trailer, and make the sides of the cab sweep back around the sides of the trailer, thats almost a free tank of oil per so-many-miles... I think we are getting a little off track and dangerously too far away from a big explosion. Are we talking what fuel is best to propel a big rig down the highway, or what fuel is more likely to give us a big fireball when slammed into the ground at 200 mph? we are drifting a little bit, but we are still talking about fuel properties. another angle would be "is putting avgas in a standard car sufficient to make it accelerate like a race car?"
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 10, 2017 15:38:58 GMT
I think we are getting a little off track and dangerously too far away from a big explosion. Are we talking what fuel is best to propel a big rig down the highway, or what fuel is more likely to give us a big fireball when slammed into the ground at 200 mph? we are drifting a little bit, but we are still talking about fuel properties. another angle would be "is putting avgas in a standard car sufficient to make it accelerate like a race car?" I would think, if we put avgas in a standard car, is it more likely to explode in a crash, would be more appropriate to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2017 15:48:28 GMT
we are drifting a little bit, but we are still talking about fuel properties. another angle would be "is putting avgas in a standard car sufficient to make it accelerate like a race car?" I would think, if we put avgas in a standard car, is it more likely to explode in a crash, would be more appropriate to the discussion. but I think the guy who started this thread is more interested in an overview of the performance of the fuel than just "will it explode on impact"
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 10, 2017 15:54:33 GMT
I would think, if we put avgas in a standard car, is it more likely to explode in a crash, would be more appropriate to the discussion. but I think the guy who started this thread is more interested in an overview of the performance of the fuel than just "will it explode on impact" You would know what that guy was interested in more then I. Just wonder why he linked to a video of a plane exploding.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2017 16:04:49 GMT
but I think the guy who started this thread is more interested in an overview of the performance of the fuel than just "will it explode on impact" You would know what that guy was interested in more then I. Just wonder why he linked to a video of a plane exploding. That was from a mod moving the conversation that led up to the myth posting, into the thread from the video you need to see forum.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 10, 2017 16:21:46 GMT
You would know what that guy was interested in more then I. Just wonder why he linked to a video of a plane exploding. That was from a mod moving the conversation that led up to the myth posting, into the thread from the video you need to see forum. Guess it's because of my wrong interpretation of (bada**) in the threads title. So if were talking about what fuel has the highest energy density, we'd be looking at something like Uranium or Plutonium. But that would require a little different engine technology to extract the energy, either over time or all at once.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2017 17:07:35 GMT
That was from a mod moving the conversation that led up to the myth posting, into the thread from the video you need to see forum. Guess it's because of my wrong interpretation of (bada**) in the threads title. So if were talking about what fuel has the highest energy density, we'd be looking at something like Uranium or Plutonium. But that would require a little different engine technology to extract the energy, either over time or all at once. my opening statement got shifted in the move. that didn't help keep things clear. maybe I can go back to the first post and edit it.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 10, 2017 17:24:03 GMT
Guess it's because of my wrong interpretation of (bada**) in the threads title. So if were talking about what fuel has the highest energy density, we'd be looking at something like Uranium or Plutonium. But that would require a little different engine technology to extract the energy, either over time or all at once. my opening statement got shifted in the move. that didn't help keep things clear. maybe I can go back to the first post and edit it. Maybe just remove the plane crash video as that's what was confusing me. I'm just too easily distracted by a large explosion. So what exactly is this thread about?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2017 17:37:27 GMT
my opening statement got shifted in the move. that didn't help keep things clear. maybe I can go back to the first post and edit it. Maybe just remove the plane crash video as that's what was confusing me. I'm just too easily distracted by a large explosion. So what exactly is this thread about? I did put in an explanatory statement. the thread is about myths that aircraft fuel is more potent than automotive fuel, including whether it is more dangerous in a crash, whether it has more energy, whether it will make an engine perform better with no other modification, whether it catches fire easier or not, etc.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 10, 2017 19:04:05 GMT
Maybe just remove the plane crash video as that's what was confusing me. I'm just too easily distracted by a large explosion. So what exactly is this thread about? I did put in an explanatory statement. the thread is about myths that aircraft fuel is more potent than automotive fuel, including whether it is more dangerous in a crash, whether it has more energy, whether it will make an engine perform better with no other modification, whether it catches fire easier or not, etc. So we get back to the fact that avgas is exactly the same as the fuel you would put in a gasoline powered auto except for the higher octane rating. And we all know that there is no benefit to higher octane rating unless you have a higher compression engine that requires it. You can put aviation gas in a conventional automobile and it will run just like it had 87 octane auto fuel in it. If you put 87 octane auto fuel in an aircraft, it will eventually ruin the engine from preignition. (knocking)
|
|