Are we abusing alcohol?
 

I was thinking of an alternate method of using ethanol in vehicles. Instead of just mixing it with the gasoline, one would have separate tanks, one for straight ethanol and one for straight gas. The fuel system would be separate up to and including the injectors. At a certain load (or signal from a knock sensor) the engine would swich fuels.

The higher octane rating of pure alcohol would enable us to do such things as increase compression ratio and boost, and possibly downsize the engine. As a result not only would we have better efficiency while burning ethanol, we'd have better efficiency while burning gasoline aswell.



Thoughts?

I can imagine the (legal) problems of having alcohol separate from the fuel. When it is mixed with petrol there is no fear that it will be used (or abused) "in other ways". When mixed with fuel alcohol isn't taxed as heavily: While a liter of petrol with 5% ethanol costs just under $2 here, pure alcohol at the liquor store goes for 7-9 times more.
Also, the law here states that "It is illegal to have an open container with alcohol inside the vehicle". Imagine if the alcohol tube sprung a leak and the driver would be breathing the vapors for hours at a time. LOLhttp://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../wine-icon.gif

Now, legal nuances aside, having a second system paralleling the fuel supply would add complexity and weight (not to mention cost), but may be worth a shot (pun intended).

an engine that is designed for burning alcohol does not work well for burning gasoline and it's the same the other way around, just like you can burn small amounts of diesel in your gasoline engine, it works best to design the compression ratio and timing map to the fuel.
Also at least in the USA alcohol fuels are subsidized by tax dollars because they take so much energy and fuel to produce that it is a net loss.

E85 can get better mileage & HP than regular gas. Saab has done it, takes a turbo to change the boost depending on fuel. I hope the Cruze will evolve to become flex fuel and smart enough to use it efficiently.

Spending extra on it is better than sending $$ overseas.

Not true, overall (although it can when using the most inefficient farming & production practices) and the people making that claim usually are pretty obvious axe-grinders.

It's also ignoring the fact that a major reason for ethanol in gas is as a pollution-control additive. Remember all the problems with the old MTBE additive?

I'd rather ethanol be based on cellulose rather than feeding Monstrantos GMO patents. For that reason alone I do not support the current ethanol industry, especially with the current process energy balance barely better than petroleum.

What's the difference between giving our energy $$ to big oil or big agribusiness?

I have a ADM ethanol plant a few miles south, a much smaller Penford ethanol plant a few miles north, when I go to work there I see lines for farmers semi's hauling corn in. And another set hauling out cattle feed out. The ethanol $$ are staying local, employing tax paying, home owning American's.

(and destroying the food supply)

To answer your question, perhaps none, they both seem hell-bent on eliminating the human infestation on earth, along with most other currently established species. That's why we need to fuel with efficient renewables and not grant patents on genes. We are in far too deep to get out without a great deal of pain.

Waaaah, the food supply!

Seen any empty store shelves lately? :confused:

hic.

You mis-understand me. GMO corn and soy dominate farming. Consolidation like this makes the whole supply vulnerable to a single pest.

...re: Are we abusing alcohol?

...well, I can honestly say that I've never threatened nor struck a defenseless bottle of whiskey in my life!

...'cuz, all of them were 'armed & dangerous' as soon as their seals are broken (wink,wink)!

Abusing? No. Strictly for medicinal purposes.

Ah. Well it was getting pretty consolidated anyway wasn't it?

I don't think a parallel fuel system like proposed here has a mechanism for actually.. improving anything.

What I don't get is why the ethanol haters aren't mad at people with leather anything, wood floors, pieces of paper, shaving cream, diapers, glue, crayons, firecrackers, tires, or any of the other countless non-food things that use corn.

You guys, this thread isn't supposed to be about politics!

Maybe you could point out some differences?


So you don't think that increased CR gives better efficiency for example?

...well, notable differences between gasoline and ethanol are:

gasoline (C8H16)... 115,400 BTU/gal; A/F = 14.7:1 ...%Oxygen = 0%
ethanol (C2H5(OH))...75,670 BTU/gal; A/F = _9.0:1 ...%Oxygen = ~35%

...and, thus, ethanol has only 70% energy density of gasoline.

...and, E85 content is 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol.

I was trying to ask him how the engines would be different. (Besides obvious things like AF-ratios.)

Ethanol resistant materials for the fuel system. Carb'd will be jetted bigger and injected may have bigger injectors. Dedicated ethanol engines have higher compression ratios; flex-fuel engines are saddled with the lower gasoline C.R.s which compromise efficiency when they're running ethanol.

Compression ratio is the big thing mechanically wize, turbo's are the make shift compromise, E85 with the higher octane rating won't dentonate nearly as easy allowing for either higher compression ratio or higher boost pressures. Saab has been making the best E85 cars for 5-6 years, the timing, boost pressure and more vary depending on fuel. They make more HP & torque with E85 than regular. One article by Saab I found a few days ago, but can't again said they expect 15% better hwy FE, same city or combined.

In 2007 someone else did some testing of Saab's FFV car, HP numbers agreed with Saab, FE didn't in standardized testing, it was the normal roughly 20% less (almost same as my wife 02 Suburban that does 12.5 on E85 vs 15 E10 on her 4 mile commute, 83% of E10's mpg). Compared to an 2010 or 2011 Malibu's 33 hwy E0 vs 23 E85's is 69% of E0).

Energy density is one thing, higher compression I think increases efficiency so a engine capable of running higher compression can be more efficent. I want to see a E85 engine that can run E0 when neccessary.

I hope GM brings what it's learned with Saab to the Cruze, I think it will be FFV in a year or 2 and perform almost the same with either fuel.

Yes Frank, the ethanol fuel system would be built from ethanol resistant materials.

Yes again, the ethanol injectors would be bigger.

The whole point of using different fuels for different loads is to NOT have to compromise with such things as CR. (did you read the first post?)

In this case, couldn't it be done dead-simple, like by mounting a TBI injector pod on an MPFI engine, run the MPFI system on ethanol but with a higher pressure fuel pressure regulator (so that more fuel per pulse escapes the injectors) and use manifold vacuum (or a combination of inputs) to modulate the delivery of straight gasoline through the TBI injectors?

I don't get all this talk about "ethanol resistant" fuel systems, if gasoline already has 10% ethanol and fuel handling parts don't fall apart in 30+ years why would a greater concentration of ethanol make them fall apart? Why would OEM's make fuel handling materials that can be damaged by ethanol when they KNOW a 10% ethanol fuel is going to be in contact with them 24 hours a day for more than a decade? At what point does the solvency of ethanol go from "absolutely no damage whatsoever" to "totally dissolves everything"? 15%? 30%? 43.33331%? And by what mechanism does ethanol go from absolutely zero harm at low concentrations to total harm at higher concentrations?

Instead of corn we should be using the hell out of our tropical regions (FL,AL,MS,LA, and parts of Tx) To do what Brazil has done with sugar cane. Putting a ton of money into the south without destroying our farm lands over producing corn.

back on topic, there is a drift team by me that uses a two tank gasoline/ethanol hybrid system in their silvia where they run on gasoline till boost at which point it is all e85- I have several pics somewhere in my files when i find them i'll post up but when talking to them it was all about detonation and the fact they could get the turbo to spool much faster than just strait e85- i don't think FE was even a thought haha

I responded to this post:

and that's pretty much how they're different.

One way to make a multi fuel engine would utilize multiple cam profiles to effectively lower the dynamic compression characteristics of the engine in use. Example: an engine which is built with a simple CR of 14:1, with the gasoline cam profile being one which limits air intake such that the cylinder is not completely filled, similar to an "atkins"cam. The resultant smaller air/fuel charge will not detonate as readily due to compression.

Alternatively, the second, or E85 profile would be that of a standard camshaft, designed for a high compression, E85 only application.

With regard to fueling, the most compatible system would include two sets of injectors, each with an independent fuel system, the only common structures being electronics and intake manifold.

They aren't the only ones looking at the possibilities of a spark ignited direct injection (SIDI) turbo charged engine with ethanol being used in the process, although Behr and Ricardo corporations working together have been also trying to validate the additional concept of adding in an egr cooler on the gas engine like that of the heavy truck, cooled by the same glycol as the radiator for even more thermal management and efficiency.
Ricardo, Growth Energy announce demo program for EBDI ethanol engine with 30 percent higher fuel economy : Biofuels Digest
“Doing More with Less” - The Fuel Economy Benefits of Cooled EGR on a Direct Injected Spark Ignited Boosted Engine
http://www.ricardo.com/Global/IA/Our...0programme.pdf

All of which goes to show that if you did tune an engine specifically for ethanol rather than gasoline it could extract more power and efficiency at a higher compression rate than those allowed for by conventional flex-fuel vehicles.

Why a camshaft?
 

Why use a cam at all? Would it not be more efficient to use a solenoid or a stepper motor to control the opening and closing of the valves, which then could be computer controlled. Not only could the valve timing, duration and lift be fully adjustable, but then in essence have a variable displacement engine by selecting not to use cylinders at the when not needed.

It's a nice idea that's been in research and development for many decades but for some reason it isn't on the street. Hence, cams.

as far as I know, Ethanol used in fuel has chemicals added to make it unfit for consumption. These chemicals would be harmful to humans. That is why there is no consumption taxes on ethanol for fuel.

A lot of Russian troops in WW2 (and Afghanistan I think) went temporarily and sometimes permanently blind from drinking fuels and anti-freeze from their vehicles in the extreme cold.

..."wood" alcohol (methanol) is not the same as "grain" alcohol (ethanol).

You hit the nail on the head....and we're paying for it all the way to the grocery store too with high grain prices. Food for fuel just doesn't make sense to me....

sugarcane

Makes prefect sense to me if the"food" we are talking about isn't for for human consumption anyway, AND doesn't displace did that is meant for the same.. Most of what I've heard about bring used isn't. I do agree that corn isn't the must efficient means of exacting fuel alcohols. There are cups which take less space, grow more densely, require less maintenance, etc.that would be better candidates, IMO.

One must also remember that there are meal grade solids left after the process which constitute animal feed, closing another waste stream, and providing a necessary commodity.

A better answer this time
 

Look at pg 9:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...hments_rpt.pdf

Just starting playing with my own blends again, I did it before with the Malibu before having a Scanguage, now with the Stratus, first tank was in E17 range. Now have about E32 at a total cost of $3.00 a gallon. First trip to work was 30.8 mpg, last week on E17 had 31.8 & 29.5

I've doubted people saying they could tell a difference with fuel, but it does feel a little stronger down low.

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmg...inal_12507.pdf

There was a reference in the study I posted a couple months ago that suggested a turbocharged 12:1 Compression engine could be run on gasoline via Multiport EFI and use no more than E50/G50 in the direct injectors under heavy loads.

The difference between an Ethanol vs Gasoline engine is mostly fueling system(more flow, anodized aluminum, viton(TM) o-rings, etc), different ECU maps, and higher compression or turbocharged which requires a sturdier block and components. FFV's fueling system is not that different from a regular car, but it is 100% Ethanol compatible and the ECU is designed to accommodate wide swings in fuel changes and adapt faster than a standard ECU. A factory built E85 specific engine is pretty rare outside of Sweden or Brazil but some prototypes have been build like the Ford Bobcat. Mostly I see them in the hotrod, tuner, or racing crowd in their modded cars :turtle:.

I agree our Ethanol supply could be improved, but not all of the Corn is used to make Ethanol nor is it "food grade" either and there are many different ways to make Ethanol cheap. The best part about ethanol is that it is versatile, near 100% Ethanol is a pretty standard grade and necessary to mix it with Gasoline. So it could be made from just about any simple sugar/starch/glucose source. Sugar cane works for Brazil because they have cheap labor but they can pay close to what we do per gallon($1.50 vs $2 a gallon) of Ethanol depending on the Global price of Sugar ;).

I've heard of people getting within 85% of the original mileage with E85 so I know it's possible. But for a hypermiler driving a Gasoline designed engine, the max E85 MPG is probably going to be 70% of the MPG you could get on Gasoline :/ If Car companies start relying on more turbo engines then Ethanol could really shine. I could see them eliminating the lower grades of gasoline and just going with 93 octane Gasoline and E85 or even E95 if our Ethanol economy spread out into more regions than just the Corn belt. Until then E85 is just another premium grade and rarely available and usually marked up.

I'm going to make my next car E85 compatible. I'll probably keep it mildly modified so that I can still run Gasoline in a pinch. An ethanol injection system could be modded up too with a throttle body injector as mentioned. But I'm trying to keep my dream simple so I can achieve it :thumbup:. I already limited myself to RWD and at least 30mpg on E85 :eek:.

Someone here buy a FFV Malibu 4c 6 speed auto or a Saturn Aura with the same engine package, I can't believe they drop from 33/23, wife suburban gets 83% of mileage on E85 of E10. I'm running 0% ethanal thru the Stratus as an experiment for the next tank or 2.

Going from E10($0.11/mile) with the Stratus to E30($0.106 mile) dropped to about 93% mileage. After the E0 test is complete, will do 3 tanks of E20, then start pushing up to E35-40-45.

I really don't care if we use most of our corn to make ethanol, why ship it overseas to ship petrolum back. I'd rather use 80% of the kernel to make ethanol, use the other 20% to feed cows and ship beef overseas. Why ship cheap raw material when you can ship expensive finished product.