B.L.Z.BUB Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Its a win-lose situation, the money their saving on using ethanol in the fuel is spent on importing food in. Comes in on red boats with bright yellow 'M's on the side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhead Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 It is sad that Mexicans can't eat corn bread anymore due to the value of corn when converted to ethanol outweighs the price the Mexicans can afford to pay for food... The global free market allows profits to overshadow the productivity of any countries populous. The problem is that burning fuel that has a 1 year life cycle to manufacture vs million year old dinosaur juice is that the Co2 emissions from burning the fuel is less than the plants absorb per unit of energy and there is a perpetual cycle of renewal that is possible with renewable ethanol energy. Have you looked at what Brazil has done in the last decade! It's incredible. America case in point with that. A typical sized farm is used solely for growing fuel crops and the food for consumption has to be imported in. Its a win-lose situation, the money their saving on using ethanol in the fuel is spent on importing food in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towe001 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 If you tune your car right E10 is cheaper and you'll get as much milage out of a tank. My 92 Camry likes E10 more than 98 ron premium. The car just hit 400,000km and has been running E10 for 80,000km. Will see if I can clock a million K's in the next decade, will pull out the fuel lines and prove alloy doesn't get corroded by ethanol. It's alcohol not an acid or a base, the government is fear mongering about E10 fuel. The USA has been running 10 - 20% ethanol since the late 80's, without any troubles. The slow burning properties of mixing ethanol in octane/ heptane mix reduces monoxide by massive levels, it's good stuff. Just make sure you advance your timing a touch and reset your ECU and you'll be amazed how well the E10 runs in most EFI cars. We've ran it a couple of times in the lancer to get us out of a tight spot with a lack of money, fuel and the servo having only e10 and talk about crap economy. At the moment we get about 360-380kays to a tank around town the times we've gone e10 we've managed about the same but that was including a lot of highway travel and a little bit of around town. Doing the same on unleaded we'd get about 440 to a tank. Brazil has been using e100 for a couple of years now. Ethanol blended fuel has been used way back before ww2 so i don't doubt it works, but..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan G Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 they had a 60min story about mexico and biofuel, there city looked soooo clean and soo much less smog (unlike at the blair outlook in sa looking over the city) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 prove alloy doesn't get corroded by ethanol. It's alcohol not an acid or a base, the government is fear mongering about E10 fuel. More that the general public is getting fed misleading information (as usual) by both government bodies and the media (on either side of the fence) - pure ethanol itself doesn't corrode the metals you find in a fuel system (neither does petrol), but it is the contaminants which get a free ride with the ethanol (water, halide ions like chloride/fluoride ions etc) that really affect the corrosion, and you're much more likely to get water contamination in ethanol than in petrol. Ethanol is highly miscible (it mixes well with water, unlike petrol which doesn't mix at all with water (and thus you get separation in storage which makes it much easier to decant)). Both ethanol and petrol are excellent solvents however. Remember too that good old fashioned water is corrosive too - pure water may be neutral, but you only need a mild amount of contamination and you get massive results. Seawater is only about a 3.5% contamination and it is incredibly corrosive to certain metals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhead Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 In recent years, they've proven polar and non polar molecules don't exist. By accident a scientist mixed water and petrol and using ultrasonic resonance which harmonically resonated and released the oxygen that's hiding between each ethanol atom that stops it mixing with water or petrol. They can mix anything these days... The worst part about pure ethanol is that it's hygroscopic, it absorbs H20 from the atmosphere. So without added solvents to take up the 5% water it can't be held at more than 95% in an open container without 5% water saturation. The corrosive elements are those that are hiding in the 5% mix that stops water entering the fuel. More that the general public is getting fed misleading information (as usual) by both government bodies and the media (on either side of the fence) - pure ethanol itself doesn't corrode the metals you find in a fuel system (neither does petrol), but it is the contaminants which get a free ride with the ethanol (water, halide ions like chloride/fluoride ions etc) that really affect the corrosion, and you're much more likely to get water contamination in ethanol than in petrol. Ethanol is highly miscible (it mixes well with water, unlike petrol which doesn't mix at all with water (and thus you get separation in storage which makes it much easier to decant)). Both ethanol and petrol are excellent solvents however. Remember too that good old fashioned water is corrosive too - pure water may be neutral, but you only need a mild amount of contamination and you get massive results. Seawater is only about a 3.5% contamination and it is incredibly corrosive to certain metals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I use the E10 becasue its 95octane and as cheap as everyone else's 91. It doesn't seem to have any ill effects. I'd worry about E15 though, which will be the next step. That's too much alcohol and water liabilities. Not to mention what it does to a breath test.. adds an alcohol background that fails you easier! :laff: Of course you do have Brent crude at $107/barrel tonight when it was $75 a short time ago, plus Libya's problems of Govt PLUS the fact that last month world demand exceeded supply for the first time in years, so you can expect to see petrol rocketing up and less and less real oil in it! I thought Aussie's alcohol came from fermenting sugar cane waste, a much better idea than using corn. Without the poor fking American taxpayer subsidising the hell out of their corn industry for 50years this would never have got off the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 In recent years, they've proven polar and non polar molecules don't exist. By accident a scientist mixed water and petrol and using ultrasonic resonance which harmonically resonated and released the oxygen that's hiding between each ethanol atom that stops it mixing with water or petrol. They can mix anything these days... There's a difference between what can be mixed in a lab and what mixes naturally in the real world. And, um, the oxygen atom hiding between each ethanol atom? What chemistry did you study at school? Ethanol is a compound, and thus has MOLECULES, not atoms. Also, your sentence doesn't make any sense - you say that a scientist managed to mix water and petrol by releasing an oxygen atom that hides in ethanol (which is not present in normal petrol or water) which stops ethanol? mixing with water or petrol? But ethanol already mixes perfectly with both water and petrol, and you need it to mix properly with petrol otherwise ethanol blended fuels just wouldn't work. And I'd like to see your evidence that polarity doesn't exist - it is a well established chemical concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ke70dave Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 And I'd like to see your evidence that polarity doesn't exist - it is a well established chemical concept. yeah i would like to see this too... as for the whole ethanol thing, i think it would be ineresting to tune a car properly on e10 (aftermarket ecu, wideband o2 sensor, knock sensor), tune it properly on a dyno and see how good you can get to run, and see what fuel economy you can get. i don't think its reasonable to make comparisons with cars that were tuned for other petrol, then put them onto e10 and say they run crap? i don't know how much +/- tune you get on ECU's, as in how adaptive they are, but surely they can't be running efficiently on something like e10. does anyone know the calorific value of e10 compared to normal fuel? like do you need more of it to get the same power? so even though it may be "better" for the environment, we have to use more of it, thus it might work out the same? we tuned the 12a turbo rotary on e85, and had to multiply the entire fuel table by 1.5x to get it to run properly. and appart form it making alot more HP, he is spending ALOT more cash on fuel (compard to 98).....even though its only ~$1/litre.... i know i will always put ultimate in the s15 and the 4age ke70, at under 10L/100km on both cars around town, even less on the highway thats pretty damn good i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altezzaclub Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) does anyone know the calorific value of e10 compared to normal fuel? like do you need more of it to get the same power? Calorific value must be lower as it already has an oxygen taking up the place of a carbon or hydrogen, so yes, you need more of it to get the same power. The guys who run on methanol use giant jets to feed enough fuel in. here- Wiki.. Ethanol is particularly pathetic. Fuel↓ kJ/g↓ Hydrogen 141.9 Gasoline 47.0 Diesel 45.0 Ethanol 29.7 Propane 49.9 Butane 49.2 Edited February 23, 2011 by altezzaclub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamy Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I wish they would hurry up and bring out more E85 outlets. Then all you need is a 200L fuel tank, a retune..bigger injectors...bigger fuel pump...and your all set :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhead Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) BTW - Sorry for getting the word atom and molecule mixed up, I probably should have pre-read my post. I didn't realise such a simple mistake would confuse you so much. I was forwarded an article from scientific American from a mate a few years back about this. Polarity is a well established myth, like 99% of chemistry it's just a generalised model to explain observations, nothing in chemistry is set in concrete, it's just a guide, most chemistry is hundreds of years old. Only in the last decade has computer technology allowed us to question theories and model them, rather then just accepting others observations as fact. In the last 2 years has technology reached the level where we can really see an atom, which ironically is done with laser microphones and computer modeling- it's called Allosphere. Even heisenberg uncertainty principle which I was taught as fact is now also considered myth thanks to there work. There is no denying that molecules can have a net charge, but we were taught at school and UNI regarding polar / non polar molecules and there ability to associate in a solution like water and oil, don't mix because one is polar and one is not. Pure ethanol - which is meant to be a part polar /part non polar molecule? What wait? A bit of both? It mixes with petrol which is non-polar? Or water which is polar? Like dissolved like right? This is proof enough that polar and non polar solubility is a model that is full of holes and doesn't work in all cases and therefore isn't fact. If polar / non-polar solubility was a definitive truth there should be no exceptions to the rule. Removing dissolved gases from the solution ultrasonically can be done in a shed, not a lab - there is no chemical reaction that has taken place to make the mixture associate, yet polar and non polar mix - so Polar theory in relation to solubility has been disproved, or is an incomplete model that needs to be revised thanks to recent observations and technologies that give us a much better understanding of whats going on. There's a difference between what can be mixed in a lab and what mixes naturally in the real world. And, um, the oxygen atom hiding between each ethanol atom? What chemistry did you study at school? Ethanol is a compound, and thus has MOLECULES, not atoms. Also, your sentence doesn't make any sense - you say that a scientist managed to mix water and petrol by releasing an oxygen atom that hides in ethanol (which is not present in normal petrol or water) which stops ethanol? mixing with water or petrol? But ethanol already mixes perfectly with both water and petrol, and you need it to mix properly with petrol otherwise ethanol blended fuels just wouldn't work. And I'd like to see your evidence that polarity doesn't exist - it is a well established chemical concept. Edited February 24, 2011 by beerhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 they had a 60min story about mexico and biofuel, there city looked soooo clean and soo much less smog (unlike at the blair outlook in sa looking over the city) Melbourne is much worse. Higher population and more traffic. So what are you saying Evan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 BTW - Sorry for getting the word atom and molecule mixed up, I probably should have pre-read my post. I didn't realise such a simple mistake would confuse you so much. I was forwarded an article from scientific American from a mate a few years back about this. Do you still have the article? Would be an interesting read. Although I'm still wary of things forwarded to me claiming to be from New Scientist or Scientific American (for example) as often they are fabricated or chain letters with authoritive names added to try and make them more believable - a guy on TOCAU tried to tell me that there was an article in "the July 2007 issue of the American science magazine New Scientist" about power increasing on a full tank of petrol (with several spurious claims), despite the fact that New Scientist is neither American (it is British) nor a monthly magazine (it is weekly) and I had been a reader for some 10 years as my dad was a subscriber, and no article would come up on their website search relating to the topic, let alone in the month of July 2007. Still, polarity being a "myth" is bending the truth itself too - it is more of a white lie to generalise the factual chemical processes into a more simplified theory to allow for study and analysis. Every theory will have some holes or exceptions, but that doesn't mean that they wrong. If you treat the "like-dissolves-like" rule of thumb as a pure rule of thumb and apply relativity to it, you can cover the base of water mixing with ethanol/ethanol mixing with petrol (itself already a mixture)/water not mixing with petrol with surprising ease. As an aside, even though ethanol and water are 100% soluble in each other, and ethanol is basically 100% soluble in petrol, a water/ethanol mixture is not, and you will get the water separating above certain concentrations (from memory it is in the 2% range for E10 (so E10 may in fact be 8% ethanol and 2% water), but don't quote me on that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan G Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Melbourne is much worse. Higher population and more traffic. So what are you saying Evan? Melbourne is a hole?. can't remember last time i saw the melb city from the hills. do remember the outlook in blair like it was yesterday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.