acetone in gas

[JBall8019]

gw wrote
[/quote]Our best course would be to develop our own crude oil production until we can do the magic and find a true alternative. Hint: hydrogen isn't it.

Hey i was watching a science show i think was on the discovery channel. the show talked about the future of hydrogen as a feul. it looked promising. why did you hint that hydrogen wouldnt be an alternative?
John

[beaconlight]

John you got any idea on how they make hydrogen if you don't use atom splitting? It happened when I was a kid but I remember the Hindenburg.

Bill

[JBall8019]

bill,
electrolsys by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen . i think hydrogen got a bad rep with the exploding blimp
john

[Lurker Carl]

It takes a lot of energy to split the water molecule into elemental hydrogen and oxygen. Just like it takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol from vegetation. When you end up putting as much energy into producing the fuel as the new fuel produces, that is not cost effective.

[George Willer]

There is about 3 lbs of sodium chloride dissolved in every 10 lbs of ocean water, give or take. Somewhere around 100 million tons of North Atlantic Glacier is melting every year, and diluting the salinity of the Atlantic, which may cause the cessation of the Gulf stream in the next 5 years.

Tom,

I have no idea whether the amount you quote is more or less than the amount of snowfall on the genesis of the glacier, but it is far afield from the billions of tons of low sulfur coal that were locked up in the Grand Staircase National Monument created by our recent President. That's a far greater concern than the possible loss of salinity of the ocean. Consider all the sequestered salt that has been mined and applied to our roads mainly to rust our pickups. Doesn't that eventually find its' way to our oceans? Simple logic would suggest that our ocean's salinity is actually increasing.

Much more important is our dependence on hostile foreign sources for our energy that we could, except for our bungling lawmakers, be providing for ourselves.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

[George Willer]

Tom,

The Hindenburg disaster has been unfairly blamed on the hydrogen, which immediately rose from the scene when the cells were compromised. Most of the disasterous fire was from the nitrate dope on the fabric. The disaster would have been nearly as disasterous if helium had been the lifting agent.

As you're, Im sure aware, hydrogen as a fuel is really acting much like a storage medium (battery) for energy input from a different source, and doesn't really contrubte anything except mobility.

I can't for the life of me understand why the media fails to educate the masses to this fact, rather than promote a false hope. Maybe it's a failure of our educational system?

[Dale51]

Tom,

As you're, I'm sure aware, hydrogen as a fuel is really acting much like a storage medium (battery) for energy input from a different source, and doesn't really contribute anything except mobility.

I can't for the life of me understand why the media fails to educate the masses to this fact, rather than promote a false hope. Maybe it's a failure of our educational system?

George,
As I'm sure you are well aware the the media is dumb but not only that but it the governments media & reports what it is told to.
It's called Don't tell them the truth they can't handle it.
Also called blowing sunshine up your ?

Carl,
The carbs you refer to did exist in the 1970's & 80's.
I have one from a ford & know of one that was on a Buick
& I know the Lady's son still has it.
1971 ford torino 302 V8 auto trans & 3:55 rear gears(low for a auto trans) 42 town 56 on the road this is the fun part
It looks like any other carb from the out side then pull it apart .
Most carbs of the era had low speed jets & high speed jets now add 2 sets of intermediate jets & you have a new animal.
Ford knows I have it & has tried many times over the years to get it from me. It is pretty much out dated now but I still will keep it.

[beaconlight]

Guys I know where Hydrogen comes from. I was trying to subtly make a point. If I had the Literary Prowess you do I could have said it with the clarity you did.
I didn't realize that the Hydro in the Hindenburg was that inpure. From telephone co manholes and cable vaults I am well instructed in upper and lower limits of explosion. The problem with pure hydro you are above the upper limit and to get below the lower limit, you have to go through that area where it can go boom.
At present you can not take campers with gas bottles through tunnels. Are you permitted to take hydrogen fueled cars? Is it safe? Should it be permitted? Lord knows Gasoline is volitle enough and gas vapors can be explosive. So many questions and so many more answers.

Bill

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

[George Willer]

More thoughts on the Hindenburg....


The US navy airships had been using helium for more than a decade. Helium had one drawback, in that it is twice as heavy as hydrogen, requiring lighter design elements. The Hindenburg, and her sister ship, (the name of which I cannot remember at present) were actually designed to use helium, and only half of their gas cells were filled.

The German Embassy here in the US had been attempting to negotiate the sale of Helium to commercial German Airship lines for a number of years. An agreement was close at hand, actually, after the Hindenburg disaster, but then, of course, Adolph Hitler's aggression placed a great deal of doubt on the guarantee of peaceful use of the Helium. Hence the deal never became legitimized. The US, by the way, is the only nation with large natural reserves of Helium Gas.

I used to work at Air Products at one time. Purification of helium is most difficult but extremely low tech. Cylinders of helium are spun at a 45 degree angle, valve down, after several weeks, you can tap off a little bit of impurity, and then spin them for a few more weeks. Repeat this 20 or so times, and you can attain 99%+ helium. And that's about as pure as you can get it. It's very inert, however, and doesn't react at all with it's impurities. For the purposes of breathing for divers, however, getting as much of the impurities out (which may include radon) is extremely important.

The sister ship of the Hindenburg made many successful round the world tours on hydrogen, before being scrapped for aluminum at the height of WWII. Darn I wish I could remember her name. Scrapping her was the last official act of the Zepelin Company. Luckily, the destruction of this last of the great Zepilins, once as much a symbol of German pride as the Prussian Military Aristocracy was, was not witnessed by either Paul Von Hindenburg, or Graf Von Zepelin, who had both died by that point in the war.

Tom,

Although elemental helium is twice as heavy as elemental hydrogen, its' buoyancy in air is much closer than you might think, especially taking impurities into account. There wasn't a necessity for significant design changes. Helium does have the advantage of natural occurance. Elemental hydrogen doesn't and cannot exist in nature... a fact that escapes the media and politicians, and therefore isn't widely known. I can hardly wait for some goofy politician to advocate subsidized exploration for hydrogen wells!

I don't agree that the Hindenburg's gas cells were only half used. That's not how it works.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

[George Willer]

The relative boyancy of hydrogen is precisely twice that of helium, as per it's elemental weight, both being diatomic molecules.

Tom,

I'm sorry to hear about the upset in your life. I hope things work out better in the future.

Now, about the buoyancy... it is precisely the weight of the air displaced minus the weight of the lifting gas. The weight of the air is so much greater than the weight of either the hydrogen (atomic weight 1 ?)or the helium (atomic weight 2 ?) that the buoyancy of either is rather close.

The difference in lifting ability is somewhere in the vicinity of 5% or less .

[Jack fowler]

Tom, I hope things go better for you in the future.

I really don’t know anything about hydrogen, I know George and Tom has forgotten more in the last five minutes than I’ll probably ever know.

This is what I do know…

Lurker Carl wrote:

Be careful what chemicals you put into your gas tank. They can dissolve plastics, corrode metals and generally destroy catalysts, electronic components and sensors throughout the fuel system, engine and exhaust. Modern automobile engines are sensitive to "foreign" chemicals and are specifically designed to operate within the confines of specific fuels and those additives. Additionally, it may react with certain chemicals blended with gasoline and create a sludge or precipitate.

Just like the ads 30 years ago proclaiming a miracle carburetor with the ability to get 60 mpg from a 1970 Chrysler New Yorker, dumping fingernail polish remover in your gas tank is a waste of money and effort.

You better do exactly what Carl wrote, on OBD (on board diagnostic) 1, 2 and soon to be OBD 3 vehicles. (Any vehicle with an O2 feed back system). If you go into a repair shop and have a drivability complaint, the first thing is done is a fuel sample. If that sample is not to manufactures specs you better get your wallet out.

On carbureted vehicles adding chemicals to the fuel system was a little more forgiving because of; in most cases the absence of the on board diagnostic system.

Tom wrote:
Water can be a good additive to the mixture, but of course, not to the fuel system. There have been water injectors and water mix carburetors for many decades now.

I know that water can help gas mileage tremendously, as an old Lincoln Mark IV I used to drive went from 12 MPG to 30 MPG in heavy rain. The water entered the mixture due to the fact that I was using no air filter at the time, and the air duct, once the engine was warm, sucked air right from the front grille. Those old 460's were quite happy operating as a combination IC / Steam engine.

This strong cooling effect makes the air denser so the air mass in the cylinder can increase, which allows the fuel delivery amount to increase, which increases the power released for each turn of the engine.


The “460” Ford engine was made to run very hot for emissions, which made the combustion chamber temperature go way up, if I can remember around 2400 to 2500 degrees F. When fuel would enter the combustion envelope at that high temperature in most cases you could not get the full benefit of the combustion. When the moisture (via water injectors or plain outside moisture) entered the combustion envelope it would cool the temperature and you would get more benefit of the combustion response because mostly it was a slower fuel burn, but the emissions from that burn was out of EPA standards.

When Ford added Fuel injection to the “460” the emissions was controlled a lot better and they lowered the combustion chamber temperature by engineering which help the fuel mileage some what. After time all good things like the good / hard working “460” had to go because of the upcoming EPA regulations.

Ford now replaced the “460” with an aluminum head “V” style engine which in my opinion is more powerful and gets better fuel mileage than their old standard V-8’s.

With today’s techniques of manufacturing of aluminum and plastics into engines, it controls temperature in todays engine’s so you can get more BTU’s with fewer emissions out the exhaust.

Will the new Ford engines outlast the old “460” cast iron engine? I can’t tell you that. I do personally know of a ’96 F-150 parts running truck with a 4.6 L V- 8 with 390,000 miles on it and only had a starter put on it since it was new.


This is what was said about water injection back before the OBD 1(on board diagnostic 1) was installed on vehicles.

Small amount of water is injected as a fine mist. This mist is evaporated quickly in the hot intake air. As the water evaporates, it cools the intake charge significantly.

Cooler intake temperatures make the engine less likely to knock. This allows the Engine timing to fully advance ,and extract more power. This strong cooling effect also makes the air denser so the air mass in the cylinder can increase, which allows the fuel delivery amount to increase, which increases the power released for each turn of the engine.

It's often said that water injection will allow your car on a hot day to run as well as it does on a very cold day. For turbocharged cars, this also means that the engine can be run at a higher level of boost for a given grade of gas and ambient temperature. Often, non-turbocharged or supercharged vehicles will not see much of a benefit. However, it can allow high compression normally-aspirated cars to possibly run on a lower grade of gas.

Jack Fowler

[400lbsonacubseatspring]