Norbert Schmidt
Member
You really think gasoline is not hydrocarbons? Whether or not gasoline is detectable as hydrocarbons in emissions testing is a different question. I'd just like to know if you are really saying gasoline is not hydrocarbons.
What happened to gasoline in the mid 1970s?
- Thread starter Norbert Schmidt
- Start date
-
You really think gasoline is not hydrocarbons? Whether or not gasoline is detectable as hydrocarbons in emissions testing is a different question. I'd just like to know if you are really saying gasoline is not hydrocarbons.
I think what Rusty is saying is that we can't measure the HC in liquid form.
I'll have to read that test mopowers linked to in more detail to see how they measured the fuel tank/carb bowl.
I would think that probably the easiest test for partial vapors is measure vapor pressure.
I'll have to read that test mopowers linked to in more detail to see how they measured the fuel tank/carb bowl.
I would think that probably the easiest test for partial vapors is measure vapor pressure.
Dartswinger70
Well-Known Member
In liquid form the hcs would be the raw fuel vapor flashing off. Gasoline evaporates rather quickly. In an old scool emissioins test sniffer, raw fuel vapors should read as hcs.
IF YOU had a sniffer you should be able to open the gas cap, place the sniffer near the filler pipe, and the machine would read hcs. It's the raw unburned fuel. In a perfect world, if all fuel is burned in combustion, there should be very little to no hcs as read with an emissions tester. As stated before, raw fuel factors in,this is why cars today have sealed fuel systems with evap controls
IF YOU had a sniffer you should be able to open the gas cap, place the sniffer near the filler pipe, and the machine would read hcs. It's the raw unburned fuel. In a perfect world, if all fuel is burned in combustion, there should be very little to no hcs as read with an emissions tester. As stated before, raw fuel factors in,this is why cars today have sealed fuel systems with evap controls
Hydrocarbons are not released until evaporation or it's burned. Hydrocarbons are a byproduct. Just sittin there in a bucket with no evaporation, hydrocarbons are not produced.
Right! If conditions were perfect and there was zero evaporation, the sniffer would not pick up any hc. Of course, "perfect conditions" for gasoline to not evaporate are rare......possible, but rare.
You got it.
Norbert Schmidt
Member
You didn't answer my question. I wasn't asking if hydrocarbons were being produced from a bucket containing gasoline. I was asking if you think gasoline is hydrocarbons or not.
I most certainly did answer you.
OK, time for the degreed chemist to chime in.
Hydrocarbons are a class of organic materials that contain mostly hydrogen bonded to carbon.
Alkanes are a type of hydrocarbon that only contain hydrogen and carbon. Light weight alkane hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, propane, butane) are usually in the gaseous state at room temperature and pressure. Higher weight alkane hydrocarbons (pentane, hexane, etc) exist in the liquid state at room temperature and pressure.
Alcohols are a type of hydrocarbon that contain an OH group attached to one or more of the carbon atom(s) such as methanol, ethanol, etc. and exist as liquids at room temperature and pressure.
Gasoline is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons existing in the liquid state.
The tail pipe sniffer draws in exhaust gases for analysis. The hydrocarbon detector will detect all hydrocarbons present in the exhaust whether they are from unburned fuel (now in a vaporized state) or are the byproducts of incomplete gas combustion. This type of detector is designed and calibrated to detect small amounts of hydrocarbons measured as parts-per-million (ppm).
Hydrocarbons in the liquid state are measured by a different method and are usually measured as volume (liter, gallon) or by weight (grams, kilograms, ounces, pounds).
Hydrocarbons are a class of organic materials that contain mostly hydrogen bonded to carbon.
Alkanes are a type of hydrocarbon that only contain hydrogen and carbon. Light weight alkane hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, propane, butane) are usually in the gaseous state at room temperature and pressure. Higher weight alkane hydrocarbons (pentane, hexane, etc) exist in the liquid state at room temperature and pressure.
Alcohols are a type of hydrocarbon that contain an OH group attached to one or more of the carbon atom(s) such as methanol, ethanol, etc. and exist as liquids at room temperature and pressure.
Gasoline is a mixture of many different hydrocarbons existing in the liquid state.
The tail pipe sniffer draws in exhaust gases for analysis. The hydrocarbon detector will detect all hydrocarbons present in the exhaust whether they are from unburned fuel (now in a vaporized state) or are the byproducts of incomplete gas combustion. This type of detector is designed and calibrated to detect small amounts of hydrocarbons measured as parts-per-million (ppm).
Hydrocarbons in the liquid state are measured by a different method and are usually measured as volume (liter, gallon) or by weight (grams, kilograms, ounces, pounds).
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Ok, time to ask the degreed chemist a few questions. First off I need to mention I am 100% opposed to using food crops for any type of fuel or anything not food related. That makes zero sense to me.
Also, as I understand it (been several decades since I did any research on this and I’m going off my memory) methanol can be made from rotting garbage, rotting wood waste, methane gas (I’m a bit fuzzy on that one but I think this is so) and even a combination of those things.
So if methanol can be made with any or all of those things, why not use methanol rather than ethanol to blend with gasoline??? Aside from the obvious implications of government interference and such, it really makes no sense to use ethanol.
So that is my question. Why ethanol rather than methanol?
....And now for something completely different:
Speaking of organic chemistry!!!
The quick and easy answer is that you get more energy out of ethanol than you do with methanol.
Yes methanol can be made from the things that you mention.
As an aside, the addition of ethanol to gasoline by mandate from Congress resulted in more farmland being used for corn production in order to supply the food stock for ethanol for gasoline. This resulted in higher food prices in both produce, dairy, and beef.
We have that same bistro set in green.
Yeah, but ask any farmer who farms for ethanol and he'll tell you it's a poor livin.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 4,303
We'll have to agree to disagree to your assertion. If he served under Reagan administration then maybe he was part of the whole "Trickle Down Economics" fantasy they hoisted onto the population that has since been revealed to be nothing more than another scam for the monied interests. I was secretly hoping you were gonna say Ben Bernanke and then I was gonna tear you a new one especially after his "Great Moderation" speech in 2004 and how they conquered the business cycle. Those Idiots from Chicago certainly know how ruin economies.
Go ask your Uncle what he thinks about Irvine Fischer and if the current inflationary pressures are transitory
Last edited:
Really don't know why you had to make this so overtly political. The man is a well known and professonal economist by all accepted standands. You can say you don't agree with positions or conclusions or whatever. Or simply that you view things differently, name a different camp of economists.
What IMO is over the line is saying he's not an expert in his field because he worked for an administration who in your view had failed ecomonic policy.
I'm all for discussing how policy and economics influenced the changes in gasoline. But I don't want to see the thread side tracked or shut down. I know its a fine line, and we all have to walk it. But its not that hard.
It all goes downhill as soon as its turned into an US and THEM. THEM is always the delusional, stupid or ignorant and that pretty much ends any intelligent discussion.
Bruce "Shrinker" Robertson on how different gasolines affect combustion in a real engine:
IF you give the engine fine droplets on street fuel and you keep going finer and finer you eventually go backwards. That the point where you have started to gas the heavy HC’s too early in the process and the engine will start to detonate. With street fuels you need the heavy HC’s to come to the party after TDC but not too late.
Deeper explanation here Motorsports Village • View topic - Dyno time
IF you give the engine fine droplets on street fuel and you keep going finer and finer you eventually go backwards. That the point where you have started to gas the heavy HC’s too early in the process and the engine will start to detonate. With street fuels you need the heavy HC’s to come to the party after TDC but not too late.
Deeper explanation here Motorsports Village • View topic - Dyno time
Last edited:
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Yeah, that’s just one reason why I’m not for using corn for fuel. Just roughly (because I’m lazy and I don’t want to look it up) how many BTU’s less is methanol?
I know in the small test sample I’ve tried I can go 25% methanol and not change a jet or anything.
Seems it would be more cost effective (if we are set on using an alcohol additive in gasoline) to use a bit more methanol and send it rather than use less ethanol and waste all that farm land to grow it.
What do you think about that??
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 4,303
Really don't know why you had to make this so overtly political. The man is a well known and professonal economist by all accepted standands. You can say you don't agree with positions or conclusions or whatever. Or simply that you view things differently, name a different camp of economists.
What IMO is over the line is saying he's not an expert in his field because he worked for an administration who in your view had failed ecomonic policy.
I'm all for discussing how policy and economics influenced the changes in gasoline. But I don't want to see the thread side tracked or shut down. I know its a fine line, and we all have to walk it. But its not that hard.
It all goes downhill as soon as its turned into an US and THEM. THEM is always the delusional, stupid or ignorant and that pretty much ends any intelligent discussion.
Hey Mattax.
With all due respect it has absolutely nothing to with politics. It has to do with failed policies that get rolled out by the monied interests to benefit certain individuals and certain industries as Rusty's uncle most probably wrote about. Both sides are bought and paid for in my view so you could call me apolitical. In my view the current societal and economic destruction being laid out was set in motion many decades earlier with many said failed policies on both sides of the political divide.
As to Rusty's original claim of his uncle being the most respected Economist in the world maybe in "his" world but not in the broader world of economics.
I'll refrain from any future political references so as to not to offend anyone.
Last edited:
We'll have to agree to disagree to your assertion. If he served under Reagan administration then maybe he was part of the whole "Trickle Down Economics" fantasy they hoisted onto the population that has since been revealed to be nothing more than another scam for the monied interests. I was secretly hoping you were gonna say Ben Bernanke and then I was gonna tear you a new one especially after his "Great Moderation" speech in 2004 and how they conquered the business cycle. Those Idiots from Chicago certainly know how ruin economies.
Go ask your Uncle what he thinks about Irvine Fischer and if the current inflationary pressures are transitory
Did you read the whole article? He first served under Carter. It's all there.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 4,303
Lots of Economists serve under various administrations. Economics has been around for a long time with lots of proponents and differing ideologies depending what suits the administration at the time. Again the Monied interests drive the economic agendas that suits them.
When people talk about economics in most cases they talk about the ideas of Hayek, Smith, Keynes, Freidman and Marx other economists that have formed the majority of "Ideas" of "how" economies and economic models work. Remember their "ideas" of "how" they work and what happens in the real world isn't always correct and that's why its called the dismal science. Maybe go ask your uncle "who's" work he studied and who's work he teaches to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
If you want to know the guy I like is Charles. P. Kindleburger. He didn't look at Economies from a theoretical stand point but more from a market orientation.
I have less than zero interest in economics. You asked who my Uncle is and I answered.
-
