E38 Flex Fuel: On the fly timing and fueling - anyone interested?

[gmh308]

Finally, your logic that at a particular flow rate of air the E-85 required will be 45% more than gasoline is flawed. That assumption presumes the same efficiency. What I am saying is that you will need less air and therefore less E-85 to make the same power because efficiency has increased.

Sam
Chemical Engineer/Research Scientist

Great to hear there is work going on to unleash the efficiency potential of methanol.

Well if we are talking a regular production engines on E85, vs optimised designs running on methanol which at present are out of reach with very high compression ratios that will also run regular gas, if the engine is running closed loop, at 9.8:1 we are talking 45% more liquid than gasoline at 14.7:1. Yes or no? Approximately that is, give or take a few points of specific gravity differences. Maybe my math is wrong.

That said, appreciate your insight into how "reversibility" of the combustion process is applicable to a current and regular production engine. Isnt that getting in to a little Alchemy?

[samgm2]

I head an automotive engine research division at my company.

The information I've provided is accurate. Moreover, my motives for disseminating it are pure and intended to help move us away from an unsustainable fuel source that continues to be the primary source of income for countries that hate us.

I would like to apologize to my friends from NZ. I had no idea that EFILive was based out of NZ until I ordered it Friday of last week. I had no intention of presenting the US as the only market out there. I simply have little access to the rest of the world in my day to day life and I mean no disrespect. On the contrary, I have always had the highest respect for the people of New Zealand and their respect for the environment.

That said, it is the attacks against alcohol fuels that are inaccurate. Alcohol fuels have yet to realize their potential. The engines being produced by the Auto manufacturers today can best be characterize as "ALCOHOL TOLERANT". Stated simply, they are gasoline engines FIRST and E-85 is simply an afterthought. Tuning PCMs to maximize E-85 efficiency WILL result in dramatic improvement - often exceeding the MPG and power of gasoline.

The book "Energy Victory" by Dr. Robert Zubrin is an excellent source of information regarding alcohol fuels, their potential and the reason we don't have them to any meaningful degree.

Gasoline enjoys a monopoly that is very difficult to break. Auto manufacturers aren't in bed with the oil companies. They ARE the oil companies. It is in their best interest to continue to destroy the efficiency of alcohol as a fuel.

Think of the car as the printer and gasoline as the ink. You can buy a very cheap printer because the inks are going to be a constant source of income for the printer manufacturers.

We will NEVER have a meaningful alternative fuel option if auto manufacturers have their way.

The assertion that gasoline has more energy per volume than alcohol is accurate, but energy content alone is not definitive for work output or determination of MPG.

There are two ways to dramatically increase the efficiency of an engine.

1. Slow the flame front.
2. Increase the compression ratio.

In both cases, alcohol wins. There is simply no competition. An alcohol engine can support compression ratios in excess of 20:1. Try that with gasoline.

As for a slower burn (a more reversible reaction), once again alcohol wins. The gasoline in E-85 actually hurts more than it helps with this. Since often the "gasoline" used in E-85 contains higher ratios of n-Octane to iso-Octane, the resulting octane number can be as low as 94. This is a dramatic reduction in octane number from the 105 or 106 for neat ethanol or methanol.

Gasoline is a pathetic fuel. It simply burns far too quickly.

Keep in mind that it was a waste product produced during distillation of crude oil in 1860 (the product they were after was lamp oil). For 40 years, gasoline would be dumped into the Ohio river. This resulted in the Ohio river becoming the most polluted river on the planet (catching fire 7 times). The perfection of the Otto Cycle by Nicholas Otto made available an engine that could run on a waste product. That made it cheap and desirable. But that doesn't change the fact that gasoline is a bad fuel. The only reason to use it is if it is available cheaply. This is no longer the case. Gasoline is becoming outrageously expensive and wreaking havoc on the economies of NON OPEC countries around the world.

EfiLive, along with other companies of their type and the DIY community is in a unique position to expose the truth regarding alternative fuels. The DIY communities have long been a source of inspiration to large manufacturers as well as a means of keeping them honest regarding what is really possible.

Sam
Research Scientist
Chemical/Controls Engineer

I guess thats why you were battling the truth bru, and asserting inaccurate information was being stated .

[samgm2]

Not alchemy but rather, thermodynamics.

I have seen much with regards to the application of Hess's law in determining and comparing potential mileage (a comparison of combustion energy). That said, Hess's law is to thermodynamics what kindergarten is to education. It is a beginning.

Thermodynamics goes far beyond simply comparing combustion energy. For our purposes, it examines reversibility and its effect on converting heat to work. The foundation of thermodynamics as a science begins with the Carnot Cycle. The Carnot Cycle begins by assuming a reversible reaction. You can think of a reversible reaction as one that is infinitely slow (one grain of sand being added on top of the piston at a time).

The faster the reaction, the less efficient it will be. Diesel engines have far more reversible reactions that gasoline engines - making them more efficient (not to mention their higher compression ratios which also make them more efficient).

On the molecular level think of the molecules that compose the lattice of the piston being hit by very fast moving combustion product molecules and a vibration being induced (heating) as opposed to displacement (work).

It is the difference between pushing your friend slowly with one finger vs slapping him. One causes displacement, the other heating (and perhaps a fight). We are not interested in HEATING our pistons, we are interested in moving them.

...but did you know that if you had a higher compression Otto-Cycle engine, it would be more efficient that a diesel engine? In fact, the otto-cycle is superior in efficiency to a diesel cycle. The problem is that we have to run compression ratios that are far lower than those of diesel BECAUSE of the poor characteristics of gasoline. The long carbon chains and non-polar nature of gasoline molecules make it an easy target for the oxidizer. Alcohol suffers MUCH less from these limitations. It's polar nature and the presence of a far less reactive Oxygen molecule reduce the number of reactive collisions and thus the rate of reaction (also known as the reaction kinetics).

Liquid fuels have proven themselves to be convenient and effective. We have developed the infrastructure necessary to support them. Methanol can be produced from many sources. It is easily made from Natural Gas, Coal, Biomass, etc. The US produces in excess of 3.6 Billion gallons of Methanol per year from NG. I imagine that NZ does as well. It trades for about $1.00 per gallon...

Methanol production can be sustainable, doesn't have to come from food products and can be made from fossil fuels until we ramp up production of sustainable non-food plant matter. The use of Ethanol now is a good way to start towards production of methanol in the future. Farmers will now have TWO crops. The part that humans eat and the part of the plant that is inedible and can be easily converted to methanol.

(Biomass or NG or Coal or Dog droppings) + Steam -> Syngas (CO + H2)

CO + 2H2-> Methanol (over copper catalyst)
CO2 + 3H2 -> Methanol + Water (same catalyst)

This is an old reaction that we have used for a long time.

So, why are we do obsessed with gasoline... The smear against alcohol fuels has been long winded and purposeful... It harms us all. Our planet is suffering because of this fuel.

So yes, methanol has half the energy of gasoline, but with the proper engine, the efficiency for work conversion will go up by more than 200%!

As an analogy, assuming that you have 100 Joules of energy available (from gasoline) and you can convert 18% of that energy into useful work. You would get 18 Joules of work out of your engine.
Now assume you only have 50 joules of energy (from methanol) but you can convert (48% of that energy to useful work). You would get approximately 25 Joules of work out of your engine. Half the energy, but more useful work performed.

This is what we are talking about.

Yes, for a given quantity of air, more methanol will be needed to affect complete combustion. What I am saying is that your throttle plate will be closed more because you will need less power output because your engine will be more efficient. Less air for more work and therefore less fuel overall.



I say again, the solution will begin in the DIY community. Perhaps embarrassing the auto manufacturers can affect some change.

Great to hear there is work going on to unleash the efficiency potential of methanol.

Well if we are talking a regular production engines on E85, vs optimised designs running on methanol which at present are out of reach with very high compression ratios that will also run regular gas, if the engine is running closed loop, at 9.8:1 we are talking 45% more liquid than gasoline at 14.7:1. Yes or no? Approximately that is, give or take a few points of specific gravity differences. Maybe my math is wrong.

That said, appreciate your insight into how "reversibility" of the combustion process is applicable to a current and regular production engine. Isnt that getting in to a little Alchemy?

[joecar]

We're interested in lowering our ET/TS in the quarter on our current hardware and want to stay within our small budget (if something breaks we have to be able to replace it cost-effectively)... how can alcohol/methanol help us...?

( for the average car guy, this is what it comes down to )

[L31Sleeper]

I say we cut this thread in half and send the second half to the Lounge ??

-Justin

[samgm2]

Both E-85 and M-100 (Methanol) will increase efficiency. So power WILL go up even if you have to burn more fuel.

I recently "rough tuned" a 2007 Chevy Cobalt. Stock tune with gasoline was 122 HP at the wheels.

Copied the HO Spark Table into the LO Spark table and adding 10 degrees of additional advance to the HO table and 6 degrees to of additional advance to the LO spark table resulted in an increase in power to 136 HP (Methanol) and 134 HP for E-85.

Mileage tests on gasoline for a 262 mile test (highway)
36 MPG Gasoline.
38 MPG E-85 - no hardware mods required.
30.3 MPG M-100 - one 35 cent seal required.

No detonation for either E-85 or methanol. I've done some reading about NZ. Apparently your country imports ALL of its oil. A while back, there was a program to produce synthetic gasoline.

Methanol -> Dimethyl Ether -> Propanol -> gasoline.

Very expensive and there is no need. You can run very well on methanol alone. Increasing the compression ratio in your engines will result not just in improved efficiency but also avoids cold starting issues.

In about 2 weeks, I will be testing a new algorithm for determining the most efficient spark table and will publish the tables for engines as I test them.

Here in the US, the cost of gasoline is running about $3.50/Gal. E-85 is about $2.90. M-100 is trading for about $1.04-$1.23 per gallon (varies daily). Of course, I am forced to run Reagent/Lab grade methanol purchased at $3.00 per gallon.

If we are to compare cost of driving on Methanol to Gasoline. The gasoline vehicle would have to get mileage 3x that of Methanol to equal the cost per mile driven for Methanol. Methanol is just a great fuel.

Yes, I realize that most on this site are interested in quarter mile times. (As am I, since cars are both a hobby and a profession for me) but seriously, the average "Joe" is interested in mileage not the quarter mile.

As for cars, I was first to put a Corvette Z06 engine into a Mazda Miata ("LS1 Bound" on Miata.net). I have two Corvettes (one that ran in Bonneville at 276 MPH) and one that is currently being set up as an open road racer.

I just think that mileage is more important for BOTH of our countries.

We're interested in lowering our ET/TS in the quarter on our current hardware and want to stay within our small budget (if something breaks we have to be able to replace it cost-effectively)... how can alcohol/methanol help us...?

( for the average car guy, this is what it comes down to )

[gmh308]

Keep in mind that it was a waste product produced during distillation of crude oil in 1860 (the product they were after was lamp oil). For 40 years, gasoline would be dumped into the Ohio river. This resulted in the Ohio river becoming the most polluted river on the planet (catching fire 7 times). Sam

Research Scientist
Chemical/Controls Engineer

Are you serious? People dumped gasoline, ongoing, into the Ohio river. My god we have come a long way...luckily.

Got you on the combustion speed of gasoline. The impulse of the reaction. Needs to be more like the application of energy by a person on a bike.

Thanks for the overview. Very in depth. Interesting what you got out of the Cobalt with no comp ratio changes. The power increase sounds typical. Was it still running closed loop? If so, it means that just increasing the timing created so much more torque, that the airflow through the engine was reduced by a considerable amount and MPG went from a typical 25-30mpg on E85 up to 38mpg.

Looking forward to your work on the optimal timing. That could get my E85 drinking LS7 down to much cleaner gas type mileage while still making a lazy 700Nm TQ. (well, clean, acetyldehyde and formaldehyde aside :( ).

EFIlive is not all NZ. GMPX is in "Melben" as his sig says. And Mr Blacky resides in NZ, but I believe he is an Aussie as well.

I know a guy in the oil and gas business in Singapore...he got into that industry 20+ years ago. Apparently there was an oil shortage back then as well and continuously since. Nothing has changed except the price. Yes I agree, its all about money.

Smokey Yunick managed to build a very thermally efficient gasoline engine maybe 30 years ago. High power, low fuel consumption. That didnt get far. Killed off I guess. Hope your work survives.

[samgm2]

Good analogy on the bike. Imagine if you slapped the pedals really hard - it just wouldn't yield much.

The history of gasoline is very interesting.

It was called gasoline because it was so volatile. If you put a can of it down and came back a day later, half of it was gone. Hence: GAS-O-LINE. The first part means it turns into a GAS.

The word Kero as in Kerosine comes from the Greek "Kero" which means waxy.

Fortunately we no longer dump gasoline into the Ohio and it no longer catches fire because Otto's engine found was able to use the waste product.

Nicholas Otto's engine caught on, BECAUSE it burned a waste product - so the inefficiency caused by the extremely low compression ratios didn't matter. The stuff was almost free (you just had to pay transportation costs).

Had gasoline not been available, the engine would have run on alcohol and would have had a much higher compression ratio (perhaps 20:1). This would have radically changed its efficiency.

Are you serious? People dumped gasoline, ongoing, into the Ohio river. My god we have come a long way...luckily.

Got you on the combustion speed of gasoline. The impulse of the reaction. Needs to be more like the application of energy by a person on a bike.

Thanks for the overview. Very in depth. Interesting what you got out of the Cobalt with no comp ratio changes. The power increase sounds typical. Was it still running closed loop? If so, it means that just increasing the timing created so much more torque, that the airflow through the engine was reduced by a considerable amount and MPG went from a typical 25-30mpg on E85 up to 38mpg.

Looking forward to your work on the optimal timing. That could get my E85 drinking LS7 down to much cleaner gas type mileage while still making a lazy 700Nm TQ. (well, clean, acetyldehyde and formaldehyde aside :( ).

EFIlive is not all NZ. GMPX is in "Melben" as his sig says. And Mr Blacky resides in NZ, but I believe he is an Aussie as well.

I know a guy in the oil and gas business in Singapore...he got into that industry 20+ years ago. Apparently there was an oil shortage back then as well and continuously since. Nothing has changed except the price. Yes I agree, its all about money.

Smokey Yunick managed to build a very thermally efficient gasoline engine maybe 30 years ago. High power, low fuel consumption. That didnt get far. Killed off I guess. Hope your work survives.

[gmh308]

Good analogy on the bike. Imagine if you slapped the pedals really hard - it just wouldn't yield much.

Yes, full power on the crank of a bike at TDC will take one a long way right! Rising power to 90 deg probably most effective.

Very informative. Gas-o-line. How much damage has unburned HC from that evap source done over time to the planet? I would guess there is more HC burned each day as waste on oil platforms than the entire motor vehicle population of the planet. Roughly speaking, one single platform off the north west coast of Australia, in one day, from its waste flame, creates more CO2 than the entire car/truck population in Sydney (4.5m people) does in a day.

[GMPX]

Sam, I wish I had more time to experiment with an E85 specific tune for my car. It's the 3.0L LFW V6, direct injection with 11.7:1 compression, factory flex fuel. Unfortunately there is no specific adjustment to the cam timing on these engines based on the ethanol content (or we haven't found the table), this is an area I've played around with on normal gasoline but it's too prone to knock once you start playing around with the dynamic compression by altering the cam timing.