Ideal Int Combust Fuel Blending

If cost and pollution were NOT considered, what fuel blend would be ideal for an internal combustion engine, in terms of knocking, power, corrosion, compactness, gunking and so on? What were they looking at in 1972 before the energy crisis hit? Now take it one further, and generalise: what class of compounds, and why? What textbooks discuss these qualities? Is there any insight to be gained from any particular older textbook than new ones? Assuming an older textbook is better than a new one, then which new one mentions the relaxed assumptions of cost and pollution?
(I've seen the faqs.org entry on autos/gasoline and it is quite good.)
- = - Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]

vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:

If cost and pollution were NOT considered, what fuel blend would be ideal for an internal combustion engine, in terms of knocking, power, corrosion, compactness, gunking and so on? What were they looking at in 1972 before the energy crisis hit? Now take it one further, and generalise: what class of compounds, and why? What textbooks discuss these qualities? Is there any insight to be gained from any particular older textbook than new ones? Assuming an older textbook is better than a new one, then which new one mentions the relaxed assumptions of cost and pollution?
(I've seen the faqs.org entry on autos/gasoline and it is quite good.)
- = - Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
If one truly wants better conversion efficency, then one should

change to *external* cumbustion, like the Stanley Steamer. Steam techniques have improved so that *no* true boiler is needed; the space "above" the piston head(s) become the flash boiler at the appropiate time in the cycle. It is easy to get *complete* combustion, meaning !less! pollution and no BS "need" for afterburners AKA catalytic converters. Also, in regards to BS, no re-breathing of unburnt exhaust which is KNOWN to decrease efficency (the dictatorship requires this in an internal combustion engine, to increase income to certain groups as well as taxes).

"Robert Baer" wrote:

Also, in regards to BS, no re-breathing of unburnt exhaust which is KNOWN to decrease efficency (the dictatorship requires this in an internal combustion engine, to increase income to certain groups as well as taxes).

Or, you could go with the real reason, which is to lower combustion temperature.
Tom.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 05:23:03 +0000 (UTC), vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:

If cost and pollution were NOT considered, what fuel blend would be ideal for an internal combustion engine, in terms of knocking, power, corrosion, compactness, gunking and so on?

Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to high autoignition temperature. High power due to having the fastest flame speed. However, these are numerous problems with hydrogen in terms of storage, transport, safety, and cost.

Tom S. wrote:

"Robert Baer" wrote: Also, in regards to BS, no re-breathing of unburnt exhaust which is KNOWN to decrease efficency (the dictatorship requires this in an internal combustion engine, to increase income to certain groups as well as taxes).
Or, you could go with the real reason, which is to lower combustion temperature.
Tom.

Then why not go for full oxidation and add water to cool the resultant gasses?
-- Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk - The UK's only occult talk show Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote:

Also, in regards to BS, no re-breathing of unburnt exhaust which is KNOWN to decrease efficency (the dictatorship requires this in an internal combustion engine, to increase income to certain groups as well as taxes).
Or, you could go with the real reason, which is to lower combustion temperature.
Then why not go for full oxidation and add water to cool the resultant gasses?

You get full oxidation with exhaust gas recirculation too. Exhaust gas is effectively inert. And it's "free" in systems terms. Water injection would have a very similar effect (and avoid some of the negatives with EGR), but you'd have to add a water tank, injection system, etc., etc. Why use water when you've already got exhaust?
Done properly, an EGR engine is more efficient than one without.
Tom.

Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to
In internal combustion engines?

Sure. It works very well. The problem with hydrogen is refining and storage ($$$)...from a performance point of view, the engines love it. And it's about the greenest of fuels.
Tom.

*+- Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to
In internal combustion engines?
- = - Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:17:00 +0000 (UTC), vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:

*+- Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to
In internal combustion engines?

"Knocking" is caused by the fuel igniting before the spark plug fires. In order for this to happen, the fuel/air mixture must be exposed to something hot enough to ignite it. In fuels with very high autoignition temperatures, such as hydrogen, it is much less likely to occur. The following reference lists the autoignition temperature of hydrogen at 968 degrees F:
http://www.airproducts.com/Products/LiquidBulkGases/Hydrogen/HydrogenProperties.htm
The autoignition temperature of most other fuel components is below 500 degrees F:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_point

Tom S. wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote:
Also, in regards to BS, no re-breathing of unburnt exhaust which is KNOWN to decrease efficency (the dictatorship requires this in an internal combustion engine, to increase income to certain groups as well as taxes).
Or, you could go with the real reason, which is to lower combustion temperature.
Then why not go for full oxidation and add water to cool the resultant gasses?
You get full oxidation with exhaust gas recirculation too. Exhaust gas is effectively inert. And it's "free" in systems terms. Water injection would have a very similar effect (and avoid some of the negatives with EGR), but you'd have to add a water tank, injection system, etc., etc. Why use water when you've already got exhaust?
Done properly, an EGR engine is more efficient than one without.
Tom. The exhaust gas is most definitely *not* "inert"; why do many states

require smog testing? All the unburnt hydrocarbons, NOx, COx etc pollute the air that is being fed into the combustion chamber.

vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:

*+- Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to
In internal combustion engines?
- = - Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos] To a certain extent, it does not matter what one burns in an external

combustion engine as lomg as one gets complete combustion.

Tom S. wrote:

Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to
In internal combustion engines?
Sure. It works very well. The problem with hydrogen is refining and storage ($$$)...from a performance point of view, the engines love it. And it's about the greenest of fuels.
Tom. "Green" as long as one completely ignores how that hydrogen is made

EG: electrolysis of water needs energy from burning coal/oil/??

"Robert Baer" wrote

You get full oxidation with exhaust gas recirculation too. Exhaust gas is effectively inert. And it's "free" in systems terms. Water injection would have a very similar effect (and avoid some of the negatives with EGR), but you'd have to add a water tank, injection system, etc., etc. Why use water when you've already got exhaust?
Done properly, an EGR engine is more efficient than one without.
Tom. The exhaust gas is most definitely *not* "inert"; why do many states require smog testing?

It's *effectively* inert as far as combustion goes, which is what matters in this discussion (we were talking about getting full oxidation). No, it's not 100% inert. There are traces of unburned hydrocarbons and various partially oxidizable N and C compounds, which is why you have a catalytic converter. However, exhaust gas can't support combustion because it's oxygen content is *way* too low. So, for purposes of recycling in the combusion cycle, it's inert.
All those CH/N/C compounds would still be present if you didn't have EGR (there would be more NOx without EGR) anyway, so that's not really an argument against EGR.
Tom.

"Robert Baer" wrote:

Sure. It works very well. The problem with hydrogen is refining and storage ($$$)...from a performance point of view, the engines love it. And it's about the greenest of fuels.
Tom.
"Green" as long as one completely ignores how that hydrogen is made

Of course. This whole thread started with "ignoring pollution and cost"...

EG: electrolysis of water needs energy from burning coal/oil/??

Or solar, or hydro, or nuclear...it's not hydrogen's fault that some of the refining technologies aren't green.
Tom.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:18:39 GMT, Robert Baer

To a certain extent, it does not matter what one burns in an external combustion engine as lomg as one gets complete combustion.

This assumes that your fuel source has no sulfur or chlorine in it.