REFLECTOR: New Aviation Fuel?

Mon Jul 17 16:52:01 CDT 2006

A gallon of  Ethanol has only 64% the heat content of conventional gasoline and 69% of Oxygenated Gasoline.  It is interesting to note that Av-Gas has only 96% of conventional gasoline's heat content.  so you are talking about a 31 to 36% greater fuel burn for the same energy.

Lets see, we can get maybe 10 or 15 cents off a gallon of blended gas and only burn about 30% more, great savings.

Jim

James F. Agnew
Jim_Agnew_2 at Yahoo.Com
Tampa, FL
Velocity 173 Elite Aircraft Completed & Flying 

----- Original Message ----
From: Ron Brown <romott at adelphia.net>
To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list <reflector at tvbf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 4:48:18 PM
Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: New Aviation Fuel?

And, it uses just about a much energy to make the stuff as it produces.

Sorta like the hydrogen economy - its going to take a lots of electricity - 
as in nuclear to make all that hydrogen.

And natural gas is cheaper than gasoline until you have to pressurize it to 
put in a high pressure tank to use in your car.

If we can get over all of the tree hugging we can go get the oil we have 
already - in Alaska, in the Gulf, off the coast of Florida and the 
Carolinas, and California and........

I don't know how many folks also follow the RV lists, but a couple of 
excellent notes were posted recently
- discussions started when folks were arguing over petroleum vs. ethanol 
fuels:

(As a former employee of the nuclear and fossil fuel energy industry - I 
have to say I am very much concerned about the amount of power the Sierra 
Club and algore have amassed - with a great deal of help by the liberal 
media!  Oh and Jimmah didn't help any when he decided we didn't need nukelar 
power or domestic off shore oil wells!!!!!! - Ronnie)

This excellent note is by "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo at verizon.net>

"First, I am over 55+ old.

Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists.  (Subjects with my 
masters degrees)

I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.After 
reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT 
IT.

I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the side that 
is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people have stated) and 
others are in the side that will get them money.  If there is NO problem, 
there is NO money.  If you can make it look like there is a problem, money 
will be thrown at you.  Why is it in the newspapers, No problem - NO NEWS. 
Problem - BIG NEWS.  You only really hear from the "Problem" folks.

Why do I bring up my age:  in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the early 
80's.  All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice age.  Now 
scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is global warning. The 
book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would be living shoulder to 
shoulder by now.  Funny, I don't hear anything about it anymore.  The OZONE 
hole got bigger and smaller without any help from mankind in the past.

If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting hotter.  Look 
it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a period where it is 
hotter.  If that is the case, could it the sun and have nothing to do with 
mankind that there maybe a world wide temperature change.

What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages.  That means it 
got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got warm ....  Once 
again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or better yet create one.

Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar ice.  Go 
find a scientist that could find a way to do it.  CAN'T BE DONE with current 
technology.  So why do you think my car and plane will do it?

IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE.  Should we try to be NICER to the planet: YOU 
BET.

But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.

Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion

And I missed getting the authors of these contributions:

"So...are you saying there is no natural fluctuation of the earth's climate?

The Sahara was farm country a few thousand years ago and turned desert way
before the machine age, and even before the human population explosion
occurred.  What about the redwood cones found above the arctic circle?  I
don't say emissions of various kinds have NO effect, but how can the events
(volcanic and otherwise) that produce far more CO2 than decades of man made
emissions be discounted?  I'm curious also how we can presume to know the
average temperature of a point on the earth's surface when records have been
kept for only a hundred years or so.  Is it the same kind of science that
can build a complete culture from a couple of knife points and a molar?

No offense, but it seems the science that's out there is pretty selectively
chosen by the supporters of the current global warming theory.  There's lots
that point the other way, too.

The people pushing the global warming theory aren't exactly operating out of
the back of a VW bus, either.  There's plenty of money on both sides and
people on both sides making a living advocating their particular position.

"With no disrespect intended to anyone.... man made global warming is a 
farce I believe.....

  "Carbon dioxide does occur naturally, of course, and is essential to life 
on Earth, as it is an essential chemical component in the photosynthesis 
process of plants."

"When Mount Pinatubo erupted it pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than 
humans did in the entire industrial age. The concern over anthropogenic CO2 
emissions is politics dressed up as science."

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/08/09/is-co2-a-pollutant/

And before you say this has nothing to do with building Velocities, it 
certainly has everything to do with our freedoms to fly our Velocities as 
this can have a terrific impact on aviation and the fuel we need to fly 
them!!!!

Ronnie Brown

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Millin" <amillin at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list'" <reflector at tvbf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: New Aviation Fuel?

> Ethanol may be an answer.  In automotive it will get you 20% lower MPG.  I
> am assuming it will get you 20% few hours in the tank.
>
> Ethanol also changes the capacitance of the fuel.  For those with
> capacitance type probes, it will not read the same as avgas.  You will 
> need
> to recalibrate ... every time you change to a different blend percentage.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: reflector-bounces at tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Derrick
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 3:50 PM
> To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list
> Subject: REFLECTOR: New Aviation Fuel?
>
> http://www.age85.org/
>
> Scott
>
> -- 
>
> -
>    Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
>
>    George Bernard Shaw, Liberty
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit
> http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose 
> Check
> new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail Check old archives:
> http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit 
> http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
> user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
> Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
> Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html 

_______________________________________________
To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector

Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20060717/c9d51ee1/attachment.htm 