Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:57:13 -0500 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net> Cc: Olaf Hoyer <ohoyer@fbwi.fh-wilhelmshaven.de>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Great American Gas Out Message-ID: <20000305185712.H62310@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003050947310.311-100000@localhost>; from jazepeda@pacbell.net on Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 09:57:20AM -0800 References: <4.1.20000305083742.00a4af00@mail.rz.fh-wilhelmshaven.de> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003050947310.311-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 09:57:20AM -0800, Alex Zepeda wrote: > On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Olaf Hoyer wrote: > > > >Yes, but look at the fact that for a fuel injected car with an oxygen > > >sensor (i.e. Lambada-Sond for many European cars), oxygenated fuel just > > >means that more fuel is burnt, creating more pollution. Sure the exhaust > > >is marginally cleaner, but there's also going to be more of the "cleaner" > > >exhaust. > > Hi! > > > > Well, every german car has to have a three-way-catalysator by now, > > otherwise the taxes charged will be three times as high... And as of the > > improvements in engine technology, they use sometimes half the fuel than of > > 10 or 15 years ago... > > Yes, but look at the trend in America towards larger engines and larger > vehicles. And yes, a catalytic convertor does reduce emissions, but a > fuel injected car, with an oxygen sensor, when fed oxygenated fuel will > think that it's running lean and richen the mixture, meaning more fuel is > burned than needed. Do you have any cites for this? I am not too familiar with the intricacies of fuel-injection technology, but wonder how this would occur. If the sensor you are talking about somehow detects atmospheric, free oxygen, it won't pick up the stuff in the gas. The 'E' in MBTE is for ether. It has a oxygen bonded to two carbons, and I really don't think a sensor that picks up free oxygen would detect it. On the other hand, oxygenated fuels do have "less bang for the buck." In some sense, they are already partially burned since they are partially oxygenated. (A more acurate way to think of it is that a oxygenated compound has a lower heat of combustion.) So you will be using more gas in that a kilogram of oxygenated fuel does not not produce quite as much heat as completely oxygen free hydrocarbons _when completely combusted._ However, in the real world, you don't get complete combustion. I have no idea whether the fact that oxygenated fuels burn more completely makes up for their lower inherent heat of combustion. I doubt it, but I guess I'd have to find a well controlled study that compared the gas milage of a variety of vehicles running with the two types of fuels to answer it. > Oxygenated fuel only works well with carb'd cars. After all I said above, I'd love a cite for this too. Aren't the majority of new vehicles pretty much all fuel injected. > Even then, I think that unleashing MTBE on the environment is a BAD idea. That is a whole other issue. It's an extension of the abysmal track record of gasoline storage. No one yet knows if the health impact of the MTBE that is already out there is going to be terrible or if it is absolutely nil. However, being in a state that uses it, I watch where my water comes from. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000305185712.H62310>