Designing Gas for Different Temperatures to Cut Costs

Just this:1)There is a new trend in diesel engines,specially in large ones to add water perhaps with a separated injection in the same injector (Lorange (M.Benz division)),Mann and ..Mitsubishi? with their own and so differents systems.2)The gasoline quality could be increased by a "Vitameter":After years of research the result was (really was?) a higher quality gasoline (octane number)could be made in a cheaper way.3)Still today i guess,the most efficient engines are steam machines,but this is not related to the capability of water to expand.On the other hand you need 539 cal for each gram of water you convert in vapor (rounds 4.19 per joule).-

GA

More should think like this and practice it. If you would only live next door I would come over and give you a hand with your restoration. Not that I could help much but learning, stealing with my eyes I could.

The steam engine has not seen its days and combining with other fuels is an old hat. I am on the case but the resources are so meager. Theory has never the full answer and with guys like you enthusiasm and fun are still part of it. This should give your dad a second wind too so good on Ya's.

All the best from here, Ky.

thank you alas, i am not a guy

I think gasoline and diesel are already tuned for summer/winter conditions; it seems a similar scheme should also work for kerosene.

With today's controlled injection systems, it would be "almost" easy to produce a multiple fuel system. You could have tree tanks of separate fuels. The mixing would be controlled by the computer and the driver would not even know. Only fill up the thanks with the correct liquids. I hope that most people could handle that. Anyway, the pumps nozzles could be keyed to prevent mistakes.

Would it be more efficient? The idea of injecting a little water in the combustion mixture seems good since we have a surplus of heat that need to be evacuated. The problem might be incomplete combustion and increased pollution. I am certain that some experts have already looked into it a long time ago. They might have rejected the concept at the time because of various technological or political issues. With the increase in energy prices, the system might come out again.

As for using denser fuels, it is certainly possible but there might be problems with cold temperatures. We might need some pre-heating in some cases on simply run on lighter fuel in the winter.

As correctly stated above, while more efficient, this would not be acceptable if more pollution is produced.

I am in full agreement with the comments on emissions. You will never get it to fly with emissions issues, but I suspect that those could be overcome. Maybe a catalytic converter or something similar. The tractors built shortly after the turn of the century didn't have to worry about such things. Off-road equipment is even needing to worry about such things these days.

I am not sure where the economy is in abandoning all this old technology in the name of "green". I agree that we need to sustain our lives and protect the earth, but we don't all live in the Los Angeles valley, either. If you burn something more efficient for a shorter period (20% less), but it is 10% dirtier, are you REALLY polluting? Or is the "greener" fuel polluting? It is certainly more net pollution!

I am not saying Kerosene will be cleaner or even better, but I think we sometimes look at only PPM or percentages, and miss the big picture. I once had a Cadillac that got 24 mpg on the road, and it had NO emissions or modern technology. Now we have exotic metals, modern electronics, and emissions systems. Now I drive a Grand Am (1/2 the size and 1/3 the weight) and I can't seem to get 24 gpm. Is this really technology we need or would I be better off with a grand am that gets 50 to 100 gpm and is twice as stinky?

I know this is a tad off-topic, but I think it is a question we need to ask ourselves...

I see the most of the people here thinks the water injection increase the polution when in fact the companies are already using a complex tech to apply this with the only purpose to reduce contamination.Is not clear to me why adding water would improve the thermodynamic cycle.-

I think its the steam it must add a false degree of volume and thrust.ds

Why do you say "a false degree of volume and thrust"?

The engine must be cooled one way or another! An appropriate amount of liquid water injected at an appropriate time in the cycle will indeed be converted to water vapor, producing a very real increase in pressure (thus thrust on the connecting rod), while absorbing heat (cooling the engine), thereby reducing the load on other cooling systems.

I understand this was standard procedure in WWII aircraft engines.

Just is not easy to see what you say because water takes a good part of remaining heat only to convert itself into low pressure steam so then you take care if you are not making a boiler instead an engine.2)A good part of this heat is very useful converting it in kinetic energy of exhaust gases which helps end faster the cycle to the next and increasing the engine power.3)Takes time imagine this cycle:Using a part of engine power to compress air and injecting :you don't need loss energy in latent heat of vapor but you do compressing enough to inject...Etc.Thermonynamics is complex, no so fast.-

I've just skimmed, so apologies if this is a repeat of someone/s.

Have a read of this

But the last time I purchased, kerosene was more expensive per liter than ULP and Diesel.

(but I guess that could be a function of the tax system)

Still remains a lot of engines manufactured to work with normal gasoline or kerosene.Best performance you got is using fuels designed specially for some type of engine.Commonly diesel fuel is more expensive to obtain than gasoline but if you respect the production costs the gasoline were completely spent and nobody would buy or even develop any diesel engine:diesel fuels or oils would be undesirable garbage.Gas (liquefied or natural) are cheapest: if you respect thats costs in the market don't remains pressure in the wel to extract the petrol.-

That is why I said "an appropriate amount" of water. I don't know how much is appropriate, but it is a very small amount.

Here is one pretty good article.

Uphere in 6 and 10 i've mentioned:1)Vitameter (thats not the only name for it) for gasoline engines 'history,google on you will enjoy!;2)Incredible technology from the most important diesel injection systems from Germany:L'Orange manufactures large injectors for large engines with two sets of holes in the tip of injector!!One of those are for water injection!! look inside their website.Are available pdf's from MAN too about water injection and fuel post injection,experimental results;3)Most people doesn't know the true diesel engines are not manufactured anymore just the name is used today.Those engines had a big compressed air bottle or tank what pushed the fuel into the combustion chamber at same pressure than the end of compression stroke:analize what happens if you keep injecting air (with its "expansion power")after the atomized fuel+air,if they did or they didn't.-