dcarver
Well-known member
Huh?
Is Ethanol "Losing Its Clout"?
- Thread starter HotRodZilla
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
RossKean
Well-known member
I have wondered about the throttle body gunk and this winter I will find out whether it is dirt etc that has made it through the air filter, engine oil or (possibly) unburnt hydrocarbon somehow getting blown back. That is, of course, assuming that my 100,000 mile FJR has sufficient deposits for proper chemical analysis. I will post results after I do the dismantle/clean and chemical analysis.
Edit: My results may not be universal since my bike ran with a K&N air filter for the first 30,000 or so miles - installed by the original owner and I didn't replace it until that mileage. K&N filter oil may be one component and I might not be able to identify that or differentiate it from engine oil since either would be degraded or contaminated to some extent. (Although I never had significant oily deposits on the engine side of the airbox.) Also, there have been reports of less effective filtration from the K&N so it MAY be more likely to have a road dirt component. We'll see what shows up. If anyone has a significant amount of throttle body deposit (couple of grams would be ideal) from a bike that was only run with OEM filter, send it to me and I will see what I can do. Unlike CSI, I can't do a full analysis on a small dirt smear.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redfish Hunter
Gone Fishing
Yeah, that Mass Spec that CSI Miami has is really something. Strange that the mass spectrometer analyzers in my plant have to "know" what they are looking for before hand. I won't get into peaks and gates and all the other analyzer programming, but CSI is NOT the real world.
I can somewhat understand why someone would think/feel there is more power loss than the numbers indicate. I agree with Fred that it does not mathematically work out that way. Is it possible that along with the ethanol power loss percentage we sometimes get an additional power loss due to the absorbed water? That concentration is endlessly variable.
While I was in Colorado this summer I kept smelling "something weird" when I would stop the bike at high elevations. My ST and my cousin's 'Wing were both giving off an odor that was... different. Sort of an "Oily Alcohol" smell. After dealing with very slow traffic, warm temps and high elevation around Telluride and Mtn. Village we stopped at an overlook. With the bike stopped I could hear the contents of my fuel tank "Boiling". I cautiously opened the fuel filler cap and sure as hell, the fuel was boiling. My internet searching was unable to tell me if it was the fuel, the additives, or the alcohol. All I do know is that is smelled like alcohol. And Dad was kind enough to point out that HIS FJR was not doing that it was the two Hondas...
I can somewhat understand why someone would think/feel there is more power loss than the numbers indicate. I agree with Fred that it does not mathematically work out that way. Is it possible that along with the ethanol power loss percentage we sometimes get an additional power loss due to the absorbed water? That concentration is endlessly variable.
While I was in Colorado this summer I kept smelling "something weird" when I would stop the bike at high elevations. My ST and my cousin's 'Wing were both giving off an odor that was... different. Sort of an "Oily Alcohol" smell. After dealing with very slow traffic, warm temps and high elevation around Telluride and Mtn. Village we stopped at an overlook. With the bike stopped I could hear the contents of my fuel tank "Boiling". I cautiously opened the fuel filler cap and sure as hell, the fuel was boiling. My internet searching was unable to tell me if it was the fuel, the additives, or the alcohol. All I do know is that is smelled like alcohol. And Dad was kind enough to point out that HIS FJR was not doing that it was the two Hondas...
More than possible, it is quite probable. To what extent it affects the power is the question. Since we are talking (maximum of) 10% alcohol, and it can only absorb a few percent of it's own volume of water, we're talking small fractions of a percent of the total fuel volume. In the case of E85 or E100 fuel it would be a much more significant effect.
Well, Ethel alcohol does have a lower boiling point than either water or gasoline, so it is possible you were smelling the alcohol being vaporized. Maybe you could start a new service for folks that want pure gas? Re-distilled gasoline.
RossKean
Well-known member
Actually, ethanol has a boiling point that is below water but above the lowest boiling point of gasoline. Pure ethanol boils at ~173 °F. Gasoline varies by blend and season and has a boiling range rather than a boiling point because it is a complex hydrocarbon mixture. Gasoline boiling range is generally given as ~100 °F to 400 °F. The point where ethanol will boil out of gasoline is further complicated by azeotrope formation where the composition of a distillate will be complex and may be at a different temperature than the boiling point of any particular component. Azeotrope formation is why you cannot get pure (ethyl) alcohol by distillation from an aqueous solution despite the fact that water boils something like 39 °F higher. Best you can do with simple distillation from this binary system is around 95%. In short, you might be smelling ethanol because if the gas is boiling, the vapors may contain some proportion of ethanol even if the fuel temperature is below the alcohol boiling point.Well, Ethel alcohol does have a lower boiling point than either water or gasoline, so it is possible you were smelling the alcohol being vaporized. Maybe you could start a new service for folks that want pure gas? Re-distilled gasoline.
We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion...
Last edited by a moderator:
Redfish Hunter
Gone Fishing
That "Boiling Range" of 100 to 400 degrees F is what I found also. Useless as ... Nevermind.
I am going to leave this with you now. My attention is diverted by the turkey outside in the Oil-less turkey fryer. It is just now getting above 42 degrees and needs to reach its target temp of 170 F before 12 noon.
Happy Thanksgiving to those of you who are celebrating it.
I am going to leave this with you now. My attention is diverted by the turkey outside in the Oil-less turkey fryer. It is just now getting above 42 degrees and needs to reach its target temp of 170 F before 12 noon.
Happy Thanksgiving to those of you who are celebrating it.
![fjackets Real Lambskin Leather Biker Jacket — Quilted Cafe Racer Zip Up Moto Leather Jackets For Men | [1100085] Johnson Brown, XL](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41I7Pm1f+vL._SL500_.jpg)
RossKean
Well-known member
The boiling range means that it starts boiling at 100 and will continue to boil at gradually increasing temperature, with appropriately applied heat, until it is all gone (@ approx. 400 °F). The boiling point actually increases as the composition changes with the "lighter" more volatile compounds going off. The ethanol won't all go off first although some will be present in the vapor phase over a range of temperatures. I wouldn't expect a high proportion at 100 °F when it starts to boil but there will be some.
So, in the reverse of distillation of grain sprits, we'd have to retain only the heads and tails and throw out the EtOH body to get us some pure gas.
Last edited by a moderator:
RaYzerman19
Go Wings!
A little while ago, I read about a guy who had a homemade ethanol separator, which I thought would be too expensive for any of us to have...... he said no, simple lo-tech...... pour the E gas into a container say 1/4 full of water.... let sit, the ethanol and water mix and the pure gasoline floats to the top, then siphon it off. Not that I'd go to the trouble....... he had pictures, I'll have to see if I can dig that up.....
ionbeam
2 FUN
I'm thinking that if I paid for it, I'm gonna burn it instead of going through a lot of work to throw a good percentage away. Should I do this, I would only be doing this to feed small engines anyway.
Geezer
Parsimonious Curmudgeon
RaYzerman19
Go Wings!
The turds in Washington are beholding to the ******** in the Sierra Club and all the other Green fuzzy science pinheads who are made up of mostly lawyers. If they were interested in truly saving the planet, they would take the advice of credible scientists the likes of Bill Wattenburg, professor UC Berkeley. The Midwest farm states are equally at fault for the ethanol in gas reality. They have sent lobby groups to Washington with pockets full of money to have this put upon us. You generally get what you vote for!!.
ionbeam
2 FUN
supertankerm60a3
Well-known member
As long as the lock is coming, my thoughts are as such:
Ethanol never seems to to cause performance problems with modern, electronically controlled, fuel injection engines like our FJR's. Might cause long term storage issues.
It was used in place of MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) as an oxygenate. MTBE is a horrible groundwater pollutant.
It DOES help reduce pollution. Anyone who remembers Los Angeles in the late 60's will remember smog was much worse even with 1/3 the cars.
My big question/concern since we (the USA) still manage to feed much of the world, what are the ethics involved in burning the world's food so we can drive?
Ethanol never seems to to cause performance problems with modern, electronically controlled, fuel injection engines like our FJR's. Might cause long term storage issues.
It was used in place of MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) as an oxygenate. MTBE is a horrible groundwater pollutant.
It DOES help reduce pollution. Anyone who remembers Los Angeles in the late 60's will remember smog was much worse even with 1/3 the cars.
My big question/concern since we (the USA) still manage to feed much of the world, what are the ethics involved in burning the world's food so we can drive?
HotRodZilla
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Non-political boys and girls...Calling government officials turds is gonna get the thread locked. Let's act our age.
Old Guy
Well-known member
The numbers depend on who's doing the research, but they're never good. Ironically, we're now seeing a negative environment impact from trying to grow that much corn. Wetlands and plains are being plowed under and streams and rivers are being polluted from the increased use of fertilizer to grow the corn. If we must use ethanol, corn is not the way to go. Sure, Brazil runs on 100% ethanol, but they make it from sugar cane, a much more efficient source than corn.
And I'd like to see a study on how much energy is used to create that ethanol in Brazil. Sure, they run their cars on ethanol, but what do they consume to make the ethanol? It's raining today; maybe I'll try to find that
Nanahanman
Well-known member
It's very difficult to address this question and not get mired in politics, even in Canada.
My short answer is "I hope so.Bad idea from the start."
My short answer is "I hope so.Bad idea from the start."
Trying to leave open. Wouldn't want two people to spoil the thread. They did, however, get a little pep talk on the side and lost their 'warn' virginity....which isn't a desirable thing to be sure.
