X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost06.isp.att.net ([207.115.11.56] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4982947 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 13 May 2011 16:16:13 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.11.56; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-98-85-145-79.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.145.79]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc06) with SMTP id <20110513201538H0600e9o6ke>; Fri, 13 May 2011 20:15:39 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [98.85.145.79] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: 100LL in California Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:15:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC1189.00623690" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcwRpWZFmC3Dpa5qRKuLomgAz81UcQAAsuHQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC1189.00623690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Years ago, when this govt funded boondoggle first started, I looked into building a still, er, ethanol processing plant. In order to avoid paying taxes, the white lightening, er, ethanol, had to be immediately denatured. The process of denaturing made the white lightening, er ethanol, unfit for drinking. This was done by pouring gasoline in it. The idea was that you could not remove the gasoline after it was introduced. If this was good enough for the Revenuers, I suspect that it would not be possible to remove the alcohol from the gas as well. Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:38 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 100LL in California Well, if you don't blow yourself up in the process, you will now have low octane gas for about $4.50/gallon. Then you'll need a method to transport it to the airport, then pump/pour it into your fuel tanks, again without blowing yourself up. From a risk-analysis perspective, it doesn't wash (pun intended). I just don't see the benefit here. It would almost be easier to fly to Oklahoma whenever I needed fuel for the airplane. Mark On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Ernest Christley wrote: Bill Schertz wrote: Charlie is right, you can extract the ethanol with water. Best practice would be multiple small washings to reduce it to a negligible level, but octane would suffer. Also, your price of auto fuel just went up, because you are sending some down the drain. Basically there is a partition coefficient for alcohol between gasoline and water. Each time you add water, x% moves to the water. Thanks, Bill. That chemistry class in college was a LONG time ago for me. So, how long will it be before someone starts selling a system that allows you to put contaminated gasoline in one end, have it add water and then centrifugally separate it, let the clean gasoline go out the other end, and distill the water to reuse it? The ethanol would drive the distillation, and the left-over could be mailed to the stupid politicians and lobbiest that keep adulterating our gasoline. ("Here! You like it so much, you can have it!") -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC1189.00623690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Years ago, when this govt funded = boondoggle first started, I looked into building a still, er, ethanol processing plant.  In order to avoid paying taxes, the white lightening, er, = ethanol, had to be immediately denatured.  The process of denaturing made = the white lightening, er ethanol, unfit for drinking.  This was done by = pouring gasoline in it.  The idea was that you could not remove the = gasoline after it was introduced.

 

If this was good enough for the = Revenuers, I suspect that it would not be possible to remove the alcohol from the = gas as well.

 

Bill B

 


From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Friday, May 13, = 2011 3:38 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = 100LL in California

 

Well, if you don't blow yourself up in the process, you will now = have low octane gas for about $4.50/gallon.  Then you'll need a method = to transport it to the airport, then pump/pour it into your fuel tanks, = again without blowing yourself up.  From a risk-analysis perspective, it = doesn't wash (pun intended).  I just don't see the benefit here.  It = would almost be easier to fly to Oklahoma whenever I needed fuel for the airplane.

 

Mark =  

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net> = wrote:

Bill Schertz wrote:

Charlie is = right, you can extract the ethanol with water. Best practice would be multiple small = washings to reduce it to a negligible level, but octane would suffer. Also, your = price of auto fuel just went up, because you are sending some down the = drain.

Basically there is a partition coefficient for alcohol between gasoline = and water.  Each time you add water, x% moves to the = water.


Thanks, Bill.  That chemistry class in college was a LONG time ago = for me.

So, how long will it be before someone starts selling a system that = allows you to put contaminated gasoline in one end, have it add water and then centrifugally separate it, let the clean gasoline go out the other end, = and distill the water to reuse it?  The ethanol would drive the = distillation, and the left-over could be mailed to the stupid politicians and lobbiest = that keep adulterating our gasoline.  ("Here!  You like it so = much, you can have it!")


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml

 

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC1189.00623690--