Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "CONFORM - everybody's doing it!" <PROGERS@******.BITNET>
Subject: multi fuel
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 14:35:00 EDT
what are the "real" differences between an IC and MF engine? i assume the
MF is using synthetic fuels? if this is so, couldn't they, wouldn't they
be more efficient than gasoline?

what is the "real" difference between Elec and ImpElec. they both provide
power, but how are they storing/providing energy differently?


points to ponder...


patric
progers@******.bitnet

Sanctuary BBS, 517/6292002, 24 hrs, 9600/8N1, Gaming and Computer Networks
Message no. 2
From: ROBERSON@***.EDU
Subject: Multifuel
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 01:24:54 CET
Alright, I tried posting this earlier but it bounced.

Multifuel engines are calibrated to run a variety of fuel types at
and equal level. That means you can dump gasoline, alcohol, and diesel into
the same engine and you'll the same performance. I know it's not realistic but
that's the way it works.
The reason MF gets poor mileage is that it's a Jack-of-all-Trades.
Because it has to run each kind of fuel equally, it isn't calibrated to get
peak performance out of each.

As to what you can put in it and whether we should adopt rules regarding this
subject, my only experience comes from playing Twilight:2000. That's where I
got the mileage ratios below; your actual mileage may (literally) vary.

Gasoline: The most efficient and clean. However, not as good for the
environmentas the alcohol fuels.

Diesel: This is what happens when you take a barrel of crude oil and let it sit
for a weel. The heavier sediments sink to the bottom and you skim off the top.
Very dirty but easy to make, not requiring the extensive processing needed fo
gasoline.

Ethanol: Grain Alcohol. Made from corn, wheat, and other grain products. Burns
clean but gets 1/3 the mileage of gas (You'll go the same distance on 3 litres
of this as you will on 1 litre of gas).

Methanol: Made from "dead" organic material: apple cores, corn cobs, etc. Gets
1/4 the mileage of gasoline.

Aviation fuel: Processed even more than Gasoline, it gets more power and is
ignited at a much higher temperature. Expensive.

Now, an engine can use each one of these but must be calibrated to a specific
type to achieve maximum performance (unless it's a Multifuel). The point is,
you can't use all of them without sacrificing performance.

One I forgot to mention: Gasohol. An experiment of the 1970's in America, it's
still used in France where gas cost at least $5 a gallon (I think. It's at
least$2, but this lower figure maybe the cost of gasohol). A mix of gas and
alcohol,
you basic get the pollution of gasoline and only moderately better mileage than
pure alcohol.

As for electrics: Assume that ImpElec uses the same technology but perhaps more
expensive parts: say, gold as a catalyst instead of nickel (I don't know what
I'm talking about here, but you get my drift. . .)

Well, hopefully this won't bounce because if I have to send it a third time
I'll be pissed.



J Roberson
Message no. 3
From: Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Multifuel
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 19:08:15 CET
From: ROBERSON@***.EDU
>>>>
Methanol: Made from "dead" organic material: apple cores, corn cobs, etc. Gets
1/4 the mileage of gasoline.

As for electrics: Assume that ImpElec uses the same technology but perhaps more
expensive parts: say, gold as a catalyst instead of nickel (I don't know what
I'm talking about here, but you get my drift. . .)

J Roberson
>>>>

An HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle) Project I work on is using Methanol
for the Internal Combustion Engine. The reason is that methanol, or
M85, is a readily available byproduct of coal. Yes, coal , not organic
decomposed matter. What J Roberson is referring to here is Methane.
And M85, which is 85% octane, has lower emissions and is more
efficient than conventional gasolines. Just wanted to clear this one
up.

My guess on ImpElectric is that it is some sort of fuel cell, like
what is in the space shuttle. They convert a chemical reaction
straight into LOTS of electrical power. Compare a D Battery with a Car
Battery in power storage. That is about the same scale as a fuel cell
to a car battery. Right now they cost around $200,000 for one. We
tried to get one, we really did! But a $65,000 budget just doesn't
convence NASA that it was $200,000.

-- Quiktek
a.k.a. Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
Message no. 4
From: Jeremy Roberson <ROBERSON@***.EDU>
Subject: Multifuel
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 15:58:23 -0700
Interesting take on Multifuel. If that's how we define Multifuel, then the
greater efficiency of MF is acceptable. I don't happen to have an RBB, so I
can't peruse it myself. I'm just trying to make sure the system makes sense to
me.

J Roberson
Message no. 5
From: "Michael A. Kauffman" <mak9@******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Multifuel
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 19:50:47 EDT
Roberson, I don't believe perusing RBB will help very much. I've looked very
closely and I can't find any hint at the definition of MultiF.

Mike Kauffman
AKA amonchare

PS. sorry about misspelling your name in the previous post.

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!