Alfa Romeo Forums banner
41 - 60 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
That's my thoughts as well as far as Alfas being used in Brazil. I would also suspect that whether the fuel is E10 or E100, those simple changes should be fine, along with some retuning for a different effective octane. Wish one would comment.

Sorry for having diverted the subject. Was raised in the Sciences, married to the Sciences, have friends who are well regarded scientists, so I see things differently than the other guy. Such is life. Time will certainly tell us what is really happening, regardless of what he thinks. Promise to stay away, regardless of what is espoused. I think we got the idea.

Alfas are much more fun, lol.
Agreed, not a problem, I'll chime in too as it's of interest, something is happening and whether it's man made or not it is a noble cause to reduce our footprint and destructive use of natural
resources.

Unfortunately the approaches given the green light by the governments around the world are the non sensical quick profit low effort based options that will also be legislated out of existence within 20 years, similar to what happened with diesel.

I think we are all smart enough to see driving our 30 year old Alfas is 10x better for the environment than a brand new Prius, it is far better to reuse what's we already have than create something new. Also, all the time these "zero carbon" vehicles (lies) use batteries in the fashion they currently do, we are destroying the natural landscape and exploiting the people of 3rd world countries to make them. We are currently just going down a rabbit hole we need not to.

I'll be keeping my 164 all my life, and getting another if possible. What doesn't this car do? And if we end up with E100 or synfuel in the UK I'll do my damnedest to convert it to that too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
Ethanol dissolves in both water and petrol. It is somewhat hygroscopic. It is used in fuel treatment products designed to "clean your fuel lines". Like other alcohols it can be used as gas line antifreeze. So, no, it does not "separate out of petrol" by combining with water, quite the opposite in fact.

Ethanol will evaporate out of mixed fuel but slightly more slowly than the petrol would evaporate anyway.

As for "my field of expertise" it is currently law and in particular courtroom law. Part of my expertise is being able to analyze evidence and arguments derived from evidence. My scientific skills are quite useful there. Most lawyers have no talent for science. You can form your own opinions about the reasons for observed temperature changes in the Earth's atmosphere but you won't find any evidence that CO2 is the cause of those changes. No evidence, not just insufficient proof of causation. None whatsoever. The effect is presumed, not discovered. The infrared absorption effect is known but the effect on the atmosphere in general is not known, at all. The hypothesis is that the CO2 absorption effect on global temperature is positive (not proved to be the case) and that the inadeqacy of that actual observed absorption effect to produce the observed temperature change is explained by assuming that effect is amplified by the much more powerful absorption effect of water vapour in the atmosphere (euphemistically referred to as the climate sensitivity, another assumed phenomenon not shown to be real). The magnitude of that effect is also assumed and not observed. This activity of drawing inferences from assumed facts is not scientific in any sense of the word. Nothing has ever been discovered previously by using such methods. It is unlikely to work this time either.

The relevance of this non scientific effort to our Alfas and to this thread in particular is that nobody should advocate burning alcohol in their IC engines and if you can avoid doing so you should. To the extent food crops are used to make the alcohol it is doubly offensive to reason and to humanity in general. A great deal of CO2 is released into the atmosphere in producing the vegetable matter used to produce alcohol. None of that CO2 is ascribed to this supposedly greener fuel, just for starters. More practically, when refining other useful products out of crude oil you get a lot of gasoline. If you don't burn that in IC engines there is no other use for it. To get diesel and jet fuel or heating oil you get x% of gasoline. That's the main reason not to run a diesel passenger car, that fuel is needed for other more important things like growing and processing food to get it to your table for starters.

The petrol engine was invented in part because the fuel it used was so incredibly cheap. It still is incredibly cheap before taxes. Brazil uses ethanol for political reasons just as we do. Their political reasons don't include climate whereas ours do.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
17,334 Posts
Reading from the July 31, 2021 issue of Science News, I see that researchers have developed a new yeast which will make using the formerly difficult to use corn leftovers, ie, stocks, leaves, left over cobs, to make alcohol easier since present day yeast are not nearly as effective because of the chemical makeup of the debris. This is very good, as there is much of that debris, called stover, left on the field after the corn ears themselves are reaped. Food corn is the main source of plant based alcohol in the US. I believe Brazil uses sugar cane and it's leftovers. So, we here in the US may see more alcohol being used, and a the same time, less land is needed to grow more food corn intended for alcohol.

This newly developed yeast should be a benefit to other countries as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Ethanol dissolves in both water and petrol. It is somewhat hygroscopic. It is used in fuel treatment products designed to "clean your fuel lines". Like other alcohols it can be used as gas line antifreeze. So, no, it does not "separate out of petrol" by combining with water, quite the opposite in fact.

Ethanol will evaporate out of mixed fuel but slightly more slowly than the petrol would evaporate anyway.

As for "my field of expertise" it is currently law and in particular courtroom law. Part of my expertise is being able to analyze evidence and arguments derived from evidence. My scientific skills are quite useful there. Most lawyers have no talent for science. You can form your own opinions about the reasons for observed temperature changes in the Earth's atmosphere but you won't find any evidence that CO2 is the cause of those changes. No evidence, not just insufficient proof of causation. None whatsoever. The effect is presumed, not discovered. The infrared absorption effect is known but the effect on the atmosphere in general is not known, at all. The hypothesis is that the CO2 absorption effect on global temperature is positive (not proved to be the case) and that the inadeqacy of that actual observed absorption effect to produce the observed temperature change is explained by assuming that effect is amplified by the much more powerful absorption effect of water vapour in the atmosphere (euphemistically referred to as the climate sensitivity, another assumed phenomenon not shown to be real). The magnitude of that effect is also assumed and not observed. This activity of drawing inferences from assumed facts is not scientific in any sense of the word. Nothing has ever been discovered previously by using such methods. It is unlikely to work this time either.

The relevance of this non scientific effort to our Alfas and to this thread in particular is that nobody should advocate burning alcohol in their IC engines and if you can avoid doing so you should. To the extent food crops are used to make the alcohol it is doubly offensive to reason and to humanity in general. A great deal of CO2 is released into the atmosphere in producing the vegetable matter used to produce alcohol. None of that CO2 is ascribed to this supposedly greener fuel, just for starters. More practically, when refining other useful products out of crude oil you get a lot of gasoline. If you don't burn that in IC engines there is no other use for it. To get diesel and jet fuel or heating oil you get x% of gasoline. That's the main reason not to run a diesel passenger car, that fuel is needed for other more important things like growing and processing food to get it to your table for starters.

The petrol engine was invented in part because the fuel it used was so incredibly cheap. It still is incredibly cheap before taxes. Brazil uses ethanol for political reasons just as we do. Their political reasons don't include climate whereas ours do.
Actually, with water in the system there is a separation, plenty of scientific demonstrations of this.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
17,334 Posts
Here is an interesting quote:

"the fuel that most people use today is already full of alcohol, as much as 10 percent. It's called Ethanol, it's made from corn. If the fuel you use every day contains Ethanol, there's no need for a fuel drying additive. It's redundant and can increase the level of alcohol in your fuel to levels that can cause degradation"

Certainly applicable to cars in the US which do regularly use the commonly available E10 fuels. These Gas dryer additives are not the same as the FI cleaner additives one could use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
Actually, with water in the system there is a separation, plenty of scientific demonstrations of this.
How much water are you finding in your gas tank? Let's not get ridiculous about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
Agreed, not a problem, I'll chime in too as it's of interest, something is happening and whether it's man made or not it is a noble cause to reduce our footprint and destructive use of natural
resources.

Unfortunately the approaches given the green light by the governments around the world are the non sensical quick profit low effort based options that will also be legislated out of existence within 20 years, similar to what happened with diesel.

I think we are all smart enough to see driving our 30 year old Alfas is 10x better for the environment than a brand new Prius, it is far better to reuse what's we already have than create something new. Also, all the time these "zero carbon" vehicles (lies) use batteries in the fashion they currently do, we are destroying the natural landscape and exploiting the people of 3rd world countries to make them. We are currently just going down a rabbit hole we need not to.

I'll be keeping my 164 all my life, and getting another if possible. What doesn't this car do? And if we end up with E100 or synfuel in the UK I'll do my damnedest to convert it to that too
My thinking is the same as yours and also plan to keep my 164 until death us do part... Electric cars may be great for local pollution but their footprint on the globe, including the nasty lithium batteries and the way electricity is made to charge them, make them less green than our well maintained, not junked, 164s. The emissions from mine in the last MOT were miniscule, a tiny fraction of those allowed, and massively less than those far newer visibly smoking diesel vehicles running around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
How much water are you finding in your gas tank? Let's not get ridiculous about this.
I'm not finding any as I'm not diving into my tank measuring petrol to water ratios and I also do not use E10 fuels, the point is that water will separate the Ethanol and the unleaded. If it was a 100% Ethanol fuel I would guess the water attracted is dispersed evenly throughout the fuel mix at all time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
I'm not finding any as I'm not diving into my tank measuring petrol to water ratios and I also do not use E10 fuels, the point is that water will separate the Ethanol and the unleaded. If it was a 100% Ethanol fuel I would guess the water attracted is dispersed evenly throughout the fuel mix at all time.
My question was rhetorical. To find phase separation in a mix of water, ethanol and gasoline requires serious water contamination. That much water would make the petrol useless if only because removal of the ethanol by the water would significantly lower the octane rating.

An additional ironical aspect to your reference to possible phase change settling out in a water ethanol gasoline mixture is that the easiest cure is to keep refuelling with E10 until the water is redissolved and burned, which is what ethanol in motor fuel actually does in the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
My question was rhetorical. To find phase separation in a mix of water, ethanol and gasoline requires serious water contamination. That much water would make the petrol useless if only because removal of the ethanol by the water would significantly lower the octane rating.

An additional ironical aspect to your reference to possible phase change settling out in a water ethanol gasoline mixture is that the easiest cure is to keep refuelling with E10 until the water is redissolved and burned, which is what ethanol in motor fuel actually does in the real world.
Actually this is something that has been happening to those who store classic vehicles over the winter months etc. And our 164s Fall into that category so...

Also, the easiest cure is prevention actually, simply avoid having the issue in the first place. If E5 is available (or standard unleaded in some places) then it is the correct choice for motorists.

If not, study the chemistry of your vehicle and adapt it to suit, the last thing any 164 owner wants is a rusty tank or a ruptured fuel hose.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
17,334 Posts
Esp since the factory 164 fuel hoses tended to fall apart and crumble anyway within not that many miles and years. Certainly been there with spraying fuel lines and inoperative fuel pump. Quickly replaced with far superior hose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Esp since the factory 164 fuel hoses tended to fall apart and crumble anyway within not that many miles and years. Certainly been there with spraying fuel lines and inoperative fuel pump. Quickly replaced with far superior hose.
100% agree, not a job for the faint of heart but all that hose is best changed, although I sure hope my fuel pump soldiers on!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
Phase separation of ethanol water out of petrol occurs at very high levels of water in your tank. If you're getting this situation then ethanol in your fuel is not the problem. In other words, I call bs on this claim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Phase separation of ethanol water out of petrol occurs at very high levels of water in your tank. If you're getting this situation then ethanol in your fuel is not the problem. In other words, I call bs on this claim.
So you are saying the hundreds of people who claim this has happened to them are chatting BS?
You might be a bit outnumbered in that argument
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
So you are saying the hundred of people who claim this has happened to them are chatting BS?
You might be a bit outnumbered in that argument
I am making that claim . Numbers are irrelevant to correctness.


If you find water in your fuel you have insufficient ethanol not too much.

Assume no ethanol and x amount of water. You'll find that water in the bottom of your fuel tank. H2O molecular weight per unit volume is higher (water is denser, like the hundred people you refer to) so it sinks. Gasoline doesn't dissolve water in any significant quantity.

Add y amount of ethanol to that fuel and some of the water will dissolve into the ethanol and that mixture will dissolve into the gasoline. At some level that mixture will just burn in the engine with no ill effects. Repeat and the water will magically disappear.

What those hundreds are missing is the correlation is not the cause and effect. This logical error is rampant hence the large number of people who fail to comprehend what's actually happening.

Storing a vehicle may result in water contamination in the fuel tank. Ethanol has nothing to do with that phenomenon. Water does not dissolve in gasoline so if you use non ethanol fuel you will find water at the bottom of your tank. The ethanol in E5 or E10 does not put the water there. If you have ethanol blend in your tank that amount of water will be dissolved into the gasoline. With E10 you'll find no water at all until you have way more water than any gasoline only tank could hold.

So, you and the probably apocryphal multitude are just plain wrong. Chemistry can't work that way. Chemistry doesn't work that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I am making that claim . Numbers are irrelevant to correctness.


If you find water in your fuel you have insufficient ethanol not too much.

Assume no ethanol and x amount of water. You'll find that water in the bottom of your fuel tank. H2O molecular weight per unit volume is higher (water is denser, like the hundred people you refer to) so it sinks. Gasoline doesn't dissolve water in any significant quantity.

Add y amount of ethanol to that fuel and some of the water will dissolve into the ethanol and that mixture will dissolve into the gasoline. At some level that mixture will just burn in the engine with no ill effects. Repeat and the water will magically disappear.

What those hundreds are missing is the correlation is not the cause and effect. This logical error is rampant hence the large number of people who fail to comprehend what's actually happening.

Storing a vehicle may result in water contamination in the fuel tank. Ethanol has nothing to do with that phenomenon. Water does not dissolve in gasoline so if you use non ethanol fuel you will find water at the bottom of your tank. The ethanol in E5 or E10 does not put the water there. If you have ethanol blend in your tank that amount of water will be dissolved into the gasoline. With E10 you'll find no water at all until you have way more water than any gasoline only tank could hold.

So, you and the probably apocryphal multitude are just plain wrong. Chemistry can't work that way. Chemistry doesn't work that way.
Hmm, I think I'll listen to a company like PetroClear rather than you "Because of this potential for phase separation at any ethanol level, it is imperative that motor fuels containing ethanol not be exposed to water during its distribution or use, making housekeeping at the service station and any other points along the supply chain very important in the prevention of water contamination. Another property of ethanol blends is that they are hygroscopic, meaning they absorb moisture from the air, raising the potential for phase separation during storage if the tank is vented to the atmosphere and is subject to condensation formation as a result of temperature change."
No fuel tank I have ever known is a sealed unit, and yes, water can appear in a tank full of regular ethanol free petrol (you know, the good stuff) but ethanol blend fuel is hygroscopic, ethanol and water can also make some nasty acids that wreak havoc on fuel components, ask anyone running carbs about E10.

You seem quite rude and pushy, no real need to be is there? And why is there a need to insult the intelligence of anyone with anecdotal evidence of Ethanol fuel issues?
By all means, keep denying the Human effects on Co2 levels in the atmosphere and also, please continue to fill your 164 up with whatever level of Eth blend petrol takes your fancy. I look forward to buying all the spares from it you put on eBay after you have to part it out due to a destroyed fuel system 😃.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
You miss the point. You suggest a drawback of ethanol in motor fuel is due to water. That is just not the case. The opposite is true. Ethanol substantially increases the capacity of gasoline to hold water in solution. Then you cite anecdotal "evidence" of hundred people finding water/ethanol in their fuel suggesting this is a problem with use of ethanol. It isn't. It's just water in the fuel. That's a different problem. Ethanol can help reduce the risks of water contamination while you and your unidentified multitude claim the opposite.

Incidentally you might read up on evaporative emission controls as they affect condensation in fuel tanks. My 164 sits outside year round in temperatures ranging from minus 40C to plus 40C and never has water contamination. In some climatic conditions it is wise to store a car inactive with a full fuel tank to reduce this risk. However, this risk has nothing to do with ethanol in the fuel either.

Ironically, the climate change nonsense arises from the same delusion: that correlation is evidence of causation. No. Correlation invites experiment to determine if there is causation. Climate scientists claim to have such evidence but they do not. If they did have this evidence the situation would be understood but they don't and so it isn't. Rational people do not make important decisions based on the kind of "science" practiced by climate "scientists". Fortunately, most people remain unconvinced it's a problem judging by their actions.

I'm not denying anything. I'm insisting on proof before I accept the hypothesis as even likely to be true. Not only is no such proof forthcoming there isn't any evidence that such proof will ever be available.

The really sad part about all this is that nobody in their right mind would adulterate gasoline with ethanol to use as motor fuel were it not for this misguided and totally unproven connection with production of CO2 adversely affecting global climate.
 

·
Moderator
2015 Chevy (Holden) SS, 1989 Milano (Shankle Sport), 1991 164S
Joined
·
17,334 Posts
"I'm not denying anything. I'm insisting on proof before I accept the hypothesis as even likely to be true. Not only is no such proof forthcoming there isn't any evidence that such proof will ever be available"

Well, you can lead them to water, but...

The present pandemic is an example of taking prudent action when the increasingly gathered information points out a significant trend, people getting infected and dying, and leads one to take prudent action without absolute 100% proof of the effectivity of a vaccine. Using the "100% proof and approval" philosophy, as some deniers insist on, would have prevented the use of the vaccines, and let thousands, if not millions, more likely to die.

The same applies to the possibility of climate change, as the increasingly mounting information/evidence gathered from around the world and space leads Science to see definite/significant trends which may require action without absolute proof, before the refused action may become too late for significant effectivity.

Waiting for absolute proof in any discipline often does prevent prudent action, leading to inaction and disbelief in the validity of scientifically gathered information, when proactive action is strongly suggested and perhaps even shown to be required, the evidence of verified change becoming overwhelming.

As for water in a gas tank, in all the decades of driving Alfas for hundreds of thousands of miles, have never had a perceived problem with water in a fuel tank. If there was, I could never tell, and the car suffered no running problems or tank corrosion problems that were evident. That's all I know about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,419 Posts
Interesting comparison between climate "science " and medical "science". They both use the same methods. The sources of error are similar as is the reliability of the results. Science proceeds by disproof so 100% proof is not the objective. A single event contrary to the hypothesis invalidates the hypothesis.

The precautionary principle weighs costs as well as benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
You miss the point. You suggest a drawback of ethanol in motor fuel is due to water. That is just not the case. The opposite is true. Ethanol substantially increases the capacity of gasoline to hold water in solution. Then you cite anecdotal "evidence" of hundred people finding water/ethanol in their fuel suggesting this is a problem with use of ethanol. It isn't. It's just water in the fuel. That's a different problem. Ethanol can help reduce the risks of water contamination while you and your unidentified multitude claim the opposite.

Incidentally you might read up on evaporative emission controls as they affect condensation in fuel tanks. My 164 sits outside year round in temperatures ranging from minus 40C to plus 40C and never has water contamination. In some climatic conditions it is wise to store a car inactive with a full fuel tank to reduce this risk. However, this risk has nothing to do with ethanol in the fuel either.

Ironically, the climate change nonsense arises from the same delusion: that correlation is evidence of causation. No. Correlation invites experiment to determine if there is causation. Climate scientists claim to have such evidence but they do not. If they did have this evidence the situation would be understood but they don't and so it isn't. Rational people do not make important decisions based on the kind of "science" practiced by climate "scientists". Fortunately, most people remain unconvinced it's a problem judging by their actions.

I'm not denying anything. I'm insisting on proof before I accept the hypothesis as even likely to be true. Not only is no such proof forthcoming there isn't any evidence that such proof will ever be available.

The really sad part about all this is that nobody in their right mind would adulterate gasoline with ethanol to use as motor fuel were it not for this misguided and totally unproven connection with production of CO2 adversely affecting global climate.
Yeah, if you say so, I'll continue using E5 or lower if possible me thinks!
There are plenty of reasons not to use Eth petrol in my eyes, first the general incompatibility with 90s Alfa rubber. The second being what i have seen it do to metals when there is water in the ethanol mix.
I should imagine behind closed doors the use of E10 has almost nothing to with Co2 and everything to do with how profitable or cheap to make it is. Despite what is said in the media. I don't think Brazil is 10x further ahead of us in the fight against climate change (see E100 fuels)
 
41 - 60 of 61 Posts
Top