Ethanol fuel additives?

[Modifiedmark]

IF you take a sample of gas with ethanol in it and add water and shake you will see it dissapear. Then after a while the water will fall out of suspension. IF you do the same thing with non ethanol gas it will do the same thing only the water will seperate faster. WATER WILL NOT EMULSIFY IN GASOLINE.

That is correct, but you forgot to add the fact that when you mix the water with E10 gasoline that once the Ethanol reaches the point of saturation of water that it will also fall out of suspension along with the water. When you do that you force the phase separation.

That is also the reason the water separates from the non Ethanol gas faster.

Seeing your from the corn fields of Iowa, I take your opinions with a grain of salt.

Iowa is one of the states that I have seen that offers a choice of non ethanol or ethanol blended gas. Why is that? Never mind I don't want to discuss that.

 

[jhellwig]

That is correct, but you forgot to add the fact that when you mix the water with E10 gasoline that once the Ethanol reaches the point of saturation of water that it will also fall out of suspension along with the water. When you do that you force the phase separation.

That is also the reason the water separates from the non Ethanol gas faster.

Seeing your from the corn fields of Iowa, I take your opinions with a grain of salt.

Iowa is one of the states that I have seen that offers a choice of non ethanol or ethanol blended gas. Why is that? Never mind I don't want to discuss that.

It doesn't mater the amount of water it will separate out eventually. The difference between 1% water and 15% water isn't enough to notice the time difference it takes to separate. Shake it back up and it will stay suspended for the same amount of time again.

I don't see how being from Iowa has anything to do with the validity of my opinions or the facts that I state. Yes I have a vested interest in and have been a part of the ethanol industry. That doesnt, however, magicaly make the gas I use and the problems I don't have any different from anyone else. I have yet to have any fuel related problems with any equipment.

 

[Modifiedmark]

Yes I have a vested interest in and have been a part of the ethanol industry.

That was fairly obvious from your earlier post that was mostly a crock of bull.

 

[Franny K]

I love ethanol! Couldnt ask for more enviromentally friendly cost efficient fuel source! And look at all the up sides to it. lower mpg, higher maintenance costs on equipment, higher cost of the production of said equipment, more replacement parts being produced for that equipment, higher cost of anything with corn as an ingredient, higher cost of livestock feed and the products that are eventually sold from that livestock more virgin ground being turned into useable farmland, more fertilizer being produced and used to produce all that extra corn, don't forget the feel good warm and fuzzy feeling from the perceived lower emissions from using 5% ethanol in our gasoline and the list just goes on and on.

Whats not to love about the stuff

You are mostly on target. Whether or not the ethanol making plants are really using cattle feed corn or a more specifically designed species or variety I can not say for sure. The argument has been put forth that it is specific. To think the corn used to make white corn chips is going to the ethanol plant most likely is wrong. The carbohydrate portion turns into ethanol but the protein portion does go back to animal feed at least mainly does there has to be some exception somewhere. It has forced up land prices and more acres under cultivation. It is amazing how much more productive and with less water corn production has become. What you left out is what happens in the ocean (Gulf of Mexico) when that dissolved unused fertilizer gets there.

They passed a rule at least the way I understand it only mtbe or ethanol were allowed to get lower emissions. Then a different they got sued for ground water contamination even at a point there wasn't enough ethanol.

 

[jhellwig]

That was fairly obvious from your earlier post that was mostly a crock of bull.

There is no part of my posts that is not true. Yours however are iffy. A quick internet search with prove or disprove it all.

You do realise that you are in one of only 13 states that do not require labeling of ethanol content and you are in the 6th largest ethanol producing state.

 

[Modifiedmark]

There is no part of my posts that is not true. Yours however are iffy. A quick internet search with prove or disprove it all.

You do realise that you are in one of only 13 states that do not require labeling of ethanol content and you are in the 6th largest ethanol producing state.

Ah, you don't understand what I said.

I never said your post were not true, I said it was a crock as it really didn't say anything that we don't already know, that gasoline and water will not mix. And in typical Pro Ethanol fashion you don't even mention the fact that the Ethanol will also separate along with the water.

And as to my state, of course I know that it is one that is not required to label. That is what got me mixed up in this mess to begin with and I'm still damn mad about it.

I did not know that my state is the 6th largest producing state but I'm not surprised either. I'm also not surprised to find that your state is by a VERY, VERY large margin the largest Ethanol producing state. It is obvious in your posting on where your and a lot of your states bread is buttered from.

The only thing really I like about my state and its Ethanol BS is that our farmers and businessmen who are getting rich off this Ethanol scam have to use the same crap Ethanol laced gas that I have to. They don't have a choice it seems as the hypocrites in some other states do.

 

[jhellwig]

Ah, you don't understand what I said.

I never said your post were not true, I said it was a crock as it really didn't say anything that we don't already know, that gasoline and water will not mix. And in typical Pro Ethanol fashion you don't even mention the fact that the Ethanol will also separate along with the water.

I did state that it will seperate back out. It just takes longer. And of course the ethanol comes with it because ethanol is miscible. The reason I state the rest of it is because everyone seams to forget what those fuel addatives are made of.

 

[Whitespider]

The problem with your posts jhellwig, is they only tell half the story... the half that makes ethanol appear to be a good thing (or, at least, not a bad thing).

To start with... ethanol, compared to gasoline, is a low(er) energy/high(er) octane fuel that is highly hygroscopic causing it to have greatly increased corrosive effects. Ethanol, compared to gasoline, really is a horrible motor fuel for anything except special purpose (such as specially built race engines). It's nothin' but smoke 'n' mirrors to point out any "benefits" or defend ethanol as a motor fuel without making the direct comparison to what it's supposed to be replacing.

Another thing, saying alcohol-is-alcohol is like saying oil-is-oil... next time you change oil in your truck try using olive oil and let me know how that works for ya'. There are all different sorts of alcohol, and every one of them is a different chemical substance with entirely different properties as a fuel additive. An additive with methanol (for example) may emulsify water... but it ain't hygroscopic, and it won't phase separate at the saturation point... they may both be an alcohol, but they ain't the same thing, not even close. Making that comparison is just more smoke 'n' mirrors... just more BS and half-truth. B'sides, at 10% (or 15%) ethanol is hardly being used as an "additive", it's supplementing gasoline... and that there is a huge friggin' difference.

Comparing ethanol (as a solvent) to petroleum based solvents is also smoke 'n' mirrors. Ethanol does not leave behind a protective oily residue like (most) petroleum solvents. Clean steel with ethanol and set it outside over night and you'll have a coating of rust on it. Ethanol actually leaves behind an ultra-thin layer of water on a perfectly clean surface, gasoline leaves behind an ultra-thin layer of... well... petroleum. What happens, in float bowls for example, is the ethanol phase separates, and the water ethanol solution eats (by oxidation) the metal faster than water alone... because the friggin' ethanol has removed the protective oily residue and is providing the oxygen‼ I've seen several carbs that look like they've flat dissolved... and every one of them were running ethanol blended fuel‼

I could go on... but what's the point?? You're an ethanol supporter, I ain't... you repeat the propaganda, I won't.

I don't doubt you've never had problems with ethanol blended fuel... many people can say that.
But it's like I always say...
It ain't that you've been lucky so far, you just ain't been unlucky... yet‼
*

 

[Modifiedmark]

I did state that it will seperate back out. It just takes longer. And of course the ethanol comes with it because ethanol is miscible. The reason I state the rest of it is because everyone seams to forget what those fuel addatives are made of.

Your quote right here

"IF you take a sample of gas with ethanol in it and add water and shake you will see it dissapear. Then after a while the water will fall out of suspension. IF you do the same thing with non ethanol gas it will do the same thing only the water will seperate faster. WATER WILL NOT EMULSIFY IN GASOLINE"

My reading comprehension must be failing me. I see no where does it say the Ethanol will separate along with the water.

I am the one who added that was the reason it took longer to separate then pure gas in my reply.

 

[jhellwig]

The problem with your posts jhellwig, is they only tell half the story... the half that makes ethanol appear to be a good thing (or, at least, not a bad thing).

To start with... ethanol, compared to gasoline, is a low(er) energy/high(er) octane fuel that is highly hygroscopic causing it to have greatly increased corrosive effects. Ethanol, compared to gasoline, really is a horrible motor fuel for anything except special purpose (such as specially built race engines). It's nothin' but smoke 'n' mirrors to point out any "benefits" or defend ethanol as a motor fuel without making the direct comparison to what it's supposed to be replacing.

Another thing, saying alcohol-is-alcohol is like saying oil-is-oil... next time you change oil in your truck try using olive oil and let me know how that works for ya'. There are all different sorts of alcohol, and every one of them is a different chemical substance with entirely different properties as a fuel additive. An additive with methanol (for example) may emulsify water... but it ain't hygroscopic, and it won't phase separate at the saturation point... they may both be an alcohol, but they ain't the same thing, not even close. Making that comparison is just more smoke 'n' mirrors... just more BS and half-truth. B'sides, at 10% (or 15%) ethanol is hardly being used as an "additive", it's supplementing gasoline... and that there is a huge friggin' difference.

Comparing ethanol (as a solvent) to petroleum based solvents is also smoke 'n' mirrors. Ethanol does not leave behind a protective oily residue like (most) petroleum solvents. Clean steel with ethanol and set it outside over night and you'll have a coating of rust on it. Ethanol actually leaves behind an ultra-thin layer of water on a perfectly clean surface, gasoline leaves behind an ultra-thin layer of... well... petroleum. What happens, in float bowls for example, is the ethanol phase separates, and the water ethanol solution eats (by oxidation) the metal faster than water alone... because the friggin' ethanol has removed the protective oily residue and is providing the oxygen‼ I've seen several carbs that look like they've flat dissolved... and every one of them were running ethanol blended fuel‼

I could go on... but what's the point?? You're an ethanol supporter, I ain't... you repeat the propaganda, I won't.

I don't doubt you've never had problems with ethanol blended fuel... many people can say that.
But it's like I always say...
It ain't that you've been lucky so far, you just ain't been unlucky... yet‼
*

You say this like all anti ethanol posts tell the whole story. They don't. I like how you think that since I have a different opinion than yours I am spreading propaganda. That is a real intelligent argument.

Your quote right here

"IF you take a sample of gas with ethanol in it and add water and shake you will see it dissapear. Then after a while the water will fall out of suspension. IF you do the same thing with non ethanol gas it will do the same thing only the water will seperate faster. WATER WILL NOT EMULSIFY IN GASOLINE"

My reading comprehension must be failing me. I see no where does it say the Ethanol will separate along with the water.

I am the one who added that was the reason it took longer to separate then pure gas in my reply.

Your reading comprehension is failing. I never said that the ethanol didn't fall out of suspension with the water. I also stated right in the post that you quoted that it takes longer to separate.



No one here seams to realise that all of the stories about ethanol only tell one side of the story. No one takes their ope to a mechanic or works on it themselves when there isn't a problem with it. If everyone started documenting the time that the had no problem running ethanol they would quickly out number the amount of time people have had problems.

 

[Whitespider]

If everyone started documenting the time that the had no problem running ethanol they would quickly out number the amount of time people have had problems.

Not only is that silly... it's sort'a stupid.
The common sense gauge would be...

1. the amount of ethanol related problems vs. non-ethanol related problems at the OPE repair shop.
2. the cost of those ethanol related repairs vs. non-ethanol related.

And, by-the-way, I already know how that plays out... you ain't got a leg to stand on.
I was in the automotive parts and service business for over 25 years... and at least half of the repair shops I dealt with also serviced/repaired OPE.
I have several friends still in that business... and there ain't a one of 'em that would disagree with me.
Truthfully... they'd laugh in your face if you tried your arguments with them... and then they'd walk you over and show you the pile of destroyed carburetors
*

 

[Whitespider]

You say this like all anti ethanol posts tell the whole story.

Yeah right...
I ain't got enough days left in me life to tell the "whole story".
My family was in the automotive business when ethanol blended fuel was labeled as "Gasohol" right on the pump, long before government got involved.
You ain't got any clue what the "whole story" is... no clue at all.
*

 

[Whitespider]

I like how you think that since I have a different opinion than yours I am spreading propaganda. That is a real intelligent argument.

Ummmmm... intelligence??
There's a big difference between your posts and my post... my post didn't contain any opinion or propaganda, just a few intelligent facts you overlooked, perverted, and even flat ignored.
The ethanol propaganda campaign ain't about anyone's actual intelligence level... it's about what those dishing out the propaganda believe the intelligence level is of those they're trying to feed it to.
The ethanol program is a joke. Government made sure of that the instant they got involved. It ain't about the fuel, it's about the money... and nothing more than that.
*

 

[jhellwig]

Not only is that silly... it's sort'a stupid.
The common sense gauge would be...

1. the amount of ethanol related problems vs. non-ethanol related problems at the OPE repair shop.
2. the cost of those ethanol related repairs vs. non-ethanol related.

And, by-the-way, I already know how that plays out... you ain't got a leg to stand on.
I was in the automotive parts and service business for over 25 years... and at least half of the repair shops I dealt with also serviced/repaired OPE.
I have several friends still in that business... and there ain't a one of 'em that would disagree with me.
Truthfully... they'd laugh in your face if you tried your arguments with them... and then they'd walk you over and show you the pile of destroyed carburetors
*

Well no **** a mechanic or an parts store is going to see a lot of broken parts. It would be stupid to take you lawnmower to have its carb replaced because the isn't a problem with it. I suppose next you are going to tell me that doctors see a lot of sick people.

Yeah right...
I ain't got enough days left in me life to tell the "whole story".
My family was in the automotive business when ethanol blended fuel was labeled as "Gasohol" right on the pump, long before government got involved.
You ain't got any clue what the "whole story" is... no clue at all.
*

Right........

Ummmmm... intelligence??
There's a big difference between your posts and my post... my post didn't contain any opinion or propaganda, just a few intelligent facts you overlooked, perverted, and even flat ignored.
The ethanol propaganda campaign ain't about anyone's actual intelligence level... it's about what those dishing out the propaganda believe the intelligence level is of those they're trying to feed it to.
The ethanol program is a joke. Government made sure of that the instant they got involved. It ain't about the fuel, it's about the money... and nothing more than that.
*

Again, difference of opinion does not turn facts into propaganda. You have managed to mention only the negative facts and none of the positive. If I used your logic then I would say that you are doing nothing other than spreading anti ethanol propaganda.

You can go and spend more money on all of these special fuels and adatives and I will keep using cheap ethanol.

 

[Deleted member 83629]

glad i burn ethanol free funny because ethanol free is the same price as E10 but i get 3 more miles for every gallon of gas.
shelf life is lovely i park the equipment in november and when march rolls around they start and run perfectly.
no water,white rust, collapsed lines, or gooey jello in the carburetors.

 

[Whitespider]

Well no **** a mechanic...

OK... whatever... you win...

*

 

[Modifiedmark]

I will keep using cheap ethanol.

Where can I get some of this cheap ethanol? That's a oxymoron, there is no such thing as cheap ethanol.

Ethanol subsidies have cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars in taxes, plus it has raised the prices on food etc so much its pathetic. It has also cost the public millions of dollars in equipment repairs and lost fuel mileage.

Yeah right, ethanol is real cheap.

 

[Whitespider]

That's a oxymoron, there is no such thing as cheap ethanol.

Ain't that the truth??
If it wasn't for government kick-ins, regulations, and whatnot, ethanol blended gasoline would easily cost more than plain gas... in fact, it does cost more than plain gas, but government sucks it from you in a pre-pay tax way so you don't see the cost at the pump.
It's all smoke 'n' mirrors... only a fool could believe ethanol was costing him less than gasoline.

Up until about a year ago the major pipeline supplying Iowa with gasoline was shipping 87 octane and 91 octane. Those were blended with ethanol to give us 4 readily available grades at the pumps... 87 E-free, 89 E10, 91 E-free, and 93 E10. Well, Iowa is one of the few states without an ethanol "mandate", and it seems we weren't burning enough of that crap to make the politicians and their tree-hugger friends happy. So, they manipulated the market with subsidies, tax credits and regulation to artificially reduce the price of (regular grade) E10, and increase the price of (regular grade) E-free... meaning we all pay for the ethanol, we pay a lot for the ethanol‼

Here's the result of the market manipulation...
We no longer get 87 octane gasoline shipped to Iowa... we get 84 octane, which is cheaper than 87 (and lower grade). Iowa law says gas at the pump must be a minimum of 87 octane... so the tree-huggers figured to eliminate the regular grade E-free at our pumps by forcing Iowa to blend all the lower grade gas with 10% ethanol so it meets the minimum octane rating. Add in a blenders (tax) credit for using E10 and you've got special interest manipulation of the market. It didn't work out perfectly for them... some is blended with ethanol, but the customers and pump owners wouldn't stand for such BS, some of the 84 is also blended with 91 octane to meet the minimum. The 89 E10 is gone, replaced with 87 E10 and it's cheaper than the 89 E10 was because it's blended with cheaper gas now. We still have the 87 E-free, but the price took a hike because the cheaper (lower grade) 84 gas has to be blended with the more expensive 91 octane.

Market manipulation... the E10 gas gets artificially cheaper, and the E-free gets artificially more expensive... smoke 'n' friggin' mirrors‼
Anyone who believes ethanol is cheaper than gasoline is wearing blinders... only a fool would wear them.
Take off the blinders and follow the damn money... take a look at who's getting rich and fat with ethanol dollars... your dollars‼
The ethanol program is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the American people and the amount of money it steals from them gets larger every year. It's a house of cards that will eventually collapse... and when it does... well... the cost of that will be tremendous.
*

 

[fordf150]

Anyone who believes ethanol is cheaper than gasoline is wearing blinders... only a fool would wear them.
Take off the blinders and follow the damn money... take a look at who's getting rich and fat with ethanol dollars... your dollars‼
The ethanol program is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the American people and the amount of money it steals from them gets larger every year. It's a house of cards that will eventually collapse... and when it does... well... the cost of that will be tremendous.
*

 

[Whitespider]

I suppose next you are going to tell me that doctors see a lot of sick people.

Of course they do... but that ain't the point... you're just perverting the facts again.
So you're sayin', if doctors reported that 85% of the people they see with lung cancer were smokers, you'd ignore that??
See?? 85% of smokers don't get lung cancer, more like 15%... but 85% of lung cancer patients smoke.
Using your twisted reasoning, smoking ain't bad for ya' because the majority of smokers don't get lung cancer and go see a doctor
*