- Joined
- Sep 11, 2019
- Messages
- 2,091
- Display Name
Display name:
Domenick
Damn, another brain-fart! Use cheap Vodka.Rubbing alcohol is isopropanol (propyl alcohol), not ethanol.
Damn, another brain-fart! Use cheap Vodka.Rubbing alcohol is isopropanol (propyl alcohol), not ethanol.
As stated, rubbing alcohol is isopropanol.Would someone please just soak a few new/old seals and appropriate hose pieces in a cup of drugstore 70% rubbing alcohol (ethanol)?
Potential seals for the experiment:
Gas tank sender gasket
Fuel bladder material
primer o-rings
fuel drain o-rings
fuel line (hose)
carb gaskets and seals
??
Propyl alcohol generally implies it is 1-propanol, with the hydroxyl at the end of the three-carbon chain. Isopropyl alcohol is 2-propanol, with the hydroxyl on the middle carbon. Not that it is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.Rubbing alcohol is isopropanol (propyl alcohol), not ethanol.
My references say the opposite: ethanol has about 72% of the energy that gasoline does.Of course it went farther on 100% alcohol because there is more energy per volume in ethanol than in gasoline.
Agreed here. Blending ethanol into gasoline does not provide net environmental benefits and has significant costs. Ethanol blending mandates serve mainly political purposes, not engineering or environmental benefits.Where I disagree with you is your proposal to close the oil fields and burn strictly alcohol. Wouldn’t you agree that we need to have food to eat? Without corn and other grains there would be no livestock feed to speak of and there would be less farmland &or food crops. You can’t have it both was.
This depends on the non-fossil-fuel fraction of electrical generation, and the temperature differential the heat pump is operating in. In cold climates, ambient air heat pumps may not be efficient enough to produce sufficient heating.With the current efficiency of heat pumps, you can make more heat by burning the fuel to generate electricity for the heat pump.
How is that possible when modern home gas furnaces burn at 97% efficiency? Energy can not magically be created.Modern heat pumps in a Chicago-type climate, powered by a natural gas powerplant can be more efficient than burning natural gas in a household furnace.
With the current efficiency of heat pumps, you can make more heat by burning the fuel to generate electricity for the heat pump.
See this answer below. I had to do such a calculation for P-chem a long time ago when we were learning about Carnot cycles. "Efficiency" may not be the best word for cold weather. A given heat pump can only move a certain quantity of heat, just as a furnace needs to be properly sized for a building and climate.This depends on the non-fossil-fuel fraction of electrical generation, and the temperature differential the heat pump is operating in. In cold climates, ambient air heat pumps may not be efficient enough to produce sufficient heating.
It is because a heat pump does not "generate" heat, it just moves it from the outside of the building to the inside. They are rated by Coefficient of Performance or COP. This is defined as (energy in)/(effective energy out). A typical COP (older unit) is 3. This means that for every kWh electricity it consumes, it outputs 3kWh to the building. If we call this "300% efficiency", then when combined with your 65% efficiency the overall result is 195%, higher than a resistance heater which is 100%.