Skip to main content
000000 000003 000006 000009 000012 000015 000018 000021 000024 000027 000030 000033 000036 000039 000042 000045 000048 000051 000054 000057 000060 000063 000066 000069 000072 000075 000078 000081 000084 000087 000090 000093 000096 000099 000102 000105 000108 000111 000114 000117 000120 000123 000126 000129 000132 000135 000138 000141 000144 000147 000150 000153 000156 000159 000162 000165 000168 000171 000174 000177 000180 000183 000186 000189 000192 000195 000198 000201 000204 000207 000210 000213 000216 000219 000222 000225 000228 000231 000234 000237 000240 000243 000246 000249 000252 000255 000258 000261 000264 000267 000270 000273 000276 000279 000282 000285 000288 000291 000294 000297 000300 000303 000306 000309 000312 000318 000321 000324 000327 000330 000333 000336 000339 000342 000345 000348 000351 000354 000357 000360 000363 000366 000369 000372 000375 000378 000381 000384 000387 000390 000393 000396 000399 000402 000405 000408 000411 000414 000417 000420 000423 000426 000429 000432 000435 000438 000441 000444 000447 000450 000453 000456 000459 000462 000465 000468 000471 000474 000477 000480 000483 000486 000489 000492 000495 000498 000501 000504 000507 000510 000513 000516 000519 000522 000525 000528 000531 000534 000537 000540 000543 000546 000549 000552 000555 000558 000561 000564 000567 000570 000573 000576 000579 000582 000585 000588 000591 000594 000597 000600 000603 000606 000609 000612 000615 000618 000621 000624 000627 000630 000633 000636 000639 000642 000645 000648 000651 000654 000657 000660 000663 000666 000669 000672 000675 000678 000681 000684 000687 000690 000693 000696 000699 000702 000705 000708 000711 000714 000717 000720 000723 000726 000729 000732 000735 000738 000741 000744 000747 000750 000753 000756 000759 000762 000765 000768 000771 000774 000777 000780 000783 000786 000789 000792 000795 000798 000801 000804 000807 000810 000813 000816 000819 000822 000825 000828 000831 000834 000837 000840 000843 000846 000849 000852 000855 000858 000861 000864 000867 000870 000873 000876 000879 000882
English French German Italian Spanish

Ethanol

Can anyone, with advanced qualifications in chemistry, explain the difference between fuels of the 50's, like Discol & Nationol Benzol, and the current fuels containing ethanol? 10% Ethanol used to cause no problems, and it is widely used in S. America, so, what has changed? Or, are we just getting the same hysteria as with the introduction of unleaded petrol?

Permalink

My guess is that the qualifications required might be in macroeconomics rather than chemistry. I agree with John, ethanol is ethanol and it has been used (on and off) as a motor fuel or in motor fuels for a long time. It looks as if it might have been the influence of global fuel companies and the relative bulk costs of production that drove motor fuels down the pure petrol route for many years.

I think, and it's only a guess, that motor fuel storage and delivery components developed over the decades with no attention being paid to ethanol fuels because they just weren't out there in the main consumer market. As the newer formulation fuels came in, adaptations had to take place. I don't know the history of fibreglass, but I expect it wasn't around as a material for fuel tank construction when Discol was in its heyday.

[National Benzole was a blend of standard petrol hydrocarbons and benzole - a benzene/toluene/naphthalene/xylene derivative from the coal industry. As benzole consisted of aromatic and hence non-polar components, you would not expect its presence to have had the same effects on resins as ethanol in petrol. What it would have done however was cause swelling and decomposition of many rubber components. Oh - and it was just a bit carcinogenic as well; try finding any benzene around these days.]

Permalink

Cleverland 'Discol' was a mixture of 25% industrial alcohol and petrol. It was produced by the distillers company and was available until the 1950's. The idea of the use of alcohol as a fuel was promoted by Henry Ford, the Model T ran on petrol or alcohol, and was a common component of racing fuels, (Dope), until such fuels were banned for competition.

The alcohol was an octane rating improver, like Tetra Ethyl Lead. When lead was phased out and the popular replacement Methyl tetra- butyl ether was outlawed, ethanol was used as a replacement.

France and Germany mandated 10% alcohol in gasoline during the 1920's.

Cleverland were bought out by Esso over the period 1938 to 1958 and continued into the 1970's.

The push for re-introduction is part of necessity and in part poltiical pressure from the agricultural lobby.

Permalink

John, there is a very big difference between the elimination of lead in petrol and the inclusion of Ethanol. I'm not aware of hysteria with regard to the former, but there was rightly concern. (I did not run off to the cylinder head shop, like many) However, with regard to Ethanol, if it makes no odds as you perhapssuggest then can youexplain why the Petseal in two of my tanks, exposed to Ethanol contamination turned into a sticky mess that had to be removed. Several petrol pipes had to be replaced too, not to mention a carb and top end strip on one machine with new Ethanol proof parts.

Brazil uses E85 and vehicles had to be adapted to run on this and accept a much lower MPG. Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane at the expense of the rain forest in some cases, rather like palm oil for bio diesel. How Green is that?

The land used to produce bio fuels would feed 100 million people. (Fact)

So, why has Ethanol and bio diesel been introduced by stealth, nobody warned you and thenenshrined in law with your choices, rather like a decent light bulb, taken away? This all goes down to the Green hysteria, ah, that word again, that the world was suffering from catastrophic, cataclysmic, dangerous, accelerating, runaway and unequivocalglobal warming. The government sponsored Stern report of2006, Algore's PowerPoint scare story and the Ed Miliband October 28th 2008 Climate Change Act!

I'll skip the £18.5 Billion tax bill we pay each year until 2050 to tackle this non existent problem. (Unless you consider 18 Parts per million of man made CO2 a problem) The government introduced a Transport Bill (Renewable fuels for transport) that has gradually been increasing the levels of Ethanol in fuel. E10 would have been in use now, were it not for the fact that a large proportion of vehicles simply could not run on it and some manufactures of new vehicles state that to use this fuel would void their warranty. The same goes for bio diesel. So, I hope you will understand that renewable energy is driven by politics, not science or evensound economics. Your freedoms of choice are being taken from you, thankfully some of us care about this. Mrs T once said: 'No lame Ducks and no subsidies.' Were it not for huge subsidies; renewable energy, including Ethanol would not be viable. With current oil prices, Ethanol not only increases the pump price but also lowers your MPG. They call this a double whammy in politics.

Incidentally, one report suggested that E5 should be available until 2018, when it was thought there wouldn't be any carburrated vehicles left on the road! That's you finished then John? However, it is illegal for aircraft to use Ethanol contaminated fuel and a test must be carried out before each flight. Ethanol is a greater fire risk, it is hygroscopic and as such causes corrosion in the fuel system. What it does to resins, plastics and rubbers is well documented. Why would anyone want to use such a product? Because it is forced on you with no choice (eventually) or perhaps being brainwashed into believing you are saving the planet?

For me it is as simple as fish and chips: If John want's to use Ethanol in his petrol he is welcome to it, his choice. I do not wish to damage my Norton's because of some political whim. Whereare my choices? Currently BP Ultimate (Not in the South West) and Murco, from their own refinery are about all that is left as E0 and these will be squeezed as 5% across the board is being enforced. When E10 comes in,a warning notice will have to be displayed at the pump......Warning !!!!!!!!!

If you are looking for qualifications John, one of my degrees is in Government and Politics. What this is all about and I assure you that our policy makers have no regard for the health of your Norton!.

Neil.

Permalink

Previously neil_wyatt wrote:

John, there is a very big difference between the elimination of lead in petrol and the inclusion of Ethanol .........

....... What this is all about and I assure you that our policy makers have no regard for the health of your Norton!.

Neil.

yes Neil you need to take a look at the FBHVC site and there site will enlighten you further on E10 Yours Anna J

Permalink

Previously anna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously neil_wyatt wrote:

John, there is a very big difference between the elimination of lead in petrol and the inclusion of Ethanol ........

........ What this is all about and I assure you that our policy makers have no regard for the health of your Norton!.

Neil.

yes Neil you need to take a look at the FBHVC site and there site will enlighten you further on E10 Yours Anna J

PS and none of this is any greener the what was used in a 1920s&30s diesel is even worse than petrol but petrol bad as well But there is a alliterative too petrol or diesel , but you would not believe me when I tell you all , its HHO Hydrogen gas , electrolysis of water to make a hydrogen gas , its then burnt in your engine there is no storing it in a tank, you using it as you go, check out some of what on You tube is not all rubbish it works as there is no or little nitrogen in the in take in between the carburettor and the inlet valve , hydrogen will not burn in open air as there 70% of nitrogen in the air we breath so while every one Scoffs at this and they go on paying though the nose for petrol diesel even more expensive as its a by product of making petrol so were all been ripped off, buy the petrodollar giants so when are you all going to wake up, to a different way

thats engineering ,

Permalink

Previously laurence_king wrote:

Does ethanol make you go faster?

Probably not, but it certainly makes me go more frequently.

[no more politics please]

Permalink

If hydrogen will not burn in open air, what happened to the Hindenburgh?

There is ,in my opinion, no ulterior motive behind the replacement of TEL with ethanol. There is a desire to maintain octane ratings and to reduce dependence on some rather nasty countries who happen to have so much of the world's petroleum reserves, and no, I don't mean Scotland.

Permalink

There isn't much evidence of a desire to maintain octane ratings. Note that ratings are calculated differentlynow,so 95 octane now is much the same as 92 octane 40 years ago - when our bikes were new - or only 15 years old in the case of my Norton. And would we have opted for such a low octane rating then? I think not. Scotland a nasty country? Crivens, jings, help ma boab. Mind you, there could be something fishy about it being run by a Salmond and a Sturgeon.

Permalink

Previously neil_wyatt wrote:

John, there is a very big difference between the elimination of lead in petrol and the inclusion of Ethanol ........

........ What this is all about and I assure you that our policy makers have no regard for the health of your Norton!.

Neil.

Sorry Neil, A degree in government and politics, has nothing to do with the question asked, and no qualification for an answer. Why was ethanol harmless to vehicles, in the 50's & 60's, if it causes so many problems now? My Nortons have run quite happily on any fuel with an octane rating of 90+, from Discol to 140 octane Avgas. No problems whatsoever, with melting fuel lines, or floats. Regarding tank sealer, I have never (or will) use it so have no opinion on this.

Permalink

Chris, all very well to say no more politics but when Ethanol is enforced by politicians you can't avoid the link. And John, I appreciate that you don't use a tank sealant and therefore that issue doesn't apply to you but please spare a thought for those that did have the problem, including those with fibreglass tanks. The first tank to suffer of mine was my most used model 50 in early 2007. I phoned the gentleman at AutocycleEngineering where I bought petseal from and he didn't know why there was a problem and suggested that since the petseal was tacky, I could buy some more and redo the tank, this timeleaving me with twice as much in the tank! Of course he didn't know about Ethanol contamination as didn't most of us backthen. But this was to cause the most damage and to answer Laurence: No it doesn't make you go faster but it can make you stop!

Anna, I have had a couple of long conversations with the FBHVC, they are supposed to represent the interests of the VMCC, amongst others. What they have done is to get in bed with the government (Sorry Chris but this is political) instead of looking after their members and theysupport E5, rather than E0.

Finally back to John, How can you be so certain that the current formula for petrolis the same as the petrol in the 50's and 60's and if so, ask yourself: Was this petrol enforced in almost every pump so that at random you were almost certain to have Ethanol contamination in your tank all of the time?

Now also consider petrol powered garden machinery such as lawn mowers : why is it that only after Ethanol became widespread in the UK (2006/7) that some of thesemachines have sustained engine damage due to fuel separation during winter storage? It has happened to rather a lot of people.

To end with, none of my tanks needed sealant, it was a good idea to prevent rust inside of the tank as it contained inhibitors and there was less chance of having a blocked filter. I have removed the petseal from two slimline tanks but my 16H remains with a nice coat of petseal because it has never seen Ethanol. I did however coat the inside of my 650 tank with Slosh because it is Ethanol resistant, even though I will not use contaminated fuel unless there is no choice and like light bulbs that is the intention. Just don't spill any Ethanol contaminated petrol on your paint work. It is an effective paint stripper, about all it is good for.

Permalink

Previously neil_wyatt wrote:

Chris, all very well to say no more politics but when Ethanol is enforced by politicians you can't avoid the link ........

........ Just don't spill any Ethanol contaminated petrol on your paint work. It is an effective paint stripper, about all it is good for.

Hi Neil. Although i do not wish to become involved inany political debate, as i know very little on the subject, buti can comment on the quality of our modern fuels. I run a plant and tool hire company and am heavily involved in the repair and maintenance of all the equipment. Over the past 10 to 15 years mostly i have witnessed fuel tanks, hoses, and carbs eaten away by fuel. Fuel left in tanks in some cases for only a few months gives off a 'stale' odour and has to drained out and replaced otherwise the machines will not start. Thisis an unwanted extra cost both in fuel and labour, howeveron a plus side itbrings in work for medue tolack of information givento the general public whoknow nothingabout just what it is they are buying and putting in their tanks and then wondering why their plant will not run. I also read with interest that the warrenty on my car (XF Jag) will be void if Ethanol in excess of 15% is used.

The tank on my Norton is not sealed and ive had no work done to my head but i do pick my fuel very carefully as you can imagine.

Mark

Permalink

A few points;from the time of the invention of the spark ignition internal combustion engine petroleum scientists have worked to improve fuel so as to allow higher power output and better economy to be achieved.

An important constraint was the problem of auto ignition under compression. This restricted the compression ratios usable and hence the efficiency of the engine. Alcohol was an early route to achieving this as was modifications to the refining processes used.

G.M. invented the use of Teta Ethyl Lead as an ignition improver in about 1920 and Esso marketed this type of fuel which contained less than 1 part per 1000 of TEL. this allowed higher compression ratios to be used.Wartime fuels of 150 Octane were produced for the RAF.

We however, or our Fathers and Mothers had to settle for 'Pool' petrol of from 60 to 80 Octane (RON). So post war engines had to use lower compression ratios than prewar ones, with consequential reduction of power.

During the 1950's petrol restrictions were lifted and Octane ratings were increased with the use of TEL.

However all was not well and the petrol companies came under increased pressure to replace TEL because of neurotoxicity issues. ( It does for your brain).

The first Unleaded fuel used a variety of Ether compounds, Tetra Amyl methyl ether,Methyl tetra butyl ether and Ethyl tetra butyl ether to achieve the anti-knock properties needed.

Sadly, these have also health issues and so Ethyl Alcohol has replaced them as an Octane boost.

Life is never perfect and the problems of Tank liners and fiberglass tanks come under the heading of collateral damage.

Modern fuels are less stable under storage because TEL was a good anti-oxidant and so can form gums in carbs if left over winter.

So drain it.

Finally there are two methods of measuring Octane level. These are Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor Octane Number (MON).

These use the same variable compression ratio engine to measure resistance to knocking but use different operating conditions.

RON values are always higher than MON but thee difference in numbers varies with fuel composition.

Historic values , 100 octane etc, were always RON as are modern pump fuels.

So still no conspiracy just the result of sensible legislation.

Hope this helps

Permalink

I had written an extensive reply to Mark, agreeing with him but that appears to have disappeared into cyber space.

But Charles, you mention 'collateral damage' (No thanks) and 'sensible legislation.' Now, although that is political it does need explaining, especially as bio fuels are subsidised (In the UK at least) and give a lower MPG, as Ethanol only has around 70% of the 'bang' power of straight petrol.

In my book, sensible legislation should not mean a tool to make pointless government renewable energy targets if they are not economically viable. And in the US of A in order to gain the votes of the Mid West Corn farmers. (Sorry Chris)Remember, in the UK the aim is to make E10 the standard. A standard fuel with a warning sign on it! Do me a favour!

Permalink

Actuallly I was wrong about the differencebetween the old RON and newer MON octane ratings (which are not really compatible measures anyway).

Shell V-power petrol is98 octane MON but is only 90 octane RON. A bigger difference than I thought. Still better than pool petrol - probably!

Permalink

I believe that the numbers quoted are the wrong way round. 98-99 RON and about 88 MON. Even TVO is better than 'Pool' petrol!!!

Permalink

I thought that current regulation is to allow for ethanol to be added to fuel to the prescribed limit, which seemed a good idea at the time. Recently, I read somewhere that it is not a cost effective additive anymore due to global increase in price due to it being seen as a 'green' fuel and it was more cost effective for the refineries to just supply petrol without it.

Permalink

Previously charles_bovington wrote:

If hydrogen will not burn in open air, what happened to the Hindenburgh?

There is ,in my opinion, no ulterior motive behind the replacement of TEL with ethanol. There is a desire to maintain octane ratings and to reduce dependence on some rather nasty countries who happen to have so much of the world's petroleum reserves, and no, I don't mean Scotland.

the Hindenburg was not On Hydrogen its was using Helium witch is lighter than air ,

Permalink

Previously anna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously charles_bovington wrote:

If hydrogen will not burn in open air, what happened to the Hindenburgh?

There is ,in my opinion, no ulterior motive behind the replacement of TEL with ethanol. There is a desire to maintain octane ratings and to reduce dependence on some rather nasty countries who happen to have so much of the world's petroleum reserves, and no, I don't mean Scotland.

the Hindenburg was not On Hydrogen its was using Helium witch is lighter than air ,

The Hindenburg did use Hydrogen as the Germanswere not allowed to buyHelium from the USA. Helium is a non flammable gas. If the Hindenburg had been using Helium it would not have gone up in flames as it did.

Permalink

Ashley, you are right to suggest that Ethanol is not cost effective. It never was. Put aside the fact that the change of land use has increased food prices and the land used for sugar and corn for example to make Ethanol (+ palm oil for bio diesel) could feed 100 million people. But Ethanol is subsidised by the tax payer so in that respect it is not cost effective and alsonot cost effective because the more Ethanol in the mix, the lower the mpg.

Ethanol has to be tankered to the refinery, it can't be piped because of the hygroscopic nature of the stuff and then it goes into the tanker and sealed, just before departure. I spoke about the water absorption and corrosive effects earlier.

Of course it is easier to fill the tanker with petrol and distribute, without having this additional process with a highly flammable solvent. But, the government demand meeting their renewable energy targets. The windmills are having a hard time of it so your Norton gets it!

John, I respect that if you demand to have Ethanol in your tank then you should be able to do that but again, spare a thought for those already suffering 'collateral' damage and don't want it. Where isour choice?.

I am aware that it is possible to remove Ethanol from petrol by adding water of a similar volume. This leaves two problems as I can see, apart from the obvious waste of the Ethanol that costs more than the petrol:

1) How do you dispose of the Ethanol and water, within the law?

2) One for the chemist: There are several other necessary agents in petrol, other than the dreaded Ethanol. Will these other agents be absorbed with the water and Ethanol or will they stay with the petrol?

Permalink

Previously neil_wyatt wrote:

I had written an extensive reply to Mark, agreeing with him but that appears to have disappeared into cyber space.

But Charles, you mention 'collateral damage' (No thanks) and 'sensible legislation.' Now, although that is political it does need explaining, especially as bio fuels are subsidized (In the UK at least) and give a lower MPG, as Ethanol only has around 70% of the 'bang' power of straight petrol.

In my book, sensible legislation should not mean a tool to make pointless government renewable energy targets if they are not economically viable. And in the US of A in order to gain the votes of the Mid West Corn farmers. (Sorry Chris)Remember, in the UK the aim is to make E10 the standard. A standard fuel with a warning sign on it! Do me a favor!

Well Politics Cannot be left out of this as These numskulls make all our lives a misery with there policy's, And there messing, And too me the green energy policy a farce, Its the big company's calling the shots to stick up wind turbines every were that will do noting for the environment, But kill its wild life, As for the ethanol Question the old stuff like Discol was made from coal products now its made from Shea nuts and parm colonels ie Bi-oils, And to grow these they make Orangutans and other primates homeless as they cut down there forests and burn there habit so you can have green fuel, ie ethanol , So you see the only people that gain from all this a the big company's and governments that really do not care about the planet as long as there getting rich out of exploitation of the wild and us lot, So its time to wake up at what really going on in our name. the Truth hurts yours anna j

Permalink

Well, as usual, 21 posts, and not one straight answer to the original question. Why did not ethanol fuels in the 50's cause all the problems they are alledged to do now?

Permalink

John, just how many petro /chemical engineers do you know ofthat post on this site.

I answered your question earlier. I'll try again:

Do you knowif Ethanol fuels in the 50 were to the same formula as used today? ie compare like with like.And remember, we didn't havetanksealants back then to my knowledge.

Today all petrol contains up to 5% Ethanol with the exception of 4* Leaded, if there is any about still and BP Ultimate (Except in South West England) + Murco Super, where supplied from their own refinery. So the chances are, ignoring the above that you will almost certainly have Ethanol in your tank today. There were not that many Discol / Ethanol contaminated fuel retailers back in the 50's so most if not all of your fuel would have been E0, hence little or no Ethanol issues.

I'll add another one John, just so I might convince you. Back in the 50's and the 60's come to that, a motorcycle was daily transport, not part of a collection or mothballed for winter or ridden once a month or whatever. There was less opportunity of separation to take place at the bottom of the tank with the associated corrosion and of course for fuel to be stuck in carbs and rubber pipes until they perished. Bikes were used almost daily back then.

Finally, to meet government targets the final plan is to leave E10 (10% Ethanol) as the UK standard petrol. This will require a warning, yes a warning on standard issue petrol. That what you wish for your apathy? A while ago there was a report issued that suggested E5 would continue to be available until 2018, by which time it was thought there would be no carburrated vehicles left on the road.Fuel injected16H anyone?

Don't worry Chris, I shan't be repeating all this again.

Permalink

With an official campaign of disinformation, it is no wonder that no-one can give a straight answer.

Ethanol clearly causes some degree of problem with water absorbtion but many of the problems with current fuel could be due to something else.

Back in the sixties and seventies, bikes with 'tickler' carbs were characterised by a brown / black tarry deposit all over the carbs. This just doesn't happen any more. The fuel clearly has a 'solvent' content as instead of building up deposits, it removes them.

Back in the late 1980s / early 1990s, it became evident when touring Europe that French and Belgian fuel smelt of nail varnish remover and lifted even 2-pack lacquer. UK fuel at the time didn't and I'm not aware that the European fuel contained ethanol.

I wonder if it's the ethanol that is the problem with petseal / paint or something else in the additive package, possible required in greater quantities by the ethanol ?

Whatever the reason, the old basic principle that governed trading standards...That a product had to be suitable for the purpose for which it was sold, clearly no longer applies or they wouldn't be allowed to sell the adulterated stuff.

Permalink

By the way John, my Ethanoldamaged parts (Tank sealent, petrol pipes & carb bits are not alleged. I even offered to send you the remains of the Petseal from my Model 50's tank. I'm talking fact.

Acurrent MG Enthusiast magazine article /lettersmay help guide you with regard to the problem.

Yes Richard, a bit like road humps! Passed by law. The common man (& Anna) doesn't have a say in the matter, even though we know it isn't fit for purpose and even less so when they legally impose E10 without choice, eventually.

But, I always wondered if there was another agent interacting with the Ethanol? However, the E0 I use does not remove paint or dissolve pet seal etc, so as far as I'm concerned, just a case of sending out some tankers without this evil stuff and it should even reduce the retail price. Just those bloody targets getting in the way and the obligation never asked for.......Oh, and a mate of mine puts 2 stroke oil in his modern bike tank to reduce corrosive effects! How Green is that?

Permalink

Anna, you are wrong. The Hindenburg was full of Hydrogen, that is why it went up in flames. Helium is also lighter than air but inflammable and hence preferable for airships.

Also ethanol does not come from coal, that was the benzene, toluene, xylene mixture used in National Benzol mixture. Most EU Ethanol comes from Brazil.

Interestingly the EU rules allow, but do not mandate, up to 10% ethanol in gasoline.

I think that long ago we used copper fuel lines, petroseal was unheard of and we used our bikes on a daily basis and so saw none of these problems.

However I can't think of an alternative octane booster to replace TEL, so I guess we make the best of a bad job.

Permalink

O.K.. I give up! I ride a, almost, standard '54 Dominator 88, as I did in the 50's (although not my original Norton). As previously stated, Discol was my fuel of choice, and caused no problems then. Nowadays I use any fuel available, and still have no problems. I think Charles' comment, about motorcycles being used daily, is the probable answer. We used to fill our tanks more often, and seldom left the bikes with a full tank of fuel. Due to the more favorable weather (in Spain) I probably ride more often than most. My plastic fuel pipe, and float, have not melted, neither has the paint on my tank. Any fuel leaves stains, if not wiped off.

Permalink

Previously david_charlesworth wrote:

Previously anna jeannette Dixon wrote:

Previously charles_bovington wrote:

If hydrogen will not burn in open air, what happened to the Hindenburgh?

There is ,in my opinion, no ulterior motive behind the replacement of TEL with ethanol. There is a desire to maintain octane ratings and to reduce dependence on some rather nasty countries who happen to have so much of the world's petroleum reserves, and no, I don't mean Scotland.

the Hindenburg was not On Hydrogen its was using Helium witch is lighter than air ,

The Hindenburg did use Hydrogen as the Germanswere not allowed to buyHelium from the USA. Helium is a non flammable gas. If the Hindenburg had been using Helium it would not have gone up in flames as it did.

I agree with you Charles, Hydrogen as you pointed out originally. Also thanks for a very clear explanation of the subject of ethenol in fuel.

Most people who don't know would not comment but it doesn't stop some, one in particular !

JMc

Permalink

Could it have been the ethonal in the Hindenbergs twin Amal carburettors that caused its floats to sink, spilling petrol out of its leaking fuel pipes that caused the laughing gas to catch fire so that the homeless orangutanges crashed it into the world trade centre killing Princess Diana?

it seems to me as there is a huge CIA / MI5 cover up going on to drive old Nortons off the road.

its probably best that this thread is closed down before we are all taken out by hit men sponsored by the governments and oil companies because we are gettig too close to the truth.

[I think this thread is nearing its conclusion, especially now tht the mystery of the Hindenburg disaster has been solved]

Webmaster

Permalink

How is closing the debate down going to solve the Ethanol question Peter? You are rather sounding like the BBC in their '28gate' scandal.

At the moment there are few places to buy E0 petrol in the UK and before long there might not be any. What happened to our choice?

Permalink

Previously charles_bovington wrote:

Helium is also lighter than air but inflammable and hence preferable for airships.

I don't think this means what you intended it to mean Charles. Surely helium is an inert gas - it's certainly not inflammable, unlike hydrogen.

Permalink

Previously howard_thompson wrote:

Previously charles_bovington wrote:

Helium is also lighter than air but inflammable and hence preferable for airships.

I don't think this means what you intended it to mean Charles. Surely helium is an inert gas - it's certainly not inflammable, unlike hydrogen.

You are absolutely correct. I did mean to type non-flamable. The moral is ' wake up properly before you start to type.

Permalink

I can't answer the original question but for what it's worth E10 has been available in Germany for a few years. It is marketed alongside E5. When E10 was introduced the pumps carried a warning to check that the vehicle was E10 compatible. The take up on E10 was very slow due to the lack of information regarding engine damage that may be caused through it's use. At one point the production of E10 was scaled down due to lack of demand. Petrol stations still have pamphlets listing which vehicles are or are not E10 compatible. E10 is generally 4 cents/litre cheaper than E5 but in the long run it probably does not work out any cheaper due to the reduced MPG figures. I do not useE10 in any of my bikes (both modern) or in the car as there does not seem to be any concrete evidence to confirm that it can be used without damaging the engine. For those of you considering going to the international rally in Bremen, Total Excellium superplus is guaranteed (by Total not by me) to be Ethanol free.

I have it on good authority that allof the Hindenburgs 4 propellers were driven byone solitary 650 Norton Manxman engine giving it a top speed approaching the speed of soundlaugh.

[If comments such as this persist, they will only pass the moderation test when they amuse the Webmaster sufficiently. This example, as Peter's previous one, passes with flying colours]

Webmaster

Permalink

Brilliant answer David and just love the M word connection!!!!!

It is encouraging that Total retains E0 in Germany where they do not in the UK since last year. It may have something to do with some E10 being on the market, thus increasing the overall % of Ethanol contaminated fuel on the German market.Be interesting to know if BP Ultimate is E0 there like it is generally here?

Remember, E10 is coming to the UK as soon as the government (Sorry Chris) can get away with it to help make their targets. And intended to be the standard fuel with a warning notice. If E5 hasn't rocked your Norton I bet E10 will! Then we can have a post mortem thread on what we did to stop it or at least give us the E0 choice.

If we get a decent Summer again this year it would be good to get in some Norton miles on the clocks as will most of us. To aid that I'd like to know ifany members know where 4* Leaded, which isE0 can still be bought? Other E0 unleadedstockiestsalready mentioned on this thread.

Permalink

If you're travelling to Bremen via Belgium, don't think that using Excellium SP will help to avoid ethanol as the website says that all Total fuels in Belgium include it.

http://www.total.be/fr/carburants/qualite-des-carburants/biocarburants.html

In my experience, it's one of the worst and smells like Nitromors. Is this because it comes from the French refineries and includes up to 22% ETBE ?

That manufacturers sell different products in countries with a land border under the same name can only add to the confusion and paranoia.

I've had tremendous valve guide wear problems with the 16H (they're cast iron and grease lubricated). I don't know that it's down to the ethanol but it's a variable that I could do without.

Permalink

Thanks Richard, it just goes to show what a Dogs dinner this ethanol business is. Food has to bemarked upso you know what you areeating but not a dangerous product like petrol, unless it exceeds a level considered detrimental to some vehicles health. Why on Earth would some Norton riders want to gamble with that?

One thing this thread is developing is a map of where decent fuel can be bought. For those visiting the TT or MGP as was, I was told a couple of years ago that all IOM petrol was E0 because the storage tanks there were not suitable for Ethanol. I wonder if this is still the case but it makes you wonder that if giant storage tanks are not suitable, why should our Norton tanks be?

Permalink

Previously richard_payne wrote:

In my experience, it's one of the worst and smells like Nitromors. Is this because it comes from the French refineries and includes up to 22% ETBE ?

Not unless ETBE smells like dichloromethane as the much lamented classic Nitromors was roughly 80% dich. and 20% methanol. The current product is based on MEK but I don't see petrol smelling of ketones either.

Note to self - should I be setting up a Chemistry message board?

Permalink

"I don't see petrol smelling..."

Chris, I don't wish to sound facetious (well, OK, maybe just a little bit...) but I don't see petrol smelling either. I, erm...smell it smelling.smiley

Maybe I could smell the methanol or quite possibly in the absence of scientific comparisons, I simply picked any old nose-wrinkling solvent...and with a hooter like mine, nose-wrinkling is not to be sniffed at !

Permalink

Previously neil_wyatt wrote:

Brilliant answer David and just love the M word connection!!!!!

It is encouraging that Total retains E0 in Germany where they do not in the UK since last year. It may have something to do with some E10 being on the market, thus increasing the overall % of Ethanol contaminated fuel on the German market.Be interesting to know if BP Ultimate is E0 there like it is generally here.

Neil

BP trades as Aral here in the Fatherland - probably something to do with a football match in '66! Aral Ultimate 102 is E0, the Ethanol being replaced by ETBE.

Previously you wrote "A while ago there was a report issued that suggested E5 would continue to be available until 2018, by which time it was thought there would be no carburrated vehicles left on the road." I do not think it has all that much to do with the use of carbs, as certain fuel injected motorcycles and other vehiclesare not E10 compatible - my son's MV Augusta for a start.

David

Permalink

If ethanol is not doing our Nortons any good, then sniffing petrol is certainly not going to do the riders any good either.

The last thing you should be doing is intentionaly inhaling that stuff.

I imagin that a few regular sniffs of that poisionous elixier will cause enough genetic mutations or damage to our central nervous systems so that within a few years we could all end up rambling on a load of old cobblers about something we know nothing about.

The best course of action is just fill your bikes up with what ever is available and keep riding them, then deal with the problems as they occure which in my case has been non.

Permalink

But in my case therehave been lots of problems and damage,Peter. So the trick for me is to fill up with petrol I know won't cause my pipes and carb bits to melt etc (Inc the petseal in my 16h tank) andnot have to worry even about fixing the problem later. (Perhaps at the side of the road) Eliminate the risk. Check out Hierarchy of Risk Control. (HSE)

Permalink

[I am not seeing too much in the way of novel contributions to the subject and the thread has become rather long, so I am stopping it here]

Webmaster

 

Norton Owners Club Website by White-Hot Design

Privacy Policy