Re: What do YOU use kerosene for?

Page 1 of 2  

wrote:

"Gas" is a state of matter. Gasoline is a distillate fraction. Jet engines - like the Abrams - are "gas turbine" engines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It was somewhere outside Barstow when snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You can't get any (AFAIK) US-designed production gas turbine to run on petrol (gasoline) Some of the late '50s Armstrong-Siddeley burner designs (as used in the Beryl or Sapphire) could be run on petrol, but this was known to be hazardous.
If by "gas" you mean LPG (propane) then this is quite easy - easier to get started than kerosene - which is why most of the model jet builders use it.
For natural gas (methane) then this is a significant market for turboshaft engines - they're used to power pipeline compressors, using some of the product as fuel. These have quite extensively modified fuel systems though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Turbojet, turbofan, gas turbine engines will most definitely run on gasoline. When this becomes necessary by circumstances, there are limitations imposed on the operating parameters of the engine. These ordinarily would include power settings, and time of operation while using gasoline as fuel, etc. to avoid affecting the TBO (time between overhauls) of the engine in question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Dingley wrote:

Of course you can. This is nothing new. In 1963 a bunch of people were driving around in gas turbine powered Chryslers, that could run on just about anything including whiskey and perfume (both were demonstrated). They did have a minor problem with leaded gasoline--the lead precipitated out on the turbine which over the long term was badness, but was not "hazardous".
The AGT1500 engine used in the Abrams is specifically rated to run on diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and marine diesel, or so says the manufacturer, and will no doubt run on other fuels as well.
If by "production gas turbine" you mean commercial aircraft engines you are probably correct, there is no real need for them to have this capability and certification testing with nonstandard fuels would add a good deal to the development cost.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....
Niel ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Badger wrote:

That mothers were using to drive their kids to school? The Chrysler wasn't a prototype, it was a production car.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

the term 'production' applies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick Cook wrote:

They were in the hands of ordinary citizens and driven daily for several years and there are in fact still several of them in private hands. They were as much "production cars" as some models of Ferrari.
So how may Rovers were in private hands, ever?
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

How did they end up in private hands? GM didn't sell them and I thought they destroyed them all after the program ended. <sob!> If any of them still exist I'd love to see one again.
BTW: I think you're wrong about the Ferrari. IIRC they had to produce a minimum number, something like a hundred, to qualify for GT racing. The Formula Ones and such were a different matter, of course.

None, of course. Those were purely experimental, like some of the 'turbine cars' a few people built in the 60s using military surplus turbines.
--RC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick Cook wrote:

No, GM didn't sell them. GM didn't make them either. They were _CHRYSLER_ products, not General Motors.

Forty were destroyed--apparently it was some kind of tax thing--remember that the bodywork was limited production from Ghia and the taxes might have been substantial. That left ten--two belong to Chrysler, the remainder were all sent to various museums, some of which subsequently sold them. According to <http://www.turbinecar.com/where.htm four of them are currently in driveable condition including one of ones at Chrysler and one that is privately held. And I'm annoyed with myself--I grew up in a small town in Florida and moved out as soon as I could. According to one site I visited there was a concours held in that town a while back and by golly somebody drove up in a Chrysler turbine.

Don't know the current rule but at one time it was 25. Ford had to do the same with the Ford GT--I used to have a brochure for the homologation version, which had power steering and air conditioning. But they wanted something like $35K for it, which in the early '60s was a Hell of a lot of money.

Seems to me then that Chrysler has done a better job all around--they've managed to get at least one guy on the road with a privately owned Chrysler-built turbine car.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, but ours actually ran more than 50 miles between mechanic's sessions. :-)
[As a former owner of a Sterling, I can say that]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

retiring with mechanical failure.
--RC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Umm, yep, my point exactly. My Sterling was a dream to drive, too. Great pickup, smooth ride, nice amenities -- problem was I spent most of my time enjoying all that on the trips to the repair shop. Rover mechanicals with Lucas electronics -- there's a combination made in [not] heaven.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Niel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Rick Cook

It never retired due to "failure". They drove it at Le Man three times, although it was never officially entered as the rules couldn't classify its "cylinder capacity". In '63 it finished 8th, in '65 10th and '64 was the year when they damaged it getting there and couldn't run it.
The Rover T4 (the third road car ?) was about as close to reaching a public market as the Chrysler Ghia was. When launched it was claimed to be within two or three years of production (which if you know the car industry, is very close indeed). It was in fact even closer than that - the thing holding it back was the chassis, that of the new P6 Rover (the shark) which went successfully on sale around two years later. The reason they didn't sell it was quite simple - it cost around twice what any other Rover did.
--
Smert' spamionam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are correct sir! Gas turbine doesn't mean gasoline fueled. And jet fuel is kerosene...I flew 'em for years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
good ol' Bob wrote:

the first generation jet fuel, isn't considered kerosene derived because it's about half gasoline. The later grades of jet fuel are kerosene derivatives. For more than you'd ever want to know see: usapc.army.mil/miscellaneous/JP-8%20The%20Single%20Fuel%20Forward%20Information%20Compendium.pdf (and mind the line break) --RC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Rick Cook

JP-4 (amazingly enough) is actually the fourth generation jet fuel, first specified in 1951 (third generation in service, because JP-2 was barely used). Compared to JP-3 it was less volatile (less loss in flight). It was never "made from gasoline", but it was (compared to the early fuels) a blend of kerosene and naptha (gasoline-like fractions). It's main advantage was easy worldwide production from existing petrochemical plant - a problem with the JP-3 spec.
JP-5 was an interesting fuel. At the time the navy had a mixed jet and piston fleet, on carriers with little spare storage capacity. So JP-5 was a heavy kerosene that wasn't usable as a jet fuel, but could be stored in the ship's fuel bunkers (low fire risk) and even used in the ship's own engines. To turn it into a jet fuel it was blended with piston AvGas on-board ship to make something that resembled JP-4 and really was "half gasoline". This fuel also contained lead, not a usual additive in jet fuel. This caused a little metallurgical trouble for US engine makers and also raised some limits on NATO aircraft refueling from US carriers.
In time, JP-5's very low volatility made it attractive for higher altitudes, once engines had been developed that could burn it directly. JP-6 was a low temperature fuel for high altitudes at high supersonic speeds and JP-7 was a high temperature fuel for _really_ high speeds - just the SR-71 family.
JP-8 is a relatively recent (mid 70s) development to provide a true "single fuel" across the army's entire engine fleet. It's not a perfect substitute for diesel, because of lower lubricity - military multi-fuel diesels use more hard chrome plating in their fuel systems to avoid the increased wear that its use would cause in a "civilian" diesel.
The British army seems to be slightly ahead of the US in replacing petrol engines. AIUI, the Brits have cleared the old petrol generator fleet out (the surplus market is flooded with them) but the US still needs petrol to run specialised gen sets attached to some equipment. Neither of them seems to have found a workable diesel motorbike though - there have been trial Harley Davidson singles fitted with Indian Enfield engines, but these were about everything you'd expect from an Indian diesel motorbike. There was talk of a Rotax diesel too, but nothing seems to have come of it.
Gasoline (petrol) is a difficult fuel to burn in a gas turbine. The problem is its low flashpoint and high flame velocity. It's difficult to provide a stable burner design for it, particularly over the wide range of air mass flow found over the engine's operating range. It's especially hard to start a gas turbine engine fuelled with petrol - the Armstrong-Siddeley design of vapourising burner had advantages here (amongst many other advantages) but it was killed off by the politics of the British engine industry being rationalised into one company (lots of "Not Invented Here" innovations were discarded by Rolls-Royce, whether they came from A-S, Bristol or Napier)
The engine in an Abrams is either the AGT1500 or the LV100 (if the upgrade programme goes ahead). The AGT1500 is a dog, however you measure it. The finest of '60s helicopter engine technology, with a great many compressor and turbine stages. If you're in a mood to run gasoline, then a better design to start with is one of the smaller APU designs - a separate burner can, isolated and off to one side.
I understand that it will run on gasoline, but that this was very much an expedient for use in extremis only. Since one of the mid-90s upgrade programmes though, this facility has been withdrawn from service - in a diesel-only army, it doesn't make much sense to support a problematic fuel you're not going to have available anyway.
--
Smert' spamionam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:25:24 -0600, Australopithecus scobis

QUOTE [Morrison and Boyd, "Organic Chemistry", second edition] "Certain organic compounds contain only two elements, hydrogen and carbon, and hence are known as hydrocarbons." END QUOTE
Vegetable oil has attached hydrocarbon chains, but because its entire structure is not composed of only two elements it is not a hydrocarbon by definition.
QUOTE: Hydrocarbon chains comprise a series of carbon atoms linked together, each of which has two hydrogen atoms attached. These molecules may be of different chain lengths, and may also have double bonds in some places. They are generally stable but release considerable amounts of energy when burnt in the presence of oxygen. Combustion is activated by a small amount of energy but can release a great deal of energy in the right situation.
Hydrocarbon chains derived from fossil fuels typified by the petrochemical industry do not have the carboxylic acid ester connection, and exist in many elaborate forms. END QUOTE.
...and many more.
Try reading instead of resorting to childish name-calling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.