>
> >Boy would _that_ be dumb, given the flammability of gasoline. We'd be back
> >to the Molotov cocktails we drove at the outset of WWII.
>
> Nevertheless, that was my recollection, too. But, this is the
> internet, so I took a look. Read 'em and weep:
>
>
formatting link
>
formatting link
> >One fuel does all is the objective. Helps the logistics planners a lot. >
> Nevertheless...
"Gas" is a state of matter. Gasoline is a distillate fraction. Jet engines - like the Abrams - are "gas turbine" engines.
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.
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.
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.
Well, in checking this out I just ran across an interesting fact. JP-4, 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)
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.
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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
All this talk about petroleum constituents! I majored in college chemistry so I have some idea. All these products are a complicated mix of various alkanes in various lengths. Petroleum is separated in a distillation by various fractions by using temperature. The higher the temperature, the thicker the liquid and the higher the boiling point. First, gas is removed, then ether, naphtha, gasoline, kerosene, gas oil (diesel fuel), lubricating oil, then petroleum solids. Crude oil is used to make many products.
I keep a small amount of kerosene, rubbing alcohol, WD-40, lithium grease, paraffin, and household oil in the shop, but NOT gasoline!
So? In sufficient quantity, *anything* will kill you. Common 'table salt', for one example. Or even pure oxygen.
And *everybody* that gets _any_ form of cancer has been found to have consumed large quantities of Dihydrogen Oxide.
I state as absolute fact that people *do* so use it. A fact that is trivially easy to verify by consulting compendiums of 'folk remedies', "patent medicines", "nostrums", etc.
A great many medications -- be they "prescription", "over the counter", or 'folk' remedies -- are well-known poisons. Used in 'palliative' doses, they are not harmful to humans, while *killing* less-resistant, lower- order, creatures.
I did not state that it was a 'desirable' substitute, nor that I recommend such use.
Petroleum distillates, in quantities of "less than a mouthful" are well- known *NOT* to be fatal, or even temporarily disabling. Proof is in the man, _MANY_,*thousands* of people who have ingested such over the years, from 'suck starting" a fuel syphon.
In rocketry, (F-1 Saturn V-style engines) the reaction (combustion of hydrogen and oxygen) is so violent,even when the propagation is moderated via coupled turbine pumps, that an additional component is introduced to moderate the burn....Kerosene.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.