briwayjones
10-20-2008, 03:53 PM
I'm no expert but after thinking about it, it may make sense. Why in the world for the hundred and plus some years we've had petroleum burning internal combustion engines has nobody developed any different weight petroleum fuels than what we have? Has anybody researched it? I have trouble believing that in this day and time the most optimal weight petroleum fuel as far as efficiency for commuter vehicles exists.
On one end of the spectrum you have Gasoline of course. Highly volatile, a lot of energy, very light weight viscosity. So much energy and it's produced so fast that the engines can't use it all. Produces high end power, which is good for cars (commuter vehicles). For example, better acceleration, better passing power on the high end type of power. More suited for todays highway and faster driving.
On the other end you have Diesel, heavy as far as fuel goes, it's actually light weight oil. Burns slow therefore produces more low end torque, great for working vehicles. A lot less volatile, not a lot of high end power since it burns slower. But because of that there is a tendency to consume less of it leading to better efficiency than Gasoline. And Diesel engines are probably more efficient as far as the amount of energy that is used from the fuel. Even though more efficient than Gasoline probably not the best suited for cars. It's slower less snappy, more torque but you don't really need it as much in a car unless you're in a drag race. Less high end passing type power. Probably not as efficient in a car as it could be due to people possibly mashing the pedal more trying to get the more snappy power out of it that they're used to from a Gasoline car.
Than there is of course Kerosene, which is inbetween Gasoline and Diesel weight wise but is probably much closer to Gasoline. It doesn't matter anyways though because it's not used for internal combustion engines.
It seems to me that the most optimal weight of fuel for a car would probably just about be right in the middle between Gasoline and Diesel. And that you could maybe get more mileage from it than with Diesel. It would be more volatile and I think contain quite a bit more energy than Diesel, meaning more high end power than Diesel. But probably not that much less than Gasoline. But it would burn slower than Gasoline and because of it the energy produced would be more usable, less waste. Also would have a little more torque than Gasoline since it's burning slower and also be consuming less fuel and more efficient. I think you could get the best of both worlds to an extent. It would still be pretty snappy high end power better suited for cars, yet slower burning and more efficient, more usable burning energy.
I speculate it would be burned in a Diesel type spark plug less engine ignited through compression. Yet would require quite a bit less compression than Diesel.
Maybe this has been tried and you just don't hear about it? Maybe it sounds good in theory but in real life doesn't work or isn't practical? I don't know it just seems like to me there could be a more optimum weight petroleum fuel and if there could be it should have been developed and put into use no less than 20 years ago with minimum fuss.
On one end of the spectrum you have Gasoline of course. Highly volatile, a lot of energy, very light weight viscosity. So much energy and it's produced so fast that the engines can't use it all. Produces high end power, which is good for cars (commuter vehicles). For example, better acceleration, better passing power on the high end type of power. More suited for todays highway and faster driving.
On the other end you have Diesel, heavy as far as fuel goes, it's actually light weight oil. Burns slow therefore produces more low end torque, great for working vehicles. A lot less volatile, not a lot of high end power since it burns slower. But because of that there is a tendency to consume less of it leading to better efficiency than Gasoline. And Diesel engines are probably more efficient as far as the amount of energy that is used from the fuel. Even though more efficient than Gasoline probably not the best suited for cars. It's slower less snappy, more torque but you don't really need it as much in a car unless you're in a drag race. Less high end passing type power. Probably not as efficient in a car as it could be due to people possibly mashing the pedal more trying to get the more snappy power out of it that they're used to from a Gasoline car.
Than there is of course Kerosene, which is inbetween Gasoline and Diesel weight wise but is probably much closer to Gasoline. It doesn't matter anyways though because it's not used for internal combustion engines.
It seems to me that the most optimal weight of fuel for a car would probably just about be right in the middle between Gasoline and Diesel. And that you could maybe get more mileage from it than with Diesel. It would be more volatile and I think contain quite a bit more energy than Diesel, meaning more high end power than Diesel. But probably not that much less than Gasoline. But it would burn slower than Gasoline and because of it the energy produced would be more usable, less waste. Also would have a little more torque than Gasoline since it's burning slower and also be consuming less fuel and more efficient. I think you could get the best of both worlds to an extent. It would still be pretty snappy high end power better suited for cars, yet slower burning and more efficient, more usable burning energy.
I speculate it would be burned in a Diesel type spark plug less engine ignited through compression. Yet would require quite a bit less compression than Diesel.
Maybe this has been tried and you just don't hear about it? Maybe it sounds good in theory but in real life doesn't work or isn't practical? I don't know it just seems like to me there could be a more optimum weight petroleum fuel and if there could be it should have been developed and put into use no less than 20 years ago with minimum fuss.