[This is a reposting and slight revision of a message that did not get into the archives. Since many of us lazier souls are now using the archives for reference, as opposed to a good filing system, it is wise to check.]
>From the recent "green" automotive News - remember this name "EBS".... http://www.ethanolboost.com/EBS_Overview.pdf You have probably heard that ethanol is less energetic than gasoline (true) and consequently that the expected mileage deficit from switching to 15% ethanol/ 85% gasoline fuel makes it cost more (true for now) but guess what, assorted fuel experts? --- there is a real anomaly on the horizon and it actually requires ethanol- only lesser amounts of it. At least that is the claim by several MIT PhDs. It is very complicated to try to explain, since it doesn't sound logical. Ford can't explain it either but they are jumping onto the this particular bandwagon with a vengeance not previously seen from Detroit this century. Perhaps it relates to the ease with which a proton can be sheared from ethanol by mechanical means (high pressure fuel injection). That is speculation, and the company isn't saying enough. The technology was stumbled upon at MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab and it does *require* ethanol (other hydrocarbons such as methanol may work, and Terry mentions naphtha) ... But not as well as a blended fuel with gasoline, which is the way the oil companies want to sell it. Can the auto owner of the future be induced to fill up with two different fuels (gasoline and ethanol separately)? I think the answer to that is clearly yes- if the resulting fuel economy were to jump from 25 to 40 mpg for the same power, for instance. But also of great interest to many- is properly explaining the anomaly. It is similar to so-called hydrogen "boosting" - which is the process where a small amount of hydrogen from electrolysis is added. That system which is presently being "hacked" by hundreds of fearless mechanics, doesn't make much logical sense either, since parasitic energy from the alternator is used for that, but the net positive effect is real. Documented reports from truckers operating large diesels show the gain to be substantial. That (lack of clarity) is the nature of anomalies, I suppose. But it is suggestive of the possibility that ethanol, when injected separately, might be amenable to providing nascent hydrogen somehow ... plus more reactive oxidizers like hydroxyl ions - which is an improvement to hydrogen-boosting via electrolysis, since less parasitic energy is required. If nascent hydrogen is showing up as the active factor, one wonders: could it be a mainly function of mechanical shear forces at the injection nozzle? Sounds naive, but it needs to be investigated. The small molecule of hydrogen, which has incredible "mobility" and flame speed at least 10 time greater than gasoline, could then act like a tiny buzz-saw to break up and reform the normal fuel charge. Hydrogen is the key to this, but who knows that there could not be some "supra-chemistry" involved (hydrino) in addition to complete combustion, since the net reported effect is so substantial - over an above efficient combustion. Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC (EBS) in the name of the new startup founded by MIT professors from Sloan. It provides what they call *game-changing* engine technology (which is revolutionary only in that old techniques are applied in a new way) - but that alone breaks the paradigm of how ethanol can be best used as a fuel... which to be honest, is actually not even close to new but is reminiscent of what our Air Force was doing in WWII - injecting alcohol (and water) directly into the manifold at takeoff. The EBS approach uses only a small amount of alcohol (typically 3% of the net fuel used) and it must *separately injected* to get the full benefit- i.e. it must be injected directly into the cylinder, as in a diesel. That feature alone is a fuel saver as the makers of outboard engines (Evinrude) discovered. It doesn't sound logical, that just that simple step of direct alcohol injection, together with higher compression ratio and leaner burn settings, enables far more efficient engines with equal power. If verified, it should be noted that in a 'political season' if you "do the numbers" and project that every auto in the USA had such an engine modification now, we would need to import only ~25% of the oil which we do, and Mexico and Canada could supply it all- thus freeing us from OPEC. Compared to a full hybrid like the Prius - the additional hardware is less than one quarter of the incremental cost- IOW the Prius incremental cost is ~$5000 then the EBS base system is ~$1000 (for the 30,000 psi fuel injectors). Yet the highway mileage is claimed to be actually better than the Prius. To get greatly increased city mileage, Ford will still need to add some kind of mild hybrid system. But if Ford can supply an EBS-type of mild hybrid for 10% less than a Prius, even if the owner must fill up with two fuels - then the struggling company may be able to finally bounce out of their deep competitive slump vis-a-vis the imports. That name Ford is synonymous with mass production and decent automobiles, and it would be a great national shame to see them fail. The Ford Escape hybrid is already in high demand and there are rumors that the 2009 model will be special. It is probably too soon to expect the EBS system in 2009 (they say 2012) but strange things happen when a once-proud company is on the ropes. Lets hope Ford does not drag their feet on this one and continue in business-as-usual mode. The potential for accomplishing great things with this is mind-boggling but only to the extent that we can trust the results (MIT PhD's don't tell lies to pump up investment, do they ??) Jones
