On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:58:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

In article XnsA744769601979pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally
designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those
engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy
Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been
banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines
ran on methanol.

So were the "sprint car Offys" running that 15:1
compression that was mentioned as one of the
characteristics of the high output engine that
was mentioned?

Not sure what relevance that has to anything, but
no, those engines would have been around 10:1.
Bearing in mind that this was late 30's to early
50's, and production car engines would have been
6:1 or less. (also bearing in mind that Offys
were built to order, and they would happily
make any compression ratio you wanted).

John
There were several "generations" of "offy" engines, starting with the
Miller designed engine originally built and sold as a marine engine..
It was a 2.47 liter (151 cu inch?) engine in the late twenties. It was
put in a land speed record car in 1930. In 1933 Offenhauser bought the
rights to the engine.The design was refined and enlarged, and twas
sold to Meyer and Drake in 1946..
It was under Meyer and Drake, and later just Drake, that the "offy"
ruled Indy. The "Indy Offy" engines were built in 4 displacements -
4.4L, 270 inch for Indy racing under AAA rules, 4.18L, 255 inch
during the '30s, 4.13L, 252 cu inch under USAC rules, 2.75 L, 168 inch
for Turbos at indy up until 1968, and 2.61L,159 inch for Indy Turbo
engines since 1969.

They also built a 1.59.liter,or 97 inch midget engine, and a 3.6L 220
inch Sprint car for both AAA and USAC rules.

These were the "stock" Offies - there were many custom versions for
other uses. The Offy engine began as a copy of a Peugeot Gran Prix
engine from about 1913..

The original Miller 250 was a 10:1 Compression Ratio engine producing
250HP at 5200RPM
Thw 1958 Low Tower 255 ran 15:1.and 325HP @6600RPM
The 69 159 ran 8:1 and 820HP at 9500 RPM with a turbo.
The '74 version DGS and Offy/Drakes ran 8:1 and 1000 HP at 10,000RPM
with Turbos.
ALL of the Indy engines ran on Methanol.. Virtually all sprint cars
also ran Methanol,, as did almost all USAC Midgets. I don't think
there was a gasoline powered offy competition engine after at least
the fifties.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 18:18:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article XnsA744ACBF6BA53pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

In article XnsA744769601979pogosupernews@
46.165.242.91, says...

The turbo Offys didn't, but the engine was originally
designed for dirt track (sprint) cars, and those
engines ran on pump gas, as did the original Indy
Offys. By the time turbos came in, gasoline had been
banned at Indy for safety reasons, and all the engines
ran on methanol.

So were the "sprint car Offys" running that 15:1
compression that was mentioned as one of the
characteristics of the high output engine that
was mentioned?

Not sure what relevance that has to anything, but
no, those engines would have been around 10:1.
Bearing in mind that this was late 30's to early
50's, and production car engines would have been
6:1 or less. (also bearing in mind that Offys
were built to order, and they would happily
make any compression ratio you wanted).

John

Since the mention of Offenhausers was in the
context of power per cubic inch on pump gasoline
and the example used was an Offy with 15:1
compression it's very relevant that the example
did not run on pump gas.
And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines
have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG
before the Turbo Indy engines.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:30:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote:

The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them
ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved
over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle.


Fast, but could it make right turns?

It raced in cart races, saw it run at Road
America Elkhart Lake Wisconsin. So yes it turn right.

On 3/26/2017 5:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

good.


No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the
automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and
HP. There were NO laws governing HP.


You said,

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?


I said


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.


My comments above is how HP was returned to more than previous levels
and pleasing the EPA.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:30:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/25/2017 11:43 PM, Markem wrote:

The offenhiesers were Indy car favorite for years, doubt any of them
ever saw pump gas. The last one (its serial number) still achieved
over 200mph at indy's 2.5 mile rectangle.


Fast, but could it make right turns?

Depends if you're looking at the front or the back. ;-)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Since the mention of Offenhausers was in the
context of power per cubic inch on pump gasoline
and the example used was an Offy with 15:1
compression it's very relevant that the example
did not run on pump gas.

OK, I must have missed that post. Anyway, yeah, the Offy
was usually 12:1 or 15:1 on methanol, since you can run
it real rich and there's no risk of detonation. Unless
it was a turbo motor, in which case the static compression
was much less (because the turbo more than makes up for it).

But then, no gasoline engine will run 15:1 compression
at full throttle on pump gas. You have to have some
trickery to change the effective compression ratio,
lower for full throttle/full power, higher for part
throttle/economy. Or run 110 octane pump gas, and plan
on fairly frequent rebuilds (some drag racers run that
high). On pump gas, 12:1 is about the max.

John

wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@
4ax.com:

And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines
have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG
before the Turbo Indy engines.

Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great
advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and
there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel
injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well,
so methanol was the way to go.

That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys
found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas.
With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could
usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track
like a mile (or, of course, Indy).

John

(* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood)

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:01:41 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Since the mention of Offenhausers was in the
context of power per cubic inch on pump gasoline
and the example used was an Offy with 15:1
compression it's very relevant that the example
did not run on pump gas.

OK, I must have missed that post. Anyway, yeah, the Offy
was usually 12:1 or 15:1 on methanol, since you can run
it real rich and there's no risk of detonation. Unless
it was a turbo motor, in which case the static compression
was much less (because the turbo more than makes up for it).

But then, no gasoline engine will run 15:1 compression
at full throttle on pump gas. You have to have some
trickery to change the effective compression ratio,
lower for full throttle/full power, higher for part
throttle/economy. Or run 110 octane pump gas, and plan
on fairly frequent rebuilds (some drag racers run that
high). On pump gas, 12:1 is about the max.

John
Except with GDI - Mazda SkyActive is 14:1

wrote in news:2kcgdct95emmpluphi0grv3sl4q3kivrvd@
4ax.com:


There were several "generations" of "offy" engines, starting with the
Miller designed engine originally built and sold as a marine engine..

Miller was an amazing designer, and a lousy businessman.

He's mostly famous for his 91cid straight-8 engines (which
are invariably described as "clockwork" and "jewel-like").
He then designed what became the Offy, went bankrupt, and
sold the design to Offenhauser. After that he designed
an engine which eventually became the legendary Novi (also
built by Offenhauser originally). And some of his last
design work eventually found it's way into the Ford Indy
engine (the Foyt-Ford, not the Cosworth), which Meyer-
Drake built a lot of the components for.

John

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@
4ax.com:

And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines
have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG
before the Turbo Indy engines.

Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great
advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and
there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel
injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well,
so methanol was the way to go.

That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys
found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas.
With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could
usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track
like a mile (or, of course, Indy).

John

(* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood)
Most of the sanctioned tracks REQUIRED methanol by the sixties. USAC
for sure requires Methanol - and most sprint cars today run either 360
or 410 cu inch V8s. - with a 305 inch class gaining ground.

Upon checking the rule books, ALL USAC sprint and midget classes are
limited to alcohol fuel - most classes Methanol only - some classes
allow Ignite Ethanol or Methanol. NONE allow gasoline of ANY type..


This has been true for as long as I can remember.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@
4ax.com:

And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines
have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG
before the Turbo Indy engines.

Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great
advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and
there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel
injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well,
so methanol was the way to go.

But you have to carry twice as much to get the same distance between
fueling stops. The other issue is that the flames are transparent so
you can't see a car on fire.

That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys
found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas.
With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could
usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track
like a mile (or, of course, Indy).

John

(* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood)

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:46:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@
4ax.com:

And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines
have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG
before the Turbo Indy engines.

Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great
advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and
there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel
injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well,
so methanol was the way to go.

That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys
found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas.
With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could
usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track
like a mile (or, of course, Indy).

John

(* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood)
Most of the sanctioned tracks REQUIRED methanol by the sixties. USAC
for sure requires Methanol - and most sprint cars today run either 360
or 410 cu inch V8s. - with a 305 inch class gaining ground.

Upon checking the rule books, ALL USAC sprint and midget classes are
limited to alcohol fuel - most classes Methanol only - some classes
allow Ignite Ethanol or Methanol. NONE allow gasoline of ANY type..


This has been true for as long as I can remember.
Further investigation reveals USAC made the switch to methanol in
1964/65 for sprint and Indy racing - at leat one USAC sprint class has
switched exclusively to Ignite Red Ethanol over the last couple of
years.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:54:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:46:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in news:bjhgdcpjf6g5q717qsm4m8ri1blbm4lkkr@
4ax.com:

And to the best of my knowlege virtually all Sprint and Indy engines
have been running Methanol since the sixties, or even earlier.. LONG
before the Turbo Indy engines.

Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great
advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and
there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel
injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well,
so methanol was the way to go.

That said, methanol is a pain to work with, so a lot of guys
found it simpler and cheaper to stick with a carb and gas.
With the tires available even into the 60s the Offy could
usually overpower them on gas, unless it was a big track
like a mile (or, of course, Indy).

John

(* vaguely on topic reference - methanol comes from wood)
Most of the sanctioned tracks REQUIRED methanol by the sixties. USAC
for sure requires Methanol - and most sprint cars today run either 360
or 410 cu inch V8s. - with a 305 inch class gaining ground.

Upon checking the rule books, ALL USAC sprint and midget classes are
limited to alcohol fuel - most classes Methanol only - some classes
allow Ignite Ethanol or Methanol. NONE allow gasoline of ANY type..


This has been true for as long as I can remember.
Further investigation reveals USAC made the switch to methanol in
1964/65 for sprint and Indy racing - at leat one USAC sprint class has
switched exclusively to Ignite Red Ethanol over the last couple of
years.

Eddie Sachs' death in the '64 Indy put an end to gasoline.

wrote in news:00qgdc98dcrqn9og60b107tac9ij35tpfg@
4ax.com:

Except with GDI - Mazda SkyActive is 14:1

For European markets. Only 13:1 for North America. But it's
still pretty fascinating engineering - they do some trickery
with valve timing, I beleive, to limit the effective ratio at
wide open throttle.

John

wrote in news:t2qgdclr36cf3369h4vf61t3kpsvldj57a@
4ax.com:

Most of the sanctioned tracks REQUIRED methanol by the sixties. USAC
for sure requires Methanol - and most sprint cars today run either 360
or 410 cu inch V8s. - with a 305 inch class gaining ground.

Indy switched to methanol for safety reasons in 1965. The lower
series (sprints, etc) mandated methanol a year or two later.

With modern tires, sprint cars are generally more power limited
than traction, so in most series methanol is a necessity if you
want to be competitive now. It's still a pain to work with.

John

wrote in :

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Methanol(*) was used on and off from the 30s. It has the great
advantage of being detonation-proof if you run rich, and
there's no power loss if it's rich. With mechanical fuel
injection you couldn't control the mixture all that well,
so methanol was the way to go.

But you have to carry twice as much to get the same distance between
fueling stops. The other issue is that the flames are transparent so
you can't see a car on fire.

Yeah, but power is more important than fuel economy in racing,
especially in short races like sprints.

The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

John

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:14:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.
So can alcohol vapour -. The BIG thing is dousing an alky fire with
water puts it out and doesn't spread it.
Using water effectively on a gasoline fire is an art as well as a
science. I've done it - effectively - twice. A fine mist of water to
cool down the material affected by the flames and to absorb heat from
the fire, while choking the oxygen with steam. Totally extinguisged
the one on a friend's fiat, and controlled an aerostar until the fire
truck arrived - protecting 2 houses next to the truck. limitting
damage to a couple strips of vinyl siding. If I could have convinced
someone to get close enough to the truck to remove the gas cap, I
would have extinguished it too, but everyone was afraid it was going
to "blow" even though the fire was nowhere near the tank at the time..
Without the water hose it would have gotten their pretty quick though.
- - -

In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is
fist evaporated?

On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is
fist evaporated?


I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry
chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn.
That is what we were taught in chemistry class.

And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid,
only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and
provide fuel to the flame.

IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process.

Some elements/mistures change forms very quickly.

In article x_mdnYUZ_P0mEUTFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is
fist evaporated?


I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry
chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn.
That is what we were taught in chemistry class.

And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid,
only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and
provide fuel to the flame.

IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process.

A candle needs atmospheric oxygen. Nitro powder
doesn't.

Then there's nitro itself, which goes boom in
liquid bulk.

On 3/27/2017 5:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article x_mdnYUZ_P0mEUTFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is
fist evaporated?


I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry
chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn.
That is what we were taught in chemistry class.

And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid,
only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and
provide fuel to the flame.

IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process.

A candle needs atmospheric oxygen. Nitro powder
doesn't.

Understood but does the nitro not create oxygen during the
transformation process?



Then there's nitro itself, which goes boom in
liquid bulk.

In article 3q6dnTeTgpluEkTFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 5:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article x_mdnYUZ_P0mEUTFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is
fist evaporated?


I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry
chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn.
That is what we were taught in chemistry class.

And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid,
only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and
provide fuel to the flame.

IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process.

A candle needs atmospheric oxygen. Nitro powder
doesn't.

Understood but does the nitro not create oxygen during the
transformation process?

It releases it, it doesn't consume it.

Then there's nitro itself, which goes boom
in
liquid bulk.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:44 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 3/27/2017 4:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article tPmdnTF0oeL090TFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 3/27/2017 2:33 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

vapor/gas

So solid nitro powder wont' burn unless it is
fist evaporated?


I'm no chemist but that is how I understand it. Some how the dry
chemical will turn to a liquid then a gas before it will burn.
That is what we were taught in chemistry class.

Not necessarily true. First of all, sublimation makes a vapour
directly from a solid - no liquid pase required - and a solid that has
it's own oxygenator included can burn without becoming a vapour - it
does not need to aerosolize to mix with oxygen in order to burn. Most
"High Explosives" work that way. Magnesium and Sodium do not turn to a
vapour before burning either - nor does Lithium
Any highly reactive element can "burn" from the solid state.

And understand that the whole thing does not have to turn into a liquid,
only the portion next to the heat source so that it can evaporate and
provide fuel to the flame.

IIRC a candle was used to demonstrate the stages of the process.

Some elements/mistures change forms very quickly.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:33:37 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 3/27/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.



IIRC any thing that burns has to be a vapor first.

You mean, like magnesium?

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659
@fx41.iad:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

John

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659
:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat.

wrote in :

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659
:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat.

True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode.

John

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659
:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat.

True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode.

John
Except when it DOES go off, Gasoline makes a much bigger bang. Diesel
fuel is a lot less volatile, but with a higher energy density - as a
Fuel/Air bomb it is VERY impressive.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:KTaCA.225725$ff2.3659
:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

Quite true, and the same applies to methanol. The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat.

True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode.

Sure it does. More energy causes more sublimation, causes more
energy...

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:14:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

John McCoy writes:


The invisible flames is the biggest safety issue with alcohol
fuels, but counterbalancing that, alcohol won't explode like
gasoline, and you can put it out with water whereas gas needs
a foam or CO2 extinquisher.

As I understand it, liquid gasoline itself won't explode,
but the vapor can.

With the proper air to fuel ratio it can rival Dynomite.

wrote in :

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

alcohol won't explode like
gasoline

The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat.

True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode.

Sure it does. More energy causes more sublimation, causes more
energy...

You lost the context. I've snipped some of the thread to
make it more clear: the reason gasoline is prone to explode
in crashes, and alcohol isn't, is that gasoline is more
volatile than alcohol. In that context energy density has
no relevance.

John

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:02:01 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in :

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:40 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

alcohol won't explode like
gasoline

The difference
is gasoline is more volatile, so it turns into vapor much
more readily than methanol.

It also has twice the energy density. Rinse, repeat.

True, altho that has no bearing on it's propensity to explode.

Sure it does. More energy causes more sublimation, causes more
energy...

You lost the context. I've snipped some of the thread to
make it more clear: the reason gasoline is prone to explode
in crashes, and alcohol isn't, is that gasoline is more
volatile than alcohol. In that context energy density has
no relevance.

OK, the energy release has nothing to do with it. OK, then...