IIRC the Chrysler turbine cars burned gasoline. But it's been a long
time since I've been around one.

They did burn gasoline but they also burned a wide variety of other fuels.
There was a family in my town that had one and I remember that was one of
the big selling points. Here's a paragraph from what I believe is
Chrysler's press literature about the car:

"The present performance and economy of the Turbine are comparable to a
conventional car with a standard V-8 engine. The engine will operate
satisfactorily on diesel fuel, kerosene, unleaded gasoline, JP-4 (jet fuel),
and mixtures thereof. And, even more interesting, it is possible to change
from one of these fuels to another without any changes or adjustments to the
engine. The users of the cars also will appreciate the many other advantages
of the turbine engine."

It really sucks that they destroyed the cars at the end of the project.

Lee




--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Rick Cook
wrote:

IIRC the Chrysler turbine cars burned gasoline.

The "production" batch did, although only unleaded. Leaded gas caused
a problem with the regenerator seals. The interesting part of the
Chrysler wasn't that they built a jet car (Rover had done it 13 years
earlier), or even that they had this large test program with "normal"
drivers, but it was that they'd managed to build a car-sized turbine
with a regenerator.

The other Chryslers though, like the Firebird, the prototype Charger
and the race-trim Ghia that was used in the film "The Lively Set"
(awful film, but worth watching for the turbine car) burned Jet A-1
(kerosene).

It was somewhere outside Barstow when LL
wrote:

So in the UK they go so far as to put a noxious odor
to it. Bummer.

You said it ! We don't have Everclear over here either.

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!

In article ,
Guess who wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:03:08 -0000,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In *small* quantities, it is also used as a substitute for "medicinal"
castor oil,

Hydrocarbon products are poisonous and carcinogenic.

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.

If you make a
statement like that, you need to supply the source.

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.

Otherwise it's
unconscionable, and please define "small dose" in the event that
anyone who takes you at your word decides to give it a try on their
mother in law or little brother.

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 article . com,
"Bob in Oregon" wrote:

. What exactly is kerosene, and what do you
use it for?

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.

Is that cool or what?

Robatoy wrote:

In article . com,
"Bob in Oregon" wrote:

. What exactly is kerosene, and what do you
use it for?

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.

F-1? F-1 was not a hydrogen-fueled rocket, it used kerosene and LOX.

Is that cool or what?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Robatoy wrote:

In article . com,
"Bob in Oregon" wrote:

. What exactly is kerosene, and what do you
use it for?

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.

F-1? F-1 was not a hydrogen-fueled rocket, it used kerosene and LOX.


I stand (sit) corrected. The hydrogen was for the J-2's. My mistake.

It's good for taking rust off of your TS when used with steel wool.


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"Bob in Oregon" wrote:

. What exactly is kerosene, and what do you
use it for?

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.

Is that cool or what?

Robert Bonomi remarks:
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.

Oh, yeah. Ugh. Nasty, and every burp for hours tastes like gasoline,
but it sure isn't fatal (kept me afraid to light a cigarette for two
days, though). Or if it is fatal, it is sure slow acting: more than 50
years since I tried that one.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
Robert Bonomi remarks:
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.

Oh, yeah. Ugh. Nasty, and every burp for hours tastes like gasoline,
but it sure isn't fatal (kept me afraid to light a cigarette for two
days, though). Or if it is fatal, it is sure slow acting: more than 50
years since I tried that one.


Oklahoma Credit Card....

George responds:
Ugh. Nasty, and every burp for hours tastes like gasoline,
but it sure isn't fatal (kept me afraid to light a cigarette for two
days, though). Or if it is fatal, it is sure slow acting: more than
50
years since I tried that one.



Oklahoma Credit Card....

Well, hell. I've got family in Oklahoma somewhere, but I haven't heard
from them in 50 years, either. But my CC was in Westchester County,
NY...specifically, just outside Katonah.

On 12 Mar 2005 06:05:28 -0800, the inscrutable "Charlie Self"
spake:

George responds:
Ugh. Nasty, and every burp for hours tastes like gasoline,
but it sure isn't fatal (kept me afraid to light a cigarette for two
days, though). Or if it is fatal, it is sure slow acting: more than
50
years since I tried that one.

Oklahoma Credit Card....

Well, hell. I've got family in Oklahoma somewhere, but I haven't heard
from them in 50 years, either. But my CC was in Westchester County,
NY...specifically, just outside Katonah.

After watching other people do it all the time (and having done it
once myself) I designed a foolproof siphon system which guaranteed
that I ended up with no gas in the mouth. I took a rubber toilet float
and punched two holes in the top. Into the smaller hole I placed a
piece of 3/8" aquarium hose. Into the larger hole I placed the 7'
piece of stiff garden hose. Place the hose in the tank, slide the
"stopper" to the filler, and blow. You can put enough pressure
differential into the larger hose to get it to flow instantly without
risk of "fume mouth". I used it to fill my lawnmower gas cans.

As a teenager, my buddy with the super hot '67 GTO used an RV water
pump and a 50' hose to fill his tank from unsuspecting RVs. That Goat
with the 6-packed 389 V-8 really sucked gas. He'd put the outlet into
his tank, switch the pump on, and stick the hose in the RV tank. 5
minutes later, he was full. He was really lucky he was never caught at
that during Carter's Gas Rationing Days.

--
Life's a Frisbee: When you die, your soul goes up on the roof.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On 12 Mar 2005 06:05:28 -0800, the inscrutable "Charlie Self"
spake:

George responds:

Oklahoma Credit Card....

After watching other people do it all the time (and having done it
once myself) I designed a foolproof siphon system which guaranteed
that I ended up with no gas in the mouth. I took a rubber toilet float
and punched two holes in the top. Into the smaller hole I placed a
piece of 3/8" aquarium hose. Into the larger hole I placed the 7'
piece of stiff garden hose. Place the hose in the tank, slide the
"stopper" to the filler, and blow. You can put enough pressure
differential into the larger hose to get it to flow instantly without
risk of "fume mouth". I used it to fill my lawnmower gas cans.


The make 'em with pump and valve nowadays, but that's for sissies. The
excitement of ripping a quick five gallons in a poorly-lit parking lot would
be much less if you couldn't get a mouthful from hyperventilation....

The Oklahoma reference I learned from Texans. Here they're also referred to
as Finnish credit cards.

George wrote:

The Oklahoma reference I learned from Texans. Here they're also referred to
as Finnish credit cards.

I thought Okies soaked their socks in kerosene to keep the ants from
crawling up their legs and eating their candy asses?

J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....

Niel ;-)

CW wrote:

In any country.

Wrong

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "George" george@least wrote:

The Oklahoma reference I learned from Texans. Here they're also referred to
as Finnish credit cards.

No Finn with a mouthful of petrol is going to spit it back in the
tank.

Badger wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....

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

Niel ;-)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:51:25 GMT, Badger
wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....

Niel ;-)

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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:51:25 GMT, Badger
wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....

Niel ;-)


Yeah, but ours actually ran more than 50 miles between mechanic's
sessions. :-)

[As a former owner of a Sterling, I can say that]


--Actually the turbo-Rover did quite well at Le Mans, IIRC, before
retiring with mechanical failure.

--RC

J. Clarke wrote:
Badger wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....


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


Niel ;-)


Since they only built about 50 of them and never sold any, I don't think
the term 'production' applies.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:16:38 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:51:25 GMT, Badger
wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....

Niel ;-)


Yeah, but ours actually ran more than 50 miles between mechanic's
sessions. :-)

[As a former owner of a Sterling, I can say that]


--Actually the turbo-Rover did quite well at Le Mans, IIRC, ....


before
retiring with mechanical failure.


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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Pull your head out and explain yourself, if you can (doubtful).

"Badger" wrote in message
...


CW wrote:

In any country.

Wrong

Rick Cook wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Badger wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....


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


Niel ;-)


Since they only built about 50 of them and never sold any, I don't think
the term 'production' applies.

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
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Rick Cook wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

Badger wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....


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



Niel ;-)


Since they only built about 50 of them and never sold any, I don't think
the term 'production' applies.


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.

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.

So how may Rovers were in private hands, ever?

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

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Rick Cook
wrote:

--Actually the turbo-Rover did quite well at Le Mans, IIRC, before
retiring with mechanical failure.

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

Rick Cook wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Rick Cook wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

Badger wrote:



J. Clarke 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).

Typical Americans, late again, Rover had a jet engined car in 1950.....


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



Niel ;-)


Since they only built about 50 of them and never sold any, I don't think
the term 'production' applies.


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.

How did they end up in private hands? GM didn't sell them

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

So how may Rovers were in private hands, ever?

None, of course. Those were purely experimental, like some of the
'turbine cars' a few people built in the 60s using military surplus
turbines.

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.

--RC

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Mark & Juanita 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]


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.

I'm a LAND-rover man and brit biker, I KNOW about the prince of darkness!

Niel.

CW wrote:

Pull your head out and explain yourself, if you can (doubtful).

Only going by what my onsite chemist who did the spectra for wd40 (bulk
not spray) whilst trying to eliminate a problem told me.

Niel.

"Badger" wrote in message
...


CW wrote:

Pull your head out and explain yourself, if you can (doubtful).

Only going by what my onsite chemist who did the spectra for wd40 (bulk
not spray) whilst trying to eliminate a problem told me.


Those lyin' sacks of shinola! They say Stoddard solvent is the primary
ingredient. That's mineral spirits, isn't it?

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds-wd40_bulk.us.pdf

George wrote:

Those lyin' sacks of shinola! They say Stoddard solvent is the primary
ingredient. That's mineral spirits, isn't it?


SFWIW, Stoddard solvent is the standard calibration fluid used to
calibrate carburetors, back when the rebuilt them.

Had the closest properties to gasoline without being explosive.

Lew

The company and independent testers say differently. I'll go with them.

"Badger" wrote in message
...


CW wrote:

Pull your head out and explain yourself, if you can (doubtful).

Only going by what my onsite chemist who did the spectra for wd40 (bulk
not spray) whilst trying to eliminate a problem told me.

Niel.

CW wrote:
The company and independent testers say differently. I'll go with them.

CW wrote:

Pull your head out and explain yourself, if you can (doubtful).

Only going by what my onsite chemist who did the spectra for wd40 (bulk
not spray) whilst trying to eliminate a problem told me.

Niel.

Up to you, though one group of users is convinced it's little more than
perfumed diesel, I'm sure of my chemist HERE at work.

Niel.

George wrote:

Those lyin' sacks of shinola! They say Stoddard solvent is the primary
ingredient. That's mineral spirits, isn't it?

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds-wd40_bulk.us.pdf

As I said, different countries, different mixes, and a number of
rip-offs made with GKW. Perhaps I should ask for some genuine US wd40
for comparason?

Niel.

George wrote:

Those lyin' sacks of shinola! They say Stoddard solvent is the primary
ingredient. That's mineral spirits, isn't it?

http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds-wd40_bulk.us.pdf

Thats interesting, different from the UK version, hummmm.