[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Octane? Tachron in Water Torture?
- Subject: RE: Octane? Tachron in Water Torture?
- From: "Minor, Bob" <Bminor@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:00:31 -0800
Of course there is much more to the chemistry than just the burn rate.
However the effect of the stronger chemical bonds found in higher
octane fuels results in a fuel that does in fact burn slower and resists
igniting prematurely. At least that's how my Physical Chemistry
professor explained it.
Since you stated that what I wrote was "completely incorrect" I have to
assume that you in fact believe that 93 octane contains more energy than
89. Or was this just a statement intended to throw a little gasoline on
the flames (so to speak)?
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-oilheads@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-oilheads@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tpcutter@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Octane? Tachron in Water Torture?
It is nice to read two completely incorrect analyses of use of octane
as aopplied to internal combustion engines. Both begin with an
assumption adn make a series of statements that go downhill from there.
The internet is full of information that is FACTUAL about octane
how they are derived and how gasoline manufacturers make gasoline of
different octane ratings. It is pretty heavy chemistry, not just slow
May I suggest some homework, gentlemen?
Ben, I'm surprised at you. Usually you have some pretty good basic
behind your non-mainsteam ideas, reflective of careful research and
This time you fired without looking, it seems.
I AM NOT a petroleum engineer, nor do I ever hope to be one. But when I
needed answers to the octane questions 25 years ago, I spoke to
chemists and engineers, and learned more than I can now remember. And
it was NOT
that octane is slow-burn.