Dirt Rider . Net Text Version Home
Pages: 1
Moth Balls ?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: The Honda Pilot
Some engine builder that I met at a race this weekend told me a quick way to make Oxygenated fuel out of pump gas or regular leaded race fuel is to a 3 moth balls and crunch them up really well than pour the powder into your gas can and shake it up...he said that it will disolve in your fuel jug then when you pour it in your bike you instantly have oxygenated fuel..he said this will shorten the life of your engine because it will run alot hotter. Is this fact or fiction ? also he said you can make regular pump gas into 120+ octane fuel by putting "coleman camping fuel" for those little camping lanters fuel in your bike..he said use a small amount because to much will change the burning patturn of your gasoline to oil ratio. Im sure this is all just a bunch of bull but can anyone tell me how far fetched this is ?
Posted by: jake949
I think some one has been standing to close to one of his witches brew's. That guy needs more ventalation in his shop.
There is a thread that talks about moth balls and there urban legend properties. But if you do it and you win races keep doing it the placibo affect works wonders.
I doupt there is any mystery substance in lantern fuel that will make it work as a super fuel. Don't those lanterns run on any thing short of water?
Posted by: Vic
I've found that using the whole moth is most effective. http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif
Posted by: KWJams
First problem you will run into is finding one with three balls http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/eek.gif (are you sure about this ratio?), and then to spread the legs far enough apart to, http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/eek.gif
Quote:
|
crunch them up really well than pour the powder into your gas can and shake it up
|
I'm afraid the little whinger will be so bud-ded up that it wont be able to find a flame with a flashlight. http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/wink.gif
------------------
Ken & Diane James
AMA Field Reps #869
*AMA-Cycle.Org*
*PRO-Hillclimbers*
Posted by: flyinzuki
Moth balls used to work, but I beleive they changed the formulation. There may be something to the lantern fuel, I know of a guy who used to make his own fuel and lantern fuel was in his mix. Which kind I don't know.
You may also want to pick up a copy of High performance fuels and fluids, it's a good start if you are planning to formulate your own.
But then again what do I know, I use avgas!
Posted by: KawieKX125
Wow does that sound like a load of junk. Was that engine builder jerking your chain? Maybe it does work, these things are sometimes true.
------------------
Aaron's web site
Posted by: vern#19
It is not a lie !!! But I do remember It IS HIGHLY corrosive
Posted by: JTT
Lantern fuel is Naptha...I don't know what the chemical makeup of mothballs are but...it sure sounds like WHOOIEE to me. Can't wait to here Rich's response http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/biggrin.gif
Ok, after a little checking, and I may stand to be corrected, that moth balls are made of a chemical known as napthalene (C10 H8), which as you can see doesn't even have an oxygen molecule, therefore, I can't see how it could oxygenate fuel.
As for naptha, it is a much more volatile fuel than gasoline. If you want to prove this, just try putting gasoline in your coleman lantern and lighting it...just don't do it in the house, and keep and B rated fire extinguisher present. I don't know exactly what effect it would have when added to gas, but I doubt it will make it into "race gas".
[This message has been edited by JTT (edited 03-27-2001).]
Posted by: TexKDX
JTT,
Where are you getting this nonsense? I run gasoline and premix in my coleman stove all the time. They also make dual fuel products. The dual fuel models have a larger diameter regulator to deal with the extra carbon buildup from the less pure fuels without clogging up so quickly, but gas and premix brun fine. Premix does put off quite a bit of soot though.
Posted by: Luv2Ride
A co-worker of mine was told the same thing about the moth balls and running them in her car. I think the ratio was about 4 balls per gallon. I never got such a good laugh as when she would explain to me the glares that she received when filling up at the station. She swears that they made her car run better - mind over matter though I am sure. She did say that she was told to use the balls with napthalene. I guess this means that there is at least two different formulations. I guess they target different moth breeds http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif . Until there is something written by someone with a vast chemical background I will not change from the old 87 octane - I am a trail rider after all.
Aloha and keep the laughs coming http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/biggrin.gif .
Scot
------------------
'01 KDX220r
Ride it Hard and Fast!
[This message has been edited by Luv2Ride (edited 03-27-2001).]
Posted by: bwalker
Napthalene will have a negative impact on on your fuels octane . Besides most moth balls do not have naptha in them any more.
------------------
Ben Walker
00 cr 250
BRC,AMA,NRA Member
Posted by: Rich Rohrich
This one has been around since before I was born. http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif
Like so many things, there is a SHRED of truth in here, but the "pinhead effect" has blown this totally out of proportion over the years.
As JTT pointed out REAL mothballs are made from Napthalene and some binders and has no oxygen molecule. Napthalene is used as a reference fuel in diesel fuel testing. Diesel Cetane ratings are the inverse of Octane ratings, the higher the cetane number the greater the tendency to knock. Napthalene in reference (reagent)form has a cetane rating rating = 0. Depending on who you ask this translates ROUGHLY to an MON octane rating about 90. Pump fuel in the US currently has an MON rating a couple of points lower than 90.
So there is the THREAD of truth I was reffering to.
What these geniuses fail to realize is Napthalene has a boiling point of ~420 degrees F. That's anywhere from 100-200 degrees F higher than most gasoline components. If a component of gasoline fails to make the all important liquid to vapor transition then all it will do is pass through the combustion chamber leaching heat along the way. In simple terms it goes from the tank and back out the exhaust UNSCATHED. Even if you could vaporize the Napthalene and burn it, the energy available and the heat of combustion is too low to be of any use.
Naptha is just an early process component of gasoline. There are a lot of steps to go from Naptha to gasoline, so it's subject to essentially the same caveats as Napthalene.
Anyone who has been around manufacturing for more than a few days knows that when it comes to commodity products like these, purity takes a back seat compared to "cost to manufacture". In a word these compounds are full of random junk.
So experiment away, but in the end it's just an excercise in chemical futlity.
Posted by: JTT
Tex, remind me not to attend any of your cookouts http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/tongue.gif
Many years ago I worked at a National Boy Scout Jamboree in a Coleman repair depot. A local refinery was kind enough to provide two drums of naptha for the event. When the first evening rolled around and people began lighting stoves and lanterns, the flood gates opened at the repair depot. It seems that the barrels had been contaminated with something (suggested that it was oil). The contaminated fuel would not vapourize completely at the nozzel tip, pooled and ignited, making for some very excited scouts, and leaders. Upon replacing the fuel with clean naptha, the appliance worked fine.
The point is that naptha is more volatile than gas and vapourizes much easier.
What kind of oil do you burn? Hummmm, wonder what ribs smoked with castor oil tastes like? You may be on to something! http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/biggrin.gif
Posted by: bwalker
I stand corrected on the octane comment.
------------------
Ben Walker
00 cr 250
BRC,AMA,NRA Member
Posted by: Rich Rohrich
Quote:
Originally posted by JTT:
The point is that naptha is more volatile than gas and vapourizes much easier.
|
Sorry JTT, but it's the EXACT opposite. Gasline is made up of components that vaporize from about 11 - 300 degrees F. Depending on the exact makeup of the naptha fuel the temps will be closer to about 400F.
It's hard to get naptha to vaporize, which makes it a much safer fuel than gasoline. Random fuel vapors floating around in the fuel tank of a lantern would produce a fairly effective BOMB. I don't know anything about camping, but I'm pretty familiar with blowing things up http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif High volatility fuels like gasoline are really dangerous when sparks and open flames are involved.
Posted by: Rich Rohrich
Quote:
Originally posted by bwalker:
I stand corrected on the octane comment.
|
Ben - Given the variances of the napthalene used to make mothballs I would say that 95% of the time your statement was completely accurate. Given the impurities that will be added to the mix there is a good chance the octane requirement of the engine will go up as a result.
Posted by: JTT
Rich, thanks for setting me straight on that, but I am curious...when you pour Coleman fuel (naptha) on your hand, it takes only a light breath to evaporate it completely (a quick fuel test I learned at that same camp), leaving only a light white residue. The same with gas, it could be days before it evaporates (slight exageration, but).
How come?
Posted by: Rich Rohrich
My guess would be that the Coleman fuel is more completely refined than generic naptha and has a boiling point closer to gasoline, but it's still probably a single point fuel, where gasoline because it has such a wide variety of components will vaporize different percentages of the fuel at different temps. Because some of the gasoline components vaporize at fairly low temps, the chance of explosive vapors hanging about is pretty high.
If you're interested pour equal amounts of gas and Coleman fuel in 50ml graduated cylinders and watch the percentages of fuel that evaporates. Lots of pumps fuels have heavy components that need really high temps to vaporize. I like to call these the "spooge makers" http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif It's probably what you are seeing when you do the blow test. Pour a good oxygenated race fuel on warm concrete and it's complete gone in an instant.
Fun with chemistry http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif
Posted by: JTT
Thanks Rich, I do understand that gasoline has a wide variety of components as you said, perhaps that is why the problems I experienced with the camp stoves happened...the components that didn't vapourize (spoogemakers)where the ones pooling.
Highly enlightening, as usual!
Posted by: TexKDX
JTT,
Please stop/correct me if I am off base here based on your camp gear triage experiences, this is not an attempt to prove anything or anyone right or wrong.
I believe the basic premise behind the coleman stove is that it uses air pressure to push the fuel into the regulator, the tube that runs across the burner. When the stove first lights it has the familiar rich yellow flame going. As the yellow flame heats the regulator, it begins to boil and vaporize the fuel and make it change states from a liquid to a gas before it gets to the burner. When the flame goes full blue, then we know the regulator is up to tempurature.
Since the flame burns at well above 400 degrees, even when yellow, I must assume that the stove can easily vaporize all of the fuels we have been discussing here. The impurities are an issue as you pointed out, and the dual fuel stove uses a larger diameter regulator to deal with the extra matter that is dispensed inside it from unleaded gas when the fuel changes states.
Rich, if I make it to the spode fest be sure and come by for a demo. My stove is always there with its mini espresso maker spitting away. Same for you, JTT.
I'll be sure and fill'r up with B32!
Posted by: Jim Crenca
My friend who flies high end radio controlled airplanes (4' wingspan & 200cc 2 cylinder 2-stroke engines) uses Coleman fuel. He claims it makes less power but runs much cleaner than gasoline. His latest plane, engine, & radio cost about 5k just for the parts and they like to keep them real clean.
Posted by: wrench
Hey TexKDX,
Can I be at the front of the class? I love a good "High Octane" espresso! Plus, I think it would be a cool seminar if you and Rich started "blowing" things up! (I know a neat trick with a ping pong ball and liquid draino, plus a couple of other ingredients that I will not name for obvious reasons) http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/tongue.gif
Rich,
I remember when was a little kid, my Dad had mentioned something about the Moth ball theory, He did not mention napthalene, I think it was Campher(sp?). He did say that it didn't seem to improve anything. Any insight to the campher thing?
And not to be funny, but during a short career at drag racing (when I was a teenager), we thought we were really smart and would put Golden Grain in the gas tank (added to the AV gas. I don't think that it gave a performance edge but it sure seemed to give a Psycological edge. The other guy's used to look a little "freaked out" when they saw us turning up a "fifth" into the gas tank! http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/smile.gif
Sometimes, just playing the mind game correctly can prove to be better than horsepower!
wrench
Posted by: SFO
OK, I think I got you now,Rich...
You work for Chevron and your a fuel engineer!
S***, Am I close, at least?
I am gonna call up mx tuner and get the dirt.
You masked lord of combustion salvation!
Posted by: Rich Rohrich
Wrench - Other names for napthalene are:
Albocarbon; Dezodorator; Moth flakes; Naphthalin; Naphthaline; Naphthene; Tar camphor; White tar; Camphor tar; Moth balls; Naftalen; NCI-C52904; Mighty 150; Mighty rd1
Posted by: wrench
What do you know ... The 'Ol Boy was pretty smart for an engineer/pilot! http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/tongue.gif
Posted by: scouringpad
So, according to my latest bulletin on poor fuel additives (otherwise known as a dictionary) napthalene(C10H8) is primarily made through the distillation of coal tar, and camphor(C10H16O) is usually made from the wood and bark of the camphor tree, and used as a liniment and insect repellent. I'm curious as to why mothballs were originally made of camphor, but in later years of napthalene instead, if these are interchangable substances that could go by either name? Or is tar camphor, or camphor tar not the same as camphor? Not that this has anything to do with the original post...
Posted by: JTT
Tex, as far as I know you are bang on on the operation of the stove. As I mentioned, the "contaminant" was unknown, but suspected to be oil of some type. The problem occured on initial startup (before regulator got up to temp) and the fuel pooled in the bottom of the stoves/lanterns and ignited. Because of this flaming pool, nobody gave the appliance any chance to heat up (they simply paniced) so that perhaps the fuel could be vapourized.
I'd love to take you up on your SF offer, but alas, for me that's a 35+hrs commute. A little far for coffee, even for me http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/biggrin.gif
Thanks for the invite though! If you ever get to Atlantic Canada look me up...I'll buy the coffee! ...or maybe you'd prefer a "real" beer!
Posted by: TexKDX
JTT, give me a better idea as to where you are. I have a Canada trip planned for this summer on my KLR, but I was planning on crossing up thru Wisconsin and taking a LEFT, not a RIGHT...
Posted by: JTT
You'd have to turn right and drive till you ran out of land...Nova Scotia (not quite the edge of the world, but you can see it from here!)..very scenic...but I'm starting to sound like a tourism ad http://dirtrider.net/ubb2/tongue.gif
Text Version Home
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
