"Non-aromatic" fuel

[3930dave]

Need some help, from somebody who paid more attention in chemistry class than I did.....

This was in a Stihl promo, emailed today:

STIHL's Outdoor Buzz: MotoMixｮ Premixed Fuel

In case you can't get to that .ca page, bulk of text is:

New ethanol free, fully synthetic and highly biodegradable premixed engine fuel.
MotoMix?ｮ - Official fuel of STIHL?ｮ Timbersports Series
NEVER WORRY ABOUT MIXING AGAIN!

Right mix: Perfect 50:1 mixture of 92 high-octane fuel and the protection of STIHL HP Ultra two-cycle engine oil
Longer shelf life: 2 years once seal is broken*
Environmentally Conscious: Non-aromatic fuel; fully synthetic, highly biodegradable engine oil
Extended Warranty: Two year warranty
with purchase of 3 cans of MotoMix?ｮ
(ask a STIHL Dealer for details)


* It requires to be stored in a cool, well ventilated area to avoid vapour build up. Avoid prolonged exposure to temperatures in excess of 120˚F /48˚C.

1) It looks like Stihl has taken note of the boutique fuel business going on in the small engine market, and decided to get into the game. Good news, IMO, esp. for the people getting stuck with ethanol only fuel :thumbsup:.

2) What is "Non-aromatic fuel" ? Corp Legal has them putting the "vapour build up" warning in, so I'm looking for a better explanation from a Chemist, or A level Chem student.

:scratchchin:

Rgds, D.

 

[JasG]

Non-aromatic fuel is fuel which is supposed to be composed of straight chain hydrocarbons. This is supposed to be better on seals because it causes little swell of rubber.

Here is a low aromatic fuel.
Shell Unleaded 91 Low Aromatic FAQs - Australia

If you search online you can find more and probably better answers.

 

[3930dave]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Jas.

My initial vague recollection was something to do with volatility and evaporation rates. That turns out to be in the ballpark, as it seems one of the reasons for implementing this is to reduce abuse by people sniffing gas.

That Shell link notes a reduced density with their fuels, which may affect carb'd engines.

Rgds, D.

 

[Scooby074]

Basically its free from Aeromatic hydrocarbons. Things like Benzene and Toluene. A couple nasty chemicals and potential carcinogens.

Husquvarna has a similar product called "Aspen Fuel". It seems to be pretty popular in Europe. Not sold here under the husky name AFAIK.

Aspen Petrol Info - Husqvarna Chainsaw Specialists

Br舅sle f? folk som bryr sig - Aspen alkylatbensin

[url]http://en.aspen.se/About_alkylate_petrol/FAQ
[/URL]
http://www.husqvarna.com/se/aspen-det-ar-skillnad-pa-bensin-och-bensin/

 

[CliffordK]

Interesting.

Octane, of course, is C[sub]8[/sub]H[sub]18[/sub], and C[sub]8[/sub]H[sub]18[/sub] (Cyclooctane). If they are making a fully synthetic fuel, they could make it be 100% Octane (plus oil, if a premix).

$10 per quart sounds a bit steep!!! Even $5 per quart would be high.

Anyway, I don't think I'll run out and get it. It might be most appropriate for those engines that are rarely used, to help prevent rusting and varnishing. Otherwise, I would think ordinary fuel would be fine.

Ethanol?

I have heard of problems with oil dissolving in high alcohol mixes (E85), with some people using vegetable oil, or biodiesel as a fuel additive instead of the off the shelf additives.

 

[3930dave]

The push is on in some areas now for E15.... this story ain't getting better.....

Even if you know your way around a carb (fewer people do today), doing rebuilds due to #### fuel is a PITA. These boutique fuels seem to be gaining traction, esp. in areas with no Efree gas available.

Still wondering about the performance hit w/o aromatics..... got more reading to do.

(When I type a capital "Eye" on here, I see an exclamation mark. Don't see it on other sites, or if I open a text editor..... :confused3

Rgds, D.

 

[CliffordK]

I tried to find BTU's (or your favorite energy unit) per gallon of different fuel components. I think it may be very close for Benzene or Toluene and "gasoline".

I did see that Hexane has more BTU's per Pound than Benzene, but at a lot lower density.
Here is one person that did a road test with 100% Octane fuel, and found slightly better fuel efficiency with the 100% Octane.

Perhaps it is more complicated than that.

Consider Hexane:
C[sub]6[/sub]H[sub]14[/sub] + (9.5)O[sub]2[/sub] --> 6CO[sub]2[/sub] + 7H[sub]2[/sub]O

Benzene:
C[sub]6[/sub]H[sub]6[/sub] + (7.5)O[sub]2[/sub] --> 6CO[sub]2[/sub] + 3H[sub]2[/sub]O

So, by going with the non-aromatic fuels, one likely throws off the oxygen balance somewhat which could mess with the carburetors, although it may be a simple needle valve adjustment. More moles of output for an equivalent weight/volume input may in fact mean more expansion, and better power without the aromatics. Is the oxygen per stroke more or less fixed? In which case, one might be able to use more benzene per stroke than hexane.

Anyway,
For the 2 cycle engines, you add oil as a lubricant, and they apparently either run fine without the aromatics, or can be tuned to run without them.

It does seem like a waste to do all this, but cleaning rust or varnish out of the carbs can be a pain, although often it can be done without replacing all the gaskets.

Gas stations could probably sell special bulk fuels for 2-cycle and small engines, but most would likely choose not to do it due to having to have redundant handling, and dealing with lower volumes.

 

[3930dave]

It seems that non-aromatics have lower energy density.

Figure 5 in the attached pdf shows the energy difference for the diesel fuel. Don't know the #'s for gasoline yet, but I suspect the same relationship holds.

Rgds, D.

 

[stevo84]

One main point which seems to have been missed is that here in Australia, non-aromatic fuel is only available in places where petrol sniffing has been a problem.
You might even go as far to assume that's why it was developed. I have heard that you can't get high on this stuff.
Places like Alice Springs only sell this type of fuel.
I have only ever seen it in the NT and the Shell site lists where it is available.

 

[3930dave]

Because of the nature of the problem, perhaps the availability is not stressed.

Gas-sniffing is a problem in some of our Canadian remote settlements too. I don't know at the moment if anything is being done here about gas formulation.

In Canada, there has been a long term push to reduce solvents in general - ex. most retail paint is now water based. Oil based paint is available, just much less so than in the past.

Typing this now, I'm musing about what affect removing the aromatics has on low-temperature gasoline performance. Our winters have been warmer of late, but -48C would not be a good time to find out that non-aromatic fuel doesn't ignite as readily. :cold:

Rgds, D.

 

[JasG]

One main point which seems to have been missed is that here in Australia, non-aromatic fuel is only available in places where petrol sniffing has been a problem.
You might even go as far to assume that's why it was developed. I have heard that you can't get high on this stuff.
Places like Alice Springs only sell this type of fuel.
I have only ever seen it in the NT and the Shell site lists where it is available.

That is a sad commentary about people. Just makes you wonder what would make someone want to or be willing to try anything to get high. From, fuel, paint, and glue to drugs like meth I just don't get it. A couple of years ago a woman hit a light pole in a local village. She was huffing keyboard cleaner while driving. One of the side effects of the cleaner is paralysis. So she is driving in a village and doing something that she knew would make her lose control.

It also bothers me, including my own father-inlaw, people who get fuel in a car. Even in the trunk the fumes will make it up where the driver is. His car stinks of gas for weeks after he does this. I've offered many times to get gas for him and he won't let me, always keeps his cans locked in his tool shed.

 

[3930dave]

Sounds like the cans are done Jas.

An intact and functional can shouldn't be venting, much less leaking. That is definitely dangerous. Some people just won't listen, or there may be cognitive issues (aging) going on ?

Rgds, D.

 

[JasG]

Sounds like the cans are done Jas.

An intact and functional can shouldn't be venting, much less leaking. That is definitely dangerous. Some people just won't listen, or there may be cognitive issues (aging) going on ?

Rgds, D.

I see people filling the can while still in the trunk. Even still you can spill some and then place the can inside the car. The gas fumes will end up in the car.

My FIL I do believe has some mental issues, but anytime I say anything it just causes problems. Nothing that I think he could be a danger, but he has declined and does some things that he wouldn't do in the past. The gas in the car though goes back as long as I've known him. Even when he has a truck he uses the car because it uses less fuel.

 

[CliffordK]

I always set the gas can outside of the vehicle for filling, and picking up some gas is always the last stop before heading home. I'm always amazed at what some people will do for a "high" :yuck:

Can you run Coleman White Gas in engines? Perhaps an expensive alternative. It is supposed to be "Naptha" which is a fuel mixture, but also may include aromatics.

 

[3930dave]

I see people filling the can while still in the trunk. Even still you can spill some and then place the can inside the car. The gas fumes will end up in the car.

My FIL I do believe has some mental issues, but anytime I say anything it just causes problems. Nothing that I think he could be a danger, but he has declined and does some things that he wouldn't do in the past. The gas in the car though goes back as long as I've known him. Even when he has a truck he uses the car because it uses less fuel.

Spills and fumes in a vehicle are never good, obviously. That said, whatever station that is allowing people to fuel cans IN a vehicle needs to be reported to your State authorities - starting with the local Fire Captain.

The problem is static, as an ignition source. The island pumps are grounded. Vehicles, by nature of being on rubber tires, are not grounded. The biggest reason laws require cans to be filled out of the vehicle is that as you bring the nozzle close to the can in the vehicle, static electricity (built up on the vehicle) can arc. With the right vapour concentration, the can ignites.

Note that this static ignition problem persists with the cans sitting on the tailgate of a truck - they need to be out of the vehicle entirely.

That gas station needs to have a "Come to Jesus" conversation with the Fire Marshall, before that type of event actually happens.

Good luck with your FIL, those situations are never easy to manage.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

I always set the gas can outside of the vehicle for filling, and picking up some gas is always the last stop before heading home. I'm always amazed at what some people will do for a "high" :yuck:

Can you run Coleman White Gas in engines? Perhaps an expensive alternative. It is supposed to be "Naptha" which is a fuel mixture, but also may include aromatics.

Hmmm.... you might be onto something there..... apparently, Naptha has an even higher energy content than standardized gasoline.

Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If nonE gas "gets disappeared" around my neck of the woods, I may risk trying some Naptha in my oldest, most tired small engine.

Good point !

Rgds, D.

 

[CliffordK]

Spills and fumes in a vehicle are never good, obviously. That said, whatever station that is allowing people to fuel cans IN a vehicle needs to be reported to your State authorities - starting with the local Fire Captain.

The problem is static, as an ignition source. The island pumps are grounded. Vehicles, by nature of being on rubber tires, are not grounded. The biggest reason laws require cans to be filled out of the vehicle is that as you bring the nozzle close to the can in the vehicle, static electricity (built up on the vehicle) can arc. With the right vapour concentration, the can ignites.

Note that this static ignition problem persists with the cans sitting on the tailgate of a truck - they need to be out of the vehicle entirely.

That gas station needs to have a "Come to Jesus" conversation with the Fire Marshall, before that type of event actually happens.

I agree that it is best to fill cans outside of the car.

But, is there any real data about the fire risks? Certainly a car full of fumes isn't pleasant, but it would require a lot of fumes to be explosive.

90% of new gas cans are plastic, and thus less risk from touching the nozzle to the can. I suppose one could still perhaps touch the trigger of the nozzle to something else.

My FIAT 500 (not considered the world's safest car) has the gas tank in the front trunk (rear engine), with a short filling spout. I think some early VW's did this too. Anyway, I certainly wouldn't consider filling the FIAT tank as being significantly different from filling a gas can (and, fuel spills are a big pain).

One can, of course, also fill built-in pickup bed fuel tanks without removing them.

However, it is just pure laziness to not fill a gas can on the ground. Of course here in Oregon there is always a gas station attendant who may be able to assist with putting a full can back into the back of the vehicle.

 

[3930dave]

I agree that it is best to fill cans outside of the car.

But, is there any real data about the fire risks? Certainly a car full of fumes isn't pleasant, but it would require a lot of fumes to be explosive.

90% of new gas cans are plastic, and thus less risk from touching the nozzle to the can. I suppose one could still perhaps touch the trigger of the nozzle to something else.

My FIAT 500 (not considered the world's safest car) has the gas tank in the front trunk (rear engine), with a short filling spout. I think some early VW's did this too. Anyway, I certainly wouldn't consider filling the FIAT tank as being significantly different from filling a gas can (and, fuel spills are a big pain).

One can, of course, also fill built-in pickup bed fuel tanks without removing them.

However, it is just pure laziness to not fill a gas can on the ground. Of course here in Oregon there is always a gas station attendant who may be able to assist with putting a full can back into the back of the vehicle.

1 in 1000, or 1 in a billion - don't know for sure - would be interesting to get input from someone with formal Fire training....

Vehicles are designed to manage gasoline vapours. I've driven quite a few gasoline vehicles; none exhibit the whoosh of vapour pressure that you get undoing the cap on a gas can, esp. on a hot day.

Vapour density is higher, with a portable can, even when compared to a Fiat .

Slide plastic around on carpet, and you can generate static electricity. In this respect, I'd say the "newer" cans are more of an issue than the old metal ones. At a guess, low humidity days, with no wind, are probably the worst case weather wise.

When you take a portable gas can out of a vehicle, and set it on the ground, any static electricity on the can dissipates before you open it up. If somebody is driving around with open cans of gas, that is a whole other kind of crazy....

I don't consider myself a Safety ****, but I do understand the point that has been raised - "Given today's legal climate, if gasoline had been discovered in 2000, there is little chance it would be released to the public".

Gasoline is such a pervasive part of our culture that it is easy to get complacent about the risks.

Rgds, D.

 

[JasG]

I agree that it is best to fill cans outside of the car.

But, is there any real data about the fire risks? Certainly a car full of fumes isn't pleasant, but it would require a lot of fumes to be explosive.

90% of new gas cans are plastic, and thus less risk from touching the nozzle to the can. I suppose one could still perhaps touch the trigger of the nozzle to something else.

My FIAT 500 (not considered the world's safest car) has the gas tank in the front trunk (rear engine), with a short filling spout. I think some early VW's did this too. Anyway, I certainly wouldn't consider filling the FIAT tank as being significantly different from filling a gas can (and, fuel spills are a big pain).

One can, of course, also fill built-in pickup bed fuel tanks without removing them.

However, it is just pure laziness to not fill a gas can on the ground. Of course here in Oregon there is always a gas station attendant who may be able to assist with putting a full can back into the back of the vehicle.

On a TV show several years ago they have video of a truck filling plastic cans in the back and they caught fire. The cause was the static from the fuel flow. No different than rubbing a balloon on a carpet or hair, static builds up.

CDC - NIOSH Publications and Products - Fire Hazard from Filling Portable Gas Cans in Pickup Trucks and Cars (98-111)

Here are a couple of video's.
Gas Pump Explosion Caused by Static Electricity - YouTube

Gas Station Static Electricity Fire - YouTube

 

[JasG]

Spills and fumes in a vehicle are never good, obviously. That said, whatever station that is allowing people to fuel cans IN a vehicle needs to be reported to your State authorities - starting with the local Fire Captain.

The problem is static, as an ignition source. The island pumps are grounded. Vehicles, by nature of being on rubber tires, are not grounded. The biggest reason laws require cans to be filled out of the vehicle is that as you bring the nozzle close to the can in the vehicle, static electricity (built up on the vehicle) can arc. With the right vapour concentration, the can ignites.

Note that this static ignition problem persists with the cans sitting on the tailgate of a truck - they need to be out of the vehicle entirely.

That gas station needs to have a "Come to Jesus" conversation with the Fire Marshall, before that type of event actually happens.

Good luck with your FIL, those situations are never easy to manage.

Rgds, D.

I didn't know any such law existed. If I'm at a filling station I do say something to people about the static. It's hard to do when I see it and I'm driving by. Most stations around here are self serve with no one watching the pumps.

Vehicles are grounded themselves I believe, the problem is when they have a bed liner, wood or carpet and the static can't get to the frame from what I have read.

This is in the link I posted above.

In recent incidents reported to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), fires spontaneously ignited when workers or others attempted to fill portable gasoline containers (gas cans) in the backs of pickup trucks equipped with plastic bed liners or in cars with carpeted surfaces. Serious skin burns and other injuries resulted. Similar incidents in the last few years have resulted in warning bulletins from several private and government organizations.

These fires result from the buildup of static electricity. The insulating effect of the bed liner or carpet prevents the static charge generated by gasoline flowing into the container or other sources from grounding. The discharge of this buildup to the grounded gasoline dispenser nozzle may cause a spark and ignite the gasoline. Both ungrounded metal (most hazardous) and plastic gas containers have been involved in these incidents.