Environmental Blog Logo
Home Guest Authors About
Login


Keywords

Animated RSS ICON
autotech Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Entries in ford (2)

Monday
Oct052009

The Fuel of the Future



  
"Gasoline is growing scarcer, and therefore dearer, all the time... Automobiles cannot use gasoline for all time, of that I am sure, and alcohol seems to be the best substitute that has yet appeared." (US House and Senate hearings on the "Free Alcohol" bill, 1906)
The development of the internal combustion engine can be traced back to the early 19th century when at least a dozen inventors were involved with development of  prototypes.

Two early pioneers, Samual Morey and Nicholas Otto, used ethyl alcohol to fuel their internal combustion engine prototypes.  Samuel Morey developed the first internal combustion engine in America in 1826.  Nicholas Otto, who eventually invented the "Otto-cycle" engine used ethyl alcohol on his early prototype of the internal combustion engine. 

Progressing into the early 20th century there was much concern over the supply of gasoline.  President Roosevelt, a foe of the oil industry, initiated the repeal of the alcohol sales tax in 1906.  In theory, industrial alcohol would be a new market for American farmers and an alternative to the oil trust. 

At the same time, British, French and German scientists were busily designing engines that could handle a variety of fuels, including ethyl alcohol.  These countries were not only worried about the longevity of oil supplies but also the erratic oil supply from Russia and America.  Oil trust battles between the Rothschilds, the Nobels, Rockefeller and Marcus Samuel (Shell)  resulted in significant oil price volatility.  France and Germany were particularly eager to develop a fuel that could be distilled from farm products as neither country had a domestic oil supply.

Studies of alcohol as a fuel for internal combustion engines began in 1906 where it was found that significantly higher engine compression ratios could be achieved with alcohol but at lower B.T.U.  The fuel economy was virtually equal for alcohol and gasoline.  The U.S. Geological Service (USGS) later concluded that alcohol was "a more ideal fuel than gasoline" with better efficiency albeit with higher cost.  Alcohol had many advantages over gasoline with no smoke or disagreeable odors.

By 1925, most people in the automotive industry, including Henry Ford, believed that ethyl alcohol was the "fuel of the future".  There were at least two events in history that prevented the widespread use of ethyl alcohol as an engine fuel.  The first event was the introduction of prohibition in the United States in 1919.  During prohibition the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited.  As a result, corn-alcohol stills, which many farmers used to make low cost ethanol fuel with, were banned.  Prohibition taxes were introduced for industrial alcohol usage, also causing a significant reduction in the use of ethanol as a fuel.

In the early 1920s there was much concern about the demise of oil supplies.  "High quality oil" was becoming scarce and lower grade oil was being brought onto the market.  The use of low quality oil in cars resulted in engine knock.  Geological experts also believed that there would only be 20 to 30 years of oil stocks left in the United States.  As a result there was a great deal of work done investigating the useability of low quality oil in automobile engines.  Eventually GM selected tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) as an anti-knock gasoline additive.  We know this today as "leaded gasoline".  This solution was the most profitable alternative but GM would lead the public to believe that it was the only alternative.  Certainly there was pressure put on GM research to come up with a patentable solution.  There were certainly other viable additives including ethyl alcohol but was not patentable.

This leads up to the second significant event which occurred in 1924 / 1925 timeframe.  17 workers died and many other workers were exposed to lead poisoning at two separate TEL manufacturing facilities.  Charles F. Kettering[1] and Thomas Midgley Jr.[2] subsequently told the government that no alternatives existed.


"So far as science knows at the present time, tetraethyl lead is the only material available which can bring about these [antiknock] results, which are of vital importance to the continued economic use by the general public of all automotive equipment, and unless a grave and inescapable hazard exists in the manufacture of tetraethyl lead, its abandonment cannot be justified."  - Thomas Midgley Jr.  1925.


In this era, farmers were hurting as a result of prohibition and desperately needed new markets to sell grain products in.  It was certainly plausible for the farm industry to produce enough ethanol to replace TEL as the anti-knock additive of choice.

The Public Health Service, after investigating the accidents allowed leaded gasoline to remain on the market.   It is safe to say that in this particular instance the Public Health Service did not do their job.  Since 1926, the production and distribution of TEL has cost the health and lives of many workers.  The United States banned TEL in 1986, not because of health concerns, but because of it's adverse effect on exhaust catalysts.  Meanwhile, other countries such as the UK curtailed the use of alkyl leads due to the adverse health effects of lead emissions, especially on children. 

Today the United States is a world leader in the production of ethanol with over 7 billion gallons of ethanol-blended  gasoline produced.  This represents approximately 12% of fuel sales including E85 (85% ethanol 15% gasoline) and E10 (10% ethanol 90% gasoline).

[1] Charles F. Kettering headed up General Motors research division starting in 1919.

[2] Thomas Midgley Jr. was Kettering's chief fuel researcher.  He developed both the tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) additive to gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).  One historian declared that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth history."
Monday
Aug102009

Is Ford's Hybrid Really Better Than The Competition?

Is Ford's Hybrid Really Better Than The Competition?

Author: Levi Quinn

Image of Ford HybridWhile foreign automakers have dominated the hybrid market in the past, Ford is making its move to rise to the top in this new high-demand arena. With its hydraulic F-150 on the way and the newly re-engineered Escape, this company could very well be on the right track to bring American ingenuity to the forefront of this automotive field.

Although not on the market as of yet, the hydraulic F-150 is anticipated to be some 300 percent more efficient than the darling of hybrid drivers – the Toyota Prius. The hydraulic full-sized truck is expected to garner about 60 miles per gallon in the city. This is a whopping 400 percent increase over fuel efficiency from the standard F-150 presently on the market.

The F-150 would be a slightly different type of hybrid than others on the market. Standard hybrids use gasoline to charge batteries that can move vehicles at low speeds. Hydraulics operate in the same manner, but do not rely on batteries. Instead, they house excess energy within hydraulic cylinders. These are said to be three times more efficient than the nickel metal hydride batteries presently in use.

The hydraulic is not the only hybrid Ford has up its sleeve. Already on the market is the redesigned Escape that boasts features that have the automotive world abuzz. This hybrid does operate using batteries, but it shows that full-sized and environmentally friendly can go hand in hand. Garnering up to 36 miles per gallon, this SUV isn’t quite as efficient as smaller hybrids, but it does pack in a lot of bang for the buck. Some of the features that make the Escape stand out include:

  • Seating – The Escape hybrid is designed to comfortably seat five and still have the back cargo area that is a favorite of larger families.
  • Drive options – The new Escape features both front-wheel drive and four-wheel drive options. Four-wheel drive buyers do lose a bit on the fuel efficiency, but not much.
  • Large center console – The Escape was designed with functionality in mind. To this end, the center console is big enough to hold an entire laptop computer. It is also fully removable when extra storage capacity is required.
  • Handling – The hybrid Escape was created to look and handle just like any other SUV. Although it is on the small size compared to some SUVs, it can handle hauling and difficult terrain quite well.
  • Electrical uses – The electric-power functioning of the Escape motor kicks in at different times during operation. The Escape not only relies on the electric power for low-speed driving, it also lends a boost during high-speed acceleration.
  • Transmission – The new Escape does not have a typical transmission. Instead it relies on a continuously variable transmission that is electronically controlled. This computer-backed function lends itself to a 30-percent increase in fuel efficiency over normal transmissions.

Ford is changing the way hybrids look and feel. By breaking out of the box, this American company is showing the environmentally conscious drivers can still enjoy enough roominess to get jobs done without wasting gas in the process.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/automotive-articles/is-fords-hybrid-really-better-than-the-competition-1112392.html

About the Author:

Have a fun and safe time on the road, and visit us to find the best deal on the insurance coverage you need. Get money-saving tips, affordable auto insurance quotes and helpful advice about finding the cheapest auto insurance rates from Auto Insurance Rates Direct today.