Posted on 02/09/2022 7:46:36 AM PST by Red Badger
Inside JET's torus, with superimposed plasma. (UKAEA)
Late last century, the Joint European Torus (JET) near Oxford, UK, churned out 22 megajoules of energy in what was, at the time, a record in fusion power.
Now, experimental upgrades have brought the facility into line with the technology anticipated for a major international project, resulting in the production of nearly three times that amount of power.
The advances are a major step forward for tokamak-based fusion, bringing us ever closer to a balance point where we can harvest a near endless stream of energy without the cost of polluting emissions or large amounts of radioactive waste.
"What we have learned in the past months will make it easier for us to plan experiments with fusion plasmas that generate much more energy than is needed to heat them," says Sibylle Günter, the Scientific Director of the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics.
Tokamaks might be the horse to back for reaching this milestone in energy production. Consisting of a relatively simple torus surrounded by a bank of seriously powerful magnets, they facilitate fusion by channeling bursts of hydrogen heated to dissolve into a plasma.
What might sound relatively straight forward though is anything but. Keeping that churning stream of plasma stable long enough to squeeze out enough energy-carrying neutrons requires a lot of fine-tuning in technology.
As part of Europe's 'road map to fusion', projects like JET play a key role in breaking down this litany of obstacles. Though the big game is still yet to come.
An international collaboration called ITER is building the largest tokamak the world has ever seen in southern France – one that could eventually generate a whopping 500 megawatts of power from a mere 50 megawatts of initial heating.
Most research on fusion currently uses common forms of hydrogen with either a single proton in its nucleus (called protium), or a slightly rarer form with a proton and a neutron (called deuterium).
This is good enough to iron out the wrinkles until we've got fusion all worked out. But to really get a bang from our fusion reactor, we'll want an even scarcer resource carrying one more neutron – a form of hydrogen called tritium.
ITER aims to experiment with combinations of tritium and deuterium by 2035, and hopefully achieve self-sustaining plasma reactions that will release more energy than they consume.
It's a lofty goal that will depend on a little guidance from smaller projects like JET.
JET stands out as a tokamak capable of using both of these materials, allowing researchers to get a good start on understanding their unique nuclear characteristics.
In 1997, the project hit a record in energy output in the form of released neutrons, providing the equivalent of 4.4 megawatts of power over an average of 5 seconds.
Since then they've been tinkering with designs, including the replacement of the carbon lining, with a mixture of tungsten and beryllium. While the new material is more resilient and won't act like a hydrogen sponge in ways that carbon can, it does affect the plasma's movement.
Finally, after a great deal of modeling, experiments have confirmed predictions of new limits on energy production from this powerful duo of hydrogen isotopes, breaking the old record with an output of 59 megajoules.
It's still short of anything that can perpetuate ongoing fusion, let alone release more energy than it requires. For that, we'll need something much larger, but it's a significant achievement nonetheless.
"In the latest experiments, we wanted to prove that we could create significantly more energy even under ITER-like conditions," says physicist Athina Kappatou from the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics.
Once energy production is in the black, a surplus of neutrons released from the tokamak's churning loop of plasma can be directed onto a thin layer of lithium, which through nuclear fission will break down to provide a more ready source of tritium.
In theory it all sounds so simple. But if we've learned anything from studying fusion, harnessing the Sun's own blueprints for energy generation is anything but a smooth ride.
Thankfully facilities around the world are gradually finding ways around the numerous problems, raising temperatures and working out how to sustain longer reaction times.
Together, we just might yet get the clean, virtually unlimited power source we so desperately need.
That’s kinda pithy, I think I’ll update the tagline page.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3992415/posts?q=1&;page=355#355
What you have to keep in mind is that physicists have (and have had) control of the levers of funding at the Federal level ever since development of the atomic bomb. So this decision by ARPA-E has had to overcome that bureaucratic hurdle in addition to "checking the viability" of the actual research.
I did some research contracting with LLNL on a bio-warfare experiment, and was exposed to the internal politics of "big research" in the FedGov, enough to understand the situation... physicists don't like competition for money.
And that has been what has stalled the effort from Pons and Fleischmann's initial revelation even unto today. The science was never a problem...it was politics.
You have a very high opinion of yourself. Is this justified by any actual accomplishment on your part that you have not shared with the rest of us? It is revealing that even when someone tries to give a supportive and sincere pat on the back that you still react with vitriol. Is this just part of your nature or has it evolved over time from some sort of perceived abuse? Was there even one link that I provided in my previous post that you found distasteful in any way?
I appreciate you actually sharing something that has some actual meaning for once and not just insults. I appreciate your insight. I hope you will continue this type of post.
You have a very high opinion of yourself.
***What difference would that make one way or the other? You have an extremely high opinion of YOURself, saying that you see electrochemical interactions where the top 100 electrochemists of the day could not.
Is this justified by any actual accomplishment on your part that you have not shared with the rest of us?
***Is YOUR high opinion of YOURself justified with respect to the top experts in electrochemistry?
It is revealing that even when someone tries to give a supportive and sincere pat on the back that you still react with vitriol.
***I reacted to the sincerity with sincerity, seagulling with seagulling, fire with fire, line by line. When you throw seagulling into the mix of “sincere pat on the back” it’s like cooking an omelette with 5 good eggs and one bad egg.
Is this just part of your nature or
***False dilemma. Classic fallacy.
has it evolved over time from some sort of perceived abuse?
***You seem to have trouble with the line-by-line refutation and/or agreement of what you say. Has this character defect always been there or is it something you developed over time due to some perceived abuse?
Was there even one link that I provided in my previous post that you found distasteful in any way?
***I didn’t even look at the links. I did not find them distasteful. They struck me as kind of a footnote comment, so I ignored them. Why don’t you just go ahead and open a few of your own parallel LENR threads so you can express your scientifically based objections? Maybe it’ll go well for you.
You are either a mean, foul mouthed tyrant or a natural born comedian. I sense a lot of Andy Kaufman in you, so I am not sure which. But keep it up, the mystery and the laughs are priceless.
A phenomenon was presented that showed promise over 30 years ago but it has basically gone no where since
***That’s due to politics, not science, as Wonder Warthog pointed out.
despite countless millions of dollars being spent,
***Countless millions of private funding versus countless $Billions of public funding on CHF. You obviously don’t have your priorities straight.
careers and numerous organizations being devoted to it.
***If only 2% of CHF funds had been diverted to cold fusion, we’d have Jetson flying cars by now.
I clung to the hope that it was viable myself for over 20 years as the post from me on this forum from over 10 years ago that you quoted clearly showed.
***And then you turned into a skeptopath. It’s unfortunate that you didn’t use those 20 years to investigate the science behind the claims. Instead you just surfed it because you obviously are not familiar with the scientific claims nor principles.
At some point a reasonable person has to throw in the towel
***Problem is, you’re not a reasonable person.
and wish those who want to keep on with the faith good luck.
***Thanks for the well wishes.
You are either a mean, foul mouthed tyrant or
***Once again you use a false dichotomy. Classic fallacy. This is the indicator that you don’t have the right inductive reasoning capability for investigating this phenomona. You’re either an idiot or a maniac.
a natural born comedian.
***At least that’s an interesting fake choice.
I sense a lot of Andy Kaufman in you,
***I sense a lot of BandwagonJoiner in you.
so I am not sure which.
***I don’t need fallacious reasoning to reach my conclusions about you. You do not know how to reason inductively. Plain as day.
But keep it up, the mystery and the laughs are priceless.
***I will keep it up. The science is compelling. It’s unfortunate that you’re not capable of following it.
So the only issue is that not enough money, time and effort has been spent on LENR in the last more than 30 years? And if it had been we'd have Jetson flying cars by now? May I ask what LENR has to do with flying cars? LOL!!! You are living in some sort of whacked out fantasy land.
Here is the reality. Fortunes have been lost pursuing LENR over the past 3 decades from both government and private sources. The reason funding from private and government sources has mostly dried up is because after tireless examination over months, years and decades with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent... Fleischmann and Pons’s observations have been thoroughly and completely discredited. The scientific community came to an overwhelming consensus years ago that the effect was completely unpredictable or nonexistent and that experimental errors had been made. The research was almost all universally condemned, and cold fusion became synonymous with junk science to the point that it had to be renamed LENR.
The big money including private investment directed toward fusion power is still out there in fact there is more than ever. Almost all of it is going in other directions other than LENR. Your proclamations that if the money was going toward hucksters and charlatans that we would be in Jetson type flying cars is ridiculous. Commonwealth Fusion Systems raised more than $1.8 billion last year from Bill Gates and many others. If LENR had similar chances of success big money would be knocking on LENR researcher's doors.
Strangely it is not. Why are all of your impeccable sources ignored? What is your theory as to why this is?
So the only issue is that not enough money, time and effort has been spent on LENR in the last more than 30 years?
***Close enough for a skeptopath to understand the issue.
And if it had been we’d have Jetson flying cars by now? May I ask what LENR has to do with flying cars? LOL!!!
***Yeah, you may ask. The issue is not enough power lasting long enough time and being cheap enough. LENR will do that. Centralized CHF will NOT. Fossil-fueled planes have not, over the 100 years we’ve had to perfect the VTOL flying car.
You are living in some sort of whacked out fantasy land.
***Then maybe it’s a good idea for you to stay off LENR threads as you have stated you already are doing. When LENR breaks out, I don’t want any of you Glenn Curtiss types trying to take credit for your efforts at throwing sand at the oysters as if your contribution was meant to be constructive.
Here is the reality.
***One of the last places on earth I would search for reality is from a skeptopath.
Fortunes have been lost pursuing LENR over the past 3 decades from both government and private sources.
***Guvmint fortunes have been lost? I think you have your signals crossed because guvmint fortunes have been lost on Controlled HOT Fusion but very little guvmint money in comparison has been spent on cold fusion. It’s $Millions lost versus $Billions. Asked & Answered: Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4000502/posts?page=45#45
The reason funding from private and government sources has mostly dried up is because after tireless
***More like cursory. From the asked & answered thread, a quote from Jed Rothwell:
Actually, to be a little more historically accurate, they did not try to replicate P&F. They tried to replicate one aspect of P&F, which unfortunately, P&F themselves got wrong. What they did in most cases was: set up an electrochemical cell with a palladium cathode and heavy water, and then look for neutrons. They did not look for excess heat, and they did not measure some critical parameters such as loading. P&F reported neutrons, but most people soon concluded that part of their paper was wrong. Fleischmann himself thought it was a mistake. He told me that in person, at MIT. Excess heat is the most critical parameter. It is the “principal signature of the reaction” as Fleischmann put it. If you don’t see excess heat, you don’t have cold fusion, so there is no point to looking for anything else. It is like fishing in a dry hole, as Ikegami put it. The other mistake made by many hot fusion and high energy physicists was to do the experiment without consulting with electrochemists. They made many mistakes. Enough to eliminate any chance of success. As I put it, they were trying to tune a piano with sledge hammer. See p. 11: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf Electrochemists who reviewed other experiments discovered similar errors, such as confusing the anode and the cathode. I suppose that if a group of electrochemists were to try to build a Tokomak plasma fusion reactor without consulting with plasma physicists, they would make similar mistakes.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3963819/posts?page=15#15
examination over months, years and decades with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent...
***of private money versus hundreds of billions of dollars in public money pissed down the CHF rathole.
Fleischmann and Pons’s observations have been thoroughly and completely discredited.
***They have been replicated hundreds of times by the top notch names in electrochemistry. I’ll believe them over some skeptopath like you.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3963819/posts
The scientific community came to an overwhelming consensus
***Really? You’re the one who brought up global warming which only sticks around because of “overwhelming scientific community consensus” when we all know it’s simply bullshiite. And if there’s such consensus then why is NASA and ARPA-E buying into it? Because there AINT consensus.
years ago that the effect was completely unpredictable
***Yeah. Unpredictable is a legit description of LENR, especially when people who are unfamiliar with electrolysis and electrochemistry are doing it.
or nonexistent
***Bullshiite.
and that experimental errors had been made.
***Feel free to point out those experimental errors. It’s amazing to me how often people say this but can’t point to those incredibly obvious experimental errors that lab rat electrochemists have been slipping into for so many years.
The research was almost all universally condemned,
***Now you’re just regurgitating that bullshiite consensus argument again.
and cold fusion became synonymous with junk science
***Does NASA push junk science? Are they looking for bigfoot? How about ARPA-E? You’re just doing the same consensus bullshiite, using different angles and wording, but it’s still bullshiite.
to the point that it had to be renamed LENR.
***I like the LENR tag. Nice and short, suggesting that it might even be fission that’s going on [after all, there are several theories postulating that it is fusion + fission]. There would be no need for any renaming if we could just get guys like you to shut up or stay honest.
The big money including private investment directed toward fusion power is still out there in fact there is more than ever.
***CHF fraud is far bigger than cold fusion. Even you acknowledge this to be the case by saying what you just said.
Almost all of it is going in other directions other than LENR.
***CHF versus LENR. Asked & Answered: Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4000502/posts?page=45#45
Your proclamations that if the money was going toward hucksters and charlatans
***Uhh, if the money were going to regular honest electrochemists, so FOAD with this straw argumentation.
that we would be in Jetson type flying cars is ridiculous.
***Not when you realize that the energy density of LENR is 5000X that of gasoline.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems raised more than $1.8 billion last year from Bill Gates and many others.
***They are what you would call “hucksters and charlatans”. Just this ONE case proves that far more money is being scammed due to CHF than cold fusion.
If LENR had similar chances of success big money would be knocking on LENR researcher’s doors.
***Now it’s time to ridicule YOUR lack of owning up to reality. You completely ignore the politics behind what’s going on in nuke physics.
Strangely it is not.
***Not so strangely, dude. You even acknowledge the political angle upthread. What’s strange is dealing with skeptopaths like you.
Why are all of your impeccable sources ignored?
***NASA is ignoring it? ARPA-E is ignoring it? It is not ignorance, it is just scientists knowing that their careers will suffer if they go into this field due to all that bullshiite politics that you are ignoring.
What is your theory as to why this is?
***That would be explaining to a dog why he aint allowed on the meat truck — you do not have the capacity to understand and you obviously don’t even WANT to understand, so why bother? If your hopes are so pinned on CHF then why aren’t YOU looking at all the failures and disappointment that’s been generated by the hundreds of $Billions lost rather than the supposed dozens of millions lost due to looking into cold fusion? Because you’re just a skeptopath, that’s why. Sadly, that answers the question.
As a licensed pilot whose home is located on an airport with a hangar filled with two airplanes and several hang gliders your comment on flying cars is especially amusing.
“The issue is not enough power lasting long enough time and being cheap enough. LENR will do that. Centralized CHF will NOT. Fossil-fueled planes have not, over the 100 years we've had to perfect the VTOL flying car.”
What??? You have no clue at all about the development of VTOL aircraft, yet you quite hilariously prattle on as if you do. I guess it is a good thing that the folks at Jetson Aero didn't realize that they needed fusion power for their personal VTOL aircraft to work because of the problems with fossil fuels...
I know from previous posts that you have difficulty following links... so here is a gif.
Of course, it is nothing more than a dangerous $75,000 toy without ballistic chutes etc... but it illustrates just how uninformed you are on another subject that you seem to believe that you are an expert in.
I do thank you
***I suppose I should thank you but I won’t, because your good eggs are mixed in with the bad eggs and you make a crappy intellectual omelette.
for taking the time to respond in this thread. Your posts are very revealing because they are filled with 99% nonsense...
***See, now I was right. Here’s your bad egg mixed in with the good eggs. Go find some new bandwagon to jump on. I’m sure there’s scientific consensus for how healthy and safe it is to change your gender on a whim. That’d be a good one for you.
As a licensed pilot whose home is located on an airport with a hangar filled with two airplanes
***I had you pegged for an elitist, and I was right.
and several hang gliders your comment on flying cars is especially amusing.
***I was accepted to Cal Poly SLO for Aeronautical Engineering major, a highly impacted major where only 20% of applicants are accepted. I chose instead to go into Electrical Engineering because the aero field was in a gigantic slump and there were no jobs. I find your approach especially amusing.
Kevmo: “The issue is not enough power lasting long enough time and being cheap enough. LENR will do that. Centralized CHF will NOT. Fossil-fueled planes have not, over the 100 years we’ve had to perfect the VTOL flying car.”
Firebug: What??? You have no clue at all about the development of VTOL aircraft, yet you quite hilariously prattle on as if you do. I guess it is a good thing that the folks at Jetson Aero didn’t realize that they needed fusion power for their personal VTOL aircraft to work because of the problems with fossil fuels...
***Wait a second. Like you say, that’s a $75k TOY. It’s a FReeping PROTOTYPE. It lasts 20 MINUTES. It flies ONE PERSON. And it’s even going for Electric rather than ICE. You call that “perfected”??? As I wrote: The issue is not enough power lasting long enough time and being cheap enough. LENR will do that. Centralized CHF will NOT. Fossil-fueled planes have not, over the 100 years we’ve had to perfect the VTOL flying car.
https://www.jetsonaero.com/
Specifications:
Aircraft type: eVTOL prototype.
Piloting: 1 pilot.
Aircraft control: A two joystick consol.
Maximum speed: 100 km/h (62 mph)
Maximum flight time: Approximately 20 minutes.
Propellers: 8.
Electric Motors:
Electric motor power: 13.4 kW (18 hp) for each electric motor.
I know from previous posts that you have difficulty following links... so here is a gif.
***I know from past interactions with you that you are well trusted to simply post bullshiite, and you have done exactly that with this thing.
Jetson One personal eVTOL looks like a ton of fun to fly
***That wasn’t the issue I was highlighting, now, was it? I was saying we woulda all had them by now, they’d be “perfected”. You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Of course, it is nothing more than a dangerous $75,000 toy without ballistic chutes etc...
***Well now. Here you argue against your own self, proving MY OWN POINTs for me. I’m glad you stay off those LENR threads.
but it illustrates just how uninformed
***Uninformed? You post a $75k TOY that lasts 20 MINUTES as if it’s addressing the issue of “perfecting” a technology that’s been around for over a hundred years, and it isn’t even THAT particular techNOlogy. It’s another [battery] power technology that was hooked up to cars even earlier than ICE and had LONGER to perfect but all we got is $75k, 20 minutes, 1 person, no ballistic parachute, bullshiite.
you are on another subject that you seem to believe that you are an expert in.
***Now you’re engaging in mindreading, saying that I seem to believe in sumthin. Did I say I’m an expert? Nope. Does that make you a straw argumenter as a result? Yup. You should take a critical thinking class, because you really suck at it.
OK, I congratulate you on your prolific and speedy writing skills. But if you really wanted to do something to promote LENR effectively on this forum you should go to one of the links that I provided earlier and recruit someone who has the ability to make a good impression. In that respect it is good that you prohibit any form of skeptical comments on the threads you start. You actually come across as someone trying to discredit LENR.
Although you do have the ability to identify seeming inconsistencies such as your latest comments on consensus, your attempts at point-by-point stream of consciousness rebuttal are not effective. Maybe even someone active on one of the Reddit forums would be willing to assist you.
More ignorant comments. You had me pegged wrong. Our house cost less than anything similar not an airport when we bought it. Because gee, some people do not want to live on an airport... it is called supply and demand. My primary vehicle is a 20 year old van with 240,000 miles on it. I bought it at a state auction 7 years ago. The last time I checked it was worth about $2500. We paid $17,000 for our most valuable airplane. It can burn autogas and gets better fuel economy than our van.
An ignorant fool such as yourself does not realize that everyone who flies is not an “elitist” or has a lot of money. But we are happy with our retirement lifestyle because we make good choices.
OK, I congratulate you on your prolific and speedy writing skills.
***Gee, thanks. 🤗
But if you really wanted to do something to promote LENR effectively on this forum
***I do. Here is a hint. I don’t know what you wrote in the second part of this sentence. I can already guess that it’s gonna be some sort of left-handed snide bullshiite that serves your skeptopathic interest far more than LENR.
you should go to one of the links that I provided earlier
***I regularly go to those links and regularly post them. That’s why I thought those links were some kind of post script and didn’t even comment on them.
and recruit someone who has the ability to make a good impression.
***Well, that is a bit different than I predicted. Here’s the thing. It is impossible to make a good impression when you are surrounded by seagulls. Once we cleared those threads of you seagulls, they became simple, quiet, scientifically minded threads. Consider that my “recruitment” of someone else “who has the ability to make a good impression. “ I am already doing what you said I oughta do.
In that respect it is good that you prohibit any form of
***There you go again. Regurgitating a thoroughly discredited point. We allow skepticism but not skeptopathy. There is a difference, and you are on the wrong side of it. Note how you go back to this argument again and again like a dog do his vomit, rather than trying to dive down on the difference because you probably already KNOW the difference.
skeptical comments on the threads you start.
***Feel free to log onto ~q threads and do what you do, against the qtards. See how well you do. That’s the definition of protected nonsense, and it turns out that the admin moderator is one of them and she even extends her protection to the unmarked threads. Once you have been through that, get back to me on the difference between skepticism and skeptopathy.
You actually come across as someone trying to discredit LENR.
***Then let me be. If such is the case, eventually all that work I put in will be somehow shown to be false. In the meantime there are dozens of great and positive LENR threads that I put up and there’s great invitation for REAL scientific discussion while zeroing in & stopping your level of bullshiite. If that’s discrediting LENR then let me be.
Although you do have the ability to identify seeming inconsistencies such as
***Such as yours. You have a lot of them. If you manage to wipe out your own inconsistencies AND get rid of your own usage of classic fallacies AND get honest about it, you might find you’re a better scientist.
your latest comments on consensus, your attempts at point-by-point stream of consciousness rebuttal are not effective.
***Not effective by your count. But you kinda DON’T count, because you are a skeptopath. So... take that critical thinking class, and even use some of your writings here on FR LENR threads as prime examples of classic fallacies that your professor can walk you through.
Maybe even someone active on one of the Reddit forums would be willing to assist you.
***Reddit? Whatevs. There are some luminaries in LENR such as Jed Rothwell & Alan Fletcher who have signed up with FR supporting LENR but you seagulls chase them away. I suppose that if YOU really wanted to support LENR then YOU could go on Reddit and invite some positive LENR dude over to here to help out LENR on FR. That would show some of the bona fides that you claim to have. In the meantime, nothing prevents you from posting your own LENR threads and counteracting what you perceive as the damage being done to the field. But you don’t do that. Why not? It’s enough to suggest that you aren’t really as honestly supportive of scientific pursuit as you claim you are.
Your entire post is a giant whataboutism, but I don’t care because you said “We paid $17,000 for our most valuable airplane. It can burn autogas and gets better fuel economy than our van.”
You should open THAT as its own thread. Make sure you notify the aviation ping list.
The mogas option: plenty of engine choices
Aug. 23, 2011
https://www.aviationpros.com/home/news/10375183/the-mogas-option-plenty-of-engine-choices
While the FAA and the oil industry plod along toward an eventual replacement for 100LL, one alternative persists like a large elephant squatting uncomfortably on the conference room table: mogas. We know more owners, desperate for at least some kind of clarity, are seriously considering it as an option. Moreover, the list of airplanes that can burn mogas is longer than you might imagine and likely to grow.
Last year, Lycoming quietly announced that it had approved its 180-HP parallel-valve O-360 series for use with a specific grade of mogas. Does this mean the company is bullish on mogas as an alternative to a 100-octane equivalent? Not really. The company is just respondingto market realities. In other parts of the world—Europe and Asia, mainly—mogas is becoming a fuel of choice because av-gas and the infrastructure to dispense it isn’t available. And if it is, the cost Delta between avgas and mogas is greater than it is in the U.S.
A MOGAS SWELL?
We know more owners are looking at mogas as an alternative becausewe’re hearing from them. The list of engines and airframes approved for mogas is long and likely to grow modestly. Even some relatively high-performance aircraft such as some Bonanza models and Cessna 182s are approved for automotive fuel. Yet supply and distribution remain a problem. According to AirNav’s monthly surveys, about 109 airports have mogas available, although the number is probably somewhat higher. That represents only 3 percent marketshare, a number too tiny to represent much volume.
But it’s also inching upward as FBOs take a second look at putting in the tankage necessary to dispense mogas. LJ-Fuel, a Wisconsin-based manufacturer of self-dispensing fuel systems, is marketing modularpump products under the SportFuel brand. It’s also helping buyers ofthese systems find high-octane, ethanol-free premium gasoline, whichsome FBOs who already have mogas pumps worry about finding reliably.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 12 percent of U.S.-refined gasoline is non-reformulated fuel and/or not blended with ethanol. Given that large volume, it’s not clear why non-ethanol fuel isn’t more easily available at distribution terminals, but our checks with FBOs who carry mogas reveal an undercurrent of concern about supply.
U-Fuel helps its customers find sources of supply, but it doesn’t intervene as a third party to assure a broad-based supply chain. But one new company is doing just that in California. Clear Gas LLC formed in May and plans to deliver unleaded, ethanol-free fuel to the recreational, marine and aviation markets.
It will essentially act as a third-party clearing house by combining small individual orders from various sources into larger volume buys from terminals that have the fuel available. This addresses the long waiting times some FBOs have experienced in obtaining mogas supplies. Clear Gas says the effort is more about staged delivery and low volume sales and not necessarily high-volume lower pricing. (See www. cleargas.co for more.)
LOTS OF APPROVALS
Both the EAA and Petersen Aviation (www.eaa.org and www.autofuelstc. com) did extensive work on mogas approvals during the 1980s and although those STCs are still available, the perceived lack of ethanol-free fuel has put demand into dormancy. But for anyone interested, the STCs—or airplanes that already have them—are there for the buying.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Petersen’s STCs, for example, are priced at a reasonable $1.50 to $2 per horsepower, depending on octane requirements. A few models, such as the PA-28-160, 161 Warriors and the Archers are, at $2750, moreexpensive. Petersen’s list of approved airframes is extensive, including such popular models as most of the Cessna 100 series, Beech models including some of the 35 line, Maules, dozens of Piper singles, the Grumman Tiger and a host of low-powered taildraggers. Neither Peterson nor EAA has done much recently with new approvals, but if avgas supply worries force the issue, it’s not inconceivable that demand could return.
LYCOMING’S VIEW
Against this slight stir in the market comes Lycoming’s surprise approval of its 360 series for mogas. We say “surprise” because the engine and airframe companies have traditionally taken a dim view of mogas for several reasons. Ethanol became the main villain 20 years ago, but there are also concerns about octane requirements, vapor pressure standards, quality assurance in the distribution chain and fuel aging.
Unlike avgas, which has a long-term aging requirement, mogas can degrade relatively quickly, forming gum and varnishes that can clog fuel filters and carburetor jets. The warmer the weather, the faster the degradation. While this might not be a problem for the distributiontanks, which are refreshed with new supplies, it can be for an airplane stored for a year with mogas in the tanks. (Veteran mogas users tells us they fill their tanks with avgas or an avgas/mogas blend if long-term storage is planned.)
In approving the 360 line, has Lycoming relented on these concerns? Not exactly, it turns out. It still thinks avgas is the better choice but accepts that mogas is a reasonable substitute.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
“The reason we did these approvals was mainly for international markets,” says Lycoming general manager Michael Kraft. “To be blunt about it, the availability of avgas in the U.S. and Canada is quite good, but when you move to Asia-Pacific and the Middle East and other areas, they don’t have the avgas distribution. To give you an example, the Nigerian Air Force flies Lycoming piston-engine aircraft and they’ve run mogas for years. What we’re doing here is putting bounds on the mogas you should be using rather than pump gas, where you don’t know all the parameters.”
And what is that gas? Lycoming specifies this in its most recent version of Service Instruction 1070Q. That bulletin calls for an ASTM 4814-09b automotive fuel with a minimum 93 AKI octane, less than 1 percent ethanol and tightly constrained vapor pressure.
The bulletin says automotive fuels typically have RVPs between 7 and 9.3 PS1 in summer, but these vary by region and in some geographicareas, there’s no upward limit at all.
Kraft says this raises the risk of fuel starvation due to vapor lock, especially where fuel lines enter the warm firewall area. Although real-world vapor lock with mogas doesn’t seem to be a widespread problem, it’s hardly unheard of. Our survey of mogas users earlier thisyear revealed that at least two had suffered inflight engine stoppages which they attributed to vapor lock. Cars are more tolerant of vapor pressure swings because the fuel systems are pressurized from the tank forward and some systems have fuel return lines that tend to cool the gasoline. Moreover, except in mountainous areas, cars don’t routinely climb to high altitudes, where lower pressure encourages the boiling that causes vapor lock.
How much of the current mogas delivered to U.S. airports meets this spec is unclear. Finding out about octane values before the fact isn’t easy, without calling the airport and perhaps not even then. The Web directory www.pure-gas.org list sources of EO premium and also provides octane. But not all airports are listed.
Pricewise, Airnav shows about a $1.32 price Delta between mogas and avgas, on average. But at some airports, the price difference is much less and a few even charge more for mogas than for avgas. We thinkthis has to do with local flowage fees and airport overhead, becausewe doubt if FBOs can make a profit center out of mogas sales.
MORE APPROVALS
Although Lycoming’s approvals last year don’t represent a wholesale swing to mogas, they do indicate the company wants some downside protection against avgas availability issues. “Our motivation on this is that generally we want to have the engines approved for the widest range of fuels possible. It gives flexibility in the distribution chain. We want to be accurate about what the fuel requirements are with regard to octane and vapor pressure and allowable oxygenates,” says Lycoming’s Kraft.
As with all of the mogas approvals, both the airframe and engine require a TC or STC. Lycoming’s approvals are for the engines only. Weasked if any OEMs are considering factory airframe approvals and Kraft says he believes some will, for the same reasons that Lycoming has: In the current market, the more fuel options, the better.
Continental has taken a different tack.Although it’s adding to approvals for high-horsepower engines that can burn unleaded aviation fuels of less than 100 octane, mogas isn’t on the table, at least in public. It’s focusing instead on developing an aircraft diesel to burn Jet A.
CONCLUSION
Does it make sense to consider a mogas STC or buy an airplane thatcan be approved? We think that depends on the type and amount of flying you do and how nervous you are about future avgas supplies.
If you fly 150 hours a year—that’s a lot these days—in somethingthat burns 10 to 12 gallons an hour, burning mogas could save you asmuch as $2000 a year. That could easily pay for an annual. Owners we’ve heard from aren’t much interested in the bucket-and-can brigade, so you can either invest in a portable dispensing system of your own or rely on airport tankage. If there’s an airport pump within reasonable range, the numbers can work, even if it’s not a slam dunk. There’s just enough mogas available to make long trips possible, bridged byavgas fillups.
On the other hand, for a 50-hour-a-year pilot flying something that doesn’t burn much fuel, the savings may not be worth the effort of finding mogas, unless it’s easily available on the home field or close by.
The good news may be that mogas availability seems to be modestly on the rise. It’s possible that as more light sport aircraft appear and owners tire of waiting for a 100LL solution, the mogas market willreach critical mass. Even tripling the current availability might attract more buyers and make mogas fueling less of a hunt-and-peck affair.
Although the price difference between mogas and avgas is not consistently large, it could become that way if the cost of the 100LL replacement is significantly higher than the current leaded-fuel standard.
Current mogas approvals apply to a large and useful range of aircraft, including the O-470-powered Cessna 182P, right. Although it’s not bullish on mogas, Lycoming recently approved 93-octane fuel for itsO-360 series, tower photo. Airframe approvals from OEMs may follow.
Want high performance on mogas? The Beech G35 Bonanza, below, qualifies. It’s powered by a Continental E-225. Unfortunately, mogas approvals don’t apply to newer model Bonanzas.
Wisconsin-based U-Fuel claims some traction in attracting airportsto install modular Sport Fuel systems, left. In California, the newly formed Clear Gas aims to find and deliver reliable supplies of ethanol-free premium. Lycoming would rather see 93-octane fuel.
Copyright 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
Anyone who has the ability to get himself kicked off a Q’ thread as you said you were recently, has got some type of “special skill-set”. In other words, you cannot get along with basically anyone who does not agree with every point in your LENR based religion. I have had an interest in LENR from the beginning and every time I see one of your threads I read it hoping that there actually has been some type of actual progress made.
But it is always the same old BS and you make it much worse whenever you start mixing in your brand of insane fantasy coupled with your foul disposition. No one that I know has done more to discredit LENR on this forum than you. It is because of your brand of loony tunism that even if God himself delivered a working prototype, those he blessed with it probably could not raise a dime to bring it to market. You are the boy who has cried wolf every day for the last 30 some years and your ability to influence is now nonexistent.
Thank you for demonstrating your amazing cutting and pasting abilities.
***Why thank you. You’re very kind.
Of course, the article you pasted was from 2008, 14 years ago and is largely irrelevant as of this time...
***That’s my estimate of when you bought that airplane. It woulda been a good deal even at that time.
I am already active on aviation discussions here.
***Good.
Anyone who has the ability to get himself kicked off a Q’ thread as you said you were recently, has got some type of “special skill-set”.
***You’re really startin’ to reach there, stretch. Maybe reachin’ is your special skillset.
In other words, you cannot get along with basically anyone who does not agree with every point in your LENR based religion.
***Dude. It was you seagulls who got me to the point where I ignored the post from the mods saying that they’ll shut you down if you act the way you guys acted. All because it was NOT enforced on my LENR threads, and it turns out the admin mod is one of those qanonsense followers. So when I saw that blurb, I ignored it as an unenforced provision but it IS enforced, capriciously.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
So what the mods have done is to encourage your ridiculous skillset of illogic, fallacies, and poor reasoning to the point that you can’t understand why others disagree with YOU and you can’t comprehend their side of the viewpoint.
I have had an interest in LENR from the beginning and every time I see one of your threads I read it hoping that there actually has been some type of actual progress made.
***Good.
But it is always the same old BS
***What BS is that? The latest is stuff from ARPA-E. How is THAT bullshiite? Just because you say it’s bs doesn’t mean it IS bs.
and you make it much worse whenever you start mixing in your brand of insane fantasy
***Then let the LENR threads suffer along if that’s how you look at it. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
coupled with your foul disposition.
***You have a foul disposition and you have had the backing of the moderators allowing your seagull behavior. Just think how foul you’d be if you were fighting against mod bigotry on top of it, as well as fighting off bandwagon jumpers who never discuss the science.
No one that I know has done more to discredit LENR on this forum than you.
***Then open those parallel threads. Duhh. Gigantic duhh factor. You’re operating in a schizophrenic fashion here, since you’ve been a seagull against LENR but now you’re pretending you’re PRO-LENR. Go ahead and open up your pro-LENR anti-LENRphile threads. You’re free to do so.
It is because of your brand of loony tunism that even if God himself delivered a working prototype,
***Talk about loony tunism. Your analogy is sheer whackadoodle.
those he blessed with it probably could not raise a dime to bring it to market.
***OHHHH! The reason why LENR is failing is because of KEVMO. I had never considered that possibility. Thank you for presenting it to this forum.
You are the boy who has cried wolf every day for the last 30 some years
***Uhhh, I’ve been posting LENR threads since about 2008. That’s about 14 years. Less than half what you claim. You are the boy who never gets his facts straight.
and your ability to influence is now nonexistent.
***I have no desire to influence skeptopaths, so thank you for reinforcing that I’m on the right track. You know you’re over the target when you get the most flack. And that’s all you generate is flak. You like to call it the grain of sand that irritates the oyster into making a pearl but you aren’t worthy of even that consideration. You’re as worthless as a seagull crossed with a mosquito.
As much as you seem to enjoy making a spectacle of yourself,
***I notice that throughout our interaction, you never back up your assertions with facts nor data. It is typical of what it’s like to deal with you.
it has become more and more obvious with each round
***that you never really will take that critical thinking class, willya?
that you are suffering from psychological problems.
***You’re engaging in psychological projection here.
It seems wrong to continue to torment someone who is a mental invalid.
***Golly gee gosh, if I was such a mental invalid then I wouldn’t have caught you in so many logical fallacies, would I? You’re just searching for some kind of insult that would get under my skin. Maybe you should expend that effort towards furthering science. Your interest is in being a seagull, not furthering science.
So please have a nice evening
***You too. Let us all know how that writing class goes.
and stare at the jelly fish until your anxiety level recedes...
***As long as you’re posting HTML, perhaps you wouldn’t mind posting a good Viking Kitties GIF? Or maybe a good ZOT GIF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.