Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Methanol is horrendous in a fire as it burns with no visible flames, you can watch someone burning to death and all you`ll see is them writing about, it would beOne can try to make comparison with jet-powered aircraft and their fuel consumption (not that I'm claiming that a methanol-fueled piston engine can match a half-decent ww2 jet in propulsive power and other advantages). Eg. Me 262 carried about 1000-1250L (about 250-300 US gals) of fuel per engine, it was still a fairly short-ranged fighter. Or, the Fw proposal jet conversion of the Fw 190, whose obvious addition was a new fuel tank with almost 900 L of fuel, in order to cater for 1170 L/h fuel consumption (endurance of 1.2 hr).
Methanol is also less flamable than gasoline, something that matters in military operations.
However, main German fossil fuel was coal - perhaps jumping on the steam-powered trucks bandwagon for non-combat transport applications would've released a lot of fuel to the combat units? There was a good deal of coal was also abundant in most of the countries that bordered with Germany, like Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, let alone in Ukraine (far easier to capture than the oil fields of Baku).
However, main German fossil fuel was coal - perhaps jumping on the steam-powered trucks bandwagon for non-combat transport applications would've released a lot of fuel to the combat units? There was a good deal of coal was also abundant in most of the countries that bordered with Germany, like Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, let alone in Ukraine (far easier to capture than the oil fields of Baku).
not in a war its not.
Volatile weather conditions in Europe's North Sea have made drilling particularly hazardous, claiming many lives (see Oil platform). The conditions also make extraction a costly process; by the 1980s, costs for developing new methods and technologies to make the process both efficient and safe far exceeded NASA's budget to land a man on the moon.[15] The exploration of the North Sea has continually pushed the edges of the technology of exploitation (in terms of what can be produced) and later the technologies of discovery and evaluation (2-D seismic, followed by 3-D and 4-D seismic; sub-salt seismic; immersive display and analysis suites and supercomputing to handle the flood of computation required).[9]
fixed it for youwhat is Germany going to do to prevent the RN to show up with a couple ofbattleshipsgunboats.
I have read one article that claims they changed to Methanol for safety reasons after one bad crash. In a multi car crash with burning gasoline/petrol you get dense black clouds of smoke that obscures vison of the rescue workers and the drivers trying to slow down/get through the accident area. Which lead to more crashes within seconds of the initial accident.Methanol is horrendous in a fire as it burns with no visible flames, you can watch someone burning to death and all you`ll see is them writing about, it would be
horrific for ground crews to handle. You can ignite it no problem with a tiny leak onto a hot exhaust pipe. It is possible to blend it with various things to
make it visible in burning, but you`re still left with the problem of needing to carry vast weights of fuel for the same range due to the incredibly poor
calorific value.
Benzine (or benzol, same chemical formula/structure) also works real well for setting records at low level. It does have several problems, aside from the toxic problem.
This sort of depends on your feed stock.Run the Wehrmacht on diesel rather than gasoline. More fuel efficient, and FT liquids from coal is suitable for diesel engines.
I have read one article that claims they changed to Methanol for safety reasons after one bad crash.
There were refineries in the port cities of Haifa, Palestine and Tripoli, Lebanon. These were connected by pipelines back to the oil fields around Kirkuk in northern Iraq. Take Egypt, then Palestine and you eliminate the RN in the eastern Med. The nearest RN bases are then at Malta 1,200 miles to the west and Gibraltar 1,000 miles beyond that.For the original question, I don't think they had any really good options. Other than not starting the war in the first place. Some random things they might (but in reality, probably not) have done:
- Better preparation for Barbarossa, thus succeeding in knocking out Moscow and capturing (and holding!) the Caspian sea oil fields.
- Go all-in on the North Africa campaign, steamrolling Egypt and continuing to the Persian Gulf oilfields. Though hard to see how they could have the logistical capability to do this. Nor how to get the oil home, considering the RN controls the high seas. From the Persian Gulf through Suez to southern France, then through rivers/canals?
I am going by this.Not sure if benzol really is pure benzene. Per the previously cited wiki page, it seems it was a trade name for a product produced from coal tar. So probably some kind of liquid containing mostly aromatics, of which likely a fairly high fraction was benzene.
Anyway, current automotive gas regulations typically limits benzene to < 1% due to the toxicity & cancer issue. Aromatics in general, while perhaps a bit offensive to current sensibilities wanting a clean-burning fuel (aromatics tend to produce quite a lot of soot), constitute about 20% of typical auto gas. In current 100LL aviation gasoline I understand toluene is the major aromatic fraction, and it has more aromatics than automotive gas due to the good rich octane rating. Non-benzene aromatics like toluene, (some isomers of) xylenes, and ethylbenzene also have somewhat more agreeable melting points.
Yes they can. You know in peace time you can do stuff.and perhaps if other countries are getting dependend on of (sound familiar? ) the RN is not to be send in. Not all oil or gas is deep. Perhaps the should take Holland earlier for the Groninger gas. Or de wadden isle.can protect that with guns. All the arguments of not existing tech or cash is invalid. The Germans never did well on accounting but if the had known oil was that close... well (pun intended)Looking at the wikipedia page for the history of north sea oil exploration (North Sea oil - Wikipedia )
Having a comparatively cash-strapped Germany develop all this tech and deploy it in the mid 30'ies (at least 30 years earlier than historically happened), plus what is Germany going to do to prevent the RN to show up with a couple of battleships (with air cover) and blow the oil platforms to smithereens?
I`m still going with the "its quite dangerous" conclusion >I have read one article that claims they changed to Methanol for safety reasons after one bad crash. In a multi car crash with burning gasoline/petrol you get dense black clouds of smoke that obscures vison of the rescue workers and the drivers trying to slow down/get through the accident area. Which lead to more crashes within seconds of the initial accident.
This may have been in pre-helmet radio days when getting everybody stopped was more of a problem?
I am not going to argue with you, and I was a firefighter for 33 years.I`m still going with the "its quite dangerous" conclusion
Depends on what you call "High octane".They could have switched their tanks over to diesel early in the war and and freed up high octane gasoline for the Luftwaffe.
The most efficient, not best, and Perfect is the enemy of Good enough, is to use more of that Coal, as Coal.The only sensible solution is to have made more FT and Bergius plants, and to listen to advice they had early on from Professor Steinmann at Berlin University (and ignored) to build a more distributed system, instead of making one huge plant right next to each coal deposit. Later in the war they began building underground hydrogenation plants, which were not completed but were feasible despite significant ventilation engineering challenges.