What If Tetraethyl Lead additives were banned in the 1920s? Effects on WW2?

I wonder what the BTUs per pound were or what the weight per gallon/liter were?

Use of some (?) alcohol may help the gasoline + water mixture stay mixed.

Shortround6 said:

I wonder what the BTUs per pound were or what the weight per gallon/liter were?

Use of some (?) alcohol may help the gasoline + water mixture stay mixed.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the energy per liter content will be somewhat lower, however it seems like there is more energy to have. The later is/was much more important from the European PoV, where there was no such thing as abundance of fuel, especially in tough times.
Even today, fuel is heavily taxed in Europe (perhaps not in Russia and in Romania).

Here is an excerpt from a book describing the P1Y and G4M. Graphs denote the specific fuel consumption (in grams per HP*hour) vs. manifold pressure for the Kasei (火星) engine.
(cheers for me using the Japanese characters for the 1st time anywhere)
Upper graph is for the Kasei 11 (91/92 oct fuel, no water-alcohol injection), lower is for the marks 21 to 25 (same fuel, water-alc injection). Darker shaded area on the lower graph, if I'm interpreting it right, represents the consumption of the water-alc mixture - the thing that Japanese should've been far easier to get than the fuel, let alone the high-octane fuel. Specific fuel consumption to be d@mned. The power figures for the 1st S/C gear and for some RPMs are also noted.
(ガソリン = gasoline; 水 = water; rest of the caption there is too blurry)

Granted, what the French were using in their everyday cars in 1930s and 40s was not supercharged.

(click for hi-res)

The Americans show similar reductions in fuel consumption at high powers (WEP) when using water injection. They fitted the carb with a control to restrict fuel flow (de-enrichment) when the water/alcohol system kicked in. The US system may have been a lot more off/on than the Japanese.
But both these kept the water/alcohol and gasoline/fuel in separate tanks and mixed them in the carb or intake systems and not as a combined fuel in one tank.

To me that would be the difficult part in practice as opposed to a laboratory.

There was a bit of trouble just trying to figure out the up to 15% alcohol mix used the US for the last few decades. You can put in more alcohol but the total mix has enough lower BTUS to start showing noticeably lower fuel consumption (most people are not going to notice under 10%, especially in city driving.) But the real problem with 1980s/90s gas was the higher alcohol mixes (over 15%) tended to attract water but would not hold it. That is to say that if the car sat for a few days water would separate out of the mix and sink to the bottom of the tank. So what was the mix you were getting to the carb/injectors if the car (or plane) sat for several days? different mixture at different depths in the tank?

Shortround6 said:

But both these kept the water/alcohol and gasoline/fuel in separate tanks and mixed them in the carb or intake systems and not as a combined fuel in one tank.

To me that would be the difficult part in practice as opposed to a laboratory.

Click to expand...

We can recall that the 2-stroke engines even today have separate tanks for both consumables - fuel and oil. A good number of cars used 2-stroke engines in the previous century, and the 2-stroke engines are used today on a wide scale, from chainsaws to the scooters.
The LNG-powered cars in were/are outfitted with both LNG tanks and gasoline tanks. People were driving at half the price vs. gasoline power only.
The Euro 6 engines of today use diesel fuel + AdBlue, in separate tanks, and engine draws from both in the same time.
BMW was offering the water-alc kit for the M2, added another 50-ish HP there.

So having two consumables in two separate tanks per engine is not unheard of, and already by some 150 years.

A lot of the old two strokes just dumped the oil in with the gas. They also smoked a lot. Some owners had rituals as shaking the gas can around before refilling the lawn mower, chainsaw or even motorbike. Some would not use the last fuel in the gas can before refilling, others (higher use?) would use it all and measure the oil carefully (sometimes you could get little bottles of oil for mixing into certain size gas tanks.

But this is a bit different that raising the octane of the fuel itself using water or water/alcohol. They used water/alcohol in 1962-63 Olds jetfire car. Separate fluid tank that owners forgot to refill. It was certainly doable. But it does require extra maintenance. Alcohol was more for anti-freeze in cold weather.
I do remember auto-parts stores selling "dry gas" in cans. Mainly alcohol to throw in the gas tank if you thought you had picked up water (bad gas or condensation) .

Shelf space is a lot less now that most gas already has alcohol in the US.

Shortround6 said:

A lot of the old two strokes just dumped the oil in with the gas. They also smoked a lot. Some owners had rituals as shaking the gas can around before refilling the lawn mower, chainsaw or even motorbike.

Click to expand...

I think all the two-stroke engines I've had the (dis?)pleasure of working with, have used oil mixed in the gas. I think a few decades ago big outboards with separate oil tanks started appearing, but AFAIK things like chainsaws still use premixed oil+gas. (Big two-stroke diesels obviously a separate category, but I have never personally worked with those.)

At least around here, gas stations particularly around marinas and such, used to sell premixed oil+gas, IIRC it was usually 2.5% oil. I think these have disappeared as most outboards and mopeds nowadays are four stroke.

I belong to the shake-the-can-before-filling cult, but honestly, those simple small two-strokes aren't that picky. Often if it's a bit uncertain I've used more oil rather than less. Better to have a bit of blue smoke than having to row back home (or worse) because the outboard conked out.

Shelf space is a lot less now that most gas already has alcohol in the US.

Click to expand...

I think it's largely because as they get sufficient octane due to the alcohol, they can use cheaper (less refined) gas containing more olefins (alkenes). Alkenes tend to cause gumming when stored for longer periods.

tomo pauk said:

An interesting graph can be seen here.
It basically says that the gasoline that otherwise has the octance rating of 68 can be 'improved' wrt. the resistance to knocking via the addition of water, alcohol+water, only alcohol, as well as with water+alcohol mix together with the TEL. The later (w+a+TEL) addition can increase the octane rating to about 97 if it represensts 30% of the total fuel (ie. 70% is the 68 oct gasoline). Alcohol can do 94 oct if it is 30% of the total fuel. 80% alcohol + 20% water can do 92 oct under the same conditions. Last but not least, 30% of water (rest 70% being gasoline) moves the oct rating from 68 to 76-77.

French were experimenting with adding the water to the gasoline in the late 1930s with good results, but the benzene lobby was successful in prventing this to be implemented across the country. During the ww2, German authorities in Paris noted that the French were pouring water into the tanks of their gasoline-powered cars to gain as much mileage as possible.

Click to expand...

I can think of no better way to ruin your engine than to pour water into your gas tank. Gasoline and water don't mix.

"Two liquids that do not mix to an appreciable extent are called immiscible. Separate layers are formed when immiscible liquids are poured into the same container. Gasoline, oil (Figure 11.14), benzene, carbon tetrachloride, some paints, and many other nonpolar liquids are immiscible with water. Relatively weak attractive forces between the polar water molecules and the nonpolar liquid molecules are not adequate to overcome much stronger hydrogen bonding between water molecules. The distinction between immiscibility and miscibility is really one of extent, so that miscible liquids are of infinite mutual solubility, while liquids said to be immiscible are of very low (though not zero) mutual solubility."

The gasoline will float on the layer of water with disastrous results when the Frenchman starts his Renault and the water hits the pistons.

Here is Bosch's latest version of water injection:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhnFusFI-gNote the complexity of the system and that the water is atomized before being introduced into the induction system close to the inlet port.
The water injection system must be completely separate to ensure mixing. It cannot be added to your gas tank.
Water has no value as a fuel, in fact it absorbs heat when converted to steam in the combustion chamber. This cooling effect in the combustion chamber allows a higher compression ratio to be used which in turn increases engine efficiency. In other words it is most suited to high performance engines. The Frenchman in his Renault Juvaquatre isn't going to get any benefit from adding water by any means.

The turbocharged Oldsmobile F-75 Jetfire of 1962 had a water injection system



https://www.hemmings.com/stories/th...the-world-to-lightweight-boosted-performance/
Again note the completely separate system with the water/methanol injected close to the impeller inlet.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluU2WydcLo
Note that judging an aircraft engine by it specific fuel consumption of gasoline does not tell the whole story. The extra tankage and pumps etc. add weight to the aircraft and of course the water itself has to be accounted for. Water injection systems were not introduced in aircraft to conserve precious fuel but to increase power in combat or in the case of bombers to increase power at take off.

Reluctant Poster said:

I can think of no better way to ruin your engine than to pour water into your gas tank. Gasoline and water don't mix.

"Two liquids that do not mix to an appreciable extent are called immiscible. Separate layers are formed when immiscible liquids are poured into the same container. Gasoline, oil (Figure 11.14), benzene, carbon tetrachloride, some paints, and many other nonpolar liquids are immiscible with water. Relatively weak attractive forces between the polar water molecules and the nonpolar liquid molecules are not adequate to overcome much stronger hydrogen bonding between water molecules. The distinction between immiscibility and miscibility is really one of extent, so that miscible liquids are of infinite mutual solubility, while liquids said to be immiscible are of very low (though not zero) mutual solubility."

11.3 Solubility - Chemistry 2e | OpenStax

As for any solution, the solubility of a gas in a liquid is affected by the intermolecular attractive forces between solute and solvent species. Unlike ...

openstax.org

The gasoline will float on the layer of water with disastrous results when the Frenchman starts his Renault and the water hits the pistons.

Click to expand...

I was just relaying the stuff I've read

Reluctant Poster said:

The turbocharged Oldsmobile F-75 Jetfire of 1962 had a water injection system

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/th...the-world-to-lightweight-boosted-performance/
Again note the completely separate system with the water/methanol injected close to the impeller inlet.

Click to expand...

Yes, the separate system is the best.

Reluctant Poster said:

Note that judging an aircraft engine by it specific fuel consumption of gasoline does not tell the whole story. The extra tankage and pumps etc. add weight to the aircraft and of course the water itself has to be accounted for. Water injection systems were not introduced in aircraft to conserve precious fuel but to increase power in combat or in the case of bombers to increase power at take off.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that w-i systems were introduced in order to increase the power. Especially if the high-octane fuel was a rare commodity, as it was the case in Axis countries of the day.
In Japanese case, gaining extra several hundred of HP more while having the water-alcohol mixture 'paying' a good deal of increased fuel consumption (instead of just dumping even more fuel) was a welcome bonus. The trade-off - increase of mechanical complexity, weight - was accepted as a price to be paid. As it was the case with other aero engines of the day that employed the similar systems.

Back in the '80s I played around with Propane/Gasoline dual fuel V8s and Water injection in the pickup

Why?

Midwestern Propane was dirt cheap at the time vs Gasoline. The basic system was Solenoids to select the desired fuel. One would shut off gasoline to the Carburetor(Electric fuel pump), while energize the gas feed to the heater/regulator to the IMPCO 'Hat' diffuser for the Propane.

Propane was not good under 45 degrees F, and even a bit above that was better to run on Gasoline to get the engine up to operating temps first.

Once running on Propane, had a dashboard adjuster from MSD to adjust the timing on the electronic ignition, since propane needed more advance.

So thought, 'hey- use water/alcohol to run more timing when in gasoline mode'

On regular octane gasoline had to pull timing back quite a bit to avoid predetonation, since this motor I was running higher compression pistons to take advantage of Propane properties. With the Holley water injection, it helped out the gasoline side, but did little for when on propane

It did work well, but it was very hands on, nobody else could really drive it but me. Too many switches, dials and Blinkenlights for all the systems

Now with the electronics today, even an Arduino could automate all that, for knock sensors and Wide Band O2 to get great drivability, power and mileage. Would be awesome with even TBI fuel injection

Anyway, stopped doing that, pulled all the gear off, and sold the Truck a few years later.

Main reason was Propane was no longer a cheap fuel, and Gasoline prices weren't so bad

But I did miss how clean burning that was. When running mostly on Propane, the Oil never got dirty, only a slight change in color.

I figured that was much better for the engine.

marathag said:

On regular octane gasoline had to pull timing back quite a bit to avoid predetonation, since this motor I was running higher compression pistons to take advantage of Propane properties. With the Holley water injection, it helped out the gasoline side, but did little for when on propane
It did work well, but it was very hands on, nobody else could really drive it but me. Too many switches, dials and Blinkenlights for all the systems
Now with the electronics today, even an Arduino could automate all that, for knock sensors and Wide Band O2 to get great drivability, power and mileage. Would be awesome with even TBI fuel injection

Click to expand...

I've driven, for a week, the Golf Mk.I with the propane system retrofitted. Engine started using gasoline, and after it warmed up a bit, it just required a switch to be pulled (pushed? it was 25 years ago) into the propane 'mode'. Should've bought that car, broke as I was
The conversions were very popular in Italy, where the gasoline was as expensive as in Germany or Austria, but paychecks were smaller; propane is/was far less taxed, so the users were doing almost double the mileage for the same money. They also had the well developed network of propane pumps.

The sets made by 'Lovato' company were also popular on this side of Atlantic, especially with people in sales that were doing some major mileage. Today almost any gas station has a set for propane for the cars, even here.

(before people say 'why haven't they just used the diesel versions?' - good diesels were much more expensive, and there was no wide offering of Japanese or Korean diesels until 21st century; turbodiesels were more expensive still, while the naturally-aspirated ones were with low power when compared with gasoline engines; diesels back then were also 1st to make problems in cold temperatures)

Were tetraethyl lead banned in the 1920s, it's quite possible there would be lower crime rates in the 1950s and '60s. TEL is a CNS toxin which can cause ADHD, reduced intelligence, and impair impulse control.

tomo pauk said:

(before people say 'why haven't they just used the diesel versions?' - good diesels were much more expensive, and there was no wide offering of Japanese or Korean diesels until 21st century; turbodiesels were more expensive still, while the naturally-aspirated ones were with low power when compared with gasoline engines; diesels back then were also 1st to make problems in cold temperatures)

Click to expand...

And no diesel stink or clattering.

z42 said:

I think all the two-stroke engines I've had the (dis?)pleasure of working with, have used oil mixed in the gas. I think a few decades ago big outboards with separate oil tanks started appearing, but AFAIK things like chainsaws still use premixed oil+gas. (Big two-stroke diesels obviously a separate category, but I have never personally worked with those.)

Click to expand...

Big two strokes use two types of lubricating oils. The cross head design used allows for a barrier between the cylinders and the crankcase. The crankcase is filled with an oil selected for it lubrication properties. Because it is not subjected to contamination from piston blowby it lasts far longer than a typical engine oil. This is a very important when considering the amount of oil contained in the crankcase. Auxiliary systems such as centrifuges are use to continuously clean the oil. The cylinder oil is much different and it is designed to be burned in the cylinder. It is a total loss system which in fact contributes to the power of the engine.
The turbocharger has its own lube oil system.

FALC0N said:

That is not entirely accurate. The dangers of TEL were PARTIALLY understood. The full scope was not. Yes, it was toxic on contact. Everyone knew that. The question was would it be toxic in motor fuels. Mercury is toxic, but people walked around with it in filling all the time. The world is replete with things that are otherwise toxic, are substantially less so in certain combinations and applications. Such was the view of TEL at the time.

The Surgeon General even commissioned a panel to examine the question in the Mid-1920's. And they concluded that it would be safe to use in fuel.

Even TEL opponents didn't really see coming how bad it ended up being. That's why finding the scope of the environmental contamination was so shocking. Nobody was really looking for it. Not even TEL opponents.

TEL didn't become dominant because it was cheap. It became dominant because it was, by far, the best octane booster out there. It still is. If we found a magic potion tomorrow that would fix TEL's toxicity issues, it would be back in every motor fuel under the sun inside of a year.

Click to expand...

The Surgeon General Motors Committee concluded that it would be safe to use in fuel.
The Surgeon General is a political appointee and like all political appointees can be influenced by factors other than pure science. Incidentally the Surgeon General in question is infamous for authorizing the infamous Tuskegee Experiment that became the model for unethical behavior in the medical profession.
The Surgeon Generals committee study was not rigorous enough. For example it concluded that 70% of the lead remained in the engine without evidence to support this. This should have been easy to confirm. Also the long term effects were not considered.
The history of TEL is thoroughly covered in the following document
Note that there were alternatives to TEL. Sun oil used TEL briefly until it was banned then did not resume using it until after WWII yet was able to maintain high (for the time) octane ratings.
Also note that market penetration of TEL compared to other alternatives was not that great until after WWII when GM (coincidence?) kicked off the high horsepower race with the Oldsmobile Rocket 88..
I think the rise of TEL had more to do with the marketing muscle of GM, Standard Oil and DuPont than anything else.

View: https://youtu.be/gXjLuY8ydws

Reluctant Poster said:

The Surgeon General Motors Committee concluded that it would be safe to use in fuel.
The Surgeon General is a political appointee and like all political appointees can be influenced by factors other than pure science. Incidentally the Surgeon General in question is infamous for authorizing the infamous Tuskegee Experiment that became the model for unethical behavior in the medical profession.
The Surgeon Generals committee study was not rigorous enough. For example it concluded that 70% of the lead remained in the engine without evidence to support this. This should have been easy to confirm. Also the long term effects were not considered.

Ethyl leaded gasoline | Environmental history

environmentalhistory.org

The history of TEL is thoroughly covered in the following document

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gil-Oudijk-2/publication/249050811_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Organometallic_Additives_in_Automotive_Gasoline/links/0deec53751bd2b8f94000000/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Organometallic-Additives-in-Automotive-Gasoline.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHVibGljYXRpb25Eb3dubG9hZCIsInByZXZpb3VzUGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QifX0

Note that there were alternatives to TEL. Sun oil used TEL briefly until it was banned then did not resume using it until after WWII yet was able to maintain high (for the time) octane ratings.
Also note that market penetration of TEL compared to other alternatives was not that great until after WWII when GM (coincidence?) kicked off the high horsepwoer race with the Oldsmoblie Rocket 88..

Frontiers | A Historical Analysis of the Co-evolution of Gasoline Octane Number and Spark-Ignition Engines

In this work, the authors reviewed engine, vehicle, and fuel data since 1925 to examine the historical and recent coupling of compression ratio and fuel anti...

www.frontiersin.org

I think the rise of TEL had more to do with the marketing muscle of GM, Standard Oil and Duponat than anything else.

View: https://youtu.be/gXjLuY8ydws

Click to expand...

An additional history of TEL