GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 913
- Mar 16, 2014
I suspect the term came from here:
It would not surprise me if all the road, barge, or rail tankers were repainted a neutral grey to eliminate individual company markings.
WWII aviation gasoline
- Thread starter Grittis
- Start date
I suspect the term came from here:
It would not surprise me if all the road, barge, or rail tankers were repainted a neutral grey to eliminate individual company markings.
Daggerr
Airman 1st Class
I commented on your original statement:
Then you changed that into : "one may not have a fuel that is over 100% iso-octane molecularly" which means nothing as that applies to any mixture of any components because in any mixture a single component can never be more than 100 %.
Note also that real gasoline is not simply a mixture of iso-octane and n-heptane. In fact n-heptane is normally not be present at all in gasoline, and it is very well possible to make gasoline without any iso-octane (224TMP) in it.
I showed with a simple calculation example how one can determine the octane number for any component X even when that MON is 100+, but you simply ignore that. BTW: in the same way one can calculate that for some components the MON is below zero.
And once again: that has nothing to do with PN.
No. Increasing compression ratio in a piston engine automatically means increasing temperature ratio which causes "... drastic overheating, which melted the fragile piston", to finish Calum's sentence which you started.
It's the temperature increase that matters, not the pressure increase. If temperature increases without pressure increase then there will also be risk of detonation if the gasoline MON is too low.
No, it is as I already mentioned:
A high temperature alone, without a high pressure, will cause auto-ignition.
A high pressure alone, without a high temperature, will not cause auto-ignition.
If in a piston engine the compression would be isothermal (no temperature rise due to extensive cooling) then there would be no risk of detonation.
Note also what don4331 wrote.
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
FWIW don't know how much this applies to answering the OP question, but re
Q: what was the 'British grey pool'?
from the history of the 'Cornwall Austin Seven Club':
"When WWII was declared the Government introduced petrol supply control under the Pooled Petrol Regulations to be implemented by the Petroleum (Pool) Board. The Board came into being on the 3 September 1939 and became an executive body working under Government direction. Each company's fuel assets, working capital and manpower in the UK was pooled, and each supplier received remuneration, and depreciation, on the assets contributed at agreed rates; whilst the prices, quantity and quality of petroleum products came under Government control. The competitive marketing between the suppliers was stopped and products were supplied by each company in proportion to their pre-war deliveries. All fuels, except lubricants, were sold under a Pool description, the selling price of each Pool product was subject to Government control. Hence, we have the term 'Pool Petrol' which had an approx 74 octane rating."
Note the Austin Seven was a model of car built in the UK from 1923 to 1939. It is considered to be one of the first 'economy' cars built in any numbers in the UK. Apparently, it was popular among motoring clubs due to its simplicity and fuel economy.
I have also been finding mention of the road 'tankers' being painted grey without individual company markings, instead of their normal commercial colours. Various historical models of WWII tanker trucks can be found in the war-time grey livery.
According to one of the BP histories, their tanker trucks in the 1930s were painted green and red, but were overpainted grey during WWII. The petrol rationing and grey paint schemes lasted until sometime in 1950.
From a model railroad history site re the war-time pool petrol tank cars ". . . they were a sort of battleship grey all over with the word Pool in white capital letters at either end of the tank above a red stripe on the centre line."
Q: what was the 'British grey pool'?
from the history of the 'Cornwall Austin Seven Club':
"When WWII was declared the Government introduced petrol supply control under the Pooled Petrol Regulations to be implemented by the Petroleum (Pool) Board. The Board came into being on the 3 September 1939 and became an executive body working under Government direction. Each company's fuel assets, working capital and manpower in the UK was pooled, and each supplier received remuneration, and depreciation, on the assets contributed at agreed rates; whilst the prices, quantity and quality of petroleum products came under Government control. The competitive marketing between the suppliers was stopped and products were supplied by each company in proportion to their pre-war deliveries. All fuels, except lubricants, were sold under a Pool description, the selling price of each Pool product was subject to Government control. Hence, we have the term 'Pool Petrol' which had an approx 74 octane rating."
Note the Austin Seven was a model of car built in the UK from 1923 to 1939. It is considered to be one of the first 'economy' cars built in any numbers in the UK. Apparently, it was popular among motoring clubs due to its simplicity and fuel economy.
I have also been finding mention of the road 'tankers' being painted grey without individual company markings, instead of their normal commercial colours. Various historical models of WWII tanker trucks can be found in the war-time grey livery.
According to one of the BP histories, their tanker trucks in the 1930s were painted green and red, but were overpainted grey during WWII. The petrol rationing and grey paint schemes lasted until sometime in 1950.
From a model railroad history site re the war-time pool petrol tank cars ". . . they were a sort of battleship grey all over with the word Pool in white capital letters at either end of the tank above a red stripe on the centre line."
Last edited:
I thought pool petrol was 68 octane? Or is the difference due to the average octane in the pool vs the minimum engines were designed for? Or different measurement protocol? Or do I remember incorrectly?
Any particular reason why grey was chosen? Was grey paint cheaper at the time, or? Considering there was a war going on, wouldn't it have made sense to paint them green or such to make them harder to spot from the air?
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
I can not say what the war-time civilian pool petrol ON was. Of note, however, were the many pre-war grades/types of fuel in use in the UK - including a couple types of what we call gasohol today. Before the war the 3 'standard' commercial grades were 68, 75 No. 1, and 80.
The grey colour was selected to eliminate any vestiges of appearance of competition from the fuel parent companies for attracting sales. i think it can be described as psychological in nature, and was to show that everyone was on the same page as far as the war effort goes.
The grey colour was selected to eliminate any vestiges of appearance of competition from the fuel parent companies for attracting sales. i think it can be described as psychological in nature, and was to show that everyone was on the same page as far as the war effort goes.
Last edited:
So then we both agree with this statement of mine. Why are we talking past each other? I spent 2 posts making this point exactly. Why did I make this point: because there is still some confusion out there (not in this thread) with thinking that a 130 octane fuel is 130% iso-octane. It is not, it simply means a fuel that performs 30% better against knocking than pure iso-octane under certian conditions and measured by certain methods.
And I did not disagree with that statement. Nor did I ignore it. I am in agreement with you here. In fact I wrote this:
BTW, glad you found the section! We could also try to take the full sentence in its full context. The word pressure is in the sentence. Pressure assists knocking. Lets not misinterpret Calumn's work here or drop words. That is why in my post #18 I wrote he put an emphasis on both. That is also why in my post # 14 I said I will use both temperature and pressure (should you care to read what I posted).
Let this be the 2nd or 3rd time I explicitly agree with you that temperature is a factor in knocking (again, should you care to read what I posted).
Should you be so caught up with pressure, I would suggest contacting Calumn to mull over his page 25. There is a reason the DVL test method also measures pressure, and that reason is because it has an affect on the fuel's performance.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A lot of times fuel varied. It was too much trouble to blend exactly to 68, or 75 or 80 octane. If they had a batch of fuel that tested to 70 octane do they try to cut it with something to knock it back to 68 or do they try to soup it up to hit 75 or do they just label it as 68 and pour it into the tanks for shipment? And move on to the next batch of 10s of thousands of gallons.
For aviation fuel the specs often said what the upper limits of some things, like lead, could be. Like 4.6cc per US gallon was an upper limit. If refinery X hit the 100/130 performance limits with a batch of fuel that only needed 4.1CCs fine. mix up the batch, retest and ship it and see what the next batch needs.
You don't get exactly the same crude oil even out of adjacent wells in some oil fields. Very close but not exact, now pump a number of wells into one holding tank, repump into tank cars or pipelines, then put it into ships and so one before you even get to the refinery.
As far as the octane 'scale' goes. It stops at 100. there is no 102 or 108 or other number this is despite what gasoline company X says on their pumps/advertising. You can say 100+ or 100 plus or 100>. You compare test fuel to 100 octane reference fuel. if the test fuel will tolerate higher compression in the test engine than the 100 octane reference fuel you can say the fuel being tested is greater than 100 octane. You can not say how much better unless you have a known reference fuel to test against, in the same engine on the same day (or in standard air).
Turned out that the octane scale is not liner. The difference between 99 and 100 is a lot different than the difference between 89 and 90 and both are different than the difference between 79 and 80.
Anybody who wants to argue this can argue with Sam Heron, the inventor/developer of the PN scale and since he died a long time ago........................................
Next problem is trying to figure out how to measure above 100 octane. Some people tried using 100 octane plus 1.0 cc lead and then 2 ccs lead and higher. Trouble is that you get different results from each additional CC of lead (diminishing returns) and you get different results from the same amount of lead in different types/batches of fuel. Cat cracked gas reacts much differently to lead than straight run gas. Two different slopes that actually cross over.
Same with some of the stuff used to boost the knock ratings. It may or may not act in liner fashion. It also may react differently with different base stocks. There can be up to 400 different compounds in gasoline, the vast majority it trace amounts.
But since the Allies allowed up to 20% aromatics in different amounts, in fact the British wanted at least 20% in 1939-40 things get complicated real quick. They knew what they wanted (rich mixture response) but they didn't know how to measure it/specify it. Just specifying equal to reference fuel 100 octane (lab grade) plus 4 CCs of lead wasn't going to actually work.
They had to come up with test procedures for rich mixture response and then get a number of standardized engines (made by Waukesha? ) sent to the test labs in both the refineries, and purchasing agencies and research labs and engine companies so everybody was testing the same thing/s. Not just something close.
For aviation fuel the specs often said what the upper limits of some things, like lead, could be. Like 4.6cc per US gallon was an upper limit. If refinery X hit the 100/130 performance limits with a batch of fuel that only needed 4.1CCs fine. mix up the batch, retest and ship it and see what the next batch needs.
You don't get exactly the same crude oil even out of adjacent wells in some oil fields. Very close but not exact, now pump a number of wells into one holding tank, repump into tank cars or pipelines, then put it into ships and so one before you even get to the refinery.
As far as the octane 'scale' goes. It stops at 100. there is no 102 or 108 or other number this is despite what gasoline company X says on their pumps/advertising. You can say 100+ or 100 plus or 100>. You compare test fuel to 100 octane reference fuel. if the test fuel will tolerate higher compression in the test engine than the 100 octane reference fuel you can say the fuel being tested is greater than 100 octane. You can not say how much better unless you have a known reference fuel to test against, in the same engine on the same day (or in standard air).
Turned out that the octane scale is not liner. The difference between 99 and 100 is a lot different than the difference between 89 and 90 and both are different than the difference between 79 and 80.
Anybody who wants to argue this can argue with Sam Heron, the inventor/developer of the PN scale and since he died a long time ago........................................
Next problem is trying to figure out how to measure above 100 octane. Some people tried using 100 octane plus 1.0 cc lead and then 2 ccs lead and higher. Trouble is that you get different results from each additional CC of lead (diminishing returns) and you get different results from the same amount of lead in different types/batches of fuel. Cat cracked gas reacts much differently to lead than straight run gas. Two different slopes that actually cross over.
Same with some of the stuff used to boost the knock ratings. It may or may not act in liner fashion. It also may react differently with different base stocks. There can be up to 400 different compounds in gasoline, the vast majority it trace amounts.
But since the Allies allowed up to 20% aromatics in different amounts, in fact the British wanted at least 20% in 1939-40 things get complicated real quick. They knew what they wanted (rich mixture response) but they didn't know how to measure it/specify it. Just specifying equal to reference fuel 100 octane (lab grade) plus 4 CCs of lead wasn't going to actually work.
They had to come up with test procedures for rich mixture response and then get a number of standardized engines (made by Waukesha? ) sent to the test labs in both the refineries, and purchasing agencies and research labs and engine companies so everybody was testing the same thing/s. Not just something close.
Last edited:
Daggerr
Airman 1st Class
Your talking about 100 % is irrelevant. Even a child knows that any component in any mixture cannot be more than 100 %.
And I doubt that anybody in the whole world believes that 130 octane fuel is 130% iso-octane.
Only that it is measured. That part could have been left out of this sentence as it is not relevant. The subsequently mentioned overheating is caused by temperature.
In every test method anything that can be measured will be measured. It would be foolish not to do so.
Temperature is not just a factor, it is the major factor.
I am definitely not caught up with pressure, it seems you are.
The only reason I commented on your posts is because you mentioned that you are working on a publication.
It seems to me you best put that on hold and spend time on further study of the subject.
Ok
Daggerr , we will have to let this one be.
Persistently you fail to read my posts #14, 18, 26 to see that I agree that temperature is a factor as well as pressure, and needed assistance to find the section of interest on page 25 of Calumn's book. It might be best if you read people's comments before replying to them, especially if these have been pointed out multiple times.
I even state I am including temperature in my WIP text (but if one fails to read the post then it is little wonder they cannot recall this).
Thanks for taking to time to write.
Daggerr , we will have to let this one be.Persistently you fail to read my posts #14, 18, 26 to see that I agree that temperature is a factor as well as pressure, and needed assistance to find the section of interest on page 25 of Calumn's book. It might be best if you read people's comments before replying to them, especially if these have been pointed out multiple times.
I even state I am including temperature in my WIP text (but if one fails to read the post then it is little wonder they cannot recall this).
Thanks for taking to time to write.
Last edited:
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 913
- Mar 16, 2014
In ANY chemical reaction - and combustion of fuel certainly is such - a difference in pressure will certainly change the action and course of the reaction, no matter if the temperature, volume, and composition of the elements involved in the reaction are otherwise identical.
Every chemistry and physics professor I've met would frown heavily on trying to ignore the role of pressure in physical processes.
Every chemistry and physics professor I've met would frown heavily on trying to ignore the role of pressure in physical processes.
I don't think he's ever played with calcium carbide (acetylene) bombs. 30 psi, regardless of the temperature...Ok
Persistently you fail to read my posts #14, 18, 26 to see that I agree that temperature is a factor as well as pressure, and needed assistance to find the section of interest on page 25 of Calumn's book. It might be best if you read people's comments before replying to them, especially if these have been pointed out multiple times.
I even state I am including temperature in my WIP text (but if one fails to read the post then it is little wonder they cannot recall this).
Thanks for taking to time to write.
