1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Dave roberts (IP Logged)
Date: May 19, 2005 09:51PM
<HTML>We have a 740 Stanley and have been told that we should use Hexane instead of petrol as the latter cloggs up the jets. Is it possible to use petrol instead, as Hexane is extremely pricey?
Does anyone know of side effects associated with using petrol?
Dave</HTML>
Does anyone know of side effects associated with using petrol?
Dave</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: May 20, 2005 01:38AM
<HTML>The Hexane would be for the pilot light and not the main fire. Camp stove fuel works well here in the States. Coleman is the brand name I use in my pilot.
These fuels (Hexane, Coleman camp stove) are apt to have fewer additives that will gum up the jets in the relatively low pressure pilot.
For the main fire, many use a mixture of diesel and gas, about 50% mix of each or a little stronger on the gas. Put the gas in first.
At issue in both the pilot light and main fire is to not over heat the fuel so that it forms carbon that blocks the jets. In the main fire, the length of the fuel vaporizer is key. Some are able to burn a stronger (more or all diesel) mixture. Trial and error is about the only way to judge without doing a lot of Temp. measuring.
In my 1910, I burn Coleman fuel in pilot; all no-lead gas in the main. The fuel vaporizer is sized (shorter) for this.
Hope this helps!</HTML>
These fuels (Hexane, Coleman camp stove) are apt to have fewer additives that will gum up the jets in the relatively low pressure pilot.
For the main fire, many use a mixture of diesel and gas, about 50% mix of each or a little stronger on the gas. Put the gas in first.
At issue in both the pilot light and main fire is to not over heat the fuel so that it forms carbon that blocks the jets. In the main fire, the length of the fuel vaporizer is key. Some are able to burn a stronger (more or all diesel) mixture. Trial and error is about the only way to judge without doing a lot of Temp. measuring.
In my 1910, I burn Coleman fuel in pilot; all no-lead gas in the main. The fuel vaporizer is sized (shorter) for this.
Hope this helps!</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: May 20, 2005 10:23PM
<HTML>Hexane boils at 69 degrees C whereas petrol has some fractions in that need as much as 225 C. The point of this is that many pilots struggle to get the fuel to the jet at a high enough temperature to keep petrol vaporised and will only work properly with hexane. Coleman fuel is a more refined version of petrol - possibly has less of the high boiling point fractions in it - if it is the pilot you are thinking of then probably hexane is easiest but you will just have to try it in your car. If it is not vaporising properly the flame will be very yellow and smokey and you may hear the liquid fuel hissing in a wet sounding way.
Can only add to Howard's comment re main burner fuel by saying that the length of the vaporiser and probably how high or low it is mounted is important - mine is six feet long and about 1 - 1.5 inches above the burner plate. That works perfectly with 50/50 unleaded and diesel. If I go up to 60 diesel I have unburnt fuel going through into the exhaust flue and make lots of bangs.
Be very careful when firing up from cold not to force the burner before the stream of fuel through the jets has gone to clear gas - if you do you will get a pool of liquid, condensed diesel in the bottom of the burner which can lead to very exciting moments when it eventually catches fire! This is also a problem if you burn 28sec heating oil as some do.
Mike</HTML>
Can only add to Howard's comment re main burner fuel by saying that the length of the vaporiser and probably how high or low it is mounted is important - mine is six feet long and about 1 - 1.5 inches above the burner plate. That works perfectly with 50/50 unleaded and diesel. If I go up to 60 diesel I have unburnt fuel going through into the exhaust flue and make lots of bangs.
Be very careful when firing up from cold not to force the burner before the stream of fuel through the jets has gone to clear gas - if you do you will get a pool of liquid, condensed diesel in the bottom of the burner which can lead to very exciting moments when it eventually catches fire! This is also a problem if you burn 28sec heating oil as some do.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Bill Gatlin (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2005 03:34PM
<HTML>Hello Howard,
I was under the impression that for safty reasons mixing gasoline and diesel was a no no, and could lead to a tank explosion.
The reasons given for this is vapor pressure. Gasoline has a high vapor pressure and soon fills the tank with fumes, pushing all the air out of the tank and thus eliminating an explosive mix.
Diesel fuel has such a low vapor pressure that not enough evaporates to make a air fuel mix that is ignitable or explosive.
Mixing the two together can make a mix with a vapor pressure that has both vapor and air in the tank which can be explosive. Tank temperature would also figure in as the vapor pressure varies with temperature.
Does anyone have more data on this subject? I have heard of others mixing fuels for steamers and don't want anyone hurt.
My best to everyone --------Bill G.</HTML>
I was under the impression that for safty reasons mixing gasoline and diesel was a no no, and could lead to a tank explosion.
The reasons given for this is vapor pressure. Gasoline has a high vapor pressure and soon fills the tank with fumes, pushing all the air out of the tank and thus eliminating an explosive mix.
Diesel fuel has such a low vapor pressure that not enough evaporates to make a air fuel mix that is ignitable or explosive.
Mixing the two together can make a mix with a vapor pressure that has both vapor and air in the tank which can be explosive. Tank temperature would also figure in as the vapor pressure varies with temperature.
Does anyone have more data on this subject? I have heard of others mixing fuels for steamers and don't want anyone hurt.
My best to everyone --------Bill G.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Arnold walker (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2005 09:33PM
<HTML>In cold climates,many of diesel engine guys are mixing in gasoline(low percentages of course.)
The vapor pressure is the very reason for mixing.....gasoline vaporizes faster than diesel.As the guys even stated......as long as it doesn't coke
in the tube, the pressure would actually help save some pumping at the tank.</HTML>
The vapor pressure is the very reason for mixing.....gasoline vaporizes faster than diesel.As the guys even stated......as long as it doesn't coke
in the tube, the pressure would actually help save some pumping at the tank.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: May 22, 2005 11:34PM
<HTML>Hi Arnold,,I tried this some years ago,,,Now the hi octane does not want to ignite,even tho it has vapor,,,AND the evaporating gasoline actually absorbs heat and tends to cool the diesel below ign temp,,It gives a verry rough start to say the least,,,K-1[ kerosene ]here in the states works better,,,Re Stanley,,the diesel CAN lie in wait in the bottom of the burner pan,,,sometimes OK sometimes not,,,,,,When the burner gets hot it will run rich for a while,,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: May 23, 2005 08:58PM
<HTML>Bill,
I've forgotten the little bit of physics I once knew but I suspect that the vapour above a mixture of gasolene and diesel will be the same composition as the vapour above straight gasolene just because the diesel does not evaporate as much.
Many Stanleys are running on the mix - one good reason being that the kerosene routinely available is very unreliable - after all any old rubbish will burn in a kerosene cooker or central heating boiler. Gasolene and diesel have to be pretty much up to spec to work in i/c engines.
No one has exploded yet.
Mike</HTML>
I've forgotten the little bit of physics I once knew but I suspect that the vapour above a mixture of gasolene and diesel will be the same composition as the vapour above straight gasolene just because the diesel does not evaporate as much.
Many Stanleys are running on the mix - one good reason being that the kerosene routinely available is very unreliable - after all any old rubbish will burn in a kerosene cooker or central heating boiler. Gasolene and diesel have to be pretty much up to spec to work in i/c engines.
No one has exploded yet.
Mike</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Kobus van Jaarsveld (IP Logged)
Date: May 23, 2005 09:07PM
<HTML>Dave,
I have experimented with various things and find hexane for the pilot and 50/50 unleaded and diesel for the main burner the best and easiest combination in the 735A. Unleaded petrol will just not keep burning in the pilot. Jet A1 works well in the main burner, but creates difficult logistics in fuel supply.
Cheers, Kobus</HTML>
I have experimented with various things and find hexane for the pilot and 50/50 unleaded and diesel for the main burner the best and easiest combination in the 735A. Unleaded petrol will just not keep burning in the pilot. Jet A1 works well in the main burner, but creates difficult logistics in fuel supply.
Cheers, Kobus</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Jon Baker (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2005 10:05AM
<HTML>Has anyone tried to use LPG (or depending where you are, propane, CNG or whatever it's called) to power a Stanley?
If this is possible, and it could be used as the sole source of fuel without too much difficulty, the pressure vessel could replace the kerosene tank with a little judicious cosmetic body work so that it didn't look too obvious.
I don't know about the situation elsewhere, but here in Australia LPG is available virtually everywhere. A single fuel tank that is pressurised by the contents would seem to solve a lot of potential safety issues (such as sitting on top of a pressurised container of petrol) that is just the sort of thing that seems to excite insurance companies nowadays.
Cheers,
Jon. Baker</HTML>
If this is possible, and it could be used as the sole source of fuel without too much difficulty, the pressure vessel could replace the kerosene tank with a little judicious cosmetic body work so that it didn't look too obvious.
I don't know about the situation elsewhere, but here in Australia LPG is available virtually everywhere. A single fuel tank that is pressurised by the contents would seem to solve a lot of potential safety issues (such as sitting on top of a pressurised container of petrol) that is just the sort of thing that seems to excite insurance companies nowadays.
Cheers,
Jon. Baker</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2005 11:10AM
<HTML>Hi ,,,There have been 2 incidents of a propane tank getting overhated in the sun and venting at the safty,,,the fumes then ignited from the pilot or main ,,, The tank should have at least a canvas cover,,Dave will know more on this if he's not too busy to read this,,I suspect he's busy under the old 735,, Stanley has only 2 1qt tanks under pressure,the new system they have used since 1900,, Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2005 02:51PM
<HTML>Ben,
Indeed propane is like homemade nitro.
Wayne Nutting and his wife were killed when his pilot propane tank safety valve vented into the tonneau of his Stanley. The woman in the back seat lit a cigarette. The White that blew in one of the past London to Brighton runs was so badly plumbed that it should have been banned right from the start. Rubber hose!!
I found out that Coleman fuel was drastically changed some years ago. I called to see why my otherwise perfect pilot light in my White was now drooling some sticky mess all around the nozzle. The kind engineer at Coleman told me that they had to remove some of the components, thanks to the environmentalists whining about their camp fuel.
Hexane was simply perfect and if you buy industrial grade and not chemical grade in drum lots, it is not all that expensive.
Actually so what, we don't run our cars that much to take notice of the cost of fuel.
As I wrote in a long ago article for the SACA bulletin, a very informed man from Standard Oil told me to never let the vapor get over 450°F, just never.
Also that the heavier the molecular weight of the fuel, Diesel, the easier it is to crack and make carbon. So I put a thermocouple in the nozzle holder and kept cutting back on the length of the vaporizer until it just hit that temperature when running down the road. It does howl when standing for a time, and then starting out; but that method gave me a Stanley vaporrizer that had to be cleaned out only once a year, and that was with almost daily driving then.
Plus, that when these cars were new, the gasoline and kerosene they used were distilled fuels. Around 1912 the oil industry started to catalytically crack crude oil, and the chemical bonding was totally different than the distilled fuel. He said that some custom refineries still make distilled white gasoline, and that would be perfect.</HTML>
Indeed propane is like homemade nitro.
Wayne Nutting and his wife were killed when his pilot propane tank safety valve vented into the tonneau of his Stanley. The woman in the back seat lit a cigarette. The White that blew in one of the past London to Brighton runs was so badly plumbed that it should have been banned right from the start. Rubber hose!!
I found out that Coleman fuel was drastically changed some years ago. I called to see why my otherwise perfect pilot light in my White was now drooling some sticky mess all around the nozzle. The kind engineer at Coleman told me that they had to remove some of the components, thanks to the environmentalists whining about their camp fuel.
Hexane was simply perfect and if you buy industrial grade and not chemical grade in drum lots, it is not all that expensive.
Actually so what, we don't run our cars that much to take notice of the cost of fuel.
As I wrote in a long ago article for the SACA bulletin, a very informed man from Standard Oil told me to never let the vapor get over 450°F, just never.
Also that the heavier the molecular weight of the fuel, Diesel, the easier it is to crack and make carbon. So I put a thermocouple in the nozzle holder and kept cutting back on the length of the vaporizer until it just hit that temperature when running down the road. It does howl when standing for a time, and then starting out; but that method gave me a Stanley vaporrizer that had to be cleaned out only once a year, and that was with almost daily driving then.
Plus, that when these cars were new, the gasoline and kerosene they used were distilled fuels. Around 1912 the oil industry started to catalytically crack crude oil, and the chemical bonding was totally different than the distilled fuel. He said that some custom refineries still make distilled white gasoline, and that would be perfect.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Kobus van Jaarsveld (IP Logged)
Date: May 24, 2005 04:47PM
<HTML>I beleive that LPG can be used successfully if properly done. Personally I prefer to keep old cars operating in the manner their designers/manufacturers had intended. Kobus</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Jim Merrick (IP Logged)
Date: May 25, 2005 02:23PM
<HTML>Just as an aside, I might add that the unreliability of kerosene as fuel goes back quite some time - and that some Stanley dealers were noticing problems with reformulated kerosene as early as the mid-1920s. I know of a letter from the San Francisco Stanley dealer, Frank B. Duveneck, to one of his customers in August 1926, where he admits he is puzzled over the changes in the kerosene available and why they would lead to so many problems with carbonization. Duveneck wrote: "I have had many cases of eastern owners who were used to burning parrafin base kerosene had no end of trouble when they struck the asphalt base kerosene."
I can only imagine what it was like for a steam car enthusiast in the mid-to-late-1920s. Stanley is on the verge of bankrupcy, and none of the dealers can promise a delivery date for a new car - if at all. Lots of used steamers around, and still lots of replacement parts available - and still lots of knowledgeable steam mechanics around. But you're really stuck with second-hand cars, and then on top of that, the fuel is suddenly unreliable. Not a very encouraging situation. (At least, for them - from a modern collector's perspective, it would be a dream to be in the 1920s with a couple of hundred bucks in your pocket, kerosene or no kerosene.)</HTML>
I can only imagine what it was like for a steam car enthusiast in the mid-to-late-1920s. Stanley is on the verge of bankrupcy, and none of the dealers can promise a delivery date for a new car - if at all. Lots of used steamers around, and still lots of replacement parts available - and still lots of knowledgeable steam mechanics around. But you're really stuck with second-hand cars, and then on top of that, the fuel is suddenly unreliable. Not a very encouraging situation. (At least, for them - from a modern collector's perspective, it would be a dream to be in the 1920s with a couple of hundred bucks in your pocket, kerosene or no kerosene.)</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel- fuel pressure
Posted by: martin (IP Logged)
Date: May 27, 2005 02:58PM
<HTML>Dear Gentleman,
On the first attempt to fire up our 736 stanley we had a weak main burner. I
had the silly idea to assist the main burner by opening the firing-up valve. Fortunately, in the last moment I realised that there is no stop valve between the firing-up valve and the pilot-tank and the much higher fuel pressure of the main burner (140 psi versus 30 psi) may easily have destroyed the pilot tank !
Are the fuel tanks usually tested twice the working pressure - the same way the boiler is tested ?
Would it be save to run higher fuel pressures say 160-180 psi for the main burner or 50 psi for the pilot to get a stronger and more stable fire and more steam ? (I remember the 1907 Stanley "Rocket" ran with 180 psi fuel )
Best regards, Martin</HTML>
On the first attempt to fire up our 736 stanley we had a weak main burner. I
had the silly idea to assist the main burner by opening the firing-up valve. Fortunately, in the last moment I realised that there is no stop valve between the firing-up valve and the pilot-tank and the much higher fuel pressure of the main burner (140 psi versus 30 psi) may easily have destroyed the pilot tank !
Are the fuel tanks usually tested twice the working pressure - the same way the boiler is tested ?
Would it be save to run higher fuel pressures say 160-180 psi for the main burner or 50 psi for the pilot to get a stronger and more stable fire and more steam ? (I remember the 1907 Stanley "Rocket" ran with 180 psi fuel )
Best regards, Martin</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel- fuel pressure
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: May 27, 2005 03:35PM
<HTML>Has the burner been down,,,is the top clean, not coverd w/ rust/dust etc,,,is the vaporizer clear/not partually plugged,,,are the holes in the grate clear,they will collect rust which impeeds flow, don't drill em' oversize ,,What steam pressure are you running?? Now , also you put a quantity of kerosene into the pilot tank and that will need to be purged,,or the pilot will be real nasty,,,,Now remember DONT run hooked up when cold,,,The engine will have compresson [w/ the Stevenson motion] and can act as a toggle joint press,and take a head out [if youre luckey],,, Oh,,yeh,,,not advisable to hold on a hill w/the throttle,,,if it rolls back,it MAY yank the pedal to the floor,,crush your toe and then be in full gear ,, REVERSE,,,haha Cheers Ben ,,,oh yes,,we got 10'' of rain in the last week,, ocean temp 49 at Portland Me ,,,cb</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel- fuel pressure
Posted by: Howard Randall (IP Logged)
Date: May 27, 2005 04:56PM
<HTML>There are a lot of duplex fuel guages around with a pegged pilot needle. I know, I have one!!!</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel- fuel pressure
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: May 27, 2005 06:13PM
<HTML>Can anyone enlighten us ,,Did Stanley put a check in there that has now been forgott'n,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel- fuel pressure
Posted by: SSsssteamer (IP Logged)
Date: May 27, 2005 08:15PM
<HTML>Ben, Every Stanley that I have ever worked on has a check valve between the firing up fuel line and the main fuel line. It could be that through the years, someone has left out one. In the Pacific NW the water temperature is 42 degrees. It doesn't vary more than three degrees between summer and winter, and it gives us a milder climate. Great for steaming year round. Record 89 degrees air temperature yesterday.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Bill Gatlin (IP Logged)
Date: May 28, 2005 07:26AM
<HTML>Hello Jim,
I had a 3/4 ton van that ran on propane. I found that out the first time I went to fill it up. I liked the truck because the oil was so clean and it was in really good shape. It never occured to me to look for a gas tank. But the used car salesman being the reputable guy that he was said a deal was a deal, etc.
Even though the truck ran well enough miliage was not the equivalent of gasoline dollar for dollar and the price of propane doubled within six months after I bought the thing.
The real hassle was that finding suppliers to refill the tanks was sparce and any trip outside or around the metro area (Minneapolis) had to be planned around the next refill. Also a lot of refill places might have the propane but no one on duty who new how to do it.
I felt safe enough driving it but always a little uneasy about the long rubber hoses. I finally wrecked it and even though it was hard to walk I found myself crawling around to the back end of the thing to shut off the tank valves, just in case.
In it's defense though the whole time I had it, it only caught fire once. We just threw a few shovels of snow on top of the engine to put it out.
Bottled gas can probably be made to be safer, but for now most of the technology for cars is of the retrofit variety, and I think could use improvement.
Wishing everyone well ---------- Bill G.</HTML>
I had a 3/4 ton van that ran on propane. I found that out the first time I went to fill it up. I liked the truck because the oil was so clean and it was in really good shape. It never occured to me to look for a gas tank. But the used car salesman being the reputable guy that he was said a deal was a deal, etc.
Even though the truck ran well enough miliage was not the equivalent of gasoline dollar for dollar and the price of propane doubled within six months after I bought the thing.
The real hassle was that finding suppliers to refill the tanks was sparce and any trip outside or around the metro area (Minneapolis) had to be planned around the next refill. Also a lot of refill places might have the propane but no one on duty who new how to do it.
I felt safe enough driving it but always a little uneasy about the long rubber hoses. I finally wrecked it and even though it was hard to walk I found myself crawling around to the back end of the thing to shut off the tank valves, just in case.
In it's defense though the whole time I had it, it only caught fire once. We just threw a few shovels of snow on top of the engine to put it out.
Bottled gas can probably be made to be safer, but for now most of the technology for cars is of the retrofit variety, and I think could use improvement.
Wishing everyone well ---------- Bill G.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: May 28, 2005 12:35PM
<HTML>Bill,,,Thanks for the post,,,We all appreciate real knowledge from those who have '' been there done that,,'' The stuff the salesman and newspaper dont dare mention because there is a money [advertizing deal] in the background,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2005 02:06PM
<HTML>Bill,
Allow me to add to your post.
I have a good friend with a Dodge Maxi Van. It had a natural gas system in it with tanks in every available space, plus the usual gasoline system.
The local Air Quality Management idiots, not to forget the really stupid ones, the Calif. Air Resources Board, were whining that everone should use compressed natural gas. The fuel du jour of the moment.
Well, there was one source in operation in the entire Bay Area, across the Bay in Hayward. The rest, when we looked for them, were twisted pipes poking out of the ground, they had gone out of business.
Fill up in Hayward and half the fuel was gone, just crossing back to San Francisco.
Not what one can call even reasonably practical. The gas system was ripped out and now it is gasoline only. Same stupidity that goes on now with hydrogen. Theoretically nice; but simply not usable or cost effective.
JC</HTML>
Allow me to add to your post.
I have a good friend with a Dodge Maxi Van. It had a natural gas system in it with tanks in every available space, plus the usual gasoline system.
The local Air Quality Management idiots, not to forget the really stupid ones, the Calif. Air Resources Board, were whining that everone should use compressed natural gas. The fuel du jour of the moment.
Well, there was one source in operation in the entire Bay Area, across the Bay in Hayward. The rest, when we looked for them, were twisted pipes poking out of the ground, they had gone out of business.
Fill up in Hayward and half the fuel was gone, just crossing back to San Francisco.
Not what one can call even reasonably practical. The gas system was ripped out and now it is gasoline only. Same stupidity that goes on now with hydrogen. Theoretically nice; but simply not usable or cost effective.
JC</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Bill Gatlin (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2005 05:55PM
<HTML>Hi Jim,
While Googling around for something on the Enterprise engine, didn't find much other than some old navy records, I ran across a site about some development on a combined mixture diesel engine.
[www.iwemalpg.com]
It appears that these people have developed something real, and their use of propane in the system is modest enough to get a good fuel range. It might work very well on city buses that return to the same place at the end of the day.
If any alternate gasious fuel would work well propane does have the best liklyhood. It's liquid/vapor pressure is around 2-3 hundred pounds while natural gas or hydrogen is normally a compressed gas stored at around 4000 lbs.
The distribution troubles for propane for vehicle use are a problem that could be overcome using presently available facilitys, I believe, as an infrastructure of sorts is somewhat in place now. Since this new diesel/propane mix engine can run without propane when the tank runs dry, the present sparce refill station conditions wouldn't effect it too much.
These problems of propane are, I think, a couple of orders of magnitude less than setting up natural gas distribution with even more troubles for hydrogen.
I used to live in Alameda and the Hayward area. Two nice little towns.
My best -------------- Bill G.</HTML>
While Googling around for something on the Enterprise engine, didn't find much other than some old navy records, I ran across a site about some development on a combined mixture diesel engine.
[www.iwemalpg.com]
It appears that these people have developed something real, and their use of propane in the system is modest enough to get a good fuel range. It might work very well on city buses that return to the same place at the end of the day.
If any alternate gasious fuel would work well propane does have the best liklyhood. It's liquid/vapor pressure is around 2-3 hundred pounds while natural gas or hydrogen is normally a compressed gas stored at around 4000 lbs.
The distribution troubles for propane for vehicle use are a problem that could be overcome using presently available facilitys, I believe, as an infrastructure of sorts is somewhat in place now. Since this new diesel/propane mix engine can run without propane when the tank runs dry, the present sparce refill station conditions wouldn't effect it too much.
These problems of propane are, I think, a couple of orders of magnitude less than setting up natural gas distribution with even more troubles for hydrogen.
I used to live in Alameda and the Hayward area. Two nice little towns.
My best -------------- Bill G.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: Mike Clark (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2005 07:54PM
<HTML>Wouldn't run a Stanley on propane for reasons of safety etc but in the UK and much of Europe LPG is a very common fuel and available at gas stations almost everywhere. Cars can be bought new or retrofitted including all the necessary safety systems. Drivers fill up at self service gas stations in the normal way. LPG cars also have a normal petrol tank so have an emergency reserve fuel. Our government gives a concession on tax for the LPG which is sold at about US 2.85 per US gallon ( ordinary petrol is about 6.50 ). LPG mileage is about 15% worse than petrol but the engine lasts well provides it has hardened valve seats. Exhausts don't rust much either. Performance is a bit weaker.
Mike</HTML>
Mike</HTML>
Re: Stanley Fuel
Posted by: ron parola (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2005 10:41PM
<HTML>Have been running a petrol/diesel mix for the last 10 years with no problems. About 75% diesel is has far as we can go with out vapouriser lenght, it gets too smokey on restarts after that. It will run on straight petrol just fine, I just am worried about pumping straight VERY inflamable fuel at 150 psi through a leaky fuel pump in a hot well. We try for about 60/40 diesel, but I don't really measure too carefully at the gas station. We do use straight unleaded regular for the pilot fuel. I didn't see any difference between that and Coleman as far as heat and carbon build up . Cheers Ron P</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.