Since jet fuel is similar to kerosene, it should be possible to run a car on a mix of the two, To run a car on pure jet fuel would probably not work. But a diesel car may run on it quite well, but possibly not so well in colder weather.
Interesting. I really hope this turns out to be at least half as good as they claim. The skeptic in me is worried by the numbers. A 50% reduction in emissions is huge. It's also hard to believe. I wonder if this Jet Biofuel has all the additives required for petroleum-based jet fuel. Foaming agents and other additives that are required to reduce flamability for fire safety do nothing to improve emissions. They are going to generate a lot of public interest with those numbers. I really hope they're factual.
From what I understand, heating oil is Kerosene #1 (K1), diesel is Kerosene #2 (K2) and Jet fuel is K2 with additives. I use un-dyed diesel (K2) in my furnace at home. Most diesel engines would run on either K1 or K2. The newer high-pressure injection diesels may have specific fuel requirements to prevent clogged injectors. I know that was a problem when they were first introduced in the US. Dual fuel filters and filter heaters were often required.
Nite_Owl, by "Fact or fiction?" are you actually suggesting that the Canadian government and its partners just made up everything reported here? I may be a cynic about some things, and I'm well aware that governments lie about some things, but I don't think all this would be orchestrated purely to deceive, nor can I imagine Canadians lying this badly. Also, note that the 50 percent reduction was in aerosol emissions, not particle emissions.
I'm hoping they are on the level. From what I've read elsewhere, the aerosol emissions that were reduced in this case were "black carbon" or soot. We have the US military, ARA (US Military contractor), Chevron and Lummus representing big oil and NRC representing Canadian government all involved. With all their spin doctors possibly involved, it would be difficult for me not to question the "facts".
I hear you regarding the Big Oil factor and I'm not one to take their word on anything. But the sponsor of this research is the NRC. And I simply don't believe this is invented out of whole cloth. Also, the report distinguished between three different kinds of emissions that you appear to be conflating: aerosol, black carbon and particle, with three different reduction rates.
WE did some experimenting back in the sixties, and later I learned from my father-in-law that back in WW2 when there was fuel rationing, they would run cars on mostly kerosene, after starting them on gas and getting them warmed up. Present engines are a bit more adaptable and probably have better sparking systems as well. What I learned from our experimenting in the sixties was that 10% diesel did work but much over that tended to run a bit rough in some engines. Our experiments were not very sophisticated, they were basically "add some of this and see what happens", and the results were observations done without instrumentation.
So there has been a bit of actual experience showing that it can work under some conditions.
Presently, the diesel fuel is more expensive so there is no incentive to use it in a gas engine.
Their statements concerning emissions are a bit confusing. Black carbon is both a particle and aerosol emission. The difference is in how they are measured. From what I understand, aerosol emissions are measured with engine in flight at a given altitude, while particle and gaseous emissions are measured with the engine stationary at ground level. They state a reduction in black carbon emissions up to 49%, particle emissions up to 25% and aerosol emissions up to 50%. These would appear to be overlapping numbers. The most significant reduction in emissions is black carbon (about 43% at cruise and 49% at idle). I would have to guess that black carbon makes up the lion's share of the aerosol and particle emissions reductions.
I'm still wondering how much spin is on this. The gaseous emissions, cumbustion temperatures and power output are all virtually identical between ReadiJet and Jet-A1. There is a slight reduction in fuel consumption, but is it enough to account for the reduction in emissions? Where everything else is equal, less matter (fuel) in should equal less unburned particles (black carbon) out.
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.