ORIGINAL: BobH
I'm a bit confused. Why do you say that methanol flame propagation is slower than gas when I believe its actually faster? Gas has more BTU's than Meth but doesn't combine with O2 as rapidly. Its that faster ''rapid oxidation, aka burn'' that gives Meth the advantage in power.
No doubt that Meth will produce more engergy. Reading an MIT thesis from 1976 promoted the advantages of converting Gas cars to Metho cars.
I suppose the question becomes a matter of choice. There will be those who prefer gas and those who don't. If the power is suffecient for their intended purpose then its fine either way they go.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/08-fire.pdf
http://iqlearningsystems.com/ethanol...cteristics.pdf
The following is a cut & paste from a longer article about methanol.
[hr]
Fire safety
Methanol is far more difficult to ignite than gasoline and burns about 60% slower. A methanol fire releases energy at around 20% of the rate of a gasoline fire, resulting in a much cooler flame. This results in a much less dangerous fire that is easier to contain with proper protocols. Unlike gasoline, water is acceptable and even preferred as a fire suppressant, since this both cools the fire and rapidly dilutes the fuel below the concentration where it will maintain self-flammability. These facts mean that, as a vehicle fuel, methanol has great safety advantages over gasoline.[14] Ethanol shares many of these same advantages.