Greg, sorry for the tag team delay: just got back in here....

I don't have the heat yield numbers to hand, if they exist. The matter is a bit more complicated than lets us easily find the yield of our fuels as mixed. It is the KEROSENE and METHANOL contents of the respective fuels that differ. ASIR, methanol - ideally - yields somewhere around 10,000 BTU per pound, and both kerosene and pump gasoline are in the 19,000-21,000 BTU per pound range. (NOTE: the fuel yield testing is by pounds of fuel per pounds of (either air or) oxygen. Not sure which, but for chemistry is would seem oxygen, as nothing else in our ambient air takes part in combustion. A complication, then, as there's only around 20% oxygen in air...)

Some other complications: Kerosene in many diesel fuels goes a bit over 50% by volume; methanol in most glow fuels is reduced by the oil fraction and the nitro fraction. Oils, say 22%, nitro 15%. That's 37% accounted for, leaving 63% for the methanol. ...By volume, most often.

Nitro yields combustion heat, too. Haven't come across its ideal yield in BTU/lb, but it may not be as high as methanol, since it is much denser than methanol - something like a Specific Gravity of 1.14 for nitro and around 0.8 for methanol. Since most fuel makers mix by volume %, the weight fraction of nitro is higher than its volume fraction.

Then there's the 'damping' effect on combustion from having (we hope!) non-burning oil mixed with the flammables...

AND, the reason I stressed the word ideally each time, so far, is that we don't burn these fluids in the most ideal way, the way the heat yield values were determined. That hides behind that weird word "stoichiometric", which as I understand it means all the combustible fluid is burned in all the oxygen available for combustion. ...No unburned fuel left, and no un-consumed oxygen, in the exhaust gases...

We may come closer to stoichiometric with kerosene, since it does not tolerate as wide a range of fuel/air mixtures as methanol. But remember all those other factors, including that the ether in a diesel blend also contributes some heat during combustion. Again, I haven't seen a number for ether's yield in BTU/lb, but expect it is much lower than kerosene's. Ether is also much less dense than kerosene, so its weight fraction % is even less when the fuel is mixed by volume %. And, since nitro brings its own oxygen to the "fire," the glow engine's breathing capacity is assisted directly.

Also, we run glow engines richer, as a rule, than diesels. We use the evaporating chill of methanol to help cool the glow engine. Kerosene doesn't chill as it sprays into the intake, most likely because it does not evaporate as easily. In both modes, the oil does help to cool things some. When we see visible exhaust vapors, we know that some fuel or fuel and oil passed through the engine without burning away, leaving the metal uncovered. (Actually, that fear may be a fallacy, even if the oil burns. When the oil is exposed to the combustion "flame" the piston is on the way down to BDC. Through BDC the fresh charge is sprayed into the cylinder, ready to lube the piston on its way up to TDC.)

IOW, we use the fuels according to the ignition type involved. We can pass quite a bit of unburned methanol and oil through a glow engine, even when running fairly "lean." "Diesels" need to be leaner because of the narrower tolerance to fuel/air ratio and because the required high compression ratio leaves little room for globs of pressure-precipitated fuel...

If everything were simple and easy, our hobby wouldn't be much fun or challenge, would it?