Technical:
Nitromethane: |
CH3NO2
|
SYLLABICATION: |
ni·tro·meth·ane |
PRONUNCIATION: |
|
NOUN: |
[Nitro- + methane.] (Chem.) A
nitro derivative of methane obtained as a mobile liquid;
— called also nitrocarbol.A colorless, oily liquid, CH3NO2,
used in making dyes and resins, in organic synthesis, as
a fuel in race car engines, and as a rocket propellant. |
(4)
|
Good, both for static and
dynamic seals
|
(3)
|
Fair, usually OK for static
seals
|
(2)
|
Sometimes OK for static seals;
not OK for dynamic seals
|
(1)
|
Poor
|
(0)
|
No Data
|
Nitromethane…..everybody
knows it’s there, but few, it seems, really know much about it.
(The following is the third in a series of
articles exploring all facets of model engine fuel.
The writer is Don Nix, President of GBG Industries, Inc.,. )
Nitromethane…..everybody knows it’s there,
but few, it seems, really know much about it. Although most seem
to know – at least vaguely – that’s its primary purpose is to
add power, we still get an occasional call or letter asking,
"Why do you use it in model fuel?" At best, there is
much misinformation regarding this somewhat exotic ingredient.
Let’s see what we can do to clear some of it up.
Nitromethane is just one of a family of
chemicals called "nitroparaffins." Others are
nitroethane and 1-nitropropane and 2-nitropropane. Nitroethane
can be used successfully in small quantities. (Top fuel drag
racers, which generally run on straight nitromethane, sometimes
add a little in hot, humid weather to prevent detonation.) At
one time, nitroethane was only about half as expensive as
nitromethane, but its cost now is so nearly the same, using it
to lower cost is hardly worth the trouble. Neither of the
nitropropanes will work in model engine fuel. Incidentally,
nitromethane is made of propane, in case you didn’t know (and
I’ll bet you didn’t).
Yes, NITRO = POWER! But….there are
conditions and contingencies. First of all, it doesn’t
add power because it’s such a "hot" chemical. Not at
all. This may come as a surprise to most readers, but the
methanol (methyl alcohol) in the fuel is by far the most
flammable ingredient….nearly twice as flammable as
nitromethane. As a matter of fact, if nitro were only 4 degrees
less flammable, it wouldn’t even have to carry the red diamond
"flammable" label!
In actuality, nitromethane must be heated to
96 degrees F. before it will begin to emit enough vapors that
they can be ignited by some sort of spark or flame! (I
demonstrated this not long ago to a friend by repeatedly putting
a flaming match out in a lidful of nitro. I might add that he
insisted on standing about 20 feet away during the
demonstration.)
So….how does it add power? We all know (I
think) that although we think of the liquid part substance we
put in fuel tanks (in our automobiles or model airplanes) as the
fuel, in truth, there is another "fuel," without which
the liquid part would be useless. Remember what it is?
Right….just plain old air (in reality, the oxygen in the air).
Every internal combustion engine mixes air and
another fuel of some sort….in our case, a liquid…glow fuel.
The purpose of the carburetor is to meter those two ingredients
in just the right proportions, and every individual engine has a
requirement for a specific proportion of liquid fuel and air.
Try to push in too much liquid without enough air, and the
engine won’t run at all. That’s the purpose of the turbocharger
on full-size engines….to cram in a lot more air than a simple
carburetor or fuel injection system can handle.
Now…..suppose we were to find a way to run
more liquid through our model engines without increasing the air
supply? That would add power, wouldn’t it? Well, guess
what….we can! An internal combustion engine can burn more than
2 ½ times as much nitromethane to a given volume of air than it
can methanol. Voila! More Power! That’s how it works, and it
ain’t all that complicated. Nor do we have to spend a lot of
time thinking about it in the course of a normal day’s sport
flying.
However, there are some factors we do
need to consider. As a practical matter, virtually all our
everyday sport flying can be done on model fuel containing from
5% to 15% nitromethane. If you’re flying something like a
trainer or a Cub or similar model, there’s probably no reason
why 5% won’t work perfectly well. Need a little more power? Move
up to 10% or 15%. In most of our sport engines today, I really
wouldn’t recommend going any higher than that. It probably won’t
hurt anything, but it won’t do you much good, either.
We sell more 15% fuel than any other single
blend, and for good reason. Most of the popular engines on the
market today are built to run on something very near that blend.
Typically, European engines will successfully run on lower nitro
blends, because they are built to do so. Why? In Europe, nitro
can cost between $150 to $200 a gallon! Reason enough?
Nitro does more than just add power. It also
helps achieve a lower, more reliable idle. One good rule of
thumb for checking to see if a particular engine needs a higher
nitro blend is to start the engine, let it warm up for a few
seconds, set throttle to full idle and remove the glow driver.
If it drops rpm, move up to a 5% higher nitro blend. If there is
no discernible drop, you should be fine right where you are.
One of the most popular misconceptions is that
by adding substantial nitro, the user will immediately achieve a
huge power jump. Just ain’t so. Most will be surprised to learn
that in the 5% – 25% nitro range, you will probably only see an
rpm increase of about 100 rpm static (sitting on the ground or
on a test stand) for each 5% nitro increase. In the air, it will
unload and achieve a greater increase, and it will probably idle
better, too.
My pet rule is this: If you have a model
that’s doing well, but just isn’t quite "there"
powerwise, go up 5% in nitro. If that doesn’t do it, you need a
bigger engine, not more nitro!
Most of our popular sport engines in use today
aren’t set up to run on much more than 15% or 20% nitro.
Increasing the nitro has the effect of increasing the
compression ratio, and each specific engine has an optimum
compression level. Exceed it and performance will probably
suffer, not gain, and the engine will become much less
"user friendly."
High performance racing engines, for example,
are tuned entirely differently….compression ratio, intake and
exhaust timing etc….and are usually intended to run on much
higher nitro blends. One exception, of course, are racing
engines used in certain international and world competition (FAI).
By the rules, these engines are not allowed to use any nitro at
all, and they go just as fast as those that run on 60 or 65%!
The first question that comes to mind, then, is, "Why
aren’t all engines designed to run on no nitro, so we can
all save a lot of money?" Ask any of the world-class
competitors. Those engines are a serious bitch to tune and run,
and are definitely not user-friendly! In fact, they are
well beyond the skill levels of most average flyers. There’s a
price to everything.
Another statement we read or hear frequently
is that nitromethane is acidic and causes corrosion in engines.
It isn’t acidic, and the manufacturers say it doesn’t
happen…..can’t happen. However, at least one noted engine
expert and magazine writer insists that it does. Flip a coin. (I
once asked Dave Shadel, 3-time World Pylon Champion, and a
fellow who works on more high performance engines than anyone I
know, how frequently he encounters rust in engines that have
been using high nitro blends. His answer? "Never.")
Why does nitro cost so much? While I have no
clue as to the cost of manufacturing, other than it takes a
multi-million dollar investment in a large refinery to produce
it, there is one pretty good reason: There is only one
manufacturer of nitromethane in the Western Hemisphere. Figure
it out for yourself.
Also (and this will come as a big surprise),
our hobby industry only consumes about 5% of all the
nitromethane produced; and full-size auto racing about another
5% or so. This means we have no "clout" whatever, and
simply must pay the asking price. Where does the rest of it go?
Industry. It’s used for a variety of things – a solvent for
certain plastics, insecticides, explosives (yes, it was
an ingredient in the Oklahoma City bombing) and I’m told it’s an
ingredient in Tagamet, a well-known prescription ulcer
medication (no wonder that stuff is so expensive!).
Please note that while nitromethane is an ingredient in
making some explosives, under normal use, it in itself, is not
exploseve. (Remember….the guy used fertilizer, too.)
Hardly a month passes that someone doesn’t
call to ask, "I hear more nitro will make my engine run
cooler. Is that true?" Nope. The higher the nitro content,
the higher the operating temperature. Fortunately, in most of
our sport engines, the difference in operating temps between 5%
and 10% is negligible, and there are lot of other factors
(proper lubrication, etc.), that are much more important.
Finally, remember in the beginning of this, we
said that nitro adds power because we can burn more of it than
we can methanol, for a given volume of air? This also means that
the higher the nitro content of the fuel, the less
"mileage" (or flying time) we will get. In a typical
.40 size engine using 15% nitro, we can usually get a minute to
a minute and a half flying time for every ounce of fuel. The
Formula 1 guys are lucky to get 2 minutes out of an 8 oz. tank!
What’s the practical side of this? If you go
to a higher nitro blend, be sure to open your needle valve a few
clicks and reset before you go flying. Otherwise, you’ll be too
lean, and could hurt your engine. Conversely, if you drop to a
lower nitro blend, you’ll have to crank ‘er in a little.
This may
not be everything you ever wanted to know about nitro but its a
great start.
Nitromethane is
one of a group of chemicals known as nitroalkanes, which consist
of an alkane molecule, such as methane, ethane, or propane, in
which one of the hydrogen atoms has been replaced by a nitro
group (-NO2). Nitromethane is used in a number of products,
including fuels, explosives, solvents, preservatives, and
pharmaceuticals. Angus’s nitromethane production process results
in the joint production of four nitroalkanes, of which
nitromethane has the highest value.
Standard
Nitromethane (CH3NO2) becomes Di-Nitromethane when exposed to UV
(Ultra Violet rays as from the sun or "other means")
and is more entertaining to run. All commercially available
Nitromethane is never available at 100%. Some agreement with the
ICC. It is typically cut (reduced in concentration) by
approximately 2% or so with Benzene or "other" agents.
Besides, 100% won’t light very well without being cut with
something. Back in the old days, some few folks were indeed
getting hold of REAL 100% (from other than normal suppliers) and
cut the load by 2% with spectrophotometric benzene (not your
normal get it anywhere Benzene).
Comments about
purple nitro: Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) can be mixed and
although a slurry, can be burned with either methanol or
nitromethane, or nitropropane. Also one can add methyl purple
(no gain, just fun coloring), methyl orange, or methyl blue. You
can even add oil of wintergreen if you wish.
Like an atomic
device, the separate components of a fission-fusion device are
relatively benign, but when a special set of artificial
conditions is created it will produce a dramatic result.
Nitromethane is the atomic equivalent of uranium 238. Getting it
to burn is a major problem, it needs lots of heat. But once the
correct temperature is achieved, it will give more energy than
most people can use.
A match will not
light nitromethane. Dropped into a pool of nitro spillage floor,
the match will sizzle and extinguish just as if it had fallen in
a pool of tap water. But take a hammer and hit the pool – it
will explode. The small amount of fuel caught between the hammer
face and the concrete floor will become unstable and cause a
spontaneous fire which occurs quickly enough to be labeled an
explosion. The tiny bit of lit fuel is hot enough to set off the
rest. And bigger the pool, the bigger the explosion. Enough
nitro and the result will be a good-sized crater in the cement
floor.
Joe Fette, a
former vice president and general manager of Angus Chemical,
worked intimately with the nitromethane departments, and
remembers when the discovery was made. "The condition first
came about by accident," says Fette. "Luckily, it was
an accident where nobody was killed. But nitromethane used to be
shipped in tank cars before this condition was known. Two
separate accidents within a year of each other stopped that. The
tank cars exploded, leaving holes 800ft wide and 300ft deep.
Luckily, these were out in unpopulated areas. What happened is
that the fuel was compressed when it slammed into the other car
(as the train crashed). There were also rumors of power lines
being around, although that was never proven."
Regardless of an
external spark, the impact had sufficient force to begin the
reaction that would ignite the explosive. The liquid, trapped
inside the tanks, had nowhere to go and compressed itself. Under
those circumstances it detonated by itself – at least in the
corner of the container that suffered the largest degree of
compression. With the initial explosion, extreme heat – the
second factor that contributes to nitromethane’s instability –
was already building up. With nowhere to go the heat spread
through the compressed fuel in the tanker, setting the entire
railroad car on fire before the structure had been punctured.
The result was an explosion that changed the land’s
geography".
The Chinese nitro
is still being made in China at a specially constructed plant.
It is imported to the US by Wego Chemical Company in NY. It is
made by a different process than the Angus (now Dow Chemical as
of 2 or 3 years ago) nitro. A test was done on the three nitro
products that were available in 1996 and they found the Chinese
nitro to be more pure than the Angus nitro, and much more pure
than the product that VP was selling at the time. Those results
may not hold up now, but they were accurate at the time the
products were tested.
The nitro that
Chuck Bryant (C.L. Bryant Inc. in Modesto) sells is the Chinese
nitro and is used by a number of the NHRA nitro racers. It is
available in both the 90% version and the uncut version which is
99+% pure nitro. Phone number is 800-399-4176.
Steve LeSueur
(formerly with World Wide Racing Fuels) is the person selling
the Chinese nitro at the NHRA National Events. Steve lives in
Virginia and can be reached at 804-842-1838 or by cell phone at
973-454-0663.
Alcohol and
Nitromethane
Gasoline is for washing parts, alcohol is for
drinking and nitro is for racing. I saw that on the back of a
fan’s shirt at New England Dragway. It seems some folks just
don’t appreciate gasoline. What is so special about Alcohol
and Nitromethane anyway? Well…..people don’t race funny
cars; they race ALKY funnies or NITRO funnies. Gasoline has no
real pizzazz in the racing world. Sure it powers Pro stock cars,
trucks and bikes, but it just doesn’t have the same powerful
intonation as Alcohol or Nitro. So where does this notoriety
come from and why would someone want to use either of these
fuels?
Alcohol is usually used in the form of Methyl alcohol or
methanol for short. CH3OH is the chemical formula. Methanol when
compared pound for pound to gasoline yields about half of the
heat energy potential. Where alcohol offers 9000 BTU/lb.
Gasoline offer 18000 BTU/lb. Basically methanol is a far less
powerful fuel on a pound per pound basis. Gasoline however burns
at a stoichiometric (scientifically correct) ratio of 14.7:1,
and makes best power running slightly richer at 12.0 to 12.5:1,
while methanol burns at 5.0 to 6.0:1. When the mixture is run in
this fashion the result is a 5-11% increase in power.
The best part is, the above is not the only benefit. Methanol
allows for much higher mechanical compression ratios far in
excess of what even the best racing gasolines offer. Just a few
years ago Pro stock (gasoline) bikes ran a max of 13:1 to 15:1
compression ratio, but alky bikes of the time could run 16 to
17:1. The extra compression allowed alcohol engines to gain a
15% advantage in power while normally aspirated. Now figure in
the fact that methanol has a higher latent heat of evaporation
(it absorbs or uses more heat in the evaporation process), and
we have a fuel that can cool the intake charge better than
gasoline. Can you think of a good use for this? How about
supercharging or turbo charging?
Compressing air makes it get hot. Superchargers and
turbochargers are not 100% efficient for several reasons, not
the least of which is through lack of mechanical efficiency and
compression of the intake charge itself the intake temp rises.
Hot air is not good. 10 psi of hot air contains less oxygen for
burning fuel than 10 psi of cold air. Think of it this way. If
you blow up a child’s balloon and let it sit nothing happens.
Put it in the freezer for 5 minutes and what does it look like?
It comes out all shriveled up. Put it next to a warm bright
light and not only does it return to its original size, it blows
up even bigger as the air is heated. Now if we take that same
hot compressed intake air and dump a little methanol into it,
you guessed it, the temperature drops as the alcohol is
evaporated. Alcohol is atomized and the mixture gets denser
allowing for a whole lot of mixture to be shoved into the
engine, much more so anyway than that of the turbo/gasoline
mixture.
It is not unusual for supercharged alcohol motors to realize a
20% improvement over their gasoline brethren.
Nitromethane works in a similar way. It is clear and very hard
to light with a match. If you are somehow successful at lighting
it, you’ll see it burn with a lazy blue flame. Smack a puddle
of Nitromethane with a hammer however and the head of the hammer
will be come a projectile as the nitro explodes in a violent
blast.
Like methanol, Nitromethane does not have a lot going for it in
sheer power per pound.
· Gasoline………….18,400 BTU/lb.
· Benzol…………….17,500 BTU/lb.
· TNT (trinitrotulene)..6,500 BTU/lb.
· Ethyl Alcohol………11,500 BTU/lb.
· Methanol…………..9,500 BTU/lb.
· Nitromethane………5000 BTU/lb.
Nitromethane does contain a lot of oxygen, which makes it nearly
a mono-propellant. Meaning, it requires almost no additional air
(oxygen) for burning. Therefore it burns best when run at a very
rich ratio of 2:1 to 1:1! Thus even though pound for pound nitro
is less powerful than gasoline, nitro can make almost double the
power of a gasoline engine of the same configuration.
Air Fuel ratio vs. Resulting Max BTU released
· Nitromethane:
o 1.3:1…………46,000 BTU
· Methanol:
o 5:1……………23,000 BTU
· Gasoline:
o 12:1………….18,400 BTU
Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
Copyright © 1997 Scripps Howard News Service
DENVER — It wasn’t until the eve of Timothy
McVeigh’s trial that prosecutors changed a key part of their
case: how the Oklahoma City bomb was built.
In the 11th-hour switch, prosecutors decided
that the ammonium nitrate bomb that destroyed the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building was powered by racing fuel.
For almost two years, prosecutors had
maintained that the bomb was ammonium nitrate mixed with fuel
oil — a so-called ANFO device. The fuel, they said, probably
was No. 2 diesel fuel.
But at trial, prosecutors are building a case
that McVeigh mixed ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.
Nitromethane is not a fuel oil, but a volatile
chemical used in top-fuel drag racing. Properly mixed with
ammonium nitrate, it makes a far more powerful bomb than one
with diesel fuel.
The switch allows prosecutors to address
skeptics who doubt a fuel oil bomb could have sheared the
building’s concrete columns.
The impetus for the abrupt change appears to
be a March 11 Playboy magazine report on purported statements by
McVeigh to his defense team.
The change caused some glitches in the
prosecution’s case, including conflicts with testimony by Lori
Fortier and an expert witness on fuel oil bombs.
One detail in the Playboy article published on
the Internet pushed the FBI into immediate action: McVeigh
allegedly bought three barrels of nitromethane at a Dallas race
track.
FBI agents flooded the Dallas area. On March
27, the Thursday before jury selection began, agents interviewed
VP Racing Fuels salesman Tim Chambers. He later testified that
he sold nitromethane to a man resembling McVeigh. But he
couldn’t positively identify McVeigh’s photo.
As recently as a Feb. 20 hearing, prosecutors
had reiterated their belief that the bomb contained fuel oil.
In an April 1996 hearing, prosecutor Beth
Wilkinson said the bomb cost less than $1,000 to build. But
evidence presented so far to the jury indicates the nitromethane
alone cost $2,700.
With the change, the government inadvertently
spotlighted two inconsistencies in Fortier’s testimony. She and
her husband Michael are star witnesses against McVeigh.
She testified that McVeigh told them in early
October 1994 that he had bought nitromethane at a race track.
Independent evidence corroborates that McVeigh
was visiting the Fortiers for several days starting Oct. 6,
1994. But Chambers testified that the transaction with someone
resembling McVeigh occurred Oct. 21, 1994.
Either Lori Fortier’s information is incorrect
or Chambers’ buyer wasn’t McVeigh.
Fortier also said she gave this information to
prosecutors in her first meeting with them in June 1995. Either
Fortier was incorrect in saying she revealed McVeigh’s
nitromethane purchase two years ago, or the prosecution didn’t
believe her or couldn’t prove it.
A recent report from the Justice Department’s
inspector general criticized the FBI laboratory for calling the
Oklahoma City bomb a fuel oil device. It said agents made that
finding partly on the fact that diesel fuel was found at
co-defendant Terry Nichols’ house, and not on bomb-scene
evidence.
The switch from fuel oil to nitromethane
caught the government’s expert witness on ammonium
Paul Nylund of St. Louis, a vice president of
El Dorado Chemical Co.,testified April 30. He brought a chart
measuring usage of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil explosives.
But since the focus had shifted from fuel oil
to nitromethane, Wilkinson several times asked Rydlund whether
his descriptions of such bombs also would apply to those mixed
with nitromethane.
Rydlund said they would.
By KEVIN FLYNN, the Rocky Mountain News
|