Fuel Weights?

[Gray E Fowler]

Hey Earl...

Right. Modelers understand %nitro by volume due to the old days when home 
brews were done a couple of gallons at a time. Imagine the modern fuel 
blender and his 1000 gallon volumetric flask. Or measuring out 100 times 
10 gallons. Weighing is easier and more accurate. I really do not know how 
any of the fuel guys do it but I would be amazed if they did it by volume. 
Blending by weight and reporting by volume is easy. Once again, 
performance should be the #1 factor for fuel-right? 



Gray Fowler
Principal Chemical Engineer
Composites Engineering




EHaury at aol.com
Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
08/27/2003 10:44 AM
Please respond to discussion

 
        To:     discussion at nsrca.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Fuel Weights?


I suggest that we're dealing with semantics in this thread. The convention 
for formulating model fuel is by volume. (Got started In the "old days" when most didn't 
have balances to blend by weight.) Certainly the most accurate method for blending fuel is by mass. Temp / gravity corrections, as appropriate, ensure 
accuracy to the volumetric formulation.
 
Due to the high density of nitro, there are obvious differences in what's 
"in the jug" between mass and volumetric formulations. Too bad that the fuel marketers don't specify on their labels. Claims 
for blending, one way or another, only address perceived accuracy.
 
Earl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030827/fed4b7fa/attachment.html