Impact of E22 on two-stroke and four-stroke snowmobiles

A push to reduce dependency on foreign energy and increase the use of renewable energy has many gas stations pumping ethanol blended fuels. Recreational engines typically have less complex fuel management systems than that of the automotive sector. This prevents the engine from being able to adapt to different ethanol concentrations. Using ethanol blended fuels in recreational engines raises several consumer concerns. Engine performance and emissions are both affected by ethanol blended fuels. This research focused on assessing the impact of E22 on two-stroke and four-stroke snowmobiles. Three snowmobiles were used for this study. A 2009 Arctic Cat Z1 Turbo with a closed-loop fuel injection system, a 2009 Yamaha Apex with an open-loop fuel injection system and a 2010 Polaris Rush with an open-loop fuel injection system were used to determine the impact of E22 on snowmobile engines. A five mode emissions test was conducted on each of the snowmobiles with E0 and E22 to determine the impact of the E22 fuel. All of the snowmobiles were left in stock form to assess the effect of E22 on snowmobiles currently on the trail. Brake specific emissions of the snowmobiles running on E22 were compared to that of the E0 fuel. Engine parameters such as exhaust gas temperature, fuel flow, and relative air to fuel ratio (λ) were also compared on all three snowmobiles. Combustion data using an AVL combustion analysis system was taken on the Polaris Rush. This was done to compare in-cylinder pressures, combustion duration, and location of 50% mass fraction burn. E22 decreased total hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide for all of the snowmobiles and increased carbon dioxide. Peak power increased for the closed-loop fuel injected Arctic Cat. A smaller increase of peak power was observed for the Polaris due to a partial ability of the fuel management system to adapt to ethanol. A decrease in peak power was observed for the open-loop fuel injected Yamaha.

FOSSIL PLANTS AND PALYNOMORPHS FROM THE LATE PALEOZOIC CUTLER FORMATION, EASTERN PARADOX BASIN

The late Paleozoic Cutler Formation, where exposed near the modern-day town of Gateway, Colorado, has traditionally been interpreted as the product of alluvial fan deposition within the easternmost portion of the Paradox Basin. The Paradox Basin formed between the western margin of the Uncompahgre Uplift segment of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains and the western paleoshoreline of the North American portion of Pangea. The Paradox Basin region is commonly thought to have experienced semi-arid to arid conditions and warm temperatures during the Pennsylvanian and Permian. Evidence described in this paper support prior interpretations regarding paleoclimate conditions and the inferred depositional environment for the Cutler Formation near Gateway, Colorado. Plant fossils collected from the late Paleozoic Cutler Formation in The Palisade Wilderness Study Area (managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management) of western Colorado include Calamites, Walchia, Pecopteris, and many calamitean fragments. The flora collected is interpreted to have lived in an arid or semi-arid environment that included wet areas of limited areal extent located near the apex of an alluvial fan system. Palynological analysis of samples collected revealed the presence of the common Pennsylvanian palynomorphs Thymospora pseudothiessenii and Lophotriletes microsaetosus. These fossils suggest that warm and at least seasonally and locally wet conditions existed in the area during the time that the plants were growing. All evidence of late Paleozoic plant life collected during this study was found along the western margin of the Uncompahgre Uplift segment of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains. During the late Paleozoic, sediment was eroded from the Uncompahgre Uplift and deposited in the adjacent Paradox Basin. The preservation of plant fossils in the most proximal parts of the Paradox Basin is remarkable due to the fact that much of the proximal Cutler Formation consists of conglomerates and sandstones deposited as debris flow and by fluvial systems. The plants must have grown in a protected setting, possibly an abandoned channel on the alluvial fan, and been rapidly buried in the subsiding Paradox Basin. It is likely that there was abundant vegetation in and adjacent to low-lying wet areas at the time the Cutler Formation was deposited.