Chuck Norris gets the lead out

In 1924, New York City's Medical Examiner, after studying poisoning at the plant manufacturing it, campaigned to have tetraethyl lead removed from gasoline. He failed. Suppose instead, he had succeeded.

What would the effect of the removal have been on society? On the outcome of WW2, if any?

Would car companies have had to develop better cylinder heads, frex, to cope with low octane gas? Would oil companies have had to develop ethanol blending? Would water or methanol or nitrous injection have become commonplace?

Would crime have gone down?

Would the 1950s panic over kids, crime, & comics have been butterflied away?:cool::cool:

Or would nothing much change?

(Will nobody care about this thread, either?:(:( *sigh*)
 
To be fair, man, it's kind of an obscure POD. Maybe you're not getting the responses you want because you're asking rather specific questions.

But in the spirit of the universal brotherhood of man, I'll have a go.

If the guy somehow managed to get tetraethyllead removed from gasoline, it would cause a problem with lend lease as none of the put together equipment (trucks and such) we sent to Europe would be compatible with their petrol. Might cause the Soviets more problems (Churchill would shift the entire British economy over to whatever suited the Americans, but don't get me started on British self-subsumption into America's anus), which mean more deaths on the Western Front.
 
Would car companies have had to develop better cylinder heads, frex, to cope with low octane gas? Would oil companies have had to develop ethanol blending? Would water or methanol or nitrous injection have become commonplace?

Would crime have gone down?

Would the 1950s panic over kids, crime, & comics have been butterflied away?:cool::cool:

Or would nothing much change?)

I can't speak to the engineering aspects. I do think crime would have been reduced over the next couple of decades, and you'd probably have a slightly more efficient workforce. (Not that the US was hurting for manpower or efficiency by WWII). I don't think it would substantially effect the moral panics of the 50s except via butterflies. The moral panics were driven by social factors more than any real problem, and part of it was just that ginning up a moral crusade was a good way to get political attention. The comic book hearings were obviously pretty dubious while the hearings about organized crime were attacking a real problem, but both were designed to get Estes Kefauver elected to high office. You could easily say something else gets a moral panic attached to it, although you'd have to find something that people weren't already freaking out over in the 50s. (Movies, comics, popular music, communism, organized crime, etc, were all subject at one point or another.)
 
If the guy somehow managed to get tetraethyllead removed from gasoline, it would cause a problem with lend lease as none of the put together equipment (trucks and such) we sent to Europe would be compatible with their petrol.

Brit Pool Petrol for the Army was set at like 60 Octane, the US had settled on 72 Octane for most vehicles in 1942, but some needed 80(Tank Radials), so for D-Day, decided to standardize on 80

80 Octane had .5ml TEL per gallon

72 is about as high as you can go for refining without additives. TEL was just used as it was cheap and had good storage characteristics.

With a War on, you sure there wouldn't be an Executive Order allowing TEL use for duration of the War?
 
This is an interesting topic. I suspect that there would have been some very beneficial effects over time, but I'd really have to do some research to come up with anything I could back up. Lead is an incredibly toxic substance and its presence in gasoline probably had some serious negative health and social consequences.

On the technological side, it would have forced engine manufacturers and the petroleum industries to work around the lack of lead in fuel earlier just as they did when lead was finally banned years later.
 
Apollo 20 said:
This is an interesting topic.
TY.:) For that, I'm answering you first.;)
Apollo 20 said:
I suspect that there would have been some very beneficial effects over time, but I'd really have to do some research to come up with anything I could back up. Lead is an incredibly toxic substance and its presence in gasoline probably had some serious negative health and social consequences.
What little I've read suggests about 3 IQ points off everybody exposed & there's an increased tendency to crime due to lack of ability to restrain behavior. The estimate I saw was something like US$10 billion a year spent on reducing lead would pay back at least $100 billion a year:eek::eek::eek: in effects.
Apollo 20 said:
On the technological side, it would have forced engine manufacturers and the petroleum industries to work around the lack of lead in fuel earlier just as they did when lead was finally banned years later.
That's my thinking, too. I'm picturing the improved combustion chambers of late '80s cars, with more hemis (the Ardun, for a start), plus more dual-plugs (like the Roof {Root?}), likely earlier widespread acceptance of SOHC/DOHC & FI.

That said, in the immediate term, does this affect GP or Indy racing? Or were they using methanol? Would that be the first go-to, a wholesale switch? Or is a switch to propane or natural gas more probable?
Booster Gold said:
To be fair, man, it's kind of an obscure POD. Maybe you're not getting the responses you want because you're asking rather specific questions.
Maybe. It's no less discouraging for that. (With that nickname, I'd have thought the J'onn J'onzz thread would get you...:( {OK, also plug.:p})
Booster Gold said:
But in the spirit of the universal brotherhood of man, I'll have a go.
:cool:TY. That's one reason I keep trying.:)
Booster Gold said:
If the guy somehow managed to get tetraethyllead removed from gasoline, it would cause a problem with lend lease as none of the put together equipment (trucks and such) we sent to Europe would be compatible with their petrol.
I'm less sure. AIUI, the U.S. was the world's #1 supplier of fuel at this time. (Or is that just crude oil?:eek:)

Before WW2, I don't think it's an issue. During, the close Br-U.S. co-operation means whatever solutions the U.S. companies took are going to be shared with the Brits, & until the Brits are ready, U.S. companies will provide fuels, so no problem. (Maybe some local shortages...but maybe better protection of tankers as a result, so no, or reduced, "2d Happy Time"? Which means the "fuel crisis" of OTL doesn't happen, either? Or is earlier...)
Booster Gold said:
Might cause the Soviets more problems ...which mean more deaths on the Western Front.
I'm seeing that impact as small, but I know so little about L-L to the SU...:eek:

There are 2 approaches that might work, tho: build more diesels, or switch to LPG or CNG. (Also, AIUI, diesels will run on both of those, too.) This is better in some ways: propane has a natural octane of around 130, natgas about 120, IIRC; obvious downside is the weight of the tanks & their disturbing tendency to act like bombs.:eek: (Which could mean early development of FAEs...:cool:) Diesel simplifies the fuel supply issues somewhat (& works for LR maritime patrol a/c nicely:cool:), but AIUI produces less energy per gallon, so consumption will slightly be higher.
Syriac said:
I can't speak to the engineering aspects. I do think crime would have been reduced over the next couple of decades, and you'd probably have a slightly more efficient workforce.
That's the big one I saw, too--& not just immediately, but continuing.:cool: With probable benefits into now.:cool: (Not least, very probably, avoiding the prison-building boom:cool::cool::cool: & maybe no 3-stikes laws.:cool::cool:)

The economic & social benefits of the country generally being smarter are pretty incalculable, but...more innovation?:cool::cool: (Can you feature the U.S. being more innovative than OTL?:eek: Canada, too, I imagine.:cool:)
Syriac said:
I don't think it would substantially effect the moral panics of the 50s except via butterflies. The moral panics were driven by social factors more than any real problem ....the hearings about organized crime were attacking a real problem, but both were designed to get Estes Kefauver elected to high office. You could easily say something else gets a moral panic attached to it, although you'd have to find something that people weren't already freaking out over in the 50s.
All true. (I was trying to think of anything that might be fallout from crime, or affected by less crime.:eek:)

I wonder if this impacts at all on Prohibition surviving, or if the associated crime there is affected at all? My sense is, the effect of lead is too long-term, so if it's gone in '24-'25, it won't be noticed before 1935-40 or so.

It also occurs to me: it lead in the air is seen as a problem, what about lead in paint? (IDK when it was removed.) Or cigarettes? Or asbestos? Does this at all affect recognition of those hazards?
marathag said:
72 is about as high as you can go for refining without additives. TEL was just used as it was cheap and had good storage characteristics.
True, which makes doing it harder...
marathag said:
72 With a War on, you sure there wouldn't be an Executive Order allowing TEL use for duration of the War?
That is depressingly likely.:( It's also all too likely the "temporary" pass becomes permanent postwar.:mad:

OTOH, it does depend on how successful oil & chemical companies are at coming up with something better.

IDK enough about the chemistry, but two approaches occurred to me. One is adding (inventing) MME. The other is "remixing" gasoline with benzenes & other stuff, like Formula One teams did for awhile. I'm seeing both of these needing chemistry that's too sophisticated for the '30s or '40s, tho. Am I wrong? Is this in reach by WW2? By 1950?

I'm already glad I posted this one.:cool::cool::cool: None of these had even crossed my mind.:eek:
 
IDK enough about the chemistry, but two approaches occurred to me. One is adding (inventing) MME. The other is "remixing" gasoline with benzenes & other stuff, like Formula One teams did for awhile. I'm seeing both of these needing chemistry that's too sophisticated for the '30s or '40s, tho. Am I wrong? Is this in reach by WW2? By 1950?

You can add higher octane hydrocarbons( like Toluene or IsoOctane), but the problem there, is they are temperature sensitive: they boil out. It's not stable.
The problem with Alcohol based solutions, is that it's corrosive and deteriorates natural materials commonly used in carbs back then, leather for seals, rubber for lines, cork for floats. It's also hygroscopic.

That's one reason why when they used water/methanol injection, rather than just mixing it into the fuel directly

MBTE could have been produced in the '30s, but that has its own health issues, as does the other family of butyl or methyl ether boosters.

So what do you do when you are stuck with lower octane gas before WWII?

What the Germans and Soviets did: larger displacements.
The Daimler 605 had similar power to the Merlin, but was over 400 cubic inches larger, and then Nitrous and methanol to try and make up for not having the even higher blends of TEL the Allies were using after 1943
 
Last edited:
marathag said:
You can add higher octane hydrocarbons( like Toluene or IsoOctane), but the problem there, is they are temperature sensitive: they boil out. It's not stable.
:( At low temperature (in the tank:eek:)? Or in the combustion process?
marathag said:
The problem with Alcohol based solutions, is that it's corrosive and deteriorates natural materials commonly used in carbs back then, leather for seals, rubber for lines, cork for floats. It's also hygroscopic.
I don't say there are no issues.;) This is the most obvious answer. Since materials were improving pretty rapidly anyhow...
marathag said:
MBTE could have been produced in the '30s, but that has its own health issues, as does the other family of butyl or methyl ether boosters.
I knew that. It wasn't (AFAIK) known at the time, so it might be the route taken. (I'd prefer not...:eek:)
marathag said:
So what do you do ...?
What the Germans and Soviets did: larger displacements.
The Daimler 605 had similar power to the Merlin, but was over 400 cubic inches larger, and then Nitrous and methanol to try and make up for not having the even higher blends of TEL the Allies were using after 1943
Given the American love of more cubic inches, that seems the most likely answer. (Ye gods, 1000ci 'cudas?:eek::eek::eek::p)

For all that, tho, I can't believe engine design would be static. Better burn of even low-octane fuel gives more power, so...the Ardun hemi, S/DOHC, & FI still seem probable.
 
marathag said:
High summer temperature caused the shorter chain hydrocarbons to boil out, while cold temps some could separate out, like benzene while stored in the tank

:eek: Yeah, that's a bad idea.;):p
 
Re lend lease to the USSR:

Almost all the vehicles supplied to the USSR were diesel.

The exceptions were basically the early 41/42 stuff, primarily the british supplies to Murmansk and some early US stuff
 
Starkad said:
Re lend lease to the USSR:

Almost all the vehicles supplied to the USSR were diesel.

The exceptions were basically the early 41/42 stuff, primarily the british supplies to Murmansk and some early US stuff
In this situation, do you suppose there'd be greater U.S. demand for diesel vehicles? And diesel fuel? (My guess is not, given diesels, until quite recently, had a real rep for being smoky & noisy...)
 
A thought: could the U.S. auto industry have switched to methane, instead? Or develop *syntin?

This has valuable knock-ons for rocket engines...

Of the gases, Propane/butane mixes would be the most likely, since it would work above 40 degrees and liquid at room temps, no expensive compressors or heavy duty storage tanks needed.
Simple mixers are fine, no special injector setup needed, and points ignition suffcient.

but would need preheat to vaporize at lower temps, so dual fuel, gasoline to get the engine hot enough to get the propane vaporizer to work.

Used to have a propane powered Chevy pickup back in the '80s, when propane was dirt cheap, and gas wasn't.
 
marathag said:
Of the gases, Propane/butane mixes would be the most likely, since it would work above 40 degrees and liquid at room temps, no expensive compressors or heavy duty storage tanks needed.
Simple mixers are fine, no special injector setup needed, and points ignition suffcient.

but would need preheat to vaporize at lower temps, so dual fuel, gasoline to get the engine hot enough to get the propane vaporizer to work.
That was my thinking, too, actually. Propane (or maybe it's natural gas:eek:) has another drawback: it's hard to start on in cold conditions, like North Dakota or Saskatchewan... There'd need to be a kind of injector added, probably: gasoline? Or alcohol?

The upside of propane is, it's effectively about 130 octane.:cool: (Natural gas is in the same range.) It's great for high-performance cars. And it's cheaper to make than gasoline. (AIUI, natural gas in the '30s was simply burned off as waste.:eek::eek:) So there should be no supply shortages...

Why am I picturing a Hudson *Superbird with a CNG-fuelled 308ci hemi inline six...?:cool:
 
That was my thinking, too, actually. Propane (or maybe it's natural gas:eek:) has another drawback: it's hard to start on in cold conditions, like North Dakota or Saskatchewan... There'd need to be a kind of injector added, probably: gasoline? Or alcohol?

The upside of propane is, it's effectively about 130 octane.:cool: (Natural gas is in the same range.) It's great for high-performance cars. And it's cheaper to make than gasoline. (AIUI, natural gas in the '30s was simply burned off as waste.:eek::eek:) So there should be no supply shortages...

Why am I picturing a Hudson *Superbird with a CNG-fuelled 308ci hemi inline six...?:cool:

Many still burn it off, some rigs and esp. offshore still had flares, burning it off. Same with some of new the fracking setups.

The best thing about running propane was how clean it was, run propane all summer, oil change, the old Oil wasn't black, hardly darker at all.

Alcohol is almost as bad as propane in cold weather, so thats out.
Gasoline is the ticket.
 
marathag said:
Many still burn it off, some rigs and esp. offshore still had flares, burning it off. Same with some of new the fracking setups.
:confused: They may have safety reasons or something, but that seems like an enormous waste, to me.
marathag said:
The best thing about running propane was how clean it was, run propane all summer, oil change, the old Oil wasn't black, hardly darker at all.
AIUI, it reduces carbonization & generally burns cleaner, so maintenance is lighter generally.
marathag said:
Alcohol is almost as bad as propane in cold weather, so thats out.
Gasoline is the ticket.
Gasoline looks simplest, & we're back to OP: how to improve it.;)
Archibald said:
The main risk was someone making jokes on the true Chuck Norris :p
Tell the truth: would you even have looked at the thread without that?;) Besides, it's fair, given the doctor's name...;) (He couldn't know he'd have the name of a legend.:p)

And if Chuck can't do it, it can't be done.:p
 
Top