Scientists, including chemists and energy experts, have dismissed the latest viral video alleging that petrol from the NNPC outlet does last compared to the same product from the Dangote refinery, describing it as poorly planned propaganda that stands logic on its head.
Describing the comparison made in the video as pedestrian and not scientific, the analysts in separate interviews maintained that the video is belittling Nigerians’ mentality as the fuel fraction from the distillation process contains roughly the same C4-C12 groups.
Reacting to the video, Sadiq Haruna, a chemist, said, “The fuel fraction from any distillation process contains roughly the same C4-C12 groups. So they are identical in makeup. Except they are saying that Dangote fuels are heavier with more of the C10–C12 groups, which means the density will be higher and closer to kero.
“So, while it won’t burn as fast, it will have more exhaust gases and soot buildup, especially in the valves since the ICE of petrol engines wasn’t built for that. So you will be trading off the engine longevity for slower fuel combustion.
“Looking at the experiment itself is flawed. No two engines are exactly alike. Secondly, he should have swapped the fuels to see how the engine affects the combustion.”
Ademola Adigun, an oil and gas expert, added, “The timeline for combustion can’t ever be that much. Unless you use vapour in one and real petrol in another. No matter the type of fuel and additives, you can’t get a 2-minute burn difference. At best, with all things equal, load and others. best you get 30 seconds.
“We should see the datasheet of petrol sold by the different entities for a technical evaluation of these claims.
“Unfortunately, we don’t seem to believe so much in the scientific determination of issues; if not by now, someone should’ve run a proper energy content analysis in a laboratory rather than the social media campaigns to deceive a public that has no understanding of octane ratings, operating conditions, and other parameters that affect fuel consumption. And a public that is ready to pour “premium petrol” into 20-year-old cars.
“First, let me quickly state that what you saw was not a scientific comparison method of the two liquids.
“Secondly, without delving into the apparent lack of complete technical transparency in the process, I can categorically infer from the evident result that it is inherently impossible for the energy content in the alleged samples to contain more than twice the energy output of the other.
“Therefore, I can conclude that it was another gimmick to promote the Dangote brand.”
Stating that all petrol, irrespective of grade or source, falls within a range of carbon atom content (per molecule of the compound, which is PMS), Chairman Energy Transition Study Group of the Nigeria Gas Association (NGA), Olabode Sowunmi, said, “Chemically, that is the C4-C12 group, meaning 4–12 carbon atoms per molecule of the compound. So irrespective of which one, they will behave alike.
“To get the exact C content of Dangote Fuel, we need to check NMDPRA-approved lab tests for them. Now, if they have the heavier carbon groups (C13 upwards), then it’s no longer petrol. It’s a different compound… based on scientific classification.
“That said, the key factor of science is that it’s a repeatable process. For perspective, water boils at 100 degrees at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP). So it doesn’t matter if it’s in Alaska, Cape Town, or Potiskum. At 100 degrees STP, water will boil! It can be repeated anywhere once the conditions are met. That is science.
“Now, the combustion of petrol to produce the energy that powers the generator must be consistent for it to be science. This is because all chemical reactions, including the combustion of hydrocarbons, will be repeatable under the same conditions.
“The idea that hydrocarbons (petrol) from a certain refinery of the same chemical composition will behave differently under the same conditions is not scientific. It’s like saying water certified to be clean and pure from Nestle is better than the same water from Guinness. That’s not scientific.
“It could make nice material for a fiction novel. It could be a useful line for propaganda, but it’s not scientifically correct.
Culled from Daily Post Nigeria
