PDA

View Full Version : SOV but is there ANY reason you would not blend 5% ULP



dagwill
23rd September 2013, 10:01 PM
I understand all the purists of SOV but is there any reason why you would not use a light blend, lets just say 5% ULP, and perhaps solve any problems with viscosity, heating,etc. Still think of it as SOV and treat it as such, but would this make it a more user friendly fuel.

Tim-HJ61
24th September 2013, 02:05 AM
I understand all the purists of SOV but is there any reason why you would not use a light blend, lets just say 5% ULP, and perhaps solve any problems with viscosity, heating,etc. Still think of it as SOV and treat it as such, but would this make it a more user friendly fuel.

Given you're asking for 'any' reason..... It breaches tax laws to blend an excisable fuel and a non excisable fuel. ULP is excisable (subject to fuel tax), veggie oil is non excisable. I've never heard of anyone being done for such blending of Veggie oil and ULP, or anything, in Australia.

If blending was done very poorly, a slug of a rich mix of ULP might end up in your injection pump.... maybe....


would this make it a more user friendly fuel
I agree. Adding a bit of ULP also changes the oxidative characteristics of veggie oil, as in it makes it more stable and less likely to oxidise.

Go for it Dagwill.

Tim

craigcurtin
24th September 2013, 08:29 PM
Yes. there are many benefits to the addition of 5% Ulp.

2 weeks ago I set up some tests as a point of interest expressed on another forum.
I was able to measure the power output of an engine extremely accurately under load and 5% ULP gave a definite and unmistakable increase in power and also resulted in better burning of SVO.

If you are interested in my results and experience with blending send me a PM with your email addy.

The only thing to watch for is to use non-ethanol ULP. I remember some of the guys on here did some testing a while ago and showed that there were lacquers and others nasties that seemed to drop out when using ethanol based ULP.

Craig

yoda2026
17th November 2013, 09:14 PM
when blending these things keep in mind that ulp has an octane rating and diesel/oil has a cetane rating and that they are inversely proportional to each other
meaning adding ulp to diesel lowers the cetane rating making it harder to ignite undercompression
also adding diesel to petrol lowers the octane rating making more likely to ping or knock

cuppatea
18th November 2013, 08:56 PM
Blending is most definitely interesting me more lately.
Despite the strange cetane and ron post the consensus I think don't have issue with ulp blending.
I can share one interesting adventure a cousin had in recent years. He filled up his 2.8l hilux diesel with ulp and drove for hours without realising. Now obviously it wasn't 100% ulp but it it was way more than what Toyota recommends ha ha.
This motor would have been idi and a mechanical IP. It just goes to show what some diesel engines can cope with.

Tony From West Oz
18th November 2013, 10:02 PM
While I agree with the above posts, I wish to clarify that diesel engines will not run on a high percentage of petrol. My Nissan Urvan (25 years ago) was low on fuel and I poured a jerry can of what I thought was diesel (actually ULP) into the tank. After 20 km, the engine lost power, had a big cloud of white smoke coming out the exhaust and it rolled to a halt.

After towing the Urvan home, adding diesel and pumping it thru with the primer pump, the Urvan started and ran on what would have been about 25% ULP, 75% diesel. It had no ill effects from the mis-fueling, once the correct fuel was used.
I do not know what impact this would have had if it were a common rail engine, as the high pressure pump on those is particularly sensitive to fuel quality (especially lubrication characteristics)
Regards,
Tony

dagwill
19th November 2013, 09:54 AM
peter1 a very clear and good explanation

cuppatea
19th November 2013, 07:22 PM
Obviously common rail is another thing altogether. Ulp in that fuel system will be terminal.
Agreed a high percentage of ulp well be noticeable, runs like a dog though I'm surprised it stopped altogether. Sounds to me like tbird's famous issue. I'm willing to bet (never test) that you could run an old diesel engine on high amounts of ulp with a cold ambient temperature. But anyway, the point is even higher amounts of ulp (be it by accident) won't generally spell disaster.

Tony From West Oz
19th November 2013, 09:08 PM
Obviously common rail is another thing altogether. Ulp in that fuel system will be terminal.
SNIP.
I don't think that ULP in a common rail system will be terminal in a blend with veggie oil. I believe that it would depend on the blend ratio & the resultant lubricity of the blend.

Regards,
Tony

yoda2026
19th November 2013, 09:51 PM
actually peter no i understand the theory behind all this i have no intention of going very deep into this but if you want more information i suggest you start with something along the lines of cengel and boles thermodynamics textbook and once you have gone through that i can steer you into quite a few combustion textbooks




You read this Rubbish somewhere else right and just repeated it here without actually understanding why such a theory is flawed.

I don't know who dreams this stuff up but it sure gets repeated and misleads a LOT of people.
If you are interested it, you would learn a lot if you looked into the various aspects as this applies to Petrol and Diesel engines and a 3rd consideration as to how it applies to Veg oil use.

I have explained the reasons why this isn't true in more places than I can remember but still the old flawed theory just keeps going on.

Here is a quick heads up:

"The auto-ignition temperatures for the oils were determined to be as follows: canola oil: 424Ԩ, vegetable oil: 406 Ԩ and olive oil: 435Ԩ."




Gasoline, Petrol
280




"The compression ratio in a gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline) or petrol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol)-powered engine will usually not be much higher than 10:1 due to potential engine knocking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking)"

"There is no electrical sparking plug in an auto-ignition diesel engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine); the heat of compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_compression) raises the temperature of the mixture to its auto-ignition point. The CR will customarily exceed 14:1 and ratios over 22:1 are common. The appropriate compression ratio depends on the design of the cylinder head. The figure is usually between 14:1 and 16:1 for direct injection engines, and between 18:1 and 23:1 for indirect injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_injection) engines."


SO, the facts are that Petrol has both a lower auto ignition temp and a lower max compression ratio than diesel and moreso, Veg oil.

Someone please explain to me with proven fact and physics how then spraying an amount of Petrol mixed with veg oil into an atmosphere ( inside a Cylinder) that has a highly elevated temperature due to compression ratios that far exceed the knock resistance ( auto Ign temp) of petrol, are going to make that mixture harder to ignite?

Furthermore, try starting a diesel on SVO on a cold day. Often, you can't. Add a small amount of petrol to the intake of the engine ( therefore eliminating any benefit potential of thinning the SVO and the thing will fire very readily. IF petrol was harder to ignite then this could obviously not happen.

Simple science and easily demonstrated practical application that makes the idea of adding petrol to Veg oil makes it harder to ignite a load of BS.
Seriously, who comes up with this misinformation and why do people keep repeating it??
It's complete and utter poppycock and total Bunk.


Best people do their own research if they want to know what's right and what is just more internet BS.

Tim-HJ61
20th November 2013, 09:52 AM
actually peter no i understand the theory behind all this i have no intention of going very deep into this but if you want more information i suggest you start with something along the lines of cengel and boles thermodynamics textbook and once you have gone through that i can steer you into quite a few combustion textbooks

It's the experience of many forum members that
adding ulp to diesel lowers the cetane rating making it harder to ignite under compression is not correct for our application with WVO.

We find that adding ULP provides all round benefits to veggie oil. The thermodynamics theories you refer to may be correct regarding diesel fuel, but it's our practical experience that it does not apply the same way to WVO. It is a common mistake to translate properties related to diesel to biodiesel to WVO, regarding all sort of things; pumps, valves etc that are listed as working for diesel do not necessarily translate to WVO applications. Same thing could well be the case for ULP blends in WVO - it works for us.

We want the WVO to ignite quicker. ULP does this.

According to wikipedia:
"Cetane number or CN is a measure of a fuel's ignition delay, the time period between the start of injection and the first identifiable pressure increase during combustion of the fuel. In a particular diesel engine, higher cetane fuels will have shorter ignition delay periods than lower cetane fuels."

Tim

cuppatea
20th November 2013, 08:11 PM
I don't think that ULP in a common rail system will be terminal in a blend with veggie oil. I believe that it would depend on the blend ratio & the resultant lubricity of the blend.

Regards,
Tony

Yes your correct and I agree. What I meant I guess is a large percentage of ulp such as accidentally filling a common rail diesel with ulp would be terminal and expensive whereas the same mistake (with mechanical injection) would be noticeable and easily reversible. I personally wouldn't go down the wvo route if I had a common rail. I would do biodiesel - but that's just my opinion and another topic altogether :)

Johnnojack
21st November 2013, 09:42 AM
I believe some here blend in stale petrol sourced from 2 stroke mower repair shops etc. Is stale better than fresh ULP or is it no different?

Tony From West Oz
21st November 2013, 09:16 PM
I use stale petrol (with some 2 stroke mixed in as well) from the bike shop as my blending fuel.
Why Stale petrol?
Because it is a waste product which costs the shop $ to dispose of.
Because I get it for free.
This is a win:win solution for them and me.
I also believe that it has lost most of the volatiles which contribute to vapour lock, which has been reported by some blending with new ULP.

Regards,
Tony

Alga
22nd November 2013, 11:50 AM
Discussions like this always intrigue me, especially all the technical claims, compared to the experience. Over the years have experimented with ULP, BD and diesel blends of up to 25% during winter, to see the results in actual practice. We are lucky in a way as we have 3 vehicles of the same make and model running VO, 2x12ht and 1x 2h land cruisers, along with various other machinery engines, boat and generators.

Our best results come from 10% BD, next was 10% dino and a long last with many associated problems for our climate, ULP. ULP, is not designed for use in a diesel engine, however you can put 25% in without instant problems. Years ago when experimenting, was able to meet and discuss this with engineers from the Antarctic division as they used ULP in the engines and had to change them over ever 2 seasons after running 24/7 for at least 2 years. They convinced me the long term damage caused by ULP , isn't observable until they are about to stop. The UlP scoured fuel system, diluted any form of lubrication in the diesel and when sulphur was removed, they had to replace some IP's, injectors, piston rings and fuel pumps within 6 months. Since changing their system and removing ULP, their engines are lasting 5-7 years without need of major overhaul. Don't know what they did, but it must have worked, the comment I got was, much better storage and pumping facilities and 2 stroke additive, as a fuel system lubricant.

Of course we use VO, so have no real problems with lubrication, but during the time I used ULP, had nothing but trouble and since switching to BD or dino as a winter blend, not even blocked filters which seem the norm with ULP, for some reason.

Why do people use ULP, which is incompatible with diesel technology, when using either BD or dino, doesn't the same job using compatible fuels. A practical answer to that would be appreciated and not the technical spin jargon, which has no practical experience backing.

barton
22nd November 2013, 12:53 PM
Years ago when experimenting, was able to meet and discuss this with engineers from the Antarctic division as they used ULP in the engines and had to change them over ever 2 seasons after running 24/7 for at least 2 years.
I am not clear what you mean here. Do you mean they were using ULP in diesel engines?
If that was the case, what percentage was ULP? What was the fuel it was mixed with, Number 1 or number 2 diesel?

Alga
22nd November 2013, 01:57 PM
I am not clear what you mean here. Do you mean they were using ULP in diesel engines?
If that was the case, what percentage was ULP? What was the fuel it was mixed with, Number 1 or number 2 diesel?

Not sure, it was years ago, probably 2, as it's a winter fuel. As stated in my post, they used up to 25% ULP, to stop it gelling. Things have changed a great deal since then and generator rooms and storage tanks etc have stable temperatures, well above freezing point. They did say it was something they really wouldn't recommend for getting a long life out of your engine.

To my mind any more than 10% would be asking for trouble over the long term, then again the experts may disagree. All I go on is personal experience over the last 30 years or so, and learning from others experiences, especially in very low temperature area's, like the snowy mountains. For some reason prefer living in cold climates, so have learnt what works best and gives us the best reliability and life time. Our 2h land cruiser is approaching 600000 klms, more than 300000 on VO and 10% BD or dino in winter. Been meaning to rebuilt it for the last few years, but as it still goes and pulls really well, other than down a bit of power, it will continue until it virtually dies. The di triton ute we had and experimented with ULP, had an engine rebuild and nothing but problems, costing us a fortune. So got rid of all our di engines and went back to in line IP's, A mate is currently fitting a 12ht engine into a 91 cruiser, once it set up properly, will probably do the same. Series 80's are cheap and their engine seem to pack up quickly to earlier engines, then you have all the computing and special servicing which costs the earth. I can get one with a blown engine for less than $3000. My only concern, is whether the 12ht can handle the constant 4x4, just have to wait and see.

barton
22nd November 2013, 03:05 PM
Not sure, it was years ago, probably 2, as it's a winter fuel.If it was winter diesel it would have been number 1 diesel which is kerosene


As stated in my post, they used up to 25% ULP, to stop it gelling.Not wanting to be considered pedantic, but in your OP you said it was you who had used up to 25% ULP. You did not specify what the percentage was in the ant arctic, that is why I asked.



The UlP scoured fuel system, diluted any form of lubrication in the diesel and when sulphur was removed, they had to replace some IP's, injectors, piston rings and fuel pumps within 6 months.If you are adding 25% ULP to kersoene you can expect to have trouble. Back then there was no lubricity requirement in the Diesel Fuel specification
Then, if you add to that the problems which resulted with the change over to low sulfur kerosene.

But we are not mixing ULP with kerosene, so that is not a valid comparrison

Alga
22nd November 2013, 06:24 PM
If it was winter diesel it would have been number 1 diesel which is kerosene

Not wanting to be considered pedantic, but in your OP you said it was you who had used up to 25% ULP. You did not specify what the percentage was in the ant arctic, that is why I asked.


If you are adding 25% ULP to kersoene you can expect to have trouble. Back then there was no lubricity requirement in the Diesel Fuel specification
Then, if you add to that the problems which resulted with the change over to low sulfur kerosene.

But we are not mixing ULP with kerosene, so that is not a valid comparrison

Read my post and understand what was said, this is what I posted. “however you can put 25% in without instant problems”. No where does it say I claimed to have used 25%, 15% may have been the most as knocking and hunting became very evident. It was the antarctic blokes who stated 25% could be used, which was verified with research. They never said how much they used, as I didn't ask.

The validity of my comments are in using ULP instead of diesel in VO, when there is no difference in performance and you can add any amount of diesel to your fuel, if needed. Diesel BD VO, all compatible fuels. ULP is not compatible with any of them in regard to how they are used, type of engine and firing mechanism. Diesel, BD. VO all have similar flash points, ULP is vey different. It was used as a thinner when needed and that's why people have this idea it's cool, to run ULP through your diesel engine. In my opinion, it's not logical or rational, even though the science may claim otherwise. To my mind, it's adding an abrasive to your fuel system, which may be fine once or twice. But we are talking about adding it to VO constantly, if you think that's fine, go for it. What I write is only my opinion, many others have different ones, I respect that and learn from them. It develops an overall understanding, so you can then implement the best approach which suits your circumstances.

I prefer simple, logical and easily workable approaches, cheap, easily fixed and won't cause to many problems. This allows us to only buy start fuel when travelling and we run out of BD, or winter in Tas or the snowies, where we sometimes have to thin both the VO and BD because of temperatures. Dino does that excellently and to any percentage you need, without a problem. As we carry 120lt of start fuel, it's rare we buy dino. Others prefer different ways which suit them and their situation. If you prefer blending ULP with VO rather than dino, go for it, experience is the best way to learn.

barton
22nd November 2013, 07:02 PM
Read my post and understand what was said, this is what I posted. “however you can put 25% in without instant problems”. No where does it say I claimed to have used 25%,...
In your first paragraph you said "Over the years have experimented with ULP, BD and diesel blends of up to 25% during winter, to see the results in actual practice."
I took that to mean that you had mixed up to 25% ULP, BD and diesel into your VO. Apparently you meant something else.

Alga
23rd November 2013, 12:45 PM
I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from Alga.
I'm a proponent of blending ULP, I was promoting it when a lot of the people now singing it's praises were crapping on about cetane ratings and saying they would never put it in their car etc. I sure laugh when I see the turnaround many have made.

Despite that, I'd say that putting 25% ULP in diesel was asking for trouble as well. It's no secret the lube value of diesel is marginal so to reduce it further would have to be detrimental. If I was using ANY ULP in diesel. I'd be putting in a good helping of SVO ( new or used) or 2 stroke ( and a lot more than the touted 200:1). You can't have too much lubricity but adding 25% ULP to dino would be one sure fire way I'd say to achive under lubing.

As for your other statements, they don't all hold true for me.




I don't believe WVO or bio is compatible with a lot of fuel pumps, injection systems and other components either and can and sometimes does cause damage and problems. I'm sure you are well aware of the In joke with veg fuelers that Diesel mechanics have only been around since the inception of veg fuels because according to these mechanics, no IP ever had a problem before veg came along.

While I don't believe ULP is compatible with Diesels on it's own, when mixed with veg in a blend, the properties that make it incompatible as a pure product compensate for some of the shortcomings of WVO as a fuel for diesel engines very nicely.
ULP is compatible with veg as a blend. WMO isn't, it will separate and doesn't add anything of value to the WVO as far as thinning, bringing timing back to Dino spec or anything else. If you were arguing WMO as being incompatible, I'd agree. ULP, no.
ULP has numerous benefits when used with VEG rather than DIESEL.




I'm not sure flashpoint is very significant in a compression ignition engine. It was my understanding that autoignition temp is the key factor and to that end I believe the difference between Dino and BD is around 200 O c LOWER than Veg oil or around double. To me, that's very dissimilar.

Could you show some evidence to support the flashpoints of Dino, BD and VO all being similar? The info I posted earlier and other I have seen puts them around 200 Oc apart or veg being around double the flashpoint of dino. That's not what I call similar at all. ULP is less than Dino or bd and what makes it a good blending agent for veg.



Not sure if you mean Cool as in trendy or cool as in OK?
The former has never entered my mind, the latter I certainly agree with.
It' seems to me your main problem is it's abrasive. I would guarantee and bet my house that a Blend of even 50% ULP and VO is going to kick the backside of regular diesel right off the lubricity charts. That being the case, I'm not understanding your problem.




With respect, I'll take science over your or anyone elses "opinion" any day.
That's kinda the point of science, to show what the real truth is and take out "beliefs" and opinion and politics and agendas and all that man made variable stuff.
As for logic and rational. I believe I showed in my previous post exactly why it is logical and rational. If you write facts off as technical jargon, then the conversation is really rather pointless as you have made your mind up and are going to argue with anything that doesn't agree.



Well I think that about sums it up. My experience and the facts support ULP blending.

Petrol is not an abrasive at all. It just has low lube value. It it were abrasive, common sense and logic would tell you all the cars that have been made in the last 20 years that have Fuel injection systems would be going through the high pressure pumps and injectors like steam if petrol was in fact abrasive. Critically speaking, the Kerosene that is a large component in Diesel is an abrasive and is/was used in engineering circles specifically for that quality. From what I have seen, you would have to add at least 95% ULP to wvo in order to get the lubricity level down as low as that of regular Dino.

About 5 weeks ago I set up a small Diesel engine which was driving a 3 phase induction motor set up as a generator.
I was monitoring frequency of the output and the wattage the motor was producing down to the 10/th of a watt. It occurred to me by locking the fuel rack, I could get a very accurate reading of what the engine was doing. To summarize what I did, I found 5% ULP in WVO gave a power increase. Dino & Bio either reduced the output or did nothing at up to 10%. 5% ulp /WVO had a slightly better power output than the Bio I had.
10% ULP in WVO gave a reduced power output compared to both 5% and SVO.

The hand crank engine used in the test was tried to be started from 24HR shut down several times and suffice to say I gave up before the thing fired. With 5% ULP, the thing would start first crank every time. I went back to svo and again couldn't get it to go but with a small amount of ULP down the intake or poured on the air filter element, starting was again always first wind up every time.




To me, and obviously other people's opinions differ, It's pretty easy to fill a 1.25L drink bottle with petrol and pour it into a 25L drum and give it a shake by twisting motion of my wrist before pouring it in the tank. I'f I filling the tank, I have a 5L oil bottle I use for the fuel. I pour 50L of oil in, then the petrol, then top the tank off with WVO. That is simple, logical and workable enough for me and has NEVER caused a problem.



I don't carry any ULP initially, all WVO. I start off with a tank of blended fuel and I have about an 850KM range with that. When I get to where I need to fill, I usually stop at a servo, Pour a drum of WVO in the tank, take the empty drum and get 15L of ULP. I put 5 in the tank and then top off with oil. I have enough for another couple of refills and by the time that is done, I'm back home. My furthest travel is Sydney to brisbane, some running round and a couple of inland tours and that's it.

Any further and I'm collecting on the road and it's obviously no problem to buy more petrol if I need it. Last trip I ran short on oil and had to buy some Dino but a fellow forumite helped me out with some more WVO which was enough to get me back to a relatives place where I keep enough oil from a local supplier there to get me back home.

One big reason I go for ULP over dino is that you can only ever make thick Diesel with Dino, because it's the base viscosity to start with. With ULP being so much thinner, you have a head start so to speak. 10% ULP makes a huge difference to the viscosity of WVO and if it's cold enough to need that much ULP, it's more than cold enough to run it.

I'm not coming from anywhere other than my experience and many others since 1977, when I first started using VO. Since have tried just about every suggestion others made until early this century, when decided on the simplest, cheapest most reliable system which suited the need of our many different engines.

You can be as enthusiastic as you like, the facts are you spend lots of money on ULP, rely upon petrol stations and have to buy and blend always, along with filtering your oil. We just put our oil in a centrifuge at home or on the road, then into the tank and that's it. I couldn't care less whether they hold true for you or anyone else, All I'm doing is putting forward my opinion and experience of more than 30 years.

The most important thing you need to understand is, diesels were designed to run on peanut and seed oils originally, It was only when diesel became available and cheap, things changed. Modern diesel with rotary pumps are a bit different and problematic, that's why we got rid of them and now all our engines are in line IP's.

We ran a triton on ULP blend, lasted 4 years after a rebuild. Others I have met and known over the years who use ULP blends have ended up having major repairs done. We have one vehicle which has done more than 300000 klms on pure veggie oil, one coming up to 150000 and our bus, was switched over to veggie with the engine having done 650000 klms. I personally know of no one who has been able to use a ULP blended vehicle for more than 3 years, without having heaps of trouble. Especially when the white flakes you find in petrol fuel systems, being to appear and get into IP and injectors after a couple of years.

I'm only posting for those who wish to learn of other experiences, not interested in anything else. Unless you can truthfully tell me you've run your ULP blended vehicle for at least 4 years and over 100000 klms, without a problem, then until you've had the experience and knowledge, what you say means nothing to me.

howard43
23rd November 2013, 10:14 PM
. We just put our oil in a centrifuge at home or on the road, then into the tank and that's it.

This is the type of information I am looking for. Up to now everything looks very complicated. Now I see that all I need to do is run the veg oil through a centrifuge and pour it into the tank. No chemicals or 2 tank system or heating needed.

Tim-HJ61
23rd November 2013, 10:47 PM
That might be right howard43 - welcome to the forum by the way - but you MUST make sure your vehicle is suited to running a blend. It is not suitable for any diesel, but it is suitable for some diesels.

Check the FAQ at the top of the SVO section of the forum and work it out with the matrix, then post a query to confirm your research to the group.

Tim

howard43
23rd November 2013, 11:14 PM
Thank you for the welcome Tim.
I can not find the FAQ at the top of the SVO section.

Query- Can you show me where the FAQ section at the top of the SVO section is?

Tim-HJ61
23rd November 2013, 11:20 PM
http://www.biofuelsforum.com/threads/5311-FAQ-1-otherwise-known-as-a-good-place-to-start

It's the fifth thread in the SVO = i.e. this section - of the forum.
http://www.biofuelsforum.com/forums/5-SVO-Users

There is also a matrix there to help you determine key issues and how suitable your particular vehicle is for a variety of options.

If you want to know more about blending there is a whole subsection of the SVO section dedicated to blending, and this thread really belongs in it.

Tim

howard43
23rd November 2013, 11:46 PM
I was looking all the way at the top of the forum

I have read through the thread and can not find anything about just running the WVO through a centrifuge and pouring it into the fuel tank.
I can not find the matrix.

Alga
24th November 2013, 05:50 AM
This is the type of information I am looking for. Up to now everything looks very complicated. Now I see that all I need to do is run the veg oil through a centrifuge and pour it into the tank. No chemicals or 2 tank system or heating needed.

Howard, my apologies for not explaining a bit more for those not familiar with using VO and probably misleading you.

You do need a 2 tank system (start tank) and heat exchanger when using straight VO, never found a way round that which is reliable and long term. Once you have set up your system, then it's just a matter of putting the oil in the centrifuge and into the tank, as with all things, they only get easy when you've done the required work.

Tim-HJ61
24th November 2013, 09:38 AM
I was looking all the way at the top of the forum

I have read through the thread and can not find anything about just running the WVO through a centrifuge and pouring it into the fuel tank.
I can not find the matrix.

Howard43,

My apologies, the matrix is in the sticky on vehicles converted to WVO. A sticky is a thread that has been deemed useful enough for newcomers to give them a guide to what we do, or an introduction to the forum. they are marked as Sticky and are the top 6 or so threads. We put them there to be helpful to newcomers who are looking for stuff.

http://www.biofuelsforum.com/threads/5301-Vehicles-converted-to-Used-Cooking-Oil is the thread with the matrix in it.

Tim-HJ61
24th November 2013, 03:37 PM
Peter1,

I cannot say I have left my two tank alone at all, and I do like the idea of blending being a viable solution. It's never a black and white issue.

Please let us know if your confidence in blending spreads to direct injection and common rail vehicles. And what blends have you found successful with these engines? Given I have run my DI successfully on a two tank system, sometimes containing a blend, I'm keen to know if i can move to the next stage with confidence. I'm keen to know at what blend with what dilutant, the problem of injector blockages can be removed in DI engines.

Tim

gilfish
24th November 2013, 07:06 PM
I have worked out what the real trouble with SVO is and it' has nothing to do with heating the oil and all the other claimed poppycock.

Hi peter I am interested in this comment and your belief that complete combustion is dependent on compression ratio being within spec. I was under the impression that it is temperature related so cold motors not producing the required combustion temps to prevent coking and I don't know the combustion temp required.
We are all aware that IDI motors run higher compression ratios than DI and temperature and pressure are dependent on each other, as in higher compression pressure higher temperature reached in the combustion chamber. does this mean IDI engines are less prone to coking than DI? Could you please explain your belief in compression specs and coking kind regards andrew

Alga
25th November 2013, 07:21 AM
Next time, Could you make that clear in advance instead of asking questions you then dismiss out of hand because they are not what your opinion agrees with?
Thanks.

I like to clear up FUD and misleading opinions that are based on scientifically flawed assumptions like you have with petrol being an abrasive and other things you incorrectly state. If you are posting for the benefit of others, it would be best to give some latitude to known factrather than assume there is only one correct way or theroy.





For those that wish to learn about running SVO, NO, you categorically do NOT need a 2 tank system and HE at all. That is a perpetuated Myth with little basis in fact and physics of what happens and is needed to run SVO.
I have seen several engines that were low Mileage coked up and useless when they ran the full over the top catastrophe of Twin tanks, changeover valves, huge fuel lines, multiple HE's and all the other built in failure points as per the perceived Veg gospel so it is far from foolproof or guaranteed to be long term and sure as hell is far from reliable.

I have run a basicly stock fuel system save for a different fuel filter from another vehicle ( not even aftermarket) for 2 years on my last vehicle and found with compression checks, I was actually able to marginally improve the compression with the aid of another cheap and easy technology.
If I can get better compression which I can measure and verify, then there cannot be any long term problems. I run some ULP in winter for easier starting but I have dozens of times started on straight VO without and ill effects.
I have worked out what the real trouble with SVO is and it' has nothing to do with heating the oil and all the other claimed poppycock. This is why some conversions are successful and some are not. I could sabotage any engine with an SVO Conversion and it has nothing to do with the conversion itself nor would any mechanic pick up there was anything wrong. Conversely, I can make any vehicle that was running a conversion run fine after it was removed -IF- the engine meets compression spec and the ambient temps are not lower than the gel point of the oil being used.

2 tanks are an extremely inefficient, high cost and far from reliable or guaranteed way of running veg. It makes no sense to complicate a fuel system and anyone that tells me they have installed a 2 tank system and not had to touch it since it was installed, I will call a liar. There is always an air or fuel leak or a perishing hose or dropout in filters or contaminating tanks or something. It is NEVER install and never touch again.
I believe people run them because they don't understand or look into the way things work enough and really analyze what the conversions are trying to achieve and if that is needed in their circumstances. They also default to what they hear is going to work because they don't want to experiment and risk damaging their vehicle. For that reason they do what everyone else does and never really test out any other method or go against the folklore to see if it's actually true or not.
Most of it is in fact complete and utter rubbish.

Yes, If you live where it snows 6 months of the year, 2 tank systems may have some advantage over other methods.... but not a whole lot I don't think. In temperate climates, conversions are not necessary and in fact are building in far more potential problems than they solve.

In the long run, Blending is a far more viable option and certainly far more reliable. You don't have to make the underbonnet of your car a plumbers nightmare, take up extra boot space, spend money on miles of fuel hose, heat exchangers, valves and all the rest of the mess that is a conversion. I'm not the only one running SVO in an un modified system here, there are others doing it as well.

And unless someone has run a 2 tank system and then blended for at least a couple of seasons each, I'm not interested in their opinion.
Just posting so others looking into running veg can be aware that not everything they read is set in stone and there are always more than one way to skin a cat in this game.

You've made all these fantastic claims, now its time to provide evidence you can run SVO without any modifications or blending and it will start and stop on SVO, even in cold weather. You then claim, you use a blend, which is not SVO. You need to make up your mind what you are talking about and provide verifiable evidence. Otherwise you're misleading people who could end up with catastrophic engine problems, very unwise unless you can prove evidence you can run a vehicle on SVO without any modifications or blending.

Over the years have seen what happens to vehicles which have been started on SVO a number of times and can't understand why they get massive blow by and overrun problems after 20- 50000 klms, requiring rebuilds. No different to those who start and drive away, or idle their engine below 1200 revs constantly and for long periods, inviting major long term trouble

Much of what you say makes little sense in reality, especially when you consider the amount of mileage many of us have done over the years without any engine problems. Re plumbing you're vehicle takes less than 1 hour, done right you never have leaky anything and as we don't buy ULP, our costs are 100% lower than those buying ULP.

How are you complicating a fuel system with two tank set up, it still has one inlet at the iP, before that it is fuel lines and no different to standard dual tank vehicles which are common in new vehicles, requiring switch overs, other than if you're smart you install an in line throw away filter to collect anything not taken care of in filtering.. No one has ever claimed they don't touch a two tank system, why would they, we all know using waste oils bring with it contaminates not taken out with any form of filtering. Your respone is controdictory and not very logical, unless you provide evidence of your claims, its not worthwhile continuing this farce.

Seems you didn't read what I posted, we ran a rebuilt Di triton on blends for 4 years and have run vehicles in SVO for more than 30 years, as well as trying just about every blend and set up you can think of in varioous engine, vehicles, machinery and large fishing boats. Also ran an iDi nissan patrol for a couple of years on ULP blends, both accumulated many problems and the triton failed in the end. Never met anyone who has ran a ULP blend vehcile for more than a couple of years and not ended up with many problems.

Now this has been moved to the blending section, it doesn't interest me, but am happy for you to enlighten us all of your successful method of running a vehicle on SVO with out heating, ULP or other modifications. So why are you using ULP when you claim there is not need, very illogical indeed.

Tim-HJ61
25th November 2013, 10:36 AM
I have seen several engines that were low Mileage coked up and useless when they ran the full over the top catastrophe of Twin tanks, changeover valves, huge fuel lines, multiple HE's and all the other built in failure points as per the perceived Veg gospel so it is far from foolproof or guaranteed to be long term and sure as hell is far from reliable.

I don't understand what is the difference between coking caused by a "full over the top catastrophe of twin tanks" and starting and running from cold on SVO with no blend as you are advocating. If a two tank system is not correctly managed, then it becomes the same as running SVO from cold. I suspect the difference you have witnessed is between direct and indirect injection engines, which to this point you have not acknowledged MUST be treated differently. If you have been able to run a DI on SVO with no blend for long term, then indeed this is a unique achievement worldwide. If not, please differentiate which engine style you are talking about so you do not mislead newbies with poppycock.



I have run a basicly stock fuel system save for a different fuel filter from another vehicle ( not even aftermarket) for 2 years on my last vehicle and found with compression checks, I was actually able to marginally improve the compression with the aid of another cheap and easy technology.
If I can get better compression which I can measure and verify, then there cannot be any long term problems. I run some ULP in winter for easier starting but I have dozens of times started on straight VO without and ill effects.

Oh okay, you have a way of improving the compression with a 'cheap and easy technology'. Sounds interesting, tell us more.

Tim

Tim-HJ61
26th November 2013, 12:04 AM
Okay. I will no longer be facetious and insincere.

The pedantic argumentative style you adopted in previous posts Peter1, is uncalled for and unnecessary. You've obviously got considerable experience despite being a relative newcomer to the forum. Every active participant on the forum over the last few months/year, has been accommodating of differences of opinion and no one is trying to push rubbish down anyones throat. We all have an eye for the bullsh*t artist and none of us want this forum to be filled with inaccurate garbage. You're not wanting this either, so no need to get all defensive and huffy.

What I want to make sure is that no newbie with a direct injection engine comes along here and reads your postings about single tank, with or with out blends, and takes them as gospel. I believe you know this would lead to problems for them. I'd get off your case if you simply stated your ideas relate to indirect injection only. If you believe they do relate to Direct Injection too, then it's fair enough for me to ask for more info.

It's also fair enough to be called to expand on your claims about 100% SVO cold starts and only blending a bit of ULP for winter starting. And your claims about compression. These claims are different to what most on the forum experience. It's not mantra, it's just the majority. If you've got different info, present it and share it - and if you're not prepared to, then don't fizz off and get cranky at people who ask you questions. Most of us are here to learn things - teach us.

If people with indirect injection engines choose to try blending with ULP, they have yours and Alga's contribution to consider. If they want to follow Alga's suggestion of using fuels already able to run in a diesel 100%, then they have reduced their risk and nothing bad will happen if they use a suitable blend. If they want to use ULP as a blend because it requires less to thin the WVO than diesel or biodiesel, then they can make that choice, as many people do. You support it, Alga has different experience. Let people make up their mind.

I don't know what you mean when you say you've been down this road before.
With my moderator hat on, I've also no interest in spending my time cleaning up pedantic paranoid rants and eventually banning people. I recall following this path with Dave_Jones and Jeffrey S Brooks and we've got a better more respectful forum because of it.

You've not upset me Peter1. You'll notice the FAQ I keep referring to has always included reference to blending as an alternative to two tank. There's no argument about either option from me.

Tim

SUZUDDIS
26th November 2013, 01:00 PM
I guess this post has blown out a bit ??

for the original question it may be wise to search the blending forum and read of such testing that has already taken place.

Also , I'm not sure why these posts always end up in such a melodramatic argument that invariably starts to destroy this forum that was once somewhere to go for great advice.
If anyone has any great advice that will solve all of our problems with blending and different tank systems please go ahead and post the details and test results proving the theory so I can learn something new. I myself have deliberately changed from DI to IDI for this very reason. I want to start using BD and WVO in my 2006 Musso.

So please people, don't bitch about what someone else has to say. post up real info with pictures and testing experience that might be useful to others.

Michael

dagwill
26th November 2013, 06:05 PM
I agree with what Michael said, being helpfull is more important than being right. Hey and no one pulled me up for starting the orig. post with SOV, instead of SVO,,, lesson,,, sometimes we are so busy nitpicking we miss obvious wrongs, or people shook their heads and said, "its no use hes a shocking speller"

peter1
26th November 2013, 07:01 PM
If you've got different info, present it and share it - and if you're not prepared to, then don't fizz off and get cranky at people who ask you questions. Most of us are here to learn things - teach us.

I believe I tried to present my evidence in the exact same way others did, relating experience. Others claimed petrol was an abrasive because they used it and had problem. I say I have done something and I'm expected to provide "Verifiable evidence". I would think what is good for the goose is good for the gander but apparently not.

The fact is, I don't have " Verifiable Evidence" or documented facts. Who in this game does and where is all the Verifiable evidence of things veggers do every day? Most of the proper testing I have seen says we can't do what we all do. As to leading newbies astray, I did a number of google search relating to gasoline abrasiveness and a bunch of other terms and found nothing. I would say that the statements made surrounding that are therefore very misleading and plain wrong. If you consider that pedantic, well seems my understanding of the word is different.

When I'm mucking round with my ideas and putting theories to the test, I don't do things to prove them to others. As such, I don't go keeping notes or taking pictures or anything other than making a mental note of the conclusion. I only do things to find out for myself because thats fun and doing it to prove something to others would be work.

I think it's a cop out to expect me to have all this evidence when no one else does just because I have a position that's different to the majority. I'm certain if people did a lot more of their own testing however and took a few risks instead of always wanting the guaranteed answer, then the knowledge base would be a heck of a lot further along than it is now.

Like I said, it's no skin off my nose what other people do. I do my own testing and experiments for MY benefit and I don't bother documenting the results to prove anything to anyone else. When you try to relate what you have found and get so much attitude and people calling for verifiable results and facts it takes all the fun out of it. I'm not getting paid to do research for the benefit of others, they can believe me or write me off as a moron.

As I don't create the evidence and data required, I'll keep my trap shut in future and try my best not to create any arguments or disharmony on the forum and I apologise for the upset caused.

tillyfromparadise
26th November 2013, 08:51 PM
Hi dagwill


...Hey and no one pulled me up for starting the orig. post with SOV, instead of SVO,,, lesson,,, sometimes we are so busy nitpicking we miss obvious wrongs, or people shook their heads and said, "its no use hes a shocking speller"Pointing out spelling mistakes is bad form.

Johnnojack
26th November 2013, 09:57 PM
Tim asked this. " It's also fair enough to be called to expand on your claims about 100% SVO cold starts and only blending a bit of ULP for winter starting. And your claims about compression. These claims are different to what most on the forum experience. It's not mantra, it's just the majority. If you've got different info, present it and share it - and if you're not prepared to, then don't fizz off and get cranky at people who ask you questions. Most of us are here to learn things - teach us." I'll second that.

Peter what kind of vehicle are you talking about? Not a indirect injection Merc with an inline pump by any chance, as we know they are amazing engines which will start no matter what fuel is in the injectors. I for one am interested in more detail but you seem determined to avoid giving any. All you need to do is say what has worked in what engine for how long. We don't need a detailed scientific study with pages of data.

Tim-HJ61
26th November 2013, 11:26 PM
As I don't create the evidence and data required, I'll keep my trap shut in future and try my best not to create any arguments or disharmony on the forum and I apologise for the upset caused.

Thank you Peter1, that's appreciated.

Guys I'm thinking this thread has run it's course. Dagwill, have you received enough info to answer your original question?

Tim

cotton top
20th December 2013, 10:51 PM
Hi,
The question was for ANY reason for NOT adding 5% petrol.

Yup! waste of money.

I used to blend 35ltrs dino, 35lts svo with 10% petrol. Stopped adding petrol, didn't make a damn's worth of difference.

Rob.

Tony From West Oz
20th December 2013, 11:09 PM
Hi,
The question was for ANY reason for NOT adding 5% petrol.

Yup! waste of money.

I used to blend 35ltrs dino, 35lts svo with 10% petrol. Stopped adding petrol, didn't make a damn's worth of difference.

Rob.

Rob,
You should have stopped adding the diesel, that is a much greater proportion of the cost than the petrol was.
We have been using a 10% blend of petrol with WVO for several years now with no problems. (No diesel added at all).
The only reason my wife has started using biodiesel is that the W202 C250D Mercedes has a "saddle tank" which does not work well with anything more viscous than biodiesel. I still use the blend in my C250D, while I devise a solution to the "saddle tank" issue.

Regards,
Tony

cotton top
21st December 2013, 12:18 PM
Hi Tony,
Yeh I agree with the proportion thing, but I did do a lot of viscosity testing early on in the piece, and to get anywhere near a sensible reduction in viscosity, I needed about 30% petrol, and whilst it is a bit cheaper than diesel, I figured that the resultant repair bills night negate any advantage.
Just at the moment I'm using the last of a 44 of kerosine that I bought for $1ltr

But to your merc, I'm not conversant with that particular vehicle (or perhaps any other merc for that matter). Is it one of the legendary cars that will run on toilet paper provided you wiped up an oil spill with it first?
I didn't mention in that post that I am using a 2.5ltr Pajero (I know I know), in my opinion they don't have a particularly robust pump, and whilst I have a spare, it's a pain in the sit-on valve having to change it